Have you ever wondered why you do some of the things you do? After reviewing your actions, you sometimes recognize that your reasoning was flawed and you made a poor decision. This happens far more often than we think. We do something because it’s the way we’ve always done it, we’re told to, we see others doing it or we’re simply not thinking clearly. With this in mind, I’d like to address the issues of commercial firefighting and, specifically, large-area search and rescue (SAR).
First, here’s what I see as the problem: We approach commercial firefighting in much the same way we approach residential firefighting–selecting between offensive or defensive tactics. And we view commercial structures in much the same way we view residential structures–as either big or small. We fail to appreciate the differences between the two and understand how these differences impact our tactics and strategies. We fail to realize the compounded challenges we face on even a “small” commercial structure fire. Finally, we fail to realize how commercial firefighting can limit our ability to do our job as it pertains to SAR, fire control and property conservation.
Defining the Enclosed Structure
What has led me to these conclusions? As a training officer, I read and studied the “Firefighter Disorientation Study” (2003) by Capt. William Mora of the San Antonio Fire Department. In this study–which is a must-read for all fire service members–Mora studied 17 incidents during which 23 firefighters lost their lives. (Note: To read the full study, go to www.sanantonio.gov/safd/PDFs/FirefighterDisorientationStudy.pdf.)
The study identified a new concept in building construction–the enclosed structure. By Mora’s definition, an enclosed structure is one in which there’s an absence or deficit of doors or windows of sufficient size or number to provide for prompt ventilation and emergency evacuation. Fitting into this category: most medium and large commercial structures, basements, long hallways and anything above the third floor of a multi-story building.
In addition, Mora spelled out the sequence of events that commonly lead to firefighter disorientation and death in structure fires–“the Disorientation Sequence.” He found that the following factors existed in each fatal incident he studied:
- Incidents occurred in an enclosed structure;
- Incidents occurred during aggressive interior attack;
- Incidents occurred during prolonged zero-visibility conditions (for more than 15 minutes);
- Incidents involved a separation from the handline or crew; and
- Incidents occurred when crew integrity was lost.
In light of his findings, Mora suggested new tactics that can help mitigate some of the dangers of firefighting in commercial structures. The first recommendation: Use a cautious interior attack. This stipulates the use of a thermal imaging camera (TIC) to size up conditions on the interior prior to committing to a full-fledged interior attack. The second recommendation: Use a short attack, in which you attack from the closest possible access point, even if that means repositioning lines prior to entering the building. There is much more to be learned from Mora’s studies, but these are the principal observations that have led me to rethink our commercial tactics.
Commercial vs. Residential
There are three main reasons why we must approach commercial fires differently than residential fires.
Building construction: The average house has many compartments and at least some fire protection for the ceiling support members in the form of the drywall ceiling. In contrast, most modern commercial structures include lightweight open bar joist trusses that span a large, open area designed for retail or office use. Because commercial buildings lack the compartmented features of a house, the fire has the potential to grow much larger, much faster.
Consider this: In a 2,000-square-foot house with one or two involved rooms, the walls may limit fire spread to a few hundred square feet. In a 2,000-square-foot commercial building without such “compartments,” a small fire is more likely to grow at a much faster rate. Hence, buildings of the same overall size may produce vastly different sized fires. Add to this the open nature of many commercial roof assemblies, which are often unprotected from direct flame contact, and you get buildings that will fail faster than residential structures.
Hidden fire: The second major difference between residential and commercial structures is that moderate or large commercial structures can conceal a large fire without showing the classic indications of a working fire. One example: A fire in a 1,000-square-foot house will probably fill the house with a smoke layer that’s close to the floor. The same size fire in a 5,000-square-foot commercial structure may present with smoke only at the ceiling level. It’s the same amount of smoke; it’s simply dispersed over a larger area. We tend not to feel threatened by smoke that’s 12 feet above us; however, the roof assembly is directly exposed, increasing the potential for collapse.
This example shows why we cannot treat a commercial building the same way we treat a house. Moderate smoke showing from a 3,000-square-foot house may lead us to take an offensive approach. The same presentation from a commercial structure probably indicates a much larger and more dangerous fire. If we use the same offensive approach, we’re likely to get into serious trouble. Add to that the inherent difficulties in finding and attacking the fire in a large building, and you can see where the risk becomes compounded. It takes more personnel with longer, larger lines a greater amount of time to attack the fire. Plus, the bigger the fire and the longer it burns, the more likely it is to bring down the structure.
Access, egress & ventilation: The third significant difference between residential and commercial structures is the ease at which we can access, egress and ventilate the buildings. Doors in commercial buildings are grouped in a way that benefits the retailer in their effort to control the customer. They are typically located in a single area and are designed for easy egress only once you reach them. They are not evenly spaced around the structure. Have you ever been out the back door of a Wal-Mart? Although the exits are required to be large enough for the customer traffic, they were never intended to be spaced evenly enough for firefighting access or egress.
As for ventilation, even the most well staffed fire departments will find it a challenge to cut holes large enough or fast enough to keep up with the volume of smoke produced by a significant working fire in a commercial structure.
Search & Rescue Issues
Current tactics for SAR in commercial structures (large-area SAR) extend us far beyond our risk/benefit projections and our ability to do our duties.
In a residential building, we have a relatively small area to search. We also have more available access and egress points, as well as a better ability to ventilate the search area. All these factors lead us to initiate search operations that are supported by the fire attack. We practice this on a regular basis and have become fairly good at it.
But what if we limited the points of access and egress to two, eliminated the ability to attack and effectively ventilate the fire and quadrupled the search area? Would we still commit to this operation? Most of us would likely question its viability. However, what I just described is essentially the situation we face in a large-area SAR. Why then do we continue to view the traditional rope-guided, large-area search as a viable option to search an involved commercial structure? There are several reasons:
Tradition: We feel duty-bound to make every attempt to save people. We do have an obligation to save lives; however, we should not attempt to do so when there’s a significantly high risk to our own lives. More often than not, we exceed that level of risk when we commit to the traditional model of large-area SAR in commercial structures.
Training: We’re taught that SAR is the best way to save lives. Thus, we developed a system to accomplish our goal. The problem arises when we apply one system or concept to every situation. For example, we run into problems when we take residential search parameters and apply them to a commercial building. We can’t search such a large space in a timely fashion, and we end up assigning more personnel to the search than there are victims to save. Many departments don’t get enough personnel on the scene to fight the fire, let alone conduct timely large-area searches.
In addition, we train for a large-area search under the assumption that the building is filled with smoke. If we actually search under those circumstances, the outcome will most likely be one of two things: 1) The victim will die of smoke inhalation before we find and remove them; or 2) the building will become unsafe, and we’ll have to abandon the search to avoid injury from collapse.
With this in mind, remember the following when considering a large-area search operation: The modern commercial building is made of lightweight construction materials; it may look sturdy, but it will quickly fail under fire conditions (for more on lightweight construction, see The Danger Within by Stephen H. Higgs). Also, large-area searches are no different than offensive operations. We must go into the building to complete the search, and we generally do this without the benefit of a protective line. This type of exposure in bad conditions is asking for trouble.
Experience: We have good outcomes with SAR techniques in houses, so we think we should take the same approach with commercial buildings. We tend to base the plan for our next operation on the experiences of our most common operation or our last operation–usually a residential fire. As I’ve pointed out, comparing a residential and commercial operation is like comparing apples and oranges. The lessons of one do not necessarily apply to the other. However, our experience and general sense of confidence in our ability to conduct residential SAR lead us to assume success in SAR operations in all structures. Worse yet, our experience may lead us to default to “normal” residential SAR tactics in a commercial building.
Mindset: We’re problem solvers and, as such, we set out to do what we’ve always done using different tools and methods to make it easier or safer. We set out to search every square foot of a commercial building because we think this is the best way to solve the problem. But in doing this we set ourselves up for failure and tragedy.
The bottom line: Because the risk is so great in the commercial setting, we must redefine our goals and procedures for commercial SAR.
The T-LAS System
The goal of commercial SAR should be to save lives by searching the building areas where victims will most likely be found–the exits and windows. To accomplish this, I recommend using a targeted, limited-area search (T-LAS) system.
Basically, a two-person team opens and secures all exits, allowing those who can self-rescue the opportunity to find the exits and get quickly through them. The team conducts a search around all doors, and then forces entry and searches a 10-foot-diameter arc inside the building using a pike pole and tether rope.
Benefits: Using this system, we search a small percentage of the total building area; however, the areas we search have the highest probability of a rescue and are the safest (and possibly only) areas we can search in an efficient and timely manner with the resources we have. Additionally, the training for this type of search is easy to grasp, and the equipment is carried on every vehicle or in the firefighters’ personal gear (i.e., irons, pike pole, personal rope or rescue strap, flashlight and TIC).
Here’s how it goes, step-by step: The two-person team approaches the door and sizes up the job. The door is forced (if necessary) and secured for egress. The door is opened long enough to conduct the search, then closed with the latch not engaged. This will allow access later by personnel or victims. The doors can be propped open for ventilation if this is first coordinated with command. One firefighter lies down and sweeps the area near the door or window with the pike pole. The other uses a TIC to visualize as far into the structure as possible. If either search reveals something that requires investigation, the first firefighter proceeds to the target on the short tether. The second firefighter mans the tether and acts as a safety lookout. If nothing is found in the area of the search, the crew moves on to other doors or windows without entering the building.
When do you use the T-LAS system? When smoke is showing on arrival to a commercial structure. Smoke showing from a main door is a strong indication of a large fire. If the fire is large enough to fill the commercial building down to the door level, it’s big enough to bring the building down. If no smoke (or very light smoke) is showing, other search options may be viable. Remember, however, that any smoke condition in a large building could be an indication of a large fire in another area of the building. You must monitor changing conditions and react quickly to them to get you and your crew to a safe area outside of the building.
Note: When conducting the limited-area search, use sound judgment when deciding whether to break out windows. The following factors should be taken into account:
- Any opening we create will allow air into the structure; this may or may not be a good thing.
- Any window that’s broken will remain broken. We cannot undo any negative effects of a broken window; conversely, a forced door can be closed after the search is completed.
- Windows are better left as ventilation options rather than search options. If a visual search through a window reveals a victim trapped on the other side, the window should be taken out to facilitate the rescue. Otherwise, removing windows should be a command decision.
In Sum
Review your standard operating procedures and tactics when it comes to commercial firefighting and large-area SAR. Make sure you treat the commercial building with the respect it deserves. Understand the construction differences and don’t be fooled by the presentation of fire conditions in these buildings. Develop and follow an SAR plan to address the high-priority areas of the building first and in a safe and timely fashion. Be safe!
TICs in Search & Rescue Ops
I advocate using thermal imaging cameras (TICs) whenever possible, assuming personnel on scene are trained in their use and understand their advantages, disadvantages and limitations.
Advantage: They make our search more efficient through greater visibility.
Disadvantages: Because we can see better, we may be tempted to go farther into a structure than we should. Remember: If the conditions in a commercial building require the use of a TIC to effectively search, then there’s likely a large fire somewhere in the building that threatens the integrity of the structure. If you need a TIC to search a commercial structure, this may be an indication in and of itself that it’s unsafe to enter. Another disadvantage: We sometimes forget to monitor critical factors such as heat, smoke and distance into the structure because we’re focused on the TIC.
Limitations: TICs are not cure-all devices. They will not help us lift, pull, drag, advance hose or secure an exit. Their only purpose is to increase our visibility in the structure. It may make the search phase easier, but it will not help us with the rescue portion of the operation.
