If I am the ECO arriving on the first-in piece at the end of the driveway to a detached garage with heavy fire blowing and exposure problems, I'm telling the lads to pull the bomb line, which my guys are pretty much headed for anyways. Get it going. I see heavy fire I am going to address the issue as the cards are layed out....What's the worst thing that can happen- I'll walk up the driveway and say "oh geez I coulda handled this with a small line." Whats the best thing that could happen? With the deuce and a half, the fire will go out .8 seconds after the bail is opened. Go back to quarters and finish dinner.
Now, if I arrived in the Car, and had a chance to do a walkabout, and its a small garage, ok yeah then I might tell the incoming engine company to pull the inch and three quarter.
Who was it that coined the phrase "89% of your problems go away if you put out the fire?"
Andy Fredricks? Ray McCormick?
One length of 2 3/4 hose with a gated wye that splits into two seperate lines of 1 3/4 inch (with a length of 120ft).
I would use the deck gun if our tanker was close behind and if that car was out of the way. I doubt that the deck gun could hit the seat of the fire as much I would. Also, lining up the deck gun with the drive way would mean the the pump operator would have a bad view of the scene because we only have rear mounts.
That detached, one-car garage is now a piece of schit that will be knocked down and scooped into a dumpster by the end of next week. What's wrong with deck gunning it and then pulling a booster line for mop up? I've deck gunned less.
Sure you could get it with an inch and three quarter CAFS line (which we have by the way....) But again, given the visual that I have from the end of the driveway on arrival, I'm going to error on both the side of caution as well as efficiency. Big fire goes out a lot faster with big water. Period.
Besides, you're going to be dragging lines off to mop that up anyway.
We used to have a lot of older 3 and 4 car garages in the campus area that I used to work in. Standard method of attack was to use a 2" line for knock down, and then use an 1 1/2" off of the second engine for overhaul. Both had 1000 gal tanks. We rarely laid a supply line unless there was an exsposure.
IDK, the mini van in the way for one. Being in an area that the closest hydrant is coming on the tenders? About the only reason I can see for the deck gun is if you were a one man engine company.... AND, if you went up and drove the mini van away to get it out of the line of fire. (Which if I arrived in the command truck I may have done anyways if waiting on the first engine)
Not saying that's specifically the case with anybody who has posted in this thread, but more of a generalized impression based on personal observation of and discussion with other fire service personnel. It seems to be more prevalent among people who lack regular experience with more significant fires.
I really don't take issue with the concept of blasting a quick slug from the deck gun. As long as you know you got more water/supply coming. That structure (garage) appears fully involved... so, put a lot of water on it quickly and try to protect the exposures.
Would it be my choice?
Hard to say from that one little picture that doesn't paint the whole story.
As I recall, there was a city department (Houston?) who made a practice of dumping the tank water through the deck gun for a quick knockdown. Of course, they laid in, and had more help not far behind, so running out of water was not a significant problem for them.
That said, if a quick hit from the deck gun makes what's still burning more managable, I'd say go for it. A minute at 500GPM still leaves us with half a tank, more or less. If our tanker isn't far behind, we'll have another 2000 gallons available in short order.
In the end, it all depends on the overall situation.
They would say that they "Are dumping the moniter/deck gun"
The trick here is to not think of the flow from a deck gun in gallons per minute, but instead gallons per second.
If an engine only have a 750g tank, as an example, and we dump that 500gpm master stream for a full minute on the fire, yes, we are using most of our tank water. However, if we only use that moniter to darken fire fire, which may only be 15 or 20 seconds, we are flowing 12.5 gps (gallons per second) or 188 gallons for 15 seconds of operations or 250 gallons for 20 seconds of master stream operation, which in both cases, leaves the majority of the tank for follow-up handline operations.
I think that we if we can start looking at master stream operations within the context of "seconds", they become much more viable, even for departments with 500 and 750g tanks.
If I felt that this fire needed more than the 300 gpm our 2 inch handlines can flow I would go to a 3 inch line with the RAM pocket deluge on it capable of 500 gpm. The difference being we could take that right down the driveway to the garage. I just don't see it as necessary here though.
Would your answer regarding the use of the deck gun change based on lower manpower numbers?
The only reason that I posted this is that it is an excellent way to convince personnel that utiliazing the deck gun is aviable option for initial fire attack, especially when they bring out the "it will use my entire tank" card.
It was a concept that I picked up last year at FDIC while attending the "Gallons Per Second" class, which discussed the use of 2.5" transistional lines as the first line off for intitial fire attack operations.
And yes, I very much like the use of mathmatical calculations such as this when deciding what I will do during initial operations.
We might use the deck gun or not depending on who is in command. I guess depending on the engineer the deck gun might get used. Water in town is no problem for us as we always grab a hydrant on every fire. Rural fires are different where we have to use the tender. It would be tempting to drive to this fire and hit it with tank water and not grab the hydrant, but in our area the second truck is thirty minutes away. We cant drive by a hydrant.