Well I for one am not at all surprised. Our current crop of arm chair fire fighters, infused by the ivory towers' "it all about me" attitude, is looking for any excuse, no matter how thin to completely remove any sort of personal sacrifice from this job.
It's the fire services version of the little league participation trophy. Get a t-shirt, a pager, but be damned if they are going to get hurt or possibly killed doing what it takes.
" This can be a very slippery slope for firefighters as it can lead to complacency. Our job is inherently dangerous, period; and if one believes that there is now only one fireground tactic necessary for all fires, chances are they they will only drill and train on pulling a line to the front yard and applying water from outside. What happens to this firefighter when they arrive at a fire where the seat is out of the reach of an exterior stream? More importantly, what happens to the family trapped inside? Chances are that it won't go as smoothly as it could have...do you see how hubris can lead to a slippery, dangerous slope?"
This sounds like something many of us have said on these forums before.....
The author is correct in that those who use the UL tests to justify no interior ops totally misunderstand the research.
I would disagree with him on some of his points. I don't believe the sample size was too small. Any research will only cover a certain amount of data. We can't study every fire that occurs. There were a series of fires set with real contents in real buildings in various locations. This has rarely been done before (if ever). Then they were attacked at various stages from various locations. Censors were placed throughout building at one foot intervals from floor to ceiling. There was significant data collected; certainly far more than has ever been collected before. Repeated attempts were made to "push" fire. They couldn't make it happen. Not from windows; not from doorway; not from interior (yes, interior attacks were made). Over and over again, the temperature dropped drastically ahead of the stream. Temperatures also dropped significantly throughout the buildings on both the fire floor and floor above (open stairs) when water was applied, even when applied to ceiling area of rooms adjacent to the fire.
I'm not sure how search and rescue would affect fire behavior unless he is referring to opening of doors and or windows. And the significance of the absence or presence of rain is entirely lost on me.
Lastly, we should keep in mind that the research was conducted with the purpose of finding out how ventilation (mostly horizontal) affects fire behavior. Opening the front door to stretch a line through is part of the ventilation of the building.
And the significance of the absence or presence of rain is entirely lost on me.
In the terms of humidity I believe he was referencing the effects of dry heat versus wet heat and the affects on victims. I might have misunderstood what he was refering to though. Which that is what one of the big arguments of PPA (as referenced in the positive pressure attack book written by the two guy in salt lake city.( i cant recall the exact name of the book or writers I cant reference my library right now, on a side note I am NOT a fan off PPA)). I think that the writer of the article was pointing to the fact the studies listed are not the end all be all studies on fire behavior as many of the arm chair safety officer taut. Were they good studies yes. Did the provide alot of good information that when reviewed and studied by real students of fire can be applied to enhance the effectivness and safety of the fire ground yes. However there are many more studies and data that can and need to be collected to further advance our industry. One of those being the effects of "wet" heat versus "dry" heat on the patient or firefighter.
All of these studies that have been performed have given alot of information to the firefightersand fire officers in america. However, we cannot use these studies to create an out for performing our job. We need to take this knowledge combined with our training on skills to create a more effective and safer fire ground. This can happen on many levels from the basic entry level firefighter to knowing more about the cause and effect of ventilation. to the more advanced level of true seasoned professionals questioning our current tactics and adapting them to be more effective and safer.
These tests were in no way an attempt to change the way we attack fires with hoselines. It was mostly about the effects of ventilation on fire behavior.