FFPCogs

Very erudite and well presented response that for the most part I agree with. This tactic like all tactics has it's place and being educated on the dieferent tools at our disposal and when to use them should never be frowned upon. That said I do though take exception to this one sentence as I have personally experienced quite a different view:
As most know I spent a number of years doing contract firefighting overseas and in that capacity I worked with FF's from all over the U.S. and now Europe. Like FF's everywhere, we overseas engaged in tactical discussions frequently and at times even heatedly, especially when talking about aggressive interior operations. When I started back in 2004 there were probably 2 or 3 members out of 20 who advocated the "hitting it from the yard" tactic as THE primary means of attacking the average structure fire, specifically because they were taught and honestly believed that an "interior attack is too dangerous" in modern firefighting...their words not mine. Their departments made the conscious decision to change their fundamental strategy to an initial exterior attack every time at every fire as policy and justified that change by citing firefighter safety. Fast forward to 2015 and the number of my colleagues who come from departments that adhere to this principle has quadrupled to over a dozen or more, paid, volunteer and military out of 30. These are FFs from widely disparate departments ranging from North Carolina to Oregon, Indiana to Alabama and a host of places in between. They didn't know each other before being assigned to the base nor did their departments work together, the only thing they have in common is a taught belief that ""interior attack is too dangerous". The point being, the "push back " is not based on some kind of irrational fear of change, but rather resistance to a "one size fits all" "use this tactic always" philosophy that, in my personal experience anyway, seems to be spreading through the American fire service.

I think that is the real crux of this. We're looking at a very small piece that came out of these research burns. The research really starts with scientifically (and importantly- repeatable methodology) showing the changes/clarifications in our fire environment on numerous fronts: building contents/fuel load that result in dramatically faster heat release rates (HRR), the building itself, and the effects of all ventilation (not just as a specifically employed tactic) on the fire and conditions within the structure.
We're getting stuck on one small item that has been identified as a way to address these faster HRR's that cause untenable conditions sooner, in structures that due to new building practices may fail so much faster it almost coincides with FD arrival. Failure to understand that fires in buildings are changing as opposed to the ones that much of our previous tactics were born from. This is not in anyway to say we've got to start from scratch, this means we need to adjust where tactically necessary based on understanding our "workplace" better.
There is a ton of information out there, and I've read, heard, discussed, seen, and tried a lot, of which was likely just a scratch on the surface. But in that time, I've yet to see anyone participating in the research advocate fighting all fires from the exterior. The only people saying this are really people immediately pushing back against change, anticipating the "Safety Sally's" are taking over and telling us interior attack is too dangerous. The only legitimate tactic that I've seen recommended by any credible source has been employing an exterior stream to quickly reduce the energy from a venting fire. This appears to have come from NIST's research showing that properly employed, the stream will not push fire or steam viable occupants to death, removing those concerns that often prevented us from doing this before. There are specific parameters for employing this tactic (when, where, how) and also very often noted that it should not cause noticeable delay in the initial interior stretch.
Reducing the heat in the interior, where applicable, is not because firefighters are becoming "wimpy" but in fact, because they recognize that the risks to occupants and firefighters alike continue to grow as heat rises. We now know that if the temp is "X" right now, it will likely grow as soon as we open the front door to take that first line in, and continue to rise sharply until we get water on the fire. Having given the same fire a quick shot of water, we may be able to move in to the seat faster. This should be the goal, remove the energy to speed our path to the seat of the fire, not to extinguish the fire from the yard.

The main issue here is that everyone is comparing FDNY's tactics, to their own and others. If your department can place 4 fully staffed engines, 3 full staffed ladders, a fully staffed rescue, 2 battalion chiefs on location, all trained to FDNY's minimum training standards, then by all means, compare away. FDNY's guys arrive on scene and each member basically has 1 function to perform... and that's it. 99.99% of other departments, when you arrive, are going to be expected to multitask and call audibles on the fly.
However, most of us are showing up with less then the NFPA's required 16 personnel for a single family residential home (2,000 sqft) within the first 8 minutes. That doesn't even account for larger McMansions or even high rise or OMDs. Each department must look at their manpower on any given moment, and make prudent tactical decisions based off of the situation that has been presented at that very moment.

Showing up with 2 guys and no officer on the first due engine, with no confirmed reports or identifying signs of people inside? Stretch your handline, IF NEEDED, give it a quick shot before you mask up, make entry and perform an aggressive interior attack, while your backup man and or second due companies search off the line.

Same staffing, but with confirmed reports of people trapped with a known location? Life above all else. Mask up, and either perform a normal search, or VES the area where the victim is expected to be.
Basement fire? Whats the harm of popping the bilco door, or venting a small basement window and giving it a quick shot, and allow the gasses to vent and cool, and maybe flash BEFORE you make entry and flash on you and your crew.
To sit here and say that every situation should require transitional (which, btw, is just a fancy name for a task that has been employed since the dawn of firefighting with a new fancy buzz name now) or strictly aggressive interior, or defensive attack, is ludicrous. Proper training, and knowledge of situational awareness and the ability to properly apply each individual tactic and strategy appropriately is what we should be discussing.
I highly recommend people read "Suburban Fire Tactics," by Jim Silvernail. He addresses issues that minimally staffed departments around the country face everyday, and goes over tactics and strategies to bring back and apply to your departments as necessary. Here is a fire engineering article he wrote that discusses some of the aforementioned points, and a link to purchase his book:
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-164/issue-3/features/suburban-fire-tactics-prioritizing-functions-and-developing-preferred-operating-methods.html

https://books.google.com/books/about/Suburban_Fire_Tactics.html?id=QYDAxE_8e_QC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Research also shows that a nozzle firemn' inside a fire room is like an adrenaline junkie, pig in s*** causing a chemical reaction in the brain of hapiness and accomplishment when the job is done.
Lets admit, we are all stubborn firemn' and this is the real reason none of us will ever agree with these "studies". Thank you for taking the time to find out fire is best suppressed from the outside in but im going to stick with what I was taught 9 years ago. I will also be teaching my kids the same.
(here come the safety nazi's with the firefighter fatality reports...right abouuuuut....
NOW. [by the way im healthy and not heart attack prone.] )
Watch this first: "TRUE VALUES OF A FIREMAN"
Part 1-
Part 2-

As I said I'm not sold on "hitting it from the yard" concept, but you know what, if a tactic works for you then it works for you...and that's great. But what it comes down to is what everything we do on the fireground comes down to...training. If a department has chosen to embrace this method of fire attack than they must follow through with training all their personnel thoroughly on the ins and outs of utilizing it. It was mentioned earlier about hitting the fire for a quick shot of about 30 or so seconds to "reset" the fire and cool the interior. Well everyone that may lay their hands on that nozzle has to know exactly what that means. Having been to a few fires over the years I've learned a thing or two and one of the most common mistakes I see often, in town and out, paid and volunteer, is members having a tool or line in their hands and using it simply because they do..."oh look there's fire coming out of that window..well I have a line here so I'll just hit it quick to knock it down for the guys inside"..as those interior members get lobsterized.
Training is the bedrock on which all of our tactics should rest and when incorporating something "new" that training should take on even more significance until that foundation is firm...at least IMHO.

I'm not a proponent of the "transitional attack", but that doesn't mean it doesn't have it's place. This tactic, like all tactics, has it's use, but one thing I find disturbing is that some have now begun to advocate using this method for attacking just about every fire...and no matter what the justification, that my friends is a very dangerous mindset to get into. We don't, nor can we, operate in a one size fits all or "magic bullet" mentality, at least not if we want to maintain what is at the core of our mission..saving lives....civilian lives. We have the training, they do not. We have the equipment, they do not. We have the experience, they do not. And lastly, they are the reason we are here...it is our duty to put "them" before "us" when they are in trouble...after all, that's why they called us.
Ray has it right, so much so that it bears repeating....
"A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

I'm not a proponent of the "transitional attack", but that doesn't mean it doesn't have it's place. This tactic, like all tactics, has it's use, but one thing I find disturbing is that some have now begun to advocate using this method for attacking just about every fire...and no matter what the justification, that my friends is a very dangerous mindset to get into. We don't, nor can we, operate in a one size fits all or "magic bullet" mentality, at least not if we want to maintain what is at the core of our mission..saving lives....civilian lives. We have the training, they do not. We have the equipment, they do not. We have the experience, they do not. And lastly, they are the reason we are here...it is our duty to put "them" before "us" when they are in trouble...after all, that's why they called us.
Ray has it right, so much so that it bears repeating....
"A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

I do agree that this tactic has it's place. With that said i am not a proponent of it. As FFPCogs and BBBMF stated, the scary part is that there are departments out there that are using this tactic at every fire they go to and are in fact not going interior and are standing outside shooting water through a window. You can not look at this as a one size fits all. IMO, you can push fire despite what is suggested with these studies. I also think that when we debate about this there are too many variables involved. Is the structure so involved that hitting it from the exterior for a few seconds necessary just to enter? Or are we talking about a one or two room fire and are hitting it from outside just because it is too hot that you don't want to enter or whatever the excuse may be? If its the latter, you should think about doing something else because being a fireman isn't for you.

FDNY does not regularly do this. The FDNY prides itself on aggressive interior attack.
As far as the discussion goes, making conditions more tenable sounds great except, 75% of fire victims die from smoke inhalation. Flowing water through a window to make conditions more "tenable" for firefighters to enter won't save victims. Getting them out of the building will. Since when does a firefighter put the rescue of a civilian at the bottom of the list? The training of firefighters is about developing skills. Firefighters are taught to put out fires from the interior advancing through a structure a certain way. These are just the basics and the basics take time and is not something that is taught in 5 minutes. Firefighters who have battled fires from the inside learn from experience and repetition how to do it better and more effective which allows firefighters to have the skill levels to extinguish fires from inside. When a firefighter shoots a stream through a window all of the skill development is over. There is no skill level to that and only lowers our skills and is a fire service failure. Another example of fire service failure is that we still have firefighters who cannot operate a 2.5 inch line due to poor technique and education.
"A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY
http://www.firehouse.com/blog/10631380/transitional-attack-is-whack

I think this is a poorly framed poll question. The question asks for a one size fits all answer for something that has far too much variability for that type of answer to work.
I think there will be times in which this tactic will be a wise option and there will be times in which it is the wimpy option.

Or few members and even fewer dollars. Not every FD is it's own taxing district or is flush with funding. Even FDs in affluent towns sometimes have to scrape to get by, whether they have 100 members or ten. And now they want us to replace our turnouts every ten years too...yeah right...good luck with that.

But you could. Nothing says you need your own custom turnout gear.
As for the masks, you are not fitted with a custom mask. You wear the size mask that fits you. S M-L or XL. Nothing special about it and at 300 bucks a pop, that's big bucks to some departments with lots of members.

We used to do that too. Gear used to be stored on the rig and it was first come first served. Now I'm not advocating a return to those "good ole days"..and they were good, damn good...but for financially strapped department's sharing gear should be an option (in fact in some parts it's the norm cuz there just ain't no other choice).
But hey what do I know I'm just a fossil who, like hundreds of other guys, did everything "wrong" and "unsafe" and yet here we are to tell the tale.

I started out at a time when masks were always shared, they were a part of the SCBA unit, so OSHA or not I don't have a problem with it. And yes, if you think about it sharing masks offer considerable savings, but being that the NFPA is the mouthpiece for manufacturers, it's no surprise that they "recommend" every FF be issued one...$$$$$$$$$

We used to do that too. Gear used to be stored on the rig and it was first come first served. Now I'm not advocating a return to those "good ole days"..and they were good, damn good...but for financially strapped department's sharing gear should be an option (in fact in some parts it's the norm cuz there just ain't no other choice).
But hey what do I know I'm just a fossil who, like hundreds of other guys, did everything "wrong" and "unsafe" and yet here we are to tell the tale.

Like what was already said , when I started we had only 2 packs per rig and maybe 20 firefighters to each rig [vol ] and nobody died from lock jaw. As long as they are taken care of and don't share the snot go for it !

I started out at a time when masks were always shared, they were a part of the SCBA unit, so OSHA or not I don't have a problem with it. And yes, if you think about it sharing masks offer considerable savings, but being that the NFPA is the mouthpiece for manufacturers, it's no surprise that they "recommend" every FF be issued one...$$$$$$$$$

I can't tell you off the top of my head that there is an OSHA or NFPA regulation on sharing masks, but it's a heck of a way to save money. I mean, we share SCBA packs, bottles, equipment, living space, bunks, etc. I would think as long as the mask is thoroughly cleaned after each use it's not a problem.

This deal will not prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the middle east and it will not change the centuries of hatred, venom, vitriol and violence in the region.
100 Billion dollars would do wonders to the infrastructure right here in the US or our homeless problem rather than sending it to a country that has traditionally not been an ally of ours.

There's a big difference between having a large standing military force ready to react to aggression and dying for an ideology or becoming a martyr. The strength of a free and democratic nation deters the aggression of those who would seek to destroy that freedom or impose their will on others. My son, of his own free will, is prepared to do his part to defend this country as a draftee if it comes to that. I do not call that brainwashing, I call that being an American.
Be that as it may, the threats are real and growing, not unlike the Nazi's of the 1930's and finger pointing backwards doesn't change that. What happened yesterday to cause the rise of ISIS or embolden Russia, China, North Korea ect is over and done with and can't be undone. The problem now is what to do about the reality of today to secure our country now and in the future.

I realize this isn't fire related and may offend the sensibilities of some, but just sharing my thoughts on various sites on the state of our world today and what to do about it......



Russian bombers buzzing a U.S. carrier, forcing fighters to be scrambled to defend the ship. China's threats to deny freedom of navigation around the Spratly Islands and the adjacent shipping lanes. North Korea building ICBMs that will reach the U.S. mainland. Iran about to have access to $100 billion thanks to the recent nuclear "deal". Millions of "refugees" flooding Europe and soon to be heading here. A border so porous thousands enter the U.S. illegally every day. ISIS inflaming the Middle East and slaughtering thousands. The Russian military fighting in Syria. Hezbollah stepping up attacks on Israel. The House of Saud in disarray. An American Ranger killed in Iraq during a rescue mission. Troops to remain in Afghanistan indefinitely...and so on and so on.



What I'm about to say I don't say lightly, for I have seen first hand the horror of what war is and what war does to people. That said, with threats looming at every turn and growing stronger and bolder by the day, it is time to bring back the draft. Our national security and the safety of American citizens can only be guaranteed through strength...and that strength can only come from a military that is prepared. I fear that today we are not.



After the lesson of Pearl Harbor and horror of World War 2 our military was tasked with being able to fight two wars at once and that philosophy served us well and kept our enemies at bay. As time has passed we have drifted farther away from that philosophy in the mistaken belief that we "won" the Cold War and are untouchable. While we blissfully basked in our glory, the threats we face have grown ever more numerous and ever more dangerous. Well folks, the the Cold war never ended and new adversaries have since emerged and brought their war to our shores. It is time to awaken from our complacency and face the cold hard truth. We were the top dog only because we paid the price necessary to be it, but that willingness is slipping away. Ignoring the threats will not make them go away and fooling ourselves by denying they exist is even worse. I wish no one harm, nor do I wish to see our young men and women forced to serve needlessly, but if we continue in our ignorance because it's easier, than we will only reap what we have sown with the blood of our children and theirs.



And yes I have a personal stake in this. At 51 I'm too old to be drafted but I do have a son that is 15 and his life is more valuable to me than my own. My boy has no desire to serve in the military at present, and while that may change, it may not. Nor do I want to see my only son get shipped off to die in a foreign land. But this I know, if he were to be drafted than he would serve. And I know this because he is my son and we talk as men. So yes he would serve, in small part because I'd want him to, but in far larger measure because he knows what his responsibilities are as American. He knows and he understands that his freedom and the freedom of all Americans isn't free. He realizes that, like his grandfather before him, he may be called upon to risk himself now to face down our enemies so that his children won't have to later.



The idea of bringing back the draft is not popular, that's for sure, but the the evidence is there for those with eyes to see that makes clear it is necessary.

I realize this isn't fire related and may offend the sensibilities of some, but just sharing my thoughts on various sites on the state of our world today and what to do about it......



Russian bombers buzzing a U.S. carrier, forcing fighters to be scrambled to defend the ship. China's threats to deny freedom of navigation around the Spratly Islands and the adjacent shipping lanes. North Korea building ICBMs that will reach the U.S. mainland. Iran about to have access to $100 billion thanks to the recent nuclear "deal". Millions of "refugees" flooding Europe and soon to be heading here. A border so porous thousands enter the U.S. illegally every day. ISIS inflaming the Middle East and slaughtering thousands. The Russian military fighting in Syria. Hezbollah stepping up attacks on Israel. The House of Saud in disarray. An American Ranger killed in Iraq during a rescue mission. Troops to remain in Afghanistan indefinitely...and so on and so on.



What I'm about to say I don't say lightly, for I have seen first hand the horror of what war is and what war does to people. That said, with threats looming at every turn and growing stronger and bolder by the day, it is time to bring back the draft. Our national security and the safety of American citizens can only be guaranteed through strength...and that strength can only come from a military that is prepared. I fear that today we are not.



After the lesson of Pearl Harbor and horror of World War 2 our military was tasked with being able to fight two wars at once and that philosophy served us well and kept our enemies at bay. As time has passed we have drifted farther away from that philosophy in the mistaken belief that we "won" the Cold War and are untouchable. While we blissfully basked in our glory, the threats we face have grown ever more numerous and ever more dangerous. Well folks, the the Cold war never ended and new adversaries have since emerged and brought their war to our shores. It is time to awaken from our complacency and face the cold hard truth. We were the top dog only because we paid the price necessary to be it, but that willingness is slipping away. Ignoring the threats will not make them go away and fooling ourselves by denying they exist is even worse. I wish no one harm, nor do I wish to see our young men and women forced to serve needlessly, but if we continue in our ignorance because it's easier, than we will only reap what we have sown with the blood of our children and theirs.



And yes I have a personal stake in this. At 51 I'm too old to be drafted but I do have a son that is 15 and his life is more valuable to me than my own. My boy has no desire to serve in the military at present, and while that may change, it may not. Nor do I want to see my only son get shipped off to die in a foreign land. But this I know, if he were to be drafted than he would serve. And I know this because he is my son and we talk as men. So yes he would serve, in small part because I'd want him to, but in far larger measure because he knows what his responsibilities are as American. He knows and he understands that his freedom and the freedom of all Americans isn't free. He realizes that, like his grandfather before him, he may be called upon to risk himself now to face down our enemies so that his children won't have to later.



The idea of bringing back the draft is not popular, that's for sure, but the the evidence is there for those with eyes to see that makes clear it is necessary.

You mean like the billions we spend annually doing just that around the world, including in some of those very same places that are now in anarchy. The results of trying to buy security in those ways have proven to be less than effective to say the least.
"Walk softly and carry a big stick"
Theodore Roosevelt
Interesting view, but obviously I disagree. I'm confident history, especially the history of the 20th century, shows that true security comes from military strength not negotiating with tyrants and fanatics . Far more often than not it is the knowledge that your adversaries possess overwhelming military force and the willingness and ability to project it that is the deterrent, not kind words and piles of cash.

If only we'd learn from the past and stop doing it over and over again in the future....
I can be a little hawkish....but we're digging a lot of holes for ourselves....
On the flip-side, I'd like to see us actually fight someone, and not in the media and the television cameras. War is ugly, now it has to deal with the flow of easy information and public perception.

My question exactly. Although to be fair I have no idea what kind of numbers they have for volly's in Larchmont. But I must say this, if they are able to cobble together a crew it is absolutely irresponsible to me that they don't let volly's drive the apparatus IMHO. And keep your "they're not trained to do it" nonsense. No offense to all you stellar drivers out there, but a monkey can be trained to operate a rig, so there's no excuse why firefighters...yes even volly firefighters...aren't.