LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
DEPARTMENTS
Some considerations before purchasing large diameter hose
There are no things in our world that are pure black or pure white, but rather all have varying shades of gray. Roger Lunt paints large diameter hose (LDH) as a panacea in his article “A Case in Support of Large Diameter Hose” (FIRE ENGINEERING, June 1985).
He points out all of the advantages but none of the disadvantages of LDH. In order to make an informed decision, you must balance the advantages with the disadvantages. Some fire service personnel might infer from the article that there is no limit to the diameter of a supply line. You cannot assume that you just purchase the diameter of hose needed to move the required quantity of water over the required distance. There are many other factors that must be taken into consideration.
We must not lose sight of firefighting objectives
I would like to say “Right on” to Tom Brennan and his fine editorial of March 1985. The volunteer fire department in Arkansas should have extinguished the fire that was reported to their dispatch center.
This type of fire service violated the four broad objectives of firefighting:
- Prevent fire from starting.
- Prevent loss of life and property from fire.
- Confine fire to its place of origin.
- Put out the fire.
These four objectives are not only the basis for every fire department, but also the National League of Cities. I firmly believe that this type of fire department, whether career or volunteer, should review its basic incident command system under the financial department.
A manager of a business knows that failure to recognize consumers’ needs is the first step to oblivion and bankruptcy. This type of situation should have been forseen under a good management situation. What if a person was trapped inside? Would the firefighters have stood by?
I have been a faithful reader of FIRE ENGINEERING for three years, reading the best of firefighter news and views. As an eastern firefighter, I have chosen to get off my Irish fannv to sav “Right on, FIRE ENGINEERING” for bringing forth the stories that will better the firefighting services of tomorrow’.
Henry McGough
Firefighter II
Watertown, CT
There is no doubt that you can move more water through a larger diameter hose, and although I am in favor of using LDH, there are limits.
The main disadvantage of LDH is that a fire is too critical a situation to put all your eggs in one basket. Having numerous lines and appliances operating on a fire being supplied by one LDH could turn into a disaster if that line fails. Good firefighting practice dictates that if a fire requires numerous lines, you should endeavor to supply only two lines from the first pumper. Additional lines should be taken off additional responding apparatus. I realize that in some suburban or rural areas the hydrant spacing makes this difficult or even impossible. I would rather supply the water with two 3V2inch or 4-inch lines than supply it with one 5-inch or 6-inch LDH.
If the first arriving pumper lays a large diameter supply line from the hydrant to the front of the fire building, it could delay all subsequent arriving apparatus that have to set up hose bridges to cross the LDH and reach the fire building. This is especially crucial for ladder trucks that might be needed for rescue purposes.
It is conceivable that the pumper laying the LDH might have to zigzag down the street to go around parked cars and other obstacles and many hose bridges may be required. There might not be enough hose bridges available and this would tempt apparatus operators to try to jump the LDH without bridges and increase the possibility of bursting the supply line.
Mr. Lund mentions how light LDH is to repack, but he fails to mention how heavy it is to move once it is laid and charged. Five-inch and 6-inch LDH is impossible to move once charged. If it has to be moved for any reason (such as being in a potential collapse zone) it would have to be shut down and drained. If you shut down the LDH to move it, your firefighting effort must cease; and if you don’t move the LDH, a collapse might burst it. You are between a rock and a hard place.
These are only some of the disadvantages of LDH that might outweigh some advantages. You must balance the two to find the most beneficial result for your department. Sometimes too much of a good thing could be hazardous to your health.
Ted Goldfarb
Battalion Chief
New York City Fire Department
New York, NY
Comments on the design of pumpers
I wish to reply to the letter submitted by Royce Ballew of the Waco Volunteer Fire Department in the April 1985 issue of FIRE ENGINEERING. Mr. Ballew’s letter referred to the design of pumps, and apparatus in general, for rural use.
The use of mechanical seals in place of pump packing is obtainable in low to medium volume pumpers. However, it should be noted that several manufacturers in the past used a seal system that was found to be undesirable due to the amount of mechanical work required to replace a simple seal. Mr. Ballew expressed his concern based upon the financial status of his department; however, if Mr. Ballew were confronted with the cost of a seal replacement in a major fire pump versus the cost of a packing replacement, I am sure he would prefer the cost of replacing the packing.
He also mentions that the pump panel layout is not “based on logical steps.” It is the policy of many manufacturers to make a standard pump panel, and variations from the standard are either unobtainable or at a cost that is prohibitive. There are, however, a number of smaller manufacturers who do not base their products on standardization and will provide variations in pump panel layout at a reasonable charge or at no cost to the purchaser.
In reference to Mr. Ballew’s comment about the changeover from booster tank to drop tank operation, it seems that such an operation is not as “tricky” as may be comprehended. A simple method can be obtained through training, and although I can understand his problem, I do not feel it is as detailed as it may seem.
Being a fire apparatus mechanic, I do not feel that the concerns stated are overwhelming, and one item must be understood by all departments—that no matter what type of apparatus is purchased, a definite maintenance program must be enacted by the fire department, and such programs cost money. A number of departments spend thousands of dollars to purchase a new apparatus, but either find that they cannot afford to properly maintain it or simply will not maintain it properly. I am not aware of any fire apparatus on the market today that is maintenance free.
Robert J. Stark, Jr.
Assistant Chief
Highview Fire Department
Louisville, KY
