Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By FyredUp

Thread: Burned or unburned side?

  1. #1
    Forum Member
    L-Webb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    522

    Default Burned or unburned side?

    I was reading something that I stumbled across today titled attacking from the burned side can save lives. It went on to list a few scenarios, all and all it was a good article.
    What really surprised me was some of the responses, most were scathing. I never knew that some departments were almost dead set against this tactic. While I know that getting a line between victims and the fire is important, Sometimes it just makes sense to attack straight into the fire with sufficient GPM to put the damn thing out.

    What do you guys think?

    By the way it's nice to be back
    Last edited by L-Webb; 01-01-2015 at 07:52 PM. Reason: I'm a dummy
    Get the first line into operation.

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,707

    Default

    I have always though that each situation dictated the best approach. In other words if the fastest hit on the fire was to hit is head on from the burned side then do it, if it was easier and faster to come from the unburned side then do that.

    The entire thought process has been kind of tossed on its ear with the NIST/UL/FDNY studies showing an initial exterior attack can cool the interior making it more survivable, without pushing the fire throughout the structure. Honestly if we can give it a quick shot from outside, cool the interior and knock the fire back, and then enter and kill the fire while making it more survivable why wouldn't we do that?

    Welcome back! Let's light some fires here and get this forum back up and rocking!!
    The52nd likes this.
    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

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,978

    Default

    With residential fires we're definitely geared toward the front door/line between the fire and victims or means of egress. In over two decades, I cannot remember a single time it was determined that another approach was necessary to ensure unburned to burned. I'm of the opinion that the unburned to burned theory was necessary when the attack utilized underpower 95 gpm fog nozzles on wide fog to "push the fire out of the building". Today we overcome the BTU's using proper GPM, utilizing a straight or solid stream and do not push the fire.

    I just don't see the advantage of slowing getting water on the fire to attack from another entrance? In our area this might require stretching through a locked fence, unshoveled area in the winter and a host of other challenges that normally aren't impediments to the front entrance. That said, there's still a fair number of places where enclosed porches are not used in the winter requiring us to find the primary entrance/egress path used by the occupants. But that is always the driving factor, what is the mostly likely path of travel of the occupants and how can we get between them and the fire or the interior stairs and the fire. As Fyred-up noted about the NIST/UL studies, we're confirming a solid basis for fast water on the fire making everything better.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,472

    Default

    Add another vote for "attack the fire in an orderly and efficient military manner applying enough GPM in a rapid fashion" (using a smoothbore nozzle) and all the other crap theories go down the toilet.

    Additionally, we have been using CAFS since 2007 (smoothbores even before that.) Several surrounding departments were using CAFS before us. And I gotta tell you- when you do it right, the knockdown power is truly breathtaking. And for all the non-believers out there, trust me. I myself had to be dragged (kicking and screaming) into the CAFS frame of mind. However we should never, ever lose our proficiency with straight h2o.

    As has been stated numerous times before- You hit it hard, hit it fast in the seat of its pants, most of your problems go away just as fast as you hit it. Train, train and train.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FWDbuff View Post
    Add another vote for "attack the fire in an orderly and efficient military manner applying enough GPM in a rapid fashion" (using a smoothbore nozzle) and all the other crap theories go down the toilet.


    I agree with everything you said with perhaps the exception that the smoothbore is the only answer.


    Additionally, we have been using CAFS since 2007 (smoothbores even before that.) Several surrounding departments were using CAFS before us. And I gotta tell you- when you do it right, the knockdown power is truly breathtaking. And for all the non-believers out there, trust me. I myself had to be dragged (kicking and screaming) into the CAFS frame of mind. However we should never, ever lose our proficiency with straight h2o.

    I am not sure this is the end all be all. I agree in certain circumstances it could be a good idea. But the counter to that is the cost that puts it out of reach for many departments.

    As has been stated numerous times before- You hit it hard, hit it fast in the seat of its pants, most of your problems go away just as fast as you hit it. Train, train and train.

    Agreed.
    We use Class A foam on every interior structure fire attack. We use it initially at .3% but can bump it up to make shaving cream if we desire.
    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

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,177

    Default

    I can't speak to the structural foam firefighting as I have zero experience with it.

    From what I see on various internet sites, the biggest firefighting challenge faced is getting SUFFICIENT water on the fire. It doesn't much matter which side you attack from if your stream is inadequate. I see it over and over again. A **** pour stream is used to hit the fire and then there is a withdrawal of members from the structure. What other outcome could there possibly be? I wash my car with more water than some of these guys are using. What gives?

    For your typical house fire, it's hard to go wrong by taking the line (with a good steam) through the front door with a possible transitional attack when appropriate.

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,472

    Default

    Fyred I absolutely agree with your counter points. No never intended to mean that CAFS is the absolute saveall. Nothing more than another tool (that works pretty well) in the toolbox- and also why I said never lose proficiency with straight water.

    And yes, you are also 100% correct that the cost is way out of reach for many smaller shops. IIRC the Waterous Pneumax system we have I think ran in the neighborhood of $32,000 and change. We have almost all of the discharges plumbed (including the deluge gun and one of the 2.5" discharges) and we can also use the compressor for large-capacity air tools if we need to.

    Not going down the smoothbore road!!! LOL

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    MemphisE34a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Memphis, TN - USA
    Posts
    2,569

    Default

    For residential, nearly always through the front for a myriad of reasons....

    Commercial - closest, easiest to the fire.

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Marble Rock, Iowa
    Posts
    225

    Default

    For us, the goal is to get water on the fire as fast as possible when we get on scene using whatever method we need to (direct attack, transitional, blitz, etc..) We will typically use the front door on an in town fire since we're on the street. On a rural fire a lot of times we use a side door or back door since most of the time that's what the residents use and most of the time the best place to set up is beside or behind the house.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    835

    Default

    There are times and situations that support both attacks. I really like the SLICE-RS method of attack.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. side by side air bag lifting
    By slackjawedyokel in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-20-2014, 05:28 PM
  2. Vehicle on it's side with foot well entrapment on the lower side.
    By Golzy12 in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-17-2010, 06:39 PM
  3. Standard Side-mount pump or Command side mount
    By EngCo29 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-17-2005, 10:39 AM
  4. Right Side, Left Side, Wrong Side Driving
    By BryanLoader in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-10-2003, 07:52 AM
  5. Burned out
    By gonzoff16 in forum Meet and Greet
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-02-2001, 10:03 AM

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