2 LSO's: One Engine, One Hydrant-Gambling?

[x635 4,066]

If you're operating at a working fire, and have two lines stretched and operating (LSO) from one engine, at one hydrant, are you gambling?

Is having two engines, connected to two different water sources, with one line each a better route to go? In case of failure with one engine, hydrant or anything inbetween, you have that other engine immediately as a backup.

[antiquefirelt 994]

If you're operating at a working fire, and have two lines stretched and operating (LSO) from one engine, at one hydrant, are you gambling?

Is having two engines, connected to two different water sources, with one line each a better route to go? In case of failure with one engine, hydrant or anything inbetween, you have that other engine immediately as a backup.

I think it would be hard to argue against the two supplies two lines op with regard to safety. That being said, far less of us have the ability to pull this off with any efficiency. I know in our case, hydrants are not evenly spaced so one water supply often takes two Co. to be adequate coupled with staffing issues, this is a gamble we routinely take.

[EFFDCO4 0]

If you're operating at a working fire, and have two lines stretched and operating (LSO) from one engine, at one hydrant, are you gambling?

Is having two engines, connected to two different water sources, with one line each a better route to go? In case of failure with one engine, hydrant or anything inbetween, you have that other engine immediately as a backup.

That would all depend on the distance between the hydrants. Bear in mind that a different water source really needs to be on a different main. If you just tap into the next available hydrant you will reduce the available water at the original engine's hydrant or will risk losing water altogether if something were to happen to the water main itself. If you know the water system and have preplans that tell you which hydrants are on which mains then I would agree to pull water in from both sources - if you have enough supply line to reach. That is the ideal scenario - which probably wouldn’t be acted on until enough support arrives.

The same thing goes for draft sites (if you are from an area with little or no hydrants - like us). Be conscious of small streams that connect to each other and avoid double dipping, especially if you have a large scale incident. In our department earlier in the year we had an enormous fire at a local farm that required a well coordinated water shuttle operation from different sources feeding into 6 porta tanks. It is not an easy system to set up but once water begins to arrive, the pieces do fall into place. If one source happens to dry up, you always have the secondary - which is better than nothing at all. Same for hydrants I guess.

[antiquefirelt 994]

That would all depend on the distance between the hydrants. Bear in mind that a different water source really needs to be on a different main. If you just tap into the next available hydrant you will reduce the available water at the original engine's hydrant or will risk losing water altogether if something were to happen to the water main itself.

This accounts for the municipal water system, but we also add many potential problems. If your engine goes down, both lines will lose water. This can occur from the water system through the pump to the discharges. In this respect a second separate supply may add more parts to fail, but the redundancy guarantee that something will still be working. Again, in our case the better scenario is a rarity due to staffing and spacing.

[Remember585 815]

The NFPA appears to be more specific about your water supplies for training then actual firefighting. My guess is because they know how difficult it is to find two seperate sources at an actual fire. NFPA 1403, which is the standard for live fire training evolutions, is more specific about water supply then the NFPA 1142 "Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Firefighting" standard is. The 1403 clearly states that a secondary source for backup lines must be established, at a rate of at least 50% of the calculated flow needed for the attack. 1142, as far as I can tell, creates calculations which will tell you how much water flow is needed for your fire. Based on this, you can (should) be able to figure out if the loan source is sufficent or not.

I'm a firm believer that if you have an interior attack to make, you always pull a backup line. Some might argue that manpower might be an issue, or "the fire was small enough to knock with one line," but if I am going to be the IC, I'd rather "waste" the time to pull a backup line and not need it. If it's small enough that everyone feels one line for only a minute or two is needed, then why not use a water can or two?

It would be nice to hook up to two hydrants on two different main systems, however I don't think this is a reality for most of us. Spotting or hooking up to a second hydrant is good practice, but the odds of it being on a seperate main loop are fairly slim.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I'm a firm believer that if you have an interior attack to make, you always pull a backup line. Some might argue that manpower might be an issue, or "the fire was small enough to knock with one line," but if I am going to be the IC, I'd rather "waste" the time to pull a backup line and not need it. If it's small enough that everyone feels one line for only a minute or two is needed, then why not use a water can or two?

It's hard to argue against pulling a back up line. In our case we do, but only after we're certain the first line is properly placed in operation. All hands (Engine guys) are committed to ensuring first water before another line is pulled.

[x635 4,066]

Even if you're hooking up on the same main, I think that two lines should be stretched from two different engines. What if one engine suffers a catastrpic mechnaical or pump failure? Or a supply line gets cut off? That way, you really are stretching a BACKUP line, not just a second line....

[FFPCogs 863]

Two water supplies and lines stretched from different rigs is ideal, but in many cases not practical for a variety of reasons. As it is fire scenes have become overly congested with apparatus due to the increases for RIT/FAST and incoming mutual aid in most volunteer areas (not to mention POV responders in many of those VF districts). Then of course there is the pitfalls of operating off the same mains, thereby running the risk of reducing the effective water flow for BOTH Engines, especially with the now ubiquitous 5" supply lines.

Does the possibility exist for catastrophic pump failure? Of course it does, but I think a look at statistics will show that this occurs so infrequently that it is a negligible risk. Can supply lines be cut or damaged? Absolutely, but driver's should be trained to fill their booster tanks immediately after a water supply has been established to offset this possibility and allow for the interior crews to make an exit should this occur.

Now this attitude is not meant to be flippant or "unsafe", but we can "what if" scenarios to death and work diligently to cover all those what ifs at the expense of simply going in and putting the fire out. In many cases by the time that second supply is established and that second line is in place the fire is (or to be frank should be) long since out. As the old adage says "put the fire out and all the other problems go away" and that folks is absolutely as true today as it ever was.

Cogs

Edited August 14, 2009 by FFPCogs

[x635 4,066]

But that begs the question.....does every engine need to drop LDH on every fire?

Also, I believe Yonkers, given their water supply issues, uses 2 engines fore every fire. They also drop two 3" lines to supply one engine. They also don't clutter the scene with apparatus, with uneeded apparatus positioned out of the way.

We do have booster tanks, but that should always be a last resort method, IMHO.

I agree with the notion that putting the fire out solves every issue, but we have these engines for a reason. Not only do I feel it's a safety redundancy, I feel it gives good practice. And if two seperate engines aren't stretching lines, can one at least be on standby to hook up and stretch if needed? This also gives good practice in real time situations.

[FFPCogs 863]

I do not disagree with the principle of having 2 engines supply attack lines using different water sources at all, and all things being equal would love to see that at every incident. By the same token though in my experience that ideal is not always attainable and the job MUST still get done with what is available.

As far as LDH, well I have a hate - hate relationship wth the stuff, but it is now the way things are so..... ah well that's another topic.

Cogs