[Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point
61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri Aug 18 01:28:22 UTC 2017
On 18-Aug-17 01:38 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 8/17/17 10:25 AM, Eric Christensen wrote:
>> That's not really what's being discussed here. A non-pressurized
>> hydrant wouldn't be attached to a tank at all. It would require a fire
>> engine to suck the water out. It does not look like a traditional fire
>> hydrant at all.
> there are always exceptions. not far from me, there's a traditional
> hydrant of the type normally used with pressurized systems, but
> it's sourced from a pond. the reason is that the pond is elevated, some
> distance from the road, and they need to keep the barrel empty
> when it's not in use for the usual reasons.
That would officially be called and signed a 'Static Water Supply' in Australia.
Note that some (most in Australia) do not have supply pipes/hydrants .. the fire service bring there own.
The helicopters just hover over the source while their bucket or suction hose enters the source.
There are a fair few of the SWS signs that have been installed to aid fire fighters particularly in areas close to the bush.
More information about the Tagging