Like Tree51Likes

Thread: Hey let's see if we can get a fire topic to go more than 5 posts befoe we let it die!

  1. #76
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Cop out answer My Brother. The truth is structural fire has evolved and what used to take almost a halh hour to flash under optimal conditions can flash in under 5 today. Plastics produce smoke that acts just like fire that hasn't ignited yet. I look forward to the additional research because if it teaches us new ways to do the job that are safer, faster, and more effective, how can that possibly be bad?
    I think this is one of the reasons that most of the time we're (I mean my local area) gonna be past the point of door control. With the larger homes in my area, there's a lot of available air to feed a fire before it's vent limited, and by then a window or some other failure allows a flow path to the fire. Unless we're lucky and catch it while it's still small.

  2. #77
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    We have had as many, if not more rescues made from the room of origin. Just one the other day; young girl, 100 year old house, illegal bedroom in the basement-no windows, one access, found in the room of origin. I have a feeling if one spent a whole lot of time figuring out flow paths and dropping half their company off for door control, it would have been a recovery.
    You don't have to stop and figure out anything concerning flowpaths. Just be aware that you may be creating one. If you have good response times, good water supply and agressive engine companies with decent staffing, then ventilation induced flashover will rarely be a problem. The idea is to understand fire behavior and the effects our actions can have on it. No one wants to cripple you. The people who think there is a big push to reinvent the wheel probably don't really understand the research.

    Would door control have PREVENTED (or even delayed) you from making the grab of that girl in the bedroom?
    RFDACM02, WVFD705 and conrad427 like this.

  3. #78
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    There is nothing bad about it whats-so-ever, like I originally posted: I read and study the NIST, and other, publications and fit them into my district, my city. Some of the constants stay the same, ie the increased BTU's of our petroleum based everything, the effect of energy efficient windows, wind driven, and etc. But with this evolution of structural fire, I am still working with the same tools that have been around for generations and have stood the test of time. I may be cynical, but as to just accept every NIST study and their magic answers derived out of a controlled environment is setting myself up to fail.
    But to not continue to read, research, and learn is just a s asinine.
    You didn't have bunker gear, SCBA, thermal imaging or hydraulic forcible entry tools generations ago. You can go deeper into a high heat area, and do it more quickly, than previous generations.

    The research provides no magic answers. Just information. It is up to us to figure out the answers. One answer is controlled ventilation.

    The test environment was not all that controlled. Real buildings with real contents that were set on fire. And then extinguished. With everything monitored scientifically. They didn't set out to prove anything. They set out to learn. And they did.

  4. #79
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    You didn't have bunker gear, SCBA, thermal imaging or hydraulic forcible entry tools generations ago. You can go deeper into a high heat area, and do it more quickly, than previous generations.

    The research provides no magic answers. Just information. It is up to us to figure out the answers. One answer is controlled ventilation.

    The test environment was not all that controlled. Real buildings with real contents that were set on fire. And then extinguished. With everything monitored scientifically. They didn't set out to prove anything. They set out to learn. And they did.
    At the end of the day, the fire went out with water applied to the seat.

  5. #80
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,862

    Default

    Wow, I find it hard to believe so many "professionals" can't see beyond it's one way or the other? I've yet to see anyone suggest that any of this information provides a singular approach to every interior fire, but on the other hand I do see a few arguing that it's not relevant to them, their situation or their geographical location. BS! Just understanding the information allows you to consider more factors when making decisions. Maybe you method doesn't change today or tomorrow, but there may be a day with a fire that you'll draw on something and change it up. It appears that some don't like a certain part of what NIST/UL/FDNY/CFD and others learned, therefore they're closing the door on the whole thing. I guess some of you already know it all, and we know what that means...

  6. #81
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,862

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    At the end of the day, the fire went out with water applied to the seat.
    And you took something from one of the previous posts to imply that wasn't still the preferred method?
    FyredUp likes this.

  7. #82
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    At the end of the day, the fire went out with water applied to the seat.
    Be careful with that whole "seat of the fire" thing. We don't want to operate the line on "cold" overhead smoke. Nor do we want to advance a non-operating line through areas of extreme heat just so we can get to the "seat" before opening up. With high heat and unburned fuel in the smoke layer, the seat can be all around us. We've had members of this forum describe advancing a line w/o operating it because they weren't at the seat. Meanwhile their eyeshields were melting from the heat. Probably because they were taught not to "open up on smoke".
    FyredUp and BoxAlarm187 like this.

  8. #83
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    NIMS, ICS, RECEO, RECEO-VS, COAL WAS WEALTH, WALLACE WAS HOT, SLICERs, DICERS-VO and countless others...

    The fire service has become the "Veg-o-matic" of pnemonics... when in reality, the job still boils down to putting the dihydrogen monoxide or other type of extinguishing agent on the rapid oxidation/vaporization of a fuel emitting smoke, heat and light.

    We tend to take the stuff we have been doing for years, give it a pnemonic, add the "new and improved" tagline to it and treat it like it was a gift from the Gods themselves.

    The secret to keeping firefighters safe isn't rocket science. Get out of the station and tour your districts, look at the new construction, visit your target hazards, train and be situationally aware.
    slackjawedyokel likes this.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  9. #84
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    ...take the stuff we have been doing for years, give it a pnemonic, add the "new and improved" tagline to it and treat it like it was a gift from the Gods themselves...
    Isn't that Pierce's business model?
    FyredUp likes this.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  10. #85
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,012
    ?

  11. #86
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    I agree it's a pretty good article. But his main premise is that he sees a tendency to go toward outside streams. I believe there are people who misunderstand this research or use it as an excuse to justify their previously held positions.

    I am aware of nothing coming out of these studies that endorses exterior streams over interior streams. The data indicated that exterior streams will not push fire; they will cool the area. So if the IC calls for an exterior line, he/she doesn't have to worry about pushing fire. But there is still plenty to worry about. Interior stream is still the best way to go. I'd only go with the exterior stream if fire was so intense as to make entry problematic. I'd use this stream just to quickly darken down the area, and then go inside with it.

    I'm not sure about his concerns over occupied vs unoccupied. I don't believe we ever REALLY know until we search. Known vacants (not unoccupied, but vacant) with known structural shortcomings would be an exception up to a point. The fire will behave the same regardless of presence or absence of victims.

    The more discussion (verbal, blogging, written, etc) I see over this topic the more convinced I am that it is not fully understood. Or it is fully understood but we haven't fully figured out how to apply it on the fireground.
    RFDACM02 likes this.

  12. #87
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,862

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    Decent article. I like to call the first line off at PD fire, the "confinement line", as this is it's greatest function. I'm going to re-read it, I'm not sure I agree (with Captnjak) that he's pushing the exterior line when the FD has decided to treat dwelling fires as occupied until proven otherwise. They make a pretty clear distinction between residential and commercial fires when it comes to "assuming" a life hazard and given their staffing and the risks, operate differently. Some of us are forced to do things sequentially that others can do simultaneously, we just have to be on our game when it comes to prioritization.

  13. #88
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Decent article. I like to call the first line off at PD fire, the "confinement line", as this is it's greatest function. I'm going to re-read it, I'm not sure I agree (with Captnjak) that he's pushing the exterior line when the FD has decided to treat dwelling fires as occupied until proven otherwise. They make a pretty clear distinction between residential and commercial fires when it comes to "assuming" a life hazard and given their staffing and the risks, operate differently. Some of us are forced to do things sequentially that others can do simultaneously, we just have to be on our game when it comes to prioritization.
    I did not say that he's pushing exterior streams. He stated in the article that he sees a tendency toward that. I think he's misunderstanding the recommendations. Or the people writing the recommendations don't fully understand the research that's been done. They should not be writing anything if that's the case.

    Too many times I've seen or heard that "NIST/UL says we should only attack fires from the exterior" or "NIST/UL says we only have to focus on door control". There's no "only" involved. We all know there is more to it.

    I agree that confinement is the priority before extinguishment. At most fires it's the same line that does both.
    RFDACM02 likes this.

  14. #89
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    205

    Default

    I've been following this topic with interest as I love learning. Honestly, I think I've confused myself. Anyone willing to fill in these blanks for me?

    Before this study, our department________________________________________ ________

    With this new knowledge, now we________________________________________________

  15. #90
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    ...put fire out
    ...put fire out
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  16. #91
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    ...put fire out
    ...put fire out
    LOL, thanks

  17. #92
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    1,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FF-Andy View Post
    I've been following this topic with interest as I love learning. Honestly, I think I've confused myself. Anyone willing to fill in these blanks for me?

    Before this study, our department________________________________________ ________

    With this new knowledge, now we________________________________________________
    Almost always started positive pressure ventilation in conjunction with fire attack.

    Now may or may not start positive pressure ventilation and may use door control/flow path techniques depending on observed conditions upon arrival and a 360 of the building.
    FF-Andy likes this.

  18. #93
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FF-Andy View Post
    LOL, thanks
    I hate to be a smart a s s, but these studies get the discussion boiled down to 3 groups:
    1) those that have never heard of any of the techniques NIST is studying
    2) those that take everything NIST comes out with as gospel and blindly implements major changes
    3) those that read the NIST reports, and realizes that they are conducted in a controlled environment. They then take the findings, see how they pertain to their departments factors and makes those changes that directly affect them.

    The complexity of this is evident when I make a comment that it still boils down to getting water on the seat of the fire. Some how that grows into some diatribe about cold smoke, uncharged lines, and etc. None of which I commented on.
    Anyone who has fought a warehouse or big box fire has dealt with cold smoke.
    Anyone who has 3./3.5 story wood frames or apts has advanced an uncharged line up to an upper floor or attic fire. Not to have that as an option is reducing your tool box to nothing more than surround and drown. Let alone attempting a rescue in a survivable time frame.
    As far as opening up to smoke, that has been a tactic, here anyway, for I bet over 30 years to control flashover. If something that basic is new to a member, the complexities of controlled ventilation or coordinated fire attack should not even be in their play book yet. Stick to the front yard.
    DeputyChiefGonzo likes this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  19. #94
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    I hate to be a smart a s s, but these studies get the discussion boiled down to 3 groups:
    1) those that have never heard of any of the techniques NIST is studying
    2) those that take everything NIST comes out with as gospel and blindly implements major changes
    3) those that read the NIST reports, and realizes that they are conducted in a controlled environment. They then take the findings, see how they pertain to their departments factors and makes those changes that directly affect them.

    The complexity of this is evident when I make a comment that it still boils down to getting water on the seat of the fire. Some how that grows into some diatribe about cold smoke, uncharged lines, and etc. None of which I commented on.
    Anyone who has fought a warehouse or big box fire has dealt with cold smoke.
    Anyone who has 3./3.5 story wood frames or apts has advanced an uncharged line up to an upper floor or attic fire. Not to have that as an option is reducing your tool box to nothing more than surround and drown. Let alone attempting a rescue in a survivable time frame.
    As far as opening up to smoke, that has been a tactic, here anyway, for I bet over 30 years to control flashover. If something that basic is new to a member, the complexities of controlled ventilation or coordinated fire attack should not even be in their play book yet. Stick to the front yard.
    At least part of this is aimed at me. So let me respond. I don't know when or where there was a diatribe. It's called discussion. An exchange of ideas. Your department can and will do whatever it feels is appropriate based on staffing, response times, resources, water supply, occupancy type, construction type, size of building, size of fire area, location of fire, etc. That is as it should be. I personally am not looking to change that. I don't know who, if anyone, is looking to do that.

    There are some things that are undeniable. One of those is that the environment was NOT controlled. I've stated this several times. You don't refute it in any meaningful way; you just continue to say it. The only real control was that the fires were eventually put out. Sorry if that's too controlled for you, but they wanted to do multiple tests. That would be difficult if the entire island was allowed to burn to the ground. Don't take my word for it. Read the study. The info is all there somewhere.

    The other undeniable thing is that uncontrolled ventilation is counter-productive and can be dangerous to firefighter safety. We've all seen the youtube videos of cowboy freelancers taking all the glass in sight long before charged line is ready to move in. The result is invariably a more intense fire than what was there before. The entry door is a ventilation point. No way around that. Therefore it should be controlled unless and until a charged line is ready to move in. If you are stretching to the 3rd floor of an apartment building, the front entry door is not the concern. The apartment entry door would be the concern. Search teams with hydraulic forcible entry tools (or even a set of irons) can get into an apartment for search quicker than an engine company can get a line up to the fire floor, charged, bled and ready to move in. Therefore, apartment entry door shuld be controlled until line is ready. Unless of course fire is confined within apartment behind another closed door. Search team may not know this upon entry.

    I'm with FDNY. We now know as much about this (probably more) as anyone out there. I don't know if it's gospel, but as a department we are on board. We have brick and joist, wood frame and modern lightweight private dwellings. Attached and detached. We have small, medium and large multiple dwellings of all construction types. We have fireproof MD's. Not to mention commercial of all kinds. The only real tactical change we've made as a result of this is to add entry door control to our SOP's for firefighting.

    This is in no way reinventing the wheel. This is in no way a bunch of sheep taking the word of a bunch of science weenies. This is in no way a move to surround and drown. It doesn't take away from aggressiveness. It adds to it. Because a team can go in ahead of the line and start a search knowing that they haven't done anything to destroy their chance of success.

    If your department does VEIS via windows you are already controlling doors to buy time, control flowpaths and reduce the odds of a vent induced flashover. Why is the home or apartment entry door any different?

  20. #95
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    I hate to be a smart a s s, but these studies get the discussion boiled down to 3 groups:
    1) those that have never heard of any of the techniques NIST is studying
    2) those that take everything NIST comes out with as gospel and blindly implements major changes
    3) those that read the NIST reports, and realizes that they are conducted in a controlled environment. They then take the findings, see how they pertain to their departments factors and makes those changes that directly affect them.

    Sorry but you missed #4. Those that read the studies, pay attention to the reality of the changed fire environment due to the changed fuel load, and then adopt and adapt to take the newly learned skills and use them WHEN APPROPRIATE.

    Further I disagree with your #3 statement. These were live burns conducted in REAL BUILDINGS, using REAL FURNISHINGS like in a normal residence. These tests were not conducted in a lab built burn room. In a sense I suppose you could say they were controlled in the sense that scientists were there monitoring everything that occurred, and as captnjak said they were eventually extinguished.


    The complexity of this is evident when I make a comment that it still boils down to getting water on the seat of the fire. Some how that grows into some diatribe about cold smoke, uncharged lines, and etc. None of which I commented on.

    The truth is YES, we still have to put water on the fire, but if you completely ignore flow path and get yourself caught you may end up hurting or killing firefighters. Frankly, what you do where you are is controlled by your local administration and doesn't affect any other fire department in the least. But your three statements above serve no purpose other than to be argumentative.

    Anyone who has fought a warehouse or big box fire has dealt with cold smoke.
    Anyone who has 3./3.5 story wood frames or apts has advanced an uncharged line up to an upper floor or attic fire. Not to have that as an option is reducing your tool box to nothing more than surround and drown. Let alone attempting a rescue in a survivable time frame.

    I have always said advance the dry line as far as you can SAFELY, then call for water. I have stretched lines to upper floor before calling for water because it is faster and more efficient. I will not take a dry line right up to the door of the fire room before calling for water though because that is not safe and frnakly stupid if something goes wrong.

    As far as opening up to smoke, that has been a tactic, here anyway, for I bet over 30 years to control flashover. If something that basic is new to a member, the complexities of controlled ventilation or coordinated fire attack should not even be in their play book yet. Stick to the front yard.

    Because the first day you stepped off the rig you had all the answers to every situation, right? Your officer or senior man never had to guide you, right? Come on let's be serious here okay? There are times when all of us get so tunnel visioned that we may not see what is happening in the overhead if we have the nozzle, and the second man may have to say "OVERHEAD" or whatever you say in your FD to bring you back to that. The truth is not everyone will see the thousands of fires you have seen, or perhaps the hundreds I have seen, and the strength of their training is what keeps them alive today, not the experience gained from all of those battles that we fought. It is MY job as training officer to be on the leading edge of what is going on and teach that to my troops. Do I say this is the only way? NO I DON'T, but teaching the flow path as a way to protect themselves makes sense and I will do it.
    Stay safe Brother. Cold enough for ya up dere in the great white nort?
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  21. #96
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    Ray McCormack has a great sequence which describes what to do...

    Is there a fire? No. Leave
    Is there a fire? Yes. Put it out. Leave.
    Is it out? No. Put it out. Is it out? Yes. Leave.
    MemphisE34a likes this.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  22. #97
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    Ray McCormack has a great sequence which describes what to do...

    Is there a fire? No. Leave
    Is there a fire? Yes. Put it out. Leave.
    Is it out? No. Put it out. Is it out? Yes. Leave.
    Who knew?

    I guess we can all put down the books, cancel our subscriptions and stop training.

  23. #98
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    Who knew?

    I guess we can all put down the books, cancel our subscriptions and stop training.
    Ahh, but the devil is in the details...
    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

  24. #99
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    205

    Default

    [QUOTE=SPFDRum;1402250]I hate to be a smart a s s, but these studies get the discussion boiled [QUOTE]

    No worries, I have a keen apprecation for a well timed smart a s s remark. I literally laughed at your response.

  25. #100
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    Who knew?

    I guess we can all put down the books, cancel our subscriptions and stop training.
    No you can't... and that is the freaking point. We tend to overcomplicate things, and try to be the "do all and be all" agency at the expense of the basics.

    Let's get the basics down first.. then we can learn the other parts of the job.
    FyredUp likes this.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Help w/ a fire hydraulics topic?
    By SuperPulaski1 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-21-2009, 05:14 PM
  2. Off Topic - FIRE APPARATUS CRASH
    By mmcneill in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-09-2009, 10:28 AM
  3. Posts working with posts?
    By dfdex1 in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-21-2006, 03:22 PM
  4. USFA posts concern over low # of apps for fire act grants
    By Captainluke in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-20-2001, 10:28 AM
  5. Mphs tragidy topic posted by a mphs Fire Fighter
    By BamBamMphsTn56 in forum Line of Duty: In Memory Of
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-08-2000, 09:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register