#11: Initiate your firefight on the level the fire is on
If we take the lessons learned in the ventilation, attic and basement fire studies and generalize them to interior firefighting overall, we are led to the statement above. However, doing so is not always as obvious or easy as it sounds. For instance, exterior access to the lower level(s) of a home (i.e., a walkout basement) is generally from Side C only. Sloping terrain, fencing and other obstacles may deter firefighters from initiating their attack at the appropriate level of the home. These same obstacles can hinder and, in some cases, even prevent a proper 360-degree size-up.
If your department has not preplanned, written an SOG and then trained for these situations, don’t be surprised when your first-in companies get caught in the flow path of a lower-level fire racing up the interior stairs to their upper-level entry point, pinning them down or cutting off their egress. Residential basement fires should not be considered routine; they should be considered target hazards. Plan for them accordingly. Review apparatus positioning, hose loads, firefighter assignments, tool assignments, etc. Can you effectively stretch to, attack on and subsequently advance to the interior from Side C? If not, get to work!
—Peter Van Dorpe
#12: Get water in the eaves for attic fires
Attic fires present many of the same challenges as basement fires: limited access, lots of fuel, lots of concealed spaces and a high probability of ventilation-limited conditions transitioning rapidly to flashover. Both “half-story”-occupied attics and those smaller spaces used only for storage or even completely sealed to routine access present similar problems.
#12: Both lab and acquired structure experiments show that water through the eaves is the most efficient way to get water to the underside of the roof deck.Photo by JJ Cassetta
One of the many benefits of this research has been the ability to observe and measure (and therefore learn) things that we simply cannot learn on the fireground. It surprised me, and I think even the researchers, to learn that in attic fires, the fuel that contributes the most to the fire’s growth and development is the underside of the roof deck. When you stop to think about it, it makes perfect sense. Attic spaces (the concealed part anyway) are designed to promote airflow to keep the space dry. More often than not, this airflow rides along the underside of the roof deck. Fires starting anywhere in the attic will be drawn to and burn most efficiently along this designed-in airflow. Both lab and acquired structure experiments show that water through the eaves is the most efficient way to get water to the underside of the roof deck. If the eaves aren’t accessible because of height, topography, construction techniques or for any other reason, quick access can be created by creating an opening along an outside wall from the interior of the structure. When on the second story of a single-family home with a central hallway, the opening can be made down the hall and the line played back and forth from the peak down the rafter bays.
For me, the larger lesson of the UL/NIST studies, and the attic fire studies in particular, is to gain a better appreciation of how fuel configuration (both contents and building materials), building design and firefighting tactics (particularly search and ventilation techniques) may combine to either assist or impede our suppression efforts. The most important question to be answered during your size-up and as you attack the fire is, “What is really burning here, and what is the fastest way to get it wet?” This is especially true for attic fires. The risk of flashover, backdraft or a smoke explosion is very real at these fires. Every attempt needs to be made to cool the space and wet as much fuel as possible while at the same time limiting openings that will feed air to the fire. Your built environment may look very different than the ones used in the studies, but the physics (and therefore the principles) are the same. At attic fires, the question to be answered is, “How do I get maximum wetting with minimum openings? As often as not, the answer will be, “Through the eaves.” If the eaves aren’t accessible, find or create the nearest equivalent.
—Peter Van Dorpe
#13: The door closest to the apparatus should not dictate line/stream placement
Let’s keep this portion of our discussion limited to one- and two-family occupancies, where the greatest loss of life and property from fire happens in the United States. More often than not, the first line stretched on the fire goes through the front door. More often than not, that is where the first line stretched should go. But why? If we don’t understand the “why” behind the rule, then we will never know when to make exceptions to it. If your “why” is because, “That is the door facing the street and therefore closest to our apparatus upon arrival and therefore the quickest way into the house for our aggressive interior firefight,” then you have a dangerously incomplete reason for doing what you are doing. The reason for using the front door as your default entry into the building has to do with the interior layout, NOT with the door’s relation to the street.
Despite the fact that many Americans do not use their front door as their primary means of entering or leaving their house on a daily basis, most homes in America are still designed as if they do. The practical end result of this is that most of the house is most readily accessible from the front door and that is why the front door has become our default entry point. We should not lose sight of the fact that home design is slowly evolving with our usage habits and that homes built in planned communities, on lakes and rivers, etc., will often have a very different orientation in relation to the street. Therefore, an entry door’s relation to our first-arriving apparatus, while it may orient us to our most likely means of access to the interior should never dictate initial line or stream placement. I happen to live on a small lake in a suburb of Chicago. The floor plan is oriented to the lake. If you were to enter my “front door,” you will be taken down to the basement and a room that was once the attached garage. Getting to the living area requires one 180-degree and then two 90-degree turns and up a half-flight of stairs. Two more turns and another half-flight to get to the bedrooms. Not the fastest way by any stretch. Bottom line: The fastest water on a kitchen fire in my place is through the window on the B side. And the fastest way to get water on the occupied part of the lower level is through the A-, B- or D-side windows. Same goes for the upper-level bedrooms. Fastest way to access and search all parts of the interior is through the door off the deck on the C side. The interesting thing is that my house’s floor plan really isn’t all that unusual; it’s just not oriented to the street in the usual way.
My point is this: Your line, and therefore your stream placement, should be based on the fire’s size and location and what you know, or can learn during your size-up, about the interior configuration of the building, not on an entry door’s proximity to your apparatus. The fastest water is the best water. Plan on initiating your fire attack with this in mind, and you will make better decisions on the fireground
—Peter Van Dorpe
No comments:
Post a Comment