The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
First thing that should be done at a structure fire.
This is something that the guys and I debate from time to time. Here is the scnerio, your company is dispactched to a working structure fire, there is no entrapment. You and your company arrive on scene, complete a 360 of the structure, hook into a water supply and the decision is made to do an interior attack of the fire. What is the next step that should be taken? I am a firm believer in venting the roof (if possible) and breaking windows and laddering so that there are avenues of egress. If this can be done concurrently as a crew makes an interior attack then so be it, if it has to be done prior to making the interior attack due to a lack of manpower, then thats an option to. What do you all think?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by JPB on
-
safety first, and accountability of who and where, and what they are going to do, conditions of the day, wind direction, you don't want to push the fire in, vent is a must to prevent a flashover/backdraft.
Above all else SAFETY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ALWAYS ! EVERYONE GOES HOME..
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
Hello, I'm another of those ill-trained, inexperienced firefighters that has no knowledge of fire behaviour. Anyone making allusions like that should expect a counter-attack. Chris hasn't been around the Nation long, so may not realise how touchy people can be about the ventilation tactic. I didn't see his comments as attacking other methods, just as trying to point out something different.
Most people have seemed willing to accept that there are different methods of attack for structure fires. That different countries use these different methods. Usually with a side comment, but acceptance of a sort. I accept that the common methods in North America are different to ours Your combination of ventilate/search and extinguish. Here, ventilation is never first and the first crew in will always have a hose - in my FRS it will most likely be a 38mm (1.5 in.) with a combination branch (nozzle). Our career members, like those in Chris's FRS, usually take the HP reel with an Akron.
Often in these discussions house construction methods are mentioned. The difference between a frame house and a solid masonry house for instance. A misapprehension is that we in Aus only have European style solid masonry houses. I've never been to Orange in New South Wales, where Chris is stationed, so I don't know what the general method is there, but from seeing many other country towns an cities in Australia I'm willing to suggest that there are more frame houses than solid, with all the newer houses being lightweight truss buildings. I'm in the second biggest suburban area in the country, and around here only the very old houses are solid masonry, the vast majority are frame with brick or wood cladding. We also have much lighter roof construction than seems to be the norm in North America, commonly just a wooden frame with cement or terra-cotta tiles or steel cladding. So our houses are closer in construction to those in North America than they are to Europe, but still with differences. Oh, the majority of our houses are single storey, single occupancy dwellings. Many new homes are multi-storey, but still single occupancy.
Something else that is often mentioned is the call to a house where people are trapped inside. I've only been to one of those in my time (only in my 8th year though). Could this be because smoke alarms have been mandatory in all homes for for 20 years or more? I don't know the answer to that, I just know that trapped occupants are the exception here in Victoria, not the rule.
I'll now address Caleb's original question. I'll read 'working structure fire' to mean that smoke/flame is visible from at least part of the house - what we would call a 'going fire'. If the building is 'fully involved' it will probably be a surround and drown, but that isn't common. The first difference is that a full '360' is rare. Our yards are commonly fully fenced, so access can be difficult. Arrival on-scene will have a BA crew entering with a hose to find the seat of the fire, we may find ourselves using the 'pencil and paint' method Chris mentioned, or we may simply push to the seat of the fire and attack it. It depends on conditions.
Venting the roof won't happen until the fire is under control, when we are searching for hidden extesnion. Windows in the effected area may have broken, that and our entry point would be the only 'ventilation'. A fan will only be brought into use when the fire is out. Yes, we're told in training about PPA, but isn't a technique we've adopted.
Open up the house for emergency egress? Doesn't happen. If we think a fire is looking too well developed, too dangerous, then we don't enter. Entry may be made from doors other than the original entry point, but this is for attack or post fire ventilation.
The last house fire I attended was a couple of weeks ago. The first pumper on the road called that smoke was showing - this was when they were about one kilometre away. All occupants were outside on arrival. As the house is open plan, smoke and heat damage extended further than the room of origin, but the fire was contained there. One crew was sent to the roof to shift tiles and look for extension.
Because of the open plan construction, the pencil & paint compartment fire method wasn't suitable, but direct attack to the seat of fire was. The fire was contained with only one 38mm (1.5 inch) hose being taken into the building.
Do we stop all house fires so quickly with so little damage? Of course not, but most we do. Our methods, based on those used in the UK and EU work well for us. They work as well with our frame construction, lightweight roof houses as they do with our older solid masonry houses. Civilian and firefighter casualties are rare.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Miller on
-
Tony,
I agree there are differences from country to country, but I am curious about your comment about not creating egress points for firefighter escape. I realize that you say that if the fire is too well involved that your crews take a defensive posture, but what happens if they make an interior attack and conditions rapidly deteriorate blocking their egress path? If no one has created a secondary means of egress for the interior crew what do they do?
Whether in the US, Europe, or Australia the laws of physics are the same, fire conditions often change very rapidly. Why not be prepared for that possibility and give your firefighters a second option?
-
-
I understand your point Chris, and too right conditions can change quickly, but creating extra exit points is simply not something we do. We train that if somehow the structure collapses behind us (we don't go under obviously burning parts of a building, access will be made from a 'safer' side) then we will exit via the nearest point, whether it be a window or another door. You can believe that if we hear the sounds of structural failure then we get out via the nearest possible point, and quickly! With predominantly single storey houses, a growing number of two storey but very little over two storeys (in the suburbs), our methods have worked well. I'm not saying that we won't put a ladder to an upstairs window, but it's not normal practice to do so simply for an exit point - when we do it is usually because that's where an attack team is entering with a hose.
Possibly a big part of our difference is that we don't have what you would call 'truckies' - we don't have crews equipped and tasked to do those types of operation in concert with crews that are equipped and tasked to use water. I think almost all of our vehicles are what you would call 'engines'. Engines that carry a selection of ladders and other equipment, as with European appliances. Our aerial appliances have their platform or boom but not a large selection of ladders as well. We also don't use aerial appliances to anywhere near the same extent as in North America.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Cole on
-
I accept and understand there are variations in US and UK tactics. Again my initial replies to this thread never took into consideration the UK firefighters here. My mistake. My comments meant that most, if not all the US instruction identifies ventilation as a top priority and not doing it usually makes for a difficult, if not impossible attack. Then I got a little thrashing from the brother from the UK. HE took it personal.
Your probably 100% correct identifying the lack of truck companies as the biggest reason for our differences.
Anyone here who has ever taken RIT/RIC/FAST instruction understand how vital creating emergency egress points is for firefighter safety and survival. With the first UK's answers to my post he basically insinuates all of us here who do so have questionable training, which, when we consider this tactic is used wide-spread trhough-put our Country, certainly points a finger at some of the most progressive firefighters and departments in the US.
Again I must bow down. I guess whatever fire problems we have here are magnified greatly, including said lightweight construction relating in the UK. We DO vent roofs during fire attack, and especially flat roofs in strip malls, or anything with a common cockloft. Waiting until overhaul makes little sense for fire control to me, but I accept it is done differently.
Lastly, again-differences accepted. However ther tactics I speak of are not particular just to my ideas. They are standard US firefighting tactics and strategies. Which is why I answered the way I did. I forgot the "nation" aspect of this forum. Peace.
-
Permalink Reply by Jake Fireman on
-
PRAY! then PPE....or is it PPE then Pray?
-
-
This is how we all learn more, isn't it Jeff? I know that I've learnt a hell of a lot on this site. I've always known there were differences in methods around the world (how could there not be differences?), but I've learnt specifics, always interesting.
I think I can horrify you in another way as well - we don't use RIT/RIC/FAST either! We rely on the back-up BA crew that is always waiting to do any immediate crew rescue that is needed, I don't know anyone who's had to do this however. If a DSU (PASS to North America) starts yelling then that crew will go in.
Chris did seem to take some responses a little personally, but then, so did I intitially. Some of them were a bit pointed. Oh, and Chris is an Australian like me - he's not in the UK ;-) As you say mate, peace.
-
Permalink Reply by John Cupps on
-
I agree with the idea of having vent teams in place, have a plan. When the interior guy's call for something then the exterior guy's are ready. I'm usually the guy inside, I wouldn't want someone venting in the wrong place while I was in there. Communication is big and having the right people in place. I'm from a small rural area, although we have the best equipment, we don't always have the right people in the right place! And, as we all know, every situation is different! Take care all and happy easter
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Montpetit on
-
I think the interior guys can go in and make an interior assessment before you start cutting the roof...It might not be that bad and can be handeled with a good coordinated interior attack....if it is too hot/smoke filled then either PPV or vent the roof....but not until it is coordinated with the interior guys....Paul
-
Permalink Reply by Shareef Abdu Nur on
-
There are many determining factors that would need to be considered. Smoke and/or fire conditions, manpower, ETA of 2nd due companies, how much of the structure is involved, the type of structure, etc...All of these factors play into the equation before I can say responsibly what the next course of action would be.
-
Permalink Reply by Captain Kevin C. Ross on
-
Hi Happy Easter, This is what we do at a structure fire in a vacant or evacuated building, after sizeup 1) Protect the exposure, 2) put lines in place for interior attack if the building is not falling apart. 3) Ventilate high (Roof or upper windows) if the roof is not possible. 4) enter with interior lines. We try not to break windows etc if possible because once you break windows there is no way to control airflow especially if using positive pressure ventilation. I know alot of people like to do the windows but I like to keep the airflow in my control as well as minumize damage to necessary damage. Just this past thursday we were working at a 3 story mercantile, no one in the building, heavy fire on side 3 or C whichever you use fire was in a one story extention, we had heavy exposue concern on side 4 or D we placed the first line to protect the exposure on side 4, we got our lines in place for interior attack, we vented the one story roof on side 3, and forced the door on side 1 & entered. When I was forcing the door on side 1 someone kept yelling just take the windows out, but I did not want to do that because we could better control the airflow, not draw the fire toward us, & reduce the unnecessay damage.
Hope this tells you what you are looking for. Have A Great Day!!! Stay Safe!!! Captain Kevin C. Ross Pembroke NY Fire Department
-
Permalink Reply by Mick Shelley on
-
PPV works all the time if done properly
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
