Solid stream
Ted Goldfarb
Deputy Chief, Division 8
City of New York (NY) Fire Department
I would like to reinforce the thoughts presented by Andrew Fredericks in his article “Return of the Solid Stream” (September 1995) with an actual fire scenario.
I recently responded late one evening, as a deputy chief, from my quarters on Staten Island to a fire in the Coney Island section of Brooklyn. The fire was in an occupied apartment on the third floor of a fireproof, high-rise multiple dwelling. Starting out on the first-arriving unit`s report of a working fire, my response took 12 minutes. During my response, the incident commander reported the removal of three victims from the fire apartment, one of them a fatality.
My initial size-up on arriving at the scene showed one aerial and one tower ladder bucket raised to the third-floor fire apartment windows, which were vented (broken), with no fire, smoke, or steam showing. The two apparatus were positioned in a parking lot 100 feet in from the curb. I walked up the three flights of stairs. When I reached the fire floor, I came face-to-face with the standpipe outlet with a 212-inch line hooked up. For some reason, even after operating at dozens of the same type of fire, my first reaction was, “Wow, that hoseline looks big.” As I walked down the 75 feet of corridor to the entrance of the fire apartment, it looked like a little river with the water flowing from the fire apartment, along the corridor, and down the stairway to the lobby.
The fire fully involved one bedroom and extended into the hall of the apartment. Firefighters from the first-to-arrive ladder company, making a primary search, found the three victims in the bedroom opposite the bedroom on fire. One of the victims removed was not breathing and suffered some burns. Because of this, the IC initially reported this victim to be a fatality. The victim was revived with CPR, and a later evaluation reported the injuries were not life-threatening.
After consulting with the IC and members involved in the rescue and fire extinguishment, my thought was, “Another job well done, by the book.” Every firefighter did his assigned task, just like a well-choreographed ballet, and three lives were saved. Thirty seconds delay, and three lives would have been lost.
One fact that is not given enough consideration in critiquing firefighting operations is the speed in applying the proper quantity of water to the seat of the fire. I have seen many fires where seconds wasted in applying water meant the difference between a one-line fire and a multiple-alarm fire with extensive loss.
There is no doubt that the most efficient use of water (to absorb as many Btus as possible for a given quantity of water) is to turn every drop into steam. And the best way to do this is to turn every drop into the form of fog. But is this the result we want?
I don`t think so. Creating steam has many disadvantages, some of which include causing burns to firefighters in the fire area and not reaching the seat of the fire or burning materials that have to be cooled to stop the production of the flammable gases, which is the fuel in the combustion or oxidation reaction.
To me, this fire was a perfect example of a well-planned, hard-hitting, aggressive, and offensive combination of engine and truck work that saved three lives. Was a 212-inch line with an 118-inch tip flowing 220 gpm overkill for a 10-foot 3 12-foot bedroom fire? Some “authorities” might say so. The Iowa Rate of Flow Formula says all that would be needed at this fire was 15 or fewer gpm.
Would a 112-inch line with a fog nozzle have put this fire out? I don`t doubt it. Would the 112-inch line have used less water? Probably yes. But would the fire have been extinguished as quickly? I don`t think so. Would the three lives have been saved? I doubt it.
So some extra water flowed out of the fire apartment, along the corridor, down three flights of stairs, into the lobby, out to the street, down a storm sewer, and into the ocean to be recycled into rain, refill our reservoirs, go through our water distribution system, and be used to extinguish another fire. Does 750 gallons of water cause three times the amount of water damage as 250 gallons? I don`t think so.
Water is cheap. Many times water damage claims are exaggerated. Most fire departments are lucky to have adequate supplies. Life is expensive and precious. Don`t lose lives to save water.
