The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
How long is too long to get water on a fire
I was reading an article about a fire in Weston Missouri. They are accused of taking 14 minutes to get a steady stream on a fire that resulted in the death of the business owner. Last year there were issues with another video showing the San Fransico FD taking about 6-7 minutes for water to flow.
I know each situation is different and "things" happen. But how long should it take minimum and maximum before the wet stuff hits the red stuff.
My feeling is no more then 3 minutes when the fire peice of equipment pulls up. As a driver I was taught - put it in pump
- tank to pump
- make sure the hose is clear and charge line.
Since we had 1000 gallon tanks I knew we had 5-8 minutes before I had to worry about water. So I had time to connect the hydrant lines or wait before the next engine arrived. (our mutual aid companies are very close sometimes within minutes of each other)
Of course you get into the hydrants not working, missed assignments delayed response. But my feeling is if you have 500 gallons or more you should be able to begin an interior attack while your setting up you supply lines.
So how long to you believe it should take from the time apparatus pulls up to get water on the fire.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah Tinsley MacKenzie on
-
i think 5 mins max to get it on you can still get a steady stream on while awaiting water , it also depends on tank size as to how long you can last before water gets to the pump
-
Permalink Reply by thomas godoy on
-
Listen, i'm not saying i know everything! cause i don't. but ever call is not the same an yes you will run into problems from time to time. But a reasonable amount of time from the moment the truck gets on scene to water being put on the fire should be between 4 to 7 min. Again you have to take into account of location, weather, Manpower, length of line u have to streach (will whats preconnected be enough) an is the a bigger priority than the fire. Every calls different everyone knows that, but yes i've seen videos where the was no reason at all not to have water on the fire in the time mentioned above. Thats just my point of veiw i wasnt there I don't know what was going on. all anyone can do is learn from what happened to make it better, or from what you see an try not to repeat the same mistakes.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
There should be water on the fire before the 1st due engine responds.
Automatic sprinkler systems do that for you.
-
-
My work here is done. :-)
-
Permalink Reply by Just Plain Craig Moyer on
-
I think we need to look at what is acceptable minimums. Once't again I understand that there are variables to have a standard answer but we need to sit and say "if it took XX minutes to put water on the fire then there were issues.
How long does it take a standard trained pump operator to get out of the seat and have water flowing. Using the tank water only.
How long does it take a standard trained pump operator to connect a 2.5", 4" 5" supply line. And yes I used a 2.5 many times. When I would pull up as supply engine I could pull 50-100 feet by myself and have tank water ready in minutes giving me time to wrestle the larger line.
How long does it take to have the hoseline cleared of the hosebed. Does packing style go into account of time. Does size of the FF cause delay.
I feel these are the three biggest factor in getting water onto a fire. In the case of San Fransico there were issues getting to the seat of the fire (which was on the first floor and FF's had made it to the top floors with no lines)
How far do we need to go to get water on a fire. Putting it through the window in cases of above. Going to a master stream with limited manpower. Even grabbing a garden hose next door until the next engine arrives.
If its been 5 minutes and no water has been flowed then its been too long.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
This is why its important to secure a water source when working a rural response... this includes taking a water tender (not tanker because tankers have wings) and/or if available, catching your own hydrant and laying a line into the incident.
For those who don't catch a hydrant or bring a tender, you are good for what you carry on your engine, which isn't very much... so you either conserve the little water you have or combine it with foam to make it go farther... or let the building burn while you wait for your second in to get water?
Kind of tough to make any call on how long is acceptable for a second in engine to arrive. City vs. rural, call volume, time of day, etc. Faster is better of course... :D
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
I'm agreeing with Ben: if you're going to argue that water needs to be put on the fire as early as possibly, without taking into consideration all of the variables that people have put forth, the only way to do that is with Automatic Sprinkler systems. Really, that's the only really GOOD answer. And I'm not even being sarcastic. I agree that water on the fire ASAP is kind of important, important enough that it should be happening before the 1st due ever gets on scene. In other words, why blame a/any Fire Department for water delays when in reality, it is/was the fault of the property owner. We just show up after the fact that something bad is going on.
@ Mike S, here in the NE if we need extra water, we ask for a TANKER,
when I'm asked how I like my steak, I say TENDER.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
I think we need to look at what is acceptable minimums. Once't again I understand that there are variables to have a standard answer but we need to sit and say "if it took XX minutes to put water on the fire then there were issues.................If its been 5 minutes and no water has been flowed then its been too long.
Sounds as though you have your definition, but the fact remains such a time frame still does not account for the variables. In the end you are truly left with the simple fact of trying to get water on the fire as soon as possible....however, subjecting to a time frame doesn't account for the variables.
If you want to stick to a 5 minute or less standard, then that is up to you, however, any time frame does not account for variables.
You make mention of San Francisco and I think I know the video clip you are referring to, but that still doesn't account for everything. With any video you are subjected to what the filmmaker wants you to see, rather than the overall picture. Yes, there was a call for water in said video, but we don't see the back of the building, nor if there are other lines already flowing and so forth.
-
Permalink Reply by Barry Greer on
-
Guess the only way to get a definitive answer is a controlled study by the University of Maryland that changes one variable at a time. Seriously. The other approach would be field notes taken after each fire to generate a large database of anecdotal information from actual experience.
After each run, the engineer would, for instance, log who made the hydrant, how many people were used to connect the hydrant line, the time the hydrant was connected, the time the first attack line was charged. Note, I said "charged," meaning when the valve was open at the pump panel.
The engineer obviously would not have time during the fire to jot down times, but would have to estimate times.
The only other controlled study approach might be sensors on the intake and discharge pump ports to detect flow and time. But you'd still need the time from stop at the hydrant to connection, which varies with distance from hydrant to fire, weather, available personnel, etc.
I might poke around the NFPA site or the insurance company sites to see if a standard exists.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
