dave17352 wrote:
That fire crew looked clueless and dangerous. I am not a fireman so maybe I am wrong but I not be hanging around forever by that flame thrower 🙂
Well,
Being a retired fireman of over 35 years of service, I'm not gonna chastise any other firmen for something that I was not there, IN PERSON to witness. Every situation is different. I can tell you this. Base on our rules, practices and training, I would NEVER pulled up that close to the burning vehicle. That's why there's ten zillion miles of hose on a fire truck. Based on a give fire size at the point of observance, a decision is made as to what size of hose and what nozzles is to be used on the "initial attack".
Now, for that particular vehicle/motorhome fire, even without seeing it up close and in person on approach, that motorhome was a total loss within 1-2 minutes after the fire started. So, going nuts with speed (in laying setting hose(s) up and, always a potential for injury while prepping to fight a fire, you take this situation into account and make decisions accordingly.
Now this doesn't mean a crew is going to lollygag around either. Professionalism is always a concern, as well as self preservation and, potential for rescue etc.
And, different jurisdictions, areas, cities, counties, parashes, and more will run things all differently. That fire was out in the middle of nowhere so, unless they had a tanker dispatched along with first units, water conservation is a priority along with at least knocking the fire down to a manageable point.
In my opinion, based on all the above, either the fire officer in charge or, the engineer (driver) chose to "spot" the pump. That is, park that fire engine in the spot you see. And, based on the angle the video was taken, it to me, appears to be waaaaaay too close to have spotted that pump. Again, that's why you have as much hose on a fire truck as you do. You keep a safe distance and bring your hose(s) to the fire.
On a fire of that size, you bring out the larger hose to knock the fire down. That may take say, oh, about 1-2 minutes tops. Then, a smaller more manageable hose is put into action. The reason for this is, you've knocked the fire down so, you don't need the high volume of water you did in the initial attack.
All you're doing from this point on is, putting out little "hot spots" in the vehicles structure. And for that, minimal water is needed, and, since the hose is smaller, it's more manageable to maneuver around that scene. For this kind of situation, every single time we'd lay TWO hoses and nozzles. Both MAY be used, depending on all kinds of circumstances or, just one may be used to initially knock down the fire while the other hose is left for a backup, in case something happens to the first hose and nozzle.
The optimal game plan for this kind of situation would be for TWO engines to have responded or, at least a water tanker to support the "first in engine". If two engines arrived at the scene at the same time, the one closest to the fire would set up for an attack while the second one would tie into the first engine. Then, the second one would send their water to the first engine and, the first engine would use ALL THE WATER needed, from the second engine, to put out the fire. But, if the fire was not contained by the time the second engine ran out of water, then the first engine would now start to use their water while the second engine disconnected and hi-tailed it back for more water.
Anyway, that's kind-a how we did things. But, as stated, I'd have NEVER pulled my engine that close to the burn.
Scott
