Are fog nozzles not the answer?
The end of article 1 has a discussion of the contributions made by Chief Lloyd Layman during World War II. The authors claim that there has been a misinterpretation of indirect method of attack as developed by Chief Layman. There are several errors in the author’s presentation. First, there was only one test conducted with cotton bales in the hold of a ship. This was done in California at the end of Chief Layman’s service as Commandant of the Coast Guard Fire School. Prior to this, Chief Layman conducted dozens of tests on board at Liberty ship at Ft. McHenry in Baltimore, MD, extinguishing fuel oil fires below the deck plates in the engine room of this ship. Second, the authors claim that Chief Layman never suggested using fog nozzles inside a building. (1-78) However, three paragraphs later, Chief Layman is quoted as saying that it “may be possible and practical” to attack from an interior stairway below the involved floor. Third, the authors, like many others who have read Layman’s book, failed to recognize, or even mention, that Chief Layman spent three years from 1947 to 1950 as Chief of the Parkersburg, W.V. Fire Department perfecting the use of fog nozzles to fight Class A structure fires in Parkersburg. This was the first time in history in any town anywhere that fog nozzles were used for this purpose.
The only thing that we do know is that Chief Layman’s tactic was only 50% efficient in converting liquid water to steam. Unfortunately, there is one crucial bit of information about Chief Layman’s tactics in using fog nozzles in Parkersburg. In the ship testing water was injected into the engine room 25 to 30 feet above the deck plates. This was truly an indirect attack. However, the ceiling height in Parkersburg was only 8 feet high. Chief Layman instructed his fire fighters to distribute the water throughout the fire area, and he added that it took some skill to do this properly. What his instructions were, we simply do not know. Thus a truly indirect attack may not have been used. The only thing that we do know is that Chief Layman’s tactic was only 50% efficient in converting liquid water to steam.
Finally, the authors ask a question. Given all the fact presented above, why is anyone still using fog stream inside a fire building? I will tell you why.
- A fog nozzle is used to make a direct attack just as effectively as any other type nozzle. (straight stream)
- A fog nozzle is used to make a combination attack (direct and indirect attack) from an inside door into a room fully involved with fire.(300 pattern)
- A fog nozzle is used to make a 3D gas cooling pulse attack to stop rollover and prevent a flashover or backdraft from occurring.( 600 pattern)
The latter method of attack has already saved fire fighter’s lives, and this method of attack can only be done with a fog nozzle .These three methods of attack prove what the realities actually are for a safe and effective fog attack on the fire ground.
