What is your departments' primary ventilation?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Art Zern on November 12, 2008 at 10:43pm

Jim,

I think the use of PPV as part of an initial fire attack is limited in many parts of the East and Midwest. Likely due to the fact that PDs are primarily either type III (ordinary) or type VI (wood frame) construction. It is very dangerous to introduce PPV into fires in this type of construction, especially if the fire has breeched the drywall/plaster and/or involves the structure and especially in balloon frames.

Many departments, including mine use PPV as a secondary means to “vent” after the fire is extinguished. Additionally, we use PPV to pressurize stairwells in MDs, mid and high-rises and to vent type I and II structures such as large commercial, industrial and warehouse/distribution facilities.

Permalink Reply by Jim Mason on November 13, 2008 at 10:07am

Thanks Ian,
The OV needs to have a good idea of what is happening on the hose line like you are saying. I think that the communications here are critical to the success of the horizontal venting with the extinguishment. In many of the buildings that we respond to it may take extra radio efforts from the engine officer to call for specific windows to be opened for the hose advance if the venting was limited by manning.
Do you guys do (Vent ), Enter , Search after taking out the windows horizontally? and what does the OV communicate before going inside? what does he look for before going in?
Ian Tenney said:

Barring highly unusual circumstances, the box alarm trucks will enter the fire block from opposite ends with the goal of 'scrubbing' three sides of the building, with an emphasis on the front. The ladder drivers will set the jacks and the first-due truck's (unless second due has better position) tower ladder will generally be used to hit the roof. (Our truck fleet is composed entirely of mid-mount tower ladders). OV work is generally coordinated 'passively' - by the member performing it monitoring communications from the engine officer and keeping an eye on the related line: i.e., when it's been charged for a few seconds after the officer orders the line filled.

Personally, in the situations that I've personally performed OV work, I've waited until the engine had been flowing water from their pipe for a few seconds to ensure that they were all set with water - no loss of pressure, etc. due to kinks or other problems that would require them to temporarily slow or suspend their advance - and then began venting.

I've noticed that ladder drivers in particular are great sources of information to our ICs - particularly when they 'take a lap' to vent the rear, etc. The other thing that many of our LD's do (in addition to everything else listed above plus a ton more) is to ladder the building with at least one ladder...these really are hard-working folks.

We do not currently employ PPV equipment or tactics. With the bulk of our fire duty being in balloon-frame buildings, I think with my basic understanding of PPV that it would not be an effective or efficient tactic. That being said, I'm interested in any opinion or knowledge to the contrary.

Be safe.

Be safe.

Permalink Reply by Jim Mason on November 13, 2008 at 10:10am

Yeah I'm with you on that one too, Art. We don;t use any fans until the fires are knocked down. I've seen the videos and they look good, but how much fire is there really, inside? We clear big buildings with the big fans afterwards but not until the IC has an idea that the fire is basically out.
Art Zern said:

Jim,

I think the use of PPV as part of an initial fire attack is limited in many parts of the East and Midwest. Likely due to the fact that PDs are primarily either type III (ordinary) or type VI (wood frame) construction. It is very dangerous to introduce PPV into fires in this type of construction, especially if the fire has breeched the drywall/plaster and/or involves the structure and especially in balloon frames.

Many departments, including mine use PPV as a secondary means to “vent” after the fire is extinguished. Additionally, we use PPV to pressurize stairwells in MDs, mid and high-rises and to vent type I and II structures such as large commercial, industrial and warehouse/distribution facilities.

Permalink Reply by Art Zern on November 13, 2008 at 11:05pm

Ian,

Your brief comments regarding VES are headed in the right direction, I take issue with what I'm sure was not an intentional statement, your use of the word rapid as in the sequence of actions. Specifically, the entry should not rapidly follow the ventilation. What I’m getting at is that following the venting of the window, you should not be in a hurry to make rapid entry. It is very important to take some time to look, listen, observe and wait. Look for signs of life, listen for noises, cries or voices, observe conditions and wait to see what the results of your ventilation will be. The act of ventilating may, especially if the door to the room is open, cause a severe change in conditions. If you don’t take a bit of time to look, listen, observe and wait, your rapid entry may put you in a very dangerous situation.

I believe that there is a significant lack of understanding across the fire service as to what VES is and what VES is not. VES is a tactic that should be employed following a narrow set of criteria. As you said, the formal teaching misses the point in many cases. VES is designed to target bedrooms with a high degree of opportunity for occupancy. The size of the rooms should be small. The control of the room’s door is the first priority as that will be your only protection and may buy the necessary time to complete your rapid search. VES is not an entry point for an extended primary search. If members make entry and either can’t locate and close the door or they realize they are not in a bedroom, they should make a rapid exit.

In teaching Tactics I and II classes, I repeatedly hear firefighters describe VES as many different things and the criteria is often not known. In short, I think we need to do a better job with VES training.

Your thoughts?

Permalink Reply by Art Zern on November 14, 2008 at 2:23pm

Ian,

Dead on. I was sure after reading your comments that you had a good handle on the VES issue. However, many people with varied experience, seniority and job knowledge read these posts and I didn't want someone to get the wrong impression regarding such a dangerous and yet critical fireground tactic.

You detailed the key points very well and I could not agree more with your summary. Further, we share the same concern about less experienced members or those who don't fully understand what VES is and what VES is not. The result of having members attempt a VES operation who don't fully understand the "rules of engagement" and lack experience could be disastrous.

July 3rd 2007, a still alarm was dispatched in my City for a fire in a storefront. Turns out it was a taxpayer with occupied residences above. This was an arson job and the shops on the first floor were fully involved upon arrival of the still engine. The fire was auto-exposing the second floor and had extended into the second floor. The second engine and still truck were several minutes away and due to the time (around midnight), the fire conditions and the delay in arrival of the second companies, the officer decided to get the first line in service and conduct a "VES" operation on the second floor.

The members assigned to VES were fairly junior members. After venting the windows on the "A" side, they entered to search. They entered the living room of the unit and began what was essentailly a primary search. They has been in for several minutes when they were met with extreme heat and fire extending from the bedrooms and down the hall toward the living room. They made a hasty retreat and exited without severe injury. Following allot of discussion, talking with the members and in preparation for a critique, it became clear that we had several problems and issues to deal with. The main problem was that the members did not have a clear understanding about VES and the rules which lead to a lack of recognition of the other issues:
- VES does not mean entering to conduct a primary search
- They didn't enter a bedroom
- They did not seek to locate and secure the door to the room
- They did not recognize that they were in a living room
- They began an extended primary search without protection
- They traveled a great distance from he entry point
- Etc………….

You get the idea. The bottom line was, what did we miss in the academy or during initial training? What needed to be done to reiterate or retrain members on VES? In short, how do we prevent what could have been a tragedy from happening again.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. As I said, it was clear that you were knowledgeable on the topic, I just didn’t want anyone that was not as conversant to get the wrong idea.

Art

Permalink Reply by Jim Mason on November 15, 2008 at 1:51pm

Ian and Art
I agree with both of you in that VES is to be done when there is a high level of certainy that someone is alive to be rescued and we can get this done quickly. Although, we DO want to let it vent before entering, monitoring it all the way before, during and until leaving. The report to command is also an interesting issue along with the monitoring of engine progress. When VES is considered the FF also must communicate to the truck officer who has the "Go or NO Go " order to give prior to the FF's entry in the window. The engine progress inside is monitored by the TRuck CO.

This is most certianly a bedroom tactic when the best means of getting to that second floor is cut off. Much like the situation Art described. a first floor where the best way (the stairs ) to the second floor bedrooms are compromised. The idea may have been good to initate VES in the fire story but the FF's may have been placed in great danger because the actual concepts of VES and inexpeince may have been the deciding factor on success. The target search area for VES tactic was not where the firefighters doing the VES landed. Certainly there is a problem for this trick with going into a window where the furniture that was found was, for example , a dinning room set and china cabinet.
I also like to have FF's think about how bedrooms are set up with the furniture in them. For example , in any typical response district how many different ways can the bedroom furniture be set up. Ususally it is only a few different ways . So the bedroom search has only a few limited ways it can be done . This makes the search rapid and safer for the FF going in the window. I like to point this out as a pre-plan for the VES technique on our EMS runs.

Training for this is extremely difficult because I believe FF's don;t get enough fire duty to begin with. Then we are asking them to go above the fire, with limited or no visibility, searching a room where the oreintation starts with having the right room to begin with, and then having to drag and lift a vicitm to another FF standing in the window on a ladder for a "catch" is tough. When the situation arrises for this task I'd rather be the person in the room with my FF on the ladder. And we are not even beginning to talk about monitoring conditions and making decisions on when to abandon the search. Ouch, there's so much to it!


Art Zern said:

Ian,

Dead on. I was sure after reading your comments that you had a good handle on the VES issue. However, many people with varied experience, seniority and job knowledge read these posts and I didn't want someone to get the wrong impression regarding such a dangerous and yet critical fireground tactic.

You detailed the key points very well and I could not agree more with your summary. Further, we share the same concern about less experienced members or those who don't fully understand what VES is and what VES is not. The result of having members attempt a VES operation who don't fully understand the "rules of engagement" and lack experience could be disastrous.

July 3rd 2007, a still alarm was dispatched in my City for a fire in a storefront. Turns out it was a taxpayer with occupied residences above. This was an arson job and the shops on the first floor were fully involved upon arrival of the still engine. The fire was auto-exposing the second floor and had extended into the second floor. The second engine and still truck were several minutes away and due to the time (around midnight), the fire conditions and the delay in arrival of the second companies, the officer decided to get the first line in service and conduct a "VES" operation on the second floor.

The members assigned to VES were fairly junior members. After venting the windows on the "A" side, they entered to search. They entered the living room of the unit and began what was essentailly a primary search. They has been in for several minutes when they were met with extreme heat and fire extending from the bedrooms and down the hall toward the living room. They made a hasty retreat and exited without severe injury. Following allot of discussion, talking with the members and in preparation for a critique, it became clear that we had several problems and issues to deal with. The main problem was that the members did not have a clear understanding about VES and the rules which lead to a lack of recognition of the other issues:
- VES does not mean entering to conduct a primary search
- They didn't enter a bedroom
- They did not seek to locate and secure the door to the room
- They did not recognize that they were in a living room
- They began an extended primary search without protection
- They traveled a great distance from he entry point
- Etc………….

You get the idea. The bottom line was, what did we miss in the academy or during initial training? What needed to be done to reiterate or retrain members on VES? In short, how do we prevent what could have been a tragedy from happening again.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. As I said, it was clear that you were knowledgeable on the topic, I just didn’t want anyone that was not as conversant to get the wrong idea.

Art

Permalink Reply by Jim Mason on November 15, 2008 at 2:15pm

Ian
To jump in on the question to Art, we are getting hundreds of new FF"s in the field and I need to pick tasks based on ability all the time. I'm a floating Lt. so I get to many of these companies on an irregeular basis. For exmple, the last time I was at some of these companies 2 or more FF's weren't even in the field. I just had a 6th floor fire in the projects where nothing went right other than the fire was not too large to begin with.

Ian Tenney said:

Chief-

A great discussion. Thanks for sharing some first-hand perspective on when attempting the tactic goes on an oblique.

I thought about this for most of the day yesterday while I was at the academy with the current recruit class. Specifically, I was thinking about positions that would ideally be covered by senior, experienced members, when available. These are people that are not generally available for a lot of departments, it seems. In our own case, we have 55 probies on my job and another 19 just got their year on 22 October. It sounds like you're in pretty much the same situation.

I count myself as neither senior nor experienced, but have reached a chronological point in my fire service career where I'm witnessing (for me) the first big changing of the guard with a large influx of new people following (and during, to a degree) the departure of a line of well-experienced, long-serving people. There's a definite difference in the pace of operations at incidents, which I'm sure will return to normal over time as these new folks listen, learn and do. I'm also certain that with every large influx, the guys and girls that have been there for awhile think and say the same things I just did.

While this may be a little off-topic in this venue, I'd be interested in the perspective of someone of your time on the job and specifically your rank. How much does a quick mental size-up of the companies assigned to you, especially when there's probationary or rookie members on board, affect the tasks you give them? I'm sure that there are many times (probably more often than not) when you don't have much of a choice, but I'd like to get your take on it.

To load you down with another question or two, does DPFD run their own probie school or is it done at a county, regional or state level? Also, is there a formal probationary training program for the first year in the firehouse?

Thanks and be safe.

Art Zern said:

Ian,

Dead on. I was sure after reading your comments that you had a good handle on the VES issue. However, many people with varied experience, seniority and job knowledge read these posts and I didn't want someone to get the wrong impression regarding such a dangerous and yet critical fireground tactic.

You detailed the key points very well and I could not agree more with your summary. Further, we share the same concern about less experienced members or those who don't fully understand what VES is and what VES is not. The result of having members attempt a VES operation who don't fully understand the "rules of engagement" and lack experience could be disastrous.

July 3rd 2007, a still alarm was dispatched in my City for a fire in a storefront. Turns out it was a taxpayer with occupied residences above. This was an arson job and the shops on the first floor were fully involved upon arrival of the still engine. The fire was auto-exposing the second floor and had extended into the second floor. The second engine and still truck were several minutes away and due to the time (around midnight), the fire conditions and the delay in arrival of the second companies, the officer decided to get the first line in service and conduct a "VES" operation on the second floor.

The members assigned to VES were fairly junior members. After venting the windows on the "A" side, they entered to search. They entered the living room of the unit and began what was essentailly a primary search. They has been in for several minutes when they were met with extreme heat and fire extending from the bedrooms and down the hall toward the living room. They made a hasty retreat and exited without severe injury. Following allot of discussion, talking with the members and in preparation for a critique, it became clear that we had several problems and issues to deal with. The main problem was that the members did not have a clear understanding about VES and the rules which lead to a lack of recognition of the other issues:
- VES does not mean entering to conduct a primary search
- They didn't enter a bedroom
- They did not seek to locate and secure the door to the room
- They did not recognize that they were in a living room
- They began an extended primary search without protection
- They traveled a great distance from he entry point
- Etc………….

You get the idea. The bottom line was, what did we miss in the academy or during initial training? What needed to be done to reiterate or retrain members on VES? In short, how do we prevent what could have been a tragedy from happening again.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. As I said, it was clear that you were knowledgeable on the topic, I just didn’t want anyone that was not as conversant to get the wrong idea.

Art

Permalink Reply by Art Zern on November 15, 2008 at 4:16pm

Ian and Jim,

Thanks for continuing this discussion. I don’t know who will read this thread, but I think this is important information. Jim, thanks for jumping in. This is one of those topics that when discussed in an open, public forum, should contain accurate information. Young, inexperienced firefighters seeking new, different or advanced tactical information pick-up a lot of information from Fire Engineering and this site. I think discussions like this serve to add depth to important topics.

Regarding company assignments, I make the assignments based on experience when possible. We have the engineer (chauffeur) rank which helps a great deal. We do not pair candidates on a company, even ambulances (we have been a fully integrated Fire/EMS department since 1972). In any case, I make the manpower assignments the workday prior and then adjust for sick-calls and other changes first thing in the AM following roll-call. I make two copies of the manpower roster, one for a clipboard and the other gets folded and I keep it in my shirt pocket. This roster is my initial accountability system and to answer your question, I do refer to that roster at times when making assignments. By the way, the second copy in my pocket is a result of the first one blowing off the clipboard one day and it wasn’t there when I needed it.

We send our candidates to a regional academy for their initial Firefighter II training and Haz-Mat Operations for 8 weeks. When they return, we keep them on days for another 4-5 weeks for training in the particulars of our department operations and so that they can get used to our tools and equipment. The State of Illinois Firefighter certification program begins with FFII which the achieve in the academy and in their first year, candidates work on their FFIII certification. They are issued a book of practical tasks and evolutions that must be “signed-off” by their Company Officer. In addition, they prepare for their end of probation testing. This testing includes a written test, a practical test, a physical agility test, which is a modified Combat Challenge. They also have an oral exam administered by the Division Chief of Training. While they are on probation, they are evaluated quarterly. The evaluation interview includes the candidate, his Company Officer, his Battalion Chief, the Chief of Operations, the Division Chiefs of Training and EMS. We keep a pretty close eye on these candidates and hope to head-off any problems early.

As you mentioned Ian, we have had a high number of candidates over that past few years. Firefighters in Illinois “top-out” in the pension after 30 years and we have been losing members as we have more groups hitting their 30 + year mark.

Thanks again,

Art

Permalink Reply by Shareef Abdu Nur on November 15, 2008 at 8:37pm

At my Full time FD, we have alot of high rise apartments, so we use horizontal alot. if we go to a single family, it depends on the extent of the fire like the others have posted. So, situation dictates. At my part time FD, we always look for a roof assignment first, then readjust if we have to. but, once again, situation dictates.

Permalink Reply by Jim Mason on November 16, 2008 at 9:47am

Art and Ian,
When I instruct in any classses ( and I can tell you do also) - candidates or FDIC like classes I like to do specific information. That's what guys want and need from instuctors with some time on the job . this is so they can actually learn some things rather than just get a speech on what is already out in the literature. Specifics also make the students think about what they need to work on when they get back to their fire depts.
The reason I say this in regards to the disccusion is I believe it's somewhat difficult to evaluate members knowledge, skills and abilities in larger depts. I was on Oak Lawn (a suburban Chicagoland dept) for 6 years from 1987 -1993. Then I started in the City. It was easier to evaluate the personnel because it was only about 100 guys when I was there, but there were few fires then to test the thinking in real time. It sounds like both of your dept's have some of both worlds, a small dept with enough fires to evaluate the team members.
You know, this thread might lend itself to another discussion question on where does classroom training end and where does hands on training begin. espcially for newer members. (By the way, You guys hit so many good points of the VES thing so quickly, I couldn;t get to it because of family business, Good job!! )

Our dept has a roster of personnel in the rig and on the chief's clip board. FDNY also has one in the officer's pocket. This might be becuase they have more members on each rig and 2 change of tours each 24 hour period.

Art Zern said:

Ian and Jim,

Thanks for continuing this discussion. I don’t know who will read this thread, but I think this is important information. Jim, thanks for jumping in. This is one of those topics that when discussed in an open, public forum, should contain accurate information. Young, inexperienced firefighters seeking new, different or advanced tactical information pick-up a lot of information from Fire Engineering and this site. I think discussions like this serve to add depth to important topics.

Regarding company assignments, I make the assignments based on experience when possible. We have the engineer (chauffeur) rank which helps a great deal. We do not pair candidates on a company, even ambulances (we have been a fully integrated Fire/EMS department since 1972). In any case, I make the manpower assignments the workday prior and then adjust for sick-calls and other changes first thing in the AM following roll-call. I make two copies of the manpower roster, one for a clipboard and the other gets folded and I keep it in my shirt pocket. This roster is my initial accountability system and to answer your question, I do refer to that roster at times when making assignments. By the way, the second copy in my pocket is a result of the first one blowing off the clipboard one day and it wasn’t there when I needed it.

We send our candidates to a regional academy for their initial Firefighter II training and Haz-Mat Operations for 8 weeks. When they return, we keep them on days for another 4-5 weeks for training in the particulars of our department operations and so that they can get used to our tools and equipment. The State of Illinois Firefighter certification program begins with FFII which the achieve in the academy and in their first year, candidates work on their FFIII certification. They are issued a book of practical tasks and evolutions that must be “signed-off” by their Company Officer. In addition, they prepare for their end of probation testing. This testing includes a written test, a practical test, a physical agility test, which is a modified Combat Challenge. They also have an oral exam administered by the Division Chief of Training. While they are on probation, they are evaluated quarterly. The evaluation interview includes the candidate, his Company Officer, his Battalion Chief, the Chief of Operations, the Division Chiefs of Training and EMS. We keep a pretty close eye on these candidates and hope to head-off any problems early.

As you mentioned Ian, we have had a high number of candidates over that past few years. Firefighters in Illinois “top-out” in the pension after 30 years and we have been losing members as we have more groups hitting their 30 + year mark.

Thanks again,

Art

Permalink Reply by Jim Mason on November 16, 2008 at 9:53am

Shareef
How does your dept address what is being called wind driven fires in the high rises? This is where the fire is blowing into the fire room through broken windows and then driving the fire back into the hallway where FF's could be working ( stretching hose lines, searching stairways, etc...)

A question to all, does venting the roof on a multiple story draw fire up through the building or does it make the second floor search easier for the truck FF's and give more time to the victims laying on that floor needing rescue?

Shareef Abdu Nur said:

At my Full time FD, we have alot of high rise apartments, so we use horizontal alot. if we go to a single family, it depends on the extent of the fire like the others have posted. So, situation dictates. At my part time FD, we always look for a roof assignment first, then readjust if we have to. but, once again, situation dictates.

Permalink Reply by Jim Wilk on November 20, 2008 at 10:27pm

I read the discussion on VES. There is a video on www.vententersearch.com that gives an example on why training on this tactic is so important.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page