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?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jeff Cole on April 13, 2009 at 11:45am

Tony P...geez I scrwed up AGAIN!!! I am so sorry that I mistook you from the UK. I dunno why, just showing my ignorance I guess. I am a tad embarassed. Anyways, as I said, it's all good between us.

I am not really horrified to learn that you have no provsisons for a RIC/RIT/FAST. Especially since not everyone in the US does either. We have a mandated "2 in, 2 out" which is probabaly similar, if not the same as what you discribed.

I have no intent to criticize what I don't understand, as firefighting overseas. I understand that there are some big differences, and yet fires are extinguished everyday. Obviously the progressive Nations have mastered their craft employing the methods particular to them. My initial post, as I have stated, never took into consideration the other Nation's members here, which wasn't meant to be ignorant, but rather maybe a result of tunnel vision. Addressing US fire tactics, and ventilation tactics that have been practiced here for decades, prompted my reply. Man, I never meant to say or insinuate your Country or any other for that matter, is poorly trained, or practiced. Had I been sitting down having this discussion knowingly with various Nation's firefighters I would have been better equipped to onverse a little less insulting.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Cole on April 13, 2009 at 11:48am

Getting to the seat of the fire first may not always be possible without first ventilating. That in itself may create untenable interior conditions. COORDINATED is the key word here, and that is done through communications, training, and specific SOG's and...experience.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Willie on April 13, 2009 at 1:08pm

If you vent before your interior team has found the fire you will burn them and they will be fighting harder. We don't need to be pushing our luck. You will burn the house to the ground if you do it to early also.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Miller on April 14, 2009 at 7:02pm

Thanks for enlightening me Tony. Obviously there are many differences in the Australian and European approaches to structural firefighting when compared to the US.

I have to say I travel a lot an having been to several European countries, I have noticed that the civilian population seems to be more fire safety conscious in many of those countries than here in the U.S. I have also noticed that fire protection and life safety features in public buildings seem to be more obvious and even thought out to a degree than in the U.S.

For example in a hotel in England I noticed fire extinguishers all over the place, low level exit signs so that they can be seen by people crawling in smoke. You never see low level exit signs in the U.S. On the other end when I was in Italy there seemed to be much less emphasis on fire and life safety protection in the hotels.

Does Australia follow a similar approach as England when it comes to these issues?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony P on April 15, 2009 at 5:44am

Fire extinguishers in hotels and other public buildings? Yes, there are minimum requirements. Whether to the same level as in the UK, I have no idea. Low-level exit signs? Those I've never seen - interesting concept!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cory Deaton on April 15, 2009 at 6:10am

I would haft to agree with T.J. I would say wait until your attack team finds the seat of the fire and calls for it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Cole on April 20, 2009 at 1:53pm

It's obvious there is a lack of agreement on tactics. An engine company searching through a densly charged dwelling with no means to expell the heat and cumulative gases while looking for the source of the fire is taking an unecessary chance. There are two main components to structural fire attack. Hopefully we all understand engine company objectives and tactics. Locate, confine, control, and extinguish. The choices of the proper sized hoseline are about the only complicating factors here. The best way to find the fire, and ensure the best possible tolerable conditions are to ventilate. I totally disagree that it will endanger advancing firefighters. To the contrary, there will be no advance without ventilation.

A properly trained and experienced engine company will understand that initial ventilation will accelerate fire. That is exactly what we want when the origin isn't showing obvious. Ventilation ahead of the advancing hoseline, and not behind it should be understood. Smoke by-products (gases) accumulating and being heated are our worst enemy. There must be a pathway for them to be expelled to the outside of the fire box/container/building. What needs to be stressed is the potentially lethal, explosive potential of smoke and gas build-up within trusswork floors and ceilings, and the collapse factor with these componenets in the common lightweight dwellings.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by METALHEAD on April 20, 2009 at 2:19pm

interior in, vent teams ready. ladders if applicable. nozzle men need to convey what going on inside and where. that will be the guide to what happens next.