MFA #32: Changing the Rules - New excuses for old habits

There has been a steady increase in the fire service’s acknowledgment of the validity of the information provided by recent fire dynamics research, with references to the new understanding now appearing in articles, training materials, and after-case reports (not to mention the occasional blog).  Flow paths, smoke as fuel, wind effects, the inability to push fire with straight streams, and the rapid increase in combustion that results from ventilation are all concepts that have been accepted, sometimes grudgingly, by many who practice our craft.  (I have to point out that some of these ideas are not so much “new” as “rediscovered”, and have only been brought to our attention again due to their implication in more recent fireground tragedies.)  We are collectively, if slowly, “coming around” to the new understanding of compartment fire behavior, given the compelling evidence provided by multiple studies, although the change in habits that should follow such revelations is occurring much slower yet. 

This writer has recently begun to encounter more and more partial converts, who give credence to the new ideas, yet only to the point that such admissions do not require an actual change in their favored approach to firefighting.  To that end, I have seen the “facts” regarding fire behavior mis-applied, selectively applied, or simply ignored in favor of new rationalizations.  These various forms of hedging and push back likely represent a natural and expected phase in any change process, especially one that affects techniques that have been literally drilled into all of us for decades, so the response is understandable; almost expected.  Debate is healthy, and questioning anything makes it stronger by confirming its strengths and/or removing its weaknesses.  It’s just as important, though, to apply that same productive skepticism to old, “accepted” ideas.  That is, to periodically challenge the status quo, instead of considering it sacrosanct and unassailable.  So, what follows is my response to some of the latest excuses for refusing to change our approach in light of the new knowledge.  My push back of the push back.

As with most of this debate regarding MFA issues, the arguments generally center around its promotion of exterior streams and delayed ventilation (see MFA #4: The New Rules - 1. Water Flow is Good. 2. Air Flow is Bad at http://community.fireengineering.com/profiles/blog/show?xg_source=a...).  The curious thing is that many of the resistors will admit to the validity of the principles upon which these approaches are based, yet continue to come up with new reasons why they don’t apply on the fireground.  For instance, the following is a common response to the research that demonstrated the value of applying water as soon as possible:

"Exterior Streams are not bad, just not good enough.”

Virtually every firefighter over the past thirty years, at least, has been taught to never direct a hose stream into a window from which fire is showing, unless it is a defensive situation (i.e., when the entire firefight will be executed from the exterior).  The reasons given for this restraint were that such hose streams could push the fire, or at least heat and smoke, into previously unaffected areas of the building, spreading deadly products of combustion; the steam produced would similarly spread and harm occupants; and the frequent inability to reach the seat of the fire from an outside vantage point often rendered water application ineffective.  We have now seen each of these points debunked, with repeated experiments demonstrating that a straight stream directed through an opening propels only water, steam expansion is more than countered by gas cooling and contraction, and the tremendous heat absorption effects of water extend throughout the contiguous areas of a structure.  

Removing the varied reasons for not flowing streams from the exterior lead to a re-evaluation, and then re-adoption, of that long-abandoned fire control measure.  Known by the various monikers of “Transitional Attack”, “Resetting the Fire”, and “Hit it Hard from the Yard”, this maneuver has been shown to quickly (seconds) and persistently (6 to 8 minutes) reduce temperatures in a compartment fire, with no ill effects, providing more time and improved conditions in which to then perform forcible entry, hoseline stretching, search, and the other still-necessary interior tasks required.  So, why the continued resistance by many in the fire service to adopt this practice?  The newly-declared reason for not flowing water from the exterior is that it will cause the delay of firefighters making entry to the building, where everyone knows the real firefighting takes place.  The rationales that have been proposed to support this “entry first” approach include the superiority of interior streams, the difficulty of repositioning charged hoselines, the overriding need to make entry to perform search and definitive extinguishment, and (my favorite) concern that firefighters will become so accustomed to flowing water through windows that they will be flummoxed when they encounter a fire that cannot be reached from the exterior.  

From my view, a continued bias against the use of exterior streams is the basis of all of these new arguments, each of which could be easily overcome if there was truly a belief in the benefits of that maneuver.  To wit: The fire does not know from which direction the water is flowing, and the rapid cooling works the same either way; hoselines can be stretched to both the location of the fire and the entry point, using one firefighter each, with the exterior stream shut down and left in place after its brief (less than 60 seconds) use, that firefighter then joining the entry line; forcible entry, search, and positioning interior hoselines are processes with their own inherent and variable delays, and improving conditions with a short period of exterior water flow halts the progression of fire that will otherwise be occurring during the accomplishment of those complex tasks; and, yes, being nimble and able to adjust strategy based on conditions is vital, no better demonstrated already as firefighters typically default to a single approach, that being entry, even to the point of bypassing a window emanating flames in order to reach a doorway instead.  

The real question, to be determined anew at every fire, is what action will most efficiently (quickly and easily) reduce the level of hazard, and its effects on property and victims?  When feasible, an exterior stream will immediately improve interior conditions throughout the involved areas, while the effect of any other intervention will be limited by the speed with which firefighters can make their way through the structure.  Since all of the same tasks need to be performed eventually, should not our first choice be that which provides the most rapid, far-reaching, and persistent benefit?  In my opinion, the exterior stream will usually be the winner over the interior-first approach, but must at least be considered in order to be in the running.

Next post: The Air Flow Hedge - ”Ventilation can make conditions worse, so be careful." 

MJC

The author can be reached at markjcotter@comcast.net