Roof Collapses on FF's-Caught on Tape

[LaFireEducator]

When I rant about changing the culture, this video is an excellent example of the changes that need to happen if we are to truly reduce the number of LODDs that we experience. You had a well envolved commercial building (appears to be a motel) with no life hazard, and there seemed to be, in the mind of command, a pressing need to "put the fire out" up close and personal. What were they accomplishing with a handline in this situation that a heavy stream from the street or a master stream from an aerial could not accomplish? Why were we risking firefighters working a handline on a second story of a heavily envolved structure when ther fire could have been knocked down in a safer way until the facade could be inspected for integrity?

We all know that facades and overhangs pose a significant risk to firefighters. We all know that as the structure supporting these facades burns, the structural integrity of the facade decreases. Yet, dispite the fact that there was visable fire from the facade, these firefighters were allowed to continue to operate under the obviously burning overhang. It's everyone's responsibility to note and bring up safety issues ...I find it hard to believe that someone at the scene did not see this as an issue.

IMO this is an example of an uneccesary operation and uneccessary risk that almost claimed the life of 2 firefighters. There is a time and place for aggresive firefighting operations and there is a time and a place to back off and accept the fact that we have lost the structure or that part ofthe structure. This situation brings up an example of an LODD (which I have mentioned here before) that occured in northern Vermont (ironically in the town where I first fought fires) back in 1999 (or there abouts). A mutual-aid firefighter was killed by a falling wall while operating a handline through the side door of a brick mill-type structure which was completly envolved and already a total loss. There needs, IMO, to be a change in the mentality that we need to be aggressive all the time at all of our fires if we are truly going to change our yearly LODD numbers. To me, this video is an excellent example of the old mentality, that needs to go.

I attempt not to Monday Morning Quaterback, but to me this is a very obvious example. I can see no reason why they were still there, in that situation, with that facade with the potential for collapse, operating a handline.

[Bones42]

Did I miss the video that showed this well involved structure BEFORE the close up shot of the 2 FF's on the second floor? Cuz the one linked above, shows a few seconds before the collapse, where conditions did not appear bad and then the camera is moved to another location, quite a few minutes later and now the fire is venting through the roof. Quite possibly, in the beginning, when just their 2 engines are on scene, the fire was not that bad and was in need of a good attack, which they were doing.

l guess I need to see that "other" video before I'll state they did not belong where they were.

[nyckftbl]

Did I miss the video that showed this well involved structure BEFORE the close up shot of the 2 FF's on the second floor? Cuz the one linked above, shows a few seconds before the collapse, where conditions did not appear bad and then the camera is moved to another location, quite a few minutes later and now the fire is venting through the roof. Quite possibly, in the beginning, when just their 2 engines are on scene, the fire was not that bad and was in need of a good attack, which they were doing.

l guess I need to see that "other" video before I'll state they did not belong where they were.

My thoughts too, Bones. I think I also missed the part where they found out that there was no life hazard.

[pfdaz1]

On arrival of 1st engine, people were still vacating their rooms, 32 of 36 rooms were occupied. Probably defensive if abandoned but obviously was not. Line placement obviously could'a/should'a been different, ahead of the fire. Not that it matters, but the firefighters were only there as long as you can see them on the video. They made the balcony, nozzle began trying to knock down interior and once partner forced entry the mansard came down. 10 seconds maybe? But once again, probably should have been at least the next room over. Easy to say now, different when showing up to a marginal situation at best with a huge rescue profile. Everybody is safe and wiser.

[t13one12]

I hope noone misread my post as a Monday morning quarterback. I was just merely asking was I not seeing any signs of collapse. I haven't viewed many collapse videos, and I was wondering if any were present. I in no way shape or form was criticizing the actions of the brothers in that video because there clearly isn't enough information shown.

[firetruckred]

On arrival of 1st engine, people were still vacating their rooms, 32 of 36 rooms were occupied. Probably defensive if abandoned but obviously was not. Line placement obviously could'a/should'a been different, ahead of the fire. Not that it matters, but the firefighters were only there as long as you can see them on the video. They made the balcony, nozzle began trying to knock down interior and once partner forced entry the mansard came down. 10 seconds maybe? But once again, probably should have been at least the next room over. Easy to say now, different when showing up to a marginal situation at best with a huge rescue profile. Everybody is safe and wiser.

Were certainly glad everyone is ok. It amazing and nothing short of a miracle that there were no major injuries or death. Thank God.

[CALFFBOU]

LaFireEducator- Awesome posting. I wish I could take credit for that one...Bou

[nyckftbl]

I still dont understand how someone can make the ASSUMPTION that "You had a well envolved commercial building (appears to be a motel) with no life hazard, and there seemed to be, in the mind of command, a pressing need to "put the fire out" up close and personal."

On the contrary, I think until proven otherwise with searches, you should be assuming that there is a LARGE life hazard, and act accordingly. Now this isnt a comment about the initial line placement, because obviously none of us were there, and cant comment on fire conditions in the fire apt. But to assume that the door next door, or the ones down the hall, are vacated, is a horrible assumption to make, and could result in a large loss of life. Now, if the original fire apt was fully involved, with a building with a common cockloft, then by all means, right the original apt. off, and try to save the rest of the complex. But to assume that everyone has made it out safely, and that there is no life hazard, is the wrong call to make, IMO.

[firefiftyfive]

If you pay enough attention to the video you will notice that the member that was operating the handline continued to operate the handline over top of his head and into the window while still under the collapse..... Great move!!! As for being in the wrong place, if I put myself in their shoes I think I would have been in close proximity to where they were! Trying to knock down that fire and make a push in! Only thing is that I would probably have knocked down any fire above my head in the roof/overhang. But like many things in this video we don't know if or what they saw !!

[firetruckred]

If you pay enough attention to the video you will notice that the member that was operating the handline continued to operate the handline over top of his head and into the window while still under the collapse..... Great move!!! As for being in the wrong place, if I put myself in their shoes I think I would have been in close proximity to where they were! Trying to knock down that fire and make a push in! Only thing is that I would probably have knocked down any fire above my head in the roof/overhang. But like many things in this video we don't know if or what they saw !!

I saw that "great move" and was going to make the same comment but since I am new I thought..."nope not gonna say that".

I also thought "these guys just had the roof fall on them then they break thru like superheros and back to work like usual that minute."

and then thought "this guy is hitting it right after he helps his brother get out,
That's amazing, he just keeps going like a bulldozer".

Is it smart, did it risk lives? I can't answer that, nor would I bust a brothers back on technique after he just risked his life and nearly died. But that's just me.

I wanted to see more video to know if they were ok.

I have limited knowledge and even less experience so all I can say is glad your ok.

[LaFireEducator]

NYC ...

If in fact there was still a life risk, that line could and probably should have been paced on the walkway protecting the unburned section of the motel which is the means of egress. They were doing nothing to protect occupants, but instead were attacking a fire with a handline which appeared to be too little for the fire volume, under a burning facade, without a dedicated spotter, showing a tremendous potential for collapse.

I have looked at that video many times, and still see a situation where the risks of attacking that fire with that line from that position greatly outweighs any potential benefits. If you are concerned about life safety .. protect the evacuation routes. Do not place firefighters unecessarily in harm's way in a situation which is clearly too dangerous to operate with the resources they are utilizing. If you want to put out the fire up close and personal, keep one line on the walkway down from the fire to protect the egress and open the overhang to cut off extension, and bring up a second line to breech the wall in the adjoining room and fight the fire that way. There was, in my mind, aboslutly no reason for firefighters to be operating under that overhang.

This weekend while at a state firefighers conference at an unamed major southern city, a major fire in a 2 story commercial building occurred a block from my hotel. The fire involved a corner deli, a subway and a vacant space on the ground floor and vacant office space on the 2nd. The grocery store and Subway were already lost. The surrounding buildings were mostly vacant. I witnessed a lone firefighter attempt to enter the very heavily charged second story of this structure through a window off a too short roof ladder for an unknown purpose. Within seconds, the ceiling partially collapsed, ripping off his mask. He could not see the ladder (it didn't help that it was 3' short of the window) and in the smoke and it took almost a minute for another man climb the ladder and help him get out. During that time, that firefighter was off air, on the sill, in a very hto, heavy, pressurized smoke condition. Very, very scary stuff. That fire saw 5 men injured, including that firefighter and 2 that fell through the 2nd floor floor. I almost witnessed an LODD for a firefighting purpose I have yet to figure out. When are we going to learn that firefighters are our most precious resources and we have to start using them wisely.

I am not saying we stop attemting to make rescues. I am not saying we stop searching unless conditions are too hazardous (though we disagree on vacnt buildings). I am not saying we stop making aggressive interior attacks when the benefits justify the risks. I am saying that we need to think about if we really need to be attacking every fire every time... especially in situations where there is truly noting left to save that is worth a firefighter's life.

And no, a citizens pictures and property IMO is NOT worth a life.

[NYSmokey]

Was that roof lightweight truss construction?

[nyckftbl]

NYC ...

If in fact there was still a life risk, that line could and probably should have been paced on the walkway protecting the unburned section of the motel which is the means of egress. They were doing nothing to protect occupants, but instead were attacking a fire with a handline which appeared to be too little for the fire volume, under a burning facade, without a dedicated spotter, showing a tremendous potential for collapse.

I have looked at that video many times, and still see a situation where the risks of attacking that fire with that line from that position greatly outweighs any potential benefits. If you are concerned about life safety .. protect the evacuation routes. Do not place firefighters unecessarily in harm's way in a situation which is clearly too dangerous to operate with the resources they are utilizing. If you want to put out the fire up close and personal, keep one line on the walkway down from the fire to protect the egress and open the overhang to cut off extension, and bring up a second line to breech the wall in the adjoining room and fight the fire that way. There was, in my mind, aboslutly no reason for firefighters to be operating under that overhang.

This weekend while at a state firefighers conference at an unamed major southern city, a major fire in a 2 story commercial building occurred a block from my hotel. The fire involved a corner deli, a subway and a vacant space on the ground floor and vacant office space on the 2nd. The grocery store and Subway were already lost. The surrounding buildings were mostly vacant. I witnessed a lone firefighter attempt to enter the very heavily charged second story of this structure through a window off a too short roof ladder for an unknown purpose. Within seconds, the ceiling partially collapsed, ripping off his mask. He could not see the ladder (it didn't help that it was 3' short of the window) and in the smoke and it took almost a minute for another man climb the ladder and help him get out. During that time, that firefighter was off air, on the sill, in a very hto, heavy, pressurized smoke condition. Very, very scary stuff. That fire saw 5 men injured, including that firefighter and 2 that fell through the 2nd floor floor. I almost witnessed an LODD for a firefighting purpose I have yet to figure out. When are we going to learn that firefighters are our most precious resources and we have to start using them wisely.

I am not saying we stop attemting to make rescues. I am not saying we stop searching unless conditions are too hazardous (though we disagree on vacnt buildings). I am not saying we stop making aggressive interior attacks when the benefits justify the risks. I am saying that we need to think about if we really need to be attacking every fire every time... especially in situations where there is truly noting left to save that is worth a firefighter's life.

And no, a citizens pictures and property IMO is NOT worth a life.

Apparently, there was a life risk, as posted earlier in this thread. In which case, according to your own posts in previous threads, you would only search the adjoining apts if there was a line there with you. I was not disagreeing with you about whether that one apt (or hotel room) was a loss, but to say that master streams should have been used and no searches conducted because of obviously no risk of life (I still dont know how anyone can possibly make that conclusion) is wrong, and these are the types of situations when aggressiveness should take place, when there are numerous lives at stake. I do agree with you on the point that the line could have been placed in a better spot to protect the adjoining apts.

And I dont think there is a FD in this country (including ours, who have less manpower issues than most) that has the luxury to wait until there is a "dedicated spotter" before advancing an attack line. That is taking safety issues a few steps too far.

[ThNozzleman]

After viewing the video several times, it appears that the overhanging section was well involved, and had been for some time. I do not think I would have went under it without pulling some of it and checking it out. It almost looks as if the firefighter kicking the door in might have been what brought the already weakened section down. I've been in similar situations with covered porches...it's easy to find yourself taking chances like this because you're still "outside" the structure. The way that thing hinged down on them nearly forced them into the fire area through the doorways. These firefighters are very lucky.

Was that roof lightweight truss construction?

Hard to say, but I wouldn't doubt it.

[ThNozzleman]

By the way, another good reason to wear SCBA even when operating outside a building fire...especially when you're that close.

[ehs7554]

This being Phoenix....home of the 2 in 2 out...........,
Where was their RIC/RIT team? Surely someone should have tried to get to them or at least go up after they were out and check on them. Had that happened at my job, I know we would have had ahandful of guys there right away. But, maybe all their guys were tied up.

One way to avoid an overhang collapse......get inside the house and put the fire out.

Side note...Was that pierce rig that drove by in the video a DEMO?? It loooked like it had the factory display logos on the ladder.

[pfdaz1]

There was an IRIC in place at the base of the stairs, the video just doesn't catch it. The involved firefighters self extricated quickly, by the time more crews got up, they were on the way down. We will usually go ahead and go in as long as there are two people outside, we won't sit and wait for them to pull a line and charge it before entry. They (IRIC) are then replaced by a full crew (RIC) when they come onscene. The Piece is a Quint used only for ladder functions on loan from Pierce until our Bronto is complete.

[ehs7554]

It is always good to get a straight answer from someone who knows the facts. Thank you.

[NYSmokey]

pfdaz1,

Can you shed some light on the building construction? Lightweight truss roof??? Thanks.

[Bones42]

the video just doesn't catch it.

What? You mean that short video clip didn't catch every second and every angle of the call?