antiquefirelt

Every company must have and be well trained with AT LEAST 1 T.I.C. for EVERY interior crew.
If your department does not have at least 1 T.I.C. on every rig......WHY NOT? When you buy a new ladder that costs $750,000 - $1.2m and you cant afford a couple of $10,000-$20,000 T.I.C's you need to consider what you are doing.
How much does the gold leaf or the fancy drawing cost?

I've always thought, teach and instruct training officers and other instructors that anyone can generally be taught how to do something...but its not effective unless they know why they are doing it or why they shouldn't do it. This goes along with not just skills but other knowledge basis such as fire behavior etc. Unfortunately I still see some that stress more hands on skills and "we gotta get outside" instead of lining up the brain with the hands. While braun is still important in the fire service as the fire service continues to evolve in services, skill and challenges of building construction, materials used in manufacturing and so on...the brains is becoming an extremely important part of the puzzle. You can only take the mechanical part so far before the lack of brains can effect safety or the operation overall. NASA taught chimps to ride some of the first mercury rockets in space and then astronauts...they don't just teach them how...they also teach them why they are doing something. No different then what we truly need in the fire service.

29 U.S.C. § 654, 5(a)1: Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees."
Read it 3 times.... Does that include going to fires? If not, why not? One day we will be able to pick and choose what we will or will not go out the door for.
Is the scene safe?" This line is heard in almost every training session.
No, it's not safe; thats why they called us! If it were safe, any a$$ could take care of it.

I guess to save any confusion I'll say I favor smoothbores for most fire attack applications, while knowing the fog is a better choice in a few circumstances. But, to fair, we must address some of the issues that cause us to "misspeak" about either type of nozzle tip. In many recent test from around the country, in head to head comparison the fog either equals the SB or exceeds it in reach. Now this doesn't include loss of actual water due to heat or wind, but just straight up, matching gpm for gpm, they are fairly well matched. Again, in a typical non commercial structure fire the reach differences will not be a factor.
EFFDCAPT: I can only surmise the reason so many fog nozzles continue to see frontline use is that those people making the key decisions of today came up during those years that we used smaller 1.5" lines with fogs flowing less than 100 gpm (thought we had more!) and literally pushed the fire from the unburned to the burned side and out windows and doors. At the same time we were shown how the fog nozzle could be opened to keep cool air coming in from behind to reduce the heat we felt, and to help push the heat, fire and smoke away from us. Houses we not nearly as tight so the effects of fog and steam were not felt as soon as in today's ultra energy efficient homes/buildings. So of our older guys started just as SCBA were coming out and went from no SCBA, thin bunkers and boots, rubber gloves and armed with smoothbore to fully dressed out in bunker gear, with an SCBA and a fog nozzle and were able to get all the way to the seat of the fire that they would have previously knocked down from the hall. They were sold that this was the only way to go. Today we can readily see and scientifically show the effects of energy efficient structures, fire and how a fog pattern vs. smoothbore changes the environment for us and any would be victims.
Just because smoothbores were around before fog, doesn't mean they weren't the best choice all along. One must really separate the BS reasons from the real ones to have valid debate. To me it comes down to the size of the droplets. Andy Fredricks was showing us this in terms everyone could understand before he was taken along with 342 more of our Brothers.

I really hate to be the "negative Nancy" here, and I know I'm going to get flak for this, but someone's got to say it:
I do agree with everyone that this is great technology, especially for us firefighters who are IN SHAPE and have the ENDURANCE to continue working with a longer lasting bottle. With this I bring my point: This new, improved bottle is great for the firefighter who is in top physical condition, but a death trap for the firefighter who has had a few too many hot fudge sundaes in his life. My argument lies in the fact that the number one killer of firefighters is heart attacks. Most of us are out of shape. Period. A lot of us smoke, a lot of us drink; many of us are lazy, over worked, over stressed, etc. You get the point. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that a smaller profile and a lighter pack that this new technology brings is great for us, However, for the "general" firefighter, this could make things worse. It doesn't matter how much clean air you can stick in a bottle. With today's 4.5 bottles there are some people who can make it last 40 minutes (firefighters who vigorously work out) and there are people who suck a bottle down in 15 minutes. Focusing on the latter half of the previous sentence, those who suck down a 30 minute bottle in 15 minutes, with the advantage of the 5.5 bottle and more air availability, are able to work longer in a fire. The down side of this is that these firefighters are now going to overwork themselves and put them in a situation where there life is at danger, not from the fire, but from themselves.
Please do not take this on an attack on obese or out-of-shape firefighters. Nor am I attacking ay flaws that SCOTT may have overseen in their technological advances. I solely bring this up as a discussion point in the matter of firefighter safety.

We still are running a few like this. All our bottles are CF, but maybe 10-15% of the SCBA still are wire frame jobs, kept alive by our Scott techs. Most of the guys can't understand why we have them, but some of us have done all we can to keep them.

We still are running a few like this. All our bottles are CF, but maybe 10-15% of the SCBA still are wire frame jobs, kept alive by our Scott techs. Most of the guys can't understand why we have them, but some of us have done all we can to keep them.

We still are running a few like this. All our bottles are CF, but maybe 10-15% of the SCBA still are wire frame jobs, kept alive by our Scott techs. Most of the guys can't understand why we have them, but some of us have done all we can to keep them.

I'm not a nozzle expert...but I've heard many of the arguments used to promote both styles of nozzles...most are inaccurate and even a few I've read in your posts that were said to you are outdated practices that have been shown to even be dangerous. Most of the combo/fog nozzle arguments I get at work are from the guys who went to the academy and were trained during the big combo/fog nozzle heydays of the late 70's/early 80's.
Here are some of the myths I've heard, read and a couple said to me over the years:
1. You get more reach with a SB. Tests have shown time and time again that when flowed at the right PDP...both will get the same reach.
2. SB have more volume. Again this depends on what your pumping at. 150 GPM's are 150 GPM's if that is what your standard flow is. A combo/fog you can get up to 175 GPM's. A SB with 15/16" tip you can get up to around 185 GPM with 1 3/4".
3. You have less nozzle reaction with a SB. Again this depends on the flow. At 150 GPM it will have less. But if you are getting up in the 175-185 GPM range you start to equal the NR of a combo/fog at 150.
4. You can put out more fire with less water. Really? Our business is about flow. GPM's are GPM's and you want to overwhelm the BTU output of the fire with more BTU absorption capability in water then it wants to put out. Steam does help obviously with the process and you will more then likely get more faster with a combo/fog being its droplets formed into a stream. But is that always better? With good stream management and movement you are using the ceiling and walls to break up your solid stream into for lack of a better term broken stream to get both. If a combo/fog puts out more fire...hell why do we still have 2 1/2" lines if we can do more with less with that nozzle?
5. Here's one that was said to me when I inquired about switching to SB at a previous vollie dept. I was a member of. "We thought about it but my brother and I agreed that these guys would waste the water." My answer: 150 GPM is 150 GPM no matter what its coming out of. And if that's the case..then we have a training issue.
6. Combo/fog can protect you from heat. OK. yes it can but in very specific applications. The old right to fight stayed....but left for life has long been thrown away as ineffective and downright dangerous. Nothing beats cooling a thermal layer line a well placed and well delivered fire stream to the upper areas. The biggest thing that will protect you from flashover is recognition, proper placement in a room to get out in time and wearing all your PPE.
7. You can't hydraulically ventilate with a SB. Actually you can, its just not as efficient as a combo/fog and if your basing your nozzle purchases and use on that sole operation...well all I can say IMHO...is have at it...but you scare me.
8. Just to be fair. SB doesn't go without any issues either. If you have a SB nozzle particularly on 1 3/4" lines, one problem you can have at the lower GPM rates like 150 GPM is that the hose at those lighter pressures will not be firm enough to support the nozzle depending on its weight. It will cause a kink just behind the coupling and when getting vigorous with our patterns can cause a whipping action of the nozzle.
My final bottom line is this...while I prefer SB on handlines...and no matter what you prefer you better have good fire stream management period. I've never stretched a line and said damn this is going to be tougher because I have xyz nozzle. Know what you have and be good at using them. Only thing I am an advocate staunch on is having SB for master streams. They are less susceptible to environmental factors and it does give you better penetration into a thermal column. My experience also is pump operators underflow combo/fog master streams especially on auto nozzles because the stream looks good generally at any GPM, nor do they have a good grasp on what is even being flowed. With SB you know a target number, you can calculate it quickly and the stream says a lot...underflowed or overflowed.

I guess to save any confusion I'll say I favor smoothbores for most fire attack applications, while knowing the fog is a better choice in a few circumstances. But, to fair, we must address some of the issues that cause us to "misspeak" about either type of nozzle tip. In many recent test from around the country, in head to head comparison the fog either equals the SB or exceeds it in reach. Now this doesn't include loss of actual water due to heat or wind, but just straight up, matching gpm for gpm, they are fairly well matched. Again, in a typical non commercial structure fire the reach differences will not be a factor.
EFFDCAPT: I can only surmise the reason so many fog nozzles continue to see frontline use is that those people making the key decisions of today came up during those years that we used smaller 1.5" lines with fogs flowing less than 100 gpm (thought we had more!) and literally pushed the fire from the unburned to the burned side and out windows and doors. At the same time we were shown how the fog nozzle could be opened to keep cool air coming in from behind to reduce the heat we felt, and to help push the heat, fire and smoke away from us. Houses we not nearly as tight so the effects of fog and steam were not felt as soon as in today's ultra energy efficient homes/buildings. So of our older guys started just as SCBA were coming out and went from no SCBA, thin bunkers and boots, rubber gloves and armed with smoothbore to fully dressed out in bunker gear, with an SCBA and a fog nozzle and were able to get all the way to the seat of the fire that they would have previously knocked down from the hall. They were sold that this was the only way to go. Today we can readily see and scientifically show the effects of energy efficient structures, fire and how a fog pattern vs. smoothbore changes the environment for us and any would be victims.
Just because smoothbores were around before fog, doesn't mean they weren't the best choice all along. One must really separate the BS reasons from the real ones to have valid debate. To me it comes down to the size of the droplets. Andy Fredricks was showing us this in terms everyone could understand before he was taken along with 342 more of our Brothers.

Simplicity and efficiency. We all know we run more BS and less fire then the guys of the elder years did way before my time, and a lot of places do no have the training capabilities to consistently train on automatic and combination nozzles. Most departments do not cross train either, so when you have department x, coming to department y, who has never used a combo nozzle before, you're asking for someone to get hurt.
In my opinion, the smooth bore is the perfect nozzle for initial, interior structural attack purpose. There are no rotating bumpers to worry about smacking around and turning to a fog pattern; there are no GPM selectors that can get rotated to flush greatly reducing your GPM's, there are no fingers in a rotating fan that can get jammed up with a pebble the size of a rats n*ts that will ruin your day, there is just a simple bale for open and close, and enough room to expell any crap that makes it through the pump to the nozzle.
Fog nozzles are great for exposure protection, overhaul and Christmas tree fires at the training center. Leave them on the rig until they are needed, and apply them as such.
Again, this is just my opinion. unfortunately, its not the opinion of my department. Depending on the engine in my department, there are a few 1.75" with smooth bores, and all 2.5" lines have smooth bores. Like I've said before, leave the combo/auto nozzle in the chauffeurs compartment for when it is needed, and leave the handlines with a smooth bore preconnected.

I guess to save any confusion I'll say I favor smoothbores for most fire attack applications, while knowing the fog is a better choice in a few circumstances. But, to fair, we must address some of the issues that cause us to "misspeak" about either type of nozzle tip. In many recent test from around the country, in head to head comparison the fog either equals the SB or exceeds it in reach. Now this doesn't include loss of actual water due to heat or wind, but just straight up, matching gpm for gpm, they are fairly well matched. Again, in a typical non commercial structure fire the reach differences will not be a factor.
EFFDCAPT: I can only surmise the reason so many fog nozzles continue to see frontline use is that those people making the key decisions of today came up during those years that we used smaller 1.5" lines with fogs flowing less than 100 gpm (thought we had more!) and literally pushed the fire from the unburned to the burned side and out windows and doors. At the same time we were shown how the fog nozzle could be opened to keep cool air coming in from behind to reduce the heat we felt, and to help push the heat, fire and smoke away from us. Houses we not nearly as tight so the effects of fog and steam were not felt as soon as in today's ultra energy efficient homes/buildings. So of our older guys started just as SCBA were coming out and went from no SCBA, thin bunkers and boots, rubber gloves and armed with smoothbore to fully dressed out in bunker gear, with an SCBA and a fog nozzle and were able to get all the way to the seat of the fire that they would have previously knocked down from the hall. They were sold that this was the only way to go. Today we can readily see and scientifically show the effects of energy efficient structures, fire and how a fog pattern vs. smoothbore changes the environment for us and any would be victims.
Just because smoothbores were around before fog, doesn't mean they weren't the best choice all along. One must really separate the BS reasons from the real ones to have valid debate. To me it comes down to the size of the droplets. Andy Fredricks was showing us this in terms everyone could understand before he was taken along with 342 more of our Brothers.

OK, I'd like to hear how this is done, short of applying an indirect attack. I think we've all, or most, come to the realization that gpm puts out the fire, not psi. In most interior work the difference in streams is low on the list of which actually puts out more fire, while in fact the firefighter controlling the nozzle will have far more to do with it. Ever seen American Pie? Some firefighters are like the kid and the exchange student, over before they start, while others could star in a movie for more mature audiences. OK, I'll bite here. For the sake of discussion let's hear how the fog pattern protects you from heat?
I'd add that many new fog nozzles have the capability of being preset from the factory with lower nozzle pressures for their intended flows. For instance, you can buy a 175 gpm @50 psi fog nozzle now, countering at least a few of the arguments smoothbore fans have touted for years.

Our department has used smoothbores for all master streams for quite a while. The basic reason is that when we go to the large streams we anticipate a heavy volume of fire with significant heat and a need for the nozzle to be typically further away from the seat. Fog streams, even in the most compact straight settings, contain far more surface area for the heat to convert the water to steam carrying it up and away. By using the solid stream we try and maximize the amount of water that leaves the nozzle also hits the fire. Larger drops evaporate slower and are less affected by thermal columns and wind. We also carry fog tips for all master streams for vapor cloud mitigation and for suppressing fire brands, though I've yet to see the latter done in last 16 years.

After having spent 21 years as a career firefighter, 17 years as a volunteer firefighter (8 of those years in chief's ranks) and several years in fire equipment sales I would have to say that it's due to misinformation (both from fire service personnel who never did real life field testing of smooth-bore vs. fog nozzles as well as from salesmen with no firefighting background), stubborn chief's who refuse to admit that they may be wrong and the fact that many in today's fire service don't seem to understand that in order to control a heavy volume of fire we must overwhelm it with a large volume of water that will penetrate to the seat of the fire. As was pointed out by antiquefirelt, if you view a photo of a stream from a stacked tip equipped master stream operating side by side with a fog tip equipped master stream both being directed into a heavy volume of fire you will notice that the stacked tip stream is penetrating the fire while the straight stream from the fog tip appears to be making a 90 degree turn away from the fire.

What Rod Fraser has tried to do to this department is contemptable. He only says what Mayor Menino tells him to & he talks out of both sides of his mouth. For example:
1. In the article he states, “We want someone who can stand up for the betterment of the department against the union,’’ Fraser said in a phone interview Friday. “It’s difficult for someone who’s been in the union for 30-plus years to take themselves out of that.’’ HOWEVER a couple of paragraphs later he says, "The dozens of deputy chiefs and district chiefs within Boston Fire will not be excluded from consideration, Fraser affirmed. He said he has sent letters to them inviting them to apply. So far, only one has, he said.
OF COURSE ONLY ONE HAS! YOU'VE ALREADY TOLD THEM THAT THE "FIX IS IN"! THAT FOR ALL INTENTS & PURPOSES, THEY HAVE ZERO CHANCE! WHY WOULD ANY OF OUR DEPUTIES APPLY?!?
2. Taken from above, “It’s difficult for someone who’s been in the union for 30-plus years to take themselves out of that.’’
If that truly IS the case, why did you go before the CIty Council & attempt to keep Chief of Department Ronald Keating, a member of IAFF Local 718 for THIRTY-NINE years (1970-2009) for FIVE YEARS past the MANDATORY retirement age of 65? And when that failed, instead of acknowledging that the reason Local 718 opposed the measure is because it would set a precident that could be used again down the road to circumvent the MANDATORY retirement age, blather that the reason we opposed it was because, "Keating is a thorn in the side of the union - a rare example of a Boston firefighter who climbed the uniformed ranks only to break with the department’s insular culture and embrace his role as a no-nonsense, non-union manager." (Larry Harmon, Boston Globe 08/06/11)
Again from the Harmon article, "In an April letter, Menino asked the city council to raise Keating’s retirement age to 70. “It is vital that the department be allowed to retain an experienced manager and operational specialist in order to preserve its morale and effectiveness,’’ wrote the mayor, who further described the department as at a “critical crossroads.’’"
Chief Keating was 63 years old at the time of his appointment in 2009. The fact that he would be forced to retire in October 2011 when he turned 65 should have come as no shock to anybody. Harmon writes, "But given Keating’s capabilities, it makes plenty of sense to keep him in place for another six months or a year. That would allow Fraser to mount a thorough search for a replacement, preferably a candidate from outside the department." What has Mr. Fraser been DOING for the past TWO years?! Commissioner Fraser and Mayor Menino KNEW that Chief Keating HAD to retire in October 2011. Why did they not start the search sooner & have a replacement in place? If he hasn't managed to find a suitable candidate in the past two years, why should we believe that he would be able to with six additional months to do so?
I'll get off my soapbox now, I KNOW that the Globe is a rag not suitable for wrapping fish in, yet somehow I STILL manage to get annoyed by their biased reporting.

I was going to post this here when I read it yesterday..but didint..
This guy has been CHIEF for 10 years already and he JUST FOUND OUT about liability????????????
Please.

Interesting, I think I remember the CAFS article from Fire Chief. Of course like any article targeting a specific group, it fails to address some of the concerns with wholesale changes to CAFS. 1. Expense: Maybe the "powers that be" might need to know the increase cost in outfitting each engine with CAFS, training personnel, and maintaining the stock of foam. Water is plentiful and cheap in comparison in a significant portion of where the US population lives.
2. Manpower reductions is cited as a reason the FS may not be embracing CAFS. This may be true in part as some FD's and Chief's fail to properly articulate the true manpower needs of any fireground. Our tasks do not change with CAFS. At best the time to complete the confinement, extinguishment and overhaul is reduced, but forcible entry, rescue, search, ventilation, RIT and everything else still remain relatively unchanged as far as manpower needs. Not to mention that just because the hoseline is lighter, does not mean it takes less personnel to make an effective stretch. Stretching to eh front door is the easy part, it's the constant fighting of corners, stairs and obstacles that require firefighters to keep the line advancing. No amount of magic bubbles is going to change how may of us it takes to get the nozzle to an effective position to apply any suppression agent.
3. The technology may not be "there yet". We still hear far too many issues with CAFS systems being finicky, problematic, overly electronic reliant, and far more complex than a typical pump with or without a straight foam system. A "one button" system is great when it all works well, but it's because there's some electronic control device that's doing 15 other things for you, if you don['t know how to override them or make them work you destined for a mishap. Sure some large FD's are using CAFS successfully, but for all of them, there's many other who aren't. I'm sure there's plenty who think they're doing great but are not, just as we see with the rest of the water extinguishment FD's.
Hopefully ICMA will allow a rebuttal or at least an article written that describes some of the realities of CAFS, given they're currently just reading what they want to hear, less cost.

Interesting, I think I remember the CAFS article from Fire Chief. Of course like any article targeting a specific group, it fails to address some of the concerns with wholesale changes to CAFS. 1. Expense: Maybe the "powers that be" might need to know the increase cost in outfitting each engine with CAFS, training personnel, and maintaining the stock of foam. Water is plentiful and cheap in comparison in a significant portion of where the US population lives.
2. Manpower reductions is cited as a reason the FS may not be embracing CAFS. This may be true in part as some FD's and Chief's fail to properly articulate the true manpower needs of any fireground. Our tasks do not change with CAFS. At best the time to complete the confinement, extinguishment and overhaul is reduced, but forcible entry, rescue, search, ventilation, RIT and everything else still remain relatively unchanged as far as manpower needs. Not to mention that just because the hoseline is lighter, does not mean it takes less personnel to make an effective stretch. Stretching to eh front door is the easy part, it's the constant fighting of corners, stairs and obstacles that require firefighters to keep the line advancing. No amount of magic bubbles is going to change how may of us it takes to get the nozzle to an effective position to apply any suppression agent.
3. The technology may not be "there yet". We still hear far too many issues with CAFS systems being finicky, problematic, overly electronic reliant, and far more complex than a typical pump with or without a straight foam system. A "one button" system is great when it all works well, but it's because there's some electronic control device that's doing 15 other things for you, if you don['t know how to override them or make them work you destined for a mishap. Sure some large FD's are using CAFS successfully, but for all of them, there's many other who aren't. I'm sure there's plenty who think they're doing great but are not, just as we see with the rest of the water extinguishment FD's.
Hopefully ICMA will allow a rebuttal or at least an article written that describes some of the realities of CAFS, given they're currently just reading what they want to hear, less cost.

While I'd say some of the views here are interesting and the writers are entitled to their opinions, I don't believe the fire department or any branch of public safety for that fact is just there to keep people employed.. While I think foam and sprinklers are good things I hardly think all the foam or sprinklers in the world are gonna stop every fire from happening. SMH
Take a read at the sprinkler and foam articles in the current edition. BTW - This is what your mayors and probably some Governors are reading and people wonder why things are so screwed up -
http://webapps.icma.org/pm/9307/
Stay safe out there Guys (and ladies)
Joe

...on a side note...has anyone seen the recruitment ads or online video? Fairly...uh, biased, no? Just an FYI; i went through proby school with a couple of people from the recruitment poster and they resigned under threat of termination and had to come back for the next academy class and repeat the entire program before getting through. Maybe if these folks put more effort into being good firefighters and less effort into being part of a one sided, loud mouthed, racist group they'd have less trouble actually performing the tasks demanded of them.
You can't erase lines with a highlighter.....

I think one thing often overlooked by some when arguing over how many firefighters it takes to make a stretch is that after the hose makes two 90 degree corners, regardless of the weight, it's most often anchored tight there. It takes having enough personnel spread out properly on the line to facilitate an efficient stretch. While CAFS may reduce the weight of the line and even allow some places to stretch an 1.75" (more effective use of water?) when many of us would take the big line, the number of doorways, corners and stairwells will not change, thus our manpower needs are not reduced, and should not be compromised as a result of using a more efficient suppression agent.

Again, we do not use CAFS here, but from what I do know, the use really doesn't include filling up anything with foam. The air entrained foam allows it to cling to surfaces, suppressing vapors and insulating the surface from greater heat build-up and reduces re-radiation of heat (a large factor in building temps to flashover levels).
The reason for the reduction in water damage is that foam can act in two ways: #1 (low concentration)it can reduce the surface tension of water allowing it to absorb far more readily into whatever it touches (not waterproof) and #2 (higher concentration) it can add to the waters' surface tension allowing it to sit on top without absorbing as readily. These both can be demonstrated by adding a little foam to water and another container with a lot of foam and putting them on cardboard. The water with just a little will soak in fast and that with a lot will not absorb much at all. As I understand it, with CAFS the air helps you use less foam concentrate while still increasing the surface tension. On the other end, most of us who use Class A foam for any wildland stuff mix it at a very low concentration to get it to soak into the materials.
Certainly, a user of CAFS can better explain this than my limited knowledge or correct me.

In going with what Moggie posted above, our FD looked into CAFS for our last engine purchase. In researching CAFS I had the opportunity to speak with the Capt. in charge of the fleet for a very large career FD that uses CAFS. His advice was actually pretty instrumental in our not getting CAFS. His feeling was that they had great success with CAFS, but that a FD must really have complete buy-in, so that all shifts would use the CAFS vs. some picking an choosing. Basically new tools, tactics and equipment is only as good as the users, and when a large obstacle such as the one Montgomery Co. has, comes into play, you suddenly have significant operational issues.
I'm convinced that if you cannot mandate the training, standardization of tactics and employment of said equipment, you'll not find success with this or likely any tool/tactic that imposes a significant change.

What a standup guy. In contrast to cowardly chiefs like LAFD's, who tell the media that "no compromise in safety" as they close 20 companies.