Would you go into this?

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.

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

http://www.dcfd.com

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on March 21, 2011 at 10:15pm

I keep hearing that "push the fire" thing, but that's not 100% accurate.

A solid bore attack from the outside, used in short bursts, will get knockdown without pushing the fire anywhere.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Captain William Frazer on March 22, 2011 at 9:11pm

I didnt read all of the answers on this, more so I could give my own analysis. I agree a agressive attack asap is in order here, and it looks like it was. Life Safety, Incident Stabil, Prop. Conserve. A knock down is needed to accomplish all three. In my opinion, based on the pictures was that this was a fire that spread enough heat into the structure that the chance of civilian survival was slim at best. If life safety was taken out of the mix because it was empty, then a serious exposure risk is evident. My second choice would be to get protection on the exposures, use short bursts to hit the rear of the building, then reassess for a interior attack. This building is a write off, there is way to much damage for it to be rehabed and there is nothing that will be savable in it after fire, and water damage take its toll. My concerns would be any people trapped, then exposures. If the resources were available to me, I could accomplish several things at once here, but with the resources I have initially, I would try to gain control from the rear (B,C corner) and doubt I would push very much more into a already damaged building. This is limited risk assessment to save little if lives were not in danger.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Captain William Frazer on March 22, 2011 at 9:11pm

I agree

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shareef Abdu Nur on March 23, 2011 at 1:20pm

Another good point to make here is how important a good size up is. The first due Officer should do a 360 whenever possible or the OVM should report back with the fire/smoke conditions when he/she gets to the rear of the structure. This coupled with an aggressive interior attack is what this job is. "We do not need a culture of safety, we need a culture of extinguishment!" I can't remember who said this but it rings so true. There are times when it is not prudent to get inside but there are more times when it is. Get smart, be safe, and get in there!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Almendinger on March 23, 2011 at 3:02pm

Would, and have!! this is a very workable fire as long as you go aggressive fast.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Captain William Frazer on March 23, 2011 at 3:40pm

workable yes, savable no, the apartment on the right side is savable to some extent.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on March 23, 2011 at 4:09pm

Define savable.
Is there going to have to be some (extensive) gutting of the 1st floor where most of the fire was? Most likely but could just be the back end of the house that will require gutting to the stude/joists. The front half may only need some sealer to kill the smoke odor. Regardless, even gutting to the bones, both floors, with new windows and doors throughout is a lot cheaper than demolishing and rebuilding. So I would say that the house was both savable AND saved.

This one...not so much.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on March 23, 2011 at 6:10pm

CWF,

The contents are not savable. The structure itself is eminently savable.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matthew Vogt on March 23, 2011 at 6:31pm

i would make an attempt at this but if it was clear that no progress was being made then its out to the deck guns ,ladder pipes, and ground monitors

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by capcityff on March 23, 2011 at 6:51pm

Ray McCormick said that. First due officer doesn't do a complete 360. He goes inside with the line man. Second due engine takes the rear and in a city like this they are there within seconds of the first due for the most part.