...And Some Damn Good Advice
Ron Kanterman (September 2012)
Guest Blogger; Deputy Chief
Jim Murtagh (Ret.), FDNY
My guest blogger for Journal Entry #19 is Jim Murtagh. I
met Jim in 1974 when I was a freshman at John Jay College in New York City and
he was an adjunct professor and company offer on the upper west side of
Manhattan. Jim has been a friend, advisor, professor and mentor during my
entire career and to this day, as in the last 38 years, I welcome his commentary
on anything I do. This piece was a note to me, however I modified it for the
reading audience so it would look more like an editorial piece.
Jim spent 35 years in the
FDNY and retired in 2000 as a Deputy Assistant Chief of Department. He rose to
the rank of Deputy Chief in record time, about 12 years and was a chief officer
longer then he was all other ranks put together, over his career. Not an easy
feat in the FDNY. Jim is a wealth of knowledge and has taught fire operations,
strategy and tactics all over the United States. He is also an accomplished
author and has produced an invaluable body of work.
The following are his thoughts and comments on my last
feature article “New Fire loads, New Tactics; Smashing the Tactical Box.” Once
again, Jim lends his expertise and life time of experience to all of us here.
Enjoy the read.
Ronnie K
Bread &
Butter-Not So Fast………………….
Under the subject heading of “Bread and Butter” fires, you
talked about using 2 1/2 inch lines with a smoothbore nozzle in a house,
staffing permitting of course. Then you went on to talk about the fact that maybe
we should look at these new residential fires as commercial fires; and that the
new fires are producing more BTUs. I agree with the second half of this statement,
but not the first half.
I have found in the course
of my career at FDNY that a 2 1/2" hose is not appropriate for fighting
interior fires in multiple dwellings, housing projects, and tenement buildings.
The obvious conditions which make this size hose inappropriate is the weight of
the hose when filled with water (the larger diameter making it more difficult
to handle in tight spots) and the back pressure at the nozzle due to the
greater flow. However what's not obvious is the difficulty moving the line into
the desired location once it is charged. Once the hose begins to discharge water
it requires a significant effort to control; more than the effort provided by
the nozzle person, and often more than a standard nozzle team (nozzle and back
up firefighter). The weight of the water and the friction resistance of the
hose rubbing along the floor, around the newel posts, corners of the walls and
other obstructions makes it too difficult to advance. On a safety note and even more importantly, it’s too difficult to back
out (retreat) when that option is required or mandated. My personal experience
as well as the experience of thousands of New York City firefighters found that
2 1/2" hose gives you greater "knockdown power" but once you are
in a confined space (hallway, doorway, vestibule, etc.) it limits your ability
to control and move the hose line in most directions except straight ahead. In
addition, because of the weight of dry 2 1/2" hose, there will be some
delay in getting the line into its first operating position. This may give the
fire time to intensify and expand in to additional areas of the structure. This
presents the hose team with a threefold problem; (1) working harder to get the
line into position (2) difficulty or the inability to manipulate or move the hose
rapidly and (3) while they are attempting to move the line, the fire is getting
away from them and maybe presenting new dangers (failure of ceilings, walls,
floor or other building systems). (RK-Chief Ken Scandariato, Norwich (CT) FD
has said; “Remember that we don’t fight fire fight, we fight time.”) If the
building is of light weight new construction, failure under moderate conditions
is probable. Structural failure may be also be caused by delays in getting the
line into operation or caused by the significant punch of the stream. These are
real possibilities.
My career included work in
highly residential areas of New York City, 1 and 2 family homes, mid-size
multiple dwellings and high-rise multiple dwellings, what we all call “Bread
and Butter” areas. (RK-Jim did the 5 Borough tour over his 35 years.) In 1982 I
had a fire on the top floor of the six-story multiple dwelling. The fire was in
the rear apartment and at that time I was the Captain of Engine 48 in the Bronx.
I had four very able-bodied and very talented firefighters stretch three lengths
of 1 3/4" hose followed by four lengths of 2 1/2" hose up to the
apartment door. When we began to enter the apartment on the sixth floor we
opened the line and got a good flow of water and then the pressure dropped
significantly. The Motor Pump Operator (MPO, driver, engineer, chauffer) was
well experienced and knew how to provide an adequate water supply. I immediately notified him that we were
getting inadequate water pressure and flow as I sent the “door position” firefighter
down to check the line for kinks or obstructions which may have been hampering the
water delivery. My MPO advised me that he was pumping approximately 150 PSI and
that if I want to go higher he could but I would have to order him to do so.
The firefighter I sent to get the kinks out reported back relatively quickly
and told me there were no kinks in the line and that it was in good condition. I
ordered the MPO go to 200 psi. While we
did get a slight improvement it was inconsequential, so I ordered the MPO to go
to 250 PSI. At that pressure, we got a reasonably good stream and started to
advance. As we advanced, we experienced a burst length and had to back out. Fortunately for us, the Battalion Chief had
ordered a second line onto the floor and they were able to replace us and
extinguish the fire. This is, as you know, is standard operating procedure to
have a backup line in position when a hose line is put into operation.
The hose that we thought had
burst was brand-new and had only been delivered to us the day before. We had put it on apparatus but did not
pressure test it before we used it. (It was
not common practice to pressure test hose when it was delivered by the FDNY
hose unit.) I contacted the Hose Unit, Safety Unit and Research and Development
and told them about the burst length. As it turns out, it was not a burst
length in the true sense and the hose did not break. The butt of the hose blew
off the hose from the end where it was connected. They questioned me and asked
me about the increased pressures and I told him that my studies had indicated
that the hose was rated far beyond the pressures we used that and that there is
no reason that the butt end of the brand-new hose should come off. They agreed
and also agreed to do some research over the course of the next several weeks. I
went out to the Division of Training and met with the hose manufacturers as well
as officers from the Hose Unit, Safety Battalion, Research and Development and
the Training Bureau. We all examined the
hose and discussed the problem and agreed we should do a test to see if we
could repeat what had happened. We stretched hose and forced water through both
the old hose and new hose. We were not
able to repeat what had happened at the fire, however one interesting thing did
come from our research. When we took an
internal measurement of the butt and the new hose it was in fact 1 3/4"inches
just as the manufacturer had said it would be and just as the purchase order
said it was supposed to be. However when we measured the old 1 3/4" hose
we found that the butt was 1 3/4" but the hose was found to be 1.96"
in diameter. This small, slightly less than a quarter inch (21/100's of
an inch) difference was significant enough to retard the flow of water and when
pushed to achieve the 185 GPM flow, strong enough to overcome the power of the hose
retaining ring used to hold the hose on to the butt. The older hose (1.96") was the size we
had been using and, we were accustomed to receiving its larger flow at fires.
The fire department returned all the hose it had ordered and ordered new hose
at 1.96 inches in diameter. (RK-A good lesson learned for all of us. Do you
really know what the true diameter of your hose lines are?)
Several years later I found
someone who had worked on the original research that was done in the
mid-70s. They tried to determine what
size hose we could go to and get away from using 2 1/2" hose for
residential firefighting. The FDNY recognized booster lines were totally
inadequate and extremely dangerous in most multiple dwelling or private
dwelling fires. It also recognized that 2 1/2" was totally improper for
firefighting in residential occupancies. The 2 1/2" hose is appropriate
for commercial occupancies and large-scale fires provided you don't have to
move the hose around too often or at a rapid pace. (RK-The open floor plan in a
McMansion may be one of those residential spaces a 2 ½ may work as mentioned in
my article, but that may be it. Try everything first before you engage on the
fire ground!)
About six months after the
incident with the 1 3/4" we went to a top floor fire in a significantly
large H type building with the fire on the top floor and in the cockloft. We were the fourth engine on the assignment and
the chief told me he wanted me to take a line up the outside of the building
and then into the top floor. I directed my unit to stretch 2 1/2" hose not
1 3/4". They of course objected and
thought it was ridiculous. We were going straight up the fire escape and then
into a vacant apartment, down the hallway and out to the fire area. It was a relatively easy straight run. The line was pulled
up the fire escape and into the apartment by four firefighters, working
together to get the line in position relatively quickly. Once we were in position I called for water
and notified the Battalion Chief who was on the fire floor, that I had my line
in position and was ready to attack the expanding fire. He looked at me and
said "What do you think you are going to do with that?" I told him I was going knock the ceiling down and
put the fire out. To the amazement of my own firefighters and some of the other
units that were working with us and who were accustomed to using only 1 ¾ lines, they saw the power of the 2 1/2" line
with a straight bore nozzle to
hydraulically overhaul walls and ceilings (open up) and rapidly extinguishing the
fire. However when we tried to move the line forward I had to ask the Battalion
Chief for additional support. We actually used seven firefighters to effectively
move the line to various areas on the top floor. The line operated just as I
had expected and just as my past experience had proven. This was the right
situation and we had ample and experienced firefighters to do what need to be
done. (RK-It looks to me that you have to have the right people, trained and
experienced and plenty of them!)
Ron, you can see by what I have written, I'm not in favor
2 1/2" hose in small homes and MD's.
I think it would be dangerous in buildings with light weight
construction. However if you use a 2 1/2" hose from the outside it works GREAT;
and much better than 1 3/4" which I see often in the pictures in our Fire
Service Publications. (RK-Yes, even one of the masters agrees that sometimes
transitional attack is the way to go. Another argument for another day, however??)
Foam….Really?
I began to read what you wrote about foam and I immediately
began to think of high expansion foam and all of its pitfalls. Fortunately you
did not talk about high expansion foam. Thank you! I believe it would be an
absolute disaster in these kinds of lightweight buildings and would result in
bigger fires and more dangerous conditions. However the low expansion foam that
you're talking about seems to have a good possibility for being a solution to a
growing problem. I do not have a great deal of experience with using foam as an
attack line in residential occupancies. In fact I have never heard of it until
you wrote about it in this article. So let me say "bravo" to your
thinking out-of-the-box and your understanding and willing to try things which
are not commonly thought about. I'm sure that this will be further looked into and
researched and evaluated by many Fire Departments over the next several years.
I sure hope it works.
Again, I reiterate that your article is excellent. It is
thoughtful, different, and steps out-of-the-box - something we all need to do more
often.
Best regards,
Jim
