The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Would you go into this?
.jpg)
.jpg)
I bring this up because many departments are straying away from interior firefighting. I know that some do not have the staffing or experience to do it very often, but there are plenty that do. This is a fire that happened at 14 T St NW yesterday in DC. Several reports of heavy smoke and fire showing upon arrival. Rear was almost fully involved. However with an agressive interior attack using 1 1/2" hand lines, they were able to get a knock on the fire and extinguish it within under 10 minutes and save this persons house. Here's a pic after the bulk of the fire on the first floor was knocked down.
.jpg)
My main point is just to show that aggressive firefighting is still something that should be practiced when possible. Standing outside with a 2 1/2" would have probably meant the loss of this house and possibly others.(These are all row homes which means easy extension) Thought this may get some people thinking and be an interesting discussion.
Story from fire with pics: http://www.dcfire.com/history.html?view=1&id=70519
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by capcityff on
-
It wasn't just the back deck. The whole first floor was off at one point and part of the second floor.
-
-
They're TRYING to do some work there now. There's a lot of plans and money that's going into that area. However you and I both know that it's going to be quite awhile for that. Out on the NE/SE border in Deanwood and The Heights are where there seems to be the most problems now.
-
-
5 engines, 2 trucks, 1 rescue squad, 2 battalion chiefs, 1 ambulance.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Oomkes on
-
Answer's still the same.
Yes, I would. I'd go in with what our response is. Hopefully 2 engines and a truck that's about 10 minutes out. I wouldn't have any problem at all with it.
-
Permalink Reply by Capt./Chaplain Mike Petrosky on
-
John, this is a good discussion. Don't feel that because your dept.'s tactics or SOGs differ from some others, or that you don't have direct experience with the given situation that you shouldn't post. This is a great opportunity to learn.
-
Permalink Reply by Patrick OBrien on
-
I would have definitely gave this a go. The seat of the fire is at the rear of the building and smoke conditions were not too heavy. A good aggressive move and decision. I also agree that it is surely reliant upon the first due crew experience.
-
Permalink Reply by EngineLadder on
-
What about this one CaptCity
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Armstrong on
-
Can't see the back side could be the same thing.Would have crews in both buildings on either side knocking down any extention into them andguys lobbing water through the windows of the involved building if couldn't enter the rear for an interior attack
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
Cap - from the pics, it look like the back deck burned, extending into the first floor (the windows on the first floor look more smoke-stained) and from there extending to the second floor.
How far is that from reality? Was there worse fire on the 1st or 2nd floor? How badly was the interior burned?
-
-
My old company (PGFD Co 26) at work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taL6dcnPZSw&feature=player_embedded
Now THAT is an aggressive interior attack!
-
Permalink Reply by Oldman on
-
"Aggressive" is subject to interpretation.
Would I have gone in? Most definitely. Based on your pix, as a company officer, there would be no question of not doing an interior attack. I'm not sure I would call it aggressive, but it would be a rapid advance to the seat of the fire.
It appears your guys had an excellent size up, got to the seat of the fire, and stomped it's butt. I am also presuming that nobody was hurt, and everybody went home. That's always a good fire.
-
-
I've heard that the parts of SW and near the new stadium are looking really nice. Every time I go back home I'm amazed at how the whole area seems to have gentrified.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
