What is your departments' primary ventilation?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Bricault (ret) on November 20, 2008 at 10:30pm

As to the survivability of anyone trapped in a residential occupancy... again, it comes down to how much control we have over the occupancy. If all of the windows aren't blow and all the doors aren't wide open then firefighters have a decent margin of control over the structure. If we can control where the venting takes place by venting a side window remote from the fire and direct the heat and smoke to this exit port then the PPV will have a definite and positive effect on the victim. It is all about control.
In regard to the fire intensifying a fire, especially one that has gotten into the walls.... I understand all the arguments and agree with them in principle. However, in all the times I have seen PPV used, and we use them quit a bit, I have never seen the fan intensify the fire and cause it to become unmanageable or having to chase the fire into the walls and voids. That doesn't that won't happen- its just in 16 years in a very busy area, I have never seen PPV cause the theoretical problems in reality.

Jim Mason said:

Mike and everyone else
How does the fan use affect the survivability of victms in a PD?

Permalink Reply by Michael Bricault (ret) on November 20, 2008 at 10:48pm

I agree in principle. It goes back to a Tom Brennen-ism. Before scba's were widely used ventilation evolutions were aggressive, timely, and coordinated.
One of the other Brennen-isms I agree with is that coordination can also be interpreted as venting taking place BEFORE the engine even begins their push. Think about it.
Sure the fire MAY intensify, but then the engine won't have to look to long for the fire. Also, the interior environment will have had a chance to "breath" and become more tenable. Coordination actually means venting first.
A heads up Truck will take seize the opportunity created while the engine is securing water, awaiting forcible entry and stretching and flaking their line.
AND we must always remember that the search is the most important function on the fire ground. Putting the fire out is an added service that the FD provides as an added bonus and a s a consequence of needed to support those members performing a search and carrying out a rescue. Yes I know... put the fire out and generally things get better. But we must remember that while the fire is being fought, any victims inside will continue to be exposed.
I'm not suggesting ignoring the fire every time !! That is ludicrous. What I am pointing out is the proper order of evolution on the fire ground- suppression supports search and rescue.
Therefore, venting can take to forms, venting for fire and venting for life. Both are vital and both require different levels of experience, manpower and specific criteria to perform on scene. But again, venting t support suppression is performed in order for suppression to facilitate the search. See, it all ties in. And that is something we have all forgotten in the fire service. This was the very subject of a Random Thoughts article back in '96; the interrelationship between functions on the fire ground.
Coordination is critical, but that is not to be confused with simultaneous. Proper coordination is venting taking place before the engine pushing in. The time required for the engine to get ready is exactly what a heads up, aggressive Truck is looking for.

Jim Mason said:

coordination is critical. Sometimes I think it what we forget in the fire service.
I think the fire service did it better when we didn;t have masks on because we had to then

Permalink Reply by Art Zern on November 21, 2008 at 12:06am

Michael,

I'm a bit confused, in an earlier post on this thread you said "As to setting up the fan ahead of personnel moving in... I understand the thought process but in a PD situation I'm not a big "fan". We tend to not have as much "control" over the building as in a commercial or specifically an institutional".

"We typically use the PPV in a residential setting AFTER we have knocked down the fire and have established control over the situation".

If you typically wait to unleash the PPV until after the fire is under control, then you wouldn't have an issue with spreading or intensifying the fire. I was also curious about the "typical" types of construction you are dealing with down there.

Regarding the proper sequence of things on the fireground, the most pressing strategic priority will dictate that for you. If rescue is the strategic priority, then most tactical functions assigned must support addressing rescue as the strategic priority. That will mean stretching the attack line, coordinated ventilation, primary search etc…..

I must respectfully disagree with your characterization that search is the “most important” function on the fireground and that putting out the fire is an “added service”. Although rescue is often the strategic priority, if the initial attack line is not stretched in order to support rescue and if water is not applied to the seat of the fire, all parties including the occupants and our members are in greater peril. I believe that getting the initial attack line in service is the most important function providing the greatest tactical advantage in addressing any of the basic strategic priorities (RECEO). To further explore your argument, what if there is a mayday called? There is no doubt that rescue would again be the strategic priority; however, the confinement and extinguishment of the fire must continue not as an “added service’, but as the primary tactical function supporting the rescue.

If, as I suspect, you are a proud truckie (as I have been) extolling the virtues of aggressive truck work and the importance thereof, then please accept my apologies for taking issue. Perhaps you had your tongue firmly in cheek.


Art

Permalink Reply by Jim Mason on November 23, 2008 at 6:26pm

Art
Can you, as a chief officer, give the group some instances when the priority of actions to be taken is search and/ or rescue rather than extinguishment? When in the IC position does search and or rescue become the focus? What specifics have occured during the incident or response that has now changed the focus?

Art Zern said:

Michael,

I'm a bit confused, in an earlier post on this thread you said "As to setting up the fan ahead of personnel moving in... I understand the thought process but in a PD situation I'm not a big "fan". We tend to not have as much "control" over the building as in a commercial or specifically an institutional".

"We typically use the PPV in a residential setting AFTER we have knocked down the fire and have established control over the situation".

If you typically wait to unleash the PPV until after the fire is under control, then you wouldn't have an issue with spreading or intensifying the fire. I was also curious about the "typical" types of construction you are dealing with down there.

Regarding the proper sequence of things on the fireground, the most pressing strategic priority will dictate that for you. If rescue is the strategic priority, then most tactical functions assigned must support addressing rescue as the strategic priority. That will mean stretching the attack line, coordinated ventilation, primary search etc…..

I must respectfully disagree with your characterization that search is the “most important” function on the fireground and that putting out the fire is an “added service”. Although rescue is often the strategic priority, if the initial attack line is not stretched in order to support rescue and if water is not applied to the seat of the fire, all parties including the occupants and our members are in greater peril. I believe that getting the initial attack line in service is the most important function providing the greatest tactical advantage in addressing any of the basic strategic priorities (RECEO). To further explore your argument, what if there is a mayday called? There is no doubt that rescue would again be the strategic priority; however, the confinement and extinguishment of the fire must continue not as an “added service’, but as the primary tactical function supporting the rescue.

If, as I suspect, you are a proud truckie (as I have been) extolling the virtues of aggressive truck work and the importance thereof, then please accept my apologies for taking issue. Perhaps you had your tongue firmly in cheek.


Art

Permalink Reply by Art Zern on November 24, 2008 at 12:25am

Jim,

The differences in the thought process between a Company Officer and a Battalion Chief (I.C.) are based on the level of expected decision making. The Company Officer, in general, is expected to make task and tactical level decisions. Therefore, the officer is not generally expected to see the “big picture” and in fact, their perspective usually limits their ability to see that big picture. To be sure, we expect Company Officers to understand strategic thinking; however, when you are crawling down the hallway or opening a roof, your perspective is limited.

Battalion Chiefs (substitute the appropriate rank) are expected to make strategic decisions. That is why it is vitally important for I.C.s to establish a “stationary” command position and not engage in any type of task/tactical level duties. They are the one person on the fireground expected to take-in all of the information related to the initial and on-going size-up and develop a strategic plan to mitigate the incident.

An I.C.s decision-making emphasis is at the strategic level. I generally don’t tell my Company Officers how or what type of search to conduct or how to select the initial attack line or what type of ventilation to use unless it needs to be specific based on the strategic plan. I should also say that I believe that the initial companies can do no wrong. In other words, I don’t second guess their actions based on what I see when I arrive. I trust that they made the best decision with the information available to them at the time. My only choice is to quickly evaluate the current situation status and determine if we are winning or losing and if changes need to be made based on the up to the minute information.

More direct to your question, if the structure is occupied or there is a high degree of likelihood that it is occupied, then, the Strategic priority is Rescue. With this decision made, the I.C. needs to quickly develop a Strategic plan to address the fire with Rescue as the Strategic priority. This plan will likely include several tactical operations that will support Rescue such as; stretching the initial attack line, coordinated ventilation and an aggressive primary search. The specific tactics and tasks will be dependent upon the particulars of the structure, the occupancy and so on…… Your question is when does search become the priority rather than extinguishments? I assume you mean the Tactical priority as in only search and no firefight??? I believe that would be a very short list indeed. Say if a truck company (no pump, no hose, no water) arrives first and the first arriving engine is delayed…..A very short list in my opinion.

Again, from an I.C. perspective, when we consider the structure occupied or likely occupied, the Strategic priority is Rescue. The initial tactics and tasks need to support the rescue and this will include stretching the attack line to confine/extinguish the fire, secure the interior stairs, place the line between the fire and occupants or searching firefighters etc.. If the structure is vacant and/or fully involved upon arrival, then exposures may become the Strategic priority.

I don’t mean to be evasive, I just strongly believe that the initial attack line addresses and supports Rescue as a Strategic priority as does search and coordinated ventilation. I have to look at the strategic aspect as a function of my job, I don’t look at individual tasks or tactics as stand alone operations.

Hope this helps.

Permalink Reply by Michael Bricault (ret) on November 24, 2008 at 2:47pm

Art, I love these discussions and my only regret is that its not taking place in a pub over some suds.
After reviewing my comments I did say, "I'm not suggesting ignoring the fire every time !! That is ludicrous. What I am pointing out is the proper order of evolution on the fire ground- suppression supports search and rescue." I never said nor indicated that we should not stretch a line but rather implied firefighters need to get out of their autopilot mentality of stretching the 1 3/4 hose and start thinking about search again and creating a rescue profile and assessment in the initial size up.
And I guess we will disagree; I believe that search is the most important priority on the fireground. If we loose the house but save the home owner we have achieved our mission as firefighters. If we save the house as well then so much more the better. We operate on the assumption that everything is occupied until firefighter verify.
We have many "vacant" buildings that have become homes for the homeless and drug dens for the addicted or those seeking to set up clandestine labs. Unfortunately like many larger cities Albuquerque doesn't really have a vacant structure.
There are times when the fire must be addressed first and times when suppression must be considered after rescue efforts have been initiated. I agree this will be situational AND personnel availability dependent.
I like the acronyms too. The one you mentioned...RECEO; the first ones is?.?... RESCUE. First and foremost. Addressed first, thought about first and supported first. How about another one, L.I.P. Life safety, Incident stabilization and Property conservation.
Search and Rescue efforts are supported by suppression which in turn is supported by ventilation. (Incidentally the initial question of the discussion that we all, myself included, seem to have gone far afield of. lol)
As to the types of structures we have here in the city, like most larger cities we have a great mix of everything from the older parts of the city that include the typical east coast balloon frame single and multiple occupancies, heavy timber commercial, many high rise commercial, hotels type and residential. We have thousands of apartment buildings, condos and complexes. And yes, there is the typical southwestern style structures as well. 800,000 people need to live somewhere.
We are fortunate here with the heavy staffing and size of the department and that makes many of the critical decisions, that a manpower strapped FD would have to address, somewhat easier for us in that many of these tasks are addressed right away.
Getting back to PPV, do we use it? Yes. Use it aggressively? You bet. Use it EVERY SINGLE TIME in the same manner? Of course not. The use of PPV is situational dependent. And one of the biggest conditions is wether we have control over the exits created for the smoke. Has the fire, careless firefighters or any other condition removed windows, doors or created unnatural openings? That is a huge consideration for PPV. Otherwise PPV efforts will be in vain. And that is why I suggested institutions are better for PPV. Those occupancies tend to be of better construction and usually more air tight and allow for more adiquate use of PPV.
Do we use PPV in residential? Absolutely. And it woks well when the structure "behaves".
Michael

Permalink Reply by Art Zern on November 24, 2008 at 4:37pm

Mike,

Some day, some pub.

I actually think we are in agreement, for the most part. I took issue with you initially stating that search is the “most important function” on the fireground. My point was that even when Rescue is the priority, several tactical functions will support Rescue as the strategic priority. The actual search will be one of those; however, the attack line, ventilation etc will all be functions supporting Rescue as the priority. Which of these is most important? It may be that the suppression of the fire will be most important, or ventilation…… However, in your most recent post you clarified your statement to say that search is the “most important priority” and if by search you mean rescue, then we are in agreement.

Rescue will always be the first strategic consideration and nearly always turns out to be the Strategic priority. Hence, initial tactical and task level functions must support rescue. We are in total agreement that Rescue is and should be the first consideration and if it is deemed the strategic priority, then everything supports rescue. There will be cases as I said in my last post where rescue may not be the Strategic priority. It will still be considered first; however, if the building is fully involved and/or a risk vs. benefit analysis determines that an aggressive interior search is not worth the risk, then, exposure protection or confinement may be the initial strategic priority.

Perhaps I was splitting hairs on your choice of words. Based on my job, I tend not to think of the tactical or task level functions as more or less important than the others. Each effects the other and the ability to perform these functions is largely based on the experience, talent, aggressiveness and training (among other things) of the companies involved. In my position, I need to look at the strategic profile and how all of the various tactical operations are impacting the strategy. Then adjust, change, continue with or scrap the plan.

Thanks again Mike, I’ll buy.

Art

Permalink Reply by Jim Mason on November 24, 2008 at 10:25pm

Thanks Art for the command perspective.
We have an acronym that has served the City well for years called the Chgo Firefighting action plan
It's as follows
Size Up
Call for Help
Save Lives (civilians or at least stay out of the problem)
Confine the fire (horizontally or vertically if need be)
Vent
Extinguish
Salvage
Overhaul

It served us well for many years. I like it becuase it describes what needs to be done most certianly and that's assess the situation. This is something that I believe , in general, the fire service doesn' t do enough of before the decision to focus on rescue or a standard extiguishment are taken. In general, I think we only do three things anytime on the fire ground - Size Up, Decide what is wrong and Fix it to the best of our ability. Everything falls into one of these three catagories.
Everything else we do falls in as a function to achieve one of these three actions/goals

Art Zern said:

Mike,

Some day, some pub.

I actually think we are in agreement, for the most part. I took issue with you initially stating that search is the “most important function” on the fireground. My point was that even when Rescue is the priority, several tactical functions will support Rescue as the strategic priority. The actual search will be one of those; however, the attack line, ventilation etc will all be functions supporting Rescue as the priority. Which of these is most important? It may be that the suppression of the fire will be most important, or ventilation…… However, in your most recent post you clarified your statement to say that search is the “most important priority” and if by search you mean rescue, then we are in agreement.

Rescue will always be the first strategic consideration and nearly always turns out to be the Strategic priority. Hence, initial tactical and task level functions must support rescue. We are in total agreement that Rescue is and should be the first consideration and if it is deemed the strategic priority, then everything supports rescue. There will be cases as I said in my last post where rescue may not be the Strategic priority. It will still be considered first; however, if the building is fully involved and/or a risk vs. benefit analysis determines that an aggressive interior search is not worth the risk, then, exposure protection or confinement may be the initial strategic priority.

Perhaps I was splitting hairs on your choice of words. Based on my job, I tend not to think of the tactical or task level functions as more or less important than the others. Each effects the other and the ability to perform these functions is largely based on the experience, talent, aggressiveness and training (among other things) of the companies involved. In my position, I need to look at the strategic profile and how all of the various tactical operations are impacting the strategy. Then adjust, change, continue with or scrap the plan.

Thanks again Mike, I’ll buy.

Art

Permalink Reply by Art Zern on November 24, 2008 at 11:27pm

Jim,

SCSCVEOS has been part of my thought process since being introduced to this acronyn almost 20 years ago by EE and Bobby Hoff in Tactics II. I like it because it reminds to size-up and call for help and gives venting a higher priority than many other prompts.

Thanks Jim

Permalink Reply by Nick Morgan on November 26, 2008 at 3:20pm

We mostly do horizontal ventilation in St Louis. Good truck work and roof ventilation aren't as common as it used to be, primarily because under the "total quint concept", too many companies assigned to truck work really have an engine company mentality. The specialization of true truck work is all but lost. That's why I want to put more emphasis on truck work in our Academy and dept. training programs, hopefully to help bring this specialty back.

Permalink Reply by Brian Arnold on November 26, 2008 at 6:51pm

Jim,
Thanks for the invite, sorry I'm so late getting into conversations. It looks like it's been great so far so I'll add my two cents and meet everyone at the pub in Indy to continue.

We are truly in the middle of the country and have seen the influence of both east coast and west coast ventilation practices over the years. I can say that we don't rely on only one technique but utilize horizontal, vertical and PPV.

For us it's all about location, location, location. Size up of the structure, size and location of the fire and life hazard all dictates what type of ventilation we use.

We cover 660 square miles with the majority of homes being single story single platform type dwellings. Yes we have some of the balloon frame, queen ann's and flat roofed residences but 90% of our structure fires occur in a ranch style home with a 8/12 pitch roof or less.

For the majority of homes in my district, the engine officer will take windows while doing his size up providing entry isn't going to be a problem. Truck will go to roof (2 men) and open up over the fire unless called off by attack crew.

But if you go to the district North of mine, it's loading with 5000 square foot McMansions and 10/12 pitched roofs or greater. Even if you got a h*** quickly, you would need a 20' pole to punch out the ceiling. It just doesn't work for them so they rely heavily on horizontal and PPV.

We are working on educating our personnel on what type of ventilation should be used and what effects it will have on the fire, occupants and building rather than just saying one approach is the only way. Every firefighter should know what the benefits of opening up a roof are as well as the draw backs. Horizontal ventilation can help victims and interior crews or it can let the fire breath a little more and take off if attack crews aren't ready. PPV can do the same thing only much faster if used improperly. Unfortunately I have seen first hand PPV or PPA (whatever you want to call it) used textbook properly only to drive out attack crews. PPV is a relatively new animal to the fire service and still has many unknowns and can be very dangerous.

What I do know after 23 years is that when we get the heat and smoke out of the structure it sure makes life easier on me and my fellow hose draggers and especially victims. Communication between companies, training, building knowledge, proper size up and strong leadership all influence how ventilation will be accomplished on each incident.
I could go on, but I don't have a cold frosty adult beverage and they just called Chow!
Stay safe,
Brian

Permalink Reply by Jim Mason on December 1, 2008 at 6:35pm

Nick
I'm sure it is tough making a decision when the comapny officer of a Qint has all the options. I feel that is the problem with "Rescue Company" that don't have any of the engine or truck work parameters to abide by. Although, many times when I've been searching I wished we had a hose line to for protection and many times when I was on the engine we have had to search off the line becuse the truck company isn't there. And in another way, just like smaller dept's that work with reduced manning, the the size up must be more exacting for a Quint company to determine what needs to be done first and formost and not just everything must be done at once.


Nick Morgan said:

We mostly do horizontal ventilation in St Louis. Good truck work and roof ventilation aren't as common as it used to be, primarily because under the "total quint concept", too many companies assigned to truck work really have an engine company mentality. The specialization of true truck work is all but lost. That's why I want to put more emphasis on truck work in our Academy and dept. training programs, hopefully to help bring this specialty back.

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