Make all nozzle options available
Frank Burke
Deputy Chief (retired)
Syracuse (NY) Fire Department
While it has been a few years since I retired as deputy chief of the Syracuse (NY) Fire Department, I have continued my subscription to your publication, as firefighting technology has always been a keen interest of mine. Of late, I have been extremely surprised, and even dismayed, to see so many articles on smooth-bore and manual fixed-gallonage nozzles. Frequently, these articles are written as though they were some “newly discovered technology” rather than a tool that is nearly as obsolete as the horse and the rubber coat.
In 1974, the Syracuse Fire Department was forced to downsize while maintaining an equal firefighting capability. We experimented with and tested many technologies to keep the fire suppression capability at the previous level. Rapid water, mini pumpers, maxi pumpers, radio-controlled outlets, 134-inch hose, two-inch hose, automatic nozzles, radio-controlled hydrants, and flowmeters were just some of what then were new products and ideas. Out of these technologies, two were clear winners when paired–the automatic nozzle and the 134-inch hose. When the wide flow range of the automatic nozzle was coupled with the increased flow rate available through the 134-inch hose, a two-man fire attack team could have an attack capability that ranged from 50 gpm up to 200-plus gpm–all utilizing the same equipment and setup.
The people promoting smooth bores or fixed-opening nozzles are totally forgetting that to do so limits them to one flow and one optimum pressure per nozzle size. With the smooth bore, it also limits them to one choice of pattern. While it is true that fog pattern sometimes is used when a straight stream is called for, is taking away the ability to make an indirect, combination, or direct attack the only solution? Is the answer to inadequate training in proper use reasonable cause for giving up the flexibility and versatility that the automatic nozzle and the 134-inch hose provide? It would seem to me that it is far more important to teach when to use a fog and when to use a straight stream rather than to take away the variable pattern option altogether! With the hundreds of different circumstances and situations today`s firefighters must face each day, why would we now give them only one possible response?
It was a long time before the fire service accepted the automatic transmission; the naysayer used any number of excuses to prevent its entry. Yet today it is without question the most common transmission installed in fire apparatus. Automatic nozzles and the larger-diameter attack line combination easily are equally important to the fire service`s capability as the automatic transmission. Without higher flow rates and more versatile attack options, the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on modern apparatus does nothing more than what could be achieved with the pumpers of 60 years ago. Is this progress?
