Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tony P on January 10, 2009 at 7:28pm

This sort of training is virtually impossible where I live. Requesting permission to burn a house in the middle of the suburbs would be like trying to push water up a steep hill with a small stick...

I can see benefits, but there are also so many pitfalls. A properly constructed fire house (burn tower?) may not have fire that behaves the same way as a structure fire, but it is as safe as we can make it. 'Hot' training to me is just that - have people performing tasks they've learnt about in the classroom and other practice areas, but have them perform those tasks in the heat and smoke. In as much safety as we can provide. Who can really guarantee that a burn in an old house won't have floors collapsing? Walls collapsing? Ceilings collapsing? Our concrete building, with it's cages for pine and hay, is just a lot safer. Safety comes first in training.

I read about the tragedy that Art has referred to. I also read the reports. To have done so many things so badly...

NFPA 1403 doesn't apply to us, and as I said we couldn't get permission to burn a house anyway, so reading it for the detail is unlikely to happen! But I get the drift from some of the things that have been quoted from it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Brooks on January 10, 2009 at 9:01pm

1403 absolutely applies to you. Any live fire training falls under 1403. Chapter 5 of 1403 directly refers to live fire training gas fired training buildings and chapter 6 is for non-gas fired training buildings. Make sure you are training to the standards, not what someone has told you for years. The best example of misinformation I see regularly is hose testing. It is amazing to me that departments still test to 200 pounds for hand lines. This has been changed since 1987.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lutan1 on January 10, 2009 at 9:32pm

J Brooks- NFPA doesn't apply to us (in terms of legislation, etc) as we're in Australia.

Is it a good refernce tool to us on how to do things? Based on what I've read on it thus far- YES!

But it holds no weight in our protocols, procedures, SOP's, court system, etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Brooks on January 10, 2009 at 9:36pm

I did not realize that I was replying to an Aussie, my apologies. You are right though. While NFPA is not perfect by any means, it is a good guideline for anyone. Stay safe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lutan1 on January 10, 2009 at 9:41pm

That's cool! I had a bit of speed read of it yesterday and it's certianly applicable in terms of safe practices.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on January 10, 2009 at 10:02pm

In Paul Grimwood's book "Euro Firefighter", I was surprised at the amount of discussion on NFPA standards and such. Though Europe does not subscribe to NFPA, it is clear that they are using some of the standards to improve safety over there. Many of the people interviewed for the book from Germany, France, Sweden and the UK were very familiar with many of our LODD cases as well.
It is an excellent book that captures an almost international agreement on many principles and tactics.
TCSS.
Art

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CHRIS PUYLARA on August 14, 2009 at 4:48pm

WE DO USE ACQUIRED STRUCTURES-1403 TO A T.WE START WITH SOME VENTILATION TRAINING,SEARCH AND RESCUE STUFF,WALK THROUGHS AND OUR INSTRUCTORS TELL US EVERTHING WE NEED TO KNOW.. WE ALSO CAN TRAIN WITH THE FEDERAL FIRE DEPARTMENT ON MCAS CHERRY POINT WITH THEIR BURN BUILDING- THEY DO LIVE BURN TRAINING ONCE EVERY 4 MONTHS

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page