Add a Comment

Comment by Bill on January 2, 2010 at 12:20pm

Jeff, your comment couldn't be written any better. But lets not forget to mention placement of the apparatus, here, you will see, the engine company is parked downhill from the car. What you don't see in the video is the running of fluids on the roadway. Yes, burning gasoline flowing from the vehicle. The company should have pulled past the fire to be uphill from it in order to avoid any fluid runoff! Lots of hazards in this video that the firefighters were unaware of. Learn by watching these videos!

Comment by Jeff Cole on January 1, 2010 at 5:47pm

Vehicle fires are getting more hazardous, and difficult to extinguish. Sometimes more water than carried on the average on-boeard tank is needed. Here we have a vehicle obviously a total lose. NOTHING to save, and extreme visibility limitations exist. We SHOULD know that exploding bumpers, hatch pistons, etc. have injured several firefighters. So, given these hazards, what possible justification is there to get 'up close and personal' with vehicle fires? We will discuss cultural changes at great length, and we will debate common sense safety vs. extreme safety police policies. I am as agreesive at any other fire officer when NEEDED. But I cannot justify working in close proximity considering these hazards with a vehicle in which there is no exposure, no property to save, and all the hazards are against the suppression crew. NO offense to the department depicted. This problem is wide-spread. Sometimes I think we have a need to show the public just what risks we take, when that is the last thing we need to be thinking about.
Use the reach of the stream(s), apply the agent from corners, and at distance, and avoid becoming seriously injured for a worthless piece of scrap that will be towed away, and written off.