First Due: Hanging Over Your Head

[x635 4,066]

You are dispatched on a windy day to this department store for a fire. When you arrive, you see thick, black smoke pushing from the front entrance. You have 10,000 SF on one side of the doors, and 10,000 SF on the other. It is 3PM on a Saturday, and the store's parking lot is full.

There are no other front entrances. You have emergency escape doors on the sides of the building and rear, and rear loading docks.

Would you consider the signage a hazard if not directly exposed to fire or heat, and what are some of your other considerations? Would this sign be part of your collapse zone?

[lad12derff 283]

The first priority would be life hazard. The sign does not bother me with the substantial anchor to the ground and not the structure. I would consider it part of the collapse zone if the structure was well involved. We need to get in to the store with a couple of cameras and scan the floor plan. Pull the ceiling tiles in the front entrance if possible to check for fire in the ceiling. This building appears to be open to the metal truss roof with the entry having 2 stories of glass. Other trucks must force side and rear exits to check for victims and vent the store. Enter store with search ropes tied to an outside object. (not a rig) Learn from the mistakes made in Charleston. Stretch in with a minimum of 2 1/2 with smooth bore and save the front for the tower ladder its gonna be a long day.

Edited March 18, 2008 by lad12derff

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Yeah, I'd file that under the serious hazard category. Knowing your district would have alot to do with responding to this, IMO. This COULD be engineered into the building from construction, and therefore would be alot more trustworthy, as "dead loads" like that are accounted for. If it was an afterthought or a product of remodeling, my own paranoia would probably think twice about it. Also, is that steel structure attached to the building or is it free standing? If its free standing, perhaps the expansion of the steel in the building would have minimal effect on the signage structure.

It would absolutely be considered in my collapse zone no matter what the circumstances, just out of sheer cautiousness. I mean, what harm could come from expanding the collapse zone alittle? If I were to set up an aerial device, I would probably try it on a side of the building which would be away from that structure, so my collapse zone could technically be closer on that division.

This picture certainly gives alot for a first-in company officer to consider. Great find Seth.

[grumpyff 1,159]

What type of occupancies are we looking at? hardware, furniture, grocery, etc. With no heat/fire exposure at this time, the sign would be the least of my concerns.

[biglew 3]

I would have to consider it part of the collapse zone.

I would love to hear Chief Flynn's size-up and attack, OK Chief, that building is on Tuckahoe Road.... and lets assume it a grocery store, based on the type of shopping carts in the pic, it doesnt look like a Home Depot/Lowes type store.

Youve got 3 + 2 on the inital alarm and you pull up... whats the next move?

thanks,

Lew

[ny10570 745]

That sign is an independent steel structure that will take a significant amount of heat before it becomes a risk. I wouldn't be worried about it until the entire structure was written off as a loss. Then, it is absolutely included in the collapse zone.

[Oswegowind 17]

I would have to consider it part of the collapse zone.

I would love to hear Chief Flynn's size-up and attack, OK Chief, that building is on Tuckahoe Road.... and lets assume it a grocery store, based on the type of shopping carts in the pic, it doesnt look like a Home Depot/Lowes type store.

Youve got 3 + 2 on the inital alarm and you pull up... whats the next move?

thanks,

Lew

I know this is directed at Chief Flynn, however can you clarify the question. On the initial alarm, do you mean actual call of reported fire or commercial alarm? In Yonkers, they get 4E, 2L, and 1 Batt. on commercial alarms. Thanks, MFY

[vodoly 535]

Once it's confirmed as a working fire i'd call for FAST team To the scene and 2 &1 to stage at firehouse closed to the fire scene

[biglew 3]

Ok Oswegowind, you got me..

I've got to stop thinking FDNY all the time, thats what all that time living in NYC gets me. Ok, chief youve got 4 +2 and youre the BC on the alarm. Lets have some fun with this... Lets see if we have different approaches as to what we would do next, and what additional info we need to make our size -up.

[OLDGUY19 6]

Get to the roof vent. Go big water /smooth. Need lots of help. lots of EMS.

[x635 4,066]

Here's another view:

[hudson144 150]

Go to Walmart! just kidding.

[x635 4,066]

With some of the volatile contents of the store (fertilizer, propane power forklifts, etc etc), do you think a potential explosion has the capability damage the sign?

My opinion, it's built VERY well, and would be standing years after the building! It would be nice as a tech rescue and rope rescue training tower, too....

[biglew 3]

I think the integrity of the tower part looks OK, the square sign part looks like it might have some structural issues with the windy scenario presented, the sign already looked tilted.

[Guest]

IMO The support structure looks sound. It is where the sign connects to the support frame that looks questionable. Also doesn't look like it has always been there.