You’ve been dispatched to a residential structure fire as the second-due engine company. As you arrive, you see that the first-arriving engine has deployed a 1¾” handline through the front door of the home on the A side. You can see heavy fire venting from several windows of the C/D corner of the house, which appears to be a bedroom.
As you approach the front door, which is open, you can see a bi-directional air flow path with heavy, black smoke pushing out under pressure from the top half of the door, with high heat and fresh air being drawn into the building at the bottom of the door. You wait for your crew to bring the back-up line from your apparatus, which is normal procedure for your department. You hear the first-in company officer on the hoseline inside report by radio that they’ve lost water on their line and are experiencing rapidly changing interior conditions, including very high heat and zero visibility.
You can see the first-in apparatus operator working hard to determine the source of the problem. Your crew has arrived at the front door with the charged handline ready to go. Based on your current knowledge and training, what would you do to assist the company inside the building?
Do Your Research
To start this discussion, we first need to ask whether our current training and knowledge are sufficient.
If you had the chance to attend FDIC this past April or have been staying current on your fire service reading, you’ve probably heard about a number of scientific studies concerning fireground operations. One of the most important of these studies involves live-fire tests done on Governors Island by the FDNY, UL and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which call into question the idea that we can “push fire,” and underscore the benefits of putting water on the fire as quickly as possible, even if it means doing so from outside the building. All of these studies bring to the forefront a number of very important issues concerning our tactics on the modern fireground.
Now back to our scenario for this month’s Quick Drill. There are many ways to react to this scenario; your decisions will be based on your department’s guidelines and your training and experience. I personally look at this type of incident much differently today than I would have a year ago, based on the studies mentioned above and conversations I’ve had with other firefighters around the country.
Following is how I would tackle this event based on what I believe to be the most appropriate response to the conditions on our modern fireground.
Apply Water
Most of us were taught to NEVER apply water into an area where other firefighters were operating because of the chance of steam burning the inside crew. But in this case, it’s critical that we change the environment and reduce the potential of flashover by applying water where the firefighters are operating.
Before you start to form a mob, let’s think through the information from the Governors Island study. We know that a flashover is heat-driven; by reducing the temperature of the fire gases, we slow the flashover.
Also note that this is a worst-case scenario. If we let the flashover process continue, we could lose the crew inside. Depending on how hot their gear is, it may only protect them for a few seconds after flashover occurs. So we must stop or slow the event. Think about it: Would you rather get steamed and survive, or take your chances at living through an extreme thermal event?
By cooling the gases below their ignition temperature, we hopefully keep the crew from being caught in a thermal event. To do this, we should first radio the interior crew to inform them that, because we can’t get water to their line, we’re going to take alternative action. To knock down the fire, we can either apply water through a window to the fire room or where the fire is venting. When applying water to the fire room directly, we best achieve control of the super-heated gases–which are really unburned fuel–by applying short bursts of water into the hot gases in the upper parts of the room, but without over-applying water, which would collapse the thermal balance of the room.
Control the Air Flow
In the opening scenario size-up, you see a growth-stage fire developing, which is indicated by bi-directional air flow at the doorway where super-heated fire gases and smoke are pushing out of the top of the doorway and cool air is rushing in at the bottom, feeding the growth-stage fire. The fire service has, from its beginnings, used ventilation to assist fireground operations, but the Governors Island study really emphasizes the use of limiting ventilation. It suggests using door control to slow the fire’s growth by limiting fresh air to the seat of the fire during initial fire attack until knockdown is achieved.
This means we should close the door if we find it open until the attack line and crew are ready to make entry. Or, after forcing it open, we should leave a firefighter in position to control the door and assist with advancement of the attack line.
Open Your Mind
Based on the conditions that were outlined in our arrival scenario, applying water to control the developing fire conditions and getting control of the air flow by maintaining door control should improve the conditions inside, allowing the interior crew to exit the building.
The value of this Quick Drill and other scenario-based training isn’t just in determining right or wrong answers about the scenario, but in underscoring the importance of being open to new tactics and strategies. We must continually be evaluating the scientifically based information that organizations such as UL and NIST are providing to us, and apply it to the fireground problems we face today–opening new discussions with our department on how to manage such challenges.
Take the time to read and understand all of the new research being conducted by UL, NIST and the many fire departments around the nation that are taking a leadership role in addressing the unique problems of the modern fireground.
