Popularity of VES

[16Scott]

I have been reading a UL study on ventilation. It is over 400 pages and is extremely scientific so I have to read some parts several times to fully grasp it. One of the tactics recommended by the study is VES. They say it is safer than a coordinated search from the main entry since you are making entry at your emergency egress point and can isolate yourself simply by closing doors. You are also searching areas that are most tenable and survivable. They make a strong argument but my department has never taken an official position on this type of search.

For those who employ this tactic, how many personnel are typically assigned; what is the search priority (fire floor, above, etc). Are handlines deployed in support of VES?

[footrat]

It CAN be more dangerous, because it can be done over the fire, or in advance of the nozzle. It is also not usually done with hoseline support. Doing so would slow down and get in the way of VES. It should be quick BECAUSE of those things.

It is also safer for the points listed above. If you sound floors, keep an oriented firefighter at the window, and close the doors to the rooms, it is very effective and can be safer. If your department has no SOG's on how search should be conducted, it's about time you write some and submit them.

[yjbrody]

Do you mind sharing a link if it's online? I'd be curious to work my way through it.

thx

[GTRider245]

To echo what footrat said, you can't really assign a floor priority when conducting VES. Your point of entry is your priority. Search that room, maybe the hall to the immediate outside and get back out.

[Theusje]

I believe he means this one:

Edit: corrected the wrong links.

Kerber, S. (2011). Impact of ventilation on fire behavior in legacy and contemporary residential construction.
http://www.ul.com/global/documents/o...rt%20Final.pdf


I have found it on cfbt-us and there also was an article about this research paper in a Belgian fire magazine.

I've spent some time reading the 'interesting' parts and I'm not even done with that. I've read chapters 6, 7 and 8 (but skip 8.6 and 8.7, part "8.8 discusion" is much more interesting). I'll read chapter 9, 10 and the first four in the next days. I'd say skip chapter 5 because there's no real usefull knowlegde for a FF, but I could be wrong.

I'll come back when I've fully read the paper.

About VES: in Belgium we don't usually throw ground ladders. Only when there are persons trapped at a known location or someone's at a window.

Another study:
Effect of a PVV on a room fire:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf

[16Scott]

Theusje - thanks for posting the link. Your link was much smaller than the full 405 page report that I have been reading and is more condensed but easier to read.

You mention ground ladders - our department doesn't throw ground ladders very often but I think we should, if nothing else as a secondary means of escape.

[GTRider245]

You mention ground ladders - our department doesn't throw ground ladders very often but I think we should, if nothing else as a secondary means of escape.

They do no good sitting on the truck. Throw them and throw them often!

[Picc.93Truck]

My Truck company implies VES techniques as our first due truck company assignment. It is more dangerous, as the only means of putting out any fire is our PW can that our can man has, but if done well, and if you pay attention to the things that could get you killed, it can be done. My company has not used any other technique in the last 30 er so years, and the guys I've learned from have done it even longer then that.

[Theusje]

Theusje - thanks for posting the link. Your link was much smaller than the full 405 page report that I have been reading and is more condensed but easier to read.

You mention ground ladders - our department doesn't throw ground ladders very often but I think we should, if nothing else as a secondary means of escape.

Woops, I posted the wrong link.

This is the 400+ page UL study: Kerber, S. (2011). Impact of ventilation on fire behavior in legacy and contemporary residential construction. http://www.ul.com/global/documents/o...rt%20Final.pdf

Perhaps instead of reading the reports you could read the articles on cfbt-us. The articles are a summary of various research papers.

Part 1:
http://cfbt-us.com/wordpress/?cat=21&paged=2
Part 2:
http://cfbt-us.com/wordpress/?cat=21

About ground ladders, I too think we should throw them to have secondary means of escape. At our last fire we were operating above the fire and I really thought "damn it would be nice to have some ladders up here, just in case".

[yjbrody]

Perhaps instead of reading the reports you could read the articles on cfbt-us. The articles are a summary of various research papers.

Part 1:
http://cfbt-us.com/wordpress/?cat=21&paged=2
Part 2:
http://cfbt-us.com/wordpress/?cat=21

Cool, I have read parts of that report, but don't know where. But the legacy vs contemp furniture topic is familiar.

thx for the links and the advice.

[len1582]

While .."You are also searching areas that are most tenable and survivable..." you are searching the areas where people are in the most danger of being overcome and dying. People two apartments down (or two rooms down) from the fire have a great chance of survival even if they're on the floor above the fire. But people in or near the fire area or directly over the fire room/apartment need to be assisted first.

Ground ladders are a must. Many times in a 2 story frame W/ 2 bedrooms facing the front, a single 18ft ladder to the porch roof (easily thrown by 1 person) will cover both bedrooms. One ladder doing the work of 2.

[RFD21C]

First let me state that VES is a sound tactic. That when performed properly is a safe and efficent.

my department will utilize VES in certain situations. We do not conduct them on every structure or on every fire. It is another tool in the toolbox that we have that we can use when needed.

Personally I like to utilize VES in conjunction with the inside team conducting there searches. This speeds up the search and targets areas that the people are in the greatest danger and have a high chance of occupancy. For example a fire in a SFD cape cod style house. Fire on the first floor. The inside team is going to search the fire area first and one man of the outside team can VES the upstairs bedrooms. This speeds up the search by searching both areas at the sametime. The two highest areas of danger the fire area and the floor above. The added bonus is bedrooms have a probablity of victims.

Another option that is a great use of VES is when an area has a high probablity of survival however other areas are untentable. For Example a ranch house with heavy fire on the garage, kitchen, and livingroom. If we conduct VES to the bedrooms on the other end of the house we can search quickly and safely search the areas of the building that are tentable and have high likelyhood of occupancy. That other wise could not be search until a line knocks down the fire enough to enter.

However, One of the things that concerns me is that IMO VES has become one of the latest buzz phrases or fade tactic recently in the fire service. the part that concerns me is not the tactic itself. It is that many people do not take the time to completely understand and properly train on the tactic. They do not understand that just like conducting a rope search, oriented search, L or R handed search each has certain situations that they can be safely and effeciently applied. They do not understand that the simpile act of closing the door to the room that is going to be search is priority number 1 during VES, before you start your search. As with any tactic it needs to be researched and drilled on before implimentation. You cannot safely and properly conduct VES by just reading an article about it.

ok rant over.

As for you questions.

We conduct VES using one man. He typically has a six ft hook and halligan.
No line is used for "protection" The protection is gained by compartmentlizing the room that is being searched.

See examples above for search priorites.

[Theusje]

There is a whole presentation about that UL research paper here:

http://content.learnshare.com/course...14/player.html

If you go to module 4 then instrumentation and then video results you can watch some burns.

[ChiefSquirrel]

We only conduct VES for a target location for a known victim or probable victim - meaning we only do VES for specific location where we know there is a victim or there is a high probability of a victim being in that location.

It's a 2 FF maneuver - if the smoke is below the windowsill, both FFs enter the room - if visibility is better, one stays on the ladder and one does the search.

[LaFireEducator]

We only conduct VES for a target location for a known victim or probable victim - meaning we only do VES for specific location where we know there is a victim or there is a high probability of a victim being in that location.

It's a 2 FF maneuver - if the smoke is below the windowsill, both FFs enter the room - if visibility is better, one stays on the ladder and one does the search.

Similiar to what we do.

VES is pretty much an unknown concept in this part of the state. When I discussed it with my department, they had significant concerns about a firefighter operating without a partner, so it has been modied to a 2 firefighter search as compared to a single firefighter search.

We have trained on it several times.

That being said, it's still a selective tool to be used in some very selective situations.

[L-Webb]

So if your under staffed and can't do both do you get a line to the fire or search?

[footrat]

So if your under staffed and can't do both do you get a line to the fire or search?

Unless you're on a non-water-carrying apparatus, your primary objective in that case would be to put out the fire.

When there aren't enough people to handle both extinguishment and rescue at the same time, the priority should go to rescue. In your hypothetical, though, you didn't say, "rescue," you said, "search." Rescue implies KNOWN victims, especially those that are in IMMEDIATE danger. And really, when it comes down to it, you do what does the most good for the most people the fastest. If putting out the fire saves 10 people above the fire while one on the fire floor died because you didn't pull him out first, I'd call that the better choice, even if the one that died was a known victim in immediate danger. If you dilly dally with a single rescue while the fire spreads and kills more people, you might've made the wrong choice, assuming that you could've made good progress on fire attack if that had been your pick.

[Firehouse_Chick]

That being said, it's still a selective tool to be used in some very selective situations.

wtf? ^^^^^^

[GTRider245]

Unless you're on a non-water-carrying apparatus, your primary objective in that case would be to put out the fire.

When there aren't enough people to handle both extinguishment and rescue at the same time, the priority should go to rescue. In your hypothetical, though, you didn't say, "rescue," you said, "search." Rescue implies KNOWN victims, especially those that are in IMMEDIATE danger. And really, when it comes down to it, you do what does the most good for the most people the fastest. If putting out the fire saves 10 people above the fire while one on the fire floor died because you didn't pull him out first, I'd call that the better choice, even if the one that died was a known victim in immediate danger. If you dilly dally with a single rescue while the fire spreads and kills more people, you might've made the wrong choice, assuming that you could've made good progress on fire attack if that had been your pick.

Very good post with some good perspectives.

[LaFireEducator]

wtf? ^^^^^^

No department in this area, including the career departments, have ever heard of the Outside Vent Man.

The fact is in our department, as well as every other department that I know of in this part of the state, the SOP is to search through the building. Searching from the outside - VES - is a deviation from standard procedure that needs to be specifically ordered by the IC.