IzzyEng4

The "Rescue" eventually became sort of a "field com unit" at one point so I was told and was station at The Hill Station (Engine 11 & Truck 2 at the time). It was moved out of there just after the current Emergency 2 (medic unit) was placed into service there. Also at the same time, NHFD had a tractor trailer tanker unit at The Hill as well, that was disposed of during the late 1990s.
The 1988 Seagrave TDA (which was Truck 2 I believe) is being disposed of, Truck 4A (old Truck 4) is remaining in service as the spare. Also Truck 3's old ALF and the old rear mount Seagrave are still at the "graveyard" awaiting disposal, their aerial devices have been cut so they cannot be used.
New Truck 1, a Sutphen SHP100, has been delivered which will replace the current Truck 1 Sutphen, which will be traded in or sold off. The current spare Truck 1A will remain the spare.
Engines 5, 6 & 11 I believe are the next engines to be replaced which are in the bidding process. Engine 5 will not be a quint like their current Sutphen rig, but will still be a foam unit for the tank farm. It does not sound like it will have any elevated master stream device on that rig.
As for the Emergency units, its a storied history. First off, New Haven FD members, EMS units, area dispatchers and buffs have called the present day Emergency units "E" followed by its number (Engines are Engines). The first Emergency unit was an ambulance type rig that carried specialized equipment and was operated by Engine 12 out of the old Crown Street station (now a restaurant / bar). It continued to operate as a "rescue type unit" and eventually evolved into a combined unit with Engine 12.
The next incarnation of the Emergency units were two step vans for Emergency 1 & 2 during the 1960s / 70s staffed with EMTs. By the 1980s there were 4 emergency units, E-1 (The Hill), E-2 (Ellsworth Station) & E-4 (Whitney Ave) were BLS response units and E-3 (HQ - Grand Ave) was the paramedic unit. Now all of the units were non transporting units, just first responder units though E-3 had transport capabilities if they had to and they would transport any FD member if injured. By 2000 the city disbanded the BLS units and the Engines became the BLS first responder units with E-3 remaining a medic unit remaining out of HQ. About a year or 2 later, it was realized they needed two medic units, E-3 was re-designated E-1 and moved to Woodward Ave (Engine 5) in The Annex and E-2 was re-organized as a medic unit and station at The Hill Station, both beign transport capable units. There was talk throughout the years of re-organizing E-3 and E-4 as medic units. The "E-units" and the Tactical Units were separate entities always.
The Tactical Units replaced what the original Emergency / Engine 12 unit was (and Rescue). The operated a GMC Topkick / Ranger walk in rescue body rig. Engine 7 which shared quarters at Fair Haven station with Engine 10 and Truck 3 became Tac 2 and Tac 1 was at Dixwell / Goffe if I remember correctly and was formed out of either Engine 12 or Engine 14 (14's was with Engine 8 on Whitney Avenue which also had Truck 6 until it was disbanded in the 1980s).
And so by the 1990s, Tac 2 was disbanded and Tac 1 was moved into Engine 8 on Whitney Avenue, thus becoming the extrication unit for the city along with Truck 2 (which covered 95 and the Hill area). In the late 1990s Engine 8 received the first Pierce Lance rescue engine and Tac 1 pretty much became the HazMat unit, operating as a two piece company when necessary. The Rescue pumper still retained its first due area but would go citywide for extrication and rescue calls. The last incarnation of Tac 1 (an International rescue body rig which is now the MASK air unit) was the hazmat piece.
Around 2002, Squad 1 and Squad 2 were organized out of the way Engine 8 was set up as a rescue unit with the intentions of taking over where the old Tac units left off and also adding two much needed pumpers to the department roster (went from 10 engines to technically 12 engines). Also the Squads are the only rigs in New Haven staffed with an officer and 4 firefighters, the other engines and trucks are staffed with 1 and 3. Engine 8 once again became a straight pumper, Squad 1 took over Engine 8's rescue pumper and Squad 2 was issued Engine 6's old Pierce Arrow pumper which was modified by the shops (by Tony "the Truck Magician") becoming what was lovingly called the "Franken-Squad". Squad 1 remained at Engine 8 and took over the Hazmat rig and Squad 2 was placed into service at with Engine 9. Squad 1 received a new Pierce Lance rescue pumpers (one of the last Lance cab and chassis) around 2005 and Squad 2 got old Squad 1. About 2 or 3 years ago Squad 2 finally got its own new piece, exactly the same body as Squad 1's rig but on a Pierce Arrow XT cab and chassis, the original Pierce Lance rescue pumper is now the spare squad.
Also Alex, you should know who I mean by "Smiling CTMike". He has a lot of pictures of the New Haven rigs. Also Joe C. from EHFD has a lot of those pictures too. Al;so going to http://www.box22.org/ there are a lot of old pics of NHFD rigs through the years (even pictures of old Engine 1 and Engine 2). The only number not used by and engine in NH was "13".
Hopefully I got all the above right, I'm only going off memory and not through my books.

The "Rescue" eventually became sort of a "field com unit" at one point so I was told and was station at The Hill Station (Engine 11 & Truck 2 at the time). It was moved out of there just after the current Emergency 2 (medic unit) was placed into service there. Also at the same time, NHFD had a tractor trailer tanker unit at The Hill as well, that was disposed of during the late 1990s.
The 1988 Seagrave TDA (which was Truck 2 I believe) is being disposed of, Truck 4A (old Truck 4) is remaining in service as the spare. Also Truck 3's old ALF and the old rear mount Seagrave are still at the "graveyard" awaiting disposal, their aerial devices have been cut so they cannot be used.
New Truck 1, a Sutphen SHP100, has been delivered which will replace the current Truck 1 Sutphen, which will be traded in or sold off. The current spare Truck 1A will remain the spare.
Engines 5, 6 & 11 I believe are the next engines to be replaced which are in the bidding process. Engine 5 will not be a quint like their current Sutphen rig, but will still be a foam unit for the tank farm. It does not sound like it will have any elevated master stream device on that rig.
As for the Emergency units, its a storied history. First off, New Haven FD members, EMS units, area dispatchers and buffs have called the present day Emergency units "E" followed by its number (Engines are Engines). The first Emergency unit was an ambulance type rig that carried specialized equipment and was operated by Engine 12 out of the old Crown Street station (now a restaurant / bar). It continued to operate as a "rescue type unit" and eventually evolved into a combined unit with Engine 12.
The next incarnation of the Emergency units were two step vans for Emergency 1 & 2 during the 1960s / 70s staffed with EMTs. By the 1980s there were 4 emergency units, E-1 (The Hill), E-2 (Ellsworth Station) & E-4 (Whitney Ave) were BLS response units and E-3 (HQ - Grand Ave) was the paramedic unit. Now all of the units were non transporting units, just first responder units though E-3 had transport capabilities if they had to and they would transport any FD member if injured. By 2000 the city disbanded the BLS units and the Engines became the BLS first responder units with E-3 remaining a medic unit remaining out of HQ. About a year or 2 later, it was realized they needed two medic units, E-3 was re-designated E-1 and moved to Woodward Ave (Engine 5) in The Annex and E-2 was re-organized as a medic unit and station at The Hill Station, both beign transport capable units. There was talk throughout the years of re-organizing E-3 and E-4 as medic units. The "E-units" and the Tactical Units were separate entities always.
The Tactical Units replaced what the original Emergency / Engine 12 unit was (and Rescue). The operated a GMC Topkick / Ranger walk in rescue body rig. Engine 7 which shared quarters at Fair Haven station with Engine 10 and Truck 3 became Tac 2 and Tac 1 was at Dixwell / Goffe if I remember correctly and was formed out of either Engine 12 or Engine 14 (14's was with Engine 8 on Whitney Avenue which also had Truck 6 until it was disbanded in the 1980s).
And so by the 1990s, Tac 2 was disbanded and Tac 1 was moved into Engine 8 on Whitney Avenue, thus becoming the extrication unit for the city along with Truck 2 (which covered 95 and the Hill area). In the late 1990s Engine 8 received the first Pierce Lance rescue engine and Tac 1 pretty much became the HazMat unit, operating as a two piece company when necessary. The Rescue pumper still retained its first due area but would go citywide for extrication and rescue calls. The last incarnation of Tac 1 (an International rescue body rig which is now the MASK air unit) was the hazmat piece.
Around 2002, Squad 1 and Squad 2 were organized out of the way Engine 8 was set up as a rescue unit with the intentions of taking over where the old Tac units left off and also adding two much needed pumpers to the department roster (went from 10 engines to technically 12 engines). Also the Squads are the only rigs in New Haven staffed with an officer and 4 firefighters, the other engines and trucks are staffed with 1 and 3. Engine 8 once again became a straight pumper, Squad 1 took over Engine 8's rescue pumper and Squad 2 was issued Engine 6's old Pierce Arrow pumper which was modified by the shops (by Tony "the Truck Magician") becoming what was lovingly called the "Franken-Squad". Squad 1 remained at Engine 8 and took over the Hazmat rig and Squad 2 was placed into service at with Engine 9. Squad 1 received a new Pierce Lance rescue pumpers (one of the last Lance cab and chassis) around 2005 and Squad 2 got old Squad 1. About 2 or 3 years ago Squad 2 finally got its own new piece, exactly the same body as Squad 1's rig but on a Pierce Arrow XT cab and chassis, the original Pierce Lance rescue pumper is now the spare squad.
Also Alex, you should know who I mean by "Smiling CTMike". He has a lot of pictures of the New Haven rigs. Also Joe C. from EHFD has a lot of those pictures too. Al;so going to http://www.box22.org/ there are a lot of old pics of NHFD rigs through the years (even pictures of old Engine 1 and Engine 2). The only number not used by and engine in NH was "13".
Hopefully I got all the above right, I'm only going off memory and not through my books.

The "Rescue" eventually became sort of a "field com unit" at one point so I was told and was station at The Hill Station (Engine 11 & Truck 2 at the time). It was moved out of there just after the current Emergency 2 (medic unit) was placed into service there. Also at the same time, NHFD had a tractor trailer tanker unit at The Hill as well, that was disposed of during the late 1990s.
The 1988 Seagrave TDA (which was Truck 2 I believe) is being disposed of, Truck 4A (old Truck 4) is remaining in service as the spare. Also Truck 3's old ALF and the old rear mount Seagrave are still at the "graveyard" awaiting disposal, their aerial devices have been cut so they cannot be used.
New Truck 1, a Sutphen SHP100, has been delivered which will replace the current Truck 1 Sutphen, which will be traded in or sold off. The current spare Truck 1A will remain the spare.
Engines 5, 6 & 11 I believe are the next engines to be replaced which are in the bidding process. Engine 5 will not be a quint like their current Sutphen rig, but will still be a foam unit for the tank farm. It does not sound like it will have any elevated master stream device on that rig.
As for the Emergency units, its a storied history. First off, New Haven FD members, EMS units, area dispatchers and buffs have called the present day Emergency units "E" followed by its number (Engines are Engines). The first Emergency unit was an ambulance type rig that carried specialized equipment and was operated by Engine 12 out of the old Crown Street station (now a restaurant / bar). It continued to operate as a "rescue type unit" and eventually evolved into a combined unit with Engine 12.
The next incarnation of the Emergency units were two step vans for Emergency 1 & 2 during the 1960s / 70s staffed with EMTs. By the 1980s there were 4 emergency units, E-1 (The Hill), E-2 (Ellsworth Station) & E-4 (Whitney Ave) were BLS response units and E-3 (HQ - Grand Ave) was the paramedic unit. Now all of the units were non transporting units, just first responder units though E-3 had transport capabilities if they had to and they would transport any FD member if injured. By 2000 the city disbanded the BLS units and the Engines became the BLS first responder units with E-3 remaining a medic unit remaining out of HQ. About a year or 2 later, it was realized they needed two medic units, E-3 was re-designated E-1 and moved to Woodward Ave (Engine 5) in The Annex and E-2 was re-organized as a medic unit and station at The Hill Station, both beign transport capable units. There was talk throughout the years of re-organizing E-3 and E-4 as medic units. The "E-units" and the Tactical Units were separate entities always.
The Tactical Units replaced what the original Emergency / Engine 12 unit was (and Rescue). The operated a GMC Topkick / Ranger walk in rescue body rig. Engine 7 which shared quarters at Fair Haven station with Engine 10 and Truck 3 became Tac 2 and Tac 1 was at Dixwell / Goffe if I remember correctly and was formed out of either Engine 12 or Engine 14 (14's was with Engine 8 on Whitney Avenue which also had Truck 6 until it was disbanded in the 1980s).
And so by the 1990s, Tac 2 was disbanded and Tac 1 was moved into Engine 8 on Whitney Avenue, thus becoming the extrication unit for the city along with Truck 2 (which covered 95 and the Hill area). In the late 1990s Engine 8 received the first Pierce Lance rescue engine and Tac 1 pretty much became the HazMat unit, operating as a two piece company when necessary. The Rescue pumper still retained its first due area but would go citywide for extrication and rescue calls. The last incarnation of Tac 1 (an International rescue body rig which is now the MASK air unit) was the hazmat piece.
Around 2002, Squad 1 and Squad 2 were organized out of the way Engine 8 was set up as a rescue unit with the intentions of taking over where the old Tac units left off and also adding two much needed pumpers to the department roster (went from 10 engines to technically 12 engines). Also the Squads are the only rigs in New Haven staffed with an officer and 4 firefighters, the other engines and trucks are staffed with 1 and 3. Engine 8 once again became a straight pumper, Squad 1 took over Engine 8's rescue pumper and Squad 2 was issued Engine 6's old Pierce Arrow pumper which was modified by the shops (by Tony "the Truck Magician") becoming what was lovingly called the "Franken-Squad". Squad 1 remained at Engine 8 and took over the Hazmat rig and Squad 2 was placed into service at with Engine 9. Squad 1 received a new Pierce Lance rescue pumpers (one of the last Lance cab and chassis) around 2005 and Squad 2 got old Squad 1. About 2 or 3 years ago Squad 2 finally got its own new piece, exactly the same body as Squad 1's rig but on a Pierce Arrow XT cab and chassis, the original Pierce Lance rescue pumper is now the spare squad.
Also Alex, you should know who I mean by "Smiling CTMike". He has a lot of pictures of the New Haven rigs. Also Joe C. from EHFD has a lot of those pictures too. Al;so going to http://www.box22.org/ there are a lot of old pics of NHFD rigs through the years (even pictures of old Engine 1 and Engine 2). The only number not used by and engine in NH was "13".
Hopefully I got all the above right, I'm only going off memory and not through my books.

Alex, Engine 3 and the Rescue were two different units. Dixwell / Goffe was erected in the early 1970s I want to say to replace Engine 3's quarters on Elm And York Street (was A pizza place at one time across the street from the church and an original NHFD firehouse from 1862) and old Engine 6 / Truck 4 up on upper Dixwell. The "Rescue" was to replace the original "Emergency Unit" based out of Engine 12 on Crown Street by what I was told.

Alex, Engine 3 and the Rescue were two different units. Dixwell / Goffe was erected in the early 1970s I want to say to replace Engine 3's quarters on Elm And York Street (was A pizza place at one time across the street from the church and an original NHFD firehouse from 1862) and old Engine 6 / Truck 4 up on upper Dixwell. The "Rescue" was to replace the original "Emergency Unit" based out of Engine 12 on Crown Street by what I was told.

Alex Madison did and it was stuffed wiht equipment from MMA, Madison Hose and North Madison Fire.

Barry, I do respect you opinion and yes these can be argued in several different ways. Obviously your points and questiosn are correct from a different view point. My point is this with my suggestions as you pointed out are options. Its another oprion in the "tool bag of tricks". As you well know, you have to decide what is best for the situation. It seems the way I worded somethings are not clear with my intentions.
Would I use a booster for mass decon during a HazMat situation? Probably not, however depening on the situation where you may need to deploy a quick line to get into place for rinse down purposes if there are no proper decon "garden hoses" are in place, then I would pull the booster to fill the void until you can get the proper equipment in place. On a fireground, I would most definately utilize the line to rinse down and clean up. (Any yes, I have seen a pumper run out of usuable discharges a few times - again depends on the year, make, model and how the truck is set up.)
My car fire scenerio, again another option with using an attachment to a SG-60 or CG-15 to aid in getting into those "hard to reach" areas. If you have a 1 3/4" with the same attachments set up on that line, well then its a no brainer, you go with the bigger line for a secondary. Again depends on the scenerio when you do your size up, pulling a booster with attachment may not be the best scenerio for a secondary line.
The small propane tank, I should have been more clear. Granted you should not use it on a continue operation, a larger line should be put into place for continual operations like you described. For an intial attack to get some sort of dispiation going, it can be done but a larger line should be set in place definately. Its a stop gap measure for a short time.
And for the investigation line, we have done it for years where I originally came from, the pumpers at work do not have booster lines on them. We still would have a 1 3/4" attack line (or two depending on the extent) in place but at the same time. You can back down any line all you want but with the smaller line you do have a lot more control and manuverablity to rinse down items in the area without fighting a larger line.
As for cleaning the booster line, well its not that hard doing it. The easiest way is to wrap a wet towel loosely around the hose and let it slide through your hand as its being rolled up on the reel getting the heavier dirt off. Obviously you will have to spend more time like any other hose cleaning operations to get all of it off.
And if anyone is complaining about cleaning and packing hose regardles show many lines are out, well you shouldn't be a firefighter, its your job. The booster line or any reel line is the quickest one to put away.
But also think of this about a booster line compared to the old PW can. 2 1/2" gallons of water from a PW can help keep a room and content fire in check when properly utilized, can't the same be applied in certain situations for a booster line? Think about it.

A 3/4" or 1" booster line is still a viable hose line on a pumper. The problem is it is not used properly now a days. Back in the day yes it was utlizied as an initial attack line, a hold over from the days of using chemical tanks for small fires for a quick knockdown. As years progressed, booster lines had either a smooth bore, Navy (SG-60) or Coast guard (CG-15) attached to them, then later adjustibles and even FMC hiogh-pressure nozzles (if you had a three-stage pump on your rig). As fire loads became greater, the booster line isn't usefull as an main fire attack line because you can't get the proper GPM to defeat the BTUs genreated at strucutre / room-and-content fires.
A booster line, though you don't get a lot of gpm out of it due to the size of the hose, it is still good for a lot of applications if used properly;
1 - Nussiance fires
2 - Brush fires
3 - Small trash can fires
4 - Chimney Fires (attach that good old under used chimney nozzle to it and send it down the pipe)
5 - Use as a secondary line for a car / truck / container fire by attaching a SG or CG nozzle using either a piercing attachment or a "pinapple wand" to get into those hard to reach areas (before a hood or an opening can be created). Again, doesn't take the place of the main attack lines, it an added resource.
6 - For drafting operations, the return recycle line to keep water moving back into a porta-tank so you don't waste a discharge and don't loose your prime
7 - DECON and REHAB for your firefighters, nothing like having a small line to cool you off on a hot day or to wash down your dirty gear. Again, freeing up another larger line or main discharge.
8 - small propane tank leakes - less than 20 lbs tanks (adjust the nozzle to a good fog patter and disipate that LPG)
9 - Use as an invesitgation line - The FM is trying to find the cause of a fire, got a few very small hot-spots or needs to wash down a small are without having the great pressure from a 1 3/4" line, the booster is your line. GRANTED it should not be the only line present, you should still have a main attack line present just in case! You have the poewer of both.
Those are just a few as there are many more uses still.
I rather pull a booster line for a nussince fire rather than having to pull 50 feet of pre-connect in a crossy lay or front bumper line for a little fire at 3 am.
Also too, a lot of fire comapnies are utilizing the "hose reel" concept with 1 3/4" lines as well. The Mortlake Fire Comapny in Brooklyn, CT has a pumper with two pre-charged attack lines on reels. Granted this is a differnet concept and can be disccused in a different thread, hose reels are still viable.
Mortlake FC's website: http://mortlakefire.com/mainsite/index.htm
Booster lines are still viable, its just departments get it in their head that it is old technology and no room for it any more. I say hogwash! You may not be able to use it as a main attack line for larger fires, but in the end, its a quick line thaty should be utilized if you have it. Just like the debate of fog nozzels vs. smooth bores, the booster line has it place in the fire service.

A 3/4" or 1" booster line is still a viable hose line on a pumper. The problem is it is not used properly now a days. Back in the day yes it was utlizied as an initial attack line, a hold over from the days of using chemical tanks for small fires for a quick knockdown. As years progressed, booster lines had either a smooth bore, Navy (SG-60) or Coast guard (CG-15) attached to them, then later adjustibles and even FMC hiogh-pressure nozzles (if you had a three-stage pump on your rig). As fire loads became greater, the booster line isn't usefull as an main fire attack line because you can't get the proper GPM to defeat the BTUs genreated at strucutre / room-and-content fires.
A booster line, though you don't get a lot of gpm out of it due to the size of the hose, it is still good for a lot of applications if used properly;
1 - Nussiance fires
2 - Brush fires
3 - Small trash can fires
4 - Chimney Fires (attach that good old under used chimney nozzle to it and send it down the pipe)
5 - Use as a secondary line for a car / truck / container fire by attaching a SG or CG nozzle using either a piercing attachment or a "pinapple wand" to get into those hard to reach areas (before a hood or an opening can be created). Again, doesn't take the place of the main attack lines, it an added resource.
6 - For drafting operations, the return recycle line to keep water moving back into a porta-tank so you don't waste a discharge and don't loose your prime
7 - DECON and REHAB for your firefighters, nothing like having a small line to cool you off on a hot day or to wash down your dirty gear. Again, freeing up another larger line or main discharge.
8 - small propane tank leakes - less than 20 lbs tanks (adjust the nozzle to a good fog patter and disipate that LPG)
9 - Use as an invesitgation line - The FM is trying to find the cause of a fire, got a few very small hot-spots or needs to wash down a small are without having the great pressure from a 1 3/4" line, the booster is your line. GRANTED it should not be the only line present, you should still have a main attack line present just in case! You have the poewer of both.
Those are just a few as there are many more uses still.
I rather pull a booster line for a nussince fire rather than having to pull 50 feet of pre-connect in a crossy lay or front bumper line for a little fire at 3 am.
Also too, a lot of fire comapnies are utilizing the "hose reel" concept with 1 3/4" lines as well. The Mortlake Fire Comapny in Brooklyn, CT has a pumper with two pre-charged attack lines on reels. Granted this is a differnet concept and can be disccused in a different thread, hose reels are still viable.
Mortlake FC's website: http://mortlakefire.com/mainsite/index.htm
Booster lines are still viable, its just departments get it in their head that it is old technology and no room for it any more. I say hogwash! You may not be able to use it as a main attack line for larger fires, but in the end, its a quick line thaty should be utilized if you have it. Just like the debate of fog nozzels vs. smooth bores, the booster line has it place in the fire service.

A 3/4" or 1" booster line is still a viable hose line on a pumper. The problem is it is not used properly now a days. Back in the day yes it was utlizied as an initial attack line, a hold over from the days of using chemical tanks for small fires for a quick knockdown. As years progressed, booster lines had either a smooth bore, Navy (SG-60) or Coast guard (CG-15) attached to them, then later adjustibles and even FMC hiogh-pressure nozzles (if you had a three-stage pump on your rig). As fire loads became greater, the booster line isn't usefull as an main fire attack line because you can't get the proper GPM to defeat the BTUs genreated at strucutre / room-and-content fires.
A booster line, though you don't get a lot of gpm out of it due to the size of the hose, it is still good for a lot of applications if used properly;
1 - Nussiance fires
2 - Brush fires
3 - Small trash can fires
4 - Chimney Fires (attach that good old under used chimney nozzle to it and send it down the pipe)
5 - Use as a secondary line for a car / truck / container fire by attaching a SG or CG nozzle using either a piercing attachment or a "pinapple wand" to get into those hard to reach areas (before a hood or an opening can be created). Again, doesn't take the place of the main attack lines, it an added resource.
6 - For drafting operations, the return recycle line to keep water moving back into a porta-tank so you don't waste a discharge and don't loose your prime
7 - DECON and REHAB for your firefighters, nothing like having a small line to cool you off on a hot day or to wash down your dirty gear. Again, freeing up another larger line or main discharge.
8 - small propane tank leakes - less than 20 lbs tanks (adjust the nozzle to a good fog patter and disipate that LPG)
9 - Use as an invesitgation line - The FM is trying to find the cause of a fire, got a few very small hot-spots or needs to wash down a small are without having the great pressure from a 1 3/4" line, the booster is your line. GRANTED it should not be the only line present, you should still have a main attack line present just in case! You have the poewer of both.
Those are just a few as there are many more uses still.
I rather pull a booster line for a nussince fire rather than having to pull 50 feet of pre-connect in a crossy lay or front bumper line for a little fire at 3 am.
Also too, a lot of fire comapnies are utilizing the "hose reel" concept with 1 3/4" lines as well. The Mortlake Fire Comapny in Brooklyn, CT has a pumper with two pre-charged attack lines on reels. Granted this is a differnet concept and can be disccused in a different thread, hose reels are still viable.
Mortlake FC's website: http://mortlakefire.com/mainsite/index.htm
Booster lines are still viable, its just departments get it in their head that it is old technology and no room for it any more. I say hogwash! You may not be able to use it as a main attack line for larger fires, but in the end, its a quick line thaty should be utilized if you have it. Just like the debate of fog nozzels vs. smooth bores, the booster line has it place in the fire service.

A 3/4" or 1" booster line is still a viable hose line on a pumper. The problem is it is not used properly now a days. Back in the day yes it was utlizied as an initial attack line, a hold over from the days of using chemical tanks for small fires for a quick knockdown. As years progressed, booster lines had either a smooth bore, Navy (SG-60) or Coast guard (CG-15) attached to them, then later adjustibles and even FMC hiogh-pressure nozzles (if you had a three-stage pump on your rig). As fire loads became greater, the booster line isn't usefull as an main fire attack line because you can't get the proper GPM to defeat the BTUs genreated at strucutre / room-and-content fires.
A booster line, though you don't get a lot of gpm out of it due to the size of the hose, it is still good for a lot of applications if used properly;
1 - Nussiance fires
2 - Brush fires
3 - Small trash can fires
4 - Chimney Fires (attach that good old under used chimney nozzle to it and send it down the pipe)
5 - Use as a secondary line for a car / truck / container fire by attaching a SG or CG nozzle using either a piercing attachment or a "pinapple wand" to get into those hard to reach areas (before a hood or an opening can be created). Again, doesn't take the place of the main attack lines, it an added resource.
6 - For drafting operations, the return recycle line to keep water moving back into a porta-tank so you don't waste a discharge and don't loose your prime
7 - DECON and REHAB for your firefighters, nothing like having a small line to cool you off on a hot day or to wash down your dirty gear. Again, freeing up another larger line or main discharge.
8 - small propane tank leakes - less than 20 lbs tanks (adjust the nozzle to a good fog patter and disipate that LPG)
9 - Use as an invesitgation line - The FM is trying to find the cause of a fire, got a few very small hot-spots or needs to wash down a small are without having the great pressure from a 1 3/4" line, the booster is your line. GRANTED it should not be the only line present, you should still have a main attack line present just in case! You have the poewer of both.
Those are just a few as there are many more uses still.
I rather pull a booster line for a nussince fire rather than having to pull 50 feet of pre-connect in a crossy lay or front bumper line for a little fire at 3 am.
Also too, a lot of fire comapnies are utilizing the "hose reel" concept with 1 3/4" lines as well. The Mortlake Fire Comapny in Brooklyn, CT has a pumper with two pre-charged attack lines on reels. Granted this is a differnet concept and can be disccused in a different thread, hose reels are still viable.
Mortlake FC's website: http://mortlakefire.com/mainsite/index.htm
Booster lines are still viable, its just departments get it in their head that it is old technology and no room for it any more. I say hogwash! You may not be able to use it as a main attack line for larger fires, but in the end, its a quick line thaty should be utilized if you have it. Just like the debate of fog nozzels vs. smooth bores, the booster line has it place in the fire service.

A 3/4" or 1" booster line is still a viable hose line on a pumper. The problem is it is not used properly now a days. Back in the day yes it was utlizied as an initial attack line, a hold over from the days of using chemical tanks for small fires for a quick knockdown. As years progressed, booster lines had either a smooth bore, Navy (SG-60) or Coast guard (CG-15) attached to them, then later adjustibles and even FMC hiogh-pressure nozzles (if you had a three-stage pump on your rig). As fire loads became greater, the booster line isn't usefull as an main fire attack line because you can't get the proper GPM to defeat the BTUs genreated at strucutre / room-and-content fires.
A booster line, though you don't get a lot of gpm out of it due to the size of the hose, it is still good for a lot of applications if used properly;
1 - Nussiance fires
2 - Brush fires
3 - Small trash can fires
4 - Chimney Fires (attach that good old under used chimney nozzle to it and send it down the pipe)
5 - Use as a secondary line for a car / truck / container fire by attaching a SG or CG nozzle using either a piercing attachment or a "pinapple wand" to get into those hard to reach areas (before a hood or an opening can be created). Again, doesn't take the place of the main attack lines, it an added resource.
6 - For drafting operations, the return recycle line to keep water moving back into a porta-tank so you don't waste a discharge and don't loose your prime
7 - DECON and REHAB for your firefighters, nothing like having a small line to cool you off on a hot day or to wash down your dirty gear. Again, freeing up another larger line or main discharge.
8 - small propane tank leakes - less than 20 lbs tanks (adjust the nozzle to a good fog patter and disipate that LPG)
9 - Use as an invesitgation line - The FM is trying to find the cause of a fire, got a few very small hot-spots or needs to wash down a small are without having the great pressure from a 1 3/4" line, the booster is your line. GRANTED it should not be the only line present, you should still have a main attack line present just in case! You have the poewer of both.
Those are just a few as there are many more uses still.
I rather pull a booster line for a nussince fire rather than having to pull 50 feet of pre-connect in a crossy lay or front bumper line for a little fire at 3 am.
Also too, a lot of fire comapnies are utilizing the "hose reel" concept with 1 3/4" lines as well. The Mortlake Fire Comapny in Brooklyn, CT has a pumper with two pre-charged attack lines on reels. Granted this is a differnet concept and can be disccused in a different thread, hose reels are still viable.
Mortlake FC's website: http://mortlakefire.com/mainsite/index.htm
Booster lines are still viable, its just departments get it in their head that it is old technology and no room for it any more. I say hogwash! You may not be able to use it as a main attack line for larger fires, but in the end, its a quick line thaty should be utilized if you have it. Just like the debate of fog nozzels vs. smooth bores, the booster line has it place in the fire service.

A 3/4" or 1" booster line is still a viable hose line on a pumper. The problem is it is not used properly now a days. Back in the day yes it was utlizied as an initial attack line, a hold over from the days of using chemical tanks for small fires for a quick knockdown. As years progressed, booster lines had either a smooth bore, Navy (SG-60) or Coast guard (CG-15) attached to them, then later adjustibles and even FMC hiogh-pressure nozzles (if you had a three-stage pump on your rig). As fire loads became greater, the booster line isn't usefull as an main fire attack line because you can't get the proper GPM to defeat the BTUs genreated at strucutre / room-and-content fires.
A booster line, though you don't get a lot of gpm out of it due to the size of the hose, it is still good for a lot of applications if used properly;
1 - Nussiance fires
2 - Brush fires
3 - Small trash can fires
4 - Chimney Fires (attach that good old under used chimney nozzle to it and send it down the pipe)
5 - Use as a secondary line for a car / truck / container fire by attaching a SG or CG nozzle using either a piercing attachment or a "pinapple wand" to get into those hard to reach areas (before a hood or an opening can be created). Again, doesn't take the place of the main attack lines, it an added resource.
6 - For drafting operations, the return recycle line to keep water moving back into a porta-tank so you don't waste a discharge and don't loose your prime
7 - DECON and REHAB for your firefighters, nothing like having a small line to cool you off on a hot day or to wash down your dirty gear. Again, freeing up another larger line or main discharge.
8 - small propane tank leakes - less than 20 lbs tanks (adjust the nozzle to a good fog patter and disipate that LPG)
9 - Use as an invesitgation line - The FM is trying to find the cause of a fire, got a few very small hot-spots or needs to wash down a small are without having the great pressure from a 1 3/4" line, the booster is your line. GRANTED it should not be the only line present, you should still have a main attack line present just in case! You have the poewer of both.
Those are just a few as there are many more uses still.
I rather pull a booster line for a nussince fire rather than having to pull 50 feet of pre-connect in a crossy lay or front bumper line for a little fire at 3 am.
Also too, a lot of fire comapnies are utilizing the "hose reel" concept with 1 3/4" lines as well. The Mortlake Fire Comapny in Brooklyn, CT has a pumper with two pre-charged attack lines on reels. Granted this is a differnet concept and can be disccused in a different thread, hose reels are still viable.
Mortlake FC's website: http://mortlakefire.com/mainsite/index.htm
Booster lines are still viable, its just departments get it in their head that it is old technology and no room for it any more. I say hogwash! You may not be able to use it as a main attack line for larger fires, but in the end, its a quick line thaty should be utilized if you have it. Just like the debate of fog nozzels vs. smooth bores, the booster line has it place in the fire service.

A 3/4" or 1" booster line is still a viable hose line on a pumper. The problem is it is not used properly now a days. Back in the day yes it was utlizied as an initial attack line, a hold over from the days of using chemical tanks for small fires for a quick knockdown. As years progressed, booster lines had either a smooth bore, Navy (SG-60) or Coast guard (CG-15) attached to them, then later adjustibles and even FMC hiogh-pressure nozzles (if you had a three-stage pump on your rig). As fire loads became greater, the booster line isn't usefull as an main fire attack line because you can't get the proper GPM to defeat the BTUs genreated at strucutre / room-and-content fires.
A booster line, though you don't get a lot of gpm out of it due to the size of the hose, it is still good for a lot of applications if used properly;
1 - Nussiance fires
2 - Brush fires
3 - Small trash can fires
4 - Chimney Fires (attach that good old under used chimney nozzle to it and send it down the pipe)
5 - Use as a secondary line for a car / truck / container fire by attaching a SG or CG nozzle using either a piercing attachment or a "pinapple wand" to get into those hard to reach areas (before a hood or an opening can be created). Again, doesn't take the place of the main attack lines, it an added resource.
6 - For drafting operations, the return recycle line to keep water moving back into a porta-tank so you don't waste a discharge and don't loose your prime
7 - DECON and REHAB for your firefighters, nothing like having a small line to cool you off on a hot day or to wash down your dirty gear. Again, freeing up another larger line or main discharge.
8 - small propane tank leakes - less than 20 lbs tanks (adjust the nozzle to a good fog patter and disipate that LPG)
9 - Use as an invesitgation line - The FM is trying to find the cause of a fire, got a few very small hot-spots or needs to wash down a small are without having the great pressure from a 1 3/4" line, the booster is your line. GRANTED it should not be the only line present, you should still have a main attack line present just in case! You have the poewer of both.
Those are just a few as there are many more uses still.
I rather pull a booster line for a nussince fire rather than having to pull 50 feet of pre-connect in a crossy lay or front bumper line for a little fire at 3 am.
Also too, a lot of fire comapnies are utilizing the "hose reel" concept with 1 3/4" lines as well. The Mortlake Fire Comapny in Brooklyn, CT has a pumper with two pre-charged attack lines on reels. Granted this is a differnet concept and can be disccused in a different thread, hose reels are still viable.
Mortlake FC's website: http://mortlakefire.com/mainsite/index.htm
Booster lines are still viable, its just departments get it in their head that it is old technology and no room for it any more. I say hogwash! You may not be able to use it as a main attack line for larger fires, but in the end, its a quick line thaty should be utilized if you have it. Just like the debate of fog nozzels vs. smooth bores, the booster line has it place in the fire service.

A West Haven, CT fire company recently was "placed out of service" do to its captain being involved with a sexual assault case that received regional attention. The company was only OOS for a short period of time after a through investigation was completed by the department and the police to make sure nothing happened at the firehouse.
In this case, I can see then placing the unit out of service to make sure nothing else occurred but it seems the way this also was handled was very political and possible an overreaction by the government.
I agree too, it seems there is more to the story.

The Leonia FD is back open at 8 am today:
http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2013/06/officials_reinstate_leonia_fire_department_after_suspension_following_sexual_assault.html

If you run one to Foxwoods, let me know, I'll set up a tour for of the firehouse for you.

I've been reading a lot of news lately the fire departments around the country are mulling to place fines in place for excessive false alarms to businesses and residential homes. This would follow along the same line as what police departments are doing.
When I was dispatching for both fire and police, there were multiple locations that we would receive activated alarms for. It seemed for the police, if it was the third or fourth time in a month, a fine letter would be processed and sent to the owner of the building (home or business) and would continue for a certain period of time. The whole theory is to force the building's owner to get the alarm company in to fix what ever problem that is causing the alarm to activate.
Now from a fire department side, I think this would be a good idea. How many times have you gone to a false alarm repeatedly at the same location?? What is done after it? Does the Fire Marshal follow up? I don't think this should be looked at as a revenue maker but more of a "hey get your alarm fixed properly". Obviously with malicious false alarms, we can have the offender charged and / or fined by the police. But what just about repeated false activations of monitoring alarms, ect.
What do you think?

I've been reading a lot of news lately the fire departments around the country are mulling to place fines in place for excessive false alarms to businesses and residential homes. This would follow along the same line as what police departments are doing.
When I was dispatching for both fire and police, there were multiple locations that we would receive activated alarms for. It seemed for the police, if it was the third or fourth time in a month, a fine letter would be processed and sent to the owner of the building (home or business) and would continue for a certain period of time. The whole theory is to force the building's owner to get the alarm company in to fix what ever problem that is causing the alarm to activate.
Now from a fire department side, I think this would be a good idea. How many times have you gone to a false alarm repeatedly at the same location?? What is done after it? Does the Fire Marshal follow up? I don't think this should be looked at as a revenue maker but more of a "hey get your alarm fixed properly". Obviously with malicious false alarms, we can have the offender charged and / or fined by the police. But what just about repeated false activations of monitoring alarms, ect.
What do you think?

I've been reading a lot of news lately the fire departments around the country are mulling to place fines in place for excessive false alarms to businesses and residential homes. This would follow along the same line as what police departments are doing.
When I was dispatching for both fire and police, there were multiple locations that we would receive activated alarms for. It seemed for the police, if it was the third or fourth time in a month, a fine letter would be processed and sent to the owner of the building (home or business) and would continue for a certain period of time. The whole theory is to force the building's owner to get the alarm company in to fix what ever problem that is causing the alarm to activate.
Now from a fire department side, I think this would be a good idea. How many times have you gone to a false alarm repeatedly at the same location?? What is done after it? Does the Fire Marshal follow up? I don't think this should be looked at as a revenue maker but more of a "hey get your alarm fixed properly". Obviously with malicious false alarms, we can have the offender charged and / or fined by the police. But what just about repeated false activations of monitoring alarms, ect.
What do you think?

To the Membership of EMTBravo,
There comes a time when things must change for the sake of allowing new ideas to come forth. With the recent problems with the forum, we feel that it is time that we as the admins and mods of EMTBravo move on so that the site can progress to the next level.
We have requested to be returned to the regular members list of the site and thank you for all the support you have given us as a Team trying to give you the best public safety forum on the internet. We value the friendships and contacts we have made, the discussions we have given, the different view points presented and the promotion of progress in the public safety sector.
Please feel free to contact us personally at any time and we wish all of you and the founder of EMTBravo the best on this site.
Sincerely,
Joseph Navin (IzzyEng4)
Chris Lieberman (helicopter)
Nathan Robbins (xfirefighter484x)
Jack Bakker (jack10562)
Rob Casasanta(RWC130)
Duane Kuhlow (RescueKujo)

To the Membership of EMTBravo,
There comes a time when things must change for the sake of allowing new ideas to come forth. With the recent problems with the forum, we feel that it is time that we as the admins and mods of EMTBravo move on so that the site can progress to the next level.
We have requested to be returned to the regular members list of the site and thank you for all the support you have given us as a Team trying to give you the best public safety forum on the internet. We value the friendships and contacts we have made, the discussions we have given, the different view points presented and the promotion of progress in the public safety sector.
Please feel free to contact us personally at any time and we wish all of you and the founder of EMTBravo the best on this site.
Sincerely,
Joseph Navin (IzzyEng4)
Chris Lieberman (helicopter)
Nathan Robbins (xfirefighter484x)
Jack Bakker (jack10562)
Rob Casasanta(RWC130)
Duane Kuhlow (RescueKujo)

To the Membership of EMTBravo,
There comes a time when things must change for the sake of allowing new ideas to come forth. With the recent problems with the forum, we feel that it is time that we as the admins and mods of EMTBravo move on so that the site can progress to the next level.
We have requested to be returned to the regular members list of the site and thank you for all the support you have given us as a Team trying to give you the best public safety forum on the internet. We value the friendships and contacts we have made, the discussions we have given, the different view points presented and the promotion of progress in the public safety sector.
Please feel free to contact us personally at any time and we wish all of you and the founder of EMTBravo the best on this site.
Sincerely,
Joseph Navin (IzzyEng4)
Chris Lieberman (helicopter)
Nathan Robbins (xfirefighter484x)
Jack Bakker (jack10562)
Rob Casasanta(RWC130)
Duane Kuhlow (RescueKujo)

To the Membership of EMTBravo,
There comes a time when things must change for the sake of allowing new ideas to come forth. With the recent problems with the forum, we feel that it is time that we as the admins and mods of EMTBravo move on so that the site can progress to the next level.
We have requested to be returned to the regular members list of the site and thank you for all the support you have given us as a Team trying to give you the best public safety forum on the internet. We value the friendships and contacts we have made, the discussions we have given, the different view points presented and the promotion of progress in the public safety sector.
Please feel free to contact us personally at any time and we wish all of you and the founder of EMTBravo the best on this site.
Sincerely,
Joseph Navin (IzzyEng4)
Chris Lieberman (helicopter)
Nathan Robbins (xfirefighter484x)
Jack Bakker (jack10562)
Rob Casasanta(RWC130)
Duane Kuhlow (RescueKujo)

To the Membership of EMTBravo,
There comes a time when things must change for the sake of allowing new ideas to come forth. With the recent problems with the forum, we feel that it is time that we as the admins and mods of EMTBravo move on so that the site can progress to the next level.
We have requested to be returned to the regular members list of the site and thank you for all the support you have given us as a Team trying to give you the best public safety forum on the internet. We value the friendships and contacts we have made, the discussions we have given, the different view points presented and the promotion of progress in the public safety sector.
Please feel free to contact us personally at any time and we wish all of you and the founder of EMTBravo the best on this site.
Sincerely,
Joseph Navin (IzzyEng4)
Chris Lieberman (helicopter)
Nathan Robbins (xfirefighter484x)
Jack Bakker (jack10562)
Rob Casasanta(RWC130)
Duane Kuhlow (RescueKujo)