Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

nozzle selection in Flashover conditions

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

  • psfb
    replied
    Great Topic

    Leave a comment:


  • theboxalarm
    replied
    Was caught in a flashover with Captain HEG. We got out and it taught me a valuable lesson. Try not to get in that situation again. I have enjoyed the debate as I have always loved a smoothbore nozzle. However Paul, et al bring up salient points.

    God Bless

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Grimwood
    replied
    Wow - this is an old thread but I wanna pick up on it again No we DON'T get fined in UK for creating excessive water damage and I am not sure where you got that story Blacksheep Anyway - I appreciate what you are saying about your 'flashover' bro - how the hell did you get outta there? I hope you and your guys were ok?

    Whilst I have never been caught by a full-on flashover I have been in a few situations approaching such a scenario with fire across the ceiling and enveloping down behind. The 30 gpm line has always worked when pulsed in a controlled fashion. If this were to occur in a large commercial building then I am not so sure! However, you mention hitting the fire with a 30 deg fog just prior to it flashing - I presume this was a continuous burst? This is indirect extinguishing and would steam you for sure. Then you waited some seconds........why?....before hitting the fire again. Were you occupying the actual room involved or was the fire burning three or four rooms beyond the one you occupied. There are many factors here.

    As for the most effective nozzle for 'flashover' conditions (ie; prevention) go to http://www.firetactics.com/NOZZLE-RESEARCH.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • BLACKSHEEP-1
    replied
    Let's go back to the beginning, I was in a house that flashed over, The fire front waved, we hit it with a narrow angle(30degree) fog, it rolled a few seconds later and we hit it again, not enough to bring down the atmosphere but enough to keep it from lighting. Then a few seconds later it waved, and lit, it happened so fast it takes longer to say than it did to experience it. This was with a 125gpm fog, I think that little 30gpm nozzle will get your butt busted, The only thing that the nozzle did ,eventually, was to par boil us. Now I realize that in some parts of the world the departments can be fined for excess water damage, and maybe that is part of the driving force behind this method of attack. But I would respectfully defer, thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Grimwood
    replied
    firefighter 632 - The more I review reports of firefighter's killed or injured during incidences of 'rapid fire progress'the more I realise that it is 1. Actions by on-scene firefighters or; 2. Non-actions by the same that CAUSED the 'flashovers' in the first place!

    Therefore - (most) 'flashovers' are PREVENTABLE! Your choice of nozzle is a key factor in this chain of events.........

    You also suggest a code of practice in -

    1. life safety
    2. incident stabilization
    3. property conservation

    I would be careful with that assumption and might suggest 2 should head 1 in the list, especially if you replace the term 'incident' with 'environmental' as follows.

    1. Environmental stabilization
    2. Life safety (presuming occupants)
    3. Property conservation

    If you were referring to Life safety meaning firefighters then YES - this should be Number One!

    The question still remains.......which nozzle is most suited to 'flashover conditions' and many answers on this thread hold true in that - if the fire has reached the point of 'flashover' then there is very little you can do but run! However, I have attempted to demonstrate the various uses of differing types of nozzle under a range of scenarios linked with the term 'flashover' trying to explain how firefighters may use these tools to PREVENT flashover. In the end, it is beyond doubt (to me) that the combination nozzle is the ONLY nozzle to provide a range of streams that may be utilised SAFELY and EFFECTIVELY to this aim.

    What nozzle is recommended (according to ALL recognised research programs) to most effectively cool the overhead? FOG NOZZLE.

    What nozzle is recommended to most effectively 'inert' the dangerous fire gases forming in the overhead and break up the chain reaction of gaseous combustion? FOG NOZZLE.

    What nozzle is recommended to most effectively extinguish burning fire gases that have reservoired in large spaces - without disrupting thermal balance and visibility? FOG NOZZLE (PULSED)

    What nozzle is recommended for use prior to entering a structure strongly displaying backdraft indicators? FOG NOZZLE.

    What nozzle is recommended for direct attack at the base of the flame source? SMOOTH-BORE (or VINDICATOR or STRAIGHT STREAM.

    What nozzle can fulfill ALL of the above recommendations from recognised international research projects undertaken practically by firefighters with scientific input? COMBINATION NOZZLE..........THAT IS THEIR STANDARD ANSWER.........SHOW ME RECOGNISED EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY IN EACH SPECIFIC CASE SCENARIO????

    [ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Paul Grimwood ]

    Leave a comment:


  • firefighter_632
    replied
    I believe the IFSTA manuals suggest that the correct response is to get out.
    If I had to, I would probably use a strait stream in the famous "O" pattern. But when you get down to it, very few people can be saved from such a situation and it is unwise (no offence intended to anyone) to take a risk of you or your partner's life when there is no one to save.
    1. life safety
    2. incident stabilization
    3. property conservation
    Be safe, someone may need you later on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jolly Roger
    replied
    gfdtrk4: Great points Brother!

    Leave a comment:


  • detroit fire
    replied
    I am looking for the nearest window or door to bail out of if no line. Have to go with what i have in my hand at the time. Usually a combo nozzel.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Grimwood
    replied
    'try some of the techniques ( in a training situation!)and formulate your OWN OPINION'....good advice from one of Gary's bravest. But persevere with it! Don't give up the first time if you don't get good results! Sometimes it takes an experienced instructor to ensure the applications are correct, safe and effective.

    Yes - LODD are perhaps lower in europe but there are many reasons. However, Sweden claim not to have lost a firefighter to flashover in the 19 years these techniques have become SOP......I think that claim is still current. In the UK we lost a further 3 firefighters to 'flashover' (in 2 incidents) in 1996 - this prompted the immediate introduction of these 3D offensive fog (pulsing)techniques as national firefighting policy - they had been on the 'drawing' board up until then. I believe they were our last losses to rapid fire progress. Our approach is now based around the 'safe person concept' that enhances on scene risk analysis by firefighters who have been trained in flashover simulators and who appreciate the dangers of hidden fire gases, understanding more fuly the way such gases form and transport in structures. There is still a way to go though in terms of multi-compartment training, large compartments etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • gfdtrk4
    replied
    Paul,Jolly,& Sheep,

    Good Show!! 3 pages!

    I can pick at least 1 statement from each post... and agree with it.
    However, it would be impossible to agree with all.
    Make no mistake...this is not a post for solution.....This is fuel.

    Food for thought:

    Water cools..... It also SMOTHERS

    LODD and injuries in the U.K. are lower due to MANY factors....Not just water application (is this correct, Paul?)

    You can argue and debate this issue for EVER!!! Or, you could buy everything anyone tells you.

    Clear your mind....forget everything you really KNOW IS FACT ....Then listen to the so called facts, debates and opinions....then, and only then...try some of the techniques ( in a training situation!)and formulate your OWN OPINION

    Engine co. tactical advice from a diehard TRUCKMAN

    Leave a comment:


  • Jolly Roger
    replied
    I have been pulsing for over two years now when I have been the nozzleman. I even teach it now when I get the chance. When I heard about this pulsing technique, I have to admit I laughed.

    Why would anyone advocate using short bursts of water in a near flashover or backdraft situation? Any jake with common sense would tell you that a flashover or backdraft is a fire that is about to get REALLY BIG REALLY FAST...

    But, for some reason I was facinated with Mr. Grimwood's articles. European jakes have been using this technique for quite some time, and they have lower injury and LODD rates than we have here in America. So, I figured it was at least worth looking into.

    The first time I tried it, we were making progress at an apartment fire, when suddenly we found ourselves in trouble. A door had shut on the line, and like those Chinese fingercuffs, the harder we pulled, the tighter the hose jammed. Our search crew eventually freed up the line for us.

    I had the knob. It was hot, getting hotter, and quite frankly was damn uncomfortable. The fire was growing, and smoke was getting thicker, dropping in dramatic fashion. Not good.

    Then, for some totally strange reason, the articles that Mr. Grimwood wrote suddenly came to mind. It was double-dark thirty, and the fit was hitting the shan, and for some reason I found myself remembering articles I read on the internet.

    Heck, I'll try anythning once.

    So, I started pulsing, the smoke stopped dropping, it got significantly cooler (guestimate 900 to 500 degrees or something like that -- still hot), and the fire not only stopped spreading, it started retreating back down a hallway. HMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmm............................. ... Perhaps that feller from the U.K. isn't so full of it as I thought he was......................

    Well, after that fire, I then found myself a lot more curious as to what I did, and why it worked. And, I assure you, it did work! Quickly! That fire was over two years ago. I have pulsed at several fires since then. With equally dramatic success.

    I am no scientist, and I cannot tell you all the reasons that this technique works. I just know that it does. I even wrote an article on it, found here. Feel free to read it and give me feedback.

    I wish to reiterate that I am not an expert, by any means. I am just a fireman from the middle of the mid-west. A truckie at that. I am sometimes known to be thick headed and resistant to change. Yet I believe it is every firefighter's duty to know how to effectively use every tool in the toolbox.

    Stay safe!

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Grimwood
    replied
    and HEY.......if David Fornell is 'pushing fire' down a hallway with a straight stream/smooth-bore without disturbing thermal balance then that's exactly what a good firefighter should do......I NEVER suggested different. But....WHAT IF.......!!

    What if the fire gases in the hall were NOT alight......just THICK BLACK AND ROLLING? Show me a firefighter who could 'push' that s*%t back with a smooth-bore!!! If there's no visible fire then what is the smooth-bore achieving? In the same situation the pulsing of a fog pattern will effectively cool and INERT the smoke......possibly preventing rollover; flashover; backdraft; smoke explosion........RAPID FIRE PROGRESS!

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Grimwood
    replied
    Not for debate?......What is the purpose of debating something that has been proven in many independant scientific research projects in several countries? These scientific statements have further been confirmed by 'real-world' firefighters internationally. How can you debate something that certain? I have been debating this topic for 17 years and I have yet to find someone who will frame a debate beyond personal opinions or experience that is flawed in some way. Show me some REAL EVIDENCE beyond your own opinions that will verify a smooth-bore stream will cool the overhead WITH BETTER EFFECTS HAN A 'PULSED' FOG PATTERN......show me this evidence...cos I have provided you with a ton of evidence that is beyond debate. If 100 percent of scientists and universities and firefighters that have researched this topic over 19 years all come to the SAME conclusion - then THAT is beyond debate.......or perhaps the world IS flat after all

    COMBINATION ATTACK? You are so far off the track Blacksheep I am not sure you understand what the combination attack is all about! If you are comparing it to 3D fog applications then our own debate is failing! Maybe it's me....perhaps I don'y have the ability to put this across to you.......or perhaps it's you.

    'Combination Attack' - The need to bring together two things - 'the right amount of water and the right way to apply this water', only.....this was referring to 'indirect' attacks and NOT 3D offensive applications. All references to COMBINATION ATTACK SUGGEST THE WATER SHOULD 'STRIKE AS MUCH OF THE PERIMETER SURFACES, WALLS AND CEILING, AS POSSIBLE, to create a steam blanket'.....NOT 3D fog tactics AT ALL!

    Leave a comment:


  • BLACKSHEEP-1
    replied
    You seem a little closed minded on this subject (not for debate?) I watched a movie made by Fornell that showed guys "pushing" fire down a hall and back into the fire room, then extinguishing it. They did this without unduly disturbing the thermal balance. Now this 3d attack looks to me a lot like a combination attack only with less gpm being introduced to the atmosphere, it seems the trick is to keep the flashover from happening w/o disturbing thermal balance, we've been doing on this for years.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Grimwood
    replied
    My article went like this.........

    'There are many ill-informed arguments mounted against the tactical use of three-dimensional water-fog, for example -

    The stream from a smooth-bore nozzle can be used just as effectively to 'cool' gases in the overhead by utilising a 'Z' pattern. It has been scientifically proven in several independent research studies that fine water droplets WILL cool gases in the overhead far more effectively than a straight stream application. The US Navy tests clearly demonstrated this fact under strict scientific monitoring'.

    I am not proposing the Z pattern from a smooth-bore nozzle but others, in the past, have! I pointed out that (and argued against), whilst it might work in the case of a HEAT induced 'flashover it is NOT as effective (not for debate ) as water droplets from a 'pulsed' application. If you take a hallway transporting layers of fuel-rich gases (in smoke) from the fire room towards the entry point the smooth bore CANNOT 'inert' these dangerous gases and prevent an ignition (smoke explosion or backdraft) as effectively as fine water droplets can.......no way!

    If you use a Z pattern SB to tackle a reservoir of burning fire gases (as discussed previously - at the top of the stairwell) you will destroy thermal balance more than if you used 'pulsed' water droplets and reduce visibility drastically.

    There are so many advantages of applying water droplets in 'pulsed' fashion and in each case, it has been proven both scientifically and practically (real world) that these methods are far more effective than SB or SS methods - for the purpose they are designed.

    These are techniques introduced by the Swedish Fire Service, developed further in the UK and Australia and now used in many countries and currently gaining popularity in the USA.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X