Tankers vs. LDH Units

[x635 4,066]

I'm not very familiar with tanker or rural water supply operations. I'm just wondering how LDH units, such as Bedford, Pound Ridge, and Brewster have that carry of around 5,000 feet of 5" hose can benefit a water supply operation.

Can they use the hose to pump from a hydrant or water source, instead of using tankers? Or are they used to pump from tankers to the fire scene? Or both?

[38ff 250]

Both.

[Ladder44 73]

We do both, depending on the situation, either drop ponds and do shuttles with mutual aid tankers or lay from the scene to the water source or vise versa, on our E-1 we have 4,000' of 5" hose, we also have to 2 manifolds we drop at certain points (every 1,500 feet, or a incline ect).

[Ladder44 73]

Here is a close up of my depts (Litchfield,CT) Eng 1, 1978 Oren / Peterbilt 300 Gallon tank with a 1500 gpm pump, off the rear is a split hose bed with 2-2000' sections of 5" hose (4,000' total).

[Ladder44 73]

Here's the back step of it....

Edited April 8, 2014 by Ladder44

[somebuffyguy 190]

Just the thought of packing all that. Nope, nope, nope

[Ladder44 73]

This a couple mins to set it up and flow water but once its flowing theres no interuptions (usually) no waititng for tankers to fill, no waitiing for tankers to dump, ect. Packing the hose...ehh part of the job.

[antiquefirelt 994]

This a couple mins to set it up and flow water but once its flowing theres no interuptions (usually) no waititng for tankers to fill, no waitiing for tankers to dump, ect. Packing the hose...ehh part of the job.

Do you have a policy on how far you'll lay without breaking in another pump? And related to that: do you carry some sort of LDH "water thief" or other device for a later arriving pump to break in line?

[Ladder44 73]

Do you have a policy on how far you'll lay without breaking in another pump? And related to that: do you carry some sort of LDH "water thief" or other device for a later arriving pump to break in line?

Its a judgement call, at 1,000' half way, and 3,000' we have red lenghts so the driver knows they gotta stop and drop an inline assist valve, you can drop it earlier say for a steep incline.

[firemoose827 324]

I agree. Picking up a portable pond and putting it away or picking up thousands of feet of 5 inch hose....hmmmm....

We do a lot of tanker shuttle work, we have no water distribution system at all in my town so therefore we have no hydrants. We have about 4 dry-hydrants located in different areas of our town and other drafting sites we use with good results. We usually call for tankers fast and furious, and when we get 4 or 5 tankers rolling we can usually keep up a good fire flow, un-interrupted. We also use 5" hose sometimes if there is a pond or good size stream on the property, but when it comes time to pick it up all of the mutual aid manpower has disappeared...amazingly enough....and no one is there to help...

[Bnechis 3,961]

Tankers vs. relay, which is better? Depends on many factors.

What are your water sources (hydrants, ponds, tanks, etc.)?

What is the quality of those sources?

What are the distances?

How much water is needed upon arrival and in the 1st phase (as a relay or shuttle is established)?

ISO has a great test and depts. that have succeeded at it are rewarded with a drop in rating from a 9 down to a 4 or 5. That's a huge savings (30% * every property). The ISO test can be performed using either methods or both methods (particularly one for one section of a community and the other for another (based on water sources).

The ISO test really mirrors what fire attack in non-hydrant areas need to be.

Within 5 minutes of arrival, stretch a 200' attack line and flow a minimum of 250 gpm without interruption or loss of water. The clock starts when the attack apparatus is 200' from the water (if forward lay is used) and 200' from the fire (if a reverse lay is used). Between the 5 and the 10 minute mark the attack needs to be increased to a level that is need (based on the fire flow requirement for the buildings in the community). This increase only counts in 250gpm increments (500, 750, 1,000 gpm etc.). At the 10 minute mark the flow is documented and must be maintained for 2 hours.

So what does this mean in this debate?

If you use the hose relay method: The attack engine pulls up at the fire, stretches an attack line and using tank water (usually 1,000 gal) starts its attack. That's less than a 4 minute attack (as you can't get 100% of the tank out the nozzle). In those 3+ minutes the 2nd due and other apparatus must find a water source, hook up & or establish a draft. stretch all of the hose from the source to the attack and establish a flow to maintain the initial attack. Within a few more minutes increase the flow to allow additional attack & exposure lines to be brought into play. Additional time can be gained by using tankers to supplement until the relay is established.

Generally this method works best when their are many water sources that are easy to access and relatively close to all properties. It is generally better at mid to long term supply and particularly poor for initial attack. Room & content fires with 2 engines (1,000 gal each) & a 3,000 gal tanker allows a very substantial initial attack and in general if you can not put out a room & content fire with 5,000 gal. it is unlikely that either a relay or shuttle will be successful.

If you use the tanker shuttle method: The attack engine pulls up at the fire, stretches an attack line and using tank water (usually 1,000 gal) starts its attack. That's less than a 4 minute attack (as you can't get 100% of the tank out the nozzle). In those 3+ minutes the 2nd due and tankers must establish a drop location. The 1st tanker can either drop its load and go for more or off pump its water as the drop location is established. During this time additional tankers need to be in route and a fill station(s) needs to be established.

[Ladder44 73]

We also do tanker shuttles as well. Here's our new tanker about to be delivered in a few weeks.

http://www.spartanerv.com/delivery.aspx?id=49377

It is replacing a1985 4-Guys/Peterbilt 2500 gallon tank with a1250 GPM.

http://www.litchfieldfiredepartment.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/engine4.jpg

[x635 4,066]

Thanks everyone for the info.

I just don't understand why their are several of these "water supply" units around, and never have seemingly to dump their hosebed. Still seems like it would be a better way to supply water long term, and keep more tankers in service. Maybe I do understand, as stated above, repacking!

[mfc2257 464]

Rural water supply is one of the least understood aspects of the fire service, even among departments who have the equipment to accomplish it. Fact of the matter is that unless it's a straight lay of 5000+ feet on the same road, laying a mile of hose down multiple intersecting streets is a logistical nightmare for incoming units. Couple that with the fact that Westchester County is far from flat or straight with wildly varying hydrant pressures and volumes and successfully completing a mile plus lay of LDH, inserting relay pumpers and establishing a continuous water supply just isn't that easy. This is not an exercise that is easy to practice or drill on because finding geographically unique places to drop a mile of hose to replicate the twisty hilly roads of northern Westchester just isn't practical. Finally the art of fire-ground hydraulics is lost. Most new engineers simply crank the throttle up and ask if the guy with the hose has enough pressure. Balancing hydrant volume/pressure and supply engine intake pressure with elevation changes, friction loss, and the pressure at the attack engine (and all relay pumpers in between) is something that 99% of chauffeurs in northern Westchester aren't skilled at because the last time they had to even think about it was during their pump-ops class with Larry Bremmer at the training center.

Now I remember why I prefer truck work!!!!

[thebreeze 194]

Engine work is the lion's share of the whole job. Truck work is nothing without the engine. Firemen's helpers.

Why do truck guys cut the roof?

[mfc2257 464]

Ok

(*)

[thebreeze 194]

The answer that we were looking for, is that truck guys cut the roof so they can see real firemen working.

[mfc2257 464]

I wasn't going to take the bait but because you decided to show all of us your back side....

Every time I vent the roof it's usually because I'm trying to give my two truck company members that have been inside making a search or a save some relief while the guys on the engine are still outside trying to figure out which end of the hose the water comes out of!

[thebreeze 194]

I wasn't going to take the bait but because you decided to show all of us your back side....

Every time I vent the roof it's usually because I'm trying to give my two truck company members that have been inside making a search or a save some relief while the guys on the engine are still outside trying to figure out which end of the hose the water comes out of!

Now that you've shown me your underside;

"In the vertical ventilation study, a 4’ x 8’ ventilation opening removed an even larger amount of hot smoke and fire gases. However, without water on the fire to reduce the heat release rate and return the fire to a fuel controlled regime, the increased air supply caused more products of combustion to be released than could be removed through the opening, overpowering the ventilation openings and worsening conditions on the interior."

"Vertical ventilation is the most efficient type of natural ventilation, it not only removes a large amount of smoke, but it also introduces a large amount of air into the building (the mass of smoke and air out must equal the mass of air introduced). If uncoordinated with fire attack, the increase in oxygen will result in increased fire development and heat release. "

"

• If the fire is in a fuel controlled burning regime, effective vertical tactical ventilation will provide a lift in the smoke level and slow fire development even if fire attack is delayed. This was commonly seen in the legacy fire environment, but is unlikely in the modern fire environment due to the high heat release rate of modern fuels and fuel loads found in today’s buildings."

"

• If the fire is ventilation controlled, the effectiveness of vertical tactical ventilation on improving conditions is dependent on concurrent application of water onto the fire. Note that this requires effective fire attack, not simply a charged line at the door or being advanced into the building. Once ventilation openings are created, the clock is ticking on increased heat release rate."

I'll save more for later if necessary, but maybe its time for you to think a little more about why you do what you do, and if it is or is not the best thing to do, or if you're just putting everyone at greater risk because hey, i'm in the truck, I need to break everything I can find.

[Morningjoe 162]

Now that you've shown me your underside;

"In the vertical ventilation study, a 4’ x 8’ ventilation opening removed an even larger amount of hot smoke and fire gases. However, without water on the fire to reduce the heat release rate and return the fire to a fuel controlled regime, the increased air supply caused more products of combustion to be released than could be removed through the opening, overpowering the ventilation openings and worsening conditions on the interior."

"Vertical ventilation is the most efficient type of natural ventilation, it not only removes a large amount of smoke, but it also introduces a large amount of air into the building (the mass of smoke and air out must equal the mass of air introduced). If uncoordinated with fire attack, the increase in oxygen will result in increased fire development and heat release. "

"

• If the fire is in a fuel controlled burning regime, effective vertical tactical ventilation will provide a lift in the smoke level and slow fire development even if fire attack is delayed. This was commonly seen in the legacy fire environment, but is unlikely in the modern fire environment due to the high heat release rate of modern fuels and fuel loads found in today’s buildings."

"

• If the fire is ventilation controlled, the effectiveness of vertical tactical ventilation on improving conditions is dependent on concurrent application of water onto the fire. Note that this requires effective fire attack, not simply a charged line at the door or being advanced into the building. Once ventilation openings are created, the clock is ticking on increased heat release rate."

I'll save more for later if necessary, but maybe its time for you to think a little more about why you do what you do, and if it is or is not the best thing to do, or if you're just putting everyone at greater risk because hey, i'm in the truck, I need to break everything I can find.

[mfc2257 464]

Now that you've shown me your underside;

"In the vertical ventilation study, a 4’ x 8’ ventilation opening removed an even larger amount of hot smoke and fire gases. However, without water on the fire to reduce the heat release rate and return the fire to a fuel controlled regime, the increased air supply caused more products of combustion to be released than could be removed through the opening, overpowering the ventilation openings and worsening conditions on the interior."

"Vertical ventilation is the most efficient type of natural ventilation, it not only removes a large amount of smoke, but it also introduces a large amount of air into the building (the mass of smoke and air out must equal the mass of air introduced). If uncoordinated with fire attack, the increase in oxygen will result in increased fire development and heat release. "

"

• If the fire is in a fuel controlled burning regime, effective vertical tactical ventilation will provide a lift in the smoke level and slow fire development even if fire attack is delayed. This was commonly seen in the legacy fire environment, but is unlikely in the modern fire environment due to the high heat release rate of modern fuels and fuel loads found in today’s buildings."

"

• If the fire is ventilation controlled, the effectiveness of vertical tactical ventilation on improving conditions is dependent on concurrent application of water onto the fire. Note that this requires effective fire attack, not simply a charged line at the door or being advanced into the building. Once ventilation openings are created, the clock is ticking on increased heat release rate."

I'll save more for later if necessary, but maybe its time for you to think a little more about why you do what you do, and if it is or is not the best thing to do, or if you're just putting everyone at greater risk because hey, i'm in the truck, I need to break everything I can find.

Ok boss... You've hijacked the thread because I commented on preferring truck work over laying and packing over a mile of hose. No one here takes you seriously. Your name in your profile is that of a drunken fireman from Kurt Vonnegut novels, your location is an obscure island in the Pacific, and you've quoted a study most likely created by a bunch of people who never turned a wheel on a piece of fire apparatus let alone actually put out a fire. I didn't start this BS, you did because you like to hear yourself talk and thought that you could hide behind your screen name and be a keyboard cowboy. You thought that you'd get a bunch of people to jump on your "I know what a real fireman is" bandwagon against me. Epic fail on your part. Now please go crawl back into the little hole that you popped your head out of and leave the rest of us alone to have a legitimate conversation.

Edited April 17, 2014 by mfc2257