Editor’s Note: For many years, fire departments nationwide have chosen to go with crosslay/speedlay setups on their apparatus. Some departments have chosen to return to running attack lines - preconnected or not - off the rear of their fire apparatus. This month, Editorial Advisory Board members Bill Adams and Ricky Riley comment on fire apparatus attack line positions from their perspectives.

Stretching and advancing attack lines are core basic engine company skills. This skill has to be constantly practiced, no matter what the real or perceived efficiency of our firefighters and officers. The operational need to make the stretch and operate these hoselines is a skill that all departments should work on and ensure the efficiency of each and every day. The discretionary time for applying water on a fire is over, and the focus of this core engine function can no longer be taken for granted.

Training, hose loads, and purchasing the right hose and nozzles can make this operation more effective. One of the items we wanted to discuss here is the placement of the attack lines on the apparatus. For decades, the norm has been the standard crosslay on the rig. This time-tested design has a history that started in Mattydale, New York, when Chief Burton L. Eno decided on the perpendicular storage of attack lines for rapid deployment (Legros Fire Blog). This storage put the lines near the midpoint of the apparatus, usually above the pump panel area. And as well as this has worked, it has driven placement of the engine to facilitate a clean stretch to the fire building. Thus, putting the engine in some undesirable locations on scenes could operationally shift apparatus around that could use a better position because of the limits of their devices.

As early as the 1980s, some departments were moving to a different storage and deployment for their apparatus attack lines. I believe that in the Washington, D.C., area this was based on the focus of getting the trucks or towers in the right positions on firegrounds to facilitate the use of the aerial devices and the rapid deployment of ground ladders. With this operational positioning of the truck, it required a positioning shift for engines while still allowing the advancement of their attack lines in an efficient and quick manner. So, a number of departments moved to the attack lines running off the rear of the rig. This area had normally been reserved for storing supply line and the 2½-inch blitz line but not the normal day-to-day attack lines. This redesign of the hosebed changed the deployment of these lines to be from the rear. This move pushed the positioning of the engine beyond the fire building after laying its supply line. This would put the back of the engine just beyond the fire, and the stretch back to the building would be an easy one, thus leaving the front of the structure for the truck to set up. This also cleared up the pump panel area for the driver/operator, as now he did not have the attack lines draped over the pump panel. The strong shift to this rear storage of attack lines worked for this response area, and by far I would say that it would work for most departments’ response areas just because of the clean deployment for the single-family dwelling and the ease of stretching when placing the rear of the rig at a sidewalk or between buildings for stretches to long distances or getting to the rear of structures.

As advocates for the attack lines coming off the rear, we also have to design the hosebed for that. We cannot have the lines so high in the air that it is a chore in full personal protec

Editor’s Note: For many years, fire departments nationwide have chosen to go with crosslay/speedlay setups on their apparatus. Some departments have chosen to return to running attack lines - preconnected or not - off the rear of their fire apparatus. This month, Editorial Advisory Board members Bill Adams  and Ricky Riley comment on fire apparatus attack line positions from their perspectives.

There is no cast-in-concrete definition of an attack line, and there probably shouldn’t be. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, sentence 3.3.139 defines a preconnected hoseline as: “A hoseline that is stored on the apparatus already connected to an outlet on a pump and that can be charged by the activation of one discharge valve.” NFPA 1901 goes on to stipulate there shall be two preconnects with minimum sized piping; valves; and storage capacity for each. Hence, a preconnect can be considered an attack line but an attack line is not necessary preconnected - i.e., a static load.

Prior to Chief Eno of Mattydale, New York, designing the first “mattydale” lay (aka crosslay) in 1947, all hose except for booster lines was pulled from the rear of the apparatus. When reels replaced the open chemical hose baskets mounted over midship pumps, the reels occasionally were mounted just above the rear tailboard. The original question posed is subjective in that it infers a “rear pull” and a crosslay/speedlay are the only two viable options for an attack line. They are not.

I proffer that there are multiple methods of storing, loading, and accessing attack hoselines regardless of being preconnected or not. One is not categorically better than another. Using a military adage, a successful fireground attack evolution depends on the “weather and terrain.” Additionally, not every fire department is a proponent of using preconnects. Some prefer and are very successful in reverse laying from the fire to the hydrant. I venture those agencies would rather not be obligated to pay for and find room on their rig for NFPA 1901 mandated preconnects and associated plumbing. Other agencies - both career and volunteer - prefer to pull the lengths of attack line hose deemed necessary for each incident from a static bed. I’m not going to pass judgment.

In my biased opinion, there are four basic methods of storing and pulling attack lines - off the rear as in the good ole days, lifting out of a trough (hose well), on a reel, and transverse - pulling from the side of the rig. Note that I used the term transverse, which includes crosslays, speedlays, and mattydales. Transverse lays can also be located on the front bumper and the rear tailboard. Hose wells can be located on the front bumper, at the rear of the bus, or on either side. I’ve seen rigs with multiple donut rolls connected in a hose well all preconnected. It works. Try it.

Regardless of where attack line is stored and irrespective of the type of hose load being used and whether or not it is preconnected, if a firefighter has to step up onto the apparatus to reach it, someone did a lousy job laying out the rig. It is an invitation to an injury. Why purposefully or inadvertently create a potential safety hazard for firefighters when there are other options?

Transverse lays at, in, or above pump houses are about 70 inches side to side. A 200-foot transverse hose load has about 34 “lays” of hose with a fold at the end of each lay. In my opinion, each fold is an invitation for a kink; they can make for a lo

Editor’s Note: For many years, fire departments nationwide have chosen to go with crosslay/speedlay setups on their apparatus. Some departments have chosen to return to running attack lines - preconnected or not - off the rear of their fire apparatus. This month, Editorial Advisory Board members Bill Adams and Ricky Riley comment on fire apparatus attack line positions from their perspectives.

Stretching and advancing attack lines are core basic engine company skills. This skill has to be constantly practiced, no matter what the real or perceived efficiency of our firefighters and officers. The operational need to make the stretch and operate these hoselines is a skill that all departments should work on and ensure the efficiency of each and every day. The discretionary time for applying water on a fire is over, and the focus of this core engine function can no longer be taken for granted.

Training, hose loads, and purchasing the right hose and nozzles can make this operation more effective. One of the items we wanted to discuss here is the placement of the attack lines on the apparatus. For decades, the norm has been the standard crosslay on the rig. This time-tested design has a history that started in Mattydale, New York, when Chief Burton L. Eno decided on the perpendicular storage of attack lines for rapid deployment (Legros Fire Blog). This storage put the lines near the midpoint of the apparatus, usually above the pump panel area. And as well as this has worked, it has driven placement of the engine to facilitate a clean stretch to the fire building. Thus, putting the engine in some undesirable locations on scenes could operationally shift apparatus around that could use a better position because of the limits of their devices.

As early as the 1980s, some departments were moving to a different storage and deployment for their apparatus attack lines. I believe that in the Washington, D.C., area this was based on the focus of getting the trucks or towers in the right positions on firegrounds to facilitate the use of the aerial devices and the rapid deployment of ground ladders. With this operational positioning of the truck, it required a positioning shift for engines while still allowing the advancement of their attack lines in an efficient and quick manner. So, a number of departments moved to the attack lines running off the rear of the rig. This area had normally been reserved for storing supply line and the 2½-inch blitz line but not the normal day-to-day attack lines. This redesign of the hosebed changed the deployment of these lines to be from the rear. This move pushed the positioning of the engine beyond the fire building after laying its supply line. This would put the back of the engine just beyond the fire, and the stretch back to the building would be an easy one, thus leaving the front of the structure for the truck to set up. This also cleared up the pump panel area for the driver/operator, as now he did not have the attack lines draped over the pump panel. The strong shift to this rear storage of attack lines worked for this response area, and by far I would say that it would work for most departments’ response areas just because of the clean deployment for the single-family dwelling and the ease of stretching when placing the rear of the rig at a sidewalk or between buildings for stretches to long distances or getting to the rear of structures.

As advocates for the attack lines coming off the rear, we also have to design the hosebed for that. We cannot have the lines so high in the air that it is a chore in full personal protec

Editor’s Note: For many years, fire departments nationwide have chosen to go with crosslay/speedlay setups on their apparatus. Some departments have chosen to return to running attack lines - preconnected or not - off the rear of their fire apparatus. This month, Editorial Advisory Board members Bill Adams  and Ricky Riley comment on fire apparatus attack line positions from their perspectives.

There is no cast-in-concrete definition of an attack line, and there probably shouldn’t be. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, sentence 3.3.139 defines a preconnected hoseline as: “A hoseline that is stored on the apparatus already connected to an outlet on a pump and that can be charged by the activation of one discharge valve.” NFPA 1901 goes on to stipulate there shall be two preconnects with minimum sized piping; valves; and storage capacity for each. Hence, a preconnect can be considered an attack line but an attack line is not necessary preconnected - i.e., a static load.

Prior to Chief Eno of Mattydale, New York, designing the first “mattydale” lay (aka crosslay) in 1947, all hose except for booster lines was pulled from the rear of the apparatus. When reels replaced the open chemical hose baskets mounted over midship pumps, the reels occasionally were mounted just above the rear tailboard. The original question posed is subjective in that it infers a “rear pull” and a crosslay/speedlay are the only two viable options for an attack line. They are not.

I proffer that there are multiple methods of storing, loading, and accessing attack hoselines regardless of being preconnected or not. One is not categorically better than another. Using a military adage, a successful fireground attack evolution depends on the “weather and terrain.” Additionally, not every fire department is a proponent of using preconnects. Some prefer and are very successful in reverse laying from the fire to the hydrant. I venture those agencies would rather not be obligated to pay for and find room on their rig for NFPA 1901 mandated preconnects and associated plumbing. Other agencies - both career and volunteer - prefer to pull the lengths of attack line hose deemed necessary for each incident from a static bed. I’m not going to pass judgment.

In my biased opinion, there are four basic methods of storing and pulling attack lines - off the rear as in the good ole days, lifting out of a trough (hose well), on a reel, and transverse - pulling from the side of the rig. Note that I used the term transverse, which includes crosslays, speedlays, and mattydales. Transverse lays can also be located on the front bumper and the rear tailboard. Hose wells can be located on the front bumper, at the rear of the bus, or on either side. I’ve seen rigs with multiple donut rolls connected in a hose well all preconnected. It works. Try it.

Regardless of where attack line is stored and irrespective of the type of hose load being used and whether or not it is preconnected, if a firefighter has to step up onto the apparatus to reach it, someone did a lousy job laying out the rig. It is an invitation to an injury. Why purposefully or inadvertently create a potential safety hazard for firefighters when there are other options?

Transverse lays at, in, or above pump houses are about 70 inches side to side. A 200-foot transverse hose load has about 34 “lays” of hose with a fold at the end of each lay. In my opinion, each fold is an invitation for a kink; they can make for a lo

Would you rather pay higher fire insurance rates on your home and get nothing or a higher Medic 1 fee for emergency medical services to hire new firefighter-paramedics? Facing that conundrum, Port Angeles City Council members Tuesday night resoundingly acceded to Fire Chief Ken Dubuc’s request for new emergency personnel, the department’s first new staff in 26 years.
- PUB DATE: 5/18/2017 11:01:48 AM - SOURCE: Port Angeles Peninsula Daily News