The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Explain This?
Could someone explain this?
Why would someone do this if they have ground lines?
I've similar photos like this one
Why would someone do this if they have ground lines?
I've similar photos like this one
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by larry jenkins on
-
This is standard practice for strip shopping centers. Our tower ladder can deliver almost 3,000 gmps with two mounted tips. The reach is fantastic and with the large flow the fire is under control sooner. Also, you are elevated and can see better into the structure. If the fire comes thru the roof you can redploy within seconds. We also use the tower to open the facade for hidden fire without being under it.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Owens on
-
Well lets talk about a few things reguarding this....
The aerial master stream device is one of the most misused weapons in the fire service....Typically people put this weapon into service when the fire vents through the roof and sets up what I like to call the portable thunderstorm. This is typically ineffective becuase a portion of the roof is still intact, and it is pushing fire back into the structure not allowing it to leave the structure.
When 50% of the roof or more is intact then below roof operation of the aerial master stream is a must. The roof on a house doesnt know the difference between fire stream water, and rain water...it will shed both as the norm. Directing the stream under the roof line will allow you to gain a weapon in upwards of 1000 gpms and giving you the knockout punch needed for large commercial occupancy fires with relative crew safety, and heavily involved residential occupancies.
When you have to go ugly there is usually no finer tool when you can get it in place....We have utilized this tactic in my FD on several fires with great success.
-
-
Robert,
I guess I didn't explain myself, after reading it again I see where it could be misleading. I totally agree with the venting fire. We use the master stream at the ceiling not the open hole. When the fire comes out the hole it is a good thing. Let it vent, but knock the fire down below. The only time it should be used in the vent hole is when you cannot reach the base of the fire. When you do this, don't put the stick all the way up and aim the stream into the hole. Keep above the level of the roof line and aim the stream horizontal into the hole at the roof line. My tower has the ability to operate two 2" solid bore tips. We had a fully involved mattress store fire and we couldn't reach some of the fire because of the roof. I got the bucket directly over the roof about 10 feet above and used the solid streams to knock the roof material away and gave us access to the fire below.
-
Permalink Reply by Sergey Treskov on
-
какая необходимость подавать воду в очаг пожара с механического подъемника в помещения через окна в одноэтажное здание,..... эффективнее со стволов "Б" пройтись по помещениям в составе звена ГДЗС и все . результат на лицо.....!
-
Permalink Reply by justin lee burch on
-
looks good to me everyone made it home that day
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Cole on
-
Sometimes we are so used to our local tactics, that even the slightest deviation from what we have been exposed to doesn't make sense at first. In many departments aerial apparatus, espeically towers can be the most under utilized apparatus and equipmet of the inventory. How often do we see aerail master streams at work, 50 feet or more above the roof line, basically raining down a stream that is all but lost it's effectiveness?
How many times do we see these arail streams being used to try to hold back fire from peaking out of the burned-through portions of the roof, only to result in nothing but huge water run-off puddles, virtually no actual fire extinguishment being effected. Allowing the roof to burn off, while maybe not understood, and even criticized by the bystanding public, allows easier access to burning area that requires the aerial stream for reach. Keeping the embers down, and protecting exposures will eliminate most of the problems.
The use of the elevated stream in the photo's that started this thread is something that surprises me hasn't become a standard tactic. It is highly mobile, has volume, and can be pulled back when needed, can deliver large water to under soffitts from outside the collapse zones. Rather than park the million-dollar towers on the corner, and try to battle most of your fires with handlines meant for interior offensive fire attack, use them to your advantage.
Ona nother note, and speaking of master streams, one department that really 'gets' the concept of applying big water effectively is the Philadelphia, Pa. Fire Department. Most often you will see several master streams used together to deliver thousands of gpm's in one spot, and actually extinguish fire. This, as oppossed to the more common, ineffective use that applies master streams somewhat apart from each other during heavy fire conditions, and even those master streams are ineffective. Next tie, try combining two or three portable monitors side-by-side, and watch them actually put down the fire.
-
Permalink Reply by Doug on
-
Sorry, but this is a very effective tactic. Portable, easily maneuverable, very high gpm masterstream.
-
Permalink Reply by Tom McRae on
-
Effective, yes. Effieient, no. It's, like swatting a fly with a sledge hammer. When ground lines would have done the same job with less water.
-
-
Please, read some of the other replies on this thread if you have not already. And check out some of the departments in the north east U.S., as well as some others scattered across the country, that use this tactic on a regular basis, and see what they have to say about it. I'm sure a few in Canada even use it.
Am I saying that this tactic is warranted at every or most fires? No, heck no. But it is both effective and efficient. And it is far from a gross misuse of resources.
-
-
I'm not saying that it's wrong to do that, but I am saying is that in some situations, it's a misuse of your water supply. when you're dumping at times more than 1000 gpm more than what it would take to knock that fire down. But hey, if it's needed, use what you got to get the job done.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
That looks like a gross misuse of their resources
If the tower was being used to water someone's petunias then I would have to agree with you. Given that it's being used at a fire, I would beg to differ.
Effective, yes. Effieient, no. It's, like swatting a fly with a sledge hammer. When ground lines would have done the same job with less water.
Why would you be concerned about conserving water at a fire? Not sure where you are but where I am ample amounts of water has the ability to put out the fire. It's not like we arrive with a predetermined gallonage that we won't exceed...well at least we don't.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
