Are fog nozzles not the answer?
Fredericks continues Part Two with a discussion of fire fighting actions including two newer methods of attack: positive pressure ventilation (PPV) and the use of Class A foam. Throughout this discussion I think that it is evident that Fredericks continues to misrepresent what Layman, Nelson and Royer have advocated. They have never advocated the exclusive use of either the indirect attack or the combination attack.
Chief Layman has said (page 40 in ATTACKING AND EXTINGUISHING INTERIOR FIRES) that fires in the initial phase of development have not accumulated enough heat to justify an indirect attack. He says:
A fire of this nature must be located and extinguished by direct attack. In making the initial size up of a building fire an experienced and capable officer should have little difficulty in determining if the situation demands a direct or indirect attack.”
In view of Royer’s phrase, I am suspicious of Fredericks statement... Likewise Royer and Nelson have taken the same position. In my conversations with Keith Royer, he had emphasized time and time again the principle that there is “no magic pill”, that is, no one method of attack that will solve all of your fire fighting problems. In view of Royer’s phrase, I am suspicious of Fredericks statement that
“Although fog streams did not turn out to be the “magic pill” some had hoped…”
I trust that “some” does not refer to Royer, or Nelson, or Layman. If it does, then again Fredericks has strayed from the truth.
Fredericks needs to listen to the men who introduced fog nozzles to the fire service. Next Fredericks turns right around and advocates a single method of attack for all fires, the direct method using a solid stream nozzle. Fredericks needs to listen to the men who introduced fog nozzles to the fire service. There is “no magic pill”. All methods of attack have their appropriate place in fire fighting.
