Apparently you are not careful enough with the comprhension of what I write (and I don't know, nor do I really care if it's because of me, you, or all of us)
There are many hundreds of thousands of people with comprehension problems (if not millions.....and no, I have no scientific studies to back up this statement....just an educated....or UNeducated (since I misspell words) guess) maybe we just got lucky in this thread with all those you posted....who knows.
And just as you say that my opinion is demonstrably.......I say that it is demonstrably correct.......and it will be easily proven time and time and time and time again.
And you may think anything and everything is ridiculous......yet somehow that still does not change input of 2.5 inch as interior attack line
It appears we have ended up agreeing (for the most part) , I would just like to add that I have no problem with different opinions.
The SOP's do not dictate the line size (at either the career or volly house) the types of structures, and lengths of lines "generally" do.
We have 1 200' 2.5 on the work engine, and the same on the volly engines.
Then we have from a 150' to 400' 1.5 inch lines along with 1.5 inch standpipe packs.
And most officers are on the same page, so there haven't been any problems in a LONG time.
An officer could order a 2.5 inch to the interior, but he would have alot of explaining to do.
If your jurisdiction wants to deny itself one of the best tools in the tool box, it's up to that jurisdiction. That doesn't make it smart, a best practice, or the right thing to do.
Using 1.5 inch lines for interior attack on big box fires are not a best practice.
They have much less flow, higher friction loss, and less stream penetration than a comparable length of 2.5 inch line. That makes them a good interior attack tool in some situations.
As for ABSOLUTE, you're the one espousing the absolute position when you state that you will NEVER use an interior 2.5 inch line. I have made no absolute statement. Using a smaller-caliber hand line is fine in some situations, but I'm not going to insist that my troops can't have a useful tool if the situation calls for it. You, on the other hand, are saying exactly that with the NEVER and other absolutist statements you've made in this thread.
You keep telling us that we don't know how to communicate, except for Tony P.
Interestingly, Tony P. is has been the most outspoken supporter of your position.
You seem to infer that anyone that disagrees with you simply can't read, can't communicate, or is in some way inferior to you. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We simply disagree with you and have given several examples of why we disagree.
Using nothing larger than 1.5 inch attack lines for interior attack in every situation was the norm and an absolute in Charleston, SC until June 18, 2007. That is no longer the case. Unfortunately, it took 9 funerals and a change of administration to change that outlook. The important thing is that they made the improvements, and that they work.
Tony, no one has said that Michael isn't allowed an opinion, just that we disagree.
He's made some very strong, absolutist statements that demonstrably are not the case for many other FFN members and their departments.
He hasn't backed up his opinion with examples, science, or a rationale; he's just spouted his opinion and told those of us who disagree that we don't know how to communicate. In effect, he's told those of us who disagree that our opinions, examples, and science are inferior to his opinion. If some of us have strong responses to that, he - and you - shouldn't be surprised.
The difference is that I wasn't the one that started slamming other FFN members in this conversation or implying that they or their opinions were inferior. That responsibility is yours and yours alone.
If you want to start backing up your opinion with examples, science, or some kind of reasoning, that would be fine with me. You haven't shown the willingness or ability to do that so far.
The sins you've committed here are 1) making absolutist statements that are demonstrably not the best practices in some situations, 2) implying that other FFN members can't communicate as well as you, and 3) implying that others opinions are somehow inferior to yours. You're the only one that has shouted "NEVER" in regard to using 2.5 inch lines for interior attack.
When you start proclaiming that some of us need to learn how to read, you might at least run a spell check first. As an example, you mispelled "committed" in your post above. That's a hint that the communication problem here might be in your writing abilities, not in other FFN members' reading or comprehension abilities.
Micheal, when you said "But I will say once more (and I'm sure not for the last time) MY INPUT/opinion/feelings/the way I operate, is that a 2.5 inch line as an INTERIOR attackline is useless (and all that other that I said earlier) BECAUSE I feel that if a 2.5 is needed the operation should be defensive and therefore should have masterstreams in operation along with the 2.5 inch line being used from the outside (unless the only way to reach the building perimeter is with 2.5 inch lines...because masterstreams can not access it)" and then claim that isn't advocating for 1.5 inch interior lines and against 2.5 inch lines, then one of two things is operative here.
1) You are indeed advocating for 1.5 inch interior lines and advocating against 2.5 inch lines. In other words, if you're in a public place repeatedly offering your opinion that you'll only do things one way and that you will "NEVER" do things another way, then that indeed is advocating for the one and against the other.
2) If your repeated, public offering of your opinion is not intended as advocacy, then you're just talking to yourself in a public place.