The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Roof Vent Training, D.C. House Fire, Helmet Camera Footage
Helmet cameras, when properly used and edited, can provide valuable lessons from the fireground for training. These two video below, from a house fire in Washington, D.C. provide tips on readiness, sizeup, ladder work, ventilation and communication. While every department operates differently, and within their own standard operating procedures, lessons gained can be useful when the time comes for you to open up the roof.
Videos are courtesy of Washington, D.C. firefighter and Traditions Training instructor Joe Brown.
"This video is meant for positive discussion about tactics and duties of a firefighter placed into a similar situation. In this video units arrived on the scene of a 1 1/2 story single family bungalow with smoke showing and a report of people trapped inside."
"Raw footage of a roof vent of a 1 1/2 story bungalow in Washington DC. Crews arrived to find the home with smoke showing from all floors. Interior crews made an aggressive attack on a fire in the basement while Truck 17 preformed simultaneous horizontal ventilation on the dormer windows then moving to vertical ventilation on the peak roof with Truck 13. Once the cut is made the crew gets off the roof, both on the alpha side as well as the charlie side. Meanwhile the interior crew finds that the 2nd floor stairs have burned out and try another tactic."
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Shafer on
-
Good Post Joe!
-
Permalink Reply by capcityff on
-
Great job to my brothers at 27 Engine and 17 Truck on that fire. The city has been burning like crazy here in DC. There were a couple others after this one which made about 8 or 9 fires in 3 days.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Ruiz on
-
Great video and great training!!! Questions that I do have is as far as the helmet cam, would you happen to know the name of it and where I can find one. The picture quality looked really good as well as the sound pick up. Are you happy with it? My second question is in regards to the FF on the roof. I know that it was a smaller structure and the FF remained visible during his operations, but was he on the roof by himself? If so, looking back on it, is that something that you would normally do? They teach us the "two in, two out rule," but I understand different situations, dictate different tactics. I am just curious what your feelings were with that situation. Good job!
-
-
Not sure but you might be able to find his email somewhere. He is part of http://traditionstraining.com/ as you can see. It's a training company with mostly DCFD and FDNY firemen.
In DC the truck driver and tiller man go to the roof. The tiller man may take an extra minute to get up depending which truck company he is on since most throw a ladder or two on their own while the truck driver sets up the stick. There's two truck companies on the initial box alarm which makes four guys on the roof at the start. Not sure what happened in the video. May just be that everyone else got off already.
-
Permalink Reply by Sparky3317 on
-
Great work by the brothers in DC once again and another great training film by Joe. He does an amazing job with these and I hope firefighters around the world find them helpful and learn from them.
Stay safe and keep them coming
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Good video, especially the second one. One question - did the vertical ventilation appreciably improve interior conditions? It's difficult to tell.
With the amount of fire venting from the upper windows, the fire appears pretty well vented prior to the roof cuts.
It is difficult to tell where the hoselines went on the interior, too. How many total lines were used, which one went to the 2nd floor, and was the 2nd floor the initial assignment for that line?
-
-
In the audio Joe does state that the vertical vent helped life the smoke so they could find the access to the attic and also allowing them to make a tactical change in their attack since the stairs had burnt out.
-
-
That isn't evident from the videos. That's why I asked for more information.
If the stairs had burned out and there was that much fire on the second floor, then my next question from a strategic point of view is "What were they giong to save upstairs either way?"
-
-
The fire wasn't showing prior to ventilation. The fire you see is after the holes are cut. From what I HEARD from someone at work, it was a basement fire in balloon frame construction. That's how the fire was in the attic.
Like Sparky said, the vertical ventilation helped them find access. I think it said so in the narration or a description to the link or something. After realizing that there was no access anymore due to the stairs burned out, they put up the ladder pipes for a minute.
The house was still savable so I'm not sure what you mean "What were they going to save upstairs?" There doesn't need to be a person there for us to want to put the fire out. If they had stairs that they could have used then they would have used them. Why not put the fire out as fast as possible? No fire = no danger.
-
-
I was specifically asking what the roof vent accomplished that venting the 2nd floor windows didn't do. I didn't get that from the video, but maybe I missed something. That's why I asked.
I understand using a ladder pipe on the 2nd floor with that volume of fire.
Then you go to a straw man. Nowhere did I question putting the fire out. Nowhere did I say that there needs to be a person inside to want to put the fire out. My question remains unanswered - from a strategic point of view, what was going to be saved in the upstairs of that house? If it was a ladder pipe job - even for a few minutes - that would tend to make the answer "nothing".
As for your statement "No fire = no danger" flatly, that's bunk.
Examples: The Vendome Hotel collapse (multiple LODDs), the Pittsburgh church collapse (multiple LODDs), and the more recent Chicago double LODD in the derelict building collapse.
Do you REALLY expect anyone to believe that extinguishing a fire removes ALL danger from a fire building? Do you know how many firefighters get hurt during overhaul? Do you know how much poison firefighters breathe while overhauling without SCBA?
Just wondering...
-
-
No fire = no danger is a pretty common saying in the fire service. You need to stop nitpicking and think outside the box. Of course you can find an exception to it, you can to anything in this world. The point is that for the most part, if the fire is out, there's no longer a problem. Most of the time, that's the truth.
They were going to the attic because that's their job. No, this wasn't a ladder pipe job. That isn't a common tactic in this department and I've almost never seen it used. The reason they used the ladder pipe was not because of the volume of fire. It was once again because the stairs were burned through and they no longer had access. If you think you could do a better job then be my guest and become an overpaid chief for our department. We're looking for a new one anyway who isn't a racist.I still don't understand the other question. Why not vertically ventilate? If we had the personnel to go to the roof then why wouldn't we? All it does is further assist in extinguishment. The horizontal ventilation was done to gain access for VES. In my experience vertical ventilation is a much better way to release the heated gasses and smoke.
-
-
Just because an inaccurate oversimplification is common doesn't mean that it should go unchallenged. Remember that there are a lot of newbies that read what is posted here. Some of them will take what is posted pretty literally. If one of them gets hurt because they took what you said literally, then it's not only an inaccurate oversimplification, it makes you a contributor to another firefighter getting hurt - or worse.
"Fire Out = No Danger" is NEVER the truth. Extinguishing the fire will often reduce the danger, but it will never eliminate it completely.
Ladder pipe job. First you said it was, then you said it wasn't. Which is it? Going to the attic "because it's their job"??? Once again, you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask why they did it, I asked what was savable due to that tactic? You're dancing all around the question, but you're not answering it.
"If you think you could do a better job..." is another of your straw man logical fallacies. I don't understand why you don't seem to be able to post without using logical fallacies, particularly when I'm simply asking questions in order to gain a better perspective on why other departments do things the way they do them.
The horizontal vent was for VES??? Really??? When there was an immediate venting of a large volume of very hot, very turbulent, heat-pushed smoke that ignited almost immediately? The intent may have been VES, but as soon as that ready-to-ignite smoke got to some oxygen, it ignited. That pretty much calls off the VES.
The rest of your "I don't understand the question" follow-up couldn't paint the differences in risk-benefit assessment more starkly. When it comes to putting our firefighters in high risk positions, we should be asking "Why" instead of "Why Not". I'm asking "Why".
Let me sum it up - you state that the house was savable. Between the other things you've stated and what I saw in the videos, this was balloon construction with a basement fire that extended all the way to the attic, the interior stairs to the 2nd floor were burned out, the second floor and attic were flashed over. Add a ladder pipe operation to that equation, and it makes me ask the "what was savable" question again.
I'll freely admit that I wasn't there. I'll freely admit that I don't have all of the information I'd like to have. That's why I'm still asking questions.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
