antiquefirelt

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.

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.

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.

If your takeaway from the research information is that "fire is best suppressed from the outside in", then you clearly didn't comprehend the information.

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.

This is the realistic fear of FD's just taking the headlines from these articles and implementing changes. Those who understand the research and ensure their personnel understand when to employ and when not to, how to employ and how not and that our priorities haven't changes, will likely successfully improve their operations. Like so many other tactics, failure to properly employ them or fully understand them can have disastrous results.
With regard to "pushing fire" with the hoseline, the analysis and conclusions are pretty verifiable. The problem is that only tells a small piece of the story, again, fully understanding the work UL/NIST put in along with FDNY, CFD and other fairly established FD's, is important. While the straight stream may not "push fire" or move air, the act of occluding a exhaust opening with just a little stream movement in the window can change the flowpath. When superheated smoke and gases suddenly cannot go out in one direction, they change direction and seek that low pressure. now we add in some added moisture, which makes the same temperature "feel" hotter, resulting in what so many of us have experienced: a sudden change in conditions. The NIST videos detailing the FDNY tests show the effects of improper exterior stream employment. That said, every set of tests, and there are many, all seem to show a rapid drop in interior temperatures in the immediate area where the exterior stream has been directed and those results extend out from there.
I would say there is as much danger if not more or continuing to do things the same as always as there is trying to employ this. If your FD is going to just start shooting water in from outside without understanding all of the processes, then the same FD was likely operating dangerously before any of this.As a FD that operates daily with too little first due staff, our focus is one getting the first line operating, if the exterior stream is indicated and can be done without measurably slowing the interior attack, then it will most likely be done. Utilizing a second line for an exterior stream is only likely where the second line is already been ordered due extension to an exposure. But as has been said above: situations dictate tactics, you must understand the tactics to be safe, regardless of which ones you utilize.

It should be made clear that proper application of this tactic is not to replace interior attack, but as an immediate precursor to a direct attack. It's hard to argue against making the environment more tenable when most of the reasons we stopped doing this have been debunked. Yes, many places employed the "blitz attack" in the past only to stop due to concerns of pushing fire (who said 30 degree was a good idea anyway) or steaming victims. We now have evidence that done properly (and it isn't hard to do it right) there is very little air movement, most of what we felt in the past was more likely due to our occluding ventilation points or opening new ones allowing more oxygen to the fire. And the evidence points to rapid dramatic drops in interior temperatures. Those victims we were concerned with steaming were likely already dead or won't be negatively impacted.
The key is this isn't an excuse to leave the SCBA in the seat and just spray water from the outside. This is part of an even more coordinated offensive attack, requiring size-up skills, appropriate application and fireground discipline.

I would throw in, as I think FireMedic049 pointed out, the exterior stream is merely one part of the greater picture. If this is the only piece you adopt or look at out of the research you are doing a great disservice to your fellow firefighters and taxpayers.

It should be made clear that proper application of this tactic is not to replace interior attack, but as an immediate precursor to a direct attack. It's hard to argue against making the environment more tenable when most of the reasons we stopped doing this have been debunked. Yes, many places employed the "blitz attack" in the past only to stop due to concerns of pushing fire (who said 30 degree was a good idea anyway) or steaming victims. We now have evidence that done properly (and it isn't hard to do it right) there is very little air movement, most of what we felt in the past was more likely due to our occluding ventilation points or opening new ones allowing more oxygen to the fire. And the evidence points to rapid dramatic drops in interior temperatures. Those victims we were concerned with steaming were likely already dead or won't be negatively impacted.
The key is this isn't an excuse to leave the SCBA in the seat and just spray water from the outside. This is part of an even more coordinated offensive attack, requiring size-up skills, appropriate application and fireground discipline.

Wow, if that isn't an understatement! I know numerous VFD's that run the whole show on far less than that. At $77k/yr I can see how a dept. can go to so many parades without affecting public safety resource, they could buy a parade engine so the real engines could be in quarters!

Wow, if that isn't an understatement! I know numerous VFD's that run the whole show on far less than that. At $77k/yr I can see how a dept. can go to so many parades without affecting public safety resource, they could buy a parade engine so the real engines could be in quarters!

I hope the best for the 5 injured Brother's. The above quotation is the type of thing so many of us should be doing. We cannot continue to do more with less and suffer the effects in silence. At this point, our silence has become tacit approval.

From the New Rochelle Firefighters Facebook page:

I must say that that comment was a bit tongue in cheek on my part. I've looked over and flown the Metz and would concede that there's probably a niche for an apparatus of it's size and weight. It's fast: both setting up and getting to the objective. Not a fan of the climbing space or the limited bucket size, but what on that chassis size you can't have it all.
So, it very well could be a fitting device in New Hampton, I have no frame of reference. There's one in western Maine that seems to be the only real option with tons of seasonal homes on dirt camp roads that an 80,000# aerial would roadblock within 20ft of leaving the pavement. Will an aerial a make a difference in those cases? Hmmmmmm....

Wow, that's all I can say without expletives. Thankfully that tradition never carried far enough north for any of us to see it up my way, truly an embarrassment those who might be associated with that type of event and antics, sadly that may carry over to the rest us as well. I feel for those Brothers and Sisters who belong to professional (volunteer and career) FD's that may be in the area where this kind of event takes place.
And I expected the Metz to be the worst decision I'd see on that video!

Wow, that's all I can say without expletives. Thankfully that tradition never carried far enough north for any of us to see it up my way, truly an embarrassment those who might be associated with that type of event and antics, sadly that may carry over to the rest us as well. I feel for those Brothers and Sisters who belong to professional (volunteer and career) FD's that may be in the area where this kind of event takes place.
And I expected the Metz to be the worst decision I'd see on that video!

Wow, that's all I can say without expletives. Thankfully that tradition never carried far enough north for any of us to see it up my way, truly an embarrassment those who might be associated with that type of event and antics, sadly that may carry over to the rest us as well. I feel for those Brothers and Sisters who belong to professional (volunteer and career) FD's that may be in the area where this kind of event takes place.
And I expected the Metz to be the worst decision I'd see on that video!

I never said it was a good answer and I never said I agree with it.
Personally I think the practice is an accident and law suit waiting to happen. Furthermore, from the public's point of view, it makes a mockery of the fire service.

Tradition, good answer.
Confusing other drivers, making them react to oncoming EMERGENCY lights and sirens. No harm in conditioning the public that red lights and sirens don't mean anything. It's like the boy that cried wolf. I'm sure some of these same apparatus drivers and officers complain when the cars that are in the way don't move when they are going to a real emergency.
Is that new Truck in service yet? Does it carry ground ladders? How many?
Doesn't look like much compartment space

Wow. Just wow. That was embarrassing.

Sadly this type of responses happen far too often. We have a very detailed guideline that requires that you truly need to use lights and sirens or respond in any manner outside of normal traffic, while others immediately around us have the opposite policy: respond Hot unless directed otherwise, and then only by your own Chief. We hear Chiefs running sirens to wires down, bark mulch fires, you name it, embarrassing.

I couldn't help but notice how POV response changed over the years. When I first joined in the 70's, the general public was more attentive and accommodating to a POV with a colored light. Over the years that accommodation became less and less to the point where employing lights to respond almost became counterproductive. You might get someone to yield to you, but usually not.
I imagine the benefit of using lights has a lot to do with your response area, roads traveled, urban or rural, distance to travel, etc. If lights work for you, fine, but in any case, when you deploy your lights you are identifying yourself as a firefighter and your driving with reflect on your department. Drive like a maniac and you diminish your department's reputation along with your own. Drive responsibly and you will be acknowledged positively as a volunteer responding to assist their community.

I understand the nature of some FD's response areas makes POV response necessary, but there are ways to offset the "need" for members to get to the station or scene "hot" in a private vehicle. Chief among these is what volunteer EMS organizations have been doing for years...duty crew staffing. A crew of four in house will get that first rig on the road and on scene with a crew on board prepared and ready to work while the rest of the off-duty members are responding at a reasonble pace, and it will shave minutes off the response time to boot. Add in staffed mutual aid companies and the overriding need for members to speed around town, blue (or red, or green or whatever colored) lights flashing diminishes considerably...even if for only a part of each day.
It's 2015 well into the 21st century....maybe it's time to reevaluate HOW we volunteer as opposed to simply why. And here's one more bonus from a recruiting standpoint: if members know they only have to be available for set hours (where they can train as well), then that will relieve them of having to drop everything for every call and they can schedule the rest of their lives, i.e families, work, hobbies...whatever, while still providing what I truly believe is a higher level of service. A win win in my book.