How about this one?

[ofd226]

One from my own fire department:

What would you do?
Where is the fire?
Considerations?

[Phantom]

Main concern I see is the smoke color, needs good venting from above. Looks like that is being accomplished.

Other concerns, hazardous materials in the occupancy and extra security features.

[Lt. Utah]

It looks like the fire is venting through the roof between Sides 3 & 4. One concern is it could be of Type 2 construction, it looks like it is an auto repair shop so as Phantom stated there are probably various types of hazardous materials that would normally be used in that type of operation. The large rollup door would make an excellent ventilation/entry point, it looks like access to the rear of the building is limited.

[Beef14]

Same comments as the 2 posts above. The smoke color is a defininate on the type of fuels involved. Ventilation is a key in this type of structre as well as the structural intergrity of the roof. It appears it is already through the roof on the C side. Have crew enter from the A/B side and push it back. If that doesnt work or conditions worsen inside, ladder pipe it. I remeber reading an article about smoke coloring on a fire ground and that dark, brown smoke usualy means that untreated wood is being burned, much like those used in the construction of homes and such. That would give me the hint that there is more than likely a weakness in the structures integrity. Other than that, take a deep breath, go in and knock it.
S. Hall

[ofd226]

do these pics change your perspective?

[ofd226]

another

[Lt. Utah]

The last 2 pics provide a much clearer picture. Get the rollup door open and set up a deluge set and let it eat.

[Phantom]

Might as well set up the towers/ladder pipes as well because that deluge gun isn't going to reach it all.

[11927]

get that pick up truck moved, if possible.

[Beef14]

the other two shots really clarify the incident. After seeing them I would set up ladder pipes and do defensive only. But due to the low lying wires, if I couldnt ladder pipe it, I would set up some portable monitors.
S. Hall

[ofd226]

Here is the actual incident:

Reported Car Fire in an Auto Body shop at 1335 hrs. Units dispatched : 12 Engine, 1 Engine, 2 Engine as RIT, 1 Truck, BC 2

First Unit on scene advised "12 Engine on scene, working fire in a single story auto shop taking a lead, deferring command" Fire was in a type 3 and heavy timber 1900 era former warehouse.

Pulled a 1 1/2 inch handline to the front door, 2 FF's and Officer made entry into building finding very high heat conditions and heavy smoke and fire inside a 40 by 90 foot shop with attatched offices. Advised 1 Truck that they needed a hole right away, while attempting to find seat of fire. The roll up door was blocked with multiple vehicles on the inside, so not a viable entry point. While on roof, 1 Truck opened scuttles and made a 6 by 6 foot hole. The roof was multiple layer tar and gravel, with a comp roof underneath. After initial vent, heavy fire conditions were visable from the roof, and a partial roof collapse occured. A Second Alarm was sounded at this time, which consisted of 2 more Engines, 1 more truck and another chief. Crews remained inside the building due to the collapse occuring in a non-structurally significant area. Next in engine crews brought 2 1/2 inch hand lines and attempted to advance inside. At this time, due to an additional collapse along with deteriorating fire conditions and no knock on the fire (20 minutes into the fire) the BC made the decision to go to a defensive attack, and ladder pipes went up. The fire ultimately was a 1 million dollar fire loss. 4 FF's were slightly injured with thermal burns to neck and ears (we dont wear hoods)

[Tool Fool]

Why on earth not?

[ofd226]

the loss of situational awareness in a fire. i would rather be burned than be comfortable and not be as aware. It has always been kind of a badge of courage to have your ears blistered after your first good fire.....i know sounds kinda stupid. but we only recently have begun wearing turnout pants...so hood are unfortunately not too far off most likely...

[Chuck Collins]

the loss of situational awareness in a fire.

Not to be rude that has to be the worst excuse I have herd. It is like going back to the 1980's all over again.

It has always been kind of a badge of courage to have your ears blistered after your first good fire.....i know sounds kinda stupid.

So you would rather be disfigured than safe and Healthy. Sorry I got to say this JACK ASS!

These are the same kinds of things I said in the early 1980's, when I was a wet behind the ears. We all resist change. Change in this situation is for the better. Getting used to Hoods and turnout gear is sometimes difficult. Look at it this way with the proper gear you can operate safer deeper. Maybe just maybe if you all wore hoods there would have been less property damage on this call. (probably not) Because you would have been able to get closer to the seat in hotter conditions. Your ears are not a heat sensor. Your PASS devices should have one.

I did not realize that this argument was still out there after all these years .

Good luck and stay safe so you can live to fight another day.

[Braveheart]

Not saying you are wrong Chuck but there are departments that still where 3/4 boots and long coats (Boston, SanFran,Waldorf) and have a lower injury rate than some other departments. Some people say that having turnout gear on lets you get deeper into a situation because it takes away your ability to feel how hot it is until its too late and the place flashes and we all know its dosen't matter what you have on then becuase you are dead. Me myself I would rather have the turnout gear because I feel as long as I have a charged hoseline I'm not worried about a flashover. But what I think my man fron Oakland is saying is that he would rather be able to judge the conditions by having his ears out and take a burn to the ear rather than not be able to tell and get severly burned or killed. There are alot of old school guys I know from DC and PG who never where a hood and never get burned but me myself I wouldn't do that.

[ofd226]

I have worn both full turnouts and 1/2, hoods and no hoods. In MY opinion, not having them is safer and more effective.

[Chuck Collins]

ofd226

Is there not a standard that tells us we should where full PPE something like NFPA 1971.

We are intitled to our opinions that is what makes this country so great. I for one would not trade my full PPE for anything. I would love to come out and fight side by side with you all but I'd have to where my gear LOL.

Good luck and stay safe.

Braveheart

Just can't believe that this argument is still around.

I just do not want to become an emergency within the emergency what good are we if that happenes. Wearing full PPE can prevent this from happening.

Stay safe!

[ofd226]

not to belabor a point. BUT - NFPA is not law...only a recommendation. Each state chooses wheather or not to follow it. Next time you are in a burn building (and have the opportunity) try both ways. See how much faster you can move without TO pants, see what its like not using a hood....just for arguments sake.

thanks for the good discussion....i value (almost) everyones' opinion :)

[Nightmare]

Although NFPA is just a recommended standard, by not following it opens the door for liability to the department. Wasnt it just this past year in New York State that someone was found negligent by not following the NFPA standard when the practices resulted in the death of a firefighter. NFPA is considered the industry standard, therefore it "should" be the minimum standard in place for the protection of personnel.

[11927]

excellent point Nightmare, to extend your thoughts, why would someone not want to meet or exceed the "national standard" when it comes to their own safety?

[ofd226]

have you ever wondered who sets these "National Standards"? What may be good in some areas of the country may not be good for all. When you look at the types of people that write these guidelines, you may reconsider your blanket approval of them....

For instance, 11927, et al, do you wash your turnouts ever time that you are exposed to a contaminant? Per NFPA regs you MUST. So if you contract cancer years later, the lawyers will go back and ask you that exact question.....

Just playing devils advocate.

[Truckman22122]

The problem that we run into with NFPA and their standards are that they are regarded the Industry Standard throughout much of the country.

So, if you or your department is brought before a court of law to explain your actions for something, a lawyer will ask you why you do not meet industry standards. They would argue that even though it is not legally binding, based on the fact that the majority of the industry recognizes and aheres to it, you are negligent if you do not because it is an accepted industry practice, even though it is not law.

Everyone on both sides of the debate bring up good points. While on the East Coast, where the majority of us reside I believe, NFPA is typically adhered to and can be considered Industry Standard. While I'm not familiar with Oakland or the SF Bay area, if a good portion of departments out there do not use hoods, or full PPE, etc. they could present the arguement in court that the NFPA is not the industry standard in their area.

The best I can contribute to this discussion is to be proficient with your department's operations. If you operate with Full PPE and Hoods, become proficient with it. If you do not wear Full PPE or Hoods, become proficient with that. That's the bottom line.

[dlo]

A good friend of mine works over on Oakland Fire's 8 Engine on the B-shift as the medic. He and I argue often over this issue. We usually end up agreeing to disagree. I work for a "progressive" fire department down in the south bay area. I put the "progressive" in quotes b/c we fight so fewer fires than OFD does. How are we truly progressing? I do believe the saying that you can fight a 1000 fires one at a time, or one fire a 1000 times. The thing that sets OFD apart is that they do fight so many fires. No BS, my buddie and I got hired on the exact same day. We went on line the exact same day. He has fought at least 4 to 5 times the number of working fires that I have. Due to his fighting fires in the "tried and true way" that the OFD uses, he feels very confident in these methods. I have tried the 1/2 and full methods, and definitely feel safer using the fulls method. I feel that change calls for an increased level of education, awareness, experience in using said products and tactics, and a change in SOP's to reflect said changes and the problems that they may present. Otherwise, it is easy to produce arguments against such change. Tried and true falls hard to "new thinking" and technology. I have not been in the fire service long enough to make my statement gospel. I am just saying that some of the departments in my area, notably Oakland, San Francisco, and Vallejo, who are arguably the highest burning departments in Northern California, have found that change has come hard since tried and true has worked so well in the past. These cities architectually have not changed much in the last 100 years. The old ways still work for them, including PPE. It is hard for people such as myself, who work in areas of completely new construction and demographic change to understand why some departments haven't changed with the times. One day, change will come to these places. It's an argument as old as smooth-bore vs. fog nozzles. Believe me, I argue this in my department all the time. I have to fight to keep the smooth bore nozzle hooked up to the deck gun on my engine vs. the standard TFT fog nozzle that sits there on 100% of engines throughout my agency. So I guess change comes hard. Tried and true falls hard to the new, no matter what the research states. Thanks for your time, and sorry for the long post.

Respectfully submitted,

dlo

[eng5ine]

Unfortunately in this litigious society is it dangerous not to adhere to a standard such as NFPA. It wouldn't surprise me if some day some FF who boasts about not wearing a hood gets disfiguring burns someday and decides he needs to be compensated for his suffering. He will sue based on the fact that his department didn't meet NFPA standards even though there was nothing that prevented him from wearing a hood and could have done so. We've seen some of the crazy lawsuits won in this country (e.g. McDonalds coffee) so he would probably win, forcing the Department to change.

I personally don't agree with all of the NFPA standards, for example the ones dealing with vehicle lighting. I think a lot of lobbying by manufacturers go into these.

Just my 2 cents.

[fireme69]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ofd226
[B]have you ever wondered who sets these "National Standards"? What may be good in some areas of the country may not be good for all. When you look at the types of people that write these guidelines, you may reconsider your blanket approval of them....

NFPA is a concensus standard which means that all members of NFPA Vote on the standard, if you are concerned about the NFPA 1971 standard then join NFPA and voice your opinon. NFPA is comprised of members from all over the country.

On the issue of wearing hoods, it is unbelivable that you would think of entering a structure that may have tempratures as high as 1500 degrees with out wearing a full protective envelope. I have seen firefighters who have been caught in a flashover and the only thing that protected them to the extent that they were not killed was there full protective envelope.

As far as mobility your complaint is void, if you cant do your job in the appropriate gear find a different job.:mad:

[ofd226]

Originally posted by fireme69
[B
On the issue of wearing hoods, it is unbelivable that you would think of entering a structure that may have tempratures as high as 1500 degrees with out wearing a full protective envelope. I have seen firefighters who have been caught in a flashover and the only thing that protected them to the extent that they were not killed was there full protective envelope.

As far as mobility your complaint is void, if you cant do your job in the appropriate gear find a different job.:mad: [/B]

WOW...now hold on a sec buddy. I would like to see you enter ing a 1500 degree atmosphere with any kind of protection that you want. It cant be done!!

The whole point is, you will recognize an impending flashover prior to it occuring without hoods. How many firefighters were caught in flashovers prior to hoods?

Why dont you tell Chicago and Boston that they should get another job because they don't want to wear full turnouts. I am sure they would love to hear your arguments. Come at me with something better next time PAL.:rolleyes:

[JH52]

On the issue of wearing hoods, it is unbelivable that you would think of entering a structure that may have tempratures as high as 1500 degrees with out wearing a full protective envelope. I have seen firefighters who have been caught in a flashover and the only thing that protected them to the extent that they were not killed was there full protective envelope.

I think it's unbelievable that anybody would try and enter any area, wearing ANYTHING at that temperature. If you are truly "caught" in a "flashover".....you are DEAD. Full TOG will NOT protect you in those temperature ranges. Read the users manual, it says just that in black and white.

Envelope means all your natural senses have been numbed.
Do you think that the full envelope had anything to do with them being "caught" in the "flashover" in the first place??

Maybe it was a lack of Truck Co. functions that placed them in peril? Seems like the fire service has come back to placing heavy emphasis on performing Truck Co. functions. Emphasis on tactics that are tried and true, from the days long before PBI and flash hoods.


I personally wear a hood. However, I don't wear my earflaps pulled down. I wear a regular weight Nomex hood with my "super PBI" turnouts. Could that be considered middle ground?

[chief2101]

To ofd226 and dlo: Here are some things to consider about your arguments: Looking at the fire picture and then reading about the initial attack I find a basic mistake made by the first crew. old226 states that the first crew took a 1.5" handline to the door. Well, if I was there (and I have never even been in the state) my first question is "Where is the 2.5" attack line?". You have fire already through the roof, ugly smoke, obstructed access, and no roof hole. Why take a small line? Don't ever confuse a small building with a small fire. They are two different things. About NFPA standards: I have served on an NFPA committee. It is true that sometimes a group of 10-15 people are making decisions for the entire American fire service. And manufacturer reps are on some of the committees. The comments on standards are open to everyone, not just NFPA members, but only NFPA members can vote on a standard. In one of the posts someone mentions that the industry standard could be different on the different coasts. It's different only if you can prove that a fire is different. (I'm pretty sure 1200F degrees at the ceiling is the same no matter where you are) So the "industry standard " applies everywhere. It's funny how some say they don't follow NFPA standards. Look inside your coat, boots, helmet etc. See any NFPA compliant tags? You are already following NFPA standards in some way. Have a great fire safe day.

[dlo]

Hi Chief 2101. Just to clarify. I wasn't saying that the OFD, or these other traditional departments are right for using their chosen tactics and ppe. I was saying that old thinking dies hard. My department has worn full turnouts for probably 15 years or so. I am all for wearing full turnouts. My department also seems to do most everything according to NFPA standards-- from PPE to Apparatus, to apparatus equipment. My reasoning in the above post was that it is hard to argue with someone who is dead set on what has worked for them in the past, and continues to work for them. It's almost like the Florida native who has waited out many a hurricane, and decides to wait out the one coming for them. Only it's the "100-yr. storm" that's going to kill many and destroy everything in its path. Some people are wise enough to board up and get out. Others decide to "wait it out", or, stick to the tried and true (rather than the "new"); sometimes, unfortunately, with disastrous results. Your reply though was well thought out, and well put (especially regarding the choice of attack line, etc.).

[florian]

I think JH2 hit the nail on the head when he referred to proper truck company operations. In our nations capital our engine companies pride themselves on speed and agression with quick knockdown. Many times this is achieved prior to the truck companies ventilating, this is fine in a room and contents fire, however if its a little more many times we find ourselves a little to deep. I think maybe less gear would not allow us to get in as much trouble. However if your department is like mine then money is tight, with very few departments operating truck companies with the proper manpower levels. So we are in a no win situation.

[JHolland915]

Units continued an interior attack because the collapse occured in a non-structually significant section of the building.

Very interesting statement. Not sure I agree how that was worded. This building has been attacked by the fire to the point of a "minor" collapse. Wouldn't you think this is only a prelude to a more significant and catastrophic collapse. Remove the crews and begin a defensive operation. Look at the pictures and tell me there is something to be saved.

[PBFTRK8]

Just a couple thoughts from the first picture.

What is your procedure for size of handline in commercial building. Regardless as to the dispatch of a car on fire, once the car is in the building, its considered a building fire. I think the 2 1/2 with a smooth bore, is the right line to be stretched here first.

Second, even though car were blocking the garage door for being a good point of egress, that door needs to be opened for ventilation and to give portable deluge guns a nice place for operation.

All in all, it was good that they kept accessing the situation, and changing modes of operation.

[mp1278]

If your still listening, Boston started changing to full turnouts around 1998, and the guys in my medic class wore hoods too (2000). Better to wear the hood and advance another room. Your lack of change could be the reason a toddler dies in the next room down the hall, because your ears were hot and you decided it was time to go. Thats just my opinion though. I work in a small town so experience is hands down to you, but again I'd rather go deeper in a search than find out in the investigation that we could have got someone out.

[neb]

set up the ladder pipe on side A make a good and quick knock after that take a line in with some hooks and hit all of the hot spots.

[allpro]

"set up the ladder pipe on side A make a good and quick knock after that take a line in with some hooks and hit all of the hot spots."

Set up a ladder pipe? It's a one story building. If your going to go with master streams; try a deluge set. Your not going to always hit the seat of the fire using an elevated master stream. More than likely you will be bouncing it off of the roof. Your next tactic was to take a line and some hooks in. If you flow thousands of gallons of water on that roof, what do you think the chances of collapse are? Looks like type II construction. The steel truss are already compromised from the heat.

[FIREEATER]

Its all a training issue! Train with the hoods like most departments and YOU WILL KNOW when it is getting bad. Its your safety. Think about it.

[resLTcue]

There is about 5,00 different ways to look at this topic as you can with any monday morning quarterbacking. I would like to include my opinion into this forum simply because I like to learn about what others think.

Personally, I do not care what your company does, if you wear full turn outs with gloves and hoods, great if not that is your choice. I know that I will be wearing my hood when I enter a fire, basically because I am required to by my superiors and as a lieutenant I require it from my crew. Everyone can read a standard or set up an SOG but that is based on the boss. Lets comments on the training issue, yes it could be...if you have trained using burning facilities or whatever means your department has to simulate structure fires you will know a little bit about what to expect in a real fire where the game has a lot more players and factors. I know my basic training required me to attend several burns in a burn building and that helped me understand more about fire. During all of the burns MFRI (Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute) required me to wear long sleeves and pants however my paid uniform only requires long pants and a golf shirt during the summer months and a job shirt (sweatshirt) during the cooler times. I know I do not have long sleeves on when I go on calls, so yes I short cut my basic training.

If you have never trained with bunker pants or hoods how would you know what it is like to have them. Most of us who do wear them can stand back and wonder why. If everyone wore the airport/silver more fire resistant and protective gear, we would critize those who wear what we wear today, just like we will critize what they wear tomorrow when we are too old to fight fire anymore.

My only question is to those who meet the requirements everytime...I am sure you have short cut at least once...SCBA during overhaul, or lack there of without monitoring the air quality.

Have fun, but be safe and do not let the risk out weigh the benifit.

[Backstretch]

mp1278,

You mention that Boston began switching to Turnouts in 1998...well I can tell you as of 9-11-04 when I was speaking to some brothers from Boston who came to my firehouse in NY that many of them are now wearing 3/4 boots or FR pants with steel toed work boots in lieu of the Turnouts. And they love them. They have been experiencing no increase in burn injuries and have lower incidents of stress and cardiac issues related to encapsulation.

I for one would wish my dept would do the same thing as Boston did. Provide the gear and allow the choice as to what works best for the fireman in question.