It always boggled me when firefighters would say you’re wasting water with the deck gun or even the 2.5”. If you’re putting out the fire, you’re not wasting water. I’ve seen way more water wasted by stretching 1.75” lines on fires that were beyond their capability. If you don’t see immediate effect, you’re not discharging enough water for the fire.
I complete agree.. As long as you're not overshooting the building with the deck gun. Either you're putting it out or you're not. Even if you do run out, you've reset the timer on fire growth and hopefully have prevented things like fire entry into the exposure soffits. Side note - I didn't mention it here, but with a 2 1/2 line, especially operated by one person, you get tired, hard to move, shutting on and off, you end up flowing less water at the fire sometimes than even a 1 3/4 open consistently. I used a deck gun on 2 fully involved tractor trailers (loaded) and a car on a highway. After 15 minutes of hand lines not doing anything, deck gun (with tanker supply) knocked everything down in 40 seconds.
In this case one would be "wasting water" if applying it to the primary when it is already lost and you have an exposure to protect. Literally... who cares about the primary, it was lost before arrival. Use hand-lines to strategically protect the exposure until you establish a supply and get more resources, then deal with the primary.
@@virgilhilts3924 I respectfully disagree. Are there areas of this burning mess that I would initially ignore? YES. However, you could blast all of the areas near the exposure and remove 99% of the threat. Furthermore, you could hit the exposure with the deck gun and quickly and effectively knockdown any fire threatening to extend into the adjacent structure.
@@TransmitThe1075 "However, you could blast all of the areas near the exposure and remove 99% of the threat" -Nonsense, the bulk of the fire load is behind the garage in the main structure and largely out of reach due to intervening structure. No way is anyone going to remove 99% of the threat... or even 50%. All it would have done is darken the garage portion and quickly empty the tank "you could hit the exposure with the deck gun and quickly and effectively knockdown any fire threatening to extend into the adjacent structure" -Again, nonsense. The radiant heat is the threat to the exposure, so blowing your wad on the exposure isn't going to remove the threat. And since the bulk of the threat is out of reach of the deck gun you aren't going to remove it. These guys did EXACTLY what they should have and use their tank strategically to protect the exposure until the supply was ready and more manpower arrived.
@@virgilhilts3924 ok. Well, I’ll mark you down for “ the guys did a great job”. I don’t think that’s going to be the overwhelming consensus. But you have a right to your opinion.
For me it’s all about reducing the radiant heat a huge fire load presents to the exposures. I’ve deployed the deck gun numerous times to knock down large fires while the crew gets hand lines and supply lines in service. If you ain’t gonna use it, get rid of it.
I have 1000 gallon engines. 13/8 tip on deck gun. Very good idea commit 250 gallons over 30 seconds for a quick knock down. Great videos. Love the knowledge
My SOP for my guys was to use it often on Dumpster Fires. Made many above ground swimming pools for close to 40 years OTJ. Dumpster fires are damn dangerous. A hell of a lot more than you would think , chemicals, pesticides, aerosol cans ... Deck gun quick usally at pump idle speed. No hose pick up just fill the pool up Wait a few minutes, pull the drain plug. Empty return plug go refill the booster . Done !
As a former firefighter,I've always wondered why the deck gun wasn't used more on fires with all fire departments,I guess the deck gun was put on the fire apparatus as a decoration,enjoyed the video,and thank you for your service 👍😀
Our Engine was equipped with a deck gun pre connected with150'of three inch line off of the back step of the truck.That gives you access to all sides of the fire building. Not to mention the one permanently mounted on the top of the truck.when man power is sometimes limited, it is a great way to put the wet stuff on the red stuff.This was one valuable set up for a variety of situations, strip malls, industrial, and especially buildings under construction. For the life of me I do not understand why both paid and volunteer departments excell in making their lives harder and more complicated.
Agreed on all points Brother. Big fire, big water! An old chauffer here engine, ladder, tower ladder and tanker, my job is to make it easy for everyone on the scene. But that job I would have deck gunned it in a heartbeat and would have been dragging a 5" over to the hydrant while that was happening freeing the oic and the 2 hose draggers to buy some time and get the hand lines stretched and in operation.
Chief here…I’ve brought up deck guns for years in RUclips, and your view was absolutely correct, and very well presented . The really sad part here is that’s a 1000 gallon tank in the engine, and they could have gotten a solid 3 minutes of flow on the gun…that’s multiple times what that first video on the house fire utilized…and look how effective it was! The crew could have pretty much gotten the supply line hooked up and flowing into the pump before the tank was out, and a large volume of the fire would have been darkened down already. With hydrant water they could have then continued with the deck gun and went to hand lines. Exposures could have been wetted a bit to help control spread. Your video premise and examples should be formalized into a training pod, like LACFD uses theirs. Thanks 😉👍
A common triple stack is going to flow ~600gpm at 80psi (a pressure needed to get the reach) with the smallest tip, and easily 1000gpm if the stack is taken down to the 2 inch tip. So no you aren't getting "a solid 3 minutes" as you asserted. Your comments prove you aren't a professional firefighter let alone a "chief". ( take note of this @Transmit the 1075 as to my prior comment about "consensus"). Not to mention the fact that this engine uses a 750 gallon tank not the 1000 you stated. At best they might squeak out a minute of flow, most of which isn't going to effectively be applied in this instance. The best option here is exactly what they did, ignore the already total loss primary to strategically protect the exposure that was starting to off gas while obtaining a water supply.
@@TransmitThe1075 Professional firefighters can spot the phony's a mile away Just like "Fred Phillips" who claims he is a "Chief" yet doesn't know basic flow rates, something that is a memory commit item to even begin testing for Engineer, let alone an officer or senior command staff. Yet not only do you clearly do not see this, you have several times now "thanked" some of the biggest and most ridiculed pretend firefighters here, very telling. You are at a crossroads, either align with professional experienced firefighters and educate yourself, or sit in a circle-jerk of fools and pat each other on the back while getting laughed at by the professionals. 🤔
As a person who builds these that tank is likely 700-750 gallons not 1,000. Often people in the world of firefighting see an engine and automatically assume 1,000-gallon tank sizes. It still provides a few minutes of water through controlled discharge but its notably less. In my area there's multiple different procedures by county on what to do when arriving at such event. Some let the second due catch the hydrant, that being the case this would not be a viable option. Other things to consider would be a non-viable hydrant, if it doesn't flow properly or at all and that deck gun is going it won't be any better than handlines given the time needed to secure a secondary hydrant or draft dependent on the area.
Quick knockdown is the key. Have a gate on the deck gun, use that while your chauffeur is getting water and someone else is stretching. Makes life much easier
The last engine I worked on had its own pneumatic switch up at the deck gun. Even the chauffeur, could by himself, set the pressure on the ground, climb up and open the deck gun without wasting a drop.
Yeah as a former firefighter when i was a pump operator our goal was to have the water flowing in the truck cyerclyting an getting a water supply hook up while the guys pull the lines. So when they are ready I can open the value to the line. But I agree the deck gun should be used alot more while other guys are pulling lines.
On a Midwest department from 1970 to 1997 and served in all positions. We used the deck gun every chance we could we called it a Blitz Attack. A quick knock down using the 750 gallons of on board water. I think the second department needs some additiomal training. Good video.
Yes pump your tank dry in about a minute on structure that is already lost and will not be knocked down with tank water... While ignoring an exposure that is already off-gassing and ready to light-off Great idea! 👍
@@virgilhilts3924 knocking down the fire is the best way to protect expousure wasting time putting your limited water on the exposure letting the fire exscape the back in to the forest is smart
I think it’s becoming a more utilized tool. Especially with tanks on the trucks increasing. Just like everything else there has to be a game plan going in when using it.
Our local FD is not hesitant to use their deck guns. They usually pickup the closest hydrant to the scene and then lay in 3in or 5 in supply lines from there. As soon as the parking brake is pulled the crew is tanked and masked the signal is given to the hydrant catcher to charge the line and the water is on the way.
As a senior fire fighter in New Zealand I would 100% agree with the deck gun especially because of the bulk of fire right by the exposure, the house is already lost , we run off receo. Risk to life, exposures, containment, extinguish,overhaul.
Agree 100%. As driver I chose to take the engine with deck gun for dispatch to large storage garage fire. We were first on scene with myself and two FF. We immediately deployed deck gun and knocked down major portion of fire saving additional garage units. We are a all volunteer FD and train often with the deck gun
I completely agree the deck gun has its uses. That only thing that I think is that if the house appears to be a total loss then yep blast away, BUT, I’m not going to use it for a room and contents. That’s when interior attack comes in to play Remember 1. Life safety 2. Property conservation. The deck hun has a lot of power so you start blasting a house you could be destroying what valuables are left and can be salvaged. Just my Monday morning quarterback lol stay safe brothers.
I agree with you completely, but the scenario you’re suggesting doesn’t exist here, nor am I suggesting to do so in situations where an inch and three-quarter line works best.
Witch situation are you talking about because I have given two very plausible scenarios. You are making it seem like the deck hun should be used a lot more and that is not the case here That Oregon situation would have been the perfect situation for the deck gun. And you bashing those guys on taking forever is wrong those guys were working with what they had, did you see a second due com in shortly after ? No. Do you know that departments policy’s ? No. You are complaining about the engineer taking 18 seconds to get out of the cab, ever think he’s letting the fly wheel slowdown a bit after putting the truck in neutral to engage the pump ? They are also on a grade so yes he should put the chocks out in case of a break failure. Yea the LDH was a bit much but maybe they don’t have a 50’ section. Yes they were slow but maybe they had new guys out there. You even said your self in your 30 something years being in the fire service you have only seen the deck gun a hand full of times. That’s because we have tactics in place to again for life safety an property conversation. Just a couple of thoughts what if the was a suspected arson ? You would be destroying evidence beyond recognition. What if some how you needed to make entry and you have a guy blasting a deck gun? I can what if the hell out of this but I’m not going to but think about things yes the deck gun is a very useful tool but it is also a very destructive tool as well.
In California, the guy that drives is generally the engineer. The engineer is in charge of the pump and panel operation. Will also assist in pulling lines. Yellow helmets for firefighters, red helmets are the captains, white helmets are battalion chiefs.
60s 70s our district became comercial mecca, small fire company with 500 gpm pumper and 70s came the 750 gpm. We built a pipe with 1 1/4 brass tip, the pipe carried by 4 men attached to 100 ft 3 inch preconnect, length of chain and a blunt hook for attaching to post rail or another anchor. 1982 came time to use although deck guns where all the rage by then. That tool was inside 15k square foot building reaching alway to the back and took ceiling tiles down preventing the run above. 👨🚒
An agreement coming from someone who clearly has no firefighting experience 🤔 A "transitional attack" is one where you attack the fire from the exterior before *transitioning* to fight from the interior... No one is going to make an interior attack on a fully involved structure... so this wouldn't be a "transitional attack"
As a company officer on an engine company, I have used the deck gun on many occasions, long before the words transitional attack were popular we were "dumping the tank" and getting a water supply to halt or at least slow the fire's progress. We have added another option to the engine companies, we have 500 GPM ground monitors pre-connected to 100' of 2.5" hose off the rear so the engine company can pull past the fire and leave the front of the fire building for the truck company. Your engine company should have multiple options to deliver large caliber streams when needed. As you mentioned several times in the video, fast water makes everything better.
Something I've noticed as a researcher that when a house is perceived to be a total loss (as this one is) a lot of the urgency goes out of the fire crews. Some of this is understandable - if ever there was a defensive fire this is it and you want to protect your crew. But ... your point absolutely stands. There are exposures. They needed to be on this fire like a bear on a campsite, and if ever there was a case in using the master stream, this was it. They even had a ready source of water, which AFAIK is the main objection to using the deck gun - exhausts the water in the tank very quickly. The house may be a loss, but you really don't want the neighboring houses to go, too. This crew needs a serious bit of drilling and retraining.
@@TransmitThe1075 A lot of folks like to throw brickbats at firefighters doing a bad job in these videos, but in virtually every case, it's not bad firefighters at all. It's either bad training, bad leadership, or both. And everyone can have an off-day. I've even seen "total loss" fires (with no rescues or exposures) used as training exercises - for things like the deck gun. That certainly isn't laziness - that's a great opportunity to figure out weaknesses in your crew and what needs more training. Context is super-important, and that's why I always do research. My goal isn't to throw food from the cheap seats - it's to learn!
I developed and utilized a blitz attack. Upon arrival of the first Engine, the officer would determine if the gun was to be used. If so, he would yell ‘BLITZ’ to the rest of the crew. Each seat had a pre planned job. Driver-ran the pump. Office climbed to the gun. Back seat closest to the fire started deploying the hand line. Back seat opposite side placed chocks and assisted with handline. Gun flowed until all visible fire was knocked or the tank was half depleted whichever came first.
Deck guns are the quickest and easiest way to get the wet stuff on the red stuff. it is also the quickest way to knock down the BTU's in a fire and make it manageable quickly.
I was told by a fire captain, droplets do nothing, drench the fire with everything. Deck gun sounds about right! Thank you for your service to the community.
Same principle as using a green line on a structure fire. Whatever water hits turns to steam.Same reason we get the question when they see us not hitting fire with water when someone in unaccounted for. We are doing a primary search and any water would turn the interior into a scalding steam bath.
Used the deck gun to blitz a front porch for crews to make access. It worked very well as an initial knockdown to give them time to force entry and get lines flowing. One caveat, is to make sure you know which tip you’ve got on the deck gun… previous shift put a smaller tip on, which provided crazy amounts of penetration… so much that it blasted out some windows 😬 Before y’all joke me, the fire occurred around 7:15 during shift change and the previous operator was on the toilet lol
I have used the Master Blaster or Monitor/deck gun multiple times. You always need to keep in mind that the gun will drain that 1000 gallon tank in less than a minute once you get it full pressure/flow and talking to others that is what they are afraid of. It is great if you have a crew that will tie you into a hydrant quickly to maintain it's use or have a tanker or E-T on scene with you until you have a constant water supply but you will empty a 3000 gallon tanker in less than 3 minutes. Another issue is that where I am located many of our towns do not have townwide hydrant coverage and we rely on mutual aid and Tanker Tassk forces or shuttles. In that case the deck gun is only used for a few seconds but by the time you have adequate water suppl;y you have all the hand lines that you need working. I can say that when I worked for a chemical /fuel company we had a high flow industrial pumper with a 10,000 gpm, 2- 8500 gpm and 1-5500 gpm guns and the water that put out was awesome coming from pressurized systems.
Not according to all the expert Chief's, Capitan's, and experienced firefighters here... just ask the OP These guys could have got a good four minutes out their 750 gallon tank... they've already told us... they are experts 😅🤣😂🙃
@@virgilhilts3924 Must be something wrong with our deck gun because we emptied our tank in 56 seconds on our E-T. On our tanker/tender with a 3000 gallon tank we ran out 3 minutes and 7 seconds. Were they using a green line or did they feed the town water gods and have then dumping water in the tank to keep it full.
@@georgemessler3345 I liked the clown who asserted using a 1-3/8 tip on a deck gun (absurd all on its own), flowing 600 gpm for 10 seconds on this fire and knocking it down. He's too much of a phony to understand that the only way you are forcing that kind of volume is by cranking up to 120-130psi which is going to entirely overshoot the house. Even if you could get the stream to the seat 100 gallons isn't going to do jack on a fully involved home like this. That's the irony that these phony pretend firefighter clowns do not grasp... that experienced professional firefighters can spot their BS a mile away. They believe that if they throw out some termanology or made up numbers that people will think they are legit. The best part is that there are other phonies that support their BS, it's like a self fulfilling circle of clowns all trying to out-pretend each other. I haven't had the heart yet to break it to the OP that I linked his commentary on this video over on the firefighter forum, you know, where you actually have to provide department credentials in order join & post. He's getting his arse torn apart over there and become a laughingstock. I was planning on posting some screenshots here for him to enjoy... but that might be a bit too cruel 😉
@@virgilhilts3924 my problem with you is not your number or how long thewater in there tank would last it that worry about the expouse when you have fill engulf building if you so worried water supply then you put where it will do the most good and that is on the fire when you put the fire out you will not have the fire spread
Everything you said is correct, but let me add ! Preconnects are to long unless you are only fighting commercial or industrial fires ! In my department I had 100,150 and 200 foot 1 3/4 precinnects and a 100 foot 3 inch line precinnect ! Any thing else was to be connected as needed ! The deck gun was used to knock down what could be hit while the other men made supply lines connections !
like with most items i believe the problem is lack of training. think back on your training regimens with deck guns, we spend a lot of time with attack lines, not so much with 2 1/2" or 3" hand line- and the deck gun is usually reserved when we are bringing out the ladder. so though we try later to rationalize it still falls back to what we teach in class and in our drills.
When I joined the local volunteer fire department in 1980 we had a 1972 CF Mack with pre connected deck gun and 500gallon tank we sometimes blitzed the fire when we pulled up and there was a couple times the pump operator had to shut down for a couple minutes to get hydrant connection but it bought time to knock down the fire many times. Also the second engine was a 1954 Mack and that had a pre connected deck gun also so it was pretty much procedural for long time to blitz a heavy fire while stretching lines and hydrants.
I'm from the UK and I agree with you that you have that powerful water cannon on top of rigs that is not utilised, and I have watched a lot of video's where not to offend anyone but tortoise and hare comes to mind, with tortoise being the word. Its like they not wanting to get stuck in and do their job. But I have seen others that do which restores my feelings that you have good ones as well. So please use your water cannon on top of your rigs to get it subdued, it's someone's home . Keep up with the great video's,
Yes, it’s a big country here and you get a large swath of different behavior and tactics. I believe most people do a good job, but keep in mind you’re only going to see the videos of when things go poorly, otherwise the fire would probably be out.
I could not agree more with your assessment here. Spot on. My only additional comment is that regardless of whether a hand line or deck gun is being used, there are also often issues with placement (aim) of the water stream relative to the seat of the fire. Lack of understanding of the effects of stream breakover, wind, poor gpm, etc. will not put out a fire regardless of how much water is available.
I couldn't agree more!!! If you watch many raw video fires one sees that many depts often plan thier tactics on using a ladder pipe or tower ladder as they are commonly called. Many depts don't even have deck guns mounted. If nothing else always hustle on the scene . These guys showed none of that whatsoever. Thank you for your contribution, narration, and common sense comments. Your observations are articulate and educational ( I hope)
Care to explain your reasoning? After all they had water on the exposure ~90 sec after arrival and a second line in service ~90 sec after the first All while obtaining a water supply And the exposure was saved
@@virgilhilts3924 it's obvious from this and your prior comments that you are either a member of or mutual aid to this department, as you cannot see the multiple errors committed. You've stated multiple times how great they did. And as for my Experience, I'm both a paid man , officer on a rescue company of a large city, and also a volunteer on my local department with 20 plus years, before you question my " knowledge and experience ". This whole incident was a cluster f%#k and showed lack of training, urgency, efficiency, and professionalism . I just love you keyboard smoke-eaters @ transmit the 10-75... Like your videos and comments and breakdown. Keep up the good work
@@drgnslayr72 "it's obvious from this and your prior comments that you are either a member of or mutual aid to this department" -It's obvious that starting a response by slinging ad hominem instead of factually refuting anything I've stated shows how intellectually insecure you are... just say'n 😉 "as you cannot see the multiple errors committed" -Yet you presented not a single one... hmmm 🤔 "You've stated multiple times how great they did" -I do not believe I ever made that statement, please cite where I did, maybe I missed it 😊 "And as for my Experience, I'm both a paid man , officer on a rescue company of a large city, and also a volunteer on my local department with 20 plus years, before you question my " knowledge and experience " -Your asserted pedigree doesn't factually refute the strength of my argument "This whole incident was a cluster f%#k and showed lack of training, urgency, efficiency, and professionalism" -Okay, cite each specific "error" as you see it... -Explain specifically why it is an "error"... -Along with the negative effect on the outcome... -Then detail what should have been done instead of each "error"... -Along with how it would have created a specific and more positive overall outcome... Aaaaand GO!
Edmonton Fire Rescue wastes no time using a monitor on any fire. I have seen them used on car, brush and building fires. The monitor is so versatile and quick to use.
Out of 19 years as a Volunteer Firefighter, I can honestly say that I can count the number of times on one hand that wheel chocks were deployed, and that number does not add up to 5. I can also count the number of times on one hand that a deck gun was used, and again, that number does not add up to 5.. And I have never ever seen any Chauffeur don an SCBA while setting up the Pump, and getting handlines charged.
So because you haven't seen it no one should do it? I started my FF career in the military... chocked every piece of rolling equipment When I started my civilian FF career in the 80's... chocked every piece of rolling equipment After retiring from them and now volleying in my copious amount of free time... chocked every piece of rolling equipment It was written SOP in every FD I worked for or with The deck gun likely wasnt used in your VFD because most do not know how or when to use them properly Just as in this case, the DG should not have been used until after the exposure was protected and a supply line in place
@@virgilhilts3924 i do not beleive you wore military because you think those guys wore good in my militaryservice i never saw guy move so slow the engineer worrying chocking the wheels when he neeeded hook up the hydrant knocking down the fire is first
Not going to knock the wheel chocks! In my department, the SOG is for the engineer to engage the pump before getting out and the second thing is to circulate the water then set the chocks. Doesn’t take but a few seconds and has to be done. In that video they were in a hill! What good is the engine if it has rolled down the hill? Things need to be done correctly. We don’t skip steps because a few think it is a waste of time. Train to your SOGs and train like it is real. I see lots of videos of firefighters wearing BAs but not bother to actually putting them on! Why do we call a firefighter a hero who foolishly does roof venting while wearing a BA but not actually wearing it as he falls through the roof and gets badly burned? Been a firefighter for 23 years.
I agree, I guess my point was just that under the circumstances with so many Significant priorities to get the first line in service and have a water supply that being distracted with chocks was not the best use of his time. But I concede your point, it would’ve been great had he set the chocks quickly and effectively. Instead we got laissez-faire.
@@TransmitThe1075 I agree about the general lack of smart aggression on everyone’s part! It is very evident with the first guy out of the rig that sat behind the engineer. We just knew this was not going to be pretty. I have always wondered what happens in a department to cause such lack of effort in the firefighters.
Yes I know this was from a year ago, but I do think deploying wheel chucks, on what appears to be a incline is a way to keep the firefighters safe, not make the situation worse and also as a bonus not end up on a OSHA training video.
In Detroit it’s very common to hear the first arriving officer tell the second arriving engine to pull up & dump the monitor. That’s what we call it. We do reverse lays with our engine stretch so it’s never usually a problem having the 2nd engine get close and still leave room for the Truck. We go hard after that dump & very rarely loose the fight
According to my Baccauloreate In Fire Sciences from The Florida State University! The deck gun on an engine is a suppressor for when you show up to a structure fire and attempt to man individual water lines or if the fire is in a small vessel the firefighters are blind to! I prefer the proven method of manning a hose and going into the structure to secure it and save any occupants that there might be inside!
Not sure I’m following you. Nobody is suggesting not going inside to save occupants. We’re talking about buildings w a heavy volume of fire. And BTW FSU sucks!! Go Gators!!!
As others have said, why have a deck gun on any Apparatus if it will never be used ? Deck Guns can be useful on so many calls, especially if it's a Volunteer Fire Dept, and man power is extremely limited. They can be used on Structure Fires, Dumpster, and Landfill Fires, and even vehicle fires in some cases. The main focus should be to get the fire out asap
No in this case the main focus should have been protecting the exposure because the primary was clearly a loss before they even arrived... which is exactly what this crew did and they saved the exposure.
Watching this a year later. We’re using this incident as an example in our training. Everyone 100% agrees that you could have used the deck gun to at least knock majority of the fire down. (Or what one firefighter put it “Punching the fire right in the mouth”) Even more so with a hydrant that close. While the 2.5 is a good option. It takes time to deploy, allowing the fire to grow and spread. In another note that is a heck of hose that firefighters had to pull off. They must have to make some long attack line lays out there.
Being a viewer of this incident my guess on Driver Chocking wheel & Donning pack after getting out of cab & engaging pump is because the agency is heavily SOP driven versus SOG.
We don't have to many deck guns in our trucks in Sydney Australia, but we would never be that slow getting the pump going..... we take turns at driving each shift, and my crew are pretty competitive... we are always pushing each other to be better and faster... a good driver should nearly have that handline charged at the front door by the time the crew is masked up....
FYI; We are required upon arrival after Engine is placed in pump as an Engineer on any piece of apparatus, to immediately chock Drive Axle and get airpack on working fire. These are Department Policy with no exceptions.
I’ll accept the chocks as a reasonable policy. Though it should be done vastly quicker during a serious incident. That said, being required to wear an air pack as the driver/chauffeur/engineer is absurdly ridiculous. Whomever is creating these policies should consider an alternative occupation. This is not to say if there was some situation where vast amounts of smoke and toxins are engulfing the apparatus, that you wouldn’t put your mask on.
Those poor guys probably have been beat down by the safety side of the house. Some how when they are pressured by “safety” the fire ground urgency decreases and the skills go away.
I agree deck gun when the engine arrives on scene. i see a few other things that are not good. One is the firefighter on the tailboard pulling hose out of the hose bed and piling it up on the ground instead of pulling the hose from the bed and flake it out behind the truck. And the members not moving with a prepose.
Excellent evaluation. A lot of firefighters are hesitant to use the deck gun without a water supply established. However it’s not necessary. Let’s say you are flowing a 1 3/8” tip at 600gpm. That’s 10gallons per second. If operated for 10 seconds while a line is being stretched you only used 100gallons of water. Most of America has 500-750gallon tanks. Even if you run out of water that is not a bad thing if the fire has been significantly knocked down.
Oh look yet another phony YT firefighter... 1 3/8 on a monitor... 100 gallons of water... significantly knocked down 😅😂 Even better is that the OP agreed 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
A quick knock down while you establish a water suplly, You remove heat (1/3) of the fire triangle, exposure to personell, and give time to get a water supply. Even if the tank empties, refill and start agin, or by that time have a handline pulled after a supply and open up.
Meanwhile the exposure that was already off gassing lights off while you've been dinking around wasting water on a structure that was a loss before the engine even arrived.
Considering the angle on the hill, choking the Engine isn't a bad thing. Deck gun while getting hydrant water isn't a bad thing. Blitz gun would have helped if they voted against the deck gun.
Its not that I'm really opposed to using the chocks, It just blows my mind, with all the responsibilities this chauffeur needs to accomplish in the first 5 minutes of this incident, the chocks is what stuck in his mind?? I'm not opposed to Blitz either, though, it would taken longer to deploy and the angle isn't as effective. The deck gun, at the high point gives a far better attack angle, likely higher GPM, higher pressure, more penetration and I prefer the strait bore (assuming you have a blitz with a fog nozzle). Either option would have certainly been better than what occurred.
I live in a north Dallas Tx suburb. Our population is just over 250 thousand. Before the first line was off that truck we would have six or seven trucks there with at least one being a ladder truck. We have very few houses go to the ground unless it is a drug lab that caused fire throughout the house instantly. I feel very thankful for what we have. Also there would be medics there also to back up the firemen if one or more are hurt.
i'm still in the middle of watching this on my TV. several years ago.......the Westfield Fire District in Middletown Ct had a 3 or 4 story framed structure on the deck. the first due Chauffer opted to use his bumper turret. knocked the main body down and saved the 12- 16 unit building.........just sayin......
Good point. In the perfect world one action to fit the same scenario every time would be awesome but we are not in the perfect world. I am kind of lost when you say chauffer but then I revert back to Engineer or driver. Unless he happened to be an officer I don't know of any department where the driver would make that decision. Not saying it doesn't happen, I just don't know of departments where it happens. On my volly E-T I take every one of my crews opinions seriously but in the end I have to make the call and I am the one who has to go infront of the Chief if crap fails. I have a constant crew of 10 and we train in every members position. Right now I have my 2 newest on Pump ops, I have 5 qualified to chauffer/drive as well as take the front right seat if need be. I have guys that love interior ops, some who do vent and roof ops and every one of them who love what they do. Some love the master blaster and some would rather break out a 2 1/2 and hold the line until their arms fall off. It all depends on the 360 if we are first on.
My guess is Chief said it was defensive from the beginning. We put a gate valve on our deck guns so the engineer can do it all himself while someone else is grabbing his hydrant.
FYI, setting the chocks takes like 25 seconds and can prevent a catastrophe if the rig jumps into gear (it has happened in the past, just not in your past). The Deck Gun should not be used on an occupied structure fire because it produces a massive amount of smoke and steam expansion which can, and has caused occupant deaths due to smoke inhalation. Chief Hughes Battalion 1 (retired) Chicago FD
I think I expressed the idea of not being against this practice. However, I know many huge city departments that never use them ever. My point in this particular case is that this chauffeur was worried about everything except actually doing his job.
Unless you have more than 2k gals of water on the first due, most rural departments here in rural OH would probably go to the 2.5” Blitz due to limited water supply and manpower. Deck gun is awesome for an initial quick hit but if you have a fire that big, the structure usually is a loss.
I HAD to watch this when you mentioned the deck gun. I'm no expert but I've been watching fire videos on RUclips lately and I saw how effective that deck gun could be and I wondered why it isn't used more. I have a question-the deck gun is using water that is on the truck and when it's gone, no more deck gun. Is it possible to get water into the truck and keep the deck gun going? As a compliment to the regular lines?
Absolutely. You could hit a fire hydrant, another engine, a tanker truck or theoretically draft from a water source like a pond, stream, lake or pool. If you’re good, you might be able to accomplish this prior to running out of water.
That was painful and frustrating to watch. I really saw no sense of urgency from watching those guys work. I didn't get the impression that teamwork was high on the list of priorities either.
Thanks for the videos. I'm not a firefighter but I know my way around equipment. By watching these videos you first have to assume that the arriving firefighters actually want to put out the fire. To me it seems they don't. Seems the deck gun is Taking away their glory and would make their job too easy. That fire could have been knocked down in a minute with the deck gun and then they could have established their water supply to then attack with the hand lines. If it were my house thats what I would have been looking for.
I appreciate your comments. In defense of these firefighters. I think this mostly has to do with inexperience, and or training that has instilled these types of practices. Particularly when things are stressful it’s sometimes hard to evaluate the best tactics. I don’t think there are any firefighters who don’t want to do a good job. The question is do they have the physical ability, the mental tenacity and the proper training.
Really? Don’t think I ever worked on an engine that didn’t have one. I thought it might actually be a prerequisite for Class A pumper certification. Where are you located?
@@achunable No. This is in Canada's largest City, Toronto. We replace trucks regularly. Some newer trucks around 2010 had deck guns, but for the most part, the TFD doesn't order them. Why? I have no idea. I believe the issue is the old Chief in charge of apparatus. He does not like Q sirens either cuz they draw too much power.
I was in a rural department. Never used the deck gun. I was told it used too much water. We had 1000 gallon engines. with top mount pumps, always followed by a 1500 gallon tanker and two more 2500 and 3000 gallon tankers enroute. I even got chastised for using the nose turret on the grass truck for the same reason. Never seemed to remember that deal. I wanted to use the deck gun on car fires if I was by myself or had a rookie Made sense to me while mutual aid was enroute.
The old saying goes, WHY HAVE THESE APPLIANCES ON THE RIG IF THEY ARE NOT TO BE USED ? THEY ARE NOT THERE FOR LOOKS ONLY, THEY ARE THERE TO BE USED, PERIOD !!!!!
My dept has a electronic gun due to access of our gun limited to only back of rig. Did a drill the other day and demonstrated how much water you can flow in 20 seconds out of a 750 gallon tank. My summation to my crew you may not put fire out but you just bought yourself some breathing room to deploy attack line. Deck guns are great tools but you need to practice.
Let's not forget that Rogue River is mostly a volunteer fire department along with college students from Rogue Community College. They do have career members, but most of those career guys staff the ambulances for not only Rogue River but also for Evans Valley. Rogue River Fire is a good department, one of the best in the Rogue Valley, but clearly they could use some more training and more manpower.
Thanks so much for the comments. I too came from the volunteer service. I learned a lot there. Yes, and we've all had our days like this.. I know much of what I know now, because I too made mistakes.
It's interesting as a member of a very poor fire station (can't even afford a second truck) the first thing I was taught was how to use the deck gun, also he always have to chalk our wheels because the breaks wouldn't always hold
The firefighting forum I'm on (where members actually have to prove they are active/retired before being allowed to join) has one of the members of this FD on it. He claimed it's a 750 gallon tank with about 700 useable. The flow rate of a typical stacked tip DG (arguably the most common set up) will easily exceed 1,000 gpm at the 80psi needed to get reach with the stream. So you are looking at less than a minute of flow in this case, and 700 gallons isn't going to do squat on the primary structure here. Combination nozzles will flow less but their streams are far less effective so you may get a extra 30 seconds of flow, you are getting less water onto the seat of the fire.
With a fire like that, my first thought would be use the deck gun. It takes 24 to 26 seconds. To utilize, then use a hand line. However, the engineer needs to be retrained and That's just my Thought as a retired firefighter I'm just saying I could be wrong
As an enthusiast... raised in the fire house... because the structure was deemed a loss before the water got on scene? Wouldn't the deck gun knock down the red on a fire already burning out?
I love the deck gun but I actually prefer a 2.5 for a large volume of fire. Deck gun is fixed, 2.5 is mobile and plenty of flow from either one. I’ve been on the deck gun and sometimes you just can’t get the angle you need. Pull a 2.5 and put some big fire out from anywhere you want to be.
Inflexibility is one of the two main hinderances of the DG, that and without a supply you're dry in about a minute. This FD made the best choice in this case, strategic hand-line use to protect the exposure until they bagged the hydrant As for 2.5 hand-lines, they are about the best tool for well established fires but only when equipped with a proper tip So many FD's are still using combination nozzles which really hinders 2.5 use as it really takes 2 FF to move them In the 90's I pushed hard for smooth bore stream shaper tips, it took some time but things finally got rolling With an SB tip one FF can handle 400gpm @80psi as easy as an 1.75 at a lower psi The best part is that you can flow that sort of volume without the air-entrainment issues or wasting water by making steam before you ever reach the seat, all while easily maneuvering the line and not burning yourself out.
@@virgilhilts3924 … a 2.5 really should never be handled by 1 firefighter regardless of the nozzle. People also make too much out of nozzle type. Bottom line is put water on the fire. Steam conversion eats up btu’s slowing fire growth which is obviously a good thing. There are benefits to every tool, but one thing is universal, water on the fire quickly is what needs to happen.
@@tewksburydriver8624 "a 2.5 really should never be handled by 1 firefighter regardless of the nozzle" -Nonsense "People also make too much out of nozzle type" -Clearly you've never run a HVLP nozzle -You can easily flow 325gpm @ 50psi out of 2.5 and handle it with one hand -At 100psi you can flow 500gpm with as much effort as running a 1.75 at a nominal 80psi -Night and day difference, all while getting similar reach "Steam conversion eats up btu’s slowing fire growth which is obviously a good thing" -Decades old myth from the days when fog nozzles were all the rage -Steam doesnt kill fire, gpm on the seat does -Proven in the field, proven in the lab, proven with science -That fallacy is one of the reasons HPLV came and went as fast as it did in the 90's, it was a disaster "one thing is universal, water on the fire quickly is what needs to happen" -Speed is no where near as important as sound tactics and GPM regarding your typical seated structure fire -If you want I would be more than happy to provide an example that you can run the numbers on yourself
@@virgilhilts3924 … ok I’ve only been a full time firefighter for over 20 years, been to hundreds of fires. Why would you want 1 person on a 2.5” hand line? That is just stupid. Anytime cool water is converted to steam the btu’s absorbed slows spread buying time for a direct attack, hence the transitional attack. 20 seconds of water flow can drop a 1000 degree room down to 400 degrees, this is a fact. Delaying cooling is a horrible and dangerous thing, flashover. Every nozzle has a purpose but the back and forth is ridiculous. Bottom line any professional firefighter should be able to effectively attack a fire with either one.
@@tewksburydriver8624 Why would you want 1 person on a 2.5” hand line?" -Why not? "That is just stupid" -How so? "Anytime cool water is converted to steam the btu’s absorbed slows spread" -Again, regarding the seat, it is myth as proven over the decades with science -GPMs on the seat kills BTUs faster than steam in the air "buying time for a direct attack, hence the transitional attack. 20 seconds of water flow can drop a 1000 degree room down to 400 degrees, this is a fact. Delaying cooling is a horrible and dangerous thing" -Who said a word about delaying anything? -Again, research in the lab and the field has proven that a solid stream attack reduces BTU's more efficiently than a fog -And it has the advantage of reduced air entrainment which reduces all the negatives of using a fog "Every nozzle has a purpose but the back and forth is ridiculous. Bottom line any professional firefighter should be able to effectively attack a fire with either one" -Who said one couldn't? -But a solid stream has far greater benefits over using out dated fog nozzles -You do not even have to take my word for it, just look at the research -Better still, see for yourself by using the two side by side in a burn house -Whether using a thermocouple set up, a simple TIC, or the ole nape of the neck... the difference is staggering -DO NOT take my word for it... try them side by side and see for yourself -In fact, if you ever come to the SW part of the US I can will be happy to arrange for it -Then look at all the results of the introduction (fad) of HPLV systems in the 90's, as I mentioned already the results were horrific. FD's that bought into the fad were spending tens of thousands on the systems and then dumping them often within months of putting them in service. Crews were fighting structure fires with glorified car wash wards because "Muh steam conversion!" and it was a disaster. I know because I worked through it having started my career in the 80's. I'm about an hours drive from one of the largest fire research & training facilities in the U.S. and watched much of the testing first hand.
Like other scenes this can be a good tabletop. I would use it not to show how any group performed, but what might we do on similar problems. I agree this is a deck gun opportunity early. That needs to be followed with a confirmed supply, early. I agree with chocks, but even if outside the SOP, one can get that done soon, post water. SCBA is fine to have ready for a wind shift, but only if needed right now. I think many troopies opt for handlines because they want to be first on a line and not be chastised by other Responders. It's better to do what the fire dictates and not what the others think. If a Department isn't training on the deck gun, that's a Departmental problem, and individual companies (small unit operations) need to hone that skill.
I'm not hating on the deck gun at all here. Trust me I love the tool. But that side by side comparison to a cross lay felt like they were really taking their time. I would say I typically have a 200 ft cross lay flaked in around 20-25 seconds pretty easily. so should be flowing water in more like 45.
A couple years ago I watched a video here that I thought was impressive. A house had heavy fire and single truck (maybe an engine tanker as I am thinking it had two axles in back) pulls in front of the house. The deck gun was started quickly and another firefighter started pulling hose to a hydrant on the corner. I wish I could find that video again as it seemed they worked quickly and efficiently especially given one truck and just a few guys.
@@xheralt Yes! Thank you very much! I am not sure if that is the way it should be done however that sure looked like the firefighters were quick and efficient and effective.
At around 6 minutes you talking about chocking wheel. Department policy chock wheel especially on hill. Would have dropped supply on the way in. Never come in dry. Will drop and repack dry any day. Have and not need over need and not have.
Deplody the deck gun while you set up if you have onboard tank. A deck gun for limited manpower first do apparatus is first attack until a watr supply is extablished. Most apparatus are not properly set for hose deployment. You need a couple 100 foot quicjk lines over the 200 foot loads. A deck gun can reduce the risk of spread,yes it is limited by how much water the apparatus is cattying but the faster the wet is on the red the quicker it can be under control.
No The thought was... "The primary structure is fully involved so instead of waisting resources on it lets protect the exposure" They had water on the exposure ~90 sec after arrival and a second line in service ~90 sec after the first All while obtaining a water supply as well BTW the exposure was saved
Excellent object lesson on a very underutilized and sometime misused resource. Some food for thought.... Since RUclips provides a far reaching resource for many it is important that we remember that some who who watch may have limited KSA's. It would be beneficial that the narrative be balanced to give "a little insight" by using some of what are in the comments (not a full training class) other than, using the deck gun if there's big fire is a good thing. In your discussion it would be beneficial to briefly cover some of the general situations and considerations where deploying the deck gun would be valuable resource (as many have pointed out in the comments) and where it might be a potential detriment (causing undue damage, hindering or endangering other crews, pushing the fire into unburned areas etc). Also deployment of the deck gun will also generally allow for concurrent activities utilizing by the rest of the crew such as: setting up a supply line, putting a hand line in service, securing utilities, exposure protection...... Without question the deck gun can be deployed faster than a pre-connected hand line, but clarify that the LAFD is only an example as there are many types of pre-connected loads being used by departments around the country that are faster to deploy than the one used by LAFD. Regarding the reference and comments about setting the chock block, 1- it has a negligible impact on getting the deck gun in service as it takes very little time to set and 2-some departments require their use as you eluded to in the video. Either way it is a non-issue. Bottom line, the key learning objective really isn't whether deploying the deck gun is faster than a hand line, it is presenting the benefits and limitations of the deck gun and maximizing the potential for its effective use. Keep up the good work!
Yes because professional career FD's are sitting around waiting for advice from RUclips Rando fire-buffs who clearly have little to no experience fighting actual fires 😂🤣😅
I see a big change in the fire later in the video now instead of trickling out of the right side of the house and blowing out the back end unbelievable like it was out front these guys have done nothing to slow this thing down
ruclips.net/video/me7_rj5S8NQ/видео.html PLEASE CHECK OUT PART 2
It always boggled me when firefighters would say you’re wasting water with the deck gun or even the 2.5”. If you’re putting out the fire, you’re not wasting water. I’ve seen way more water wasted by stretching 1.75” lines on fires that were beyond their capability. If you don’t see immediate effect, you’re not discharging enough water for the fire.
I complete agree.. As long as you're not overshooting the building with the deck gun. Either you're putting it out or you're not. Even if you do run out, you've reset the timer on fire growth and hopefully have prevented things like fire entry into the exposure soffits. Side note - I didn't mention it here, but with a 2 1/2 line, especially operated by one person, you get tired, hard to move, shutting on and off, you end up flowing less water at the fire sometimes than even a 1 3/4 open consistently. I used a deck gun on 2 fully involved tractor trailers (loaded) and a car on a highway. After 15 minutes of hand lines not doing anything, deck gun (with tanker supply) knocked everything down in 40 seconds.
In this case one would be "wasting water" if applying it to the primary when it is already lost and you have an exposure to protect. Literally... who cares about the primary, it was lost before arrival. Use hand-lines to strategically protect the exposure until you establish a supply and get more resources, then deal with the primary.
@@virgilhilts3924 I respectfully disagree. Are there areas of this burning mess that I would initially ignore? YES. However, you could blast all of the areas near the exposure and remove 99% of the threat. Furthermore, you could hit the exposure with the deck gun and quickly and effectively knockdown any fire threatening to extend into the adjacent structure.
@@TransmitThe1075
"However, you could blast all of the areas near the exposure and remove 99% of the threat"
-Nonsense, the bulk of the fire load is behind the garage in the main structure and largely out of reach due to intervening structure. No way is anyone going to remove 99% of the threat... or even 50%. All it would have done is darken the garage portion and quickly empty the tank
"you could hit the exposure with the deck gun and quickly and effectively knockdown any fire threatening to extend into the adjacent structure"
-Again, nonsense. The radiant heat is the threat to the exposure, so blowing your wad on the exposure isn't going to remove the threat. And since the bulk of the threat is out of reach of the deck gun you aren't going to remove it.
These guys did EXACTLY what they should have and use their tank strategically to protect the exposure until the supply was ready and more manpower arrived.
@@virgilhilts3924 ok. Well, I’ll mark you down for “ the guys did a great job”. I don’t think that’s going to be the overwhelming consensus. But you have a right to your opinion.
For me it’s all about reducing the radiant heat a huge fire load presents to the exposures. I’ve deployed the deck gun numerous times to knock down large fires while the crew gets hand lines and supply lines in service. If you ain’t gonna use it, get rid of it.
I like that
I have 1000 gallon engines. 13/8 tip on deck gun. Very good idea commit 250 gallons over 30 seconds for a quick knock down. Great videos. Love the knowledge
My SOP for my guys was to use it often on Dumpster Fires. Made many above ground swimming pools for close to 40 years OTJ.
Dumpster fires are damn dangerous. A hell of a lot more than you would think , chemicals, pesticides, aerosol cans ...
Deck gun quick usally at pump idle speed. No hose pick up just fill the pool up
Wait a few minutes, pull the drain plug. Empty return plug go refill the booster .
Done !
As a former firefighter,I've always wondered why the deck gun wasn't used more on fires with all fire departments,I guess the deck gun was put on the fire apparatus as a decoration,enjoyed the video,and thank you for your service 👍😀
For me as a company officer I prefer to use the deck gun 90% of the time
Aren't deck guns installed so the chauffeur can wet down the crowds on July 4?
One thing I love about watching video of Chicago Fire Department is that they (by and large) remember their deck guns.
you are absolutely right about the deck gun
Our Engine was equipped with a deck gun pre connected with150'of three inch line off of the back step of the truck.That gives you access to all sides of the fire building. Not to mention the one permanently mounted on the top of the truck.when man power is sometimes limited, it is a great way to put the wet stuff on the red stuff.This was one valuable set up for a variety of situations, strip malls, industrial, and especially buildings under construction. For the life of me I do not understand why both paid and volunteer departments excell in making their lives harder and more complicated.
Agreed on all points Brother. Big fire, big water! An old chauffer here engine, ladder, tower ladder and tanker, my job is to make it easy for everyone on the scene. But that job I would have deck gunned it in a heartbeat and would have been dragging a 5" over to the hydrant while that was happening freeing the oic and the 2 hose draggers to buy some time and get the hand lines stretched and in operation.
Chief here…I’ve brought up deck guns for years in RUclips, and your view was absolutely correct, and very well presented .
The really sad part here is that’s a 1000 gallon tank in the engine, and they could have gotten a solid 3 minutes of flow on the gun…that’s multiple times what that first video on the house fire utilized…and look how effective it was!
The crew could have pretty much gotten the supply line hooked up and flowing into the pump before the tank was out, and a large volume of the fire would have been darkened down already.
With hydrant water they could have then continued with the deck gun and went to hand lines. Exposures could have been wetted a bit to help control spread.
Your video premise and examples should be formalized into a training pod, like LACFD uses theirs. Thanks 😉👍
A common triple stack is going to flow ~600gpm at 80psi (a pressure needed to get the reach) with the smallest tip, and easily 1000gpm if the stack is taken down to the 2 inch tip. So no you aren't getting "a solid 3 minutes" as you asserted. Your comments prove you aren't a professional firefighter let alone a "chief". ( take note of this @Transmit the 1075 as to my prior comment about "consensus").
Not to mention the fact that this engine uses a 750 gallon tank not the 1000 you stated. At best they might squeak out a minute of flow, most of which isn't going to effectively be applied in this instance. The best option here is exactly what they did, ignore the already total loss primary to strategically protect the exposure that was starting to off gas while obtaining a water supply.
Thank you so much for your post and I appreciate the kind words.
@@TransmitThe1075
Professional firefighters can spot the phony's a mile away
Just like "Fred Phillips" who claims he is a "Chief" yet doesn't know basic flow rates, something that is a memory commit item to even begin testing for Engineer, let alone an officer or senior command staff. Yet not only do you clearly do not see this, you have several times now "thanked" some of the biggest and most ridiculed pretend firefighters here, very telling.
You are at a crossroads, either align with professional experienced firefighters and educate yourself, or sit in a circle-jerk of fools and pat each other on the back while getting laughed at by the professionals.
🤔
As a person who builds these that tank is likely 700-750 gallons not 1,000. Often people in the world of firefighting see an engine and automatically assume 1,000-gallon tank sizes. It still provides a few minutes of water through controlled discharge but its notably less.
In my area there's multiple different procedures by county on what to do when arriving at such event. Some let the second due catch the hydrant, that being the case this would not be a viable option. Other things to consider would be a non-viable hydrant, if it doesn't flow properly or at all and that deck gun is going it won't be any better than handlines given the time needed to secure a secondary hydrant or draft dependent on the area.
@@TransmitThe1075 p
Quick knockdown is the key. Have a gate on the deck gun, use that while your chauffeur is getting water and someone else is stretching. Makes life much easier
The last engine I worked on had its own pneumatic switch up at the deck gun. Even the chauffeur, could by himself, set the pressure on the ground, climb up and open the deck gun without wasting a drop.
@@TransmitThe1075 that’s the way to do it
Yeah as a former firefighter when i was a pump operator our goal was to have the water flowing in the truck cyerclyting an getting a water supply hook up while the guys pull the lines. So when they are ready I can open the value to the line. But I agree the deck gun should be used alot more while other guys are pulling lines.
I'm not a firefighter but I believe you are nailing it me personally as the officer in I would have deployed the deck gun upon arrival
On a Midwest department from 1970 to 1997 and served in all positions. We used the deck gun every chance we could we called it a Blitz Attack. A quick knock down using the 750 gallons of on board water. I think the second department needs some additiomal training. Good video.
Yes pump your tank dry in about a minute on structure that is already lost and will not be knocked down with tank water...
While ignoring an exposure that is already off-gassing and ready to light-off
Great idea! 👍
@@virgilhilts3924 knocking down the fire is the best way to protect expousure
wasting time putting your limited water on the exposure letting the fire exscape the back in to the forest is smart
What about the people inside the structure?
I think it’s becoming a more utilized tool. Especially with tanks on the trucks increasing. Just like everything else there has to be a game plan going in when using it.
Our local FD is not hesitant to use their deck guns. They usually pickup the closest hydrant to the scene and then lay in 3in or 5 in supply lines from there. As soon as the parking brake is pulled the crew is tanked and masked the signal is given to the hydrant catcher to charge the line and the water is on the way.
As a senior fire fighter in New Zealand I would 100% agree with the deck gun especially because of the bulk of fire right by the exposure, the house is already lost , we run off receo. Risk to life, exposures, containment, extinguish,overhaul.
Agree 100%. As driver I chose to take the engine with deck gun for dispatch to large storage garage fire. We were first on scene with myself and two FF. We immediately deployed deck gun and knocked down major portion of fire saving additional garage units.
We are a all volunteer FD and train often with the deck gun
👍👍👍👍
I completely agree the deck gun has its uses.
That only thing that I think is that if the house appears to be a total loss then yep blast away, BUT, I’m not going to use it for a room and contents. That’s when interior attack comes in to play Remember 1. Life safety 2. Property conservation. The deck hun has a lot of power so you start blasting a house you could be destroying what valuables are left and can be salvaged.
Just my Monday morning quarterback lol stay safe brothers.
I agree with you completely, but the scenario you’re suggesting doesn’t exist here, nor am I suggesting to do so in situations where an inch and three-quarter line works best.
Witch situation are you talking about because I have given two very plausible scenarios. You are making it seem like the deck hun should be used a lot more and that is not the case here That Oregon situation would have been the perfect situation for the deck gun. And you bashing those guys on taking forever is wrong those guys were working with what they had, did you see a second due com in shortly after ? No. Do you know that departments policy’s ? No. You are complaining about the engineer taking 18 seconds to get out of the cab, ever think he’s letting the fly wheel slowdown a bit after putting the truck in neutral to engage the pump ? They are also on a grade so yes he should put the chocks out in case of a break failure. Yea the LDH was a bit much but maybe they don’t have a 50’ section. Yes they were slow but maybe they had new guys out there.
You even said your self in your 30 something years being in the fire service you have only seen the deck gun a hand full of times. That’s because we have tactics in place to again for life safety an property conversation.
Just a couple of thoughts what if the was a suspected arson ? You would be destroying evidence beyond recognition. What if some how you needed to make entry and you have a guy blasting a deck gun? I can what if the hell out of this but I’m not going to but think about things yes the deck gun is a very useful tool but it is also a very destructive tool as well.
In California, the guy that drives is generally the engineer. The engineer is in charge of the pump and panel operation. Will also assist in pulling lines. Yellow helmets for firefighters, red helmets are the captains, white helmets are battalion chiefs.
60s 70s our district became comercial mecca, small fire company with 500 gpm pumper and 70s came the 750 gpm. We built a pipe with 1 1/4 brass tip, the pipe carried by 4 men attached to 100 ft 3 inch preconnect, length of chain and a blunt hook for attaching to post rail or another anchor. 1982 came time to use although deck guns where all the rage by then. That tool was inside 15k square foot building reaching alway to the back and took ceiling tiles down preventing the run above. 👨🚒
Thank you for your help, I am volunteer and see what is the lesson to be learned
I cannot agree with you more! Transitional attacks must be learned, practiced, and used whenever possible!
An agreement coming from someone who clearly has no firefighting experience 🤔
A "transitional attack" is one where you attack the fire from the exterior before *transitioning* to fight from the interior...
No one is going to make an interior attack on a fully involved structure... so this wouldn't be a "transitional attack"
@@virgilhilts3924 but you need to attack the fire not waste water on a nonburning building
As a company officer on an engine company, I have used the deck gun on many occasions, long before the words transitional attack were popular we were "dumping the tank" and getting a water supply to halt or at least slow the fire's progress. We have added another option to the engine companies, we have 500 GPM ground monitors pre-connected to 100' of 2.5" hose off the rear so the engine company can pull past the fire and leave the front of the fire building for the truck company. Your engine company should have multiple options to deliver large caliber streams when needed. As you mentioned several times in the video, fast water makes everything better.
Thanks for the comments
Something I've noticed as a researcher that when a house is perceived to be a total loss (as this one is) a lot of the urgency goes out of the fire crews. Some of this is understandable - if ever there was a defensive fire this is it and you want to protect your crew. But ... your point absolutely stands. There are exposures. They needed to be on this fire like a bear on a campsite, and if ever there was a case in using the master stream, this was it. They even had a ready source of water, which AFAIK is the main objection to using the deck gun - exhausts the water in the tank very quickly. The house may be a loss, but you really don't want the neighboring houses to go, too. This crew needs a serious bit of drilling and retraining.
Agreed.
@@TransmitThe1075 A lot of folks like to throw brickbats at firefighters doing a bad job in these videos, but in virtually every case, it's not bad firefighters at all. It's either bad training, bad leadership, or both. And everyone can have an off-day. I've even seen "total loss" fires (with no rescues or exposures) used as training exercises - for things like the deck gun. That certainly isn't laziness - that's a great opportunity to figure out weaknesses in your crew and what needs more training.
Context is super-important, and that's why I always do research. My goal isn't to throw food from the cheap seats - it's to learn!
I developed and utilized a blitz attack. Upon arrival of the first Engine, the officer would determine if the gun was to be used. If so, he would yell ‘BLITZ’ to the rest of the crew. Each seat had a pre planned job. Driver-ran the pump. Office climbed to the gun. Back seat closest to the fire started deploying the hand line. Back seat opposite side placed chocks and assisted with handline. Gun flowed until all visible fire was knocked or the tank was half depleted whichever came first.
Deck guns are the quickest and easiest way to get the wet stuff on the red stuff. it is also the quickest way to knock down the BTU's in a fire and make it manageable quickly.
I was told by a fire captain, droplets do nothing, drench the fire with everything. Deck gun sounds about right! Thank you for your service to the community.
Same principle as using a green line on a structure fire. Whatever water hits turns to steam.Same reason we get the question when they see us not hitting fire with water when someone in unaccounted for. We are doing a primary search and any water would turn the interior into a scalding steam bath.
Used the deck gun to blitz a front porch for crews to make access. It worked very well as an initial knockdown to give them time to force entry and get lines flowing. One caveat, is to make sure you know which tip you’ve got on the deck gun… previous shift put a smaller tip on, which provided crazy amounts of penetration… so much that it blasted out some windows 😬
Before y’all joke me, the fire occurred around 7:15 during shift change and the previous operator was on the toilet lol
I have used the Master Blaster or Monitor/deck gun multiple times. You always need to keep in mind that the gun will drain that 1000 gallon tank in less than a minute once you get it full pressure/flow and talking to others that is what they are afraid of. It is great if you have a crew that will tie you into a hydrant quickly to maintain it's use or have a tanker or E-T on scene with you until you have a constant water supply but you will empty a 3000 gallon tanker in less than 3 minutes.
Another issue is that where I am located many of our towns do not have townwide hydrant coverage and we rely on mutual aid and Tanker Tassk forces or shuttles. In that case the deck gun is only used for a few seconds but by the time you have adequate water suppl;y you have all the hand lines that you need working.
I can say that when I worked for a chemical /fuel company we had a high flow industrial pumper with a 10,000 gpm, 2- 8500 gpm and 1-5500 gpm guns and the water that put out was awesome coming from pressurized systems.
Not according to all the expert Chief's, Capitan's, and experienced firefighters here... just ask the OP
These guys could have got a good four minutes out their 750 gallon tank... they've already told us... they are experts
😅🤣😂🙃
@@virgilhilts3924 Must be something wrong with our deck gun because we emptied our tank in 56 seconds on our E-T. On our tanker/tender with a 3000 gallon tank we ran out 3 minutes and 7 seconds.
Were they using a green line or did they feed the town water gods and have then dumping water in the tank to keep it full.
@@georgemessler3345
I liked the clown who asserted using a 1-3/8 tip on a deck gun (absurd all on its own), flowing 600 gpm for 10 seconds on this fire and knocking it down. He's too much of a phony to understand that the only way you are forcing that kind of volume is by cranking up to 120-130psi which is going to entirely overshoot the house. Even if you could get the stream to the seat 100 gallons isn't going to do jack on a fully involved home like this.
That's the irony that these phony pretend firefighter clowns do not grasp... that experienced professional firefighters can spot their BS a mile away. They believe that if they throw out some termanology or made up numbers that people will think they are legit. The best part is that there are other phonies that support their BS, it's like a self fulfilling circle of clowns all trying to out-pretend each other.
I haven't had the heart yet to break it to the OP that I linked his commentary on this video over on the firefighter forum, you know, where you actually have to provide department credentials in order join & post. He's getting his arse torn apart over there and become a laughingstock. I was planning on posting some screenshots here for him to enjoy... but that might be a bit too cruel 😉
they had a working hydrant within a hundred feet if the driver got out got hose to the hydrant he have beenplenty of water
@@virgilhilts3924 my problem with you is not your number or how long thewater in there tank would last it that worry about the expouse when you have fill engulf building
if you so worried water supply then you put where it will do the most good and that is on the fire
when you put the fire out you will not have the fire spread
Everything you said is correct, but let me add ! Preconnects are to long unless you are only fighting commercial or industrial fires ! In my department I had 100,150 and 200 foot 1 3/4 precinnects and a 100 foot 3 inch line precinnect ! Any thing else was to be connected as needed ! The deck gun was used to knock down what could be hit while the other men made supply lines connections !
The deck gun is awesome tool to use
Some of us DO comprehend that rapid application of a large volume of water to a fire cools the fuel and the area around it.
Yet you fail to comprehend that tank water wouldn't do squat to this fire even if applied in the most efficient manner
Which BTW isn't with a deck-gun
Our department always uses the deck gun. Big water big fire!!!!
No department in the world "always" uses a deck gun...
Exactly right.
like with most items i believe the problem is lack of training. think back on your training regimens with deck guns, we spend a lot of time with attack lines, not so much with 2 1/2" or 3" hand line- and the deck gun is usually reserved when we are bringing out the ladder. so though we try later to rationalize it still falls back to what we teach in class and in our drills.
Great point. You don’t know what you don’t know, and you only known what you’ve learned.
When I joined the local volunteer fire department in 1980 we had a 1972 CF Mack with pre connected deck gun and 500gallon tank we sometimes blitzed the fire when we pulled up and there was a couple times the pump operator had to shut down for a couple minutes to get hydrant connection but it bought time to knock down the fire many times. Also the second engine was a 1954 Mack and that had a pre connected deck gun also so it was pretty much procedural for long time to blitz a heavy fire while stretching lines and hydrants.
Thanks for the comments
Wet stuff on red stuff. Paid or vollunteer the fire is the same. Basic stuff. And yes water cannon.
I'm from the UK and I agree with you that you have that powerful water cannon on top of rigs that is not utilised, and I have watched a lot of video's where not to offend anyone but tortoise and hare comes to mind, with tortoise being the word. Its like they not wanting to get stuck in and do their job. But I have seen others that do which restores my feelings that you have good ones as well. So please use your water cannon on top of your rigs to get it subdued, it's someone's home . Keep up with the great video's,
Yes, it’s a big country here and you get a large swath of different behavior and tactics. I believe most people do a good job, but keep in mind you’re only going to see the videos of when things go poorly, otherwise the fire would probably be out.
I could not agree more with your assessment here. Spot on. My only additional comment is that regardless of whether a hand line or deck gun is being used, there are also often issues with placement (aim) of the water stream relative to the seat of the fire. Lack of understanding of the effects of stream breakover, wind, poor gpm, etc. will not put out a fire regardless of how much water is available.
Great points. Thanks
I couldn't agree more!!! If you watch many raw video fires one sees that many depts often plan thier tactics on using a ladder pipe or tower ladder as they are commonly called. Many depts don't even have deck guns mounted. If nothing else always hustle on the scene . These guys showed none of that whatsoever. Thank you for your contribution, narration, and common sense comments. Your observations are articulate and educational ( I hope)
Care to explain your reasoning?
After all they had water on the exposure ~90 sec after arrival and a second line in service ~90 sec after the first
All while obtaining a water supply
And the exposure was saved
@@virgilhilts3924 it's obvious from this and your prior comments that you are either a member of or mutual aid to this department, as you cannot see the multiple errors committed. You've stated multiple times how great they did. And as for my Experience, I'm both a paid man , officer on a rescue company of a large city, and also a volunteer on my local department with 20 plus years, before you question my " knowledge and experience ". This whole incident was a cluster f%#k and showed lack of training, urgency, efficiency, and professionalism .
I just love you keyboard smoke-eaters
@ transmit the 10-75... Like your videos and comments and breakdown. Keep up the good work
@@drgnslayr72
"it's obvious from this and your prior comments that you are either a member of or mutual aid to this department"
-It's obvious that starting a response by slinging ad hominem instead of factually refuting anything I've stated shows how intellectually insecure you are... just say'n 😉
"as you cannot see the multiple errors committed"
-Yet you presented not a single one... hmmm 🤔
"You've stated multiple times how great they did"
-I do not believe I ever made that statement, please cite where I did, maybe I missed it 😊
"And as for my Experience, I'm both a paid man , officer on a rescue company of a large city, and also a volunteer on my local department with 20 plus years, before you question my " knowledge and experience "
-Your asserted pedigree doesn't factually refute the strength of my argument
"This whole incident was a cluster f%#k and showed lack of training, urgency, efficiency, and professionalism"
-Okay, cite each specific "error" as you see it...
-Explain specifically why it is an "error"...
-Along with the negative effect on the outcome...
-Then detail what should have been done instead of each "error"...
-Along with how it would have created a specific and more positive overall outcome...
Aaaaand GO!
The more I see this the more training I see they could use.
@@bobdambra4421
On...?
Edmonton Fire Rescue wastes no time using a monitor on any fire. I have seen them used on car, brush and building fires. The monitor is so versatile and quick to use.
Out of 19 years as a Volunteer Firefighter, I can honestly say that I can count the number of times on one hand that wheel chocks were deployed, and that number does not add up to 5. I can also count the number of times on one hand that a deck gun was used, and again, that number does not add up to 5.. And I have never ever seen any Chauffeur don an SCBA while setting up the Pump, and getting handlines charged.
So because you haven't seen it no one should do it?
I started my FF career in the military... chocked every piece of rolling equipment
When I started my civilian FF career in the 80's... chocked every piece of rolling equipment
After retiring from them and now volleying in my copious amount of free time... chocked every piece of rolling equipment
It was written SOP in every FD I worked for or with
The deck gun likely wasnt used in your VFD because most do not know how or when to use them properly
Just as in this case, the DG should not have been used until after the exposure was protected and a supply line in place
@@virgilhilts3924 i do not beleive you wore military because you think those guys wore good
in my militaryservice i never saw guy move so slow
the engineer worrying chocking the wheels when he neeeded hook up the hydrant
knocking down the fire is first
Nice work. Deck gun for the Win.
I see this in every video I see on U-tube so yes I do agree with you
Not going to knock the wheel chocks! In my department, the SOG is for the engineer to engage the pump before getting out and the second thing is to circulate the water then set the chocks. Doesn’t take but a few seconds and has to be done. In that video they were in a hill! What good is the engine if it has rolled down the hill?
Things need to be done correctly. We don’t skip steps because a few think it is a waste of time. Train to your SOGs and train like it is real.
I see lots of videos of firefighters wearing BAs but not bother to actually putting them on! Why do we call a firefighter a hero who foolishly does roof venting while wearing a BA but not actually wearing it as he falls through the roof and gets badly burned?
Been a firefighter for 23 years.
I agree, I guess my point was just that under the circumstances with so many Significant priorities to get the first line in service and have a water supply that being distracted with chocks was not the best use of his time. But I concede your point, it would’ve been great had he set the chocks quickly and effectively. Instead we got laissez-faire.
@@TransmitThe1075 I agree about the general lack of smart aggression on everyone’s part! It is very evident with the first guy out of the rig that sat behind the engineer. We just knew this was not going to be pretty. I have always wondered what happens in a department to cause such lack of effort in the firefighters.
Yes I know this was from a year ago, but I do think deploying wheel chucks, on what appears to be a incline is a way to keep the firefighters safe, not make the situation worse and also as a bonus not end up on a OSHA training video.
In Detroit it’s very common to hear the first arriving officer tell the second arriving engine to pull up & dump the monitor. That’s what we call it. We do reverse lays with our engine stretch so it’s never usually a problem having the 2nd engine get close and still leave room for the Truck. We go hard after that dump & very rarely loose the fight
Why wouldn’t they drop a water supply line on the way in after seeing that much fire?
Great example in this video. Also, that was LA County fire not LAFD.
Yes. Thank you.
According to my Baccauloreate In Fire Sciences from The Florida State University! The deck gun on an engine is a suppressor for when you show up to a structure fire and attempt to man individual water lines or if the fire is in a small vessel the firefighters are blind to! I prefer the proven method of manning a hose and going into the structure to secure it and save any occupants that there might be inside!
Not sure I’m following you. Nobody is suggesting not going inside to save occupants. We’re talking about buildings w a heavy volume of fire. And BTW FSU sucks!! Go Gators!!!
As others have said, why have a deck gun on any Apparatus if it will never be used ? Deck Guns can be useful on so many calls, especially if it's a Volunteer Fire Dept, and man power is extremely limited. They can be used on Structure Fires, Dumpster, and Landfill Fires, and even vehicle fires in some cases. The main focus should be to get the fire out asap
No in this case the main focus should have been protecting the exposure because the primary was clearly a loss before they even arrived... which is exactly what this crew did and they saved the exposure.
Watching this a year later. We’re using this incident as an example in our training. Everyone 100% agrees that you could have used the deck gun to at least knock majority of the fire down. (Or what one firefighter put it “Punching the fire right in the mouth”) Even more so with a hydrant that close. While the 2.5 is a good option. It takes time to deploy, allowing the fire to grow and spread.
In another note that is a heck of hose that firefighters had to pull off. They must have to make some long attack line lays out there.
Being a viewer of this incident my guess on Driver Chocking wheel & Donning pack after getting out of cab & engaging pump is because the agency is heavily SOP driven versus SOG.
We don't have to many deck guns in our trucks in Sydney Australia, but we would never be that slow getting the pump going..... we take turns at driving each shift, and my crew are pretty competitive... we are always pushing each other to be better and faster... a good driver should nearly have that handline charged at the front door by the time the crew is masked up....
FYI; We are required upon arrival after Engine is placed in pump as an Engineer on any piece of apparatus, to immediately chock Drive Axle and get airpack on working fire. These are Department Policy with no exceptions.
I’ll accept the chocks as a reasonable policy. Though it should be done vastly quicker during a serious incident. That said, being required to wear an air pack as the driver/chauffeur/engineer is absurdly ridiculous. Whomever is creating these policies should consider an alternative occupation. This is not to say if there was some situation where vast amounts of smoke and toxins are engulfing the apparatus, that you wouldn’t put your mask on.
Those poor guys probably have been beat down by the safety side of the house. Some how when they are pressured by “safety” the fire ground urgency decreases and the skills go away.
True providing you have similar fire conditions!
I agree deck gun when the engine arrives on scene. i see a few other things that are not good. One is the firefighter on the tailboard pulling hose out of the hose bed and piling it up on the ground instead of pulling the hose from the bed and flake it out behind the truck. And the members not moving with a prepose.
Excellent evaluation. A lot of firefighters are hesitant to use the deck gun without a water supply established. However it’s not necessary. Let’s say you are flowing a 1 3/8” tip at 600gpm. That’s 10gallons per second. If operated for 10 seconds while a line is being stretched you only used 100gallons of water. Most of America has 500-750gallon tanks. Even if you run out of water that is not a bad thing if the fire has been significantly knocked down.
Word!
Oh look yet another phony YT firefighter... 1 3/8 on a monitor... 100 gallons of water... significantly knocked down 😅😂
Even better is that the OP agreed 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
A quick knock down while you establish a water suplly, You remove heat (1/3) of the fire triangle, exposure to personell, and give time to get a water supply. Even if the tank empties, refill and start agin, or by that time have a handline pulled after a supply and open up.
Meanwhile the exposure that was already off gassing lights off while you've been dinking around wasting water on a structure that was a loss before the engine even arrived.
Actually a big chunk of that structure looks saves me.
Considering the angle on the hill, choking the Engine isn't a bad thing. Deck gun while getting hydrant water isn't a bad thing. Blitz gun would have helped if they voted against the deck gun.
Its not that I'm really opposed to using the chocks, It just blows my mind, with all the responsibilities this chauffeur needs to accomplish in the first 5 minutes of this incident, the chocks is what stuck in his mind?? I'm not opposed to Blitz either, though, it would taken longer to deploy and the angle isn't as effective. The deck gun, at the high point gives a far better attack angle, likely higher GPM, higher pressure, more penetration and I prefer the strait bore (assuming you have a blitz with a fog nozzle). Either option would have certainly been better than what occurred.
@@TransmitThe1075 I've seen some x-urban departments recently with a Blitz on an Attack line.
I live in a north Dallas Tx suburb. Our population is just over 250 thousand. Before the first line was off that truck we would have six or seven trucks there with at least one being a ladder truck. We have very few houses go to the ground unless it is a drug lab that caused fire throughout the house instantly. I feel very thankful for what we have. Also there would be medics there also to back up the firemen if one or more are hurt.
i'm still in the middle of watching this on my TV. several years ago.......the Westfield Fire District in Middletown Ct had a 3 or 4 story framed structure on the deck. the first due Chauffer opted to use his bumper turret. knocked the main body down and saved the 12- 16 unit building.........just sayin......
Good point. In the perfect world one action to fit the same scenario every time would be awesome but we are not in the perfect world. I am kind of lost when you say chauffer but then I revert back to Engineer or driver. Unless he happened to be an officer I don't know of any department where the driver would make that decision. Not saying it doesn't happen, I just don't know of departments where it happens.
On my volly E-T I take every one of my crews opinions seriously but in the end I have to make the call and I am the one who has to go infront of the Chief if crap fails. I have a constant crew of 10 and we train in every members position. Right now I have my 2 newest on Pump ops, I have 5 qualified to chauffer/drive as well as take the front right seat if need be. I have guys that love interior ops, some who do vent and roof ops and every one of them who love what they do. Some love the master blaster and some would rather break out a 2 1/2 and hold the line until their arms fall off. It all depends on the 360 if we are first on.
My guess is Chief said it was defensive from the beginning. We put a gate valve on our deck guns so the engineer can do it all himself while someone else is grabbing his hydrant.
Dropping chocks is a blanket SOP at many departments, and isn’t a bad practice. It also should not take more then 10 seconds.
Agreed. 👍
Old guy once said "You can unwet almost anything-you can't unburn a damn thing"
Brilliant!!! Lol
Yes usually this is used only on defensive attacks
FYI, setting the chocks takes like 25 seconds and can prevent a catastrophe if the rig jumps into gear (it has happened in the past, just not in your past). The Deck Gun should not be used on an occupied structure fire because it produces a massive amount of smoke and steam expansion which can, and has caused occupant deaths due to smoke inhalation.
Chief Hughes
Battalion 1 (retired)
Chicago FD
I think I expressed the idea of not being against this practice. However, I know many huge city departments that never use them ever. My point in this particular case is that this chauffeur was worried about everything except actually doing his job.
Unless you have more than 2k gals of water on the first due, most rural departments here in rural OH would probably go to the 2.5” Blitz due to limited water supply and manpower. Deck gun is awesome for an initial quick hit but if you have a fire that big, the structure usually is a loss.
If that guy was my chauffeur,I would just be getting to my prom, twenty five years later!
Did they save the basement.
Saving another basement
The primary structure was lost before they even arrived
The crew saved the exposure
I HAD to watch this when you mentioned the deck gun. I'm no expert but I've been watching fire videos on RUclips lately and I saw how effective that deck gun could be and I wondered why it isn't used more. I have a question-the deck gun is using water that is on the truck and when it's gone, no more deck gun. Is it possible to get water into the truck and keep the deck gun going? As a compliment to the regular lines?
Absolutely. You could hit a fire hydrant, another engine, a tanker truck or theoretically draft from a water source like a pond, stream, lake or pool. If you’re good, you might be able to accomplish this prior to running out of water.
Don't need water in the tank. Feed from hydrant...
That was painful and frustrating to watch. I really saw no sense of urgency from watching those guys work. I didn't get the impression that teamwork was high on the list of priorities either.
Agreed
Thanks for the videos. I'm not a firefighter but I know my way around equipment. By watching these videos you first have to assume that the arriving firefighters actually want to put out the fire. To me it seems they don't. Seems the deck gun is Taking away their glory and would make their job too easy. That fire could have been knocked down in a minute with the deck gun and then they could have established their water supply to then attack with the hand lines. If it were my house thats what I would have been looking for.
I appreciate your comments. In defense of these firefighters. I think this mostly has to do with inexperience, and or training that has instilled these types of practices. Particularly when things are stressful it’s sometimes hard to evaluate the best tactics. I don’t think there are any firefighters who don’t want to do a good job. The question is do they have the physical ability, the mental tenacity and the proper training.
Very good video and commentary. I'd love to use the deck gun, if we had one. Most of our engines don't have one.
Really? Don’t think I ever worked on an engine that didn’t have one. I thought it might actually be a prerequisite for Class A pumper certification. Where are you located?
@@TransmitThe1075 Toronto Canada
Is this largely Due to the majority of the fleet comprised of old trucks? I don’t see many modern trucks when they are on the air
@@achunable No. This is in Canada's largest City, Toronto. We replace trucks regularly. Some newer trucks around 2010 had deck guns, but for the most part, the TFD doesn't order them. Why? I have no idea. I believe the issue is the old Chief in charge of apparatus. He does not like Q sirens either cuz they draw too much power.
I was in a rural department. Never used the deck gun. I was told it used too much water. We had 1000 gallon engines. with top mount pumps, always followed by a 1500 gallon tanker and two more 2500 and 3000 gallon tankers enroute. I even got chastised for using the nose turret on the grass truck for the same reason. Never seemed to remember that deal. I wanted to use the deck gun on car fires if I was by myself or had a rookie Made sense to me while mutual aid was enroute.
The old saying goes, WHY HAVE THESE APPLIANCES ON THE RIG IF THEY ARE NOT TO BE USED ? THEY ARE NOT THERE FOR LOOKS ONLY, THEY ARE THERE TO BE USED, PERIOD !!!!!
My dept has a electronic gun due to access of our gun limited to only back of rig. Did a drill the other day and demonstrated how much water you can flow in 20 seconds out of a 750 gallon tank. My summation to my crew you may not put fire out but you just bought yourself some breathing room to deploy attack line. Deck guns are great tools but you need to practice.
👍👍👍👍👍
Let's not forget that Rogue River is mostly a volunteer fire department along with college students from Rogue Community College. They do have career members, but most of those career guys staff the ambulances for not only Rogue River but also for Evans Valley. Rogue River Fire is a good department, one of the best in the Rogue Valley, but clearly they could use some more training and more manpower.
Thanks so much for the comments. I too came from the volunteer service. I learned a lot there. Yes, and we've all had our days like this.. I know much of what I know now, because I too made mistakes.
I don't believe the poster is taking shots at the crew themselves, just the technique at the time. Anybody who dances with the Devil gets respect.
Sure we have volunteer crews in Europen too. But they are properly trained.
What's your point? You don't have to be a brain surgeon to use a Deck Gun.
@@RonCham The problem in the USA fire service is the Officers and Trainers, not the firefighter/followers.
It's interesting as a member of a very poor fire station (can't even afford a second truck) the first thing I was taught was how to use the deck gun, also he always have to chalk our wheels because the breaks wouldn't always hold
How much water is in the truck? 1,000 gallons at 300 gpm is 3-4 minutes of water on the fire before the supply line needs to be up and running.
The firefighting forum I'm on (where members actually have to prove they are active/retired before being allowed to join) has one of the members of this FD on it. He claimed it's a 750 gallon tank with about 700 useable.
The flow rate of a typical stacked tip DG (arguably the most common set up) will easily exceed 1,000 gpm at the 80psi needed to get reach with the stream. So you are looking at less than a minute of flow in this case, and 700 gallons isn't going to do squat on the primary structure here. Combination nozzles will flow less but their streams are far less effective so you may get a extra 30 seconds of flow, you are getting less water onto the seat of the fire.
With a fire like that, my first thought would be use the deck gun. It takes 24 to 26 seconds. To utilize, then use a hand line. However, the engineer needs to be retrained and That's just my Thought as a retired firefighter I'm just saying I could be wrong
As an enthusiast... raised in the fire house... because the structure was deemed a loss before the water got on scene? Wouldn't the deck gun knock down the red on a fire already burning out?
I’d like to answer your question but I don’t know what you’re saying
@@TransmitThe1075 I think what I'm asking is, the deck gun isn't getting used because the house is already a total loss
Some rural areas the hydrant might be dry or defective.
I love the deck gun but I actually prefer a 2.5 for a large volume of fire. Deck gun is fixed, 2.5 is mobile and plenty of flow from either one. I’ve been on the deck gun and sometimes you just can’t get the angle you need. Pull a 2.5 and put some big fire out from anywhere you want to be.
Inflexibility is one of the two main hinderances of the DG, that and without a supply you're dry in about a minute.
This FD made the best choice in this case, strategic hand-line use to protect the exposure until they bagged the hydrant
As for 2.5 hand-lines, they are about the best tool for well established fires but only when equipped with a proper tip
So many FD's are still using combination nozzles which really hinders 2.5 use as it really takes 2 FF to move them
In the 90's I pushed hard for smooth bore stream shaper tips, it took some time but things finally got rolling
With an SB tip one FF can handle 400gpm @80psi as easy as an 1.75 at a lower psi
The best part is that you can flow that sort of volume without the air-entrainment issues or wasting water by making steam before you ever reach the seat, all while easily maneuvering the line and not burning yourself out.
@@virgilhilts3924 … a 2.5 really should never be handled by 1 firefighter regardless of the nozzle. People also make too much out of nozzle type. Bottom line is put water on the fire. Steam conversion eats up btu’s slowing fire growth which is obviously a good thing. There are benefits to every tool, but one thing is universal, water on the fire quickly is what needs to happen.
@@tewksburydriver8624
"a 2.5 really should never be handled by 1 firefighter regardless of the nozzle"
-Nonsense
"People also make too much out of nozzle type"
-Clearly you've never run a HVLP nozzle
-You can easily flow 325gpm @ 50psi out of 2.5 and handle it with one hand
-At 100psi you can flow 500gpm with as much effort as running a 1.75 at a nominal 80psi
-Night and day difference, all while getting similar reach
"Steam conversion eats up btu’s slowing fire growth which is obviously a good thing"
-Decades old myth from the days when fog nozzles were all the rage
-Steam doesnt kill fire, gpm on the seat does
-Proven in the field, proven in the lab, proven with science
-That fallacy is one of the reasons HPLV came and went as fast as it did in the 90's, it was a disaster
"one thing is universal, water on the fire quickly is what needs to happen"
-Speed is no where near as important as sound tactics and GPM regarding your typical seated structure fire
-If you want I would be more than happy to provide an example that you can run the numbers on yourself
@@virgilhilts3924 … ok I’ve only been a full time firefighter for over 20 years, been to hundreds of fires. Why would you want 1 person on a 2.5” hand line? That is just stupid.
Anytime cool water is converted to steam the btu’s absorbed slows spread buying time for a direct attack, hence the transitional attack. 20 seconds of water flow can drop a 1000 degree room down to 400 degrees, this is a fact. Delaying cooling is a horrible and dangerous thing, flashover. Every nozzle has a purpose but the back and forth is ridiculous. Bottom line any professional firefighter should be able to effectively attack a fire with either one.
@@tewksburydriver8624
Why would you want 1 person on a 2.5” hand line?"
-Why not?
"That is just stupid"
-How so?
"Anytime cool water is converted to steam the btu’s absorbed slows spread"
-Again, regarding the seat, it is myth as proven over the decades with science
-GPMs on the seat kills BTUs faster than steam in the air
"buying time for a direct attack, hence the transitional attack. 20 seconds of water flow can drop a 1000 degree room down to 400 degrees, this is a fact. Delaying cooling is a horrible and dangerous thing"
-Who said a word about delaying anything?
-Again, research in the lab and the field has proven that a solid stream attack reduces BTU's more efficiently than a fog
-And it has the advantage of reduced air entrainment which reduces all the negatives of using a fog
"Every nozzle has a purpose but the back and forth is ridiculous. Bottom line any professional firefighter should be able to effectively attack a fire with either one"
-Who said one couldn't?
-But a solid stream has far greater benefits over using out dated fog nozzles
-You do not even have to take my word for it, just look at the research
-Better still, see for yourself by using the two side by side in a burn house
-Whether using a thermocouple set up, a simple TIC, or the ole nape of the neck... the difference is staggering
-DO NOT take my word for it... try them side by side and see for yourself
-In fact, if you ever come to the SW part of the US I can will be happy to arrange for it
-Then look at all the results of the introduction (fad) of HPLV systems in the 90's, as I mentioned already the results were horrific. FD's that bought into the fad were spending tens of thousands on the systems and then dumping them often within months of putting them in service. Crews were fighting structure fires with glorified car wash wards because "Muh steam conversion!" and it was a disaster. I know because I worked through it having started my career in the 80's. I'm about an hours drive from one of the largest fire research & training facilities in the U.S. and watched much of the testing first hand.
Can a hydrant supply a truck as fast as a deck gun can dispense it?
absolutely
Like other scenes this can be a good tabletop. I would use it not to show how any group performed, but what might we do on similar problems. I agree this is a deck gun opportunity early. That needs to be followed with a confirmed supply, early. I agree with chocks, but even if outside the SOP, one can get that done soon, post water. SCBA is fine to have ready for a wind shift, but only if needed right now. I think many troopies opt for handlines because they want to be first on a line and not be chastised by other Responders. It's better to do what the fire dictates and not what the others think. If a Department isn't training on the deck gun, that's a Departmental problem, and individual companies (small unit operations) need to hone that skill.
Thanks for the comments.
I'm not hating on the deck gun at all here. Trust me I love the tool. But that side by side comparison to a cross lay felt like they were really taking their time. I would say I typically have a 200 ft cross lay flaked in around 20-25 seconds pretty easily. so should be flowing water in more like 45.
Maybe your department stretches the line that fast, but if you look lots of youtube videos, you'll see that most departments are vastly slower.
A couple years ago I watched a video here that I thought was impressive. A house had heavy fire and single truck (maybe an engine tanker as I am thinking it had two axles in back) pulls in front of the house. The deck gun was started quickly and another firefighter started pulling hose to a hydrant on the corner. I wish I could find that video again as it seemed they worked quickly and efficiently especially given one truck and just a few guys.
Maybe this one? ruclips.net/video/6yNd_D32_3g/видео.html
@@xheralt Yes! Thank you very much! I am not sure if that is the way it should be done however that sure looked like the firefighters were quick and efficient and effective.
Airport FD's don't seem to have a problem with deck guns, in fact they are indispensable.
in my 25 years in fire service i never heard a reason why they didnt use a deck gun first attack
At around 6 minutes you talking about chocking wheel. Department policy chock wheel especially on hill. Would have dropped supply on the way in. Never come in dry. Will drop and repack dry any day. Have and not need over need and not have.
One company on scene??
Where is this located.
Ive always wondered the same.
Perhaps no training or cant remember sht
Deplody the deck gun while you set up if you have onboard tank. A deck gun for limited manpower first do apparatus is first attack until a watr supply is extablished. Most apparatus are not properly set for hose deployment. You need a couple 100 foot quicjk lines over the 200 foot loads. A deck gun can reduce the risk of spread,yes it is limited by how much water the apparatus is cattying but the faster the wet is on the red the quicker it can be under control.
Do you believe that the thought was “Well, the structure is about gone so why hurry?”
No
The thought was... "The primary structure is fully involved so instead of waisting resources on it lets protect the exposure"
They had water on the exposure ~90 sec after arrival and a second line in service ~90 sec after the first
All while obtaining a water supply as well
BTW the exposure was saved
I would have ordered deployment of a hydrant while deployment of a deck gun and advancement of preconnect
Can you review a New Zealand Response? We rock American and Euro equip.
Will check it out.
Excellent object lesson on a very underutilized and sometime misused resource. Some food for thought.... Since RUclips provides a far reaching resource for many it is important that we remember that some who who watch may have limited KSA's. It would be beneficial that the narrative be balanced to give "a little insight" by using some of what are in the comments (not a full training class) other than, using the deck gun if there's big fire is a good thing. In your discussion it would be beneficial to briefly cover some of the general situations and considerations where deploying the deck gun would be valuable resource (as many have pointed out in the comments) and where it might be a potential detriment (causing undue damage, hindering or endangering other crews, pushing the fire into unburned areas etc). Also deployment of the deck gun will also generally allow for concurrent activities utilizing by the rest of the crew such as: setting up a supply line, putting a hand line in service, securing utilities, exposure protection...... Without question the deck gun can be deployed faster than a pre-connected hand line, but clarify that the LAFD is only an example as there are many types of pre-connected loads being used by departments around the country that are faster to deploy than the one used by LAFD. Regarding the reference and comments about setting the chock block, 1- it has a negligible impact on getting the deck gun in service as it takes very little time to set and 2-some departments require their use as you eluded to in the video. Either way it is a non-issue. Bottom line, the key learning objective really isn't whether deploying the deck gun is faster than a hand line, it is presenting the benefits and limitations of the deck gun and maximizing the potential for its effective use. Keep up the good work!
Yes because professional career FD's are sitting around waiting for advice from RUclips Rando fire-buffs who clearly have little to no experience fighting actual fires 😂🤣😅
You have to remember some people do not understand the meanings of the letter system. KSA IS Knowledge, Skills ahnd Ability.
I see a big change in the fire later in the video now instead of trickling out of the right side of the house and blowing out the back end unbelievable like it was out front these guys have done nothing to slow this thing down