The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
PPV Tactics
Hey folks. Been a while since I've been here but visit the site quite often. Does your dept. utilize PPV? If so, how often. What conditions in your mind must be met before PPV is used? I've seen some disasters if used incorrectly. But seen some very good results. Seems some departments are still on the fence with the tactic. Your thoughts and insight are appreciated!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
I've read many comments and this is a controversial topic, but it really does boil down to training and an option. If your dept does not do this, then don't worry about it. If your dept does, then I would hope you have trained and are aware of issues before deploying. If you have not practiced and trained on it, then by the love of God, don't try incorporating this tactic by reading the internet and watching videos. Even if you sat through a lecture and were sold on what was taught, ensure you understand your dept and structures and circumstances and even then practice before considering implementing this.
I agree with Stephen here that this is another tactic that can be used, it doesn't have to be used, but it can be. What this tactic can do is provide ventilation with limited crew sizes, you can clear smoke quicker and improve visibility. It's another option. If you don't use it and don't plan on using it, why criticize or critique those who may?
That said, my dept has trained on this and recognizes this as another option. It is not used often, for any number of reasons, but many times it isn't thought of by the first arriving company, or the conditions encountered were not condusive to utilizing it. However, there have been incidents where it was agreed the tactic could have been used in a situation after the fact. This doesn't, nor should it, mean that the tactic is not an option or that it shouldn't be used, it means that the tactical decision was made by the initial IC.
Now we (dept) sat through the traing the Salt Lake City guys put on and listened to what was said and all that, and despite some of their claims, questions existed and we tested for ourselves and looked at incorporating different tactics together. We did do training burns with this tactic amongst several shifts and times and different locations of a struction. This was not a tech college burn tower but an house that was to be razed. Of course we were limited in fuels to use, but had the chance to see the tactic in action and to gauge the options of using this. I for one, liked how the fire would vent out the exhaust and not lap up into a second floor window, or into the eaves of the attic. I liked how visibility improved and the fire could be seen to hit it. I liked the utilization of this as a means of preventing spread to neighboring exposures. Some things we don't do, despite the SLC guys claims, is we won't utilize this if there is fire in the basement, or attic, or believed to be in the attic. Some other things combined were a transitional attack (as the NIST/Gov Island studies) mention if we have fire venting out a window, hit it with a line quick, and then as the hose is redeployed, open the exhaust, turn the fan to the door, and go in.
Now I get the aspect of victims and so forth, but again this goes towards your size up and your community and dept. I happen to be in a city where typically one can say if everyone is out. So this tactic tends to be utilized on the SFD as opposed to apartment complexes. This doesn't mean we will always take the occupants word, but allows a bit more information on the size up.
My point here is that this is another option to use out there. Just because you don't like it, does it really make it wrong? Just because you don't use it, should others also not utilize it? If you don't want to use it, then don't use it. If you do want to use it, then ensure you train on it and know your limitations and watch for change in conditions, but most importantly, train with it before you use it. It is another option.
-
Permalink Reply by captnjak on
-
I think I've made it obvious that my department does not use PPA as an attack option. But I do worry about firefighter safety in departments other than my own. I do worry about PPA, just like I worry about uncontrolled ventilation, woefully inadequate volumes of water for interior fire attacks, firefighters operating in buildings of doubtful structural stability, etc.
I don't mean to criticize, but I do mean to critique; they are not the same thing.
It always comes back to training. PPA requires a large commitment to training in both time and money. It then needs refresher training on a repeated and regular basis. This is because it is an intricate tactic that requires a whole series of things to be done right in order to be effective. How much time do most smaller departments have for training? How much money? PPA training will come at the expense of training in other firefighting tactics. There should be a correlation between the time/money spent on a specific type of tactical training and the frequency with which that tactic will be used. How often are most guys rolling up on a fire that is still in the free-burning phase? I can't imagine it is very often. Correct me if I'm wrong. My department arrives as quickly as anyone and we often find fires in the ventilation limited phase. PPA is not appropriate at this point.
I agree that information regarding occupants is more reliable at private dwellings than it is at multiple dwellings. This does not make that info fully reliable. It's just a matter of time before that info is bad and the results can be disastrous. Size up from exterior cannot be relied upon to locate overcome victims inside the building. I also believe that removing victims from the fire environment is more reliable than trying to remove the fire environment from the victims.
It is the "watching for changing conditions" that is my biggest concern about PPA. The time lost to a PPA attempt that turned out to be ineffective cannot be regained. And if PPA is such a viable option, why do we have to give it time to evaluate it's effectiveness? Furthermore, if we find out it's not working, what happens to fire conditions? If we don't have enough of an exhaust opening, fire could start to move back toward other uninvolved areas. There is no fully reliable way to gauge the size of the exhaust opening needed in relation to the amount of fire gases and BTU's present by simply doing an outside survey. There is too much at stake on the fire ground to employ a tactic with a high trial and error aspect to it. The last thing an understaffed department needs is to concentrate on tactics that may not work.
Training can't be considered fully useful unless you train with a house full of modern synthetic furnishings and belongings. The BTU's and fire gases created will exceed that of a wood fire by far.
One of the stated benefits of PPA is that we can see the fire easier in order to hit it. Why do we need to see it? We already know where it is because we did our outside survey and already know the fire location. Isn't that right? Otherwise we wouldn't be doing PPA. Right? Not to mention that creating visibility for the nozzle team should not be a high priority on the fire ground. We may like it but we don't need it. Fire can be felt, heard and seen, especially if using a TIC.
It does not require a great deal of time to advance a charged line from the front door to the point of operation at a typical private dwelling fire. It can certainly be done quicker than PPA can be set up, activated and evaluated. For the cost of sending one firefighter to PPA training you could probably buy enough lumber to build some portable barricades that can be rearranged almost endlessly to mimic various layouts. Blindfolded firefighters can then practice advancing hoseline through the area.
I see the same generic responses time after time:
"If you don't like it don't use it."
"Proper training is critical." (Not to mention expensive)
"It depends on conditions."
"Watch the inlet to gauge effectiveness."
"It's just another tool in the box."
The above are all valid responses. I realize no one owes me explanations. But it would still be nice to see my specific concerns addressed. Purely from the standpoint of the brotherhood and a legitimate concern for each other's safety.
-
Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on
-
The biggest question is uncertainty.
Where are the victims?
Where EXACTLY is the fire?
What door(s) are open/closed?
What EXACTLY is the proper ratio of inlet to outlet?
No department I am a member of currently, or any department I have been a member of, volunteer or career, uses PPA. Not because we don't know what it is but purely because of the uncertainty of what it will do to fire conditions. If it creates fire conditions that are more violent and dangerous due to "improper" application what have we accomplished other than perhaps killing victims, injuring or killing firefighters, or more rapidly burning down the building.
-
-
CapJack,
When you say "But I do worry about firefighter safety in departments other than my own" To me, that has an appearance of arrogance and doesn't appear genuine. It seems to imply that those depts that have trained on and have decided to incorporate this tactic are being unsafe or negligent to the personnel. It further seems to imply that such depts can not evaluate, size up, nor determine their tactical choice because you may disagree with the tactic.
The fire service is dangerous and we are constantly fighting the odds, from decreases in personnel, cheaper building components, more synthetics, and so forth we have our challenges. Yet while we have the challenges the fire service has evolved from raincoats and 3/4 boots, smoke eating to SCBA, and an increased use of technology. We also have evolved from a typical learn on the job approach to an integration of science and education. We no longer just do things the way they were done in the past, because those tactics can kill just as quickly as something like this. What we face is an ever evolving occupation as we constantly have to train and educate ourselves on the challenges we face. To somehow imply or believe that there are not depts out there that assess risk, train on a variety of tactics, have a myriad of options available with personnel trained and educated to make those determinations based upon one's belief pro or con of a certain tactic is ingenuine. It is the discretion of that dept's members to assess and question, and determine if such tactics should be utilized, not the internets.
Yes, training is absolutely important. Does it really have to cost a lot? Depends upon perspective and dept availability. Having acquired structures most definately helps to train on and explore tactics, but it is up to the depts to look into and assess before committing to such a tactical option. As for training with full synthetic furnishings and belongings, well that realistically can not happen and conform to NFPA standards on training fires.
While the tactic and topic in itself can be controversal and up for debate, we also have years of research and use of the tactic to back up claims. This by no means should imply that I will blindly follow the research and accept their claims as gospel, but there is time on their side. We also recently seen the UL and NIST studies on Governor's Island and so forth and have seen the gospel like acceptance of that too. Yet at the same time we see people even questioning that. We have seen the acronym SLICERS come from those studies and have seen a greater focus on flow paths etc, yet we have others fighting against this, pitting theories against theories and so forth. What we get is essentially progerssive vs traditionalists, damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Yet at the same time we see such studies and research out there, what we don't see is similar research and scientific data from those who are against the research. What we get are general questions, EXACTLY, as we see in this post, but yet where is the time, research, and data that explicitly debunks what is being proposed? Yeah we see the questions and so forth and the search for answers, but yet, where is your research, your data, etc? If we claim past practice and what has been done, we also look face a myriad of LODD reports and close calls that can debunk such tactics as well and to further look at returning to square one. We can't just apply the same tactics used 20, 30, 40 , 50 plus years ago to today because things have changed. The point here should be that it becomes imperative for each and every individual dept to make their own determinations in tactics.
For me, I could give a damn less if a dept chooses to utilize this tactic or not. I will not sit back and criticize and question those do because I may disagree with the tactic. I do not fully accept the SLICERS, DICERS, RECEO, LCS, and any other damn acronym someone wishes to create. I don't believe in acronyms personally, but I understand the aspects that they present, as something to fall back on with size up. I'm tired of the debates pro or con of the purity of such tactics, acronyms and so forth, but instead feel the real impact is at the company level .
So yes, we have trained on PPA, it is not a tactic often used, but is an option we have and can utilize. There are pros to it, just as there are cons and the option is there, we have the tool to utilize if needed.
When it comes to Don's post...
Yes, there is uncertainty, but that happens in every single fire that is out there. No two fires are alike, there will forever be uncertainty.
Where are the victims? Who knows, but it also comes down to what is met upon a size up. When I get off the rig, that is the very first question I ask the caller. If this is a neighbor calling, I assume there could be people inside and most likely would not commit to PPA. If this is the homeowner, one can and should be able to ascertain if there is anyone still inside. It becomes a risk analysis and it really is that simple.
What doors are open or closed? What does it matter? If the doors to the fire room are closed then the higher pressure can prevent fire moving back and spreading. If the doors are open the fire should vent through the exhaust. What exactly is the proper ratio? There is no exacts on the fire ground and you know it. More exaust to inlet is needed, if you don't have it, don't use the tactic.
-
-
When it comes to Don's post...
Yes, there is uncertainty, but that happens in every single fire that is out there. No two fires are alike, there will forever be uncertainty.
You very well knew what I was talking about. PPA can and does increase the fire growth, it can and does push fire, it can endanger both firefighters and victims if applied wrong or in the wrong situation.Where are the victims? Who knows, but it also comes down to what is met upon a size up. When I get off the rig, that is the very first question I ask the caller. If this is a neighbor calling, I assume there could be people inside and most likely would not commit to PPA. If this is the homeowner, one can and should be able to ascertain if there is anyone still inside. It becomes a risk analysis and it really is that simple.
Sorry, but you are making huge assumptions here. The only thing I can 100% agree with is that if PPA is an option that without knowing where the victims are I wouldn't even take the fan off the rig.What doors are open or closed? What does it matter? If the doors to the fire room are closed then the higher pressure can prevent fire moving back and spreading. If the doors are open the fire should vent through the exhaust.
I'm seriously not even sure how to answer you here. What does it matter if the door(s) are closed? Because the whole point of the PPA is to push the heat and smoke out of the way of the advancing crew. If there is no opening where is the air flow going? At what point will the pressure rebound and push back? Or even more likely are we pushing heat and smoke throughout the structure if we have no outlet because the door(s) are closed.What exactly is the proper ratio? There is no exacts on the fire ground and you know it. More exaust to inlet is needed, if you don't have it, don't use the tactic.
Yet the staunchest defenders of PPA in this topic continually talk about the PROPER ratio of inlet to exhaust. But it can't be defined in a manner that can be consistent.
Frankly, with the new studies from NIST/UL/FDNY tests I see PPA as a tactic that in most cases should be best forgotten. If we are discovering that most fires today are ventilation controlled more than fuel controlled why would we force air into the fire air knowing full well that it may dramatically increase the fire's growth?
I know that PPV applied properly AFTER the fire is knocked down is highly effective in removing smoke and heat to make overhaul and salvage ops much easy. But to me that is where tactically its use ends.
-
-
John Crabbe said:CapJack,
When you say "But I do worry about firefighter safety in departments other than my own" To me, that has an appearance of arrogance and doesn't appear genuine. It seems to imply that those depts that have trained on and have decided to incorporate this tactic are being unsafe or negligent to the personnel. It further seems to imply that such depts can not evaluate, size up, nor determine their tactical choice because you may disagree with the tactic.
The fire service is dangerous and we are constantly fighting the odds, from decreases in personnel, cheaper building components, more synthetics, and so forth we have our challenges. Yet while we have the challenges the fire service has evolved from raincoats and 3/4 boots, smoke eating to SCBA, and an increased use of technology. We also have evolved from a typical learn on the job approach to an integration of science and education. We no longer just do things the way they were done in the past, because those tactics can kill just as quickly as something like this. What we face is an ever evolving occupation as we constantly have to train and educate ourselves on the challenges we face. To somehow imply or believe that there are not depts out there that assess risk, train on a variety of tactics, have a myriad of options available with personnel trained and educated to make those determinations based upon one's belief pro or con of a certain tactic is ingenuine. It is the discretion of that dept's members to assess and question, and determine if such tactics should be utilized, not the internets.
Yes, training is absolutely important. Does it really have to cost a lot? Depends upon perspective and dept availability. Having acquired structures most definately helps to train on and explore tactics, but it is up to the depts to look into and assess before committing to such a tactical option. As for training with full synthetic furnishings and belongings, well that realistically can not happen and conform to NFPA standards on training fires.
While the tactic and topic in itself can be controversal and up for debate, we also have years of research and use of the tactic to back up claims. This by no means should imply that I will blindly follow the research and accept their claims as gospel, but there is time on their side. We also recently seen the UL and NIST studies on Governor's Island and so forth and have seen the gospel like acceptance of that too. Yet at the same time we see people even questioning that. We have seen the acronym SLICERS come from those studies and have seen a greater focus on flow paths etc, yet we have others fighting against this, pitting theories against theories and so forth. What we get is essentially progerssive vs traditionalists, damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Yet at the same time we see such studies and research out there, what we don't see is similar research and scientific data from those who are against the research. What we get are general questions, EXACTLY, as we see in this post, but yet where is the time, research, and data that explicitly debunks what is being proposed? Yeah we see the questions and so forth and the search for answers, but yet, where is your research, your data, etc? If we claim past practice and what has been done, we also look face a myriad of LODD reports and close calls that can debunk such tactics as well and to further look at returning to square one. We can't just apply the same tactics used 20, 30, 40 , 50 plus years ago to today because things have changed. The point here should be that it becomes imperative for each and every individual dept to make their own determinations in tactics.
For me, I could give a damn less if a dept chooses to utilize this tactic or not. I will not sit back and criticize and question those do because I may disagree with the tactic. I do not fully accept the SLICERS, DICERS, RECEO, LCS, and any other damn acronym someone wishes to create. I don't believe in acronyms personally, but I understand the aspects that they present, as something to fall back on with size up. I'm tired of the debates pro or con of the purity of such tactics, acronyms and so forth, but instead feel the real impact is at the company level .
So yes, we have trained on PPA, it is not a tactic often used, but is an option we have and can utilize. There are pros to it, just as there are cons and the option is there, we have the tool to utilize if needed.
When it comes to Don's post...
Yes, there is uncertainty, but that happens in every single fire that is out there. No two fires are alike, there will forever be uncertainty.
Where are the victims? Who knows, but it also comes down to what is met upon a size up. When I get off the rig, that is the very first question I ask the caller. If this is a neighbor calling, I assume there could be people inside and most likely would not commit to PPA. If this is the homeowner, one can and should be able to ascertain if there is anyone still inside. It becomes a risk analysis and it really is that simple.
What doors are open or closed? What does it matter? If the doors to the fire room are closed then the higher pressure can prevent fire moving back and spreading. If the doors are open the fire should vent through the exhaust. What exactly is the proper ratio? There is no exacts on the fire ground and you know it. More exaust to inlet is needed, if you don't have it, don't use the tactic.
__________________________________________________________________________
You have misinterpreted my statement. You asked why I care what other departments use as tactics. I intended to convey in my response that I care about safety of firefighters in other departments, in addition to my own. No arrogance involved. My safety concerns are genuine. Personal attacks add nothing to the debate.
I have real concerns about this tactic. I have stated them very clearly. I have no scientific data proving my point of view. I sincerely hope NIST and UL do some realistic testing in this area. I would be very happy to be proven wrong.
The real truth is that some of the departments using this tactic do not have a lot of firefighting experience. Again, not arrogance. It is what it is. I don't see how a firefighter or fire officer can judge from a 360 whether or not the exhaust opening chosen will be sufficient for the job, regardless of experience level. So a guy who goes to two or three fires a year will really be challenged. Asking what size opening is suitable is not a general question. It is pretty damn specific. In addition, it would have to change from fire to fire based on heat level, fuel load (fire gases), size of area involved, etc. Why is the size of the exhaust opening based on the size of the inlet? Shouldn't it be based on the amount of heat energy and smoke/gases it will be required to exhaust? Again I point out that this is not a general question but a specific one. The fact that no one can seem to answer these questions without first engaging in the tactic does not make the questions illegitimate. I believe it does make many of the answers I've seen illegitimate.
You mention uncertainty. Yes, it is always present to some degree on the fire ground. So why add to it? Our job is to control and or reduce the uncertainty to the greatest extent possible. Engaging in a tactic with a trial and error aspect does not reduce uncertainty. There is one tactic that is almost universally certain. A sufficient stream of water rapidly applied with horizontal ventilation opposite the stream will improve conditions (lower heat and lower levels of gases) throughout the structure. It will happen almost immediately. It will happen every time. It will never need to be evaluated to make sure it's working.
You say no two fires are alike. I've been to a lot of fires. They are more alike than they are different. Fire behavior is pretty consistent, at least until the until arrival of the FD. Tactics should not be all that different from department to department. I realize staffing, equipment and experience levels can impact tactics.
If you disagree with a tactic, how can you not question it? If you don't question it, why do you disagree with it? I don't understand your logic here.
You say training with full synthetic contents just won't happen. This makes the training that is being done invalid. To determine the effectiveness of the tactic at real world fires, we need to replicate real world conditions. Synthetic fuels create more heat, fire gases and smoke than wood fires. The fire environment is much more volatile when synthetic fuels are involved. How can we compare the two? Once again, a very specific question.
-
-
Nothing wrong with putting a crew on a roof as long as an evaluation of the structural stability and conditions on roof surface (ice, snow, slate or clay tiles. etc) have been made. Depending on the pitch of the roof a roof ladder may be needed. Steeper pitch obviously equals more risk.
For the record, my department does not perform vertical venting of peak roof private dwellings as an initial tactic.
How can you be 100% confident that the exhaust opening will be of suitable size to vent all of the heat, smoke and fire gases without intensifying fire conditions inside? Do you guys also start the fan and then wait and see if it's working as intended like guys here do?
-
-
Stephen Duffy said:the confidence comes from experience, really. i was very skeptical myself initially.
what type of fans do you have? sealing or ram?
we start the fans when we arrive at a building fan, its on tickover next to the truck facing away from the job. if its decided we are going to use them at any point, then yeah, everything is put in place first, then we go for it. if it doesnt work or we get a contra-indicator then we turn the fans away, put them back on tickover and do the job without them.
_________________________________________________________________________
What type of fan? Depends who you ask. I've seen it insisted that it must be a sealing fan. Others disagree.
Just more inconsistency from the PPA proponents.
-
-
Stephen,
Your implication that because people disagree with you on the use of PPA that they can't possibly be trained in its use is condescending and insulting. I have come to my conclusions through both training and real world experience.
-
-
Stephen Duffy said:
Don Catenacci said:Stephen,
Your implication that because people disagree with you on the use of PPA that they can't possibly be trained in its use is condescending and insulting. I have come to my conclusions through both training and real world experience.
:) no, Don......that is not what i meant, at all. i was talking about me!
I was skeptical when it first became big around my area, I thought it was interesting and sometimes effective. We mostly used PPV for after fire smoke and heat removal, but had tried PPA on a few occasions. Through further training, and real world experience, I have decided that PPA is not appropriate in more circumstances than it is appropriate. The fact that it can push smoke, heat, and fire, into uninvolved areas if conditions for PPA/PPV are not right make the benefit not worth the risk in my mind. Add to that the increased danger to victims and firefighters if conditions are not right and it just doesn't seem worth the risk to me.
-
Permalink Reply by Derek J Sinesi on
-
My decision on PPA is based on my training and own studies. For my department we don't run enough fire calls to train on this. I can train my guys on much better things then PPA with all its uncertainties. I do not have a problem with anyone using this tactic at all. I don't know your area or what your training levels are. So if you think i'm stating you shouldn't use this tactic because i don't care for it your wrong.
It is my belief that every department knows or should know their own limitations. It is not for me to tell anyone how to or what to perform in their own department or districts. I know what works for my department my not work for the department 20 miles down the road. So if you are trained and confident in the use of PPA then by all means use it. I myself am not that confident in its use and will admit it.
-
-
Stephen Duffy said:
for full time crews, who train all the time anyway, its great.My full time FD, that trains a lot, abandoned the tactic of PPA. Full time or volunteer shouldn't matter in choosing to use or not use PPA. If you adopt a tactic or a piece of equipment you better be well versed in it or eventually you will hurt of kill someone with it.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
