Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
x635

Goldens Bridge - 3rd Alarm 2-25-15

82 posts in this topic

Date: 2-25-15
Time: 10:49hrs

Type: Structure Fire, 3rd Alarm
Location: Lake St/ Danger Rd
District: Goldens Bridge

Weather: 29 degrees, clear
Units: (See below)

Description: Heavy fire from a 30x60 two story wood frame single family dwelling. 3+ lines stretched and operating.

Units:

Goldens Bridge FD Engine 140, Engine 138, Rescue 25, Tanker 1, Tanker 21

Croton Falls FD Engine 149, Tanker 8, Utility 64,Car 2071 (IC)

South Salem FD Engine 168, Tanker 2

Bedford Hills FD Tanker 5, Tower Ladder 57, Utility 6

Katonah FD Engine 116, Tanker 6

Vista FD Tanker 4, Engine 141

Somers FD Rescue 20, Rehab Unit Utility 88

Yorktown Heights FD Tanker 14, Car 2532

Mount Kisco Utility 13 (FAST), Engine 104 (Relocate Katonah FD)

Mahopac FD Engine 18-2-1

Mahopac Falls FD Engine 19-2-1 (Relocate Goldens Bridge HQ)

Brewster FD Tanker 11-4-1

New Canaan (CT) FD Engine (Relocate Vista FD)

Lewisboro VAC 67-B-1

WEMS 45-M-3, 45-14 (EMS IC)

North Salem VAC 72-B-1 (Standby in own quarters, both LVAC ambulances on calls, later deployed to scene)

Lewisboro PD

WCDES Battalion 13, County Car 4, C&O Zone 5

Updates:

10:56hrs: Goldens Bridge Engine 140 on scene, heavy fire from a 30x60 two story wood frame single family dwelling. 10-75 transmitted.

11:12hrs: Second alarm transmitted

11:20hrs Third alarm transmitted

12:26hrs: Car 2071 placing fire under control, reporting extensive overhaul needed

Writer: x635

Edited by x635
UDPATED
EmsFirePolice likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



-7 Engines (not counting coverage companies)

- Assuming there was only 1 draft site, subtract one of those, leaving you with 6 Engines on scene

-8 Tankers

-1 Rescue

-1 Truck

- A handful of utilities (including Mt Kiscos FASTbulance, which I'll count as a rescue for purposes of discussion because of its staffing and responsibilities)

We dispatch 4 Engines and 3 Specials on all box alarms. So is 6 Engines and 3 Specials really so ridiculous for a multi-alarm fire with access issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-7 Engines (not counting coverage companies)

- Assuming there was only 1 draft site, subtract one of those, leaving you with 6 Engines on scene

-8 Tankers

-1 Rescue

-1 Truck

- A handful of utilities (including Mt Kiscos FASTbulance, which I'll count as a rescue for purposes of discussion because of its staffing and responsibilities)

We dispatch 4 Engines and 3 Specials on all box alarms. So is 6 Engines and 3 Specials really so ridiculous for a multi-alarm fire with access issues?

so about 3% of all engines in the county were committed to this fire,

But 50% of the tankers were committed. Tells me we have way to many engines, and too few tankers

Disaster_Guy and SageVigiles like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-7 Engines (not counting coverage companies)

- Assuming there was only 1 draft site, subtract one of those, leaving you with 6 Engines on scene

-8 Tankers

-1 Rescue

-1 Truck

- A handful of utilities (including Mt Kiscos FASTbulance, which I'll count as a rescue for purposes of discussion because of its staffing and responsibilities)

We dispatch 4 Engines and 3 Specials on all box alarms. So is 6 Engines and 3 Specials really so ridiculous for a multi-alarm fire with access issues?

8 tankers may require two fill sites ??? so might make it 5 engines on scene... and with all the snow around, its a manpower sucker... I know nothing of this call, but good job by all who worked it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so about 3% of all engines in the county were committed to this fire,

But 50% of the tankers were committed. Tells me we have way to many engines, and too few tankers

You would know that better than I. I'm not sure how well hydranted most of Westchester is. I was just responding to the person who questioned the number of units on the call, I don't think its an unusual number of units for a multi-alarm fire.

And Tanker 10eng, I wouldn't be surprised if they used 2 fill sites, I was just being conservative for the purposes of making my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FIRST....I was not there, but my god ...You add all that water from engines and tankers, you could have put out the WTC fire on 9-11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no hydrants in this area. This particular road happens to be a dirt road which in the best of seasons can barely accomodate two way traffic. It's one of those areas in town that a chief would dread having to deal with a structure fire on even in the middle of summer.

EmsFirePolice likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the Operations officer at this incident I think I can shed some light on this situation. First, the property conditions that first due units encountered where deplorable. The entire property was covered in 18-20 inches of snow with one, 12 inch wide footpath barely shoveled to the front door. The initial stretch alone was extremely strenuous and taxing on the manpower.

Once interior, crews encountered extreme Colliers Mansion conditions, preventing them from making an expedient advance on the fire on the first floor. The basement, where the heaviest fire was encountered, was a whole different story. Upon making entry to the basement, crews dealt with floor to ceiling junk as well as a well seasoned pile of firewood and the contents of of a woodworking shop.

As far as the apparatus on scene; in that geographical location, due to the lack of hydrants, we were operating from our tanker district alarm assignments, which brings more tankers than manpower carrying apparatus. The time of day is tough on manpower regardless of conditions. Factor in the conditions, and your burning through fresh bodies faster than you can get them there.

In closing, I would like to personally thank all Mutual aid departments for their quick response and assistance.

Dinosaur, x635, WFDC4 and 14 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would know that better than I. I'm not sure how well hydranted most of Westchester is. I was just responding to the person who questioned the number of units on the call, I don't think its an unusual number of units for a multi-alarm fire.

And Tanker 10eng, I wouldn't be surprised if they used 2 fill sites, I was just being conservative for the purposes of making my point.

Actually, I asked whether the size up that was reported on this site was correct for the amount of apparatus that was listed in the run down.

13 Fire Departments for a single story ranch house...sorry for the question, nothing possibly obtuse about this equation.

Disaster_Guy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with x152, you have multiple departments from Westchester, Putnam and even Connecticut on a relocate for a fire in a private dwelling, that's ridiculous

Disaster_Guy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 tankers may require two fill sites ??? so might make it 5 engines on scene... and with all the snow around, its a manpower sucker... I know nothing of this call, but good job by all who worked it...

I know of a fire in Avon, NY (the CRC fire a few months ago) that used 28 tankers on 2 fill sites! It's amazing what you can do with tankers when you know what you're doing......practice, practice, practice!!

[i'll look for the pics from that scene in the morning. I have no idea where I stored them]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of a fire in Avon, NY (the CRC fire a few months ago) that used 28 tankers on 2 fill sites! It's amazing what you can do with tankers when you know what you're doing......practice, practice, practice!!

[i'll look for the pics from that scene in the morning. I have no idea where I stored them]

Do you have any pictures of the house following the fire?

Often, most of these fire buildings are obviously terminal within 20 minutes of arrival, yet the fire service calls up their "tanker task forces" and rolls 28 tankers.

If the end result of this muster is 1 standing wall and charred remains in the foundation pool, you ever ask yourself if the same result could have been made with 1 engine and 500 gallon booster tank?

Obviously I am not advocating that extreme, but perhaps we should recognize when what we are doing is more about the realistic eventuality of the effects of fire, timing, and building construction and not some fantasy water shuttle.

I'll be the first to support a "true" property save after such an action. Unfortunately, most of these tanker rodeos almost always end up with the same net result.

RBFD4 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of a fire in Avon, NY (the CRC fire a few months ago) that used 28 tankers on 2 fill sites! It's amazing what you can do with tankers when you know what you're doing......practice, practice, practice!!

[i'll look for the pics from that scene in the morning. I have no idea where I stored them]

Does Westchester even have 28 tankers? How far out would they have to go to get that many?

What percentage of the county is hydranted vs. not hydranted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any pictures of the house following the fire?

Often, most of these fire buildings are obviously terminal within 20 minutes of arrival, yet the fire service calls up their "tanker task forces" and rolls 28 tankers.

First correction from my post, it was Caledonia, NY, not Avon (both in Livingston County).post-16762-0-47757100-1425076387.jpg

post-16762-0-30183000-1425076398.jpg

post-16762-0-55294200-1425076406.jpg

This was an 800x150x7 story grain storage building with dry fertilizer in the northern quarter of the building. 28 tankers (from 4 counties) fed from 2 fill sites, dumped to 3 quad-pond set ups, 3 engines drafting to 4 aerial waterways. Water supply was interupted once to bring in a deisel truck.

This is what you dump 28 tankers for!

Anyway, it goes back to practicing your tanker operations.If you train enough with it, just like any task on our job, it becomes second nature. And it never hurts to train with some of your further reaching neighbors either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Westchester even have 28 tankers? How far out would they have to go to get that many?

What percentage of the county is hydranted vs. not hydranted?

From what I can see on the apparatus plate assignment list, Westchester has 18 tankers (plus one from Round Hill, CT).

As far as hydrants go, I have no idea how much of the county has hydrants vs. without hydrants. I tried looking for information, but a short google search turned up empty. I know I have been spoiled by always being in a district that's well hydranted, however I do know a great deal of the northern county area is hydrantless. Hopefully someone here has a bit more insight on that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be the first to support a "true" property save after such an action. Unfortunately, most of these tanker rodeos almost always end up with the same net result.

Sometimes a fire utilizing a tanker operation goes well and you make a good save. Sometimes you save the foundation. It's really hit or miss, just like any fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of a fire up here in NH where the fire chief decided it was a loser from the get go (and from what people on the scene told me, it was a reasonable call) and said we're done here, let it burn. Well, guess what happened....homeowner sued the town and WON, saying the FD had a duty that they did NOT fulfill. Sucks, but it is the world we live in.

The member from GBFD explained quite nicely why so many tankers were needed. Why all the grief?

BFD1054 and Bnechis like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First correction from my post, it was Caledonia, NY, not Avon (both in Livingston County).attachicon.gifcrc1.jpg

attachicon.gifcrc2.jpg

attachicon.gifcrc3.jpg

This was an 800x150x7 story grain storage building with dry fertilizer in the northern quarter of the building. 28 tankers (from 4 counties) fed from 2 fill sites, dumped to 3 quad-pond set ups, 3 engines drafting to 4 aerial waterways. Water supply was interupted once to bring in a deisel truck.

This is what you dump 28 tankers for!

Anyway, it goes back to practicing your tanker operations.If you train enough with it, just like any task on our job, it becomes second nature. And it never hurts to train with some of your further reaching neighbors either.

DWC - not to take away from this thread, but you brought it up.... 28 tankers and 2 fill sites ??? what equals a fill site ??? ( I engine filling tankers / 2 engines filling tankers from the same water source )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me all the "grief" is look at all the departments you are stripping. Your taking a large amount of manpower and rigs for a private dwelling fire, to me that ridiculous

RES24CUE likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DWC - not to take away from this thread, but you brought it up.... 28 tankers and 2 fill sites ??? what equals a fill site ??? ( I engine filling tankers / 2 engines filling tankers from the same water source )

Good question. I did not explain that. 1 fill site was an engine hooked to a hydrant in the village, the second was an engine drafting from a nearby river. I'd also like to add that this is a part of the state where 90% of the fires are in non-hydrant areas, so they're extremely used to tanker ops.

To me all the "grief" is look at all the departments you are stripping. Your taking a large amount of manpower and rigs for a private dwelling fire, to me that ridiculous

It would make more sense to bring in units from further and space out the local resources, but considering the time of day and heat of the moment decisions I would only Monday morning quarterback the lack of extra coverage. However, the incident came out well and everything worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me all the "grief" is look at all the departments you are stripping. Your taking a large amount of manpower and rigs for a private dwelling fire, to me that ridiculous

Consolidation.............................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm not sure what all the distress is about. They called a lot of resources at a time when that seemed like the right choice and it worked out. Tough weather, tough geography and a tough time of day. I'm not sure why we latched on to the, "how many tankers" thing....

....call'em, you can always send'em back.

I will make one comment....I saw a couple of photos of guys walking around on a peaked roof, covered in a foot of snow....and I'm moved to ask: Why? Was there an urgent need for verticle ventilation?

BFD1054, AFS1970, fire2141 and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consolidation.............................

...Barry, there you go again with that "c" word, jeez lol.

Yeah, I'm not sure what all the distress is about. They called a lot of resources at a time when that seemed like the right choice and it worked out. Tough weather, tough geography and a tough time of day. I'm not sure why we latched on to the, "how many tankers" thing....

....call'em, you can always send'em back.

I will make one comment....I saw a couple of photos of guys walking around on a peaked roof, covered in a foot of snow....and I'm moved to ask: Why? Was there an urgent need for verticle ventilation?

Because it's the cool thing to do?

Kidding aside, you make a valid point. Obviously verticle ventilation is important, but how important? We always have to keep that risk vs. benefit thought process in the backs of our heads. I know the guys wanna make the cut, which is great, but at some point you have to realize when the roof is untenable.

As for the amount of M/A called; I wasn't there. But ya know who was? The IC...he called the resources he believed were needed to safely operate.

Given the time of day and weather conditions, this was probably a good call.

As M'Ave pointed out, they can always be released/cancelled. Better be safe than sorry in my book.

Bnechis likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how consolidation fits into this discussion. Needing eight tankers is needing 8 tankers. True that a county department would (hopefully) allocate resources in a more even fashion so areas with the need for tankers would have them. But anyway...

For those of you not familiar with tanker operations, there is a formula that determines how many tankers you will need. For example, a 2000 gallon tanker driving a three mile loop can only supply 150 gallons per minute. Sooo, if they were flowing 1200 gallons a minute, they would need...8 tankers. Or if the three miles was over crappy roads, you just might need the 8 tankers to flow even less water. Having been a water supply officer on a similar fire, until all those tankers get in the right line, and into the flow, it seems like more, more, more is the answer.

E106MKFD and Dinosaur like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm not sure what all the distress is about. They called a lot of resources at a time when that seemed like the right choice and it worked out. Tough weather, tough geography and a tough time of day. I'm not sure why we latched on to the, "how many tankers" thing....

....call'em, you can always send'em back.

I will make one comment....I saw a couple of photos of guys walking around on a peaked roof, covered in a foot of snow....and I'm moved to ask: Why? Was there an urgent need for verticle ventilation?

I will grant you the weather. Weather is unpredictable and often unforgiving. However geography isn't changing so I have to ask what about geography made this a tough fire? Aren't most of the homes in that part of the county on one lane sometimes dirt roads with narrow driveways? That's nothing new and should be an insignificant issue.

Time of day? That the time of day is an issue for the effective response of any fire department is a travesty. More reason to regionalize and consolidate departments and maximize the limited resources we have. If it took 13 departments because it was a weekday and it would have taken only 6 on a weekend day, we have a major problem with the "system"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.