Mark,

First off, your use of adjectives is a bit excessive/over-dramatic, which to me raises an immediate red flag.  I fail to see how the timing of vertical ventilation is "immensely difficult" (when appropriate resources are available and conditions permit - as is the case in the video).  You say the video exemplifies your claim, but it is in actuality quite the contrary.  While I will agree that radio communications can be difficult, especially for a working engine boss, and transmitting the order to vent [at just the right moment] can be a challenge at times, there are other ways the roof crew can gauge the operational tempo and successfully coordinate opening up.  The roof crew should be monitoring all radio transmissions to identify critical benchmarks: when the engine calls for water, reaches the seat of the fire, has water on the fire, etc.  Furthermore, they should be continually sizing up the conditions to identify any visual and audible cues that would indicate extinguishment has commenced.  This video is a great example of this, as you can see the disappearance of fire in the window and the improvements of the smoke condition (lightening in color/density and reduction in velocity) as they make their cuts.  The roof crew may have also been able to hear the sound (or feel the force) of the stream impacting the underside of the roof.  Even if a roof crew is in position and ready prior to that point, proactive cutting can still take place as long is not finished prematurely.  Once assured the engine is in position/operating, the h*** can be louvered (and the ceiling dropped).  Having not been there and unable to hear the radio traffic, it is easy for you to sit back and say that there was no intentional coordination or purposeful timing in attempts to validate your point of view.  I am sure if you spoke with that roof crew, or better yet the engine crew operating below, their experience would further contradict your assertions.  And this is where I take issue with your commentary as it comes across as myopic and a distortion of reality/fact.  While I optimistically believe you to be well-intentioned, I personally feel your interpretation and depiction of the research data is less than accurate.  While I can appreciate your dedication and zeal, about the only thing I agree with in your entire post is the competency and professionalism displayed by the members in the video.  

Nick Papa  

Nick,

Thanks for taking the time to view the video and comment.  I will concede that the video does not prove my point, but neither does it prove yours nor anyone else's.  Whether the improvement in conditions was due to the vent or the application of water, we will never know, and the key takeaway from the clip that I listed was the importance of research in controlled conditions to be able to separate the variables and determine what works, and what doesn't.  You also make a great point about the limitations of interpreting videos of fireground actions, or any other actions for that matter, as there is no information regarding such factors as that department's SOPs, what orders were given to the vent crew, or, as stated, any radio communication.  My comments were based on what I could see, and that was an apparently expert crew on a flat roof which, with continuous and intense effort, accomplished the opening of the roof just as water was flowing.  

Regarding my interpretation of the research, that was the task of the research panels, consisting of a cross-section of fire service experts, and their recommendation was that ventilation - horizontal or vertical - should not be performed until after water was being applied to the fire.  This has lead to our renewed emphasis on ventilation coordination.  More to your point, the researchers were actually complimentary of vertical ventilation for the removal of products of combustion, describing it as a more efficient method than horizontal, and I would characterize my opposition to that recommendation as a disagreement rather than a misinterpretation.  That is, I think the panel got it wrong.  In my opinion, at a burning building, once the fire is controlled, horizontal ventilation using hoselines or fans is much more efficient in clearing remaining products of combustion than the risks and difficulties, immense or not, involved with cutting roofs.   

I sincerely respect the skills and courage required to perform vertical ventilation, so try not to take offense at my comments; and I am well aware of the respect this tactic holds in the fire service's collective beliefs, so I'll try not to take offense at those sent my way.  My motivation for raising this issue is to cause us to reflect on our long-taught actions in light of the new information that contradicts much of that teaching, and maybe to adjust those actions to everyone's benefit.

Mark,

I am well-versed in the research and am on the panel for the latest study on coordinated fire attack.  The problem is that your personal interpretation of the data does not accurately reflect the tactical recommendations established by those previous panels.  You are fixating on one singular aspect of the study and it’s data, ventilation WITHOUT water application, to validate your (myopic) opinion of roof ventilation.  The effects of UNcoordinated ventilation, horizontal or vertical, has been understood and documented since the 1800s (i.e. James Braidwood) - this was not a scientific revelation.  What the study did was provide us with empirical data to better understand the movement of air and it’s impact on fire behavior and the environment.  The data showcased the ventilation-controlled nature of today’s fires and its increased responsiveness to our operations.  This merely makes a case for increased positional discipline and more precise coordination of ventilation with fire attack and and isolation (door control).  We shouldn’t arbitrarily relegate a time-tested tactic to the trash pile simply because the margin for error has gotten smaller...it just means we need to be smarter and more diligent/proficient.  I urge you to start looking at roof ventilation as it was intended, as a coordinated/supportive effort.  When appropriately placed and timed, the benefits of topside ventilation are irrefutable.

Nick

Nick,

Myopic: "lacking imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight."  I get that word thrown at me a lot, but I have to say I put a lot of all of those things into forming my opinion. right or wrong.  Anyway, we agree on the research findings, and are left with discussing their implementation.  Your position is that the increased potential for worsening interior conditions by early ventilation can be overcome by working harder at roof ventilation performance, and mine is that we would be better off just pointing the nozzle out the window, or becoming more diligent/proficient with the use of fans.  The passive release of smoke from a cut roof, even when well-coordinated, cannot match that which can be propelled out a window or door.  Roof ventilation is certainly "time-tested", but when subjected to objective measurement, it resulted in an increase in combustion and produced more heat and smoke than could be released by the h***, so it flunked that test.

Mark,
Let’s forget the semantics and get back to the issue at hand here. Where is your data that shows that coordinated vertical ventilation “flunked”...I must have missed that section of the study. Again, you are misusing the data of vertical ventilation without water application in attempts to discredit the effectiveness of the tactic when appropriately executed. When water is being applied and actively cooling the fire, controlling its output, the ventilation opening will not be overwhelmed as you say. Again, where is your evidence of a coordinated vertical ventilation operation negatively impacting operations? The objective measurements you speak of, do not exist...yet. As the study showed, which you acknowledged, vertical ventilation is the most efficient means of air exchange - producing a uni-directional flow. By creating the opening directly over the fire, the greatest pressure differential, the thermal buoyancy aids in the exhaust process and promotes lift of the thermal balance and channeling of the fire up and out - providing relief for the crew below and facilitating their extinguishment and search efforts.

Nick,

Unfortunately, it seems that semantics are at the heart of this issue.  Our understanding of ventilation, horizontal or vertical, always included an awareness that it can increase the rate of combustion in a compartment, so ventilation has always been required to be "coordinated".  But, we once believed that doing so as we were advancing on the fire with hoselines provided clearing ahead of the interior teams.  It was that attack benefit, as well as a lack of awareness of just how quickly fire reacts to increased air flow, that lead us to believe that opening just a little early might not be such a big deal, and justified the risk and difficulty involved with performing roof ventilation.  And, it was that justification that was removed by the findings of the research.  To use my word, that's how it "flunked".

This left us with the choice of what method best removes products of combustion once the fire will no longer respond to ventilation by producing more.  In other words, what is the best method of performing "coordinated ventilation"?  Your position is that cutting the roof and creating an opening after the fire is in a controlled state is best, and I agree with your rationale for the "chimney" effect that will result.  I have already outlined my concerns regarding the difficulty synchronizing that action with interior water application, and the perils of failing to do so.  (I am also keenly aware that I am debating with an expert at roof ventilation, over a video clip showing other experts at roof ventilation, so these arguments might seem weak.)  Regardless, my take is that opening a window and using a fan or hose stream is a better method for performing ventilation, eliminating the passive benefits of vertical airflow by utilizing active measures, which are also, all things considered, easier, faster, and safer.

Mark,

First off, I am far from an expert in anything, but I appreciate the sentiment.  Once again, you are judging the tactic as a whole based on the results experienced in one particular sequence.  You keep referencing vertical ventilation solely in the context of pre-water application.  But if it is not initiated with fire attack, is it truly coordinated - well that is debatable.  With that being said, how could you possibly say the tactic flunked when you only have a single sample of data to work from? Where is the rest of the data to show the supposed detriments of vertical ventilation when coupled with fire attack?  This is the piece that you have yet to address in any of your comments.  You only cite your personal opinion that coordination is difficult - which you even admit is a weak argument.  There are departments that perform this operation on a daily basis (some multiple times) with continued success.  The key, as with anything else, is competency.  

Nick,

My continued reference of the UL Vertical Ventilation study is due to it being so applicable to the question at hand, and its findings were consistent and repeatable.  In the way of confirmation, there were similar findings in the UL Attic and Exterior Fire studies , showing that ventilation before fire control was detrimental, rendering the fire harder to control, rather than easier.  Now, they did not test every construction type or geometry, and different settings could react differently, but neither has anyone performed objective testing that supported our prior beliefs in the benefits of ventilation, which were based on theories and anecdotes.  We know that opening a roof improves conditions, if the fire is already controlled.  If not, the fire better be controlled soon, or things will worsen.  Back to my basic premise, if we agree that ventilation should not be performed until the fire is controlled, why go to the trouble of using the most difficult and dangerous method available, even if we're good at it?