Company Officer’s Corner: Officer Development

Lt. Brad French If you ask almost any training officer, chief officer, or even line company officer what one of the biggest training shortfalls in their organization is, somewhere toward the top of the list will often be officer development. Some of the responsibilities for officer development lies with the organization itself, with formalized training and mentoring programs for new or prospective company officers. But after initial training and orientation into their new position, the train of specific and targeted company officer training that a front-line supervisor receives often falls off the tracks. Although many progressive departments take great pride and place much effort in continual officer development, in too many of our organizations the officers themselves often have to pick up the initiative (and sometimes even pick up the tab...) for continued learning and growth. Formalized officer training programs are a great start. NFPA 1021, Standard for Fire Officer Professional Qualifications, defines stages of requisite knowledge and skills at different levels (i.e. Fire Officer I, Fire Officer II, etc.), which informally correlate with rising through the supervisory ranks of a fire organization. Many state fire academies, regional fire schools, and community colleges offer programs specifically structured to meet the requirements of NFPA 1021 at the varying levels. The National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, MD recently started offering the “Managing Officer Program”, a series of classes and projects similar to the popular EFO (Executive Fire Officer) program, but specifically geared toward company-level officers. The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) has a new section specifically devoted to the needs and development of company officers. The professional credentialing process through CPSE also provides an exceptional roadmap for development and professional progress. And of course, there are always a wide variety of officer development session and workshops at the various fire industry trade shows, such as FDIC, Firehouse Expo, Firehouse World, Fire-Rescue International, and even the ISFSI’s own Fall Instructor Development Conference (http://isfsi.org/fall-instructor-conference-2016/). Company Officers that are not already certified fire service instructors should strongly consider it. The importance of frequent, quality, engaging company-level training can’t possibly be overstated. And in fact, NFPA 1021 actually lists Fire Instructor I as a prerequisite to certification at the Fire Officer I level. While training opportunities outside the walls of your organization are extremely important to keep abreast of changes and trends in the industry and to network with other fire professionals, as much or more time should be spent by the company officer staying on top of internal department operations. When was the last time you reviewed the most current Union contract? How can you improve your report writing and the accuracy of your NFIRS documentation? Have you been over to check out that new building under construction out on the edge of the district? Is it time to start back up at the local community college and finally finish up that degree? Never stop learning, and your company will be the better for it. NFPA 1021, Standard on Fire Officer Professional Qualifications: http://www.nfpa.org/1021 National Fire Academy – Managing Officer Program: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/training/nfa/programs/mo_program.html International Association of Fire Chiefs – Company Officers Section: http://www.iafc.org/CompanyOfficers/ Center for Public Safety Excellence – Professional Credentialing: http://www.cpse.org/professional-credentialing/about-credentialing-cpc.aspx Brad French is a Lieutenant with the Dayton (OH) Fire Department, assigned to a downtown engine company. He is a 16-year member of the fire service and holds degrees in Fire Science and Fire Administration. He is a lead instructor at the Dayton Fire Department Training Center, a member of the Board of Directors for the International Society of Fire Service Instructors, and also serves as an instructor in the ISFSI’s "Principles of Modern Fire Attack" program. Contact Brad at bfrench@iaff136.org.

NFPA 1582 and the Training Officer

By: John K. Murphy JD, MS, PA-C, EFO

A question for training officers and chief officers – do you have a medical/physical evaluation program and a physical abilities test in your department providing bi-annual (or annual) testing for your firefighters? If not, why not? Almost 50% of firefighter deaths are caused by a preventable disease such as heart disease and cardiac arrest. Is this one of the responsibilities of the Training Division or department to implement and manage? What do your firefighters do on a daily basis and how do you test their capacity for doing work? Using your department’s job description, job analysis and essential elements of the job is the foundation for continuing medical evaluations and abilities testing. There are two distinct processes in play to determine the fitness of your firefighters. The first is the entry standards of a CPAT and using the NFPA 1582 guidelines as a basis for new entry level firefighters. The second, for your established firefighters or one returning from an injury or disability is an entirely different process which we will discuss later in this article. Entry Level Firefighters – Preplacement. There are usually no issues with a Physical Abilities test for entry level firefighters as it is generally a pass/fail proposition and the Training Division may administer this portion of the entry test in some form or fashion. Many fire departments are now using the CPAT testing model with good results. If not using the CPAT, then your physical abilities test should test the essential functions of the job and not use a Combat Challenge or other similar competitive process. Failure of this physical abilities test automatically disqualifies the candidate. Candidate Medical Physical - After the offer of employment by the department, the candidate is sent to a qualified medical practitioner for a complete and thorough medical examination. Again, many departments use the NFPA 1582 as a guideline for the components of the medical/physical evaluation with a physician or other qualified health care practitioner fully versed in what the fire department actually does on a day to day basis. The NFPA 1582 are guidelines for your use unless adopted by your State or your department in their entirety then become the regulation which departments must follow. If there are medical issues discovered during the candidate medical/physical, you may want to dig a little deeper with additional medical testing with a specialist to see if the medical condition actually disqualifies this candidate. You also need to closely read and understand the categories “A” disqualifiers and the “B” allowances for all medical conditions to make sure your candidate is either qualified or unqualified due to a limiting medical condition. I have sent candidate firefighters to specialists for further evaluation as there was some abnormality on the EKG, Pulmonary Function Test or the blood tests. If they return from these specialists with a clearance to continue, then the candidate can proceed in the process to hopefully the ultimate hire. Existing Firefighters - This is where the Training Division/Officer comes into the picture. It is my learned opinion that the Training Officer and Training Division evaluates, teaching and trains your firefighters more than other officers in your department. You observe their ability to work at high levels of performance and can determine if a firefighter is poorly conditioned, deconditioned or in general, is a hazard to himself/herself and others. These are the ones that should be identified as high risk and sent for medical evaluations and many times these are your existing long term firefighters showing signs of a critical medical condition. I highly recommend that your department have an annual or bi-annual medical/physical examination program in place for all firefighters and possibly a for-cause medical testing for firefighters showing signs of a condition preventing them from working at 100% of capacity. For those firefighters with a possible critical medical condition (hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, coronary artery disease or diabetes to name a few) discovered in the physical, the department must have a policy and program to allow the firefighter to find a medical solution to the discovered medical issue. What should be (at a minimum) included in a periodic medical standard is: basic questions about current health history, current immunizations with the addition of specific blood work to include liver function, cholesterol, blood glucose level, a CBC (complete blood count), your immunity to Hepatitis B, chest x-ray or PPD, hearing testing, pulmonary function testing, mask fit testing and other testing as determined by your health care provider based on your job description or job analysis. For male firefighters a PSA to detect possible prostate cancer. There are a number of blood tests to detect certain cancers however those tests have some false positive results. They should be used judiciously by your health care provider during the physical examination. It is developing technology that will make our firefighters healthier. For those of you on the Haz/Mat team, include baseline testing for the most common heavy metals to include lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, copper and zinc. All firefighters should be examined for developing skin or throat cancers. These tests are closely correlated with your job description, job analysis and essential functions of the job. What is very important, is the resting EKG and stress treadmill testing to ensure cardiovascular health and the results evaluated by a cardiologist. Injured Firefighters – Return to work independent medical examinations (IME) Using the NFPA 1582 as a return-to-work standard is the wrong standard to utilize when returning an injured or disabled firefighter to work. The NFPA 1582 guidelines have been designed as an entry level standard for firefighters and there are certain medical elements contained within that document that would disqualify an injured firefighter (or some existing firefighter if tested) seeking to return to work. My suggestion is to have an IME predicated on the actual functions of the job performed by a qualified physician. For example a firefighter out with a rotator cuff repair, an orthopedist should perform the IME using the essential functions of the job and a job analysis. There are a number of firefighters successfully returning to work after a heart attack, rotator cuff repair, spinal disk repair, hip or knee replacement surgery and other medical conditions. Finally - As an attorney and health care practitioner, I have toss in this little nugget - you may have to make reasonable accommodations under the ADA rules and regulation for firefighters that cannot pass the medical/physical or physical ability test. Under the law (eeoc.gov), Title I of the ADA requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities who are employees or applicants for employment, except when such accommodation would cause an undue hardship on the employer. As this is a complex issue, I suggest employers look at the EEOC website and discuss this issue with your HR director and the department’s attorney for guidance. Our responsibilities as Training Officers is safety on the training grounds. Ensuring your firefighters are healthy enough to participate in training activities is also your responsibility.

Full Service Training

By: Jake Barnes

As fire instructors, all too often we focus on the immediate dangers of firefighting and the corresponding training. We constantly train on air management, R.I.T. teams, Maydays, and more. While this is important, I believe we should also work harder and teach the more chronic aspect of firefighting; the health and wellness portion of the fire service. We are losing brothers and sisters to heart attacks and cancer in alarming numbers. The worst part is we usually have all the equipment to combat this but often we don’t emphasize enough the importance of using the tools and having the knowledge to keep us alive and well into our golden years. There are many ways we can help our own out when it comes to staying healthy, such as mandatory exercise programs, nutritional education, respiratory programs, and gear washing policies and procedures. With these valuable tools, we can arm our firefighters in the battle for their own health. What I am proposing is a culture change, and I know as well as anyone that change is a nasty word in the fire service. There is nothing more dynamic than the fire service and nothing more static than the firefighter. So how do we create a revolution around health and wellness in the fire service? The same way we eat an elephant; one bite at a time. Start by designing exercise programs that replicate what we do and how we do it. A program like this would be heavily influenced by cardio. Contact local fitness trainers, or even better, get trained as IAFF Peer Fitness Trainers. Take your workout plan to the doctors that oversee your department physicals and have them review it for recommendations or changes. Also, knowing what your departments are planning to do will help the doctors and their staff conduct a better physical. I wouldn’t attach anything punitive to this part of the process yet. If this is new to the department and firefighters have been “allowed” to get sedentary and overweight then we should allow a reasonable time to get the weight off and build up the needed energy level. While we support our firefighters to lose weight and become more efficient in their jobs, we can start to build in nutritional education. Yes, this is likely to be met with MUCH resistance and venom. Mess with a firefighters meals and we’re treading in dangerous waters! When I first became the Training Officer in my department, I had a nutritionist come to the fire department and actually cook healthy meals and provide some much-needed education of fats, carbs, and calories. Although the group wouldn’t admit it, several firefighters really enjoyed it and tried to apply what they learned. That’s how a revolution starts, with just a few people. The modern firefighter is attacked every day at fires by more and more chemicals. Because of this, we need a solid and dynamic respiratory program. This should include wearing our SCBA’s during overhauls and monitoring the air for as many chemicals as we can. By wearing our SCBA’s longer we need to ensure our SCBA’s are comfortable. Yes, the newer SCBA’s are designed with comfort in mind and can make a huge difference when wearing them for a long time. Of course, if we are making our firefighters wear the SCBA’s for extended periods of time then we need a better plan for rehab. This is often seen as Snickers and Gatorade but we need to see this for what it is really designed to do, rehab our firefighters. Have fans, pop-up tents and plenty of water and EMS for vitals. The suggestions we have talked about so far take time, yet they’re solid investments with astronomical returns. In addition, there is one activity we can incorporate right away to decrease the odds of our rank-and-file from developing cancer: gear washing. The days of wearing your filth as a badge of honor are over; dirty gear now looks like a sign of ignorance. We need to use specialized gear washers and dryers to keep contaminants away from us. Having a second set of turnout gear for our people can be a HUGE step! There is also a current push in the fire service for field decon, which can be done quickly at the scene as companies prepare to leave. It can be as simple as a booster line and dedicated truck brush to quickly knock off any particulates prior to getting in the truck. Firefighters should have extra gloves and hoods to change at the scene when they change bottles. If the department is lucky enough to have spare gear, then we should have a way to get that gear to the scene after the fire, collect the dirty gear, and have it cleaned with a certified gear washer and dryer. We should have procedures in place so that decon is as expected as picking up hose and filling air bottles so we NEVER let a company go in quarters until they are deconned at the scene. Like any important change in the fire service we have to start at the top. The chief and his staff need to draft new policies and procedures on all of these programs. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. A few phone calls and emails to local departments that have implemented similar procedures will net great success. We must train our people on these policies and set reachable goals and expectations. And we must have a disciplinary policy in place in the event that departments don’t meet the expected goals. Most importantly, all the chiefs and the staff should lead by example. The administration should be up-front and center leading the charge. I realize as an administrator that our eight-hour days have 10 hours’ worth of work. Still, we have to make time for us and for them. We must be vigilant in advocating for firefighter health and wellness.

One Size Never Fits All - Positive Pressure Attack

One size fits all, an iconic statement that the American fire service tends to apply to a very dynamic event. Unfortunately, the environment that we respond to and are expected to provide a service in does not fit into a “one size fits all” category. We as a fire service have become a utilitarian service that is expected to utilize a variety of task, tactical and strategic operations to accomplish our mission. Like all tactics, we as firefighters have an emotional connection to the effects of the tactic. That emotional connection can sometimes blind us on the true benefits or the appropriate use of a tactic. As the American Fire Service continues to evolve through technology, the complexity of the environment that we work in does not afford us the opportunity to have emotional connections to tactics, science and facts; thus the title of this article, “One Size Never Fits All” is a more accurate definition. Go to almost any fire station in America and you will find a gas powered positive pressure fan either on the engine or the truck. The evolution of the “fan” over the last twenty years has grown past the use of just a ventilation tool. Vent for life was our motto; the use of the fan was one functional tool in the vent for life motto. The challenge with vent for life is COORDINATION. Since the beginning, the application of water in a coordinated attack was critical for the vent process. Failure to have coordinated attack on the fire when venting causes rapid fire growth that jeopardizes the safety of the fire fighters and the victims still inside. We know for a fact that the failure to apply water along with ventilation creates a very dangerous environment. The first order of business is to identify and define Positive Pressure Attack (PPA) versus Positive Pressure Ventilation (PPV). PPA is defined as the use of the mechanical positive pressure fan in a coordinated initial attack into a compartment fire with the fan being used as an aid in the suppression process. PPV has an accepted definition of the use of the mechanical fan for the sole purpose in assisting in ventilation post knock down or fire control. Positive Pressure Attack originated as a means to ventilate a structure after the fire was knocked down. Over the years the use of a positive pressure fan has evolved into using the fan to assist in the extinguishment process. Experts like Kris Garcia and Reinhard Kauffmann and Ray Schelble developed tactical operations that include the use of a coordinated attack with the use of the positive pressure fan. The fan was placed in the intake (airflow) of the structure to provide pressure into the compartment with an exhaust created allowing the super-heated gasses to vent out the exhaust as the fire fighters in a coordinated effort stretched an attack line from the clean air side of the flow path advancing towards the seat of the fire. The concept was that properly used PPA allows firefighters great control over the interior environment of a fire building, and provides for increased ventilation (cool fresh air) for potential victims and better visibility for the firefighter to attack the fire. Positive Pressure Ventilation is the tactical use again of a mechanical fan to assist in venting the structure post fire control. The need for a single intake, flow path and then an exhaust are used in conjunction with the fan to aid in the removal of the super-heated gasses. Over the last twenty years, PPA has become a valuable tool that most organizations use consistently for residential structure fires. Over the last ten years some organizations have developed larger truck mounted and elevated fans for the use in commercial and multi-story buildings. Recently, Underwriters Laboratory conducted research and testing on the benefits and disadvantages of the use of PPA. I was fortunate enough to sit on that committee along with PPA experts from around the world. Kris Garcia, one of the most prominent PPA experts is also on the committee. Information listed in this article is documented tests through KTF and NIST. The Tactic: The use of a PPA fan positioned in the inlet of a structure, positioned to maximize the creation of a flow path from the unburned side of the structure to the fire compartment then vented out an exhaust. Crews are to identify the air intake; traditionally the front door, then an exhaust opening must be created. This is traditionally done by taking a window or opening a door closest to the fire. Once the exhaust is established crews will then move back to the inlet and make their initial attack with the fan blowing at their backs. The Goal: The goal of the fan blowing at your back is to clear a path through the structure to the seat of the fire and out the exhaust. The concept is the fan clears all the super-heated gasses out of the structure and out the exhaust providing for better visibility and patient survivability. In addition, the thought was it would provide for less thermal insult on fire fighters as the advance through the structure. The Challenge: One of the critical challenges of PPA is creating the appropriate and effective sized exhaust outlet; the “book” says 2 ½ times the inlet size. With the modern fuels high energy release and expansion rate we are finding that we struggle to create a large enough exhaust to move the volume of super-heated gasses out of the structure fast enough must be accomplished with a larger exhaust. Inaccurately identifying where the fire is located causing fire extension into non fire compartments causing more damage. The use of PPA is dependent on the following items: 1. The fire occupancy can be identified and is compartmentalized. 2. A large enough exhaust can be created. 3. The fire is compartmentalized and located near an exterior wall 4. Exhaust vent and fire are located on the same floor 5. The occupant and fan position are not impacted by wind speed or direction. The use of PPA is another tool for our tool box, Yes, I know that is cliché but it’s true we are a dynamic organization that must have multiple tactical options to safely provide the expected service to our community. Aggressive tactical operations that are performed by skilled firefighters under the direction of educated company officer that use tactical knowledge to best provide service is critical. In all cases tactical operations should not delay the application of water. Water in all cases provided for improved conditions for patient survivability and improved conditions for interior fire operations. The result from the UL PPA study will impact how and when PPA is applied, however it will not be eliminated it from our tool box. Bottom line is that it all depends; there are conditions and situations for each tactic.

Making the Case for 200

Occupant-use hoselines (1½-inch single-jacket) found in existing Class II or Class III standpipe systems are typically 100 feet in length, leading to the assumption, in many cases, that by adding another 50 feet to allow connection on the floor below, an engine company would have enough working length to cover the entire floor.

Photo credit: Photos by Brad French

Wall cabinets are often set back into the individual floors and not found directly adjacent to the stairwell. Cabinets can sometimes be located 50 feet or more from the nearest stairwell.

The characteristics of the interior stairwell may eat up needed hose during deployment. For example, stacked “straight-run” stairs can double the amount of hose needed to travel up from the floor below the fire floor in comparison to continually rising return-style stairs.

Take the time to preplan and stretch hose in the buildings that you don’t respond to on a regular basis. Those under-the-radar buildings may well contain elements to lengthen your stretch that would surprise your crew during a working incident.

Occupant-use hoselines (1½-inch single-jacket) found in existing Class II or Class III standpipe systems are typically 100 feet in length, leading to the assumption, in many cases, that by adding another 50 feet to allow connection on the floor below, an engine company would have enough working length to cover the entire floor.

Photo credit: Photos by Brad French

An engine company coming up short on an attack line stretch during the critical early moments of a working high-rise fire is a tremendous tactical error for fire suppression, not to mention embarrassing and potentially life-threatening.

While much has been written and discussed about the proper diameter and flow rate capabilities of high-rise attack lines, significant consideration of overall length is often overlooked. Factors such as mid-hallway hose cabinet connections, sprinkler allowances, stairwell configuration and apartment unit size can all lead to required hose deployments from the floor below the fire being well in excess of the commonly bundled 150-foot high-rise pack. Only thorough pre-incident planning and company-level drills in the engine’s first-due district will minimize the chance of a short stretch in a high-rise or large-area commercial structure.

How this started

The history of the common “three sections of 50 feet” hose bundle for standpipe operations is debatable, but stems from a number of different factors. First, occupant-use hoselines (1½-inch single-jacket) found in existing Class II or Class III standpipe systems are typically 100 feet in length, leading to the assumption, in many cases, that by adding another 50 feet to allow connection on the floor below, an engine company would have enough working length to cover the entire floor. Although an engine company would certainly not use the occupant-use hoselines themselves for primary suppression, the length of the built-in “house lines” in the cabinets has often led to improper assumptions by the fire department about the likely amount of hose required to cover the floor.

Second, the residual outlet pressures that were required by NFPA 14: Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems prior to the 1993 revision of the standard were based on an assumed three-section layout of 2½-inch hose with a smoothbore nozzle. Buildings with an NFPA 14-compliant standpipe system constructed prior to 1993 require only 65 psi at the topmost outlet in the system. Bear in mind, however, that this 65 psi requirement is residual, meaning that water is assumed to be already flowing in the system (500 gpm specifically, per NFPA 14). No current water flow in the system, or only a limited amount of water flow from one or two sprinkler heads, for example, could equate to a substantially higher pressure available at the topmost outlet for the initial attack line connected by an engine company. After 1993, in the aftermath of the One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991, the NFPA 14 requirement for minimum residual pressure at the topmost outlet changed to 100 psi. Nonetheless, the three-section, 150-foot standpipe bundle length traces back significant origin to NFPA 14.

Finally, the 150-foot standpipe bundle set-up is common because it is easily divided and carried by a typical urban or suburban engine company staffed with three or four firefighters. The apparatus driver will often stay in the lobby at the fire alarm panel or outside making connections to the FDC, leaving just two or three working firefighters (including the company officer) to get the hose and all associated equipment where it needs to go. Whether the hose is divided into two (75-foot) or three (50-foot) sections, adding any additional lengths of hose will place a significantly increased burden on those members carrying it up the stairwell. However, the building doesn’t always play by our rules and fall in line with our hose layout assumptions. It is the responsibility of the engine company to be intimately familiar with the buildings in their first-due district and know which ones do not fit the mold.

The floor below

One of most common reasons for a 150-foot standpipe layout falling short is connection being made into the system from a hose cabinet along a wall on the floor below the fire. Although Class I standpipe systems are most often located in stairwells, Class II and Class III systems are quite often found in cabinets along a hallway wall. Although an engine company choosing to deploy their hose bundle directly from a wall cabinet connection on the fire floor itself would almost always find that they have more than enough hose to make all rooms and spaces on that floor, the critical action of floor-below connection simply can’t be shortcut for convenience. In a situation where only light smoke is found in the hallway (while the fire apartment door is still closed), making that easy, convenient, nearby connection may be tempting. But it can be a deadly tactical mistake.

Connecting into the standpipe system on the floor below the fire is not only widely taught and practiced with the idea of launching the attack from an area of safety, but also for being able to rapidly follow the hoseline out for escape in the event that things go wrong. A firefighter needing to rapidly exit must be able to follow the line back continuously to an area of safety on the floor below, not simply to a mid-hallway hose cabinet where smoke conditions are likely to be just as bad as the fire apartment itself once the door into the hallway is opened.

Standpipe outlets in stairwells tend to work well for connection on the floor below while still allowing enough remaining hose for advancement onto the fire floor. Wall cabinets, however, are often set back into the individual floors and not found directly adjacent to the stairwell. Cabinets can sometimes be located 50 feet or more from the nearest stairwell. Obviously, a 150-foot bundle length would come up woefully short with this building layout (50 feet to get to the stairwell, roughly 40–50 feet up the stairwell, 50 feet remaining for use on the entire fire floor). In fact, the engine company may not even have enough hose to reach an apartment door that is remote from the stairs, let alone have a working length to advance inside for extinguishment. The delays involved with calling for additional lengths and extending the line (especially under deteriorating conditions) could have a catastrophic impact on the incident.

Another factor influencing hose deployment length is the concept of sprinkler allowance. Although automatic fire sprinklers are tremendously beneficial to the fire service and to building owners and tenants, there are times when standpipe outlet location variances will be granted to building codes as a result of the installation of a sprinkler system. Although the variances will not likely eliminate the requirement of a standpipe system entirely, the number of stairwells containing standpipe outlets may be decreased, and distances between hose cabinets may be longer.Other issues

Additionally, the characteristics of the interior stairwell may eat up needed hose during deployment. For example, stacked “straight-run” stairs can double the amount of hose needed to travel up from the floor below the fire floor in comparison to continually rising return-style stairs. In some high-rise commercial buildings, certain stairwell landings can “skip” a floor access, leading to the nearest appropriate standpipe outlet actually being two floors below the fire floor. In all of the above cases, 150 feet of hose would simply not get the job done.

Also deserving of consideration is the square footage of the apartment units themselves in a residential high-rise (as well as office space layout in commercial buildings). Although most common apartments in urban areas are 1,000 square feet or less, luxury apartments and condos in modern high-rises can span as much as 3,000 square feet or more. In these cases, an engine company may need more than a 50-foot working length inside the apartment itself to completely cover all rooms and the associated corners and obstacles.

The importance of preplanning

The only way for a suppression crew to truly set themselves up for success is extensive pre-incident planning. In many cases in your first-due district, 150 feet of hose may very well be enough. However, structures that will lead to longer necessary hose lays must be identified ahead of time. If a department has no desire to upgrade bundle length to 200 feet permanently, only extensive preplanning will allow the engine company to know when to take up an extra length.

A factor that must be considered with longer layouts, however, is that available pressure at the nozzle will be decreased as a result of increased friction loss in the additional length. If your engine company is deploying 2½-inch hose with a smooth bore nozzle, you’re unlikely to notice any negative effect from the increased length at all. However, if your standpipe bundle is outfitted with 1¾-inch hose and a fog nozzle, any additional pressure loss could take things from bad to worse. Considering a balance between flow rate and carrying weight, many departments have evaluated 2-inch hose for their standpipe bundles. In any case, consider using 2½-inch or 3-inch hose for any additional lengths coming directly off the standpipe outlet, regardless of the diameter of your primary hose bundle. This will allow for additional length, while keeping friction loss at an absolute minimum.

Engine companies must drill regularly on actual hose deployment in their first-due high-rise buildings. Frequent false alarms in apartment towers can lead to a dangerous sense of complacency. Take the opportunity every so often after those false alarms to put down some hose in the stairwells and hallways. Train on different techniques to maximize your layout, such as taking advantage of well holes in the stairs. Practice estimating how much hose you’ll have left at the furthest apartment off of the stairwell, and then put the hose on the ground and see if you were right. More importantly, take the time to preplan and stretch hose in the buildings that you don’t respond to on a regular basis. Those under-the-radar buildings may well contain elements to lengthen your stretch that would surprise your crew during a working incident. Determining the hose diameter, overall length and nozzle set-up that works best for your organization’s standpipe pack is a critical task, but equally important is the frequent company-level training and pre-planning associated with a smooth and effective deployment.

BRAD FRENCH is a lieutenant with the Dayton, OH, Fire Department, assigned to a downtown engine company. He is a 15-year member of the fire service, holds degrees in fire science and fire administration, and is a lead instructor at the Dayton Fire Department Training Center. He also serves as an adjunct professor in the University of Cincinnati and Sinclair Community College fire science programs. French is a member of the Board of Directors of the International Society of Fire Service Instructors (ISFSI) and serves as an instructor for the ISFSI “Principles of Modern Fire Attack” program. Contact him at bfrench@iaff136.org.

Initial Fire Attack

#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

Cancer Prevention in the Boston Fire Department