I've got a question for those of you who use the "Cleveland Load" aka the "Pro Load" aka the "Metro Load" aka the "Roundabout Load" for your preconnects.

We have used this load with success for several years and have implemented it pretty much system wide at the metro sized FD for which I work. 

Recently we have discovered flaws in the load, and I can only attribute it to the hose we as a department have recently purchased. 

During training and flow tests to confirm anectodal evidence from training we have noticed a marked decrease in flow while using a particular type of lightweight/"low friction loss" 1 3/4" hose deployed from the above mentioned load.  This decrease seems to stem from a "kink" that occurs during deployment when the coil is paying out into the flat configuration (basically at the end of the pull of each coil as it uncoils). 

This "kink" seems more extreme with this particular brand of hose, so much so that it impedes flow significantly.  This scenario bore itself out during a recent interior attack when a line pumped to 150 on an 1 3/4" with a smooth bore went limp and did not respond to pressure increases. 

Has anyone out there using this load experienced similar issues with this load and light weight attack line combination? 

Thank you for your time.

Mike

Views: 949

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ever since the first time I watched a video of this load being advanced I wondered about the kinking issue.  It seems to me that every time you pull the hose to start the next coil you cause a  kink.  Exactly why I have no real interest in trying this load.

I've never used this hose load. I just went on youtube and watched multiple video demonstrations. Every single one showed the hose kinking as each loop played out. So if you are operating and advancing at the same time, you have repeated loss/reduction of water. If a member is not posted at the loop you run the risk of a kink staying in place. Any manpower advantage is now lost because it becomes necessary to have a member monitor this location. Or worse yet, you run the risk of water loss while operating on fire.

I am also concerned about how easily all of these lines kinked. A properly charged hoseline should not kink all that easily, if at all. These lines all appear to be way to "soft". I have to question the GPM involved. If these demonstrations are done flowing less water than would be used for a structural fire, then the demonstrations are all invalid. Who cares how you get a deficient line in place? I concede that lightweight hose may contribute to this problem.

I'd love to hear from people who use this regularly at structural fires. I suspect a line that is properly charged will not play out as easily as depicted.

We only use "roll ups" for standpipe operations. They are actually not rolled but folded in a way that lets them deploy easily. we flake out the line prior to charging. Any kinks are addressed prior to advancing and the pressure in the line prevents new ones from developing once this is done. 

On a sidenote. Why are so many departments reducing down to 1 3/4 line off standpipes? Fireproof buildings hold their heat quite well. Getting a line in place to operate takes longer due to size of building. Modern fires develop very quickly. I'm way more comfortable with bigger line for bigger water. Not to mention that the extra pressure you have to put into the system to overcome increased friction loss of 1 3/4 line can cause problems to poorly maintained systems. 

Thank you gentlemen for your replies. 

It seems that the bulk of our problems began to occur with lightweight hose.  Prior to this (and at the beginning of our utilization of this load) we were using what could be described as "traditional" hose on our preconnects - meaning not lightweight.  When flow tested, there was some decrese in gpm when we purposely stopped the line at the kink to take measurements, but the flow available was still within reason for operations inside a fire. 

Those numbers seemed to change with the lightweight presumably because it tolerates kinks worse.  I am aware of the claims that most lightweight hose companies make, but I am not going to endorse these claims until I've seen it done. 

If you are like me, you understand that the only guys in the world that you can be certain do a job right are your own guys, your working crew, and so I'll submit that there may be different experiences out there, I'm just warning of the potential dangers with this hose load/hose combination.  And I would invite any and all accounts.  I'm really still formulating my own...

Thanks guys, great replies. 

Mike,  I am not trying to convince you to change what you do.  I just don't think the kinking, which you seemed to deem acceptable with your old hose, is something I would accept.

I should mention that most of the demos I saw took place in wide open areas. Kink problems would likely be exacerbated in the confines of hallways and stair landings. 

Captnjak,

That is a very good point.  It is one that we have pondered since the kinking occured and virtually shut down our attack line as we were making the push. 

I think that is the best advice for anyone that might have new hose manufacturers at their doorstep selling their wares.  Some investigation into our brand of hose actually exposed some of their methodology for obtaining their high gpm ratings.  It is their practice to rate the gpm from their hose of course in a straight configuration, but also with no couplings.  As I see it this borders on false advertising, but I'm sure they are within their rights to advertise those numbers, as ficticious as they are for real world firefighting. 

I think that you're right on the money Captnjak, we are currently toying with the idea of returning to our tried and true triple load for the preconnects that have this brand lightweight hose. 

Again gentlemen, thank you for your input. 

Mike


Sorry, this line was supposed to be directed at Don C.  I got the names mixed up.  Thanks. 


Mike Emillio said:

I think that you're right on the money Captnjak, we are currently toying with the idea of returning to our tried and true triple load for the preconnects that have this brand lightweight hose. 

Again gentlemen, thank you for your input. 

Mike

The "Cleveland Load" is NOT a structural firefighting hoseload. Period. It comes from the Cleveland national forest, where it was used by, shockingly enough, wildland firemen. On small diameter hose, pumped at high pressure. This isn't meant for, or designed to be used by, structural firemen.

Great discussion, thanks.  We use run of the mill attack line hose, nothing fancy here.  We run with a basic flat load but do make a conversion with the last 50' into a Cleveland for use in stairwells and for very short stretches within our city when we have to drop 200' of hose onto a sidewalk maybe only 8' from the door.  Admittedly we have not deployed this way for an actual fire (higher income community/low fire load stuff) but have done this numerous times in training.  We have not experienced the kinking issue that is being described using this older hose and combination nozzles with approximately 150 # static before opening up.  For those experiencing the kinking, are you pressurizing static then flowing or are you bleeding and going straight into residual pressure due to water flow?  Not questioning what's going on, just trying to understand it so we can evaluate it ourselves and find approaches to minimize the impact.  Thanks again for sharing.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

FireRescue Magazine

Find Members Fast


Or Name, Dept, Keyword
Invite Your Friends
Not a Member? Join Now

© 2017   Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.   Powered by

Badges  |  Contact Firefighter Nation  |  Terms of Service