3D Gaseous-phase Firefighting

[Lewiston2FF]

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.

[Lewiston2FF]

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.