Trailer fire

[Guest]

personally.. i see a couple of things wrong.. i would like some input on this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTOfrTdHC6E

Edited July 20, 2008 by Josh Rutoola

[DOC22 1]

I see more tha a couple thins wrong!!!

No SCBA

Not enough help

People with NO PPE at all, and that's without thinking about it

[Guest]

thats where i was looking.

also.. i see.. one engine.. but, take into effect might be a vollie dept.

I was pretty much hoping to show people how bad some dept get sometimes

[Guest]

I see the same with also a lot of fire for a 1 3/4 line. Using straight stream where fog to protect exposures??? Is the second line off the same truck? How about command leading by example no gear?

[Ladder44 73]

Would a 2 1/2'' attack be better or overkill in this situation?

[DOC22 1]

Better, as long as the water supply wil support it.

[PHIL78 129]

Deck gun would of been nice.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

How many were on the first due? Three at most...I did not see anyone in the left jump seat and it did not look like there was anyone in the right jump seat or the officers seat but I am not certain.

[TimesUp 148]

Deck gun would of been nice.

With the limited manpower and having a tanker using the deck gun would of been a home run!

[oilflame 0]

That just Seems really dumb that they could not take the 10 seconds to put on there ppe or an scba especily if there on the line. becuse they relly did not know what was inside becuse it looked like to me it was either a new construction or it had just been burring for a long time

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Would a 2 1/2'' attack be better or overkill in this situation?

No such thing as overkill in this situation. I would have pulled or ordered a 2 1/2" line pulled. You can see throughout the video they didn't have the reach and the fire stream was ineffective when they actually directed it towards the flames. That pump operator needs to check his pressures or whatever GPM he is pumping for or think he was...those streams were terrible.

Seems really dumb that they could not take the 10 seconds to put on there ppe or an scba especily if there on the line.

First I just want to point out that there is no such thing as "put on their ppe or an scba" SCBA is part of the full protective envelope if you put on an SCBA you better have turnout gear on under it and a hood over the mask. As for this job I wouldn't knock it if you wanted to wear it eventually but this is a defensive operation.

Deck gun might not have been that effective depending on what tip is on it. A 2 1/2" line would give you 250 GPM and give you manuerverablilty. With the deck gun you'd have to arc the fire stream in it. I more prefer a deck gun when I have a good water supply for immediate rapid exposure protection while the stretch is being made.

Not enough help...true...but I know of departments that still allow a stretch to be made for an interior attack with that much personnel on scene.

[Guest]

I see the same with also a lot of fire for a 1 3/4 line. Using straight stream where fog to protect exposures??? Is the second line off the same truck? How about command leading by example no gear?

I don't believe the 2nd line(left side0 is from the same truck.. but, I do think they should have used bigger than 1 3/4. And from experiences in my town, we have rolled up to a scene like that, tied into a tank, and but 2 1 3/4 lines and knocked it down a significant amount.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I don't believe the 2nd line(left side0 is from the same truck.. but, I do think they should have used bigger than 1 3/4. And from experiences in my town, we have rolled up to a scene like that, tied into a tank, and but 2 1 3/4 lines and knocked it down a significant amount.

Josh..not splitting your hairs, just using your comment in general.

But..."knocked it down a significant amount?" Why not knock it down completely with 1 or even better 2 2 1/2" lines. GPM's put out fires! Those experiences can quickly turn into we couldn't contain the fire because of poor handline selection. I'm not sure what "a significant amount" means to each individual person reading this. However if I can extinguish that fire quicker and more efficiently with a larger line, I may just be able to get past incident priority #2, and into #3 and lets not forget that those extra GPM from the larger line may mean the success or failure of incident priorty #1!

And yes I didn't name the incident priorities by name because every firefighter should know them...so look em' up or hopefully some of my students or colleagues will even chime in. If not..I'll get to it..but lest see for those that don't know who is ambicious. Then again it never hurts...what are the 5 building construction types by NFPA?

[abaduck 123]

Josh..not splitting your hairs, just using your comment in general.

But..."knocked it down a significant amount?" Why not knock it down completely with 1 or even better 2 2 1/2" lines. GPM's put out fires! Those experiences can quickly turn into we couldn't contain the fire because of poor handline selection. I'm not sure what "a significant amount" means to each individual person reading this. However if I can extinguish that fire quicker and more efficiently with a larger line, I may just be able to get past incident priority #2, and into #3 and lets not forget that those extra GPM from the larger line may mean the success or failure of incident priorty #1!

And yes I didn't name the incident priorities by name because every firefighter should know them...so look em' up or hopefully some of my students or colleagues will even chime in. If not..I'll get to it..but lest see for those that don't know who is ambicious. Then again it never hurts...what are the 5 building construction types by NFPA?

I wouldn't be too hard on them... they seemed to be short on manpower, maybe not enough to operate TWO 2 1/2" lines - in which case, as a highly inexperienced guy, it seems to me they went the right way, with two exposures to protect they needed two lines - they protected the exposures as their first priority. (right? there's no life safety issue, and the involved structure is a write-off...?) Then they did their best, working away from the exposures, darkening it down - at least that's how I read the video. I would agree the fire stream on the D side didn't look very effective.

And yes of course, put out the fire and 99% of your problems go away - no fire, nothing to protect exposures from...

As for lack of PPE, sure that's fine on an exterior job like this <sarcasm> - until you roll up to the job at the meth lab, or with the propane tank just where you least expect it...

Oh and fire resistive, noncombustible, ordinary, heavy timber, wood frame... hell I didn't need to read Brannigan to get that

Mike

Edited July 21, 2008 by abaduck

[sr71 1]

using that hand line on that fire is like shooting an elephant with a BB gun...it just does not do the job.....how about a 2.5...or even better the first due engine pulls up in front of the structure and uses the deck gun and blitz attacks the fire.

personally I would have called for more water for "a big water attack" and a truck company for the aerial(stick of bucket) and used the ladder pipe(s) to knock it down (i do understand that this is somewhere in NY and a truck co might be far away)

and another thing...and no air packs and some members without proper PPE? thats so unhealthy and just plain stupid these days...look at whats burning and what the smoke contains from the by products of incomplete combustion... do I really need to say anymore...?

[antiquefirelt 994]

Pretty interesting, I'm sure this could happen in my area any day.

I'd have liked the 2 1/2" for this as well. If the timeline is unaltered the tanker came in pretty quick, though I'd rather he didn't block the road off in case other units were responding in.

The single 2.5" is a better choice than two 1.75" lines as the two smaller lines were not sufficient to make a quick knockdown. The BTU's chewed up the streams before they reached the seat. Of course this was hampered by the fact that they went with a fog pattern and seemed to want to put the water on the top of the flames vs. at the base (a sad but often seen commentary on training).

They also seemed to subscribe to the old water curtain theory of exposure protection. Unless they were stopping the grass from spreading the fire to the trailer next door the water would have been better used directly on the exposure and then directly at the base of the fire.

The deckgun would have put a decent hurt on the fire fast. The only way this fire went out was when it burned down (consumed the fuel) to a level that the two small lines could handle.

[IzzyEng4 427]

The men manning the second line should have had PPE on, no question. As for SCBA, its an exterior attack and that shouldn't be an issue of having one on. That is a coin flip but I rather work outside without a pack on that have one.

The big problem I see is that they are trying to put out the trailer with a limited water supply with in the first few (5 maybe) minutes. Protect the exposures. yes a large line would be nice but lokk at the water supply. I'm thinking the tanker as 3000 and the engine maybe 500 to 1000? Not much water for this kind of attack. Use the smaller lines to protect the exposures to prevent a fire from spreading and let the tailer burn down. Those things are dangerous when they burn.

[antiquefirelt 994]

The men manning the second line should have had PPE on, no question. As for SCBA, its an exterior attack and that shouldn't be an issue of having one on. That is a coin flip but I rather work outside without a pack on that have one.

The big problem I see is that they are trying to put out the trailer with a limited water supply with in the first few (5 maybe) minutes. Protect the exposures. yes a large line would be nice but lokk at the water supply. I'm thinking the tanker as 3000 and the engine maybe 500 to 1000? Not much water for this kind of attack. Use the smaller lines to protect the exposures to prevent a fire from spreading and let the tailer burn down. Those things are dangerous when they burn.

I hear you on the limited water supply, but having come from rural water FD in the early years of my career, I'd say 3500-4000 gallons is a significant amount for a mobile home fire. I'm fairly confident we could put a big hurt on that fire with a 2.5". A little on exposure 4 and a bunch on the fire. Or a single 1 3/4" for the exposure and the deck gun for 60 seconds, followed up by exposure protection and limited attack until more water arrived. I've never been much for PR lines. I could see the limited exposure protection from the 500 gal tank only, but once that tanker was onscene, it was time for the big line. If you like you can always hold at a 1/2 tank of the engines water for further exposure protection.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I wouldn't be too hard on them... they seemed to be short on manpower, maybe not enough to operate TWO 2 1/2" lines

1. Then something tells me they have always been short on PERSONNEL and haven't stepped up to try to solve the problem.

2. They had plenty of PERSONNEL on scene to handle 2 2 1/2" lines. They pulled 2 1 3/4" lines....so what's the difference with a deuce and a half? Even if only 1 person was available...pull it, get it into the position you want, loop it and sit on it.

As far as the SCBA goes...I'm dropping the first chance I get. We do size up for a reason and I couldn't tell you the last time I donned an SCBA for a defensive fire and I'm sure most of you and your fellow members are running around sucking air at exterior defensive operations. You can what if stuff all day. Meth labs don't explode like on TV....identify and cool propane tanks or stay out of the collapse zone and protect yourself. If you want to wear it nobody will fault you...I just don't see the need for this type of fire.

[firemoose827 324]

I hear you on the limited water supply, but having come from rural water FD in the early years of my career, I'd say 3500-4000 gallons is a significant amount for a mobile home fire. I'm fairly confident we could put a big hurt on that fire with a 2.5". A little on exposure 4 and a bunch on the fire. Or a single 1 3/4" for the exposure and the deck gun for 60 seconds, followed up by exposure protection and limited attack until more water arrived. I've never been much for PR lines. I could see the limited exposure protection from the 500 gal tank only, but once that tanker was onscene, it was time for the big line. If you like you can always hold at a 1/2 tank of the engines water for further exposure protection.

I agree with you sir. I am in a split community...Our Village is large and has a good network of hydrants, but our town is even larger and does not have any. We rely on tanker shuttles and can usually get a decent tanker op in place within minutes...it doesnt take long. And being used to water shortages, you learn to make the best of what you got on hand, Ive seen trailers extinguished in under 2000 gallons, you just gotta know what your capabilities are. And to build on Antiques comment on the tank reserves....all of our MPO's are trained to fill the tank of the engine while pumping the attack lines while getting nursed by a tanker shuttle...this way if there are no more tankers on scene yet, you have another tank to work with for protection.

All that said and done....the ideal thing would be to blitz this fire hard with the deck gun, emptying the engines tank, than using the deuce and a half to mop it up on tanker water...those deck guns knock lots of fire in a short time if used and positioned correctly.

Afew comic side notes...did anyone notice the MPO almost falling out of the cab cause he was rushing? How about the one attack crew closer to us keeping the Telephone Pole well covered with the stream? It has already been beat to death but what the heck....the CHIEF OFFICER running around with his nomex shorts and t-shirt, or the volunteer that parked his truck directly across the street instead of down the road a little to keep the space available for trucks...." these are a few of my favorite things" !!! LOL ( lyrics to the song...)