By Jeff Shupe
In the 1970s, the American fire service was looking to up its game, especially in the area of structural fire attack. It was a time when many fire departments were engaged heavily with daily working fires—and many large-scale fires, too. Fires were attacked aggressively by firefighters wearing styles of turnout gear not seen today. Tall rubber boots or heavy work shoes, turnout coats made of cotton or rubber, canvas gloves that did not have liner systems, and helmets without impact caps or earlaps were usually worn. Hoods were nonexistent.
Firefighters, through their respective fraternal organizations (International Association of Fire Fighters, International Association of Fire Chiefs, and others), were looking for safer and more effective fire control equipment, procedures, and personal protection. Research and field testing of turnout gear and station wear were done by a joint venture of these two groups along with the National Fire Protection Association and others. The effort was called “Project FIRES,” and the goal was to find workable ensembles of turnouts and stationwear clothing from the study of actual conditions and physiology—yes, that’s right, trying to find what could protect us and not hurt us.
RELATED FIREFIGHTER TRAINING
- Fredericks: The 2 1/2 Inch Handline
- Hoseline Selection: 1¾- and 2½-Inch Hoselines
- Systematic Views of the 2 1/2-Inch Handline in Fire Attack
Looking back at those times, sometimes referred to as the “War Years” or the “Battle Years,” and comparing the equipment and personal protection worn by firefighters to the gear standards today, firefighters performed the impossible with what was available. Liners in turnout coats might have been an old army field jacket or something similar. Oh, yes, sometimes firefighters didn’t wear turnout coats—only what some felt was comfortable for the job at the time. This was also a time when many of the old “disciplines” or ways of doing the job were taught and expected to be executed on the fireground—like truck work and ventilation skills to complement fire attack, as it should still be.
(1) This photo of a 1975 fire in a large mixed-occupancy building illustrates how firefighters looked and dressed then and the gear that was common. Note the “truckie” in the photo outfitted in a hunting jacket and firefighter’s ax. However, it was also when Project FIRES had come together and was doing work to create standards and improve firefighter station wear, turnout gear ensembles, SCBA and their usage, fireground procedures, and more. Firefighters today have benefited greatly from the experience and history of the “old timers” from that era who paid their dues in full, protecting their communities with what was available to them. Newer protective clothing, tools, and training allow today’s firefighters to do their job aggressively while having the best personal protection compared to any time in the history of firefighting. (Photo courtesy of author.)
Sadly, some American fire departments in the rust belt began to see firefighter layoffs, resulting in fire force reductions and other problems. It was also a time when some of the basics of firefighting started slipping away. The fire service was growing outside of cities just as the suburbs did. Many were developed without the experience and tradition of interior firefighting and, when coupled with the fire service industry that was growing with it, we ended up with gadgets and gizmos that only confused the strategy and tactics that were proven every day in the larger cities.
Fire Attack and Extinguishment Mechanisms
“Put the fire out and everything gets better!”—Lieutenant Andrew A. Fredericks, Fire Department of New York (FDNY)
While all this and more was taking place in our profession, fire attack efforts were being looked at for better water delivery. In the ’70s, we knew the fire environment was changing. One of the things looked at was the growing use of synthetics and other materials that contained hydrocarbons or similar compounds. Firefighters were “smoke eaters,” and the “newer” fires weren’t the same as in the past. Something was different, and it wasn’t anything friendly. The realization then was the same as now: Fires were burning hotter and faster and creating heavier, more dense, toxic smoke than fires in the past that were purely Class A (wood, cotton, or other ordinary combustibles).
It was also realized that more water was necessary for aggressive extinguishment. Along with that came the need for less stress for firefighters moving hoselines into burning buildings. But also then, as now, it was necessary to understand that each size attack hoseline has a point where it is no longer effective for fire control, and a bigger line and a greater flow are necessary. That point was somewhat lost over time because of people who thought automatic or other types of nozzles would allow smaller hoselines to match the flows of larger ones.
In the past, the fire service focused on three sizes of fire attack hoselines: booster (3/4– and one-inch), 1½-inch, and 2½-inch. Each size had its own capabilities and limitations and, for many decades, it was the norm to see those lines on the job. Interestingly, you could go to a major fire somewhere and maybe see all three sizes stretched—maybe with the smaller lines abandoned while the big guns were working. This was jokingly called “progressive firefighting,” as fire departments would sometimes initially stretch hoselines that were too small for the initial attack. After being pushed back by the fire, firefighters would stretch the next size bigger line and repeat the scenario until they ran out of hose options and had to resort to heavy stream equipment. A lot of buildings were lost because of that way of operating. No doubt, some of those hoseline choices were predicated on the old belief that a little water goes a long way when it turns to steam, expands, and snuffs out the fire. Of course, that type of attack is supposed to be used in a confined space or hold of a ship.
It all sounded good in the security of the classroom and on the drill ground. Salespeople made fog use sound great when trying to sell you an automatic or other style of fog nozzle. Just remember, it takes gallons per minute (gpm), not microscopic droplets of water in small amounts, to overpower an appreciable fire.
The Movement Begins
In the 1960s, FDNY started employing rapid water combined with 1¾-inch hose with a 15⁄16-inch solid tip nozzle. Simply put, it was a system on an engine that employed a device to dispense a friction-reducing agent into pump outlets, which allowed greater water flows through smaller hoses and nozzles. The goal was to get more water on the fire and minimize weight and hose management stress. Some departments followed suit and bought into the idea but, over time, things like operational costs, maintenance, and reduction in fire activity no longer warranted the need for it. Many things were researched and tried in the field. Some lasted and some did not. Never let it be said that the fire service is stagnant and not forward looking.
As ways of delivering more water were tried, it paved the way for many ideas on how we could do it and what tools (hose and nozzles) would be needed. In the ’70s and ’80s, many departments began researching ways to increase their water delivery, and some of the changes were smart and well thought out.
Some departments went for changes in their fire attack systems and began switching hose sizes starting from 1½-inch attack lines and replacing them with 1¾-inch attack lines. Most will agree this was a good move, a good direction. The 1¾-inch hose with a low-pressure solid bore or constant gallonage fog nozzle makes a great interior attack line with good target flow and mobility. It can control a good body of fire in many structural situations when properly handled. It is excellent for other firefighting applications such as for rubbish, vehicles, and other fires and foam handlines. Interestingly, it began getting stretched for large structural fires when larger lines were necessary. Not a good move!
The 1¾-inch handline is not and has never been intended to be a heavy handline for large-scale offensive/defensive fire operations. Its stream does not have the reach, volume, or extinguishing power required in those situations. An article written by a Chicago fire officer noted how the 1¾-inch hoseline had grown to become the “booster line” of the ’90s, meaning it was used by some departments for everything and for ridiculous reasons. It is a telling tale when a fire department uses this size hoseline for defensive operations at a major fire.
Another mistake or misunderstanding by some departments back then was to keep their old low-volume, high-pressure nozzles and attach them to the new hose, which limited the discharge volume. And on the big to small movement, some departments abandoned their 2½-inch attack handlines in favor of two-inch attack hoselines equipped with high-pressure automatic fog nozzles. Again, not a good move!
Here Comes Two-Inch Hose and More Misunderstanding
Again, the push for more water and easier attack line management was addressed with two-inch hose with 1½-inch couplings. I don’t think anyone could argue the concept. However, it seems some fire service officers were ready to move forward without doing some homework to see how much fire attack efficiency was to be gained with this size hose.
Tragically, some departments bought into the thinking that two-inch hose with an automatic or other type of high-pressure fog nozzle would flow as much water as a 2½-inch attack hoseline. They discarded their 2½-inch attack hose in favor of two-inch hose. Automatic nozzles (or other regular fog nozzles) requiring a nozzle pressure of 100 pounds per square inch (psi) at the nozzle were installed. Coupling nozzle pressure and friction loss in older two-inch hose while trying to flow that volume was, in some cases, dangerous. To flow in the range of 265 to 275 gpm, there was a friction loss of around 45 psi per 50-foot length. In doing the math, you can see an average 200-foot layout would require a pump pressure of around 280 psi to flow that much water through the hose. That’s unmanageable for a firefighter to safely hold—and 30 psi above that time’s annual hose test pressure! In so many instances, the two-inch hose has been underpumped all these years to avoid those higher pressures and is probably flowing what 1¾-inch hose can comfortably flow—or maybe less.
Another problem that came with two-inch hose was its being stretched as an interior second or third line into a bread-and-butter type operation when additional lines of 1¾-inch hose would have been sufficient. Because of the close dimensional hose size and same size couplings, it was thought by many to be “about the same as 1¾-inch” weightwise and for handling. This also contributed to underpumping the larger two-inch hose.
Some officers justified this practice by using the old “backup” hoseline rule, where a second line should be at least as big or the next size bigger than the first line. Without properly trained or educated officers to correct the problem, it soon became a hoseline presumed to be handled with two or, in some cases, only one firefighter inside a burning structure. Even though there was the backpressure to deal with from the higher-pressure nozzles, the two-inch hose was sold as a personnel savior. When advancing two-inch line up or down stairways, making turns or bends, it takes two to three firefighters to do it efficiently. The older jacket and hose liner material needed a bigger bend radius or it kinked, especially in residential structures or other buildings with tight areas to work in. Thankfully, that is not the case in today’s hose.
Firefighters voiced concerns that replacing the 2½-inch with two-inch hose would lead to reduced fireground staffing. Thus, confusion on hoseline selection began. One 50-foot length of two-inch hose holds about 68 pounds of water, whereas a 1¾-inch length holds about 52 pounds of water. Thus, the two-inch was deemed unmanageable or unworkable for one person to operate effectively. Minimum fireground staffing for 1¾- and two-inch attack lines should always be at least two firefighters for each size line, depending on the situation. More stretching complexities? Then get additional help on the line. Remember, each size hose has its limitations.
It took many years of actual flow testing and fireground results to realize that the claims of two-inch hose equipped with high-pressure nozzles were misleading or false. Many fires were “lost” because of low flows. Two-inch hose is an excellent attack handline, but it should have a low-pressure nozzle on the end of it. It has limitations in terms of longer stretches and friction loss and should never have been thought of as a replacement for 2½-inch hose. Many of those fire departments have since switched back to 2½-inch for large handline operations. Some departments have retained their two-inch hose for use as an intermediate size attack line or for standpipe use. Any flow questions are answered after you put your own equipment and pump pressures to a flow test on your engines to see just how much water you are really discharging. A fire stream may look good, but that can be deceiving.
A Little Bit of Nozzles
Moving to two-inch hose with a low-pressure nozzle has been a good idea for the fire service. Period. Along with this movement, though, came the push to equip these new hoselines (and 1¾-inch hose, too) with automatic type nozzles with variable flow ranges. As automatic fog nozzles were introduced, they were presented in such a way that misled many firefighters as to how much water was actually flowing from a nozzle. The stream may look good but the volume ….
The nozzles were said to regulate themselves to preset nozzle pressures, usually around 100 psi. It has been witnessed all over the country—a 200-foot stretch of hose with an automatic nozzle at the business end. Looking at the pump panel outlet pressure gauge, the reading shows a discharge pressure of around 95 or 100 psi. “What about friction loss?” you ask. “Don’t worry, because the nozzle sets its own pressure at 100!” Just like your thumb over the end of a garden hose, the automatic creates pressure with a spring to get the desired reach of a stream at the expense of the flow rate.
(2) Here are three two-inch attack handlines showing off their capabilities and manageability during a training conference. Modern fire hose standards and materials used in hose construction along with low-pressure nozzles make the two-inch attack line an excellent tool, giving firefighters good attack power and mobility on the fireground. (Photo by Jeff Diederich.)
Unfortunately, many fire departments did not do their homework, and we have ended up relying on a salesperson or some other uninformed person who said, “Look at that stream! Why, you’re flowing 250 gpm right now!” Really? What was not said in many of those situations was, “Let’s put this new stuff on a flow meter and see if it performs like you said it does!”
On the other side of this movement were the departments that purchased the new hose and used their old nozzles. Again, not looking at the overall attack system will create more problems than it will solve.
The trend today is to move forward with nozzles that are low-pressure, high-volume types. Remember, it is a system approach. Without a doubt, there has been and always will be a nozzle controversy, but the reality is that these nozzles (both solid and fog) will deliver more water at lower pressures and result in less reaction force—with the right matching hose.
There will always need to be good, strong information and regular training for any equipment provided to firefighters; otherwise, firefighters will teach themselves, create “their own” devices, and draw their own conclusions.
JEFF SHUPE is a division chief (ret.) from the North Myrtle Beach (SC) Fire Department and a firefighter (ret.) from the Cleveland (OH) Fire Department with 47 years of service. He has an AS from the University of Cincinnati in fire protection engineering.
