Using The Aerial Itself To Vent

[Jake 4]

Is this something that can actually be done?

 

 

[fire patrol nyc 153]

Not a good idea,but sometimes it's necessary seen it done many times in NYC and other cities....never saw the aerial rip up a roof just take out windows...

Edited May 11, 2017 by fire patrol nyc
correction

[mfc2257 464]

Using it to vent a dormer or cupola by putting it through the window is one thing.  Using it to force apart timber is another.  If that were a new aerial I would bet that that would void the warranty and I'd be curious to hear what the folks that perform the ladder certification would say if they saw this.  I don't have a problem doing whatever it takes to save a life, but I didn't get the sense that was what we were watching here.

Edited May 11, 2017 by mfc2257

[vodoly 535]

Have seen Jersey City do its several times  on top floor apartment house fire as well as 1 house fire Ridgefield NJ (Volunteer dept) Used this method  during a heavily involved structure fire with people trapped  (2 person  fatal) using their 2 year old Sutphen mid mount stick  witch Scorched the tip of it  It's mounted on the wall of the apparatus bay at their firehouse now I believe there's pictures of this fire  At BT fire photos .com 11/17/12 scroll down 

Edited May 11, 2017 by vodoly

[antiquefirelt 994]

The Chief of Dept. when I started was convinced that this was a valid thing to do when venting was necessitated, and couldn't be quickly or safely performed by personnel. His take was the aerial was a tool and far less important than firefighters lives. It was/is hard to disagree. I know of one fire where our old Maxim aerial was utilized to open up multiple windows covered in plywood on a tire warehouse, as the IC felt putting FFer's on the tip to remove plywood would have been too slow and very dangerous given the flammability of the exiting smoke. Not an option any more for us as we only have a TL. 

 

Some years later (2005) while we were having dinner with a few factory engineers, our salesman and a nationally recognized apparatus consultant this topic was brought up. Everyone agreed this was a valid tactic, but of course the manufacturer would have no control over how it was done, thus no way they'd sanction it. Noted was the fact that most new aerials have a bolt on tip section, and damage to the end could be fixed as long as the rest of the aerial was not damaged in the maneuver.  Clearly, you need to be certain the tip clears any structural members. Questions of whether it should be lined up then lowered in vs. extended into the window remain a source of contention. I know of one "old" story from Auburn, Maine where the aerial was extended in and was driven into the ceiling above which then blocked the window as a means of egress which was the original intent, and firefighters suffered burns as a result. 

[dwcfireman 656]

Remember that a lot of newer aerials tend to have other fixtures at the tip, like scene lighting and beacons, that could be broken off during this tactic.  This would just be more falling debris that could injure someone on the ground (like the cupola in the video above!).

[FFPCogs 863]

I don't think that's a cupola, but rather an air conditioning unit I believe. And I see no problem with using the aerial to remove it as shown. 

[antiquefirelt 994]

Hadn't watched the video before, but I'd want to be sure my operators understood when it was OK and how it was done. In this case with the aerial mostly retracted it would seem far less likely to be damaging than if that had been at full extension. Aerials are not meant to be sideloaded, or torqued in any manner. This is exactly the type of use the aerial engineers feared when we talked about this. Again, maybe the situation called for this and the risk was worth the reward...

[bad box 371]

FDNY vented with the tip of the aerial as a matter of routine. It proved to be quick and effective and did not cause undue wear and tear on the ladder. Fire trucks are tools, unfortunately many departments treat them as parade pieces at the expense of sub-par performance on the fire-ground. BTW, FDNY did not spec their sticks with gizmo's and buff paraphernalia mounted on the working end, so there was no chance of creating additional airborne debris. 

[TimesUp 148]

If that was a attic fire then it was a good move.  What ever that was it wasn't really well attached to the rest of the house.  Imeadiate results too.

[FF1 172]

The situation dictates your actions.

 

If I had a dollar for every time myself or my crew did something outside the box or not taught in a classroom to help operations, on both the fire and ems sides of the job, I'd be sitting on a nice pile of cash.

 

Never criticize someone for getting the job done. We don't know the particulars of this. If that was the only viable option, go for it.

 

Hopefully the NFPA, NIOSH, OSHA and PESH police, who have never been on the line and have never been faced with making a split second, outside the box decision, will not come and arrest the aerial operator.

[FFPCogs 863]

49 minutes ago, FF1 said:

The situation dictates your actions.

 

 

Yes it does and if we'd get back to understanding and teaching this instead of trying to regulate every move on the fireground in the name of "safety", the fireground would become a much more productive place.

 

Know your tools...including your rigs, how, when and where to use them to the best effect and then use them as the situation dictates to get the job done.

 

There was a thread on here a few months ago about radio etiquette with a video in which a "bad" word was used. The issue has also appeared on Statter 911 recently. Now the use of "bad" language is not why I bring this up here, I do because the short sweet and concise content of that comment is the point. Early in the video of a 2 alarm job in Queens(?) a member notifies an interior officer that he has a line in place at the top of the second floor stairs and asks that officer what he wants him to do. The officer replies "put the f#ckin' fire out"!!....and THAT my friends is the point. 

 

Our job is to "put the f#ckin' fire out" in the quickest and safest way possible using all the tools at our disposal, is it not? That million dollars worth of equipment sitting out in front of the fire building isn't there just for show. Those big red trucks with flashing lights and sparkling chrome are more than just glorified taxis and parade pieces...they are one of the many tools at our disposal, nothing more, nothing less. And when the situation dictates they should be used as such to put the f#ckin' fire out!!! 

 

Edited May 12, 2017 by FFPCogs
misspellings

[antiquefirelt 994]

1 hour ago, FF1 said:

Never criticize someone for getting the job done. We don't know the particulars of this. If that was the only viable option, go for it.

 

Hopefully the NFPA, NIOSH, OSHA and PESH police, who have never been on the line and have never been faced with making a split second, outside the box decision, will not come and arrest the aerial operator.

Never criticize for getting the job done? So as long as we put the fire out, anything goes? I know that's not what you meant, but discussions like this should be broad based and allow use to discuss limits, situations, parameters, and practices. If you do $300k damage to an aerial while extinguishing a fire in a $200k home, with no life hazard, is that justified? Anything we do seems fine in the name of getting the job done, until someone is hurt or killed or we destroy property (there's or "ours"). The point isn't to be frozen with fear of "breaking a rule" but to understand how to employ a tactic while minimizing risk. 

 

As has been noted in numerous posts, apparatus are just tools, but let's not forget that there are proper and improper ways to utilize tools, so a video like this can be a valid opportunity to review what our people know think, understand and know about using an aerial to vent. 

Edited May 12, 2017 by antiquefirelt

[mfc2257 464]

Like I said before, do whatever it takes to save a life.  It didn't look like this was a life saving move (although I can't be sure).  My concern is if 10 minutes later, the aerial is needed to effect the rescue of the jake who is clearly seen walking across the back of the roof at the beginning of the video, and its been tweaked by the side loads that it was never intended to endure OR if a hydraulic line fails due to placing forces on the hydraulic system that it wasn't intended to withstand, then what happens.  You've got a ladder that OOS due to using it in a way it wasn't designed and a FF who's most efficient rescue may not happen.  There are limits to what the equipment can withstand.  Within the scope of normal operation we know what the ladder will withstand with regard to water flow and tip weight that is designed to be measured in the vertical plane.  We have no idea what forces are put on an aerial device when using it to do demo work on the horizontal plane.

 

Do whatever it takes to save a life.  Use your tools according to their intended design and specification otherwise.

[dwcfireman 656]

22 hours ago, FFPCogs said:

I don't think that's a cupola, but rather an air conditioning unit I believe. And I see no problem with using the aerial to remove it as shown. 

 

I really don't like the way that the AC unit is just knocked around and falls to the ground.  Granted, there was no one underneath it, but it's just sketchy to me that using the stick in this manner can cause something heavy to fall.  I'm sure someone was watching to see where it would go so no one would get hurt.

 

This video is a first for me as I've only seen the aerial be used to break out windows, not venting the actual roof.

[kinkchaser 352]

In this case it was a good move, ask the guys inside, not too much strain on the aerial ladder and a minimum of lateral pressure which as we know is an aerials weakness. Perhaps a little freshening up on the orange tip paint , a unmelted rubber rung cover and all will be well. But seriously that move sure got results.

[vodoly 535]

In the case of the ridgefield Incident Chief hit EVAC order shortly after the fire started blowing out the front  They made all out effort to try and get to the 2 trapped residents (Mother & Son)

[16fire5 693]

When I first got on and worked in South Queens where there was lots of private dwelling fires and a fair share of vacant buildings this was very common.  The vacants then had the plywood HUD windows which the the chauffeur would take out.  The outside teams were very aggressive and operated independently.  So the ladder chauffeurs (who were very experienced firefighters from very busy trucks) would routinely take the attic window for VES.  SOP at time was to place the tip against the top of the window or wood and lower the stick.  It really wasn't that long ago but I feel as if we know a lot more.  First of all most people have embraced two in two out to the point that VES is done as a team.  As a firefighter in the Bronx we teamed up for VES (Roof and OV) and I thought it was better.  

 

Most importantly hopefully we think a lot more about coordinating ventilation and it's effects on the overall operation.  The fact is ventilation without water being applied to the seat of the fire is going to make the fire bigger and create flow paths.  So we need to think about why we do it.  If we're going to search for life we will need to isolate the area we are going to search or the fire is coming for us.  If we are going to VEIS we want to minimize the amount of air we are feeding the fire so we should not vent until we are fully geared up and in position.  To me this means facepiece on hood on on the tip of the aerial with your haligan.  This way you break the window, enter, find the door to the room, close it and search.  If you break it with the aerial and then climb up you have given the fire air for probably another minute minimum that will have a high potential of growing the fire.  I will be honest and say this is not how we used to do it but in the past 10 years we have been given some good information that we should use to refine our tactics and work smarter and safer.  Many say we are not thinking about potential victims when we refine these tactics but it's not true.  

 

If you're venting for fire then we need to have water on the fire and I'd argue it's not so critical that we need to use the tip of the aerial.  

 

I guess my point is that I'd rethink the tactic more based on our better understanding of fire dynamics (behavior) over concerns for the health of the aerial ladder.