antiquefirelt

New link today from FH.com with a lot of the information we're discussing here: http://brevity.next.firehouse.com/issue/561fcf363bab46bf780c3752 #10 in particular is all about "firestreams pushing fire".

I'm going to say that the overall take away for our FD has not been that UL/NIST advocates an exterior attack per se, but a quick hit of the fire room from the exterior, where there is already fire venting, while on the way to making the interior attack. As noted, this is just a quick hit to remove some of the heat and energy while making the initial entry. It's not a mode of attack on its own, its not a transitional attack even in my eyes and it in no way should be construed as license to throw water in while personnel are operating inside. Just because they showed the line cannot "push" the fire, does not mean they advocate exterior streams while personnel are inside. They clearly warn against this for numerous reasons. The way we see it: While stretching the first line, if there is fire venting and the line can be charged and flowed into the area without requiring an extended stretch, a straight stream (solid stream) should be directed into the opening at an upward angle with the least amount of movement possible, to darken that area (<60 seconds), and then the stretch to the interior should continue.

I would throw in, as I think FireMedic049 pointed out, the exterior stream is merely one part of the greater picture. If this is the only piece you adopt or look at out of the research you are doing a great disservice to your fellow firefighters and taxpayers.

This is the realistic fear of FD's just taking the headlines from these articles and implementing changes. Those who understand the research and ensure their personnel understand when to employ and when not to, how to employ and how not and that our priorities haven't changes, will likely successfully improve their operations. Like so many other tactics, failure to properly employ them or fully understand them can have disastrous results. With regard to "pushing fire" with the hoseline, the analysis and conclusions are pretty verifiable. The problem is that only tells a small piece of the story, again, fully understanding the work UL/NIST put in along with FDNY, CFD and other fairly established FD's, is important. While the straight stream may not "push fire" or move air, the act of occluding a exhaust opening with just a little stream movement in the window can change the flowpath. When superheated smoke and gases suddenly cannot go out in one direction, they change direction and seek that low pressure. now we add in some added moisture, which makes the same temperature "feel" hotter, resulting in what so many of us have experienced: a sudden change in conditions. The NIST videos detailing the FDNY tests show the effects of improper exterior stream employment. That said, every set of tests, and there are many, all seem to show a rapid drop in interior temperatures in the immediate area where the exterior stream has been directed and those results extend out from there. I would say there is as much danger if not more or continuing to do things the same as always as there is trying to employ this. If your FD is going to just start shooting water in from outside without understanding all of the processes, then the same FD was likely operating dangerously before any of this.As a FD that operates daily with too little first due staff, our focus is one getting the first line operating, if the exterior stream is indicated and can be done without measurably slowing the interior attack, then it will most likely be done. Utilizing a second line for an exterior stream is only likely where the second line is already been ordered due extension to an exposure. But as has been said above: situations dictate tactics, you must understand the tactics to be safe, regardless of which ones you utilize.

It should be made clear that proper application of this tactic is not to replace interior attack, but as an immediate precursor to a direct attack. It's hard to argue against making the environment more tenable when most of the reasons we stopped doing this have been debunked. Yes, many places employed the "blitz attack" in the past only to stop due to concerns of pushing fire (who said 30 degree was a good idea anyway) or steaming victims. We now have evidence that done properly (and it isn't hard to do it right) there is very little air movement, most of what we felt in the past was more likely due to our occluding ventilation points or opening new ones allowing more oxygen to the fire. And the evidence points to rapid dramatic drops in interior temperatures. Those victims we were concerned with steaming were likely already dead or won't be negatively impacted. The key is this isn't an excuse to leave the SCBA in the seat and just spray water from the outside. This is part of an even more coordinated offensive attack, requiring size-up skills, appropriate application and fireground discipline.

Wow, if that isn't an understatement! I know numerous VFD's that run the whole show on far less than that. At $77k/yr I can see how a dept. can go to so many parades without affecting public safety resource, they could buy a parade engine so the real engines could be in quarters!

I hope the best for the 5 injured Brother's. The above quotation is the type of thing so many of us should be doing. We cannot continue to do more with less and suffer the effects in silence. At this point, our silence has become tacit approval.

I must say that that comment was a bit tongue in cheek on my part. I've looked over and flown the Metz and would concede that there's probably a niche for an apparatus of it's size and weight. It's fast: both setting up and getting to the objective. Not a fan of the climbing space or the limited bucket size, but what on that chassis size you can't have it all. So, it very well could be a fitting device in New Hampton, I have no frame of reference. There's one in western Maine that seems to be the only real option with tons of seasonal homes on dirt camp roads that an 80,000# aerial would roadblock within 20ft of leaving the pavement. Will an aerial a make a difference in those cases? Hmmmmmm....

Wow, that's all I can say without expletives. Thankfully that tradition never carried far enough north for any of us to see it up my way, truly an embarrassment those who might be associated with that type of event and antics, sadly that may carry over to the rest us as well. I feel for those Brothers and Sisters who belong to professional (volunteer and career) FD's that may be in the area where this kind of event takes place. And I expected the Metz to be the worst decision I'd see on that video!

Sadly this type of responses happen far too often. We have a very detailed guideline that requires that you truly need to use lights and sirens or respond in any manner outside of normal traffic, while others immediately around us have the opposite policy: respond Hot unless directed otherwise, and then only by your own Chief. We hear Chiefs running sirens to wires down, bark mulch fires, you name it, embarrassing.

Whaaaattt..... Leadership isn't about telling people what to do?

While we may all agree the PC has gotten out of control, those us us in public service must note that who pay taxes to pay our salaries have an expectation that we will conduct ourselves in a manner that ensures all are treated equally. When some forms of speech are tied directly to a person (Forums, Facebook, actual speech), it makes it very difficult for others to believe they can "leave their beliefs at the door". Time and again it has been proven that you do not have the right to what some might consider "hate speech" if you are in the public's employ. Nowadays it's too hard to discern one's private life from their public employment life and thus many are in hot water over what they thought was their right to speech. I'm in no way trying to be part of the PC police, but pointing to the reality of the situation. Remember there is a difference between free speech and protected free speech, it can be the difference between being on the job or in the unemployment line.

Has the visibility from the Chargers improved? I know our PD was not impressed with theirs and switched to the Fords?

If the drones don't affect our operations, then why would we care? If your firefighters are distracted from the actual firefighting effort, you've got real issues. It's 2015, we're all on camera at all times, get used to it and be a professional- At All Times! If the drone poses a true hazard, then it should be addressed. I can assure you that if our firefighters thought spraying a drone was more important than putting water on the fire, they'd be on their way to being unemployed very quickly.

Sounds like all but one person in that story "get's it".

Interesting but I think I'll reserve judgement for a bit. 100 ft HD on single axle with pump and tank is a feat in itself, but the jack stance shown shows one set of outriggers and a down jack to the rear of the torque box? Innovative? Maybe, but those things that seem to good to be true, often are. What does lifting the torque box and rear of the truck do to the frame and suspension forward of the outriggers? Seems like a lot of weight being transferred to the front axle and suspension, I'd worry about long-term costs. Then again, maybe the outriggers are forward enough to minimize this? But wouldn't there be a stress point between those jacks and the cab?

It appears we're straying from the topic, but without a doubt I can tell you that there has to be a place for those FD's that are between no career staff and those who are completely staffed to cover the majority of their structures fires on their own. Some of you live in areas where the population and finances clearly should allow for a properly staffed career FD. Many of us (most of the country) do not live in the dense urban/suburban areas where that it reality. If my FD demanded to be staffed so that we could have 23 FT personnel on the first alarm assignment our budget alone would exceed the rest of the municipal budget combined. So, what are we to do? Eliminate all FT staff since we can't meet this standard? That's better in your myopic view? We won't get to that level in my lifetime, right now we hope to remain at current staff, and that's an annual fight. While we must acknowledge that running with 5 people as Firemedic notes is not enough for a structure fire, outside of the Metro FD world, few companies run with 5. So we have to treat our little crew as if their just a single first due company. Some places they ride all on one apparatus, some places more. Upon arrival, at least on my job, they all function as one and more often than not ensure the first line is positioned and operating. What others do simultaneously, we do consecutively? Optimal? No. Functional? Most of the time? Dangerous? As dangerous as the officers allow. We know there isn't a third due engine for 10 minutes, so we have to adjust our operation. Two weeks ago my dept. had two structure fires a few days apart. In both cases, the first (and only) line was in operation in under 10 minutes from the time 911 was accessed. In the first case the fire in a SFD was knocked down as it extended from the garage into the house via a failed exterior window. Had we been a VFD or paid call like all around us, the fire surely would have been much more significant as the next in call company was 17 minutes from 911 pick-up. The second fire was in an apartment building with similar results. So while we got our 23 man staffing at some point, the initial 6 man crew had both fires under control before anyone else arrived. It's hard to imagine this is barely better than nothing? Some of the comments imply there should be no FD that employs any less than 23 FT personnel per tour? So VFD or minimum of 69 man Career FD (that's only 3 tour system)? These issues are not because the FD doesn't want safer better staffing, it's because the taxpayers are willing to accept a lesser service for less money. The sad part is when FDs and Chief's fail to show the reduction in service.This is not defending understaffing, it's merely understanding reality for a particular area. I'm certain no one can convince the taxpayers that we need five times our budget to meet a standard that won't guarantee any noticeable difference in the results they get now. And again, not that we don't want for better staffing, but NFPA 1710 and 2 in 2 out haven't been around for much more than 15 years, so how might anyone expect to suddenly grow the majority of FD's in that time?

I might add that while one FD may be being abused, the Chief or administration of the abusing FD, likely have been forced into this. They still have a responsibility to their personnel to ensure their safety and the responsibility to the citizens to provide the best possible service they can. They have little choice but to use the tools available to them. I'm sure it's a "lose-lose" situation for the bosses: if it was them that made the decision to not call in outside aid, anything that goes wrong will be laid solely at their feet. In this case they may be perceived as part of the problem, but it's likely the real issue is at City Hall. Rather than fight amongst card carrying members this fight should be taken to City Hall where the root of the issue is: failure to properly fund for the city's fire problem. Again, I say this all from a total outsiders' view. Up this way we have no politically appointed Fire Dept. positions, no Commissioners, no Fire Boards, no one who serves as the leisure of any elected official. I guess technically some VFD's elect their officers, but not by voter election, just membership ( not sure that's better?) Understandably, it appears in states like NY, some political appointments make things much more complicated.

1) So what agency or group enforces that agreement? Maybe a provision for suspending services where aid is no longer mutual? 2) Again, I know next to nothing about NY laws, but I would wonder if an agency/municipality would be prevented from billing for services that are not requisite to their mission? While you wouldn't bill your own taxpayers, it might be considered billing for "contracted" services"? There must be some shared services amongst Towns and Villages that are contractually paid? I would think (hope?) that any mutual aid MOU or other agreement would have some clauses about being a member department in good standing or something similar? I'd think looking at how that agreement is fulfilled or broken might be in order? Why not petition the agency that "holds" the agreement for a suspension of the offending FD? Or look at how to withdraw from an agreement that is so lopsided. I suspect the politicians would seek another FD to provide aid if just one stopped or started billing, but if everyone agreed, it would allow for a response to help the other FD and their citizens, just at a cost. Then it would be up to a politician to say, "No, don't call for aid, we can't afford it."

Bill them for the mutual aid? We started to bill for mutual aid in the EMS arena when it was abundantly clear that mutual aid was not only, no longer mutual, but bordering on abusive. Over time the neighbors that were most "abusive" found that they could utilize the money they paid for outside aid better by putting into better staffing (per-diem) of their own service. While our finance dept liked the revenue, it wasn't enough to increase staffing, so fewer calls out of town are better for our personnel. Is there something in NY that would prevent a City from telling a neighbor that they'll still respond, but they'll be billed for the associated costs? This way, the decision is purely financial and the proverbial ball is in the "abuser's" court? There must be a law against this, 'cause the answer is too simple.

Yeah, I suspect that's a realistic issue in NYC, not so bad here in smalltownUSA, atleast not in buildings where anyone is putting in money to make things better. The older buildings, which these will eventually become, certainly have these conditions.

Anyone know the extent of the actual Code requirements to discontinue the fire escapes? As noted common hallways are often contaminated when the door to the fire apartment is left open. I'd be surprised to see the exterior fire escape removed from a non-sprinklered building. Rated corridors with rated self-closing doors? Must be something besides a remote second means of egress? Two separated corridors to two or more separate stairways?

We have state mandated school consolidation in Maine. It's been a nightmare. So far they've proven the costs do not go down. As long as school budgets get passed without any opposition, the costs will never be controlled. Maybe it can work where there are greater numbers in a smaller geographical area, but we've seen numerous consolidated districts falling apart since the mandate. Here's a timely headline today http://bangordailynews.com/2015/04/03/news/midcoast/rockland-board-rep-suggests-city-should-separate-from-school-district/?ref=regionmidcoast This has also contrbuted to the difficulting in studying regionalization of emergency services as the two largest local examples are the schools and dispatch centers, neither which are cheaper or better after consilidation.

Without a doubt, there are many policies that attempt to cover everything to ensure common sense (a diminishing quality) is not a factor. We have attorney's telling us how we must protect the agency from liability, and some employees that push everything right to the line. Like almost everything, if your department or agency applies policy and riles fairly, but consistantly, everyone will know how to procede under the expected "rules" of conduct. We have plenty of rules that are minimalistic, but most o our folks understand they are "minimum standards" and we expect more than just the minimum on a daily basis.

Really? How about "everyone involved" or do we not even bother to figure that out?