Re: USS GEORGE WASHINGTON - Navy cites smoking as likely cause of carrier fire that caused $70 million in damage

CJ Adams <bluebell@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:4229m5-lnd.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Fred J. McCall wrote:

"Roger Conroy" <rogerconroy.nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:
:This might be a dumb question:
:How many of the 3000 crew would normally be fully qualified in
:firefighting?
:

3000 of them. It's part of basic shipboard qualification.

True, but there must be differences in the degree of
training and equipment. Everyone should be able to use an
extinguisher, but fewer would have fire-resistant clothing
and breathing apparatus issued, I'd expect. On a big ship,
how many would be fully-trained and equipped firefighters?

I think in general on CVs there are sufficient rated damage
control specialists to take care of the day-to-day fire and
flooding threat. After the Falklands, there was a push to
ensure all hands had a level of skill, as part of a
"mass conflagration" exercise. Not sure about the air wing.
I suspect they are mostly "self-loading freight" when it comes
to shipboard evolutions. "Equipped" isn't really an issue.
The repair lockers contain the gear, except for personal
survival gear like EEBDs. Not everyone assigned to a repair
locker would be "fully qualified" in the sense of being a
qualified nozzleman or on-scene leader though.

Don't know how many rated DC men assigned to a CV. In addition
to the normal fire and flooding there is a sizable flight deck
crash and salvage crew.

scott s.
..

.