3D Gaseous-phase Firefighting

[Batt18]

When to hit a fire in the gaseous-phase and when to take it in the fuel-phase - Do you know? I have posted for several years on this forum concerning this approach to structural firefighting. 3D Firefighting HERE (http://www.firetactics.com) However, firefighters continue to lose their lives because they got it the wrong way round! This approach will end the smooth-bore/fog debate for good!

[UsingAllHands]

deep breath...sigh

[Dickey]

Not going to say a word.............
:rolleyes:
Keep your head down and your powder dry.
_______________________
Lt.Jason Knecht
Altoona Fire Rescue
Altoona, WI

[Batt18]

Not going to say a word............. Deep breath (sigh)....

Sorry I thought these forums were for debate! Maybe I am taking the implications incorrectly here but I would have hoped that a Lt. would be more concerned about looking after his crew.

In the USA the annual firefighter death rate in structure fires has shown no signs of decreasing over the past twenty years.Further, the rate of traumatic deaths (burns; smoke inhalation; crushing) in structures is actually demonstrating an increase over the same period!

Deep breath.........sigh

[UsingAllHands]

Originally posted by Batt18


Sorry I thought these forums were for debate!

In the USA the annual firefighter death rate in structure fires has shown no signs of decreasing over the past twenty years.


Debate, yes. Shameless plugs? NO!!!

Furthermore, Paul, did you ever consider that maybe the increasing death rate in structure fires is because of people like you? You're confusing the inexperienced firefighters of today by instructing them to go around shooting fog inside a fire. No wonder these over-read amateurs are buying crappy nozzles and thinking they're the cat's ass.

And another thing... bragging about your 'detachment' to 45 Engine in the South Bronx. I know for a fact that if you look at their hosebed you'll find nothing but smoothbores with 15/16" (1-3/4" line) or 1-1/8" (2-1/2" line) MSTs. Not one South Bronx Engineman would ever buy the crap your selling. I dare you to walk into that firehouse today and lie a copy of your book "3D Firefighting" on the kitchen table during the meal. Why are you misrepresenting your experiences?

[firemanpat29]

Dam% I got suckered. Just by clicking on his site I made his
propaganda BS look like it has more followers! seen by xxxxxx
number of firemen from xxxxx number of departments from
xxx number of countries. Dose any one else feel used?
And to use these forums to exploit the memory of a LODD
9-11 chief of fdny to try and sell something makes me ill. I would not buy anything
you are selling, thanks but just shut the ---- up:mad:

[E229Lt]

This approach will end the smooth-bore/fog debate for good!

NEWS FLASH: PEACE IN THE MID-EAST, HELL FROZEN, RED SOX WIN WORLD SERIES!!!!!!

[Batt18]

UsingAllHands - Firstly I find your tone pretty offensive! I do not remember having conversed with you in the past four years unless it was under another name.

Shameless plug? Brother I haven't made a damn penny from my work over the past 25 years and that includes over 100 articles and 3 books to date. I won't 'brag' where that money has gone. I merely write about things I have learned over 30 years as a firefighter in London and the USA. Some of these things save lives - its proven by pretty dramatic statistics.

I have instructed firefighters to adapt their approach in an effort to counter specific fireground hazards. These adaptions do include the use of water-fog but in a way that they are not familiar with. Therefore I place great emphasis on TRAINING in these techniques under qualified and experienced instructors.

So you think FDNY don't use fog nozzles eh? I would be happy to return to New York and take any of their firefighters through our training program. I KNOW from past experience that most of them would be impressed how fog patterns may be used to exert control over a fire. I am sure their combination nozzles would find their way back to the hose-bed from the lockers they are stored.

[jaybird210]

I agree with the others. Debate is fine, but this issue is like the leather helmet vs. fiberglass issue; or lights on your POV; or any number of others that go round and round here.

You post this about every three months or so to get the new folks comnig to your site. Sounds like shilling a product to me.

And as for the US firefighter fatalities, if you want to look at the causes of death, there are far more heart attacks and MVAs than all other causes combined. Frankly, I'm offended that you spew your misinformation from across the ocean to try and attract business.

Numbers on LODDs this year, from the USFA:

Heart attack: 32
MVA: 24
Collapse: 3
Struck by vehicle: 3
Head Injury: 2
Other: 4*
Flashover: 2

I think we would do far better to spend our firefighter fatality prevention efforts on health and fitness, and driver training, than confusing everybody with your "debate."

Do us a favor: buy some advertising instead of plugging up the forums.




*Other includes: Injuries suffered in controlled burn (might be flashover. That'd push that number all the way to 3); fighting forest fire; and Heat from exposure.

[Batt18]

Surprised at you Lt!! When we had this debate just a year back you were pretty open-minded by the end of it.

[UsingAllHands]

Originally posted by Batt18


So you think FDNY don't use fog nozzles eh?

WE DO use them... On car fires, rubbish, grass, etc. There is one fog nozzle on my rig, and it's on the 50 foot trash line on the front bumper. It works great for those BS fires but never in a million years would I dream of dragging a line down a hallway with that thing on the end.

As far as your offer to come train us...No thanks, we already know how to fight fires. That's what we do every day instead of writing books about it.

[Batt18]

And as for the US firefighter fatalities, if you want to look at the causes of death, there are far more heart attacks

Firefighter fatalities are rising - heart attacks as a cause have been dropping steadily for years! What does that tell you?

I would have thought that firefighters in such a position would have been open-minded enough to explore any opportunity to reduce life-losses amongst others. When are you guys gonna realise - this isn't about smooth-bore versus fog patterns!

And don't tell me I've exploited anybody's name to seel a product - brother you are WAY outta line!

[Batt18]

we already know how to fight fires

Oh boy :D still a lot to learn in life from that statement!

[jaybird210]

Firefighter fatalities are rising - heart attacks as a cause have been dropping steadily for years! What does that tell you?

What does that tell me? That you have a penchant for making up figures to support yourself.

STOP MAKING UP INFORMATION.

Fact: Since 1975, excluding September 11, 2001, the US has had an average of 100-110 firefighters killed in the line of duty every year.

Fact: Heart attack and MVA have been the leading cause of death for firefighters in the US for the last ten years.

Go to http://www.usfa.fema.gov/ and get your damn figures.


Your inclination to make up whatever "facts" might be handy, calls into question everything you say, and ruins your crediblity.

[Batt18]

Jaybird - I am talking STRUCTURE FIRES! I cannot understand your offensive tones when I have come here purely to debate. I am NOT selling any product! I am not gaining financially and never have done!
I am referring to NFPA stats on STRUCTURE FIRES cos that's my area of study. I am not into forests and MVAs.

I say again - firefighter life losses in structure fires are increasing (per number of structure fires). The number of heart victims has been reducing for years.

NFPA - July 2002 (Fahy)

Do your research before mouthing off to me!

[E229Lt]

Surprised at you Lt!! When we had this debate just a year back you were pretty open-minded by the end of it.

I'm very open minded, my "humorous" post was in response to "ending the smooth-bore/fog debate" The debate will never die.

I continue to read your work with interest.

To my Brother AllHands, I will vouch for Paul and his work. I don't always embrace it, but appreciate his work. I never sensed commercial gain as the reason for his threads.

I don't see my primary attack line having a fog nozzle attached to it in the near or distant future. However, I have been exploring these tactics for use with the limited 2 1/2 gallons of water carried by our Canman.

Paul?

[Batt18]

Bless you Lou! I appreciate your support and acknowledge we have a way to go brother before you are able to embrace the concepts of past debates. My reference to the smooth v fog debate is purely to demonstrate that there is NO debate! I am a BIG fan of the smooth-bore approach and the new book goes into great detail in describing how firefighters can recognise when to dump the fog pattern for a direct attack. Its not a case of one or the other - both arguments are wrong. Its a case of BOTH - but under the right circumstances!

Glad to see the Red Sox ain't gonna win the series :D

[UsingAllHands]

Okay, loo.

[Batt18]

However, I have been exploring these tactics for use with the limited 2 1/2 gallons of water carried by our Canman.

E229 Lt - GREAT to hear. I know the can is used as a source of controlling the environment for primary rescue purposes. Yes definitely! The effect is the same but obviously the user is still in great danger because of flow limitations. Equally, I know your guys will control the entry door to minimise air feeding into the fire.

[stm4710]

Not really familair with your ideas but you can make statistics up to prove anything.
Like did you know 3 out of 4 people make up only 75% of the population!:eek: :rolleyes:

[hfd66truck]

You know, I am kinda suprised at the tone this thread took.

I have been part of these forums for several years, and have emailed Paul back on forth on different topics. He has a wealth of imformation, and his interest is in promoting what he believes are tactics that will help us. Don't want to believe him, then don't. Don't want to try them, no problem. But to slam the crap out him for promoting thinking, even if the thinking is contrary to what you believe...come on folks.

Last time I checked, these forums were here to network, share ideas, and maybe even learn a thing or two. Tired of reading about the 3-D tactics, then stop reading them. Don't kill the messenger.

Everyone has something to offer, from the big cities right on down to little ole town USA....maybe Paul is pushing his stuff a lot, but it is a technique he believes will help save lives...maybe he is wrong, at least he ain't trying to sell you insurance.:D

Dave

[WTFD10]

To echo Dave, Paul has been posting here for a long time and I get the impression that his only intentions are to help his brother and sister firefighters.

I encourage everyone to spend some time reading the articles on his website. His ideas are well researched and thought provoking.

My final thought is, it's refreshing to see debates on firefighting tactics on here rather than the same old BS lights, helmets, etc. For that I say "Thanks Paul!"

[CollegeBuff]

Don't forget- Paul isn't just some annoying pusher of "European firefighting." I've seen posts of his where he speaks of trying to take American ventilation tactics back home to England. And guess what- I bet they aren't thrilled about it either! "New" is not "bad"!

Paul strikes me as a natural teacher with a sincere desire to help other firefighters. He did not deserve what he got in this thread. Opinions are like.... well, a few different things- but everybody's got one!

[stillPSFB]

Just saw this thread, and I'll jump in here -

Having been taught the techniques that Paul promotes I'll simply say this -
Without them I wouldn't be here today (nor would the guys with me) - at a fire a few months ago things took a sudden turn for the worse and if I hadn't of known how to use gas cooling techniques we would have been caught in the flashover that was about to occur - we wouldn't have made it back to the door before the room would have flashed. It was just lucky that I was on the knob that day.

Works for me!

[CaptainGonzo]

I, too will echo Dave aka hfd66 truck's statements. I took a flashover recognition course with Dave at his FD. I have seen "up close and persnal" how a short burst of fog can delay the flashover to get time to escape. 3d fog attacks might not be the correct answer for every fire... but if they can get a crew out of a flashover situation, go home to their families and live to fight another day, then it is a good thing...Paul Grimwood's tactics are just another tool in our firefighting arsenal!

[Batt18]

I just want to thank those of you who supported an old 'jake' who was gettin a 'roastin' in here :D E229Lt, hfd66truck, WDFT10, CollegeBuff, StillPSFB and CaptainGonzo - these are all people who I have debated with on the forums for many years. Not everyone is open to embracing any firefighting tactic that involves water-fog! However, I always urge people to be open-minded enough to explore a bit further. I do not encourage people to attempt these techniques in the 'real'-world without adequate training. However, as you see (and I have a hundred e-mails saying the same) occasionally someone gets a very good result with the 3D approach.

3D Firefighting? It is NOT just about applying water-fog as a means of countering extreme forms of fire development, flashover etc. It is a unified approach that encourages straight stream attack 95% of the time. It involves concepts that encourage firefighters entering burning structures to exert control over their environment utilizing the right choice of stream, at the right time, whilst ensuring any venting actions complement the approach. It is about understanding fire behavior and about recognizing when to take a fire in its gaseous state and when to take it in its fuel state. Like I said - you can get it the wrong way round and then its YOU that gets roasted.

To hear that some FDNY personnel are willing to try out these techniques for themselves carries a strong message. The effect of pulsing water droplets from a 'can' into the overhead, as opposed to directing a constant stream onto an inaccesible fire can only have positive effects. This particular strategy has always been one fraught with hazards but has resulted in some of the most spectacular 'snatch' rescues.

This 3D approach may cool and 'shrink' the gas layers in the overhead, causing the smoke layer to rise a few vital inches! I am here if you want to ask questions or debate it, or even if you want to place an opposite point of view.

Stay safe.........

[Lewiston2Capt]

Having been around for the previous discussions on Pauls 3D gaseous technique, and having personally discussed them with the Lt, I do see the benefit of bringing this topic up once again. I would hope that all of the jakes here would be able to have an educated debate without reverting to the age old, on-going arguement that we cant seem to get past.
I have mostly read the previous threads on the 3D technique with interest. My limited posting on the subject was due to wanting to shut up and learn. I have been taught pulsing as a means of fire control, but that was more of a direct attack. I find these debate educational and would hope that we can have another informative discussion (along with some good natured ball busting). :D

[RyanEMVFD]

it doesn't involve propane so I'm happy.

It's a tactic to be used as a tool. the more tools the better, just remember to train with the tools before hand.

[33motor]

Many years ago I saw a show on TV where they were using a method like that. I'm not sure if it was the same or not, but it was very interesting. It probably helped that I was able to watch it from a video perspective. It was somewhere in Europe, and what they did was open the door, and spray a couple of pulses in, then they would close it and when they reopened it a moment later, the fire was out. It seemed really effective. It just sort of struck me as a borring way to fight fire though. LOL :D The kid in me still like to go in and get dirty. :p

[Batt18]

33Motor :D Here are two links to the TV documentary - part of which are online

http://www.rsfd.org/index.html?http&&&www.rsfd.org/images/video/scitrek_Discovery_1995.htm

LINK TWO HERE (http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/cfcrs/vwp2?.tok=bcw_H6QBREMitede&.dir=/Video&.dnm=scitrek_Discovery_1995.WM V&.src=bc)

Click the little page document at the top of the 2ND LINK page to view the video file. The links might be a bit erratic here but do work!

This documentary on the techniques were made by a good friend of mine - John Taylor. You make it sound like an 'indirect attack' (Iowa method) but what you describe is merely a door entry technique that forms part of the process. 3D attack is aggressive in nature and demands applications in close proximity to the fire (where safe) in an effort to make the environment even safer.

QUALITY Training is critical to the success of these techniques

[ScottMA64]

Hello everyone. 1st let me quickly introduce myself. I have been a call firefighter in a small town of 4000 people for 4 years and an emt for 2. Being in such a small town we have VERY limited structure fires, in fact I can count on 1 hand how many we had since i've joined. So when it comes to actual structure fires im very very inexperienced, but, we still train and train and train.

Now, im not here to debate about the original posters theory's or intentions. But I was floored when I read about FF's in the big city's using smooth bores in a structure. I never heard of this debate. I've always been trained on fogs. Have a room on fire thats safe to enter? Open the door, apply the fog pattern in a couple of circles or a "Z" pattern at the ceiling, shut door. We've been taught steam conversion is the key, 1 drop of water expanding 1700 times is the key in fighting a fire in a room. Once all that is done then you can do your straight stream direct attack to put out the rest of the fire. All of our trucks have combination nozzles on them, though we do keep straight stream nozzles in the compartments.

Again, this is how i've been trained, im NOT intending to slam how other departments put out fires. As far as im concerned the key is getting the "wet stuff on the red stuff" and above all be SAFE!!!

And please, leave my beloved Red Sox out of this! ;)

Thanks guys!

Scott

[bpevans]

Wow, I missed all the excitement the last few days. Most everyone has said it in some form or another already, and I'm going to pile on - Paul is dedicated to making aggressive firefighting safer by educating us on the most effective techniques to use to tame this beast we call fire - no matter what stage or form it is in when we face it. He has an understanding of fire and fire behavior that we should all strive to attain - and he's there pushing and helping us attain it.

ScottMA64 - that's a form of indirect attack. There are many factors involved in deciding to use it - like is the room still sealed up, are there any victims in the room, or are there victims in the vicinity. If the fire isn't sealed in the room, you can lose the benefits of the steam conversion. If there are victims, you just cooked them - even if they are nearby, if the steam gets to them they're screwed.

If you are still in the room, you just created firefighter soup. This is how the indirect attack got its bad rap - from being mis-applied and burning a lot of folks, especially those on the hose. It still goes on to this day, there are people around here who teach some form of fog application, applied in some pattern, and just toughing out the steam.

I would educate and train more with other techniques so you can have safer and more effective tools at your disposal. Paul's site, www.firetactics.com, is a great resource.

[ScottMA64]

bpevans - You are 100% correct. I didn't specify anything about possible victims or other firefighters. Using that kind of attack is definetly the wrong way to go. My 1st live fire drill I used indirect instead of direct. luckily the room wasn't that hot yet and nobody got burned.

Scott

[UsingAllHands]

To ScottMA64 and anyone else who is confused about fire attack:

I highly suggest you get and view a copy of the Video "Methods of Structure Fire Attack." It is from the Bread and Butter series of Fire Engineering Videos. Better yet, get the complete Andrew Fredericks 4 Video set. For anyone who doesn't recognize that name, Andrew Fredericks was a very intelligent and experienced NYC fireman who often wrote on the subject of nozzles and fire attack for Fire Engineering Magazine. He was also a contributor on the Fire Nuggets Website. His passion and goal was to educate today's firefighters in Engine Operations, and particularly, I believe, to convince everyone that smoothbore nozzles truly are the weapon of choice for structural firefighting. Unfortunately, Andy was killed at the World Trade Center Collapse 2 years ago. His work obviously remains unfinished if people are still talking about spraying fog around a room in a "Z" or circlar pattern.

Scott, I am sorry to hear that was how you were trained. The problem with the fire service today is that too many people are "teaching" without having any real good firefighting experience. Anyone can call themselves and 'instructor' and vomit back nonsense that they have heard from someone else. Andy Fredericks was unique in that he understood the science of fighting fires but also had a ton of real world experience to back his knowledge up. I implore anyone who has any doubts: Listen to those who really, truly know what the heck they are talking about through experience.

[bpevans]

UsingAllHands,
Nobody wants this thread to turn into yet another smoothbore v. fog nozzle debate. We can agree to disagree on what and how many tools go in the firefighting toolkit. However, just because you disagree with the 3D techniques, does not mean that they come from lack of experience or confusion in fighting fires, which seems to be your implication. They have been proven and perfected for years.

[Batt18]

UsingAllHands - You are right in stating that Andy Fredericks was a great contributor to the fire service, through his many articles and training aids. His work has left a lasting impression upon me. However, bpevans is also right in the points he addresses.

'Confusion' in firefighting tactics arises because of 'tunnel-visioned' points of view!

I have seen this insular approach so many times in the fire service and I can assure you - it slows progress. Over the past 2-3 decades the smooth .v. fog debate has raged amongst tunnel-visioned enthusiasts! Those that take either stance in the argument are failing to acknowledge the innovative 3D methods of using water-fog. Be assured that Andy's views are acknowledged by me but he only ever presented two-thirds of an argument. When I discussed 3D tactics and methods of using 'pulsing' fog applications with him he was unable to offer a reasoned argument as he had never truly studied this approach. Look at his extensive contibutions in Fire Engineering and you will find no reference to 3D-fog methods but plenty referring to 'indirect (Iowa) methods.

I think, those of us that have closely researched ALL of the various methods of interior fire attack, do not suffer from such insularity. We are more open-minded. I accept caution and would in fact encourage it. Taking the three methods I have referred to so far -

1. Direct (smooth-bore/straight-stream) attack
2. Indirect (Layman/Iowa) water-fog attack
3. 3D (nozzle pulsing/bursting) water-fog attack

I have come to learn over 30 years of fighting fires that EACH approach offers the OPTIMUM result under a specific range of conditions and scenarios. To disregard those benefits is being tunnel-visioned.

What about CAFS for interior attack? Are you able to stand up and say for sure that CAFS is not suited to interior attack? Its another tool - it urges close study - it urges caution - but it MAY well have uses in specific circumstances.

The confusion you talk of is caused by tunnel-vision. By those who take a stance supporting ONE sided arguments. My approach clearly comes from all three sides (above) and is open-minded about future innovations and how they might impact upon current tactics. Those that base their arguments from one side of the various tactical approaches are equally confused. You can have views - you can have preferences - but to put all your eggs in one basket is causing confusion for others.

What works for you works. The fires go out! Could you approach certain situations more safely by using the whole range of attack methods? Yes!

[ScottMA64]

We are trained to use both a indirect and a pulsing attack. Whether its good or bad, I guess it can be argued till the end of time. But realize this, towns like ours do not have hydrants, to us dressing a hydrant means putting a hat and coat on it. ;) So all of our water comes from tankers and drafting nearby water holes. Our smallest tanker has 1000gal of water and our largest has 2500. So until you can set up a supply line from a water source and if we have enough initial manpower, water conservation is a must. I don't remember the exact mathematics, but a 1 3/4 line @ 90-100psi is only going to last I believe around 6-8 minutes for 1000gal.

Again, thanks guys. I love this forum, lots of great info and an excellent bunch of people!!!!!

Scott

[hfd66truck]

You know, there is one other issue not being discussed here. Actually 299 kinda referenced it. How many people invovled in this debate have the power to change their Departments practices and equipment. If UAH and E299 thought that 3-D was the way to go, do you think that FDNY would all the sudden switch. Maybe if could convince the Capt of the house their company might, but would that cause problems based on their SOP's.

There will always be more than one way to do the same thing - and although one may work better than the other - it doesn't mean the first idea is wrong.

I know in my Flashover training we discussed "penciling". I have discussed this with Paul, and it is the smoothbore way to try and cool the gases and achieve the same goal. It may not be as effective (it wasn't in traing) but it did have an effect.

I guess my point is that there will always be the debate about the tools, tactics, helmets, and what color underwear is right. FDNY uses time tested tactics and equipment that work for them, but their box assignment has more manpower on it than my whole Department and my shift strength is the same as their 1st due engine. So what works for them, may not always be feasible for us.

Be safe brothers...

Dave

[UsingAllHands]

bpevans: You are confusing the 2 different points I was trying to make in separate parts of this thread. I'm not saying that Pauls 3D techniques are gleaned from inexperience or confusion. Quite the contrary, Paul is obviously very well versed and educated in what he does. What I was stating came from confusion and inexperience was directed toward ScottMA64's fire instructor.

My problem is this; and Paul, I hope you can take this as an apology for jumping down your throat earlier. Unless I am misconstruing Mr. Grimwood's work (and Paul, correct me if I'm wrong) Paul's techniques are ADVANCED. But we need to promote solid basic fundamentals (such as those taught by Fredericks) to prevent guys like Scott from fighting structural fires as if they were Navy firemen putting out a fire in an Aircraft Carrier during WWII.

My fear is for someone inexperienced like Scott (sorry to keep using you for an example) to come along, skim over Paul's site, and walk away saying, "Hey, you see, fog really is the way to go!" And then continue doing what he's doing, when what he is doing there in Massachusettes, is definately NOT what Mr. Grimwood has in mind.

[Batt18]

UsingAllHands - no apology necessary bro, I understand exactly where you were coming from.

I also understand the point you make about promoting basic fundamentals and I agree in principle. The simplest form of attacking a fire is by discharging a straight-stream directly at the base of the flames. The training issues concerning this approach are straight-forward.

The training issues associated with fog tactics are greater. In terms of 3D tactics the training needs to be more hands-on in simulators (containers) or similar to ensure the techniques are practised to good effect. However, I do not necessarily think Scott's instructor is wrong in training firefighters to use indirect tactics - providing the training is efficient and correct.

Direct attack - simple and basic but can still be misapplied to cause disruption of the thermal balance.

Indirect attack - needs more training but in the right situation and if used correctly (from an exterior position) - is definitely a strategy that has uses for structural firefighting.

3D Pulsing water-fog - needs the most time allocated to training to ensure nozzle operators are able to understand the different approaches to indirect methods. You are occupying the space and to get it wrong is not good. Quality training using the correct equipment is essential.

My fear is for someone inexperienced like Scott (sorry to keep using you for an example) to come along, skim over Paul's site, and walk away saying, "Hey, you see, fog really is the way to go!" And then continue doing what he's doing, when what he is doing there in Massachusettes, is definately NOT what Mr. Grimwood has in mind.

I take your point there and it should be emphasised. But Scott does seem to make the connection in his posts I think.

[UsingAllHands]

Originally posted by ScottMA64

Towns like ours do not have hydrants, So all of our water comes from tankers and drafting nearby water holes. Our smallest tanker has 1000gal of water and our largest has 2500. So until you can set up a supply line from a water source and if we have enough initial manpower, water conservation is a must. I don't remember the exact mathematics, but a 1 3/4 line @ 90-100psi is only going to last I believe around 6-8 minutes for 1000gal.


Scott

Scott:

Why are you worried about water conservation? Is the object not to extinguish the fire? If you are putting insufficient quantities of water on the fire (less BTU's being absorbed by the water than is being generated by the buring materials) then the fire will continue to burn until such time as the fuel is all burned up.

If you are using your water on exposures to keep the fire from spreading to nearby strucures, that is one thing. But, if you are simply applying inadequate quantites of water until you have estabished your endless water supply of tankers from other towns, you are only slowing down the inevitable (total loss of whatever is burning.)

As far as your mathematics, the amount of water flowing depends not only on the nozzle pressure, but the orifice size, or in your case, nozzle type. Do you have adjustable gallonage, fixed gallonage, or automatic combination nozzles?

I can tell you that if you were using a 15/16" tip at 50 psi nozzle pressure on your 1-3/4" line, you'd be flowing roughly 180 GPM, so your 1000 gallons in your booster tank would last 5 to 5 and a half minutes. BUT, if the fire were just a couple of rooms, it would probobly be out in just a minute or two.

Depending on your nozzle, your 90-100 psi nozzle pressure might only be flowing 95 or so gallons per minute (or less!!) (If you're using 90-100 psi as your pump discharge pressure, then you're getting MUCH less water out the nozzle.) If the fire is producing more heat than that 95 gpm can absorb, the fire is either going to keep burning or grow larger. Yes, eventually, you'll either run out of water or the house will be completely burned to the ground.

[Lewiston2Capt]

UsingAllHands,
While I see your point, I think I should emphasise what Scott was saying. I think you are both right. The problem with tanker relays is that if you shoot your whole water supply in tyhe first 3-5 minutes and your tanker relay isnt going to be set up for another 2-3 minutes you end up with the same problem as if you dont put enough water on the fire to begin with. The key is to put enough water on the fire to hold it until you get more water if not extinguish it completely.
We too run a tanker relay for part of our first due that isnt hydranted, we use TFT nozzles. We tend to attempt to be mindful of our water situation so that in the event we need that water to get out we have it. Perhaps conservation wasnt the right term for Scott to use but it is pretty close to the idea.

I hope I havent completely confused the issue, and please know I am not turning this into a SB vs. F arguement. All are good tools to keep in the firefighting tool kit.

[Batt18]

I can tell you that if you were using a 15/16" tip at 50 psi nozzle pressure on your 1-3/4" line, you'd be flowing roughly 180 GPM, so your 1000 gallons in your booster tank would last 5 to 5 and a half minutes. BUT, if the fire were just a couple of rooms, it would probobly be out in just a minute or two.

It could be argued equally that two 60gpm hand-lines could take out those two rooms in under 10 seconds using an indirect water-fog attack resulting in less than 20 gallons flowed in knockdown.

[UsingAllHands]

It could be argued equally that two 60gpm hand-lines could take out those two rooms in under 10 seconds using an indirect water-fog attack resulting in less than 20 gallons flowed in knockdown.

For the love of God, please say you're kidding.

[Batt18]

For the love of God, please say you're kidding.

:D Why?!!

[Lewiston2Capt]

Hello? Is anyone actually reading my posts or am I just so far off base that I am being ignored?
Just checking.

Right tool, right job.

[UsingAllHands]

It's a beautiful day here...I'm going mountain biking for a little while. I'll try to clear my head and pretend I didn't read anything about indirect fog attack. I'll be daydreaming about copious amounts of water darkening down a large body of fire.

In the meantime, Paul, I replied to your other thread and sent you a PM earlier.

[bpevans]

Hey Cap,
You are not being ignored. Depending on the situation, conserving water can be a losing proposition that just delays the inevitable - everything gets consumed as UsingAllHands pointed out.

We shuttle water as well and conserving water is a deep rooted belief. It is never taught, but I think is a natural (though erroneous) conclusion that people reach. Also, we get in the habit of using a particular attack method and don't look at other methods that may be more effective. The situation where I see water conservation practiced erroneously is on a well involved fire that has self-vented.

If dumping 1000gpm of water on a well involved fire can kill it, just leaving hot spots to go contend with, then do it. Even if the sustained water supply is a few minutes away, you've killed the fire. However, if you just apply 100-200gpm on this same fire you aren't killing it - you may slow its growth, but it's still growing.

FFs using shuttled water ought to develop expertise beyond the basics in size-up, pump ops, hose ops, fire tactics, and fire behavior due to the potentially limited water supply.

[Lewiston2Capt]

Originally posted by bpevans
Hey Cap,
You are not being ignored. Depending on the situation, conserving water can be a losing proposition that just delays the inevitable - everything gets consumed as UsingAllHands pointed out.

We shuttle water as well and conserving water is a deep rooted belief. It is never taught, but I think is a natural (though erroneous) conclusion that people reach. Also, we get in the habit of using a particular attack method and don't look at other methods that may be more effective. The situation where I see water conservation practiced erroneously is on a well involved fire that has self-vented.

If dumping 1000gpm of water on a well involved fire can kill it, just leaving hot spots to go contend with, then do it. Even if the sustained water supply is a few minutes away, you've killed the fire. However, if you just apply 100-200gpm on this same fire you aren't killing it - you may slow its growth, but it's still growing.

FFs using shuttled water ought to develop expertise beyond the basics in size-up, pump ops, hose ops, fire tactics, and fire behavior due to the potentially limited water supply.

Essentially we are saying the same thing: If you can put it out, if not control the damage until you have enough water to put it out. And, you are right it does require some additional expertise to know how to fight fires with a potentially limited water supply. I think that if there is any doubt in the mind of the officer whether or not they will be able to extinguish the fire with the amount of water on hand they should use the most efficient method to make the most progress toward that end. It may be indirect fog, it could be find the fire and dump as much on it as you can.

Please forgive me sometimes I cant express myself all that well when I am typing.