Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Analyzing the 2016 LODD statistics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tfrankey
    replied
    Originally posted by johnsb View Post
    Something seems to be missing. Where are the LODD deaths from cancer??? It doesn't happen on the scene or the next day, but it DOES happen. And what about illnesses contracted by contact with a patient?
    I totally agree!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    We normally run 4 on the engine and our crosslays are set up so one firefighter can deploy them alone. So even with one FF at the hydrant, and the MPO pumping we still have 2 remaining. Granted the office needs to do a quick 360 but that still leaves time for the remaining firefighter to stretch to the window and the MPO to stretch to the door.

    It really boils down to this, do you see it as a viable option or not. If you do, you will find a way to make it work. if you don't, you won't even attempt it.

    Leave a comment:


  • L-Webb
    replied
    Originally posted by slackjawedyokel View Post

    agreed with all your points --just depends on staffing , location of the vented window, terrain/junk can one guy stretch while the second flakes out the front (interior) -we usually are so short handed we wrap the hydrant and the engineer is pretty busy with the water supply.
    Yeah our engineer is usually working his *** of here.

    Leave a comment:


  • slackjawedyokel
    replied
    Originally posted by FyredUp View Post

    The crew could take the first line to the window. Heck one firefighter could take a line to the window for the Transitional Attack while the remaining crew stretches to the entry point. Quick hit in the window, drop the line, rejoin the crew. On my combo department we have discussed having the MPO take the second line for that initial hit. After having charged the interior crew's line of course. There are all kinds of ways to make this happen without delaying the interior attack by much time.
    agreed with all your points --just depends on staffing , location of the vented window, terrain/junk can one guy stretch while the second flakes out the front (interior) -we usually are so short handed we wrap the hydrant and the engineer is pretty busy with the water supply.

    Leave a comment:


  • Too_Old
    replied
    Well, 2018 isn't off to a great start. LODD during interior operations in Philadelphia and a really close call in Portland, OR.

    Leave a comment:


  • L-Webb
    replied
    Originally posted by FyredUp View Post

    The crew could take the first line to the window. Heck one firefighter could take a line to the window for the Transitional Attack while the remaining crew stretches to the entry point. Quick hit in the window, drop the line, rejoin the crew. On my combo department we have discussed having the MPO take the second line for that initial hit. After having charged the interior crew's line of course. There are all kinds of ways to make this happen without delaying the interior attack by much time.
    Pretty much exactly how we do it, the window line then becomes the backup, 2nd in ect line.

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    Originally posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    """A quick shot on fire already vented through an available window at a house fire while advancing immediately reduces fire growth and heat spread.""" Agreed -but the key word is AVAILABLE - a short handed crew may waste time stretching (and then restretching or pulling a 2nd) when it might be safer and faster to hit the front door. Definitely a judgment call that having experience will make all the difference.
    The crew could take the first line to the window. Heck one firefighter could take a line to the window for the Transitional Attack while the remaining crew stretches to the entry point. Quick hit in the window, drop the line, rejoin the crew. On my combo department we have discussed having the MPO take the second line for that initial hit. After having charged the interior crew's line of course. There are all kinds of ways to make this happen without delaying the interior attack by much time.

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    Originally posted by jes82 View Post

    I'm not equating transitional attack with a defensive approach. With fire showing from the alpha side, a well executed transitional attack should not prevent rapid advancement of a hoseline to the interior. But a poorly executed transitional attack looks exactly like a defensive strategy. What should be a quick 10-15 second knock before immediately moving to the front door takes three or four minutes, as the engine crew spends too much time at the window and on the lawn, while unseen fire climbs the walls and burns the roof off.

    A poorly trained crew will not execute anything very well on the fire ground, whether it is transitional attack or an aggressive interior attack. I am forever amazed at the myriad of youtube videos, or videos shown on facebook, that show crews taking 3 minutes or more to stretch a 1 3/4 inch preconnect to the front door of a dwelling fire. This should take at best a minute, unless of course there are obstacles or a longer distance.

    And transitional attack provides a convenient excuse for an inefficient engine crew and an indecisive company officer to hide behind. I think most companies need more urgency and aggressiveness, not less. Rapid deployment of hoselines, mask up quickly, move efficiently up stairs and around obstacles. First line to the fire floor, second line to check for extension, especially in legacy construction buildings with significant void spaces. For a company that isn't doing all of those things, transitional attack is a distraction from the training and implementation of bread-and-butter fire tactics.

    I 100% agree that some will use what THEY call a transitional attack as an excuse to NEVER go inside any structure fire. The problem is that is not a transitional attack it is simply surrendering immediately to a defensive attack.

    And in my experience, the companies who hide their poor tactics and execution behind the language of transitional attack, are the same ones to fall back on "the fire went out and everyone went home." So I wrote this post as a reminder that, in fact, everyone goes home almost all of the time. And when they don't, it is rarely because of the choice of transitional vs. interior attack.

    True enough. The funny part is the new Transitional Attack label allows them to sound cool and modern even though what they are doing hasn't changed...it is still the old surround and drown.
    It shouldn't be news to anyone that I am an advocate for the Transitional Attack, under the right circumstances. I see it as a chance to knock back that flashover, or prevent it from occurring to allow for a safer search and interior attack. I do not believe at all that Transitional attack is an always or never proposition. Just like with any other tactic a good size-up will tell you what tactics are right.

    Leave a comment:


  • tree68
    replied
    Originally posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    """A quick shot on fire already vented through an available window at a house fire while advancing immediately reduces fire growth and heat spread.""" Agreed -but the key word is AVAILABLE - a short handed crew may waste time stretching (and then restretching or pulling a 2nd) when it might be safer and faster to hit the front door. Definitely a judgment call that having experience will make all the difference.
    Precisely my thoughts.

    Hence: If "hitting it hard from the yard" significantly delays an appropriate aggressive interior operation (ie, the hose line has to be re-positioned), I would opine that we're doing it wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • slackjawedyokel
    replied
    """A quick shot on fire already vented through an available window at a house fire while advancing immediately reduces fire growth and heat spread.""" Agreed -but the key word is AVAILABLE - a short handed crew may waste time stretching (and then restretching or pulling a 2nd) when it might be safer and faster to hit the front door. Definitely a judgment call that having experience will make all the difference.

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    Originally posted by jes82 View Post

    I'm not equating transitional attack with a defensive approach. With fire showing from the alpha side, a well executed transitional attack should not prevent rapid advancement of a hoseline to the interior. But a poorly executed transitional attack looks exactly like a defensive strategy. What should be a quick 10-15 second knock before immediately moving to the front door takes three or four minutes, as the engine crew spends too much time at the window and on the lawn, while unseen fire climbs the walls and burns the roof off.

    And transitional attack provides a convenient excuse for an inefficient engine crew and an indecisive company officer to hide behind. I think most companies need more urgency and aggressiveness, not less. Rapid deployment of hoselines, mask up quickly, move efficiently up stairs and around obstacles. First line to the fire floor, second line to check for extension, especially in legacy construction buildings with significant void spaces. For a company that isn't doing all of those things, transitional attack is a distraction from the training and implementation of bread-and-butter fire tactics.

    And in my experience, the companies who hide their poor tactics and execution behind the language of transitional attack, are the same ones to fall back on "the fire went out and everyone went home." So I wrote this post as a reminder that, in fact, everyone goes home almost all of the time. And when they don't, it is rarely because of the choice of transitional vs. interior attack.
    Well said. But I would add that "urgency and aggressiveness" only work when the unit or department is ready, willing and able to engage them. This is not always the case often for reasons beyond the control of the guys on that line.

    Leave a comment:


  • jes82
    replied
    Originally posted by captnjak View Post

    I disagree that transitional attack prevents rapid advancement of hoselines. A quick shot on fire already vented through an available window at a house fire while advancing immediately reduces fire growth and heat spread. This can make the interior advance quicker and takes little time.

    Are you equating the tactic of transitional attack with a defensive strategy?
    I'm not equating transitional attack with a defensive approach. With fire showing from the alpha side, a well executed transitional attack should not prevent rapid advancement of a hoseline to the interior. But a poorly executed transitional attack looks exactly like a defensive strategy. What should be a quick 10-15 second knock before immediately moving to the front door takes three or four minutes, as the engine crew spends too much time at the window and on the lawn, while unseen fire climbs the walls and burns the roof off.

    And transitional attack provides a convenient excuse for an inefficient engine crew and an indecisive company officer to hide behind. I think most companies need more urgency and aggressiveness, not less. Rapid deployment of hoselines, mask up quickly, move efficiently up stairs and around obstacles. First line to the fire floor, second line to check for extension, especially in legacy construction buildings with significant void spaces. For a company that isn't doing all of those things, transitional attack is a distraction from the training and implementation of bread-and-butter fire tactics.

    And in my experience, the companies who hide their poor tactics and execution behind the language of transitional attack, are the same ones to fall back on "the fire went out and everyone went home." So I wrote this post as a reminder that, in fact, everyone goes home almost all of the time. And when they don't, it is rarely because of the choice of transitional vs. interior attack.
    Last edited by jes82; 01-07-2018, 10:14 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RFDACM02
    replied
    Originally posted by tree68 View Post
    I would opine that transitional attack is simply a tool in the toolbox. It fits in between offensive and defensive.

    It doesn't have to be used every time. If the conditions are right to go straight in - we should go. But if we can cool things down a bit by hitting a vented window before we go in, why not?

    Should resources allow, a second hose team making the outside hit while the interior people set up would certainly be a good thing, especially if the vented window is remote from the entry point.

    If "hitting it hard from the yard" significantly delays an appropriate aggressive interior operation (ie, the hose line has to be re-positioned), I would opine that we're doing it wrong.
    I'd say we're on the same page, I just don't think it deserves to be elevated to a mode of attack, but when indicated is merely a "new" step in our normal offensive attack plan.

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    There are many reasons peaked roof ventilation is a very dangerous tactic. Many FD's require full mask use on the roof, which further complicates movement by reducing visibility, hearing and equilibrium. We have learned a lot from the recent UL/NIST work that also shows that the amount of coordination required to ensure success is greater than we ever realized and our standard 4x4 hole is not realistic for today's fuel load. This information should be weighed very heavily when your department has to prioritize its tactics due to inadequate resources and staffing.

    In my area by the time a crew is on the roof and getting a hole the engine crew typically has fire control. Couple that with knowledge of local housing stock where most attics have full boarded floors, vertical ventilation in private dwellings is either unrealistic or unwarranted by the time it can be effected.
    Pet peeve of mine for years. They seem to love it in CA. Look at the videos which are widely available. Sometimes you'll see more firefighters committed to the roof than the interior. As important as ventilation is, it is still a support function. And by the time a hole is cut and pulled, with ceiling pushed down there is often nothing coming out of the hole except light smoke or steam. In peaked roof private dwellings the stretching of hose and knockdown of fire usually happens quickly. Same for a primary search. If those things are done before the roof opening is complete then the roof opening was never necessary to begin with.

    FDNY has the best staffing and response time in the nation and we go straight to suppression, search and horizontal ventilation of windows in gable ends. Having less staffing makes vertical ventilation even less of a priority.

    There appear to be numerous departments who believe getting fire to roar out the roof is a victory of some kind. Generally from an attic that was not involved until after the hole was made.

    Leave a comment:


  • tree68
    replied
    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    The action of directing a stream into an already venting opening should merely be an option of your normal aggressive interior attack. "Offensive Interior attack with outside stream option" would better describe the real utility of this.
    I would opine that transitional attack is simply a tool in the toolbox. It fits in between offensive and defensive.

    It doesn't have to be used every time. If the conditions are right to go straight in - we should go. But if we can cool things down a bit by hitting a vented window before we go in, why not?

    Should resources allow, a second hose team making the outside hit while the interior people set up would certainly be a good thing, especially if the vented window is remote from the entry point.

    If "hitting it hard from the yard" significantly delays an appropriate aggressive interior operation (ie, the hose line has to be re-positioned), I would opine that we're doing it wrong.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X