As I read it in the new NFPA 1720 standard, a fire attack must be "initiated" within 2 minutes of arrival on scene. Anyone have an opinion of what "initiated" means? Is it water on the fire? Is it stretching a line toward the fire? What's your opinion? And if anyone knows what the official NFPA definition of initiating an attack is, please post it.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Thread: NFPA 1720 Question
05-24-2001, 11:56 AM #1WTFDFF10Firehouse.com Guest
NFPA 1720 Question
05-24-2001, 03:58 PM #2Dalmatian90Firehouse.com Guest
It's not two minutes from "arrival" rather 2 minutes from "Assembled"
Say you have a fire situation where the IC wants an interior attack. He looks around and has himself interior-certified, 2 interior FFs, and one exterior-only Pump Op. Still doesn't meet 2in/2out. Another Interior FF arrives POV and walks up to the scene. They've now "assembled" the neccessary staff to perform the task, and have two minutes for everyone to be packed up, hoselines stretched, etc. Of course, you've probably already stretched lines, etc waiting for the fourth interior FF.
Basically, you have 2 minutes to take an appropriate action after the required (by your policies which hopefully comply with OSHA, etc) number of staff trained appropriately are assembled on the scene.
05-24-2001, 04:20 PM #3WTFDFF10Firehouse.com Guest
Ok, I worded it wrong, I understand about assembling vs. arrival(we are a small district and never go POV, everyone goes to the station first.) and the 2 in/ 2 out provisions. I just don't really get what they mean by "initiate".
If I stretch a line toward the fire with the intention of eventually using it, does that mean I've initiated the attack? Or does initiating mean actually beginning to attack the fire itself after packing up, stretching lines, forcing entry, searching for the fire, etc.?
05-24-2001, 08:02 PM #4Dalmatian90Firehouse.com Guest
Goodness, I hate the phrasing on these:
(You made me dig up my copy of the Preprint edition that was for presentation in Anaheim
3.1.17 Initial Attack (Definition)
Fire fighting efforts and activities which occur in the time increment between the arrival of the fire department on the scene of a fire and the tactical decision by the Incident Commander that the resources dispatched on the original response will be insufficent to control and extinguish the fire, or that the fire is extinguished.
4.2.2 Initial attack
18.104.22.168 Upon assembling the neccessary resources, at the emergency scene, the fire department shall have the capability to safely initiate an initial attack within 2 minutes 90 percent of the time.
22.214.171.124 Initial attack operations shall be organized to ensure that at least four members shall be assembled before initiating interior fire suppression operations at a working structural fire.
The way I read this, and from what I understand from a 1710/1720 conference I went to a month ago, you have 2 minutes to begin to do something.
However, you don't have to do any particular thing until you have sufficient resources to safely do so in compliance with standards/guidelines/etc.
And the definition of "Initial Attack" of efforts & actions taken before the IC determines he needs more help than initially dispatched is sooooo broad, if you pull a hose and leave it on the ground with in two minutes while waiting for more manpower to arrive might count as initiating an attack!
A typical dispatch for my Department + Automatic Mutual Aid which is toned at the same time is 4 Engine-Tanks, 3 Engines, 1 Aerial, and several special units. Total of 6000 gallons on wheels and over 10,000' of 4" and (mostly) 5" hose. The west side of town gets less hose, but more water. It's the rare event for one of our fires to ever get outside of the definition of "initial attack" even if we go from flowing 65gpm off the first in Engine-Tank to having 3 2000' 5" lines laid and delivering 4500gpm -- because the resources to do so where on the first dispatch.
[This message has been edited by Dalmatian90 (edited 05-24-2001).]
05-24-2001, 08:12 PM #5WTFDFF10Firehouse.com Guest
LOL, I hate the wording of it too!
Got your re-write, thanks.
Thanks for the replies Dal.
[This message has been edited by WTFDFF10 (edited 05-24-2001).]
05-24-2001, 08:22 PM #6Dalmatian90Firehouse.com Guest
I think I re-wrote my reply while you where replying (did that make sense?)
But the wording is too weird I read my reply and went back and heavily edited it!
05-24-2001, 11:04 PM #7DDFirehouse.com Guest
Please define "IS", for Slick Willie, while you are at it.
05-25-2001, 12:17 PM #8Dalmatian90Firehouse.com Guest
I guess that's what you get when you write a consensus standard for the purpose of writing a consensus standard, in a topic where no consensus actually exists yet.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)