Like Tree164Likes

Thread: Fire Attack photo

  1. #51
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    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.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  2. #52
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,294

    Default

    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.
    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

  3. #53
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    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.
    I thinking that may have been Detroit.

    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.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  4. #54
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    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.
    I am not going to tell anyone that their decision to hit that with a deck gun is wrong for them, I will tell you it would not be my choice. Why? Long narrow driveway with the house on one side and a row of bushes on the other side. It would call for some pretty good spotting on the driver's part to get a decent shot down the driveway. Secondly, as I stated before, while it looks spectacular I just don't see a lot of fire there. Come down the driveway with either a 1 3/4 or 2 inch linesweep the soffit line to knock down the fire on the exterior of the house and then move right to the main body of the fire working it through the top of the burn off garage door. Once a good chunk of it is knocked door get the rest of the door out of the way and finish it off. At the same time a second line to the front door of the house and a crew inside with hooks and a TIC to check for any extension into the attic area of the house.

    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.
    Chenzo likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  5. #55
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    I am not going to tell anyone that their decision to hit that with a deck gun is wrong for them, I will tell you it would not be my choice. Why? Long narrow driveway with the house on one side and a row of bushes on the other side. It would call for some pretty good spotting on the driver's part to get a decent shot down the driveway. Secondly, as I stated before, while it looks spectacular I just don't see a lot of fire there. Come down the driveway with either a 1 3/4 or 2 inch linesweep the soffit line to knock down the fire on the exterior of the house and then move right to the main body of the fire working it through the top of the burn off garage door. Once a good chunk of it is knocked door get the rest of the door out of the way and finish it off. At the same time a second line to the front door of the house and a crew inside with hooks and a TIC to check for any extension into the attic area of the house.

    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.
    Quick question ... What would be your "typical" response on the first-due engine? How quickly would the second due company arrive and how many members does it typically bring?

    Would your answer regarding the use of the deck gun change based on lower manpower numbers?
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  6. #56
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I thinking that may have been Detroit.

    They are doing it now, but either Dallas or Houston was doing it way back in the early 80's and calling it a "Blitz Attack."

    They would say that they "Are dumping the moniter/deck gun"

    Pssst....Hey LA EDUCATOR it's spelled MONITOR.

    The trick here is to not think of the flow from a deck gun in gallons per minute, but instead gallons per second.

    The old rule of thumb was flow HALF of your tank water in the "Bitz Attack" and reserve the other half for exposure protection if the blitz failed. This allowed time for a water supply to be established. The fact was if you flowed at 1000 gpm for 30 seconds you flowed 500 gallons of a 1000 gallon booster tank (Common size in my area) and still had 500 gallons left for overhaul or exposure protection.

    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.

    Seriously, the gallons per second sounds all scientific and everything, but it is unnecessarily complicated and in the end means nothing. It is far easier for a pump operator to watch the water tank gauge and flow 1/3 to 1/2 the tank water and shut off the deck gun, than to calculate something he can't monitor at the pump and flow by time.

    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 that floats your boat, cool. To me it is far simpler to look at the tank gauge and shut off the gun when the gauge says you have flowed x amount of water.
    In the heat of battle unnecessary complications lead to greater possibilities of error. Watching the tank gauge makes it clear how much you used and how much is left.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 04-18-2013 at 03:23 PM.
    rm1524 likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  7. #57
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Quick question ... What would be your "typical" response on the first-due engine? How quickly would the second due company arrive and how many members does it typically bring?

    Typically it is 4, sometimes 5 or 6. We have 1000 gallons of water on the first due and a Class A foam system. To be brutally frank here if the first hoseline, flowing 200 gpm could knock this down and complete overhaul with 1000 gallons of water I would be seriously looking at far more training in fire attack. Second engine in the majority of cases is either right behind us, or within 5 minutes, carrying 3 to 5 firefighters.

    Would your answer regarding the use of the deck gun change based on lower manpower numbers?

    No, because attacking this fire with a 2 inch line could be accomplished with a 3 man crew. Two firefighters on the hose and a pump operator. Further as I stated abover I would go to the 3 inch line with the RAM before deck gunning this from the road. More accurate placement of the water and less waste.
    There are too many variables here that in my opinion make a deck gun hit from the road undesirable.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 04-18-2013 at 05:43 PM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  8. #58
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    In the heat of battle unnecessary complications lead to greater possibilities of error. Watching the tank gauge makes it clear how much you used and how much is left.
    Valid points. There is no reason that you can't tell your pump operator to flow until the tank hits 1/2, as long as the crew on the ground knows the game plan and is ready to move in at that point.

    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.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  9. #59
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Valid points. There is no reason that you can't tell your pump operator to flow until the tank hits 1/2, as long as the crew on the ground knows the game plan and is ready to move in at that point.

    First of all, EVERYONE on the fireground should know the game plan. If they don't any action they take that isn't part of the game plan is fre lancing, and that is DANGEROUS.

    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 is overly complicated for the fireground and the pump operator. Tell them you want 1000 gpm out of the deck gun until they get to half a tank and then shut it down. Everyone on handlines knows that as soon as the deck gun shuts down they move in. How hard is that? Make it clear to EVERYONE that until a water supply is established no more than half the tank will be used for a Blitz attack with the deluge. After that hard hit conditions will determine whether the handlines finish the attack or go to exposure protection. It doesn't get much easier than that.

    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.

    Again, it is totally irrelevant on the fireground, are you going to tell the pump operator to give you 12.5 gps for 30 seconds, or tell him to flow 750 gpm until he is at half a tank? It is the same thing you know and something the pump operator can relate to. The fact of the matter is GPS is a cool thing to talk about in the classroom, or at training, it has no relevance to fireground ops because nothing is measured that way, no nozzle, no flow meter, nothing. So while it sounds all scientific, it is nothing more than a new buzz word to make people sound smart when it does nothing more than complicate things. Tell me how saying flow 12.5 gps for 30 seconds is more relevant on the fireground than saying flow the deck gun at 750 gpm until you reach half a tank?

    And yes, I very much like the use of mathmatical calculations such as this when deciding what I will do during initial operations.

    BULL SCHIZEN! If you honestly expect me, or anyone else, to believe while you are doing a size-up you are calculating gallons per second you are delusional. Why are you wasting time with that? Frankly fire attack is pretty simple, small lines, 1 1/2, 30-150 gpm, medium lines 100-300 gpm, big lines 200-350 gpm, deluge guns 350-2000 gpm. Look at the fire, determine the flow needed, and apply it. Rinse, and repeat if necessary. (Sorry, that hit me as funny.)

    Again that number GPS, will mean nothing to anyone except you. Well, unless you have redone all your pump charts to read in GPS. You do have pump charts don't you?
    Theoretically, GPS sounds really cool, and in the classroom it can be used to show how a large flow, used for mere seconds, dumps a lot of water very quickly, with out using up your entire water supply in that heavy hit. On the fireground...not so relevant.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  10. #60
    Forum Member
    conrad427's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Just south of Canada
    Posts
    541

    Default

    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.

  11. #61
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    1,156

    Default

    Doesn't anyone use a booster line anymore?????

  12. #62
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    1,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Valid points. There is no reason that you can't tell your pump operator to flow until the tank hits 1/2, as long as the crew on the ground knows the game plan and is ready to move in at that point.

    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.
    Are you for real? They have a Gallons Per Second class? What the H E double toothpicks would anyone need to know or for that matter care about GPS.

    You shouldn't be trying to 'sell' the blitz attack on a scene. If your going to use it you should have already been training on the proper use and not flying by the seat of your pants. If you have been training like you should the only words to him/her should be 'blitz attack' and 'stop' if you get a knock down before he/she reaches his/her stopping point. Any other words to the engineer means that you have not been training.

  13. #63
    Forum Member
    Miller337's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1524 View Post
    Doesn't anyone use a booster line anymore?????
    NO. I prefer my firefighters very rare rather than well done.

  14. #64
    Forum Member
    snowball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Just North of South Central
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    La Pontificator said;
    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.
    Look at you all "available option" now. I would bet that you have never opened up a deck gun for a quick attack. How much water is wasted opening and closing the valve? You're acting like you are calculating fuel mileage for Dale Earnhardt Jr. I have trained on Blitz tactics and used it once, then we found out that the hydrant we were set to use was busted.
    We no longer use it because by the time one engineer is ready to open it up, the two FF's and Captain are in place with hoselines ready to go.

    Think of it like this.. It's like asking your date if she's on birth control after you've emptied your sack into.....well, you get the picture?
    IAFF

  15. #65
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,682

    Default

    Was a department near me that used the Blitz attack very often. After losing around 10 buildings, they gave up on the tactic. Can it work? Sure. Just like a PPA can work. In the right situation, at the right time, with the fire doing the right thing and in the right location.

    I'll take a Blitzfire (or similar) over a deck gun attack just about any day.


    And no, wouldn't use a Blitzfire for the fire pictured in this thread.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  16. #66
    Forum Member
    conrad427's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Just south of Canada
    Posts
    541

    Default

    I don't get it snowball.

  17. #67
    MembersZone Subscriber
    LVFD301's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by conrad427 View Post
    I don't get it snowball.

    That is what we all heard.

  18. #68
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by conrad427 View Post
    I don't get it snowball.


    What's not to get?

    Look at you all "available option" now. I would bet that you have never opened up a deck gun for a quick attack. How much water is wasted opening and closing the valve? You're acting like you are calculating fuel mileage for Dale Earnhardt Jr. I have trained on Blitz tactics and used it once, then we found out that the hydrant we were set to use was busted.

    He is saying that using a Blitz can make for a lot of wasted water. First, the water that slops as you are getting the pressure right. Secondly, the water you waste getting the stream on target.

    We no longer use it because by the time one engineer is ready to open it up, the two FF's and Captain are in place with hoselines ready to go.

    He is saying that a proficient firefighting team can rapidly and efficiently extend a hose line and be ready to go pretty damn quickly.

    Think of it like this.. It's like asking your date if she's on birth control after you've emptied your sack into.....well, you get the picture?

    Basically once you shoot your load you can't call it back and use it in another way.
    I think you need to get out more.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 04-19-2013 at 01:14 AM.
    conrad427 likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  19. #69
    Forum Member
    EastKyFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    3,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    What's not to get?
    I think Conrad was wisecracking about the, uh, ejaculatory reference. (And by the way, that's not exactly the topic I want to hear from a guy called SNOWBALL.)
    conrad427 likes this.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    --General James Mattis, USMC


  20. #70
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1524 View Post
    Are you for real? They have a Gallons Per Second class? What the H E double toothpicks would anyone need to know or for that matter care about GPS.

    You shouldn't be trying to 'sell' the blitz attack on a scene. If your going to use it you should have already been training on the proper use and not flying by the seat of your pants. If you have been training like you should the only words to him/her should be 'blitz attack' and 'stop' if you get a knock down before he/she reaches his/her stopping point. Any other words to the engineer means that you have not been training.
    I was referring to using, in part, the theory advanced at that class to the Chief and Deputy Chief, who handles operational decsisions, in the office, and not on-scene.

    Going to a transistional attack obviously required thier approval. One of thier major concerns was water, even through 3 of our 5 first-out engines carry 1500g, and the GPS v. GPM discussion was an important one to convince them that using the 2 1/2" as the intitial attack line would not peter out the tank water.

    As far as the GPS, I beleive that it is an important one when discussing 2 1/2" lines or master streams for initial operations as it does address one ogf the primary objections, which is water usage.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  21. #71
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,294

    Default

    Considering that the picture is probably best used as part of one of those "FAIL" posters, this has been a good discussion.

    As noted, we really can't see enough to get a full picture of the situation, and there are many variations on what the fire department response will be, so no answer is completely right, or completely wrong. What works for one may not work for another.

    As for a "Gallons per Second Class," at a fire show/conference, that sounds like exactly the type of session that would be offered - not because computing literal gallons per second on the fire scene has value, but because it sounds like it challenged attendees to take a different look at how they view and handle their available resources.
    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

  22. #72
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snowball View Post
    Look at you all "available option" now. I would bet that you have never opened up a deck gun for a quick attack. How much water is wasted opening and closing the valve? You're acting like you are calculating fuel mileage for Dale Earnhardt Jr. I have trained on Blitz tactics and used it once, then we found out that the hydrant we were set to use was busted.
    We no longer use it because by the time one engineer is ready to open it up, the two FF's and Captain are in place with hoselines ready to go.

    Think of it like this.. It's like asking your date if she's on birth control after you've emptied your sack into.....well, you get the picture?
    Actually I have utilized the master stream for initial fire attack in many situations, including structure, vehicle, truck, trash and brush fires, and have found it be quite successful most of the time. And most of the time, I was not connected to a hydrant.

    You are right in that there is a small amount of water wasted pressurring up the line, however, IMO, in most situations, that is a small price to pay when compared to the ability to deliver a large amount of water on the fire in a short period of time, especially in circumstances where the manpower does not exist to stretch and operate handlines.

    It has worked for me in the past. Your experiences may differ.

    It's effective in knocking down the fire and significantly reducing the risk to my crew.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  23. #73
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    Considering that the picture is probably best used as part of one of those "FAIL" posters, this has been a good discussion.

    As noted, we really can't see enough to get a full picture of the situation, and there are many variations on what the fire department response will be, so no answer is completely right, or completely wrong. What works for one may not work for another.

    As for a "Gallons per Second Class," at a fire show/conference, that sounds like exactly the type of session that would be offered - not because computing literal gallons per second on the fire scene has value, but because it sounds like it challenged attendees to take a different look at how they view and handle their available resources.
    And that what the class was designed for.

    The presentation was taught by a member of a department that had switched to a transistional attack philosphy, where a 2 1/2" line was operated for 15 to 30 seconds before crews went interior on most working sstructure fire. The GPS was discussed as a way to show the effectiveness of an initial exterior 2 1/2" line on most structure fires vs. the reality of how little water was actually used for this type of attack.

    This was taught at FDIC.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  24. #74
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,618

    Default

    He is saying that a proficient firefighting team can rapidly and efficiently extend a hose line and be ready to go pretty damn quickly.

    That is making the assumption that you have a profecient firefighting team to stretch the line.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  25. #75
    Forum Member
    conrad427's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Just south of Canada
    Posts
    541

    Default

    Thanks EastKyff. Sometimes my RAZOR sharp wit does not translate well in the written form.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Cal Fire Photo
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 04:40 PM
  2. Looking for photo of rare fire apparatus
    By blueeighty88 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-07-2009, 06:46 PM
  3. Now that is a nice fire photo...
    By CALFFBOU in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-31-2005, 11:55 PM
  4. New from Fire Photo
    By firephotonews in forum Meet and Greet
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-18-2003, 08:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register