FDNY Rethinking Tactics in House Fires

[firedude 985]

Nice NYTimes Article...

As Furniture Burns Quicker, Firefighters Reconsider Tactics

One of the first tasks for firefighters arriving at a blazing home has long been to ventilate the structure — make holes in it — so that hot gases and smoke can escape. It has been this way for generations: a so-called roof man from a ladder company opens a hatch or saws through the ceiling, while other firefighters break windows as they search inside, often before the first drop of water has hit the fire.

Full New York Times Article: http://www.nytimes.c...=1&ref=nyregion

MODS: Please Delete (similar topic: http://www.emtbravo.net/index.php/topic/46687-fdny-interior-tactic-changes/page__pid__267000#entry267000) - Searches came up negative.

Edited July 3, 2012 by firedude

[wraftery 1,275]

I read the article and it is always a good idea to evaluate your tactics and see what works and what doesn't. I am certain thhat FDNY will do scientific studies and end up with valid results.

I remember, however Lloyd Layman's experiments with fog. To some it became like the word of God. Others were skeptical and stayed with smooth bore nozzles. It started a debate within the fire service that never looked like it was going to end. Many were very opinionated regarding fog vs. straight, but very few actually went to their live burn place and tried both under the same conditions to form their opinion. They simply sided with one or the other. A large number of our colleagues sided with fog only because it was "new" and if you use something "new" you are progressive. We don't do that, do we? (PPV on attack, magic penetrating solutions , etc.)

Some of the FDNY article mentioned "Force the door...Control the door...wait to hear the glass break...then open the door slightly and bang the line off the ceiling" The reporter made it look like something new. I learned this method from FDNY's last set of fire tactics experiments. They tried many many tactics on many many fires. They did it over and over, and mostly at night. They kept and used the tactics that worked and discarded the ones that didn't. You say you never heard of this batch of experiments? It was done in about 1968-1974 in the South Bronx and called Burn Baby Burn. Thanks, Bronx firefighters of that era. I learned a lot.

Knock down a basement fire before going in? Now I think it's called Pushing a fire. Once again, thanks Bronx guys.

So the things that the FDNY study are probably nothing new, but I am sure they will tell us what worked and what didn't. I suggest we all just sit down and wait for the results and then try the ones that worked for FDNY.

[everybodygoes 331]

The tests are to look at how ventilation effects the overall fire. But it isnt realistic as for us horizontal venting is only done by authorization of the boss, and in some cases when you hear water on the glass. My company went today, ill find out tomorrow what happened and how it worked out. They said 3 live burns for the day.

[FFPCogs 863]

As most here know I work with a bunch of Brits, all of whom are great guys and good FFs. They and most of western Europe having been using the "progressive" techniques touched on in the article, such as exterior cooling before entering and late stage ventilation for years. Works well enough for them, in many cases though this is due to building construction, not just these progressive tactics. While most buildings in Europe may be old they are brick, stone and cement and more often than not compartmentalized...wood is rarely used except some interior work and roofs, not as the main structural element...and this is a significant factor. Time after time during training sessions the tactics I advocate and in fact know work (those practiced regularly in our area) have been derided or should I say "corrected". In most cases what is commonplace around here is described in one of two ways..."archiac" and my favorite, "suicidal". As I often remind my esteemed colleagues from across the pond, the simple fact is there are many considerations that must go into making tactical decisions, including when and where to ventilate...ours is not a job where one size always fits all.

I'm sure some valuable and more importantly useful information will come out of these experiments, but probably not very much more so than has already been "discovered". My bet is that since this research will now have the FDNY attached to it, this wll enable us to evolve our tactics with a little less resisitance. But the key word here is evolve, not radically change them...although as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow I would bet some will use this to "justify" just that approach.

Stay Safe

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Very interesting article. It will be interesting to hear what comes from the experiments.

[JFLYNN 681]

I read the article and it is always a good idea to evaluate your tactics and see what works and what doesn't. I am certain thhat FDNY will do scientific studies and end up with valid results.

I remember, however Lloyd Layman's experiments with fog. To some it became like the word of God. Others were skeptical and stayed with smooth bore nozzles. It started a debate within the fire service that never looked like it was going to end. Many were very opinionated regarding fog vs. straight, but very few actually went to their live burn place and tried both under the same conditions to form their opinion. They simply sided with one or the other. A large number of our colleagues sided with fog only because it was "new" and if you use something "new" you are progressive. We don't do that, do we? (PPV on attack, magic penetrating solutions , etc.)

Some of the FDNY article mentioned "Force the door...Control the door...wait to hear the glass break...then open the door slightly and bang the line off the ceiling" The reporter made it look like something new. I learned this method from FDNY's last set of fire tactics experiments. They tried many many tactics on many many fires. They did it over and over, and mostly at night. They kept and used the tactics that worked and discarded the ones that didn't. You say you never heard of this batch of experiments? It was done in about 1968-1974 in the South Bronx and called Burn Baby Burn. Thanks, Bronx firefighters of that era. I learned a lot.

Knock down a basement fire before going in? Now I think it's called Pushing a fire. Once again, thanks Bronx guys.

So the things that the FDNY study are probably nothing new, but I am sure they will tell us what worked and what didn't. I suggest we all just sit down and wait for the results and then try the ones that worked for FDNY.

For everyone out there in case you haven't figured it out, Chief Raftery is one of the most credible posters in regard to firefighting who has ever posted on this site. I wish you would post more Chief!

Edited July 3, 2012 by JFLYNN

[ex-commish 490]

"For everyone out there in case you haven't figured it out, Chief Raftery is one of the most credible posters in regard to firefighting who has ever posted on this site. I wish you would post more Chief! "

Couldn't agree more!!!

[drgripsthrowawaytowel 72]

I read the article and it is always a good idea to evaluate your tactics and see what works and what doesn't. I am certain thhat FDNY will do scientific studies and end up with valid results.

I remember, however Lloyd Layman's experiments with fog. To some it became like the word of God. Others were skeptical and stayed with smooth bore nozzles. It started a debate within the fire service that never looked like it was going to end. Many were very opinionated regarding fog vs. straight, but very few actually went to their live burn place and tried both under the same conditions to form their opinion. They simply sided with one or the other. A large number of our colleagues sided with fog only because it was "new" and if you use something "new" you are progressive. We don't do that, do we? (PPV on attack, magic penetrating solutions , etc.)

Some of the FDNY article mentioned "Force the door...Control the door...wait to hear the glass break...then open the door slightly and bang the line off the ceiling" The reporter made it look like something new. I learned this method from FDNY's last set of fire tactics experiments. They tried many many tactics on many many fires. They did it over and over, and mostly at night. They kept and used the tactics that worked and discarded the ones that didn't. You say you never heard of this batch of experiments? It was done in about 1968-1974 in the South Bronx and called Burn Baby Burn. Thanks, Bronx firefighters of that era. I learned a lot.

Knock down a basement fire before going in? Now I think it's called Pushing a fire. Once again, thanks Bronx guys.

So the things that the FDNY study are probably nothing new, but I am sure they will tell us what worked and what didn't. I suggest we all just sit down and wait for the results and then try the ones that worked for FDNY.

Once again, fantastic post.

For those who were wondering what the Layman's experiment was, here an article done back in February of 2000 by fire engineering:

http://www.firedistrict7.com/tpdffiles/nozleproject/FFebruary2000LITTLE.PDF

[firemoose827 324]

Excellent articles, thank you for sharing. I have a drill scheduled for ventilation and coordinated attack coming up soon at my FD and this info along with any new findings from the FDNY tests will help make it more informative. I also have a friendly argument with an assistant chief who is adamantly against straight stream nozzles and prefers fog nozzles. I agree but I always play devils advocate and stir him up every time the discussion happens at our station .

[Alwaysinheat 26]

Check out this link with photos http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/events/2012/070312a.shtml

[firedude 985]

Check out this link with photos http://www.nyc.gov/h...2/070312a.shtml

Here's the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0m-TY7A4GP8

Edited July 4, 2012 by firedude

[wraftery 1,275]

Thanks for the compliments.

[CBX4627 114]

How do I get THAT overtime?????

[Alwaysinheat 26]

The units operating were taken offline and on straight time. It should of been OT for the boys. The guys running it, could not tell ya