Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    EuroFirefighter.com PaulGRIMWOOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    831

    Default 3D Firefighting With Water-fog VIDEO

    http://www.ivanhoe.com/science/story/2006/01/90a.html

    'Every year dozens of firefighters in the United States die fighting fires. Explosions, back drafts and flashover fires can trap them inside buildings. Now, a new method of firefighting aims to change that'. . . .


  2. #2
    EuroFirefighter.com PaulGRIMWOOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    831

    Default

    What is 3D Fire Fighting?

    The term 3D Fire Fighting refers to techniques and tactics used by firefighters to assert an element of control over deteriorating fire conditions inside fire-involved structures, or compartments. This objective of taking control of interior conditions at the outset of fire operations is based upon the ‘safe-person-concept’ where an immediate risk-based approach, evaluating risk versus gain, is applied at the earliest opportunity, i.e.; on fire service arrival.

    In the past it has been common for firefighters to direct their initial attack strategy towards the visible fuel-phase fire while neglecting the hidden dangers of the gaseous-phase fire or exposure. This fundamental error has cost many firefighters their lives on several occasions.

    The techniques and tactics used to safely gain access to a fire compartment or structure, advance in safely, and mount an effective attack on the fire are described in some detail in the book from FPP/IFSTA titled '3D Firefighting'. This training manual intends to show firefighters that compartment fires in the gaseous-phase are potentially more lethal than those in the fuel-phase. There are references to traditional forms of mounting an attack on the fuel-phase fire, as well as the relatively ‘new-wave’ approaches developed by firefighters in Sweden and England during the 1980s for dealing with the hazards of flashover, backdraft, smoke explosion, and other forms of fire gas ignition. These techniques include zone control (buffer and safe-zoning), 3D water-fog applications into the gaseous-phase to suppress flaming and inert un-ignited fire-gas accumulations, tactical venting options that address both opening up and closing down (confining) a fire, as well as direct (straight-stream) and indirect (fog) methods of fire suppression.

    Using highly economical and readily available purpose built training structures, the European principles of CFBT (Compartment Fire Behavior Training) are also described in great detail, as a means of teaching firefighters how to survive in the hostile environment of a fire-involved structure.

    For more information
    www.firetactics.com
    & Click the 3D Firefighting Link

  3. #3
    EuroFirefighter.com PaulGRIMWOOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    831

    Default

    This came through Billy G today ....

    'In Mississippi, Chief Chip Brown and a fellow firefighter were inside a burning trailer searching for people Friday when he realized they were trapped in the heavy smoke and fire. As the two raced toward the door, he said, flames suddenly shot overhead. "It just kind of rolled over on us," Brown said Saturday. "The flames rolled over on us." Brown, 25, chief of the North Forrest VFD is being treated for burns to his hands. Brown and firefighter Ricky Stewart, 33, were rushed to the hospital Friday after responding to a blaze at the trailer. Stewart's sister said her brother suffered smoke inhalation and burns to his face. He was airlifted Saturday to the University of Alabama-Birmingham Burn Center and remains in critical condition.

    Chief Brown said he may not have been cautious enough fighting the fire and said his son was worried for his safety. "He said the chief's not supposed to go in," said Brown, managing a laugh. "But I've got to do what I've got to do. I'm not going to let my people go in by themselves."...but...."I was kind of a little too laid back," he said. "It didn't look too serious. But when we were inside, the fire turned on us."
    '

  4. #4
    Forum Member PattyV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,272

    Default

    i have become quite a believer in the fog bursts to stabilise conditions. even in wildland firefighting it can be beneficial. in some circumstances that are normally unbearable, a few fog bursts can go a long way to keeping you where you are needed. the cooling effects are almost awesome.
    "There are only two things that i know are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And im not so sure about the former."

    For all the life of me, i cant see a firefighter going to hell. At least not for very long. We would end up putting out all the fires and annoying the devil too much.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    MFD
    Posts
    164

    Default

    I work for a small municipal department in Florida and we have been taught a modified version of this technique for about ten years.

  6. #6
    EuroFirefighter.com PaulGRIMWOOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    831

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cityfire7
    I work for a small municipal department in Florida and we have been taught a modified version of this technique for about ten years.
    I would be interested to hear how the techniques have been modified? Why they were modified? Also what successes you have had in applying the techniques in real fires?

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    Hey Paul,

    Any idea if Ed Hartin was ever a Chief in Massachusetts?

    We had a Chief a few Towns over by that name....

    Glad to see you are keeping up the good fight.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    MFD
    Posts
    164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulGRIMWOOD
    I would be interested to hear how the techniques have been modified? Why they were modified? Also what successes you have had in applying the techniques in real fires?
    We use the short burst/cooling method as conditions deteriorate while making the initial search for the seat of the fire. This method is mainly used as a method of protection for the hose team. We are taught to "read the smoke" to determine the evolving conditions. When the smoke goes dark and you begin to see fingers of flame running through the smoke or what looks like lightening running through the smoke then you know that the space has reached a critical point where the temp is starting to skyrocket and flash is imminent. Acouple of cooling bursts WILL drop steam down on you and the thermal layer will trashed but the mixing of the cooler floor temps along with the cooling effect of the steam will prevent flashover. This technique also makes the argument about flash hoods a moot point. If you aren't COMPLETELY covered then you WILL be burned.

    We DO NOT use this if we have ANY indication of viable occupants.

    I have heard of this method being used as soon as the hose team make entry and as the primary method of extinguishment but we only use this as a self defense/safety measure.

    As far as the successfull use of this, I can tell you that we have not had a team caught in a flashover while using this method.
    Last edited by cityfire7; 01-13-2006 at 10:10 AM.

  9. #9
    EuroFirefighter.com PaulGRIMWOOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    831

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cityfire7
    We use the short burst/cooling method as conditions deteriorate while making the initial search for the seat of the fire. When the smoke goes dark and you begin to see fingers of flame running through the smoke or what looks like lightening running through the smoke then you know that the space has reached a critical point where the temp is starting to skyrocket and flash is imminent. A couple of cooling bursts WILL drop steam down on you and the thermal layer will trashed but the mixing of the cooler floor temps along with the cooling effect of the steam will prevent flashover. This technique also makes the argument about flash hoods a moot point. If you aren't COMPLETELY covered then you WILL be burned.

    We DO NOT use this if we have ANY indication of viable occupants.

    I have heard of this method being used as soon as the hose team make entry and as the primary method of extinguishment but we only use this as a self defense/safety measure.

    As far as the successfull use of this, I can tell you that we have not had a team caught in a flashover while using this method.
    This certainly sounds a long way from '3D Firefighting' but I appreciate that what you say has been used as a defensive approach in parts of the USA and Canada for some years as some form of adaption from the original techniques.

    Can I address some of your statements directly, in the context of 3D water-fog applications ....

    1. You do not say if you are using fog patterns or straight stream here? Bursting fog patterns will cool the overhead more effectively than bursting a straight stream.

    2. You appear only to use the methods when conditions are deteriorating. The whole concept of 3D tactics is to use this approach long before the conditions have shown signs of detriorating. 3D Firefighting encourages a pro-active use of water-fog as opposed to your reactive stance.

    3. Correct use of the fog nozzle here will NOT drop steam or drop the smoke layer - it will RAISE the smoke layer! The thermal balance is certainly not trashed but maintained with correct 3D applications.

    4. Flash-hoods are an essential item of protective clothing - wear them at all times is my advice - but I accept there are varying opinions on this.

    5. These 3D water-fog tactics can be used if you have viable occupants .... in vented or unvented rooms .... to prevent conditions from reaching a stage of deterioration .... or from deteriorating further .... or to suppress gaseous combustion (volumes of fire gases burning off).

  10. #10
    EuroFirefighter.com PaulGRIMWOOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    831

    Default

    Hey Dave Not sure if Ed was ever working in Mass .... I'll find out. Good to hear from ya

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    10

    Smile 3D tactics

    What is so new about the 3D method? My department has been using almost excatly the same tactics since the early 1980's. Our tactic is to use interior attack with a 1 1/2" and we do not automatically spray the ceiling area, we just spray if the we can feel a great amount of heat or see flame overhead, when we get to the seat of the fire we open the nozzle on a small fog of about 30 to 40 degrees and very,very quickly make two or three circles,starting at the ceiling and ending at the ceiling, which lasts about 2 seconds at the most and shut down. You, for the most part keep the thermal balance because you do not flow for more than a second or two and it brings the temperature in the fire room down to levels where the fire crew can operate more efficently, it also knocks the fire down to a manageable level where smaller flows can put the fire out without major water damage. The main reasons we use this method is because of water supply since most of our calls are in our unhydranted area and water damage.

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The North East
    Posts
    489

    Question

    JREB- Your technique is not even close to the 3-D method, but is in fact part of the antiquated fog attack threories that cause thermal disruption and dangerous conditions. Waiting until you reach the seat of the fire with a 95 gpm nozzle after ignoring the overhead unless it is to hot to advance may cause you to be trapped or severely steamed when you open your mid-range fog pattern and find that 95 gpm is not enough. I was going to say in the other thread on SS vs. Fog that using 95 gpm nozzle and fog probably only makes sense if you fully understand and employ 3-D tactics. Oh, go ahead tell us that nobody's been hurt doing it this way yet!

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The North East
    Posts
    489

    Talking

    JREB et als: Sorry if I sound a little harsh but at some point we have to forget this ridiculous sense that we can't tell someone they're wrong. I'm sick of going to training classes where some bone head makes a stupid statement and the instructor respects his opinion and does not give him/her the "smack down". We're killing the same number of ourselves at less fires. It's time people told it like it is. We have dubbed our department a "Church of Painful Truth". If you want to be told what you want to hear- go somewhere else. We admit when we're wrong and tell you if you are.
    Last edited by RFDACM; 02-01-2006 at 11:09 AM.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    10

    Wink 3D tactics, straight bore, fog, combination, bucket brigade

    RFDACM- Our fires involve 99% residential fires and these tactics have worked very well for us, and in the past 25 years that I have been with the department we have not had any steam injuries that I can remember. If you flow too long in a fog yes you do upset the thermal balance and the steam comes down and thats not a good thing, but if you just open your nozzle whip it around about 2 or 3 times very quickly and shut it off yeah there is some steam but it goes up to the ceiling and away from your crew quickly. If you limit your flow your balance is fine, thats the proper way.
    Our antiquated way works pretty darn well and has for many years, I always thought smooth bore was the antiquated way to fight fire since our department quit using those in the late '60s.
    Don't worry about sounding harsh I like open discussion and I love hearing how everyone else does it and any new ideas that might help my department. I try to have an open mind but sometimes its hard. It would be hard for me to change our attack when it has worked so well, but I don't believe anyone has discovered a perfect way to do it yet if there is such a way. I believe the one true key to a successful fire attack is training,training and more training.

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The North East
    Posts
    489

    Talking

    I can't disagree with most of your reasoning. And as for training training training, Amen Brother. The issue is that most of the US Fire Service has recognized that 100 gpm may not be enough in todays fires. That no one has been hurt yet, begs to question whether someone needs to be hurt to prove that luck has run out. One of our past Chief's used that to forgo any increase in staffing. Yeah, another man per shift can't make a difference!?! The bean counters agreed! Hard to convince them any different, when they see cost vs. a percieved but unproven future problem.

    Our theory is that 95 gpm nozzles and 1.5" hose worked well when we used to teach: always attack from the unburned side and push the fire back into the already burned area, and hopefully out a vent.

    Today, we se larger fuel loads, much faster rates of heat release and ultra tight contstruction. I would guess that your combination of hose and nozzle would work better/safer with Paul's 3-D tactics. The proof is out there you just have to want to see it. Don't get hurt trying to prove what used to work still will. As for solid bores being antiquated, absolutely. But, age is not the issue, its tactics and science. As a matter of fact, right now I have a brand new Vindicator heavy Attack on my desk. Can't wait to see how this measures up. Seems to have proven itself fairly well elsewhere, now to train, train, train with it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. SOP's for Volunteer FD
    By rumlfire in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-01-2006, 10:35 PM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 02-16-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-20-2005, 11:42 AM
  3. Chicago Fire Department seeks a way to soup up water
    By HeavyRescueTech in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-20-2004, 01:36 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-19-2004, 09:13 AM
  5. High Pressue
    By YFRMdc51 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 04-03-2001, 01:29 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