This is the quote from Anthony Tarantino, president of the Newark Fire Officers Union:
The hoses were only 1-inch diameter, more suitable for putting out dumpster fires in the industrial port. This fire, Tarantino explained, needed more penetration and pressure that called for much larger 2 ½ inch hose that would have been able to blast the fire from a greater distance.
There’s also this which is said to have been from the NYT.
One of the issues encountered by Newark firefighters was their 2 inch fire hose lines were not compatible with the European-made ship’s 1 inch connections. Newark firefighters could not use their hose lines, and were instead forced to use the fire hoses on the boat, which output less water and pressure then they are used to.
Almost certainly the hose was not 1-inch hose.
There are two common sizes of hose found aboard ships: "Attack fire hose 1-1/2 inch (about 40 mm) and “Supply hose” 2-1/2 inch (about 65 mm).
The smaller attack fire hose is found inside spaces like accommodations and other tight spaces where the larger hose would be difficult for a fire team to deploy. The smaller 1-1/2 inch hose is most likely what was inside the car decks.
I’d like to see the after action report before rushing to judgment, but it is pretty terrifying to think that what may have happened is that the Newark FD crew dragged their own hoses all the way to the scene of the fire with the intent to hook them up on that deck, only to then discover ‘huh our hoses don’t fit.’ It sounds like for structure fires they’re trained and usually use their larger hoses and are trained to just dump as much water onto the seat of the fire until it is eventually out. That’s not how shipboard firefighting works. Shipboard is much more confined space, making attack as close to the fire as possible, relying on the maneuverability of the 1.5" hose. Using fog to shield the attacking crew. Controlling the fire boundaries, and staging crew immediately outside the boundary to relieve attacking crew on the hose team. This is 100% a training issue, and I imagine it is this lack of training that killed these men. They treated it like they would any other structure fire.
Edit: Found this article a few minutes after this post. Exactly what I’m talking about.
As I mentioned before, it’s been a while since I worked on that class of vessel but I recall the fire stations in the holds being the metric equivalent of 2.5" with a reducing wye to the metric equivalent of 1.5". You could pull the wye if needed to run an extension but in reality you’d just move to the next station.
A vessel specific Fire Control Plan is mandatory on all ship per IMO SOLAS:
Of course none of this helps shoreside firefighter unless they know where to find it and understand the language and symbols used on the Fire Control Plan.
PS> I agree, it should be available in digital form that can be sent by the local agent, or ship manager to whichever Fire Department or others involved in fighting a shipboard fire anywhere in the world
The reports are that the Newark firefighters were using the hoses laid out by the crew. After the fire a union official made, in hindsight, a remark that if 2-1/5 inch hoses had been used the firefighters could have extinguished the fire. The incompatible fitting discussion is not relevant.
Standing off inside the car holds with large hoses is not the SOP for small or medium car deck fires. The recommended approach for a direct attack is as you described using fire extinguishers and the smaller hose.
Of course the decision on how to fight a fire has to be made on scene depending upon the situation.
Don’t know about the Grande Costa D’Avorio but on the car carriers I’m familiar with the low-pressure CO2 system could be cross connected to the fire main. The CO2 nozzles would then act as sprinklers.
Why is everybody getting lost in the weeds regarding fire hoses?
No amount of manually aimed water from a fire hose is going to do anything to a car fire on a ro-ro deck.
The only real hope if the CO2 doesn’t kill the fire, besides sealing it up and letting it burn out, is to hope some sort of high pressure water mist system exists…which likely doesn’t on cargo holds of a ro-ro.
Hi-fog, etc water mist systems are amazing. Truly amazing.
If my rather ancient memory serves me correct 1 litre of water in the presence of heat turns into 1600 litres of steam so if water or water mist can be directed at the seat of a fire without a firefighter being present it’s a win.
For one car ships don’t sail always with full decks, sometimes in ballast and everything in between.
Also there is the Accident Triangle aka Heinrich’s Triangle. We only hear about the major fires. We don’t know how many small fires in car decks are put out by the crew.
WTF point are you trying to make? Sure, if there is 1 car on the entire car deck and it catches fire, somebody can go and put it out with a portable or a hose. Good job…
This is absolutely obvious and would be very easy to implement. Nowadays, most(?) ships already have digital copies of their Fire Control and Safety Plan. However, the prospect of the next mandatory reporting system, where a ship would be legally obliged to submit a detailed set of widely known data, terrifies me. The creativity of bureaucracy is invaluable, and when I think about a system that collects data about the crew, including gender, race, and the captain’s shoe size, as well as cargo expressed in kilograms with multiple safety classifications, plus digital copies of all certificates in a strictly defined order with renewal and/or expiration dates specified, I’m really not so sure about the validity of this idea anymore.
And just to be clear, I’m not questioning the importance of collecting relevant data; I’m just frustrated with the constant creation of new systems in which we keep reporting and collecting the same information. All the information mentioned in the Newark FD press conference, which is crucial and necessary for proper and safe firefighting planning, was available. We can discuss the creation of an efficient 21st-century access to the database, but I refuse to accept the statement that such data was unavailable.
Currently, there are no credible reports, and your opinion is based solely on “sensational” articles and/or statements from individuals who do not guarantee objectivity or may be influenced by conflicts of interest.
That’s a very strange solution. Was there CO2 firefighting system standby, or was it a sprinkler installation ready for use? How often and in what manner was the sprinkler system tested, and what type of water was used?
Generally speaking, a ship should and usually is designed and equipped in such a way that the crew can extinguish any fire on their own in any location. Of course, we are talking about statistical conditions, assuming that the fixed firefighting systems are functioning properly and all procedures are followed correctly. In extreme operational situations where the risk of fire escalation increases, external assistance may be warranted. However, I believe it is inappropriate for shore services to claim that the ship’s firefighting equipment is inadequate or that the ship’s design is too complex. Unless a special commission, after thorough investigations of a specific incident, concludes that there is a need to change classification regulations and/or operational procedures.
Ahh, perfect timing from the Chief hall monitor. First off, whether or not I’ve sailed on car carriers does not change the behavior of fire and difficulty in extinguishing aboard car carriers.
Might you please remind us how many ro-ros have been lost to fires that were unable to be contained in the last 5 years? It might even be more than the amount of ro-ros that have tipped over!
But, because facts and information are only valid to you if somebody has “been on board”, the answer to your question is yes.
There is theory, “class certification”, and then real world. I’ll repeat, how many ro-ro ships have been lost in the last 5 years due to fire?
For fucks sake, a class of USA built tanker than many here have sailed does not have a path for men to escape the ECR that does not go through the engine room (hint* a simple hole in the deck above the ECR would lead into the gym or A/C room) How this passed “class” and USCG approval still befuddles me.
Think of things that were designed without knowledge or reference to each other:
Cars and trucks vs ro-ro or any other ship.
Fire departments vs ships.
Any of the above for compatibility between countries.
So, a ro-ro operator should consider having equipment that works in a variety of ports with a variety of cars, trucks, and other vehicles.
Incidentally, where large fuel capacity vehicles are concerned, half-full tanks allow the worst effect of weight sloshing side-to-side when the ship is underway. But, how to check for and correct that on sailing day?
Almost like Class Societies, ISO, NFPA, and so on don’t exist. Someone should create a few organisations dedicated to standardising things. That way I don’t have to build a fire station from the ground up using whatever hoses are available at my local home depot.
The difference is someone who speaks from experience and versus one who talks out of his ass on the subject. In other words, actually knowing what you are talking about would lend a modicum of creditability to your postulations. So yes, it does help.
