The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Window attack.
It was brought up at a discussion at training about a quick window fog stream attack prior to interior attack on a confirmed room and content fire, what is everyones thoughts on this?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on
-
All done in a laboratory, using contolled building materials, controlled construction methods, controlled fuel loading, controlled ventilation, and controlled applications of water. Totally just like the real world! Um, yeah...
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Don, how else would you expect to be able to test any number of variables? Real world or not, laboratory testing is the only way to gain empirical knowledge, with which silly ass subjects like Fire Science are developed and taught.
So, um, yeah...most of what we understand today of the 'real world' (fire and otherwise) came from laboratory testing. Including whether or not your airbags are going to properly deploy, ABS will work properly and child safety seats will do more good than harm to a child.
Damn those lab wonks and their repeatable tests, how dare they challenge the real world with their unreal laboratory experiments.
-
Permalink Reply by mean15 on
-
Speak for yourself, Jack. Maybe the bulk of your knowledge comes from a laboratory. Me - not so much.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
So trial and error is your approach then?
The reality is that Jack is correct here. In order to have empiracle knowledge and facts to base off of, you need to test theories, conduct experiments and so forth, otherwise how else do you back a claim? "Because I says so" only goes so far, doesn't it? I mean how else do we know steam expands 1700 times that of water? How about friction loss for a hoseline? What about knowing the limitations and what our PPE can withstand. Can you say such lab testing was useless?
Bottom line is there is so much we do know because of lab testing. Yet let's not get locked into a stereotype of a labratory when talking such testing either. There have been numerous experiments done in buildings and in real world type of settings too that provide us with the information. So yeah, despite if you believe such info is useless, the reality is it is because of such testing that we know such much more than we did before.
-
-
mean15;
Jumping to the conclusion you arrived at and attempting to disparage me on a presumption of excessive laboratory knowledge only to make yourself look better (lacking any laboratory knowledge) is both childish and pathetic.
You come across as one of those people who conflate education with elitism and ineffectualness. Hard as it may be for you to comprehend but a person can be both educated and a good fireman. You don't have to be both (as you can attest to) but it certainly doesn't make a person any less effective a fireman if he happens to understand why he does what he does to make the fire go out.
-
-
sorry, I don't understand you. The words you are using are too big for my limited intellect.
And I disparaged you?? How?? Did I resort to name calling? No, that was you. I'm childish and pathetic, remember?
So what conclusion did I jump to?? " most of what we understand today of the 'real world' (fire and otherwise) came from laboratory testing." That was your quote, sir, not mine. The knowledge that I have aquired over my 35 year career was derived primarily from real-world experiences, both mine and that of those that came before me.
-
Permalink Reply by Aric Stewart on
-
Ok Jason cheaper materials really according to the State of New York which is where you presided I notice from your profile uses the 2003 International Building Code which means that cheaper materials my A$$. That is one of the most strict building codes I have ever read. Next time you have something to say or care to share with us maybe you need to go and do some research because there is alot of knowledge and years of experience here and basically you are showing them that you are unable to research or learn something before speaking.
-
-
Look, I am not completely dispelling laboratory testing. What I am saying is the real world does not have the controls in weather, materials, construction style and quality, that the lab has. Of course it can give us baselines for what to expect but is is not an end all, be all, for the real world.
I am a 34 year fire service veteran and I like to believe I have a quality mix of real world experience and education. I have a degree in fire science and a pretty thick stack of paper from other courses and training classes I have attended over the years.
The one thing I will admit to is a strong sense of skepticism. This doesn't mean I am closed minded, but it does mean that I don't fall for every knew thing that comes along. I embrace new technology that actually works, AND I embrace new science that can be proven in the real world.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Callahan on
-
Coming from the perspective of having worked and volunteered in both departments with excellent volunteer or combination staffing, equipment, response times and access to trained mutual aid within close proximity and under or marginally staffed, funded and equipped volunteer departments with very limited access to well trained mutual aid with extended travel times, I will say the following regarding exterior attacks.
There are simply situations where given staffing levels, they are the best way for us to knock down the fire with a minimum of risk, especially in situations where there is a high liklihood that any victims inside the structure are no longer viable. Are we God? No, but there are simply times where we as professionals must use our training to evalaute the situation and make come to a reasonable conclusion that 1) any occupants, based on the fire conditions and what we have been trained about fire behavior are no longer viable and 2) given the resources on scene, and/or the training and/or experience level of the personnel on-scene makes the risk involved in making entry to great. Like it or not, we are in a position where we do have to make the call regarding how much risk is acceptable for our personnel, and that does, at times, requires that we make the decsion that we will write off a victim if the conditions warrent, based on our training and experience, that conclusion. That is very much a part of our job, and yes, it is a part of controlling the risk we expose our members to.
And yes, I have been accused on other websites of being a Safety Sallie.
For those that say "just go inside and put the damn fire out", I have no idea of your background and experience, but in many places in this country, it's really not that simple, and for them, an exterior attack until 1) the fire is knocked down to the point that they feel it's safe for them to make entry with thier limited training, experience and/or resources or 2) the building burns to the ground, is simply the best approach. For those of you that say "any fire department should be able to make entry on a 1-2 room contents fire", great, and keep beleiving that. The reality is that there are departments with minimum access to good turnout gear, apparatus, equipment and training which does prevent them from being as aggressive as some of you may like, and even a bread and butter fire like one or two rooms burning is beyond thier capabilities withiout putting thier members at excessive risk. Given that scenario, making an initial fire attack through a window or an open door is not only a viable method of performing an initial fire attack, but for some departments it simply is the only safe way of operating. After all, and yes, there will be those of you who will cringe at this statement, and likely have words for me that you should not repeat in front of your four-year old, we do come first, especially if we are talking about likely non-viable victims and certainly, without exception, if we are only talking about property.
I have seen exterior fire attacks on room and contents fire prove successful, and in one case, a victim in another part of the house did survive with minimal injuries. I have also seen them fail and watch the house burn. In all of these cases, the department using this tactic had minimal resources on scene and/or personnel with minimal training. For them, or for the situation, in most cases, it was the safest tactic that they could employ. It does work, and it is perfectly 100% acceptable.
-
-
Bobbie,
You ARE a Safety Sally and you have proven that over at the other place.
But in this case you may be right. If an area decides the fire department isn't worthy of serious funding to support appropriate, modern equipment, and the training that goes with it, people get exactly the fire protection they deserve. And that may mean more deaths, more property loss, and in fact more complete building losses.
Fire protection in those areas generally continues along like that until either a catastrophic event occurs, such as a large life loss, or someone, or a group of people, have had enough of every fire meaning total loss of the building, or deaths, and move to effect change on their own. Unfortunately some places look at those large losses as just a normal cost of doing business, and that is the saddest declaration of all.
-
-
And for a lot of these places, the funding simply never will exist for things to significantly change. A community of 500, or 1,000 or even 5,000 only has so much that they can pay towards fire protection, and in many cases the dollars they can put towards fire protection is barely enough to keep the ship from sinking, much rather provide the funding to improve the situation..
As far as being a Safety Sallie, I have no problem with that. My priority is our people - career and volunteer - who are not cannon fodure, and in some places are treated as such. When we talk about the fact that our duty is to protect life, that includes our members, and yes, at times, that may mean at the cost of civilian life if either the fire itself, the building, the circumstances, such as extended response times, or the department's capabilities, dictate that we as firefighters determine that the risk to us does outweigh the potential benefit to civilans. Like it or not, our members have the right to walk out of the station after the call or the shift, and should only be put in harm's way when there is a strong possibility of success and there are known, viable victims.
The discussion is about exterior streams, and there have been situations where exterior streams have been effective in significantly knocking down fire so that a much tamer interior attack can be made by lesser trained and less experienced rural personnel. There certainly is a place for such attacks in every department, but certainly that is much less the case in well staffed volunteer and career departments with sub-four minute response times, as compared to many of their rural volunteer brothers who do not possess their advantages.
NIST has shown that, at least in a controlled enviroment, this type of attack does not push the fire. While in the real world, this is certainly not the case all of the time, I beleive this will hold true the majority of the time. I know there are many that will say that such an attack is condemning any victim to death, however, once again, given the ability, or lack of ability of the departments that use this technique on a regular basis, a quick exterior attack which will knock down the fire long enough for them to make a quick entry for a rescue, is often these victims best shot.
-
-
It has less to do with population than it does with willingness to fund services. If fire protection becomes a priority, instead of people accepting second or third class service, it will be funded appropriately.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
