Firefighters lacked waterA 'combination of a lot of errors' contributed to sofa store disaster Ron Menchaca and Glenn Smith
The Post and Courier
Sunday, October 7, 2007
A 'combination of a lot of errors' contributed to sofa store disaster 
Tyrone Walker Problems with water supply during the early minutes of the Sofa Super Store fire in June hampered efforts to fight the fire according to four firefighting veterans. In the crucial early minutes of the Sofa Super Store blaze, Charleston area firefighters lacked the most basic requirement for dousing flames: an adequate supply of water. A combination of factors undermined efforts by front-line firefighters to move water from a plentiful supply of surrounding hydrants to a small trash fire that eventually swept through the building. Early confusion and outmoded equipment left firefighters screaming for more water as the blaze that killed nine men spiraled out of control, according to four firefighting veterans interviewed by The Post and Courier. The four, who independently analyzed hours of radio transmissions, video footage, photographs and public documents, say city firefighters were overmatched that night for the following reasons: --The fire department failed to follow its policy requiring that the second truck on the scene hook up to a hydrant. That left the first crews on the scene dependent on the limited supply of water in tanks onboard their trucks. --When crews did manage to hook up to hydrants several minutes into fighting the blaze, the supply hoses were too small to deliver the full flow of water available. That's because the city has long relied on supply hoses about half the diameter of those used by most fire departments around the country. --Crews connected multiple hoses to each supply line, reducing the flow available to each hose. --To force more water through the lines, crews jacked up pressure so high that some warned that the hoses were near bursting. --Passing traffic further exacerbated the problems, as vehicles were allowed to run over the swollen lines, crimping the flow of water. City officials couldn't say whether the city owns special ramps designed to keep vehicles from running over firehoses. Ronnie Steele, a former firefighter and state Fire Academy instructor, said one problem compounded the next, snowballing into a fatal "combination of a lot of errors." Firefighter CoverageIn our special section with photos, videos, interactives, donation information and every story written about the tragedy."I've heard the mayor say that it was a perfect storm," Steele said. "The elements that made it a perfect storm were all of those things they did wrong at the same time." City officials declined to discuss the water issues until the various investigations into the blaze are complete, a process that could take months. In the initial weeks after the fire, Charleston Fire Chief Rusty Thomas insisted that the department had enough water to do its job. A six-member team of experts hired by the city recommended in August that the fire department use larger hose lines to supply trucks and firefighters. The city has indicated that it intends to purchase the larger water lines. Radio transmissions from June 18 contained call after call from firefighters pleading for more water and more pressure to fight the blaze. Those calls began less than 10 minutes into the fire and continued past the point where flames consumed the building. Firefighters at the scene that night also told The Post and Courier about water problems they witnessed, including hoses going limp and dry in the hands of men inside the building. At least three firefighters reported hearing one engine run dry, its pumps sucking air and making a sound like an airplane taking off. 'Overrun' Smoke poured from the building as the first two fire trucks arrived, one racing to the front of the store and the other pulling along the southern side of the building, where the fire had started near a covered dock connecting the store to its adjacent warehouse. The fire department's policy called for the second arriving truck to hook up to a hydrant and establish an uninterrupted flow of water to the fire. For whatever reason, that wasn't done, and both engines initially relied on the limited supply of water in their onboard tanks. David Grahl is a district chief with the Dayton (Ohio) Fire Department, which is roughly the same size as Charleston's. He said an adequate water supply needs to be in place before crews are sent inside a building. "Committing multiple crews to an interior attack without an operating supply line in place is reckless," Grahl said. "The crews were in danger of being overrun by the fire and from the possibility of collapse. There was every reason to withdraw and no reason to stay." The National Fire Protection Association, which writes standards used by fire departments around the country, recommends that initial crews establish, at a minimum, an uninterrupted water supply and provide enough water to adequately supply two attack hoses. Paul Grimwood, who served 35 years with fire departments in London and New York and is now an author and consultant on firefighting tactics, said the city did not meet this standard because it initially relied on water from the tanks carried on the trucks. By the time crews established a water supply from nearby hydrants, it might have been too late, he said. "The fire was growing rapidly inside the large building where firefighters were waiting and calling for additional water to attack the growing fire, but before it finally arrived at their nozzles there was a sudden escalation of fire that spread thick dark smoke throughout the structure, disorienting and trapping firefighters," Grimwood said. Steele, a former firefighter with the St. Paul's Fire District and Lincolnville Fire Department, said all the water in the world won't help firefighters if they lack the ability to get it on a fire quickly in large volumes. He said the city's reliance on 2 1/2-inch-diameter supply lines crimps a large portion of the available water supply before it ever reaches firefighters at the other end. "You've choked yourself off by the capacity of that one two-and-a half-inch line. That's why the firefighters were hollering for more water," Steele said. The Charleston Fire Department's Class 1 rating from the Insurance Services Office is the highest ranking possible for a fire department. Among other factors, it signifies that the department has access to a plentiful supply of hydrants and water. Charleston Water System has five hydrants within about 1,000 feet of the sofa store, and all were capable of pumping more than 1,200 gallons of water per minute. Henry Howard, a retired fire chief from Vallejo, Calif., has served on state and national fire safety committees. He has written a number of unofficial technical papers on the Charleston fire and said problems that night were not related to the city's water system. "It is a fire department problem of hose and procedure. They are not prepared for the fire flows needed for a large fire," Howard wrote in one paper. "There were many calls for more pressure by the fire chief. What they needed was more or larger hose." Howard said the failure to supply outside water to the initial trucks on the scene went against one of "the cardinal rules" of fighting structure fires: Never allow the initial engines to run dry. The failure to maintain an adequate water supply during the fire played an important role in how events unfolded, Howard said. "It weakened the interior attack, tied up the radio and could not supply water for a rescue effort." Reach Ron Menchaca at 937-5724 or rmenchaca@postandcourier.com. Reach Glenn Smith at gsmith@postandcourier.com or 937-5556. |
Article tools
|
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 119 comment(s)
Posted by bootlicked on October 7, 2007 at 1:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Give em' fifdee mo pouns" shows just how ignorant RT and the training Chief are. They need replacing and the firemen need it now. They don't need to wait until the reports are out. The only ones needing the reports to explain the incompetence of the Chief is those neighbors that are in support of the Chief and the mayor. Keep putting it off Cotton Eye Joe and this can happen again,then you sir should be held criminally liable for not doing what needs to be done for the sake of the CFD and the citizens of Charleston. What is the city wating for, another donation, when it comes to the LDH ? Oh, and RT stop the lie that you have the support of your firemen!!!!!!!!
Posted by mac0cm4 on October 7, 2007 at 3:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As a firefighter in another FD not so far far away, I can tell you that CFD was aware that their 2.5" supply lines did not meet standards, as it's a running joke among the FD's in the area that CFD used two 2.5's and considered that to make up for one 5" line (due to friction loss, it does not). Most FD's use a 2.5" line as a secondary line or a master stream supply line - Not the primary supply line.
Harpo - from what I've gleaned off people I know who work for CFD, that FF breaking the windows was ordered to do so by command...whoever that was...since there really wasn't exactly any command established. I can also tell you that CFD probably used the 'tradition' and 'we've always done it that way' excuse for failure to upgrade.
As far as initially securing the fire scene to prevent hoses being run over - they'll probably pass that buck to CPD. What most fail to realize is that Police do not regularly get dispatched to fire calls and I can tell you from my experience that when I pull up on scene and have to secure water supply for my truck I generally drop the hose where I need to and worry about who is running it over later. Or park a fire truck across the road.
Had they a sufficient water supply to begin with, prior to exhausting the likely 1000 gal booster tank, they might not have had nearly the problem. Once the booster tank is dry then there is no reserve. If the booster tank was full and they encountered a problem with supply, the could open the tank to pump valve and compensate until they could regain supply.
We could armchair quarterback all day and all night, but the fact of the matter is that CFD was behind the times and refused to update. I think that it will boil down to two things when all is said and done: 1 - SSS had an improper addition, which is the cause of the fire. 2 - CFD had failed for many years to upgrade their equipment, training, and operations and procedures to be able to handle a fire of this magnitude and thus is essentially negligent in the deaths of the personnel.
If you worked for a company that failed to meet standards and you got killed, that company would be held liable, regardless of whether an outside entity caused the incident in which the accident occurred.
Bottom line: CFD had screwed themselves before they even left the station. They knew it and chose to stick by 'tradition.'
Posted by TheTruthHurts on October 7, 2007 at 3:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Robert O'Donald is one of the many tumors that riddle the body of the Charleston Fire Dept like a cancer. This is an individual who would do ANYTHING in order to crawl just a little bit further up Rusty's ass. Why? Because someone may have an opinion different from yours? Or maybe they just didn't want to volunteer all there free time to the CFD and not get paid for it? Some people actually care about spending time with their families. Yes, Robert I know your a "Team Player". I've seen your picture in the newspaper. You are my hero. But the truth of the matter is that 95 % of the CFD have no respect for Robert O'Donald. To see Robert O'Donald at the funerals for some of these guys repulsed me. Unfortunately, (and my opinion is based solely on the number of years I was a fire fighter with the CFD, seeing and hearing, first hand and not rumor B.S.) I truly believe that the new deputy chief, Robert O'Donald did not have one bit of respect for any of the 9 guys before this happened. And I'm doubtful that has changed. That may be a bold statement for some of you, but for the bottom of my soul it's what I truly believe. What I do know is that you have to look yourself in the mirror. I hope the guilt and nightmares keep you up all night Robert. Even in tragedy, you can't help but think about yourself.
You have never earned respect, why? Because you never deserved it.
WHY DON'T YOU TELL EVERYONE HOW MUCH RESPECT YOU HAD FOR YOUR 9 BROTHERS.
THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY, IS THERE?
YOU DESERVE TO ROT!!!!!!
These 9 guys were heroes before June 18.
I miss you Kelsey, Capt. Benke, Brad, Louis, Capt. Billy, Earl, Brandon, Frenchy and Champagne.
Please guys, stick together and speak the truth. Just state the facts. Start a new "TRADITION". One that is fair and honest.
For the good guys.
A True Brotherhood.
Posted by Neponset on October 7, 2007 at 3:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The details of this disaster keeps getting worse.
I think it would be helpful for the nonFF members of this forum to learn a little about how the fire truck (pumper?) and hoses are set up. I gather that a hose is run between the hydrant and the pump on the fire truck, a main discharge hose is run from the truck to the area of the fire, a manifold is attached to the end of the main discharge hose and hoses are connected to the manifold and these hoses deliver the water to the fire. If too many hoses are connected to the manifold, volumn and pressure suffer. Please respond and give a few of the details.
Posted by BillyTheKid32 on October 7, 2007 at 4:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is there not a sprinkler system in every building over 10,000 square foot? When I go into the malls around here I see them everywhere(I look now). I bet the stores that are in the malls had to pay a lot of money to the(fill in the blank here) thief's to be "in compliance" with code.
The management of this city needs to change. Some more of the proof is in the way this fire was handled. I don't like to be lied to and the truth of the whole problem lies with the way the management of this city "controlled" the departments under them. I have heard Joes speech for 18 years. He is full of crap.
Posted by Neponset on October 7, 2007 at 4:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I should have added "size matters" - hoses from hydrant to pump and main discharge hose need to be large.
Posted by Neponset on October 7, 2007 at 4:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mac
Did a little rough calculating on the two hose sizes in question and this what I found (it is assumed that hose size is the ID of the hose).
Assuming flow is related to crossectional area of the hose - it would take more than three 2.5" hoses to equal a 5" hose.
Assuming friction losses are related to the surface area of the hose, three 2.5" hoses would have 50% more surface area than the 5" hose, ie. big hoses are better.
Posted by bigpappapump77 on October 7, 2007 at 5:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Title- "Firefighters Lacked Water"
Should've been titled "Post & Courier lacks anything else to report on".
Posted by Boosterhose on October 7, 2007 at 6:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Supply lines for the Average Joe
Cfd uses large diameter hoses 6" between the hydrant and engine no longer than 20 feet. This provides water to what we call the supply truck.
Between the supply truck and attack engine is laid 2 1/2 inch hose. In a small fire like a residence this is usually adequate[note adequate as in marginal].
If its a short distance between the apparattus then the hose doesn't require as much pressure to overcome what we term friction loss. Friction loss means that more pressure must be applied to the pumps on the supply engine in order for the water to reach the end of the hose.
When you go from 2 1/2" to 3" hose the friction loss is cut to less than half of what it originally take on the 2 1/2" hose.
On a larger fire like SSS the smaller supply line make for a spaghetti mess and pandemonium ensues.
Most forward thinking departments go to the largest diameter supply lines they can afford to use because they understand the apparattus won't have to overcome this friction loss and ties up less pumpers and manpower to fight fires.
For some reason Rusty feels the city doesn't need this larger hose while most departments in the area have accepted it years ago. Hence the overall opinion that Rusty needs to go. With this type of backwards thinking in charge the next line of reasoning would be what else has he screwed up.
Apparently there is a large list which for some reason the mayor has seen fit not to release yet.
Posted by Boosterhose on October 7, 2007 at 6:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bigcrapapump77,
Read the above post. Apparently this is more on your level.
Posted by Pols101 on October 7, 2007 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't a dang thing about fires, but why and who would break those front windows to ventilate the fire? Is that not like poking a fire with a stick?
Posted by bvfd271 on October 7, 2007 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with all the comments posted here.I am Volunteer Firefighter in a small West Virginia Community who serves a mix of single family and multi family dwellings,resturants,motels and a large shopping mall.All 3 of our Pumpers and our Ladder Truck carry a minimum of 1600' of 5" line and we use the same for a hydrant connection.We recently had a fire involving 3 structures.5 sections of 5" was laid to the hydrant,and provided ample water for 2 pumpers and our ladder truck.Unfortunately we were unable to save the residence next door due to that being the origin of the fire,but 2 adjacent buildings were saved,repaired and still stand today.To achieve 1200 gallons per minute using 2 1/2 hose would involve using at least 6 2 1/2 hoses.No pumper is set up with that many intakes.Its a trafic event that finally exposed the realization that CFD is using outdated techniques and equipment and has not changed with the times.The time passed 15 or more years.That refusal to change with the times cost 9 men thier lives and the loss of a friend to me.
Posted by ssm on October 7, 2007 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Committing multiple crews to an interior attack without an operating supply line in place is reckless," Grahl said. "The crews were in danger of being overrun by the fire and from the possibility of collapse. There was every reason to withdraw and no reason to stay."
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by FireBoss on October 7, 2007 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, Hose size and capacities.
From a fire hydrant with 50 psi.600 feet away from the fire.
* 1..... 2.5" hose.....182gpm
* 2..... 2.5" hose.....364gpm
* 1..... 4" hose.....841gpm
* 1..... 5" hose.....1430gpm
Now lets "carry" some water down the street from a hydrant to the fire.
200gpm hydrant @10psi(horrible)
*1..... 2.5"hose... 100ft.
*1..... 4"hose... 1800ft.
*1..... 5"hose... 5250ft.
Now for the final figures.
From the old National Fire Academy water supply class:
Fire flow for structures.
Length X Width divided by 3 X number of floors = GPM needed for extinguishment.
Example:
50ft X 30ft house (1 story ) (1500sq.ft.)
Fully involved.............500gpm
50% involved...............250GPM
25% involved...............125gpm
How big was the SSS? 32000sq. ft. 40000sq.ft.?
You do the math.
Posted by mac0cm4 on October 7, 2007 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I was too tired to do the math - FireBoss lays out good examples. There is a lot more to putting out a fire than just hooking up a hose to the hydrant and truck. There's alot of background calculations the engineer must do to ensure that the proper volume of water reaches the firefighter at the nozzle at the proper pressure.
Posted by RTC on October 7, 2007 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I remember listening to the audio clips and there was a constant call for more water pressure. Also, there were requests for someone to stop the traffic from running over the hoses.
What was really the worst problem; the lack of adequate hose size,the pressure, or the cars?
Posted by Neponset on October 7, 2007 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FireBoss
Thought I would check out my area using your principles.
The largest house in the area is a two story house of about 4000 sq. ft. about 200 feet from nearest hydrant and hydrant has one 5" and two 3" outlets and normal line pressure of greater than 50 psi.
(4000)/(3X2) = 667 gpm
Looks like one 5" supply line should handle the load. There is a second hydrant nearby of the same type.
Posted by FireBoss on October 7, 2007 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, in my state you do not run over ANY firehoses, its a trip to jail and a fine. Cars passing over small fire hose ( 2.5" ) will cause a pressure surge and they can collapse the inside lining, causing the hose to become weak. This might show up months later. ( wonder if CFD has done any hose tests on those lines ?) You can also rupture the hose causing a total loss of water supply. Its a little harder to run over LDH but it can be done, I once watched a person try to drive over a 5" line in the street only to get hung up on it. A trip to jail and a towed car! And I noticed a fire truck drove over several lines in Charleston so the problem is also imbeded in the department.
To answer your question, the hose size was a huge problem, the cars were minor, both are unaccepatable.
Posted by FireBoss on October 7, 2007 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Neponset,
If your math is correct a 5" line from a hydrant will be more than enough to extinguish that fire with a lot of reserve left over. A bigger supply line means the Fire Department can use larger attack lines to control the fire easier.Especially if the fire would extend to other homes in the area. Remember that the formula is a minimum formula and does not take into consideration the fire load in larger commercial buildings. This must be determined by the IC in charge.
Good job!
Posted by oldcap on October 7, 2007 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lack of adequate size in our supply lines was the factor that will lead all future investigations to examine closely the reason why supply hose was but 2.5 inches.
Oh-and there is another big investigation coming. For RJAHopp when that comes try and explain it away.
Posted by charleytowngirl on October 7, 2007 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Menchaca and Smith:
Why don't you contact Riley and ask him when the next report from the assessment panel will be released? I hear it's been on Riley's desk for a few weeks now. I thought he was going to keep the citizens informed on every step of the investigation and review!
Posted by Neponset on October 7, 2007 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FireBoss
I live in Charleston and don't know if CFD has any 5" hoses at this time. Looks like 2.5" hoses could be a problem.
Posted by poorboy on October 7, 2007 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Calling for pressure they knew they weren't going to get? That's what makes it worse. Now I believe 9 men died a needless death. This policy did make a difference. Makes you wonder about your local fire depts and who's coming to put your fire out doesn't it?
Every fire dept in America should be held to the same standards. The reason you do that is, so you don't have a "good ole boy" answer like "it's our tradition"!
Posted by mustang on October 7, 2007 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Watching the fire that night and on the daily news almost every night since brings back memories of summer camp. Have you ever tried to put out a campfire by using ten eight year olds armed with squirt guns ?
Posted by jammer on October 7, 2007 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
why are they waiting to put the 5" lines in place now?
tons of mistakes, many intentionally due to ego's and false pride but now it's time to really physically change things isn't it?
where is the updated equipment we all know is needed now?
I'm sure Charleston Rubber and Gasket can get those hoses that even ignorant people about fires like me know are needed NOW, BEFORE another tragedy
so beyond pointing fingers and reports, where is the new upgraded equipment??? it needs to be in place NOW
why are they waiting and when is it coming??
Posted by Local on October 7, 2007 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great reporting Menchacha and Smith! Please keep the attention on this story, the details of which get worse and worse. The firefighters deserve so much better.
Posted by jamie29456 on October 7, 2007 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Poorboy you wrote my exact thoughts. Tradition has done enough damage. It is time to bring the fire departments up to national standards!
Posted by charleytowngirl on October 7, 2007 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In Riley's 9-18-07 "Report to the City" on the tragic fire,
The assessment panel recommended "use of 1 - 1/2 inch hose or larger, for interior attach as well as vehicle fires"
The report lists this a IMPLEMENTED 8-21-07.
No where in the report does it recommend that the city purchase 4" or 5" diameter hose.
Interesting.....
The report also says "Change in water supply standard operating procedures with near-term transition to large diameter supply hose - Implemented 8/22/07.
Ok, if it's been implemented, where's the larger diameter hose?
Posted by bootlicked on October 7, 2007 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They have just changed nozzle settings to more GPM's and they now lay two 2.5's . They could have done this before June 18 at any fire . This doesn't change a thing. This only is harder on the men having to pull another several sections of 2.5 by hand. They don't have enough manpower as it is. Poor fellas no a/c and hot bunker gear having to hump many sections of hose and not enough manpower. God help them. Why don't they just stretch in at every fire and use 2.5 inch hose with the soft suction? If nothing is going to change this "would fit" wouldn't it. Just kidding this is just crazy. GO TO LDH NOW MEN'S LIVES DEPEND ON IT!!!!! "We gonna use da same hose Joe and da same nozzles and b/s da public and work our overworked men more dat 'ill teech 'em to question us may b i can kill da rest of dem at da next big fire and start from scratch da rookies are gullable".
Posted by pacomarj on October 7, 2007 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It looks like these lines were questioned before and Rusty said these hoses were not used to fight the fire, although most evidenced shows they were.
http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/jul/...
Posted by WalkMan on October 7, 2007 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"David Grahl is a district chief with the Dayton (Ohio) Fire Department, which is roughly the same size as Charleston's. He said an adequate water supply needs to be in place before crews are sent inside a building.
"Committing multiple crews to an interior attack without an operating supply line in place is reckless," Grahl said. "The crews were in danger of being overrun by the fire and from the possibility of collapse. There was every reason to withdraw and no reason to stay."
I hope all the critics that think the firefighters in the area that have been "thumbing their nose" at the CFD for no reason paid close attention to that quote as well as Heny Howard, a retired Fire Chief who stated it was not a water system problem but a fire department problem.
Posted by exorcist_pencocky on October 7, 2007 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
David Grahl is a district chief with the Dayton (Ohio) Fire Department, which is roughly the same size as Charleston's. He said an adequate water supply needs to be in place before crews are sent inside a building.
"Committing multiple crews to an interior attack without an operating supply line in place is reckless," Grahl said. "The crews were in danger of being overrun by the fire and from the possibility of collapse. There was every reason to withdraw and no reason to stay."
____________________________________________________________
The city of charleston mayor joseph p. riley, jr., and his fire chief have been recklessly endangering the safety of the residents of the city of charleston. They both need to be dumped.
On election day, remember to vote.
Posted by burton on October 7, 2007 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow! I'm surprised that none of King Riley's or the Lame Duck Chief's supporters have posted on this board yet as they normally do. How in the world can you continue to blindly support these two with reports like this coming out daily? Here is a question I would like to someone to answer? Why were nine firefighters sent into the building in the first place?
Get rid of King Riley and the Lame Duck Chief in Nov. This is a classic case of the Peter and Paul Principles. Read up on it and you will see that the Chief is the poster child. This is just more ammo for the lawyers to use in their lawsuits. A wrongful death suit should be coming soon! Sad!
Posted by EveryoneGoesHome on October 7, 2007 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Read the October issue of Fire Chief Magazine, PLEASE read the editorial by Janet Wilomnth. It says so much!
Posted by ssm on October 7, 2007 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is a quote from one of the Mayor's Panel Members that was in the editorial of September's Fire Chief Magazine:
“Fire chiefs and chief officers are not the ones to generally go into a burning building to save someone or save someone's property,” Crawford replied. “We are not the ones that have to deal with a shooting at 3 o'clock in the morning when the whereabouts of the perpetrator are unknown. We are not the ones who are generally laying our lives on the line each and every day to protect our communities, so the least we can do is damn well make sure that those brave men and women who are have the best equipment, the best PPE, the best training, the best policies and procedures, the best safety practices, the best management, and the best leadership….
“If you can look in the mirror without any hesitation and say, ‘Yes, I have done all that I can,’ then you should have no trepidation or concern about a task force coming into your community following a line-of-duty death,” Crawford continued. “If you can't say yes, then you need to turn in your badge … today!”
Posted by localff on October 7, 2007 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please read editorial in this month's "Fire Chief" magazine. Go to: firechief.com and click on magazine cover on left side, click on "Face up to Reality".
Posted by captainscott on October 7, 2007 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is an example of what the size up on June 18th said.
.....B-4 on the scene large masonery furniture with a trash fire on side c ( NIMS division c.) with fire on exposure. B-4 will be assuming command. All units responded upon arrival switch to fireground channel 2. Dispatch start me a second alarm, rescue, Chief 1. First in engine lay a supply line and pull 1 3/4 or 2 1/2 to the rear. You will be attack sector. Truck 5 upon arrival you will be search sector. Truck Equipment operator secure a water supply. Second engine, become interior sector and check for extension. All units B-4 will be assuming command. Command post will be located at my command vehicle in the front of SSS. Chief 1 your assigned to safety sector. All equipment operator secure you accountability tags at the Command Post. All other units report to staging for assignment. All these assignment should be old hat to a dept that has written SOP and uses them regularly. The POINT is that who ever gives the first report MUST advise responding unit of what is seen. Failure to advise will result in a cluster, free lancing, no accountability, no strategy, to many bosses or chiefs, no span of control, wrong size lines etc etc. When things hit the fan with a structural collaspe it is too late to rescue those who are trapped. Unfortunetly this has been repeated time after time across America. The only way this is stopped is that you ONLY risk what you can save. Risk vs gain. I have heard repeatedly on these sights excuss after excuss of thats what firefighters do, risk lives. That is the mentality that will continue to kill FF's. We must follow the standards always.
Respecfully submitted.
To my brothers & sisters ff's of Charleston. Each one must take a stand. Be bold, you will be supported. As we await the reports, please make the changes necessary. God Bless you and your families, and especially the Charleston Nine.
scott
Posted by mlm on October 7, 2007 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why have several of the fire hydrants in the area around city hall been painted black recently? Doesn't that have something to do with equipment, water quality or system deficiencies?
Posted by lccitizen on October 7, 2007 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As usual it seems that higher-ups in our local governments do as they please until something bad happens. Then they scramble to point fingers. Happens in all areas of local gov. God bless the FFs, PDs, and other employees who must do the best they can under their "leadership."
Posted by jcaulkins on October 7, 2007 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is significant that several outside fire chiefs are making public comments critical of the June 18 fire.
As for the first poster's question about "ventilating" the store by taking out the front windows, essentially pulling the fire over the heads of the firefighters inside, I hope there will be a follow up story to address this issue. It was a critical mistake and from the John Pundt video, Chief Thomas was standing right there. If the FF acted on his own, the Chief should have called for an immediate evacuation of the store. If Chief Thomas gave the order to take out the windows . . .
Posted by Neponset on October 7, 2007 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jcaulkings
Just looked at a vidio by Howard Armstrong (included on this web site). I was looking for Rusty at the window scene but didn't find it. I did see a lot of folks in tee shirts, shorts, etc. Some of those had on tee shirts with some sort of graphics on the front, presumably a FD logo.
Looks like there may have been some civilians there also - not good. Joe and Rusty should review this and other stills and vidios to get an answer to their question about who was not properly suited up. I understand Rusty was not properly suited up.
Posted by hotrod2007 on October 7, 2007 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Where does the mayor's boys and RT? I sure would like to hear what they have to say on this issue.
I guess this will be the topic of the next news conference ... after some of the boys DONATE some recycled tax dollars to pay for them 5" hoses.
This is going to be the easiest money Motley-Rice has ever made.
Posted by charleytowngirl on October 7, 2007 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've heard that the second report has been on Riley's desk for about two weeks now.........if that's true, what happened to his statement that he would release information immediately?!?!?
Posted by Neponset on October 7, 2007 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CharleyTG
Good question - also there is an upcoming debate and all of the candidates have agreed to attend, except Joe, who has a schedule conflict.
Posted by Neponset on October 7, 2007 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To lighten things up a little, I have done some creek and river fishing around Charleston. A cast net is important to get live bait. As a boy, I remember some Charleston fire fighters kniting cast nets while on duty and between fires. Do some fire fighters still make cast nets? I have knited 4 nets for my own use.
Posted by exorcist_pencocky on October 7, 2007 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh my - joseph, joseph, joseph, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice, to ........
The new Mayor has to be better - couldn't be worse.
Posted by Granmomma on October 7, 2007 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a grandmother and the one fact that has come out that bothers me the most was the $25.00 per year per firefighter for training that came out . Will some of you firemen please tell me what $25.00 can buy for training ? I am sure even a fast food resturant spends more than that on training . Have any improvements been made in Charleston Fire Dept since that horrible night ? God bless you all ,firemen and law enforcement officers.
Posted by Neponset on October 7, 2007 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ex.
I gather that you would like to catch Joe in your home made cast net and drop him into your bait bucket.
While we are on the poetry line, how about "water, water everywhere, and nor any drop to drink" - Samuel Coleridge, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, 1798.
Posted by ssm on October 7, 2007 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neponset-great memory. I think the last guy in the dept that made cast nets was Billy Jones-may he rest in peace.
Posted by Neponset on October 7, 2007 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Geechie
You are right - they are circling the wagons.
I am sure that they are desperate and will do anything to make this fire storm go away.
Posted by Neponset on October 7, 2007 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ssm
I remember some guy at the station on Wentworth and Meeting (I think), knitting away. Maybe it was Billy.
Posted by ssm on October 7, 2007 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Depends on your age. They say alot of the guys used to knit them. Billy is the only one I ever saw do it. He was at Central Station. My dad still can-just takes him a few years to finish one. LOL
Okay back on subject.
Posted by exorcist_pencocky on October 7, 2007 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thats a good one also, Neponset, great choice.
Posted by Neponset on October 7, 2007 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ssm
I think the important issue is to keep hammering away at this event - keep it alive and hopefully enough people will read these comments and vote against Joe.
P.S. I am up there and it takes me a while to finish one.
Posted by Neponset on October 7, 2007 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ex.
Thanks
Don't recognize your quote - who wrote it?
P.S. Took English Lit. several time and am familar with most major English authors.
Posted by EveryoneGoesHome on October 7, 2007 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please read this editorial and pass it along to any reporter, TV or print that you know.
http://firechief.com/health-safety/ar/fi...
Sorry - Don't know how to post the direct link? Just go to firechief.com, click on the magazine cover (this months, October) the first article is this editorial.
Posted by Neponset on October 7, 2007 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EveryOGH
You may not know how, but the link is there. Computers are smarter than we are and they pick up when a link is typed in. Good Job.
Posted by nickiegarbeil on October 7, 2007 at 11:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fantastic article...I hesitated posting here again...against my better judgment I am...
These four men have been screaming this same information since the beginning of this tragedy RIGHT HERE IN THESE MESSAGE BOARDS!!! Yes folks...the same EXPERTS...they have been trying to tell everyone all of this stuff all along...educating us to the truth...THANK GOD people are finally listening..
Thank you gentlemen for keeping up the pressure...Thank you fellow citizens for hearing them finally...and thank you Menchaca and Smith for printing this story...
God Bless the Charleston 9...and the heroes remaining in the CFD...
OldCap-my sentiments exactly! I wait for the spin attempts...
Stay safe gentlemen!
Posted by Fire_Inspector on October 8, 2007 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.houstontx.gov/fire/firefighte...
shows how to calcualte friction losses in fire hoses in the field.
Note USUALLY you have the correct discharge pressure for attack lines memorized: For example 150' 1.5" hose got 170#, 1.75" got 140...
You would need a BUNCH of 2.5" hoses to make up for ONE 5" line.
And with 5" you don't "lose" a firefighter (engineer) at the hydrant pumping TO the engine at the fire (where the attack lines are connected). 5" hose SAVES money in the greater scheme of things because of the manpower savings.
Posted by Neponset on October 8, 2007 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just finished a tour of my local fire station and had a pleasant time talking to the men on duty.
They have not received new uniforms - still in poly.
They have not received new LDH and to be frank, not sure how effective they would be since the discharge connections on the trucks are small and adapters would have to be used.
They have a large dia. hose to connect the truck to the hydrant, but again an adapter would have to be used since the large outlet on most hydrants is 4.5".
There were three men on duty.
The trucks are kind of old, but look good.
Forgot to ask about heat sensing devices, but I guess they have one.
Posted by vesta on October 8, 2007 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
With regard to "what is on Riley's desk" that we don't know about, I have been wondering that myself. ISO has been here and gone. The panel has been back again and gone. Yet, we have not heard "glowing" reports from the mayor about either. Could it be that the #1 rating is to be taken away, but Riley doesn't want to announce that until after the first of November??? Just wondering......
Posted by bickleseagrave on October 8, 2007 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The large intake used in conjunction with the large hard suction can be used, There is a gated adaptor with a small petcock on it to let the air out of the hose as the water approaches. This adaptor hooks to the 6" hard suction port and goes to 4 or 5" storz connector. Very quick and easy fix.
Even if the LDH hose goes through a 2 1/2" fitting it is still way more effective than the smaller hose. If you have been reading here, friction loss is a huge factor.
Letting the air out of the LDH is a huge consideration, as the water approaches the truck it pushes the air in the hose ahead of it, this must be released before it hits the impeller as you will lose the water supplied at the nozzle when the pump cavitates. The petcock is left open on the adapter until all the air is released, then it is closed.
This can also be accomplished by leaving the drain for the discharge open until all the air is released.
It is not all that complicated to start using LDH
Posted by bickleseagrave on October 8, 2007 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is the device of which I am speaking. Just screws on the 6" hard suction port, you get the full volume from the 4 or 5" hose. It also provides the air relief valve as well as a relief valve for water hammer etc with the LDH.
Not rocket science, can be purchased readily today, installed in minutes and you are in business with the LDH.
LDH hose should be on the rigs today, no excuses
http://www.akronbrass.com/uploadedFiles/...
Posted by fyrmnjim on October 8, 2007 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bickle, It looks like, in the photos and video, that the steamer intakes are capped. They'll have to buy gates.
Here's a nice article on LDH written by a chief of a small dept in NY state.
http://www.stjfd.com/chiefsdesksept2004....
This was written 3 yrs ago. For a small rural dept, they seem to have their act together more than the bigcity/class 1 Rusty and co., and they are just a class4 dept too!!
Posted by exorcist_pencocky on October 8, 2007 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
>>> Vesta - With regard to "what is on Riley's desk" that we don't know about, I have been wondering that myself. ISO has been here and gone. The panel has been back again and gone. Yet, we have not heard "glowing" reports from the mayor about either. Could it be that the #1 rating is to be taken away, but Riley doesn't want to announce that until after the first of November??? Just wondering...... <<<
No,No, Say it ain't so, joe.
Posted by bickleseagrave on October 8, 2007 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You just remove the steamer intake cover and install this valve(permanently). It includes a gate valve so you can still use the water tank on the truck.
It can be installed on either side leaving one of the hard suction ports open for drafting.
You will be able to use the trucks water tank while connecting the LDH and then just gradually switch over with the valve.
This is the device we used when we first converted to LDH, it worked well and no problem to install.
Posted by Neponset on October 8, 2007 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
buckleseagrave
Didn't think of getting air out of the system and it is important. I assume the trucks use centrifugal pumps. If I was the engineer, I would uncap a couple of discharge connections and blow/flush the air out of the system, using hydrant pressure, before I fired up the pump. Fast and effective, but you might get your shoes wet.
Posted by Neponset on October 8, 2007 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please disregard my last post - it is important to follow procedure - I was just being a little too flippant.
fyrmnjim
Read most of the link and did not realize the danger of bursting hoses. Still don't know what a streamer is, but I guess I don't need to know.
Posted by fyrmnjim on October 8, 2007 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neponset, a steamer is what we call the 2 big intakes on either side of the engine and the front intake on some. We also call the big 4 1/2 discharge on the hydrants a steamer. Don't know where the term came from, prob has something to do with old time steam powered pumpers from 1800's.
See everyone, this stuff isn't rocket science. In fact, it's so easy even a caveman can do it! Well, maybe not Rusty, but you catch my drift...
Posted by scff152410 on October 8, 2007 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You don't have to have larger discharges to make LDH work. You are still going to flow a lot more water thru a normal 2 1/2" discharge with LDH than you are with 2 1?2" or even 3" hose. Would a LDH discharge work the best? Sure, but don't let that be the reason you aren't loading 5" hose on those pumpers today. Even with the limitations by using the 2 1/2" discharges you are still coming out way ahead.
As for the intake side fyrmnjim covered it great. Order enough piston intake vales and put them on the steamer intakes. Really hard ain't it?
Honestly, I'm shocked that in 2007 I'm still hearing the same arguments I heard back in the late 1980's when my department switched over to LDH. I wonder when the following excuses are going to be laid out there: "It takes a gallon of water to fill a foot of hose, so we'll use more water." We've used LDH while being supplied by tanker operations....so that's grasping at straws.
"That hose is heavy so it's hard to load,roll and unroll." We rarely roll our LDH. Most of the time we load it on scene. The first couple times you load it you'll learn it's a whole lot easier to load 1400' of 5" than it is to load 2800+ feet of 2 1/2".
"We don't always need that much water." Dunno about anybody else but when it comes to water I'd sure like to have too much than not enough.
If the powers that be in Charleston are serious about changing over to LDH it's not like they have to fly halfway cross the country to learn all they need to know about it. There's plenty of departments here in SC that have been using LDH successfully for years. You don't have to reinvent the wheel....just go up the road and see how it's done elsewhere.
Posted by charleytowngirl on October 8, 2007 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PLEASE read Lee Walton's "Shrimp N Grits" articles on www.charlestonwatch.com regarding the mayor's handling of this tragedy. Lee Walton is right on the mark and tells it like it is!
Posted by rjahopp on October 9, 2007 at 12:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Commenters indicated disappointment with the lack of rebuttals to the P&O’s latest missive on the SSS fire. The article does not justify a reply, but, not to disappoint:
The P&O’s Woodward and Bernstein want-a-be’s have struck again. They and their veteran sources just discovered the audio tapes released in August. They also quote “experts” from afar who, without the benefit of many key facts, seem to have the answers.
1. “Smoke poured from the building as the first two fire trucks arrived,” – this statement is unsupported by any account of the SSS fire to date; the initial reports indicated a fire burning outside along the side of the right rear of the building and only light whiffs of smoke in the ceiling tiles at the back of the store.
2. ““… a sudden escalation of fire that spread thick dark smoke throughout the structure, disorienting and trapping firefighters," Grimwood said.” How does he know these are the facts? Maybe the firemen ran out of air first and then got disoriented in the smoke; it has happened before.
3. “"You've choked yourself off by the capacity of that one two-and-a half-inch line. That's why the firefighters were hollering for more water," Steele said.” And “Henry Howard, … from Vallejo, Calif. … said problems that night were not related to the city's water system…. What they needed was more or larger hose.” How do they know these are the facts? There is an indication of low water pressure coming from the Charleston water department. The tapes indicate the Chief had Dispatch call them requesting that the pressure be increased along Wappoo Rd.
Please see additional Comment for what the P&O does not tell the reader.
Posted by rjahopp on October 9, 2007 at 12:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The P&O doesn’t tell the reader that a National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce report (NISTIR 7158), dated August 2004, concluded that most of the major cities in the U.S. do not have standard fire hydrants and fire-hose couplings. Only 18 of the 48 most populated cities have hydrants with both small hose and pumper connections on fire hydrants that comply with the NFPA standard. NY, OK City, and N.O. had only standard hose connections and non-standard pumper connections; Chicago had non-standard hose AND non-standard pumper connections.
One Commenter from Charleston said two hydrants that he checked had two 3 inch hose connection nozzles and one 5 inch pumper connection nozzle. In a later post, the Commenter visits a fire station and says most hydrants have 4.5 inch pumper connection nozzles without mentioning hose connection nozzles.
If Charleston hydrants have two 2.5 inch hose nozzles and one 4.5 inch pumper nozzle, then Charleston meets the NFPA standard for hydrants.
The reports summary: Most major U.S. cities do not meet the NFPA standard for pumper connections (larger diameter outlets) - this includes Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego, Dallas-San Antonio-Fort Worth, Detroit, San Jose, Indianapolis, San Francisco, Columbus, Austin, Memphis, Wash. D.C., El Paso, Seattle, Denver, Charlotte, Las Vegas, Cleveland, Kansas City, Tulsa, Miami, Colorado Springs, Wichita, Santa Ana, etc; most cities do meet the NFPA standard of 2.5 inch nozzles for small hose connection!
This makes Charleston appear to be at the head of the pack with hydrants.
The hose issue must take hydrant capability onto consideration and is more complex. This may explain why the City is awaiting further comment from the expert panel. If all or most of the hydrants have 2.5 inch hose nozzles, do you replace the 2.5 inch hose with a 3 inch or larger hose? If all or most of the hydrants have 4.5 inch pumper nozzles, what is the value in having 5 inch supply hoses? Is there a better combination of standard hose and pumper hose configurations to be considered? We’ll need to have the experts’ opinions.
Posted by rjahopp on October 9, 2007 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Re: Shrimp 'n Grits article - one nincompoop relying on the comments of two other nincompoops and calling their patter "revelations." What nincompoopery ... Go figure.
Posted by the_white_owl on October 9, 2007 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Mayor - Fix our fire dept. You get enough of our money in taxes. You have escalated your own salary high enough. When are we going to see real change.
Posted by aconcernedcitizen on October 9, 2007 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Regardless of the size of the steamer and village connections on the hydrant the LDH is still desired due to a much lower level of friction loss in LDH. Charleston has 4.5" steamer outlets the next largest size of hose is 5". The price difference between 4" and 5" is insignificant, but 5" has a much lower friction loss. though 4" is still much better than 2.5" supply lines. 5" supply line is basically a portable water main, with the ability to flow over 1400 GPM. Either size of LDH is going to give so much more capability than the 2.5" supply even if using adaptors and the village connections, it's really a no brainer. In any give situation larger diameter supply hose is better than smaller diameter supply hose. Period, end of subject.
Posted by WalkMan on October 9, 2007 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rjahopp, you are both naïve and foolish if you honestly believe what you just wrote.
Posted by Fire_Inspector on October 9, 2007 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neponset
1) LDH is designed to NOT need to be pumped INTO. You hook it up DIRECTLY to the hydrant. The friction losses even at 1500 GPM are minimal.
2) Even if you decide to pump into a 5" hose, it is better. You can hook up what is called a siamese connection to let you supply the 5" with multiple smaller intake lines.
3) 5" hose is NOT designed to attach to the hydrant, it has an adapter since MANY fire departments are using legacy hydrants with varied threads. Back in the day each water system could use whatever threads they felt like. SO there are NewYork threads, NPT, NST and such. For example there is even a "Louisville KY" thread.
4) Fire Trucks basically last forever until they rust out (hence why the FD is always washing them) or crash. There are plenty of FDs still using truck built in the 1950s on the fireground.
Bickleseagrave:
You can get automatic bleeder valves on the LDH intake. Water hammer is the BIG risk; so the hydrant man has to open the hydrant slowly. Air entrainment is less after the hose has been used a bunch of times as it lies flatter.
scff152410
You can easily siamese multiple discharges into a single 5" line. Or WYE a 5" to multiple discharge lines. Then you spec your NEW equipment with a large discharge. No big deal. This is standard stuff in any firefighter/ apparatus operator training curriculum.
rjahopp
"this statement is unsupported..." WRONG. they could see the smoke when they left the firehouses!
"Maybe the firemen ran out of air..." WRONG. they called maydays and even had time to say a prayer.
"There is an indication of low water pressure coming from the Charleston water department. " A hydrant is rated at a RESIDUAL pressure. If you are depending on just one hydrant you MIGHT be correct. Thats why you lay from multiple hydrants on a grid.
You obviously don't understand that these issues have been here FOREVER and have already been solved by PREPLANNING, equipment, and training in progressive departments.
Posted by concerned_NC on October 9, 2007 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rjahopp - The person thats part of, the city of charleston, mayor joseph p. riley, jr., inner circle.
Keep going rj I'm sure there's a good job in there, somewhere for you.
Posted by WalkMan on October 9, 2007 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The hose issue must take hydrant capability onto consideration and is more complex. This may explain why the City is awaiting further comment from the expert panel. If all or most of the hydrants have 2.5 inch hose nozzles, do you replace the 2.5 inch hose with a 3 inch or larger hose? If all or most of the hydrants have 4.5 inch pumper nozzles, what is the value in having 5 inch supply hoses? Is there a better combination of standard hose and pumper hose configurations to be considered? We’ll need to have the experts’ opinions."
Anyone and everyone who knows ANYTHING about water supply recognizes that you do not based on your above comments. As water moves through hose lines and past hose connections & appliances; as the water continues to change directions as the hose bends it constantly looses pressure. You must overcome that pressure loss. Increasing pressure only works for a while. As you increase the pressure through hose lines it also creates turbulence so, it basically operates on a "bell curve; it will increase water flow for a while but will eventually start to reduce quantity. The ONLY viable answer based on water needs is larger hose.
P.S. Nozzle size is COMPLETELY irrevelant. The nozzle is designed to pump a pre-determined amount of water at a pre-determined amount of pressure. (You can have one nozzle flow serveral different amounts of water.) The size of the nozzle only relates to the size of the hose to which it will attach.
Posted by rjahopp on October 9, 2007 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fire_Inspector: Thank you for your input. My earlier Comments have to be taken within the context in which they were given.
re: “WRONG. they could see the smoke when they left the firehouses!” That does not refute my earlier statement – the tapes indicate they saw smoke coming from the general direction of the SSS while they were enroot but they could not see the store and could not at that point claim that ““Smoke poured from the building as the first two fire trucks arrived,” as W&B reported. They had not arrived on scene; the smoke they referenced could just as well have been from the outside trash fire. The 1st IC on scene said there was no fire in the store and only small whiffs of smoke in the back.
Re: “WRONG. they called maydays and even had time to say a prayer.” The tapes only document one of the nine men calling a mayday and either he or another fireman ending a prayer. The mayday does not specify whether he was running out of air or if he was lost in the smoke or both. Prior to the flashover, Billy Kilcoyne reported encountering one or more of the firemen who reported they were running out of air – if he encountered them they could not have been totally lost; Beasley and Bilton also report attempting to rescue one of the men – if they found him, he too was not totally lost. The actual sequence of events may not ever be known; maybe the NIOSH report will be more definitive on the sequence of events. A NIOSH report on an Oregon fire where three men were lost in similar circumstances indicated they ran out of air, became disoriented due to the lack of oxygen in a toxic environment, and then became lost in thick smoke. A subsequent flashover and a collapsing roof also prevented rescue in that incident.
Re:“If you are depending on just one hydrant you MIGHT be correct.” The earlier comment was only in reply to Henry Howard's statement that “… problems that night were not related to the city's water system….” – How would he know that from CA? Was he even aware that CFD requested an increase in the water pressure in the area?
Hose size may also have be an ongoing problem, but that does not change the fact that the Chief requested that the water department raise the pressure and they agreed to do so as fast as possible. I do not know how many hydrants may have been affected by the water pressure along Wappoo Rd. I would have to suspect that all of the hydrants in the area are supported from the Wappoo Rd. main water line. That does not say that “PREPLANNING, equipment, and training” do not need to be improved; based on their investigation, the expert panel should make the needed recommendations in those areas and the CFD and its firemen should support those efforts.
Posted by rjahopp on October 9, 2007 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Walkman,
Your Comments are appreciated and basically understood.
A question on "The size of the nozzle (sic on the hydrant) only relates to the size of the hose to which it will attach."
Quite a bit of credibility is given to NFPA standards. If LDH are the preferred hoses to use, then why is the NFPA standard for hydrant nozzles two 2.5 inch hose nozzles and one 4.5 inch pumper nozzle? That does not seem to support a general LDH requirement. Does it? Why wouldn't the NFPA standard for the hose nozzles be at least 3 inches?
There is also the question of handling LDH on scene. Some seem to recommend 4 to 5 inch hoses - how many men would it take to handle several hundred feet of a fully charged 4" hose and how maneuverable would that line be? It seems the LDH needs would be dictated by the type of fire - car, residential, retail, industrial, etc.
Posted by charleytowngirl on October 9, 2007 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RJAHOPP: Regarding your comments:
"Prior to the flashover, Billy Kilcoyne reported encountering one or more of the firemen who reported they were running out of air – if he encountered them they could not have been totally lost; Beasley and Bilton also report attempting to rescue one of the men – if they found him, he too was not totally lost."
To use your own rebuttal: Just goes to show you can't believe everything you read! Were you there? Do you know this happened for a fact? Just curious......
Regards
Posted by aconcernedcitizen on October 9, 2007 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LDH is for supply lines, they are laid on the ground and then charged. It's very unusual for Supply Lines to be moved when it is charge. The type of hand lines use for attack would be either 1.75" or 2.5" and possibly 3" lines in the case of portable master stream devices. LDH doesn't need to be maneuverable as it is laid on the ground and charged with water.
Posted by Boosterhose on October 9, 2007 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RJAHopp,
Okay, quit trying to talk about equipment and how to use hoses as to what can be done on a scene. That's one side of the coin you obviously have no experience with and your commentary is so ignorant that it's painful to read. Just trust the experts that LDH is much better and quit trying to justify a department that refuses to move forward with equipment advances for modern era firefighting.
Posted by Wilmot on October 9, 2007 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rjahopp, blah blah blah blah! Shuuuuttt UP! You're making me nausious. You're making things alot more complicated than they need to be. It's simple, big fire= big water. Simple. Quit reading John Grisham novels.
Posted by WalkMan on October 9, 2007 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As to the NFPA question, my answer at this time is, "I don't know." As to the 4" hose line question, 1 man can do the job. It is a supply line not an attack line so it shouldn't require moving once on the ground. Minor movements can be handled by one or two men and hose "ramps" can be utilized for driving over these lines.
Posted by WalkMan on October 9, 2007 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You are creating a big smoke screen by attempting to confuse simple issues with complex analysis. The fire was complex but the water supply was not. The hoses could not deliver the necessary water. The hydrants were capable of supplying the necessary amounts. Other units from other departments that were there with larger hoses did not complain of the same problems. Some people were pushing their pressure to the point of threatening to burst their hoses. I personally believe they passed maximum efficiency and, like the bell curve, started reducing efficiency by continuing to increase pressure. They had to try to overcome a problem they did not completely understand at the time. And the same goes for asking the water department to boost pressure in an area, it was a knee jerk reaction to immediately overcome a problem they did not fully understand at the time. In hindsight we KNOW that the units with larger diameter hoses did not face the same water supply issues as those using the smaller hoses.
I applaud them for thinking quickly on their feet and trying to overcome a problem. But the issue is that larger diameter hoses should have been in place. A vast majority of departments, locally and nationally, recognized this a long time ago and made the necessary changes and it is the City of Charleston's strict adversity to change that prevented it here.
Posted by rjahopp on October 9, 2007 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
charleytowngirl
re: "To use your own rebuttal: Just goes to show you can't believe everything you read! Were you there? Do you know this happened for a fact? Just curious......"
Some philosophy: Don't believe anything you read or hear and only half of what you see.
Case in point - when the Woodward wanta-a-be reported the Kilcoyne story (“Firefighter recalls harrowing trek inside Sofa Super Store”), it seemed embellished and varied somewhat from the same story as reported on Firehouse.com; I posted a Comment to that story indicating it seemed “like a strange story.”
I questioned the accuracy of the articles: “Same interviewees; two different reporters; two different stories.”
A dedicated firefighter spoke up saying about Billy: “I was in there when it went bad and I KNOW FOR A FACT that he was in there till the end, I KNOW FOR A FACT he helped who he helped!” Another fireman also replied “Billy … was in there. …billy was in there.”
Based on those testimonials, I replied: “I just saw the Channel 5 video - it does not exactly match either the P&O or the Firehouse.com stories. Billy … is very credible in the video - he and Raymond show real emotion explaining their experiences at the SSS.”
So, no, I wasn’t there, but with two strong testimonials from firemen who were there, plus having seen Billy on the video, there is no logical reason to question whether his story “happened for a fact.”
As for Beasley and Bilton, I believe you and many other Commenters acknowledge they are true heroes for saving Tyrrell. There is no reason to doubt the report that they subsequently entered the store and attempted to rescue a downed fireman.
Posted by rjahopp on October 9, 2007 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
aconcernedcitizen and WalkMan,
Your replies regarding LDH, hand lines, and their use and configuration in suppressing a fire in the quickest and most efficient manner are appreciated. Thank you for your patience in providing explanations.
Engineering and physics are not my forte. My questions are only a citizens attempt to understand what WalkMan describes as "simple issues."
Although the SSS fire may have been complex and of a size that the CFD has rarely encountered, as the area experiences greater growth and more aging buildings, especially ones without water suppression systems, it seems that LDH and possibly larger hand lines are needed sooner rather than later.
Posted by charleytowngirl on October 9, 2007 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RJ: I am not disputing the fact that Kilcoyne was in the store nor am I disputing the fact that fireman came up to him in the store. I read and watched the same reports as you.
I am simply pointing out the fact that YOU take every little statement that anyone on this message board makes and you try to turn it around to somehow make it look like what is being said is not credible or that the people commenting on these boards do not have the experience or expertise to know what they are talking about. You do that by quoting the same news stories that you fault other people for using. But when someone else quotes from an article, you are quick to point out that you can't believe everything you read. I was simply giving you back a little of your own medicine. What makes the statements by these two firefighters "Two strong testimonials" compared to what other firefighters who were at the fire have been saying?
Unless you are with the department, the assessment review panel, OSHA, NIOSH or any other agency investigating this fire, then your comments about the technical equipment and practices mean no more than mine would. And I admit that I am certainly not an expert in the fire service. I am simply a concerned citizen that wants the truth to come out and for the Mayor and the Chief to admit the mistakes, make the changes and ensure that this NEVER happens again. I want the FF's to be able to speak freely without fear of being fired or called liars.
It appears that your intent is to tear people down statement by statement and make yourself look like YOU are the expert and that YOU know what happened and that YOU know what caused the death of 9 men. Sorry, RJ, but I'm not buying it. And I get the strong feeling that most of the other commenters on this board aren't buying it either.
Unless you are in the fire service with the experience and expertise to know what current methods are practiced all over the country, then I suggest you leave the technical stuff to the experts that ARE in the fire service. And experts from ALL over the country have commented here.
Perhaps if you would read and think about what some of them are saying without jumping back in so quick with your own comments you might learn a little something.
Posted by WalkMan on October 9, 2007 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I see that there are those here that have decided what side of the fence they are going to reside and give their loyalties too even before a debate takes place. I admittedly am one of those. To those that have experience in the fire service, remember, whatever side you choose to align yourself with, in the end we have to come together for each others safety. For those that have no fire service experience, I ask you to listen with your ears more than your mouths. There are plenty of arguements to help you align yourselves to either side, but don't attack each other personally. It's a dis-service to this forum as well as to the nine brothers that died allowing these topics of debate to be created. And quite simply its disgusting.
Posted by rjahopp on October 9, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
charleytowngirl,
My initial Comments were specifically to statements made in the P&O article not to Comments posted by anyone else. I subsequently responded to only those who made credible reference to my Comments.
re: "YOU take every little statement that anyone on this message board makes and you try to turn it around ...etc."
Not true regarding this article. I have only responded to statements posted in response to my Comments.
re: "you are quick to point out that you can't believe everything you read."
I only expanded on Your originally observation that "Just goes to show you can't believe everything you read!"
re "What makes the statements by these two firefighters "Two strong testimonials" compared to what other firefighters who were at the fire have been saying?"
Nothing; as mentioned regarding this article, I have only commented in reply to statements concerning my Comments not to the Comments by others; it is not always clear who is or isn't a local fireman making a Comment.
Posted by charleytowngirl on October 9, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You are right, Walkman. I need to be more like my dog. If I can't eat it or screw it, I need to pee on it and walk away.
I am very concerned that we learn the truth here, not just what Riley wants us to know.
I'm sick to death of some commenters that pick apart every single statement that someone writes just because they don't share the same view.
We all have our own feelings on the matter. Would be nice to be able to freely voice them without having every single comment that is made nit-picked by some that do not necessarily agree with your own view on things.
Posted by AFireSister on October 9, 2007 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmmm lets see. Firefighters who speak their minds aren't supposed to. People concerned not only for the FFs safety but for the community as a whole need to just play within the good ole boy system .
NOT gonna happen anymore! People are tired of politics as usual and the Fire Department is caught within an inept training loop.
Maybe you want YOUR familys safety to depend on tactical procedures developed by a man who has shown he can't even take his own accountability to the forefront. If they cant command themselves and hold themselves as leaders accountable and step up and say I was in charge..I take my responsibility then how can I as a citizen take them seriously ..and how can I entrust them with the lives of my loved ones?
LEAD follow ....or get the hell out of the way!
Posted by concerned_NC on October 9, 2007 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rjahopp - Give it up, your mayor riley is toast. The fire chief, rusty, will go down with him.
There's a good lad, now.
Posted by bickleseagrave on October 9, 2007 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Quote Neponset
" buckleseagrave
Didn't think of getting air out of the system and it is important. I assume the trucks use centrifugal pumps. If I was the engineer, I would uncap a couple of discharge connections and blow/flush the air out of the system, using hydrant pressure, before I fired up the pump. Fast and effective, but you might get your shoes wet."
You actually have to get the air out before it goes through the pump and into the discharges as it can cause cavitation when the air bubble passes through. That's why the intake valve has an air bleeder on it. On our 93 Saulsburys we had rear storz intakes with no bleeder, we just cracked the drain valve on the intake till the air was gone.
This is really one of most important differences to know about the LDH, other than that its pretty easy to learn and use.
Your idea would work, but not if you were feeding water to interior lines from the tank and had to switch over. Getting all the air out before it gets to the intake valve is the best.
Hope you get some soon!! Stay Safe!
LDH That is :)
Posted by Neponset on October 9, 2007 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am relatively new to the internet forum, but have read hundreds, if not a thousand comments on various subjects on the P&C web site. Comments run the full range - the good, the bad and the ugly. I have written over 300 comments and I hope that what I have written has contributed. I often wonder what motivates people to comment. One thing that I have noticed is that there are usually some users who don't seem to fit into the flow of the discussion (often signing up the day of the article with few comments, but not always). I notice that when some group (like city hall, CSU, Al Parish, tour boat company, two men and a pipe bomb, etc) are looking real bad there are users who start attacking the regular contributiors - my thoughts are that these folks are here, not as people with something honest to say, but as hired assassins to discredit, disrupt, misinform, etc. Maybe I am paranoid - give me your thoughts.
Posted by bickleseagrave on October 9, 2007 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neponset
Not sure if you are directing your latest comments to me, if so I am not understanding. I was just having a serious technical discussion with you regarding the LDH. I have been using it for 10-15 years now, so I am just trying to help. I believe my comments are also up approaching 300.
If you took my comments the wrong way I apologize.
Posted by bickleseagrave on October 9, 2007 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry not 300, but 172 plus a fair number on Firefighter Hourly
Posted by the_white_owl on October 9, 2007 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can think of a few names, that could fit.
Posted by WalkMan on October 9, 2007 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charleytowngirl;
"We all have our own feelings on the matter. Would be nice to be able to freely voice them without having every single comment that is made nit-picked by some that do not necessarily agree with your own view on things."
I agree
Posted by Neponset on October 9, 2007 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bickleseagraves
No, I was not. Also, I tried to withdraw my comment on blowing the air out of the system in a later comment - I was just being a little too flippant.
Posted by charleytowngirl on October 9, 2007 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neponset: "my thoughts are that these folks are here, not as people with something honest to say, but as hired assassins to discredit, disrupt, misinform, etc. "
I could not agree with you more. I think that is exactly what a FEW commenters aim to do. Fortunately, the majority
of the citizens, fire service members and others are willing to exchange information to educate the lay person, such as myself on how things work in the fire dept and that, along with the stories in the media can help us form our own opinions.
I am thankful for the people in the fire service and in the CFD that take the time to post here. I wish more citizens would read the comments and draw their own conclusion.
Posted by Neponset on October 9, 2007 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
charley
Thanks for your support. You have to have a thick skin, at times, to step into the fray and that is why there are not more honest folk in our ranks.
Posted by bickleseagrave on October 9, 2007 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charley and Nickie are the best, give em each 20 sparky barky barks!
Posted by charleytowngirl on October 9, 2007 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Aww, Bick....thanks.
Posted by nickiegarbeil on October 9, 2007 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Awww...thanks Bick...I appreciate the barks, but I have to agree with Neponset...it is difficult to handle the hired assassins...The problem is that much of this ends up a personality attack, instead of staying focused on the issues of crooked administration, inept leaders, and men who are at the mercy of citizens to protect their interests...
I promised I would be here for the duration...I may not blog here, but I am here...Stay safe men..you know where I lurk...I'm always available for you...
Thanks for the barks, Bick...I needed them!
Posted by charleytowngirl on October 9, 2007 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Has anyone heard anything about when the latest recommendations of the review panel will be released by the mayor? I hear they have been on his desk for awhile now...
Posted by Neponset on October 9, 2007 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
charley
This series of forums is being looked at by FFs from all over the country - perhaps there is someone out there who knows one or more of the members of the review panel and can check with them and get an answer to your question.
Posted by captainscott on October 9, 2007 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I go back to a comment from a chief that stated what the five keys points of the investigation will reveal. How could he know before the investigation is complete. Because too many people, cities. chiefs, firefighter are not willing to learn and change from previous fatalities. 50% of all firefighter fatalities relate to lack of accountability and poor incident command. WE MUST IMPROVE!!!!!
NFPA standards on hydrants and water flow are important but figures lie and liars figure. What do I mean. Some Water systems have been in place for over 100 years in older cities. I would be willing to say Charleston has its share. When statistics are quoted implying that only a few cities meet the NFPA standards that information needs to be understood in the context of whatever it is stated. Most major cities have grid systems that make placement 500 to 1000 feet apart. Building that have proper prefire drawings that include water flow requirement and hydrant locations and flow rates showing residual pressures is MANDATORY!! This building water flow requirements ALONE without the contents SHOULD have been known by prefire informations. Departmental SOP would have required this. ISO ratings would require this along with hydrant distances flow rates etc. The point .....A rating of 1 should never be given when a department cannot show data relating to fire loads and flow requirement, beside not have the means(LDH) to carry those flows. One final thought. Can some one with access show a copy of a prefire plan and building construction types and fire flow requirements. I think it would be helpful. Thanks
Posted by charleytowngirl on