Good call on the deck gun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyanEMVFD

Wish we had a deck gun.

---

If your truck doesn't have a deck gun, a Blitz Fire (or similar appliance) would be a good option. Connected to a 3" line you can get a lot of water on a fire quick. (With practice of course)

As for the tactics in the vid, either the deck gun or the 2 1/2" would have been fine as the initial attack mode, they just maybe need to practice a little to speed things up a bit. Tad bit slow but nothing critical. One big thing I noticed is a lot of guys with no packs on. There should have been a few guys ready to go if something happened like the porch collapsing. Ya just never know.

From the For Sale sign on the left part of the front yard, I would think the house may be vacant. I couldn't any other indicators giving it a live in look.

The operator dumped the tank giving at least a good minute with a lot of water. It did take some time to get the 2-1/2 pulled and charged. The members just grabbed the nozzle and pulled it off toward the yard. The rest of the hose remained in the bed, until someone else came up and pulled it off. Also there was because the delay at the hydrant. Once the hydrant was open, the 2-1/2 finally came up and the operator refilled the tank, evident by the flow water coming from under the wagon.

Remember large fire, large amount of water. I think the 2-1/2 was the best bet over a smaller line. You can always pull a 1-3/4 to mop up the job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnsb

If your truck doesn't have a deck gun, a Blitz Fire (or similar appliance) would be a good option. Connected to a 3" line you can get a lot of water on a fire quick. (With practice of course)

---

It's on our wish list. Along with a lot of other stuff we really need. I think gloves is about the only thing we don't need.

As for the video. I wasn't there and I don't know their SOPs or everything else to give an honest opinion. I honestly don't know what my department would have done. Definitely not a deck gun because, wait for it, we don't have one. If anything the video would be good to watch and do some scenario training off of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

Ahhh, the joys of the firehouse forums. Lets honestly assess this:

1) There is a certain percentage of people on here that have never seen a fire that big
2) There is another percentage that, depending on the time of day, may not even get enough people to get the rig there
3) There is a percentage of drivers that may not even find the address
4) There are others that may get it there, but couldn't get into pump to save their life. Let alone enough interior firefighters to do anything
5) There is another percentage that may not even know what a deck gun is
6) Finally I would venture to guess there is even a few on here, that presented with that situation, would completely vapor lock and not do anything.

So with that being said, to the Beaver Dam FD, nice job on the knock. Keep true to your tactics and what has worked for you.
Personally, I find it a very sound tactic. Exterior fire-big enough water NOT to push it interior as suggested. Interior fire-that sucker is defensive all the way. Again big water with the reach to knock it down and even reach interior through the window to put a very good dent on it's progress. All the while, allowing your available man-power to stretch the hand lines needed to knock down the rest of the exterior and work their way interior.

---

What exactly do you object to?

I haven't seen any posts insulting the FD involved here. This forum is for the discussion of tactics and was just cruising along with the various opinions of those on here.

Not sure I see what value you are adding to the thread, but get down with your bad self.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChiefKN

What exactly do you object to?
Cant see where I objected to anything. This was in reference to the general armchair quarterbacking prevalent in the firehouse forums as a whole. Reread my post, at no time did I specify this thread.
I haven't seen any posts insulting the FD involved here. This forum is for the discussion of tactics and was just cruising along with the various opinions of those on here.
And a Hefty dose of second guessing their tactics. As opposed to the "if I was in that situation..."

Not sure I see what value you are adding to the thread, but get down with your bad self.

---

I really don't need to get down with my bad self, but this is my career, not a hobby. I agreed with their tactics, and stated my reasons. If you want a debate, intelligently counter my points of why I agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

So with that being said, to the Beaver Dam FD, nice job on the knock. Keep true to your tactics and what has worked for you.

---

Agreed.. Good job. Big fire on arrival and the deck gun got the job done.
Now.. I hope you're not including my previous post in your assessment of forum posts. The only thing I had posted that I'd consider criticism would be the amount of time it took.. not the tactic itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

Personally, I find it a very sound tactic. Exterior fire-big enough water NOT to push it interior as suggested. Interior fire-that sucker is defensive all the way. Again big water with the reach to knock it down and even reach interior through the window to put a very good dent on it's progress. All the while, allowing your available man-power to stretch the hand lines needed to knock down the rest of the exterior and work their way interior.

---

On the subject of the tactic (not this instance of it) the advantage of going with the deck gun first is that it quickly provides big water without a lot of manpower (as SPFDRum mentions). The disadvantage is that it's location is fixed so it cannot be maneuvered or advanced after the initial knock. Also the flow of most guns I've seen are controlled from the panel (vs at the gun itself) so they could suck down more water then a 2.5" or blitz where the control is at the nozzle itself.

Personally I like the tactic and we've used it ourselves on a couple fires. The key is to be diligent with their water until the supply is established.. that's true for any line, of course, but a little harder with a deck gun. Also while the deck gun is in service the rest of the crew HAS to get lines ready to go in after the knock.

i thought for the most part this has been a good tactics/training discussion of ideas.

most posters have been saying good call on the big discharges of water whether a 2.5" or a deck gun. i have these types of structures in my 1st due. we have used this video in training. we like to watch the videos of our own engine crews stretching in and work to enhance our own trainng and functions. sometimes it looks all fubar, but just as a football team you review and do work to better the performance for next time.

reminds me of the fire engineering mag cover that was blank/white years ago of the "perfect fireground".... we aim for it and we aim to improve.

keep posting guys, this is good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

I really don't need to get down with my bad self, but this is my career, not a hobby. I agreed with their tactics, and stated my reasons. If you want a debate, intelligently counter my points of why I agreed.

---

You were clearly criticizing a number of folks for having an opinion. You do this by calling into question their background and experience. Cute, but not helpful and pretty insulting.

You call it "second guessing"... well, no kidding. However, only by taking a "second" look and talking about the tactic being shown is there any value to this discussion.

A professional is open to criticism and an honest discussion about their choice of strategies.

I don't believe that the FD in this video did anything "wrong". I don't disagree with your saying they did a good job, but if that's all we are going to do, then let's just remove the fire tactics board.

You agree with what they did and would do it the same way, cool... no problems. Why you have to crap on everyone who doesn't agree is not needed.

I have to say that I am a big proponent of this tactic and we use it a lot. We actually had a structure fire this morning and used it. It buys us quite a bit of time to get alot done with limited man power.

Our Monitor uses a 250GPM nozzle and we carry 1,000 gallons of water. Needless to say, you can get a lot of things done in 4 minutes with just a few people and keep the fire at bay until you can make an all out attack. We have never lost a structure where we have used this type of attack and we will continue to use it because it works great for us!

Lots of good discussion here! Love hearing everyones differing opinions, give you a lot to think about!

Well you showed me. You want to continue to throw barbs out, be my guest. The morning table here at shift change is tougher.
As far as their choice of strategy, I agreed with it. With corresponding reasons why. But I also liked the question you posed about if the conditions changed interior and the debate it brought up.
As far as crapping on anyone, not hardly. Let me break some of the issues brought up in the tread and I will add my take. As far as constructive criticism, absolutely essential. But I wasn't on their fire ground, know anything about their department, staffing or equipment, I will leave that to them.

**As far as the perceived delay in bringing the deck gun on line, I don't know; was it pre-plumbed? Is it locked in a goofy position? Is it telescoping and it needs to be extended to clear the cab? From the video, I can't tell. But the 2 1/2 wasn't in a position to be effective anyway at the time the deck gun was charged. But it was in a great position to hit the roof of the porch where the deck gun missed when it was shut down. Not to mention, by this time, there was enough man power to advance it.

**As far as using a 2 1/2 or an 1 3/4, with the benefit of hindsight and getting to watch the whole video, sure, maybe. But initially when they arrived, are you sure its just siding? Or just an exterior fire? Its much quicker to transition from a deck gun to hand lines than the other way around. Especially if you are working with limited man power.

**As far as guys with no packs, are the POC guys allowed to respond directly to the scene? Yes, that could definitely be an issue if there isn't enough apparatus on scene to pack up everyone...

So there you have it, my opinion. With that and a buck fifty, you may get a cup of coffee. I even managed to do that with out crapping on anyone or insulting another's opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FF715MRFD

I have to say that I am a big proponent of this tactic and we use it a lot. We actually had a structure fire this morning and used it. It buys us quite a bit of time to get alot done with limited man power.

Our Monitor uses a 250GPM nozzle and we carry 1,000 gallons of water. Needless to say, you can get a lot of things done in 4 minutes with just a few people and keep the fire at bay until you can make an all out attack. We have never lost a structure where we have used this type of attack and we will continue to use it because it works great for us!

Lots of good discussion here! Love hearing everyones differing opinions, give you a lot to think about!

---

What type of nozzle do you use on the deck gun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L-Webb

What type of nozzle do you use on the deck gun?

---

Well its only a 2 1/2" Monitor and we just have a standard 2 1/2" Combination nozzle on it. We're about the only Dept. in our area that has that small of a Monitor, most everyone else has 3" Deluge guns and they don't like the "dump the tank through the gun" tactic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

So there you have it, my opinion. With that and a buck fifty, you may get a cup of coffee. I even managed to do that with out crapping on anyone or insulting another's opinion.

---

My respect for your (for what its worth) continues to grow.

Great comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

On the subject of the tactic (not this instance of it) the advantage of going with the deck gun first is that it quickly provides big water without a lot of manpower (as SPFDRum mentions). The disadvantage is that it's location is fixed so it cannot be maneuvered or advanced after the initial knock. Also the flow of most guns I've seen are controlled from the panel (vs at the gun itself) so they could suck down more water then a 2.5" or blitz where the control is at the nozzle itself.

---

There really isn't much of a difference regarding the control of the flow between these options. As long as the pump operator is paying attention to what's going on, which he better be doing if dumping the tank on a blitz, he has the same ability to control the flow from the panel.

The main reason why the deck gun will typically suck down more water than the 2.5" or something like the Blitzfire is because it can. The top end of most 2.5" lines is in the low-mid 300 gpm range. Blitzfire type monitors typically top out around 500 gpm. Most deck guns are capable of at least 1000 gpm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

...
**As far as the perceived delay in bringing the deck gun on line, I don't know; was it pre-plumbed? Is it locked in a goofy position? Is it telescoping and it needs to be extended to clear the cab? From the video, I can't tell. But the 2 1/2 wasn't in a position to be effective anyway at the time the deck gun was charged. But it was in a great position to hit the roof of the porch where the deck gun missed when it was shut down. Not to mention, by this time, there was enough man power to advance it.
...

---

Seemed to me like the guys had the 2 1/2 on the side ready to attack and push the fire back out, along the front and not in. They could have started knocking it down it down on the side and moved along the front to then make entry. It also seemed to me the line was stretched and connected, prior to the deck gun being charged. Looked like the guys gave up waiting once the deck gun got charged.


Was the deck gun attack a valid one? Sure.

Was it what I (my Dept) would have done? Nope.


Would I criticize this department over it? Nope. Just discussing a tactic. I'm sure they have their reasons for what they did.

Like i stated in my orginal post. The tactic worked and is a valid one. However it is not what i would have chosen given my staffing and equipment. i personally do not think that this thread has bashed anyone or this department in the video.

However anytime a thread with a video is post some form of MMQBing has to take place. That is the whole point to discuss the pros and cons. It is a critque so to speak of the operation filmed. As long as the comments are objective and not insulting what is the problem? personally I learn alot by this type of thread. At this we are having a discussion about fire ground tactics and not one person has asked what type of light is on the rear of the engine.

spfdrum did you mean the 2-1/2 was in a better position to hit the ceiling? Or did you mean roof? and im missing something

does anyone else think that there needs to be a line kept at the porch to prevent reignition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FireMedic049

There really isn't much of a difference regarding the control of the flow between these options. As long as the pump operator is paying attention to what's going on, which he better be doing if dumping the tank on a blitz, he has the same ability to control the flow from the panel.

---

The point I was trying to make is that the deck gun is usually a two-man operation. One up top to direct the stream and the pump operator to open/close the valve. Compare this with a 2.5" line or 3" blitz where one person can direct the stream and control the flow from the tip. Having the pump operator directly tied into the operation of the deck gun means they have to pay more attention to that and less to all the other things they need to be doing as first-in... In the video it looks like the pump operator is also trying to secure the water supply from the pony as well as making sure the hand-line gets connected.. hard to do that when they're tied to the deck gun valve.

TL;DR: How many of you who have deck guns have a valve at the monitor itself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

**As far as the perceived delay in bringing the deck gun on line, I don't know; was it pre-plumbed? Is it locked in a goofy position? Is it telescoping and it needs to be extended to clear the cab? From the video, I can't tell.

---

Good points. I've been in the position of having a reserve engine with a telescoping monitor that we weren't familiar with. Certainly can add time to the operation. Another factor may be tank size.. if the Engine only has a small tank they may not want to go to the Deck Gun right away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

**As far as using a 2 1/2 or an 1 3/4, with the benefit of hindsight and getting to watch the whole video, sure, maybe. But initially when they arrived, are you sure its just siding? Or just an exterior fire? Its much quicker to transition from a deck gun to hand lines than the other way around. Especially if you are working with limited man power.

---

Seeing it from the first-in view, the 2.5" would have been the first line off.. deck gun or no. No disagreement there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

So there you have it, my opinion. With that and a buck fifty, you may get a cup of coffee. I even managed to do that with out crapping on anyone or insulting another's opinion.

---

Good post, and good points.