And when I refer to reaching the seat of the fire, I am talking about advancing in to it.
I never implied, nor intended anyone to think that I meant that by extending a line that it would give you an improved stream.......what I meant was that if you can not reach the seat of the fire with the line you have, extend it....push in, get to the seat of the fire.
And you and your dept. may use a 2.5 on rooms off (or whatever you wish to use it on).....I/my dept. don't.
You may feel that I am not as smart as you, and that your dept. is better than mine for that reason. You may even post responses in other threads about me (apparently) bashing other depts for not operating the same way as I/we do (when it seems quite the opposite)
But in the end....all I can tell you, is that no matter how much you tell me I should use a 2.5 as an interior line, I won't.....I use them as defensive lines.
Just as if your departments have 1500 gallon tanks on your engines....you can call me and my depts , not as smart or as advanced, or whatever you wish, for only carrying 500 gallons and having short wheelbase pumpers, that is what works for us......and I really don't see that changing to make you happy anytime soon........sorry for your luck
No need to apologize to me for anything....this is the internet
And I hope you weren't using the "reel line is the only line" philosophy as somehow being intended for me, I have stated before (even tho it is sometimes hard to track down replies) that we have different size lines, and we use them for different types of operations.
And I to have numerous stories and instances in which people accepted things as they were presented.....that is why I think for myself, and try to push others to think for themselves and think outside the box at all times.
Michael, apparently you still need the interpreter. What Robert is indicating is that departments that followed the practices you are defending so strongly here have had LODDs and even multiple LODDs as a result of following those practices.I doubt I need an interpreter, and I know what Robert is indicating.....and the only practice I am defending is that if a building/house/structure is so far gone that a 2.5 is needed.....I see no reason to enter it.......and if that mindset had led to any LODD, and even multiple LODD's, then I have missed any of those reports...and would greatly appreciate it if you would be kind enough as to point me in the right direction to find/read up on them.
Thanks in advance
In the context he's discussing, you share an attitude that has demonstrably contributed to firefighter LODDs. That doesn't mean that you personally are responsible...yet. On the other hand, Charleston's previous chief shared your views, and we all know the result. The lack of a 2.5 inch interior line early in that fire contributed to exactly what you defend so vigorously - 2.5 inch and master streams on the outside, and dead firefighters on the inside. Like it or not, when you continue to claim that 2.5 inch lines are for exterior use only, you're perpetuating the mindset. You're discussing it in a public place, remember?I know that I am not responsible for the LODD he speaks of, and I highly doubt that you (or he) can accurately make any judgments about my attitude (or anything for that matter) from an internet forum.......but who am I to stop you from making those judgments?
And I have no clue if Charleston's Chief shared any of my views, but I do know that if he did.....then anyone that ever advanced a booster line into a firebuilding would be looking for a new job.
And as I posted just above in this post......I fail to understand how my view against entering a firebuilding that is so far gone that a 2.5 is needed ended with the Charleston deaths......once again, please point me in the proper direction that I can read up on that and it can be explained to me.
And when you stated "The lack of a 2.5 inch interior line early in that fire contributed to exactly what you defend so vigorously - 2.5 inch and master streams on the outside, and dead firefighters on the inside." can/will/would you be so kind as to show me where I so vigorously defended anything to do with dead firefighters on the inside (or on the outside....or anywhere) <----I know....I am sure I need an interpreter again....but in my little ignorant mind (sans aforementioned interpreter, it appears that you just said I somehow have defended something that killed firefighters)
Your insistance that there is no place for a 2.5 inch interior line is akin to insisting that just because you don't like the letter B that the alphabet jumps from A to C without another letter in between. Most of the rest of us don't share that blind spot with you. We think your dogma is not only a blind spot, but that it's dangerous. Once again, if you don't think that your dogma applies anywhere but in your own department, why did you even respond? I find that hard to believe.Not exactly, if I decided (or insisted for that matter) that I didn't like the letter B, it would still exist......just as there will be people that enter a structure that needs a 2.5, yet I can assure you that I will not enter a structure that is that far gone.....see it still exists yet I do not agree with operating that way (but I thank you for trying to put words in my mouth and trying to explain MY thought process on things)
And you may think that my views (or dogma as you like to say time and time again) are dangerous and a blind spot that "we" don't agree with.....and as I have posted before, I am fine with people not agreeing with me, yet that STILL won't change my views on entering a structure that is so far gone that a 2.5 is needed.....dogma, blindspot, dangerous, stupid or whatever else you may choose to call it.
And I never said that the way I operate is solely the way I/my depts operate.....most of the surrounding companies/depts operate the same way.......the reason I respond is to give MY input, and because I have something to say.
And what you believe, and what you find unbelievable and what you find hard to believe are really none of my concern.
We understand your point exactly...we just strongly disagree with you, based on science, well-thought-out rationales, proven SOGs, and the disasterous results for other fire departments who practiced what you preach. If the practice you espouse really is just intended for your own department, how about keeping it there so you don't tempt someone else into using it...since it so obviously applies only to your department, as you've insisted upon so strongly?It seems that YOU (and maybe the "we" you speak of) truly do not understand my point, in anyway ....much less "exactly".
That being said, who am I to say that you can't, shouldn't or are dangerous, or stupid.....(or whatever) for disagreeing with me?
Once again.....I call you out.....if there have been disastrous results for other fire depts that practice what I preach.......show me, prove it to me....somewhere somehow, if you would be kind enough to back up your statement.
But once again......what I have been preaching is that in my opinion (and apparently some depts. with disastrous results) using a 2.5 inch handline as an INTERIOR line is dangerous, useless, and ridiculous.....and the reason why is because if a building is that far gone that you need a 2.5 inch, it should be a defensive operation attacked from the outside......once again, I will be eagerly awaiting your reply and proof of some kind to back up the statements you have made against me (that is if you can find the time to reply and hopefully teach me something before I step out of the "yet" category of causing a LODD, as you have prophesied)
I also don't recall stating that my views were only used by me/my dept, I DO remember saying that I realize that not everyone can/should operate that way.
And I will share my views and give my input anywhere I choose (especially when it is asked for) no matter where you advise me to "keep it",,,,,but thanks for the advice/opinion that I should keep my mouth closed and not share my opinions/views , since you don't agree with them.
One more question for you......do you try to suppress the opinions/views of EVERYONE that does not agree with you (or that you don't agree with) or was that advice strictly for me?
No hard feelings....but I would truly appreciate answers to those questions and for the information I have requested
Thanks again !
Michael, that response was silly.That was one of the nicer things you have said about my responses
No one - including me - is suggesting that you get rid of your department's 1.5 inch lines. Regardlessof the fact that my department doesn't operate that way...in fact we use 1.75 inch for most of our fires. However, we don't have a dogmatic blind spot against taking 2.5 inch line into a structure when circumstances show it to be the best choice.Good, because that would cost me a lot.
And even though you insist I have a "dogmatic blind spot" because I don't operate the way you do.
I fail to see it that way (pun intended....must be that damned blindspot again)
Again (and as I have posted before) you can call me what you wish, attack my character, experience, training, department, honesty/truthfulness as I have no reason to boast about any of those things (especially on the internet)
Just as I refuse to attempt to degrade someone personally (or claim that my dept(s) are better than theirs.....as I have been accused of(not necessarily by you))
Just because your department has gotten away with it until now does not make using exclusively 1.5 inch for interior attack a best practice.
Best practices are industry-wide best practices, not just best practices for any one department.I will respectfully have to disagree with this also, JUSt because something is accepted as an "industry-wide best practice" , does not (in my opinion) make it a best practice everywhere.
An example I like to use (and I apologize if I used it earlier in this thread....I didn't go back and look) is
Lets say that a group of scientists, professors, fireservice experts, (and whomever else) do a nationwide study in the U.S.A. and they publish that study, and it states that in the U.S.A. , engines (pumpers) should have a minimum of 1500 gallon water tanks, because that was found to be the best practice for depts from coast to coast.
And it became the industry-wide standard. I would tend to agree......YET, for my dept. and some of the surrounding depts/jurisdictions that would be foolish (in my opinion ONLY of course)
And the reasons why are because (but not limited to) ....fully hydranted areas (normally no more that 500' apart max.), tight streets/severely congested areas, and apparatus that big not fitting in existing firehouses.
So, if that was the case...someone (maybe even you) may argue that I/my depts are foolish in our operations, maybe even state that because of our foolish ways of operating we will/may have LODD because I/we have the same attitude as _____ fire chief/fire dept....and I would disagree.
I will also add that in my opinion (and strictly my opinion apparently) if a dept followed those industry-wide standards because they worked for them.....I think that's great.....but if that wouldn't be the best practice for their individual dept, and they are ONLY doing it because it is "the industry-wide standard" OR because ____ fd is doing it......I would then call the "leaders" in that dept mindless minions
As for your comment "I have no idea how we haven't burned down our respective areas doing things the way we operate." that is exactly the attitude that Charleston, SC had prior to June 18, 2007, and it contributed to the 9 LODDs at the SSS fire. The issue there wasn't just that the building burned down, it was that 9 firefighters died in order to prove that 2.5 inch supply lines and small-caliber interior attack lines are not adequate for large, unsprinklered occupancies.
Charleston's previous chief had exactly the same attitude that you have about using small-caliber interior lines and 2.5 inch for supply.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist - or any other kind of scientist - to figure out what the eventual result was.I think I addressed something along these lines in an earlier post I made today (I believe it was on page 13 or 14)
If unable to locate it, and you would like my response....just let me know.
P.S. my depts don't use 2.5 as supply line onless for some drastic reason we run out of 3 inch
And it may take a scientist to explain to me how my "attitude" about not advancing into a building that is so far gone that a 2.5 is needed, and apparently Charleston's Fire Chief sharing that "attitude" / mentality / way of operating with me will/did end up with the eventual results you eluded to
I certainly hope that you keep getting away with your practice if you refuse to change. As you can see from looking around here, most of the rest of us will not deny ourselves a good tool from the tool box.I don't refuse to change, I change and adapt as needed and when/where necessary.
I am not foolish enough to just change and follow the sheep.......or actually a better analogy might be, I refuse to be one of those monkeys you spoke about in your blog.....well except for the one monkey that questioned the status quo .
Oh yeah....I won't/don't deny myself any tools in the tool box....so it appears that most of the rest of you and I agree (albeit fundamentally)
You are still ducking a very important question you've been asked more than once, too. If you aren't "advocating" the exclusive use of small-caliber interior lines and advocating against interior 2.5 inch, and if your position applies only to your department, why are you posting in this discussion at all?HERE IS THE ANSWER (maybe I won't be accused of ducking the question after this reply)
I am not advocating the use of any size handline (that would require me to advise someone/some other dept. to use that certain size)
I am giving MY INPUT.......as per the request of the original poster(and possibly much to your dismay) that I believe the use of a 2.5 inch handline as an interior attackline is useless, dangerous and ridiculous. That's my input on the use of a 2.5 as an IA line
The reason I feel that way is........if a building is so far gone that a 2.5 is needed as an interior attackline, it should be a defensive operation and therefore attacked from the OUTSIDE with that 2.5 AND with masterstreams, unless there is no access for those masterstreams....then it would only be 2.5's,
And my position doesn't apply to only my dept, most of the surrounding companies/depts also operate that way ( I do recall stating that ALL depts shouldn't operate this way) yet I stated how I and MY depts operate, mainly because I have a more thorough knowledge of operations I participate in and train in.
And once again I am posting here to give MY INPUT.......as per the request of the thread author.
I hope that answered the question(s) that apparently I have been ducking........and maybe even explains why I continue to post things that you do not agree with.
If my opinions/posts/comments/views bother you that much and you can't bear me to post them on this site, I can only suggest that you either contact a moderator/person in charge and get me banned, or that you purchase enough of this site that you may ban people you do not agree with.
P.S. I hope you find the other post.....because I would like to get the answers/information I requested (hopefully I don't get banned or kicked out before I get to read them)<-----that was just a request....not an accusation of you dodging any questions ;-)
1. You can use a 2 1/2 to reach the seat of the fire without pushing in.Yes you can. Me and my dept choose to push in
2. My department doesn't use 2 1/2 on rooms. We sometimes use it on large, open area occupancies.Congrats
3. WTF are you talking about with the whole rest of that paragraph?Differences in how different depts operate
4. I never said you should use a 2 1/2 as an interior line. I said you could - without the building being so far gone and without it being dangerous, ridiculous...I never said you couldn't use one as an interior line either.....I said that I won't, and gave my input on the subject
5. 1500 gallon tanks on my department's engines? Your department not as smart or advanced? Again, WTF are you talking about with that entire last paragraph? What a truly pathetic post!Once again....it was supposed to illustrate that no matter what you think.......other departments can AND DO operate differently than you do.
I say I won't/don't use 2.5 as interior lines.......you make various derogatory comments about my dept not operating as you do.
I chose to give an example of a possible difference in the way depts. operate by using apparatus (in place of interior handlines ,just to change it up and maybe help you just in case the handline thing was confusing you)
That's WTF the rest of the post was about.....I hope I explained it in simple enough terms that even you may be able to understand WTF this truly pathetic post is saying.
Good Golly.....if you need anymore help understanding things.....just ask WTF you want to know again.....and I will be more than happy to oblige.....again
Michael, You seem very hung up on "...if the building is so far gone that you need a 2.5 inch line, there is no reason to then go offensive..." Several of us have pointed out that if you're waiting until the building is "far gone" to use 2.5 inch lines on the interior for big boxes, churches, and other open-span large occupancies, then it's simply because you're waiting too long or refusing to use the tool, not because it's "useless, dangerous, and ridiculous".
If you "don't know what else to tell ya", then maybe it's time for you to do some research and find a better way rather than a continued attempt to justify using 1950's tactics on hotter, faster-spreading 2009 fires in large structures.
The use of 2.5 inch interior lines on a routine basis by many well-respected and successful departments is ample evidence that this practice is not dangerous, it's not useless, and it's not ridiculous. The inappropriate use of small-caliber hoselines on fast-developing incipient fires in large, enclosed structures is dangerous, useless, and ridiculous, as the Charleston SSS fire demonstrates.
What part of an extra 100 GPM per company on a rapidly-spreading incipient fire in a large enclosed structure do you think is "dangerous, useless, and ridiculous"? In this situation, the structure is not "far gone" nor is it appropriate to use a defensive attack in that situation, particularly if there are civilians trapped in that structure. Or...are you now going to try to tell us that the laws of physics are different where you fight fire?
That's complete B.S. I haven't ever said that I can't bear to have you post your opinions on this site or anything like it.
Refusing to use interior 2.5 inch lines is "useless, dangerous, and ridiculous" if the situation is a hot, fast-spreading, incipient fire an a large, enclosed structure.
"Pushing in" with small-caliber hand lines for hot, fast-spreading, incipient fires in large, enclosed structures is "useles, dangerous, and ridiculous". As WestPhilly pointed out, and as Charleston found to their sorrow, when you do that, you put the firefighters too far into the structure with inadequate water power to overcome the fire.
(Hint - an incipient fire, by definition, means that the structure is not "far gone")
In that same situation, if you wait until the fire is defensive to use 2.5 inch interior lines, then eventually you'll unnecessarily lose savable buildings and possibly the civilians in them.
You still haven't been able to explain how an extra 100 GPM per company in a large structure is a bad thing, either. (Hint - situationally, it's a very good thing.)
If you insist on pushing in with overly long (400 to 600 foot) 1.5 inch lines in large enclosed structure fires simply because you refuse to consider the use of 2.5 inch interior lines as a more appropriate tool, then you're using a tactic that has killed firefighters on several occasions, including 6/18/07. That insistance "because it's always worked before" sounds suspiciously like "...because we've always done it that way."
simplest way to look at it BIG FIRE= BIG WATER
you need to take the BTU's out of large fire the quickest way you can the bigger the hoe the more water thus yu do your job quicker welcom to the dumbed down fire service we are part of today "if you need a deuce and a half why are you even in there" ?????? WTF so we dont go interior just because the fires too big and we might have to work a little harder hauling a deuce i cant believe this was actually used as a point of argument thats simply just lazy and stupid i'm glad we dont work that way where i live (near Pittsburgh, PA if you need to know) people theres a time and a place for the defensive v. aggressive argument i don't believe this is it but come on already
Michael, You seem very hung up on "...if the building is so far gone that you need a 2.5 inch line, there is no reason to then go offensive..." Several of us have pointed out that if you're waiting until the building is "far gone" to use 2.5 inch lines on the interior for big boxes, churches, and other open-span large occupancies, then it's simply because you're waiting too long or refusing to use the tool, not because it's "useless, dangerous, and ridiculous".I have stated my input on using a 2.5 as an interior line.....I then followed up with some of the reasons that my input is the way it is.
If you "don't know what else to tell ya", then maybe it's time for you to do some research and find a better way rather than a continued attempt to justify using 1950's tactics on hotter, faster-spreading 2009 fires in large structures.I do dot believe I am (or have been using) 1950's tactics on any type fire......but I have been accused, in this thread, of needing to step out of the dark ages....and use the lines that other depts have been using for decades but alas......it seems that I/me/my dept are nothing but a bunch of neanderthals because we operate differently that you
The use of 2.5 inch interior lines on a routine basis by many well-respected and successful departments is ample evidence that this practice is not dangerous, it's not useless, and it's not ridiculous. The inappropriate use of small-caliber hoselines on fast-developing incipient fires in large, enclosed structures is dangerous, useless, and ridiculous, as the Charleston SSS fire demonstrates.Once again.....please (if you happen to be refering to me) explain/show me where I have justified/advocated/agreed with.......anything to do with the Charleston fire......as I will once again state.....I see no reason to enter a structure that is so far gone that a 2.5 is needed
What part of an extra 100 GPM per company on a rapidly-spreading incipient fire in a large enclosed structure do you think is "dangerous, useless, and ridiculous"? In this situation, the structure is not "far gone" nor is it appropriate to use a defensive attack in that situation, particularly if there are civilians trapped in that structure. Or...are you now going to try to tell us that the laws of physics are different where you fight fire?I will just leave it up to you to determine if the laws of physics are different where I am.......just as I will leave it up to you to try to browbeat and bull bait me.
I have stated my opinion and input......and since I do not operate as you do I am just not as smart/tactically up to date (or a host of other statements).......at least in this post you didn't continue with trying to suppress my ability to voice my opinions