Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Transitional Attack and Flow Path Control

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

  • RFDACM02
    replied
    Originally posted by captnjak View Post
    Many people can't even be bothered to replace the batteries in their smoke detectors twice a year.
    This is why we need to mandate some safety requirements across numerous products and services. At some point, as we "allow" less safe construction materials and more for lack of more detailed description, more combustible furnishings, we need to require sprinklers to offset human nature to risk life when people have not personally been intimate with fire. We require seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, very detailed electrical code items, food safety regs, etc , etc. It's time to make new American homes safer for the occupants and our future firefighters.

    And in my experience in the residential construction field, the firefighting business and Life Safety Code enforcement, the average person who has a home built has very little concept of the cost breakdown until shown. They know what they want and the know what they can afford, as long as those two things come relatively close, they'll build. They don't ask about cutting corners on the electrical, they don't ask for under engineered trusses, they only work within those items that are "optional" or have multiple options. If sprinklers were part of the same requirements as electrical code compliance, structural engineering and proper plumbing, they'd just work with what was left in their budget for the options.
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 09-11-2017, 12:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    Originally posted by captnjak View Post
    So if the builders are right the home buyers don't want to buck up for sprinklers. The same home buyers who don't want to pay higher taxes or subscription services for fire protection.
    The logical conclusion is that the American public is OK with deaths, injuries and lost property due to fires.
    So why should we ever risk anything to save them?
    Many people can't even be bothered to replace the batteries in their smoke detectors twice a year.
    Interesting question you pose. So why should we ever risk anything to save them? Is it a moral duty that we accept? Is it the danger, the challenge, pushing ourselves farther than we think we can or should? Or for some is it just a job that pays the bills, gives them insurance, and a decent retirement and they accept a certain level of risk for those things?

    The apathy of the masses, and the greed and corruption of SOME builders and politicians has ALWAYS been a factor. If it wasn't, after major tragedies, and even minor ones, the fire service would be able to affect code changes to prevent re-occurrences and enforce penalties that had teeth for those that violate fire prevention codes.

    So in the end it boils down to us doing what we do for our personal reasons that no one can define for us but ourselves.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 09-11-2017, 11:34 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    So if the builders are right the home buyers don't want to buck up for sprinklers. The same home buyers who don't want to pay higher taxes or subscription services for fire protection.
    The logical conclusion is that the American public is OK with deaths, injuries and lost property due to fires.
    So why should we ever risk anything to save them?
    Many people can't even be bothered to replace the batteries in their smoke detectors twice a year.

    Leave a comment:


  • FWDbuff
    replied
    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Point noted that the IRC and NFPA 101 have said all new homes must be sprinklered, but alas, we all know most states will remove the sprinkler requirements and we'll be left with Codes that rely on a comprehensive set of requirements with huge holes in them, and the tiny houses will end up less safe.
    Correct. Which is not the cause of the ICC or the NFPA. It is a result of the politicians in the various states that vote to gut the mandates of the adopted codes. In Pennsylvania, I opt to blame the Pa House, who inserted provisions into Act 45 (The Pa Uniform Construction Code, which adopts the IRC) to negate the sprinkler requirements at the behest of the Home Builder's Association's lobbyists. Because god forbid we sprinkler the house but not the lawn. In most areas of Pa, an NFPA13D system costs an average of $1.80 a square foot- cheaper than upgrading to granite counter tops.

    Leave a comment:


  • RFDACM02
    replied
    Originally posted by FWDbuff View Post

    So I don't think the problem is with the IRC because if it were up to them the fire would have been out long before the Fire Department even gets called.
    Point noted that the IRC and NFPA 101 have said all new homes must be sprinklered, but alas, we all know most states will remove the sprinkler requirements and we'll be left with Codes that rely on a comprehensive set of requirements with huge holes in them, and the tiny houses will end up less safe.

    Leave a comment:


  • FWDbuff
    replied
    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    I found it interesting, yet disheartening today that as we discuss flow path and understand how fire travels better, the International Residential Code people and maybe NFPA have yet to catch up?
    You misspelled "various politicians that gut the IRC requirements."

    I will explain......

    Beginning in 2009, the IRC requires an NFPA13D suppression system in all single family dwellings. No minimum size. If it is a SFD, it gets sprinklered.

    But then you have politicians in the various states (that have adopted the ICC Building Code Series) like Pennsylvania- that kowtow to certain lobbyists and start hacking the codes. Like sprinklers for example......According to the Home Builder's Associations, they are the Anti-Christ. so let's get rid of em......Then you have other states that declare these "tiny homes" as recreational cabins.....no sprinklers needed..........

    So I don't think the problem is with the IRC because if it were up to them the fire would have been out long before the Fire Department even gets called.

    Leave a comment:


  • RFDACM02
    replied
    Originally posted by captnjak View Post

    If someone were in the sleeping loft and awake they would smell the smoke quickly due to small square footage and just go out the door.

    If someone were asleep in the loft and there was no smoke detector they may not get the chance to open an egress window. If there was a smoke detector they could just hear it and go out the door.

    Do we really need secondary egress from a living unit of less than 200 square feet?
    Depends on what's burning I'd say and if they can traverse the "ships" ladder out of the loft to the door? Smaller space, faster heating, smoke spread, greater danger?It appears that by requiring a second means of escape via the egress skylight they believe the occupant may not make it to the primary door, my point being an opening at nearly the highest point in a small enclosure is going to cause the fire to come to that point fast. Also in more traditional homes there is typically a barrier between the most common causes of residential fires and the bedroom(s). Small single room with open loft? Same hazards all in the same space. Like little SRO's with full kitchenettes.

    In an open concept 200 sqft space everyone is "intimate with the fire". Of course if they maintain that all new dwellings need sprinklers, then ...

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    I found it interesting, yet disheartening today that as we discuss flow path and understand how fire travels better, the International Residential Code people and maybe NFPA have yet to catch up?

    An IRC white paper presentation speaks to allowing roof egress windows in "tiny homes" as there's no room for standard egress windows. This is put into context as they recommend these for open loft bedrooms. I cannot imagine the horror of responding to a tiny home fire where the occupants opens the skylight in their open loft to escape and finds the fire travels unobstructed right to the same opening!
    If someone were in the sleeping loft and awake they would smell the smoke quickly due to small square footage and just go out the door.

    If someone were asleep in the loft and there was no smoke detector they may not get the chance to open an egress window. If there was a smoke detector they could just hear it and go out the door.

    Do we really need secondary egress from a living unit of less than 200 square feet?

    Leave a comment:


  • RFDACM02
    replied
    I found it interesting, yet disheartening today that as we discuss flow path and understand how fire travels better, the International Residential Code people and maybe NFPA have yet to catch up?

    An IRC white paper presentation speaks to allowing roof egress windows in "tiny homes" as there's no room for standard egress windows. This is put into context as they recommend these for open loft bedrooms. I cannot imagine the horror of responding to a tiny home fire where the occupants opens the skylight in their open loft to escape and finds the fire travels unobstructed right to the same opening!

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    No help in multiple dwellings but is there an "exterior firefighter" type that could control door from outside for private dwellings?

    FDNY also assigns (by the books) a firefighter to maintain control of entry door. Once a charged line is moving in all bets are off. I think cutting the door for hoseline access or placing a curtain type device is entirely unnecessary.

    Leave a comment:


  • RFDACM02
    replied
    Originally posted by FyredUp View Post
    Okay let me address a couple things.

    1) Yes closing the door, or at least closing it most of the way may eliminate that big lighted opening to find our way out, but I like the LaCoFD idea where they place a large flashlight inside the door on the floor pointing towards the direction the crew is advancing. It can help guide you back to the door. Of course if you are on the hose line turning around and following the hose will get you back out too.
    Agreed there are many ways to ensure you don't lose sight of the exit (bad pun intended)
    Originally posted by FyredUp View Post
    2) The door control person does not have to be an added position at all. Who is moving hose through the doorway in the first place after the nozzle person and back up enter? Until the crew reaches the fire area or starts to flow water our hose team is spread out on the line to ease hose movement. so leaving one guy at the door doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.
    Where the last FF will be depends on the number of turns or obstacles the line must pass before arriving at the seat of the fire. In a FD such as my own, and I assume from my travels about 95% of the others FD's in the US, there is rarely enough guys on the line to for the control man to not have to constantly move between points on the line to facilitate a rapid advance. Some large West Coast FD's seem to advocate dedicating a FF to the entry door to ensure is remains closed or minimize the opening, which is great if you have the staff. We already team up companies to ensure the first line's effectiveness and find ourselves "resource poor" in the initial phase. Seems like everyone shows up just about the time knockdown occurs in the majority of cases.
    Originally posted by FyredUp View Post
    3) RAPID application of water is the best answer to eliminating the fire problem. Whether initially through a door or window and then followed up by an aggressive interior attack, or just directly entering and aggressively attacking the fire. The problem is some people, especially the haters that never did any research into transitional attack, believe that TA means no more interior attacks. WRONG!!
    Amen.
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 05-18-2017, 07:34 AM. Reason: keyboard caused misspelled words

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    Hey guys, why even discuss it? Super probie should join in any minute and teach us everything he knows about tactics. Then we'll really learn a thing or two.

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    Okay let me address a couple things.

    1) Yes closing the door, or at least closing it most of the way may eliminate that big lighted opening to find our way out, but I like the LaCoFD idea where they place a large flashlight inside the door on the floor pointing towards the direction the crew is advancing. It can help guide you back to the door. Of course if you are on the hose line turning around and following the hose will get you back out too.

    2) The door control person does not have to be an added position at all. Who is moving hose through the doorway in the first place after the nozzle person and back up enter? Until the crew reaches the fire area or starts to flow water our hose team is spread out on the line to ease hose movement. so leaving one guy at the door doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.

    3) RAPID application of water is the best answer to eliminating the fire problem. Whether initially through a door or window and then followed up by an aggressive interior attack, or just directly entering and aggressively attacking the fire. The problem is some people, especially the haters that never did any research into transitional attack, believe that TA means no more interior attacks. WRONG!!

    Leave a comment:


  • RFDACM02
    replied
    Great points about flow path control being more about what we should be doing as opposed to new things we should do. I think for many there is trepidation toward closing the door behind you on the way in, as it requires some confidence in your ability to operate in poor conditions and knowing the way out may not be quite as easily found as previous times. Also it defies basic logic that your climbing into the oven and shutting the door, but we have to trust the new way is safer. It's really not new, anyone with a wood stove can easily comprehend this, it just took it being pointed out in the right way by the right people.

    Clearly some FD's (some large ones too) have taken this to a higher level, utilizing an extra door control FF to keep the door pulled as shut as possible or making a cut in the bottom of the door to facilitate hose pulls, and then there's the "quick curtain" that can be fastened in the door frame allowing for ease of entry/exit while stopping most air flow. These options all require either another FF or a current position to take on these duties, slowing other duties completion.

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    Originally posted by johnsb View Post

    The only problem I have with flow path control, specifically the door control, is that in real life there's often just not enough manpower to do this. It's one of those limited use tools in the back of the tool box that rarely gets used because of the setup time. And depending on the fire, it may not make any difference once the fire is venting in several places. I think as far as flow path is concerned, the most important thing is to be able to recognize the potential flow paths, and not to be in it.
    And you'll never see me worrying about melting my Bourkes, they're the most useless piece of gear ever made.
    Controlling the flow path does not require additional staffing. It is generally about things we DON"T do as opposed to things we DO. Don't take windows indiscriminately. How does this require more people? Don't force the entry door and leave it standing open. How does it require more people to pull a door back in to the closed (or mostly closed) position?
    I don't see flowpath control as something that requires "setup time".
    I fully agree that recognition and understanding are critical in this area. We can't control the fire ground if we don't understand fire behavior.
    It is almost impossible to fight fires without eventually being in a position involved with flow path. It is essential to minimize it. And rapid water on the fire is always the best solution.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X