3D Gaseous-phase Firefighting

[E229Lt]

Surprised at you Lt!! When we had this debate just a year back you were pretty open-minded by the end of it.

I'm very open minded, my "humorous" post was in response to "ending the smooth-bore/fog debate" The debate will never die.

I continue to read your work with interest.

To my Brother AllHands, I will vouch for Paul and his work. I don't always embrace it, but appreciate his work. I never sensed commercial gain as the reason for his threads.

I don't see my primary attack line having a fog nozzle attached to it in the near or distant future. However, I have been exploring these tactics for use with the limited 2 1/2 gallons of water carried by our Canman.

Paul?

[Batt18]

Bless you Lou! I appreciate your support and acknowledge we have a way to go brother before you are able to embrace the concepts of past debates. My reference to the smooth v fog debate is purely to demonstrate that there is NO debate! I am a BIG fan of the smooth-bore approach and the new book goes into great detail in describing how firefighters can recognise when to dump the fog pattern for a direct attack. Its not a case of one or the other - both arguments are wrong. Its a case of BOTH - but under the right circumstances!

Glad to see the Red Sox ain't gonna win the series

[UsingAllHands]

Okay, loo.

[Batt18]

However, I have been exploring these tactics for use with the limited 2 1/2 gallons of water carried by our Canman.

E229 Lt - GREAT to hear. I know the can is used as a source of controlling the environment for primary rescue purposes. Yes definitely! The effect is the same but obviously the user is still in great danger because of flow limitations. Equally, I know your guys will control the entry door to minimise air feeding into the fire.

[stm4710]

Does this thread sound like a Infomercial?

Not really familair with your ideas but you can make statistics up to prove anything.
Like did you know 3 out of 4 people make up only 75% of the population!

[blancety]

You know, I am kinda suprised at the tone this thread took.

I have been part of these forums for several years, and have emailed Paul back on forth on different topics. He has a wealth of imformation, and his interest is in promoting what he believes are tactics that will help us. Don't want to believe him, then don't. Don't want to try them, no problem. But to slam the crap out him for promoting thinking, even if the thinking is contrary to what you believe...come on folks.

Last time I checked, these forums were here to network, share ideas, and maybe even learn a thing or two. Tired of reading about the 3-D tactics, then stop reading them. Don't kill the messenger.

Everyone has something to offer, from the big cities right on down to little ole town USA....maybe Paul is pushing his stuff a lot, but it is a technique he believes will help save lives...maybe he is wrong, at least he ain't trying to sell you insurance.

Dave

[WTFD10]

To echo Dave, Paul has been posting here for a long time and I get the impression that his only intentions are to help his brother and sister firefighters.

I encourage everyone to spend some time reading the articles on his website. His ideas are well researched and thought provoking.

My final thought is, it's refreshing to see debates on firefighting tactics on here rather than the same old BS lights, helmets, etc. For that I say "Thanks Paul!"

[CollegeBuff]

Don't forget- Paul isn't just some annoying pusher of "European firefighting." I've seen posts of his where he speaks of trying to take American ventilation tactics back home to England. And guess what- I bet they aren't thrilled about it either! "New" is not "bad"!

Paul strikes me as a natural teacher with a sincere desire to help other firefighters. He did not deserve what he got in this thread. Opinions are like.... well, a few different things- but everybody's got one!

[stillPSFB]

Just saw this thread, and I'll jump in here -

Having been taught the techniques that Paul promotes I'll simply say this -
Without them I wouldn't be here today (nor would the guys with me) - at a fire a few months ago things took a sudden turn for the worse and if I hadn't of known how to use gas cooling techniques we would have been caught in the flashover that was about to occur - we wouldn't have made it back to the door before the room would have flashed. It was just lucky that I was on the knob that day.

Works for me!

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

I, too will echo Dave aka hfd66 truck's statements. I took a flashover recognition course with Dave at his FD. I have seen "up close and persnal" how a short burst of fog can delay the flashover to get time to escape. 3d fog attacks might not be the correct answer for every fire... but if they can get a crew out of a flashover situation, go home to their families and live to fight another day, then it is a good thing...Paul Grimwood's tactics are just another tool in our firefighting arsenal!

[Batt18]

I just want to thank those of you who supported an old 'jake' who was gettin a 'roastin' in here E229Lt, hfd66truck, WDFT10, CollegeBuff, StillPSFB and CaptainGonzo - these are all people who I have debated with on the forums for many years. Not everyone is open to embracing any firefighting tactic that involves water-fog! However, I always urge people to be open-minded enough to explore a bit further. I do not encourage people to attempt these techniques in the 'real'-world without adequate training. However, as you see (and I have a hundred e-mails saying the same) occasionally someone gets a very good result with the 3D approach.

3D Firefighting? It is NOT just about applying water-fog as a means of countering extreme forms of fire development, flashover etc. It is a unified approach that encourages straight stream attack 95% of the time. It involves concepts that encourage firefighters entering burning structures to exert control over their environment utilizing the right choice of stream, at the right time, whilst ensuring any venting actions complement the approach. It is about understanding fire behavior and about recognizing when to take a fire in its gaseous state and when to take it in its fuel state. Like I said - you can get it the wrong way round and then its YOU that gets roasted.

To hear that some FDNY personnel are willing to try out these techniques for themselves carries a strong message. The effect of pulsing water droplets from a 'can' into the overhead, as opposed to directing a constant stream onto an inaccesible fire can only have positive effects. This particular strategy has always been one fraught with hazards but has resulted in some of the most spectacular 'snatch' rescues.

This 3D approach may cool and 'shrink' the gas layers in the overhead, causing the smoke layer to rise a few vital inches! I am here if you want to ask questions or debate it, or even if you want to place an opposite point of view.

Stay safe.........

[Lewiston2FF]

Having been around for the previous discussions on Pauls 3D gaseous technique, and having personally discussed them with the Lt, I do see the benefit of bringing this topic up once again. I would hope that all of the jakes here would be able to have an educated debate without reverting to the age old, on-going arguement that we cant seem to get past.
I have mostly read the previous threads on the 3D technique with interest. My limited posting on the subject was due to wanting to shut up and learn. I have been taught pulsing as a means of fire control, but that was more of a direct attack. I find these debate educational and would hope that we can have another informative discussion (along with some good natured ball busting).

[RyanEMVFD]

it doesn't involve propane so I'm happy.

It's a tactic to be used as a tool. the more tools the better, just remember to train with the tools before hand.

[33motor]

Many years ago I saw a show on TV where they were using a method like that. I'm not sure if it was the same or not, but it was very interesting. It probably helped that I was able to watch it from a video perspective. It was somewhere in Europe, and what they did was open the door, and spray a couple of pulses in, then they would close it and when they reopened it a moment later, the fire was out. It seemed really effective. It just sort of struck me as a borring way to fight fire though. LOL The kid in me still like to go in and get dirty.

[Batt18]

33Motor Here are two links to the TV documentary - part of which are online

http://www.rsfd.org/index.html?http&...overy_1995.htm

LINK TWO HERE

Click the little page document at the top of the 2ND LINK page to view the video file. The links might be a bit erratic here but do work!

This documentary on the techniques were made by a good friend of mine - John Taylor. You make it sound like an 'indirect attack' (Iowa method) but what you describe is merely a door entry technique that forms part of the process. 3D attack is aggressive in nature and demands applications in close proximity to the fire (where safe) in an effort to make the environment even safer.

QUALITY Training is critical to the success of these techniques