"Hit It Hard From The Yard": Wise Or Wimps?

[x635 4,066]

Fire science is showing more and more that "hit it hard from the yard" is a great tactic.

For those that don't know, "Hit It Hard From The Yard" can be described as softening the target. Applying water immediately from the exterior, regardless of the direction, cools down the fire, improving conditions in the fire building, amongst many other things.

Here's a great article describing the practice and the science behind it:

http://www.firefighternation.com/article/strategy-and-tactics/what-research-tells-us-about-modern-fireground

The fire service is very reluctant to change in general and slow to adapt. Of course, the "aggressive interior attack" people think the hit it hard from the yard folk are wimps. So, are the people who are subscribing to this theory wise or wimps? (Note: I believe wise)

[dwcfireman 656]

According to the Irish firefighter I met in Waterford, this has been the tactic in Europe for over a decade (probably longer now). Let's start working smarter, not harder!

[v85 212]

I think it makes a lot of sense when used appropriately but the question becomes, what is appropriate. For example, if the fire is a room and contents fire on the 2nd floor rear side of a house, would lobbing in water from the front side of the 1st floor, yards away from the fire really make that much of a difference? Same thing with set back houses and any time you have a long stretch. By the time you pull all that hose how "immediate" is the "immediate water"? (although a transitional attack might still be indicated, which I believe is a different thing, because this seems more about speed of water to fire, transitional to me is more about making a situation too dangerous for interior more safe) The other issue would be of possible overkill. If the fire is so small a can could handle, but you decide to shoot a 2.5 inch line through a window without checking, I can imagine the homeowner might get upset when the water damage bill comes in.

On the other hand, I see plenty of times where this would be a great strategy. For example, pretty much anything other than those few times above. In fact I believe FDNY does something similar regularly, using a deck gun immediately on arrival of storefront type fires

[FireMedic049 597]

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.

[antiquefirelt 994]

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.

[firstdue 37]

In fact I believe FDNY does something similar regularly, using a deck gun immediately on arrival of storefront type fires

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

Edited November 14, 2015 by firstdue

[BBBMF 158]

While this may have its applications; circumstances dictate procedures. If you have limited manpower on scene or a fully involved basement with limited access this tactic may be a good move. BUT, at the same time, you are writing off any viable victims. These new procedures were written because scientists working in a laboratory think you can no longer push fire (my experience tells me otherwise) with a handline and it's ok to knock a fire from an exterior window to take some energy out of the equation. Does it work, in some circumstances yes, but if you cannot access the seat of the fire, you're severely delaying water and now you'd better have another team ready to advance a handline inside after you transition to an interior attack. And not the one that's stretched and charged in the backyard, from the outside. Like an earlier post said, we won't hone our skills on interior attack and search if we are fighting fires from outside. When it's time to go inside, everyone will get lost.

[FireMedic049 597]

FDNY does not regularly do this. The FDNY prides itself on aggressive interior attack. I think he may have been referring to the more traditional transitional attack - hitting heavy fire defensively in order to transition to interior operations and incorrectly associating that with this tactic of "resetting" the fire.

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? From my understanding of the research, this tactic really isn't a matter of putting the civilian at the bottom of the list as you put it. The (limited) water being flowed thru the window is to be done while a crew is stretching a line to the fire inside. The line is only supposed to flow briefly to darken down the fire, not fully extinguish it. One of the primary benefits of this was found to be the disruption of the fire growth and preventing the attack crew from being caught in a flashover as they advance. If conditions are more tenable for the firefighters, then that should aid their ability to search for those victims.

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. While your points are correct, as I stated above, this tactic isn't a matter of abandoning the interior work. While the outside firefighter may not be developing their skills throwing some water in the window, the ones advancing on the fire from the interior are. Now if departments are just fighting fires from the outside when conditions allow for interior operations, then that is clearly 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

[FireMedic049 597]

While this may have its applications; circumstances dictate procedures. If you have limited manpower on scene or a fully involved basement with limited access this tactic may be a good move. BUT, at the same time, you are writing off any viable victims. These new procedures were written because scientists working in a laboratory think you can no longer push fire (my experience tells me otherwise) with a handline and it's ok to knock a fire from an exterior window to take some energy out of the equation. Does it work, in some circumstances yes, but if you cannot access the seat of the fire, you're severely delaying water and now you'd better have another team ready to advance a handline inside after you transition to an interior attack. And not the one that's stretched and charged in the backyard, from the outside. Like an earlier post said, we won't hone our skills on interior attack and search if we are fighting fires from outside. When it's time to go inside, everyone will get lost.

The tactic coming out of the research, as I understand it, is to apply water from the outside while another line is being advanced inside, with the possible exception of applying a quick hit if you can do so from your entry point.

[BBBMF 158]

Correct. However, many departments are employing this strategy without having enough additional manpower to stretch that second handline to the interior. In addition, researchers believe it's ok to be putting a handline in place on the fire floor while a line operates from the exterior because you cannot move/push fire. I find that to be vey incorrect and extremely dangerous. Last time I saw this tried, a handful of guys went to the burn center. Fire is going to move when a force acts upon it.

[antiquefirelt 994]

While this may have its applications; circumstances dictate procedures. If you have limited manpower on scene or a fully involved basement with limited access this tactic may be a good move. BUT, at the same time, you are writing off any viable victims. These new procedures were written because scientists working in a laboratory think you can no longer push fire (my experience tells me otherwise) with a handline and it's ok to knock a fire from an exterior window to take some energy out of the equation. Does it work, in some circumstances yes, but if you cannot access the seat of the fire, you're severely delaying water and now you'd better have another team ready to advance a handline inside after you transition to an interior attack. And not the one that's stretched and charged in the backyard, from the outside. Like an earlier post said, we won't hone our skills on interior attack and search if we are fighting fires from outside. When it's time to go inside, everyone will get lost.

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.

Edited November 15, 2015 by antiquefirelt

[antiquefirelt 994]

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.

[FireMedic049 597]

Correct. However, many departments are employing this strategy without having enough additional manpower to stretch that second handline to the interior. In addition, researchers believe it's ok to be putting a handline in place on the fire floor while a line operates from the exterior because you cannot move/push fire. I find that to be vey incorrect and extremely dangerous. Last time I saw this tried, a handful of guys went to the burn center. Fire is going to move when a force acts upon it.

If they aren't also stretching on the fire, are they really employing this tactic?

I think you may be misinterpretting the information from the research. If doing it properly, the exterior line shouldn't be flowing long enough to really push the fire much at all. Additionally, the tactic requires coordination with the interior team so that you aren't putting water in the room while they are operating in that area. Considering that the exterior line will only flow for maybe minute at most, it's very likely that the line will be shut down before the interior team gets to that area and won't be working against it anyway.

Fire really doesn't move if you are properly applying enough gpms to overwhelm it.

[dwcfireman 656]

Considering that the exterior line will only flow for maybe minute at most, it's very likely that the line will be shut down before the interior team gets to that area and won't be working against it anyway.

The ATF laboratories found that the exterior line should be used for about 30 seconds, "resetting" the fire about 90 seconds, which is about enough time to get the interior line through the house to the room of origin (about 2 minutes).

[FFPCogs 863]

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

[firstdue 37]

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.

Edited November 16, 2015 by firstdue

[FireMedic049 597]

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. If they are not going interior, then they are clearly not utilizing the tactic being discussed. They are simply operating in a defensive fashion and yes, that is a problem if conditions allow for interior operations.

You can not look at this as a one size fits all. Agreed.

IMO, you can push fire despite what is suggested with these studies. If you haven't seen it yet, there's a suppliment to this month's Firehouse magazine that you should read. It discusses "20 Tactical Considerations" related to the recent UL/NIST studies. Number 10 discusses pushing fire. I thought it was a pretty good read.

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. In addition to there being many variables, there's also times in which we aren't all discussing the same thing. I think this is one of those times. The tactic being discussed is briefly flowing water in a window where the fire is in order to "reset" the fire ahead of an immediate interior attack. If the fire is so advanced that it's not safe to enter before knocking the fire down first, then we're probably talking about a more traditional transitional attack. If the fire is being hit from the outside, without the intention of going inside or at least not until the fire is extinguished, then we're probably talking about a defensive attack.

If you're operating defensively on a fire when conditions allow for interior operations, then I would agree that maybe this isn't a good fit for you.

[FFPCogs 863]

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.

[BBBMF 158]

I understand the NIST research project and agree that there are some circumstances for using a quick exterior attack. If you've ever seen it used you'll realize that it only actually takes a few seconds to knock down a room and take a lot of energy out of the equation. That being said, I will say that I was at a good job within the past couple years where we were bringing a handline inside and as we positioned the line, an additional line was put into operation from the exterior. The room we were positioning through went from good visibility to fully involved rapidly. 3 guys went to the burn center.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I understand the NIST research project and agree that there are some circumstances for using a quick exterior attack. If you've ever seen it used you'll realize that it only actually takes a few seconds to knock down a room and take a lot of energy out of the equation. That being said, I will say that I was at a good job within the past couple years where we were bringing a handline inside and as we positioned the line, an additional line was put into operation from the exterior. The room we were positioning through went from good visibility to fully involved rapidly. 3 guys went to the burn center.

I'm going to say that the overall take away for our FD has not been that UL/NIST advocates an exterior attack per se, but a quick hit of the fire room from the exterior, where there is already fire venting, while on the way to making the interior attack. As noted, this is just a quick hit to remove some of the heat and energy while making the initial entry. It's not a mode of attack on its own, its not a transitional attack even in my eyes and it in no way should be construed as license to throw water in while personnel are operating inside. Just because they showed the line cannot "push" the fire, does not mean they advocate exterior streams while personnel are inside. They clearly warn against this for numerous reasons.

The way we see it:

While stretching the first line, if there is fire venting and the line can be charged and flowed into the area without requiring an extended stretch, a straight stream (solid stream) should be directed into the opening at an upward angle with the least amount of movement possible, to darken that area (<60 seconds), and then the stretch to the interior should continue.

[antiquefirelt 994]

New link today from FH.com with a lot of the information we're discussing here: http://brevity.next.firehouse.com/issue/561fcf363bab46bf780c3752 #10 in particular is all about "firestreams pushing fire".

[roofsopen19 34]

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-

[STAT213 332]

Put the fire out, and all your problems go away. Find the fastest way to cool the fire and stop its advance. If you have fire showing from an opening, knock it down, then go in a finish it. That's why they call it TRANSITIONAL attack. It's not a defensive move, it's an offensive one. We've been using it with great success lately. It slows forward progress of the fire (when used in the right circumstance) and allows you to advance to the fire room and finish the job.

It's a tool. It will likely fall into place with the fog/solid foam/water debates. There are many ways to skin the cat. If, at the end of the day, you've put the fire out, saved lives and/or property and put all the lads back in their seats for the ride home, it's a good day.

[FireMedic049 597]

New link today from FH.com with a lot of the information we're discussing here: http://brevity.next.firehouse.com/issue/561fcf363bab46bf780c3752 #10 in particular is all about "firestreams pushing fire".

Yup, that's what I was referring to in one of my responses above.

[FireMedic049 597]

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.] )

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.

[memorymaster 0]

Either or. No two situations are alike. Depending on your resources, extent of fire, exposure problems and a plethora of other things, the decision must be made at the time. I'm not knocking either tactic, but, not to be redundant, what you have on your initial size up will dictate what path to follow.

[roofsopen19 34]

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 glanced over it. Nothing I have not heard before at a conferance. I would say "fire is best suppressed from the outside in" is a pretty well rounded general idea of the content in the article.

They mention a lot of tactics in this article. I can agree with some, but not all of the points.

What do imagine a heavy volume of fire is to you? Contents? Fully involved room? 2 rooms? Through the roof?

Im sure you've been around the block and nobody has to tell you...You would be surprised what an 13/4" with a smooth bore and a set between your legs could do. Hell, a lot of Departments are going to 2" with smoothbore for even more GPM and unnoticeable maneuverability differences...

I feel a lot of peoples idea of "heavy fire load"are off in proportion due to the lack lack of fires today all together. Im waiting for the chief to call the 2nd alarm for a smoking cigarette butt on the sidewalk.

Im not saying the tactics in this video are the right ones...but it goes to show you a little aggression can do a lot.

Im a firm believer in quick response, making the stretch, and getting to the fire room.

Edited November 20, 2015 by roofsopen19

[FireMedic049 597]

I glanced over it. Nothing I have not heard before at a conferance. I would say "fire is best suppressed from the outside in" is a pretty well rounded general idea of the content in the article. It's more than just one article and like I said, if your this is your takeaway from the research, then you didn't comprehend the information or if you just glanced at it, then maybe you missed a lot of important information.

They mention a lot of tactics in this article. I can agree with some, but not all of the points. Sure, I'm pretty much the same.

What do imagine a heavy volume of fire is to you? Contents? Fully involved room? 2 rooms? Through the roof?

Im sure you've been around the block and nobody has to tell you...You would be surprised what an 13/4" with a smooth bore and a set between your legs could do. Hell, a lot of Departments are going to 2" with smoothbore for even more GPM and unnoticeable maneuverability differences... No, I'm not surprised at how much fire a 1-3/4" line can handle since I frequently see it when we catch fires.

I feel a lot of peoples idea of "heavy fire load"are off in proportion due to the lack lack of fires today all together. Im waiting for the chief to call the 2nd alarm for a smoking cigarette butt on the sidewalk. I agree, I see it frequently in my area with many of the other departments. I've listened to multi-alarm fires that sounded like a major conflagration, but later when I see pictures of the fire on the news or on Facebook it hardly looks like there was even a fire.

Im not saying the tactics in this video are the right ones...but it goes to show you a little aggression can do a lot.

Im a firm believer in quick response, making the stretch, and getting to the fire room. Me too.

[kinkchaser 352]

This has been the best back and forth on a topic in a long time, this subject can not be left without speaking of ventilation and fire flow paths as it pertains to fire spread, The NIST study not only speaks of hose line usage but ventilation as well.

[antiquefirelt 994]

This has been the best back and forth on a topic in a long time, this subject can not be left without speaking of ventilation and fire flow paths as it pertains to fire spread, The NIST study not only speaks of hose line usage but ventilation as well.

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.