Jan 8, 2023Liked by The Hotshot Wake Up

Can’t wait to listen to this tonight.

Expand full comment
Jan 8, 2023Liked by The Hotshot Wake Up

Me too

Expand full comment

Sorry it was late when i made this post.

Ill just finish by saying that we should expect the public to react this way. Its our fault not theirs. Saying something is or was in prescription is irrelevant if you have no way to determine if you can hold a particular line or not. In law saying something was in prescription means nothing or will mean nothing to a prosecutor when a fire trespasses and takes out hundreds of homes. Unless it was in prescription to have an escape that argument will lose miserably every time.

Also as ive said before as well. Training is worthless unless its the right type. Regarding my prior comment on btu, 2,112,000 btu is not that much. But if you’re not trained to think this way you’ll never see the solutions.

Great podcast

Expand full comment

From the holding aspect (pms-484 pg 8) if you have a burn, roughly a mile long and think oh we’ll use 3 engines for that and the module members can act as crews.

Slick, space em 1760ft apart.

If your fire starts moving on you and now is at 1 ft per sec and hpa is now 1200 then the intensity is now 1200x1760x1 = 2.1mil btu sec. How much btu does that 1” kk absorb?

Who teaches that as part of that course or even during 419? 390 & 490 dont! Those only tell u what the fire us or can generate and we need the other side of that training.

A 1” at 20 gpm is .33 gps and absorbs 3,090btu per second! (Changes with alt & water temp).

This will move 683 ft before u reach the end of your section. Whats in that path?? And the nozzle can only effectively handle approx 2.57 ft per second In this example. These are the types of elements that should go in to the planning for resource determination but again we don’t teach any of it.

So one might say “id add another 3 or 4 engines” then let’s say we have 7 engines at 2.57 ft sec that is only approx 21ft out of 5280ft for every second. I realize its just hypothetical aspects but the fact remains rx burns have gotten away regardless of being in prescription or not. The burn isn’t the issue as i see it, its a matter of we have no training on the heat absorption to resources required based on the numbers of the fuel burning.

Why ft per sec and gallons per sec ? Because chains per hour wont match gpm or gps! Btu generation to absorption are ratios that need to match as I’ve mentioned before.

I agree that banning burns is not the solution however until we can come up a holding prescription based on btu as opposed to the “that should cover it”

Expand full comment