You are absolutely 100% correct, the longer you wait to put water on it the more the structure is compromised. The deck gun is the most unutilized tool in the fire service. The sad thing is most departments don't understand the importance of the deck gun until it's too late.
This is my hometown and I was on this first arriving engine, couple things here….the deck gun was utilized before the handline was charged and a good amount of fire was knocked down..one of our issues we run into is water supply. The closest hydrant was on a backstreet so it took a few minutes for a water supply to be established. The thought on the handline being pulled was to be in position to put water on fire inside the moment a water supply was secured. With this being a small town with all home response volunteers we were the only engine on scene for the first 4-5 minutes. When the water supply was established the handline inside was able to attack the fire from the fire floor. The fire was contained to the initial fire building and the 3rd and 4th of the delta 1 exposure. Our ladder truck was OOS for maintenance so our closest truck was coming from about 15 minutes away, which could’ve greatly helped the situation if we had a truck there with the first engine. I’m free to talk about this more if you wish. You’ve brought up many great points and for the little manpower we had at the ready upon initial arrival the fire was knocked down fairly quick and prevented a substantially larger fire
I really appreciate the info. Very helpful and fills in a ton of gaps. Why is the video cut up? Would have been fantastic to see the initial aspects of the extinguishment. 🔥🔥🔥👩🏻🚒👩🏻🚒👩🏻🚒👍👍👍
@@TransmitThe1075 I am not sure why the video was cut up since I was not the one who made the video, I can say that the progression of the fire after the beginning of the video to our arrival was only 2-3 minutes in time. I had to pass the fire to get to our station. The deck gun was utilized first using the 750 gallons of tank water and the handline was charged immediately after.
@@bm9869 Great info. Would also love to have seen the unedited video. Sounds like you guys used the best possible tactics considering available resources
Another good video. Not much I can add that hasn't already been said by others commenting. I will say I am pleased to see so many people agreeing that this is a deck gun/exterior (initially) job. We all need to remember that the supply line is important but it is not the MOST important. The most important tactic here is to get the fastest water possible on the fire and that is by the deck gun with the booster tank. You will knock down a tremendous amount of fire with a 500 gpm deck gun with a solid tip nozzle and even if you only flow 30 seconds of water onto the fire you will knock down a tremendous amount of fire and still have half a tank left for an interior stretch. Best tip I can offer here is to make sure you don't waste a drop of water so don't open the deck gun until its set up and ready to flow water. Do yourselves a favor and put a gate valve on your deck gun so it can be opened and closed by the person on top of the engine that's operating the appliance.
YES! NIST, everyone needs to review those findings, first time scientists looks into fire services tactics to study and record the effects on the fire and had film and monitors on everything, putting water from exterior early reduces temperatures and fire spread significantly as well as the survivability of structure, occupants and fire personnel.The video and gauges don’t lie. you should go over all the NIST tapes on this channel to open everyone’s aperture if ya haven’t already. Change is hard but the evidence is pretty clear.
For 25 years I was a Federal Agent but in town I lived they had a mostly full time career FD augmented by about 10 "call firefighters" and I was one of the call FFs. When I was "hired" as a call FF, the FD had a whacky Deputy Fire Chief. He was a very nice man but had some very quirky personality issues and he was loved by some and hated by others. As the Deputy Chief he was responsible for training which didn't happen often but when it did he was fun to be around. He hammered, I mean hammered that if the FD apparatus rolled up to a 'barn burner' as he called them, he always wanted to deck gun to be put into operation as soon the truck stopped. Next thing was, always look for a hydrant on the way in and when someone saw one, call it out and have someone ready themselves to grab it and drop a supply line, then proceed to the fire. Once in front of the fire building, again, he wanted someone to man the deck gun and the chauffeur start putting tank water into the deck gun. While this was going on, the hydrant was being dressed and getting ready for water as quickly as possible. He may have been, and he was, a strange dude but he believed in two things, the wet stuff on the hot stuff ASAP and a building can be rebuilt but a FF life can not be. So in closing, I will always remember him saying, deck gun, deck gun and deck gun. And it is such a simple, yet highly effective way of fighting a fire like the one in this video. I honestly wish more fire departments would do this as a usual practice when confronted with a fire like this one. Just my humble opinion developed by good trainer.
First thoughts were "deck gun" but it has to be coordinated with water supply. Theoretically there should be a hydrant nearby, but in some of these smaller, and frankly poorer communities, that rely heavily on volunteers, hydrantsay be broken or underpressured. A lot of moving parts, this is why analysis should not tranfser into criticism necessarily
This is a classic blitz attack with a master stream. Especially with minimal manpower at a very crucial time in the fire. Water needs to be put on this fire NOW! With exposures on both sides, time is of the essence. This is not to say, if my career department with 29 personnel rolled up, this would probably be an AGRESSIVE interior attack with multiple lines stretched. The crews would have to show significant progress pretty quickly or master streams would be put into service. Lines would be advanced to the exposures by second alarm companies. All with in the first 8-10 minutes. That is not what you have here. Overall a good stop considering the potential for a small town disaster.
The constant pausing and playing of the video, makes things extremely difficult to get proper perspective and context. But yes, a secondhand line would certainly be a good idea.
If any of our chiefs arrived and found that, before we arrive. They will all be screaming big water. And depending upon what side of town we are on, we've been second engine in multiple times, and ordered to deploy the tank through deckgun when there is a exposure issue such as this.which is very common in my area. Rows here are typically built on elevated slopes, and when there's wind involved, it's a no brainer. Burning down entire blocks should be a thing of the past , considering the flow volumes of today's equipment.
Definitely use the Deck gun right off the bat saves time and property. One guy on the deck gun,one guy securing a water source, and one or 2 guys pulling hand lines to make a interior attack. 3 and 4 engine crews. Second engine in hooks up the hydrant 4 or 5 LDH. I was on a combination department.
There definitely should've been a transitional attack with some sort of heavy water (2.5, Deck Gun, Blitz, etc) and a line going immediately to the exposure as well.
In my experience as a volunteer and paid FF, for some reason many companies due not roll their ladder first or even second due, they rarely deploy their deck guns and even more rarely will pull a 2 1/2 line. Large fire, large water, with the proper nozzle you can add an 1 3/4 to the end of a 2 1/2 line for mop up etc. Deck gun should have been the first call while establishing water supply, command should have requested 2 ladders and a FAST team from mutual aid if needed. it appears there are Mutual aid companies on the first due sheet as there are both black and tan turn out gear on scene.
I was in a department not to far outside the city from 92-97. Fairly busy with some good work. We 100% believed "real" fireman get to the seat of the fire. Deck gun got lots of use on the dumpsters, and when saving the basement. You also rarely were masked up during overhaul. But never at a house fire that clearly had tenable areas was that deck gun used. . The god honest belief was you were pushing the fire into those tenable areas. Lowing the chance of survivability. Appreciate the videos.
I'm all about the deck gun in this situation, as long as a water supply can be set up in a timely manner. If one isn't readily available, and you blow your wad prematurely, it won't take long before your back to square 1 again.
I didn’t spot a hydrant in this video. However, since it’s downtown, I would have to assume there’s one somewhere. Though, I agree with your concern I still think slowing the trajectory of the fire down, has far more value then regaining water supply quickly. Either the fire needs that much water or it doesn’t, I don’t buy into the saving water mentality.
Takes discipline to not exhaust the entire booster tank but remember that GPM is the determining factor in containing this type of fire. The conservation of water is a misplaced priority. But it's possible to do both as I said. Even with a 500 gal booster tank. Officer has to be very specific to the apparatus operator. I want you to open up the deck gun into the top floor and flow water for 30 seconds then shut it down. This should buy adequate time for an interior stretch as well as knock down fire that is extending to the exposure that a crew would not be able to attack by accessing the interior of the original fire building with a handline
One department on Long Island said they will discontinue using a deck gun. They have been a proven winner in early getting water on the blaze then why stop using them ?
I had read a comment / story about a Chicago Fire Officer, don't recall his exact title but with one engine he would attack the fire with a deck gun and hand lines, Era was in the late fifties going into the sixties. Maybe someone knows who I am referring to. He would bark probably will HOLD and keep putting water on the fire.
Yes, that’s why these are called fire critiques. If you want to just watch fire incidents live 99.9% of all the other videos are just that, I suggest you seek those. There is a segment of firefighters here that want to discuss, critique and learn via discussion.
Yes, quick knock-down with a master-stream! I think too many times that FFs, Officers, etc, were taught (or believe) that master-streams on 'big fire' will increase temps, (STEAM) and hurt/kill any occupants!
That's a strange conclusion to make. That steam is sucking away the heat and starving the fire of oxygen. It's also creating a net reduction in fire gas. If a building's occupants are going to be hurt by the steam, then they're probably already dead by the fire gas. I wonder what sort of events or conditions led to that conclusion and further led to that conclusion becoming a tradition.
@captainotto Training and 'war stories' from academy instructors and 'old' timers. AND... a neighboring Dept advancing a handline to floor 2 of a moderately-involved attached taxpayer. The Engine crew opened up unaware(?) of location of primary search team. Nobody died, but many lengthy stays in the Burn Unit! I AM NOT BLAMING ANYONE (engine crew, search crew, Co. Officers, Command, etc). The crews involved and the investigation know exactly what happened (tactics, strategies, operations, communications, etc) I was not on-scene or involved in the firefight. This is ALL from news media and anecdotal, on-scene accounts. Water+Fire=Steam
When I started out you would get reprimanded for spraying any water from the outside. You approached from the unburned to the burned no matter how hard. Thank goodness times have changed and transitional fire attacks are accepted now. This would have been a great opportunity to use an elevated master stream if one was available. With the higher exposure that fire needed to be knocked down quickly. The only hesitation I would have with a deck gun is spraying high as it is very easy to overshoot your target. We've all seen videos of streams watering the back yard. I don't know how long it took to put the fire out but the end result wasn't too bad in my opinion considering they were late with the big water. A complete video would have helped a lot.
The White Helmet Is Normally For Chiefs That Was The First Person In The Part Of The Video. Yellow Helmets Are Captains And Sometimes Lieutenants Pending On Department Protocol. 🇺🇸😊😎🤗
As long as there is a water supply to that first engine this is an obvious deck gun first fire, that amount of fire coupled with attached exposures is a no brainer, stretch your soon to be interior 1 3/4 hand line and hook up your supply line while that deck gun is flowing
The original video showed several engine mounted deck guns in operation immediately ……. This video has been altered to delete this deluge attack …… perhaps because there was plainly audible arguing over using this tactic ……..a total of three guns were trained on this fire from 1st three engines on scene ……
This town has seen more than its share of large fires over the years in closely built older rowhomes as well as large buildings in the business district ……
Introducing exterior hose streams into structures that could be occupied should be done w/ extreme caution; based on the situation, not as a default tactic. Exterior hose streams do push hot smoke. I’ve seen and felt it.
@@TransmitThe1075 If there were firefighters just outside the third floor entry door or making entry through the rear, would you still use the deck gun? If your answer is no, then you shouldn’t use the deck gun because there could be civilians in those locations. Locations that may be survivable for a bit- that you’re making worse by using the deck gun. And by delaying entry you’re delaying possible rescue. Civilian life safety is our priority. That building looks like it could be occupied. Interior attack needs to be the default approach for the reason of life safety. We’ve all seen fires that look bad until a hose line goes into operation and then the situation gets better fast. I’d get a line to that third floor (checking first and second quickly on way up) and into the exposures asap.
@@danmac344 Agree a misapplied exterior line (usually from a fog or combo nozzle on the wrong setting) will entrain a lot of air and can push heat and smoke further into the building
A straight steam/smooth bore does not push fire, heat, or smoke...Hit the ceiling with it from outside. It's no different than a sprinkler head operating...It comes out as a straight steama and hits the pendant...
I seen the uncut video why they cut it I am not sure but they did Deck Gun It before that line went in. Their are other videos but no one has that initial but their is a 2nd video from th-cam.com/video/DsvD7mbfw04/w-d-xo.html but its little after they arrived and you can see deck gun in operation. If I am not mistaken the news and other reports was this was 3 story vacant. Buildings on both sides was occupied.
Thanks for linking this video, it seems to me the deck is later on in the incident. Which is fine, but I suspect would’ve been better initially. Would be great if the original poster, posted the entire thing un edited.
@@TransmitThe1075 100 percent agree. Video being edited might be because of people question tactics but if I can find any others I will share. I can not tell from the picture on the type of outside covering but in this area of PA we have gasoline shingles or siding. Many older houses and building use this so not sure if that would be part of that. The first due ladder on that fire was Mt Carmel which is from another county away. If you have other questions let me know as I live in the county where this occured.
@@TransmitThe1075 I believe that the term originated in NYC. The FDNY has used the term for many years. It had been used in print in their in-house training journal "WNYF" since IDK when. Sometime in either the late 70s or early 80s (I forget exactly) they published a rather long bulletin entitled FIREFIGHTING PROCEDURES, TAXPAYER FIRES. Here is an excerpt relative to the definition of the term. 2. DESCRIPTION 2.1 The term "Taxpayer" is not defined or recognized in the building code. The term originally referred to the practice of real estate investors who, while holding land for speculation, resorted to minimal investment in construction to produce income to offset the cost of taxes. These structures were usually of cheap and flimsy construction with little or no fire retarding features. 2.1.1 Supermarkets and one-story shopping centers of more recent construction do not fit the above description but contain many of the inherent hazards associated with taxpayers. For the purpose of this book, they shall be considered "taxpayers." 2.2 A taxpayer building is commonly taken to mean a business structure one or two stories in height of Class 3 construction (exterior firewalls with wooden interior structural members). 2.2.1 Their areas vary from 20' x 50' to areas of whole city blocks, the most common size being approximately 100' x 100'. They can be built on one or more lots with adjoining structures of greater heights on three sides. 2.2.2 These buildings are usually single structures commonly sheltering from one to as many as 15 different businesses with weak non-fire resistive partitions and no fire stops in the cocklofts. Section 2.3 of the bulletin goes on to state that there are three broad categories of Taxpayers and goes on to describe the differences among them. None of those describe structures as we see in this fire.
Again, this is not brain surgery. You lay in. That's all there is to it. If there are no hydrants, you have onboard water and you should be following up with tankers. You stop, you activate the pump and you deck gun this until the flames are gone. By then you might just have firefighters who are fully dressed so they can pull a line to the front door to go in and surgically apply water to stop the threat completely. If you aren't doing exactly what I said you aren't a real firefighter or department. Everything else is a waste of time and doesn't stop combustion. Which is the JOB of a fire department,
This was a recent job in Ashland Borough, Schuylkill County PA. It appears in the link attached that they eventually got some "stangs" running on exposure 1. th-cam.com/video/DsvD7mbfw04/w-d-xo.html
OK, I’m sure there’s some truth to that statement. However, burning hot temperatures, flames and black smoke are also major threats. I don’t think anyone is suggesting there isn’t a risk, but I would suggest the positives greatly outweigh the negatives.
@@TransmitThe1075 time and place. To me aggressively committing the handline to the interior and pushing the fire out and putting it out is the best option
There is a right and wrong way to apply water from the exterior. Must be a solid stream and must be applied at the correct angle. If done right then you don't cause the detrimental effects you mentioned
The two gentlemen in the white helmets at the beginning, appear to be rather old and likely to be in capable of interior, fire fighting. I suspect they are Chiefs not company officers.
Getting the job done eventually, doesn't mean the job was done well. This is how you do this JOB! th-cam.com/play/PLkp0E1ao1XEzg384QZ4ovMA_6P7gCY3nJ.html
You are absolutely 100% correct, the longer you wait to put water on it the more the structure is compromised. The deck gun is the most unutilized tool in the fire service. The sad thing is most departments don't understand the importance of the deck gun until it's too late.
This is my hometown and I was on this first arriving engine, couple things here….the deck gun was utilized before the handline was charged and a good amount of fire was knocked down..one of our issues we run into is water supply. The closest hydrant was on a backstreet so it took a few minutes for a water supply to be established. The thought on the handline being pulled was to be in position to put water on fire inside the moment a water supply was secured. With this being a small town with all home response volunteers we were the only engine on scene for the first 4-5 minutes. When the water supply was established the handline inside was able to attack the fire from the fire floor. The fire was contained to the initial fire building and the 3rd and 4th of the delta 1 exposure. Our ladder truck was OOS for maintenance so our closest truck was coming from about 15 minutes away, which could’ve greatly helped the situation if we had a truck there with the first engine. I’m free to talk about this more if you wish. You’ve brought up many great points and for the little manpower we had at the ready upon initial arrival the fire was knocked down fairly quick and prevented a substantially larger fire
I really appreciate the info. Very helpful and fills in a ton of gaps. Why is the video cut up? Would have been fantastic to see the initial aspects of the extinguishment. 🔥🔥🔥👩🏻🚒👩🏻🚒👩🏻🚒👍👍👍
@@TransmitThe1075 I am not sure why the video was cut up since I was not the one who made the video, I can say that the progression of the fire after the beginning of the video to our arrival was only 2-3 minutes in time. I had to pass the fire to get to our station. The deck gun was utilized first using the 750 gallons of tank water and the handline was charged immediately after.
Ok thanks. If you find a full version. I’d love to post and do a part 2. Thanks again.
@@bm9869 Great info. Would also love to have seen the unedited video. Sounds like you guys used the best possible tactics considering available resources
@@bm9869never pass the fire man. Never.
Another good video. Not much I can add that hasn't already been said by others commenting. I will say I am pleased to see so many people agreeing that this is a deck gun/exterior (initially) job. We all need to remember that the supply line is important but it is not the MOST important. The most important tactic here is to get the fastest water possible on the fire and that is by the deck gun with the booster tank. You will knock down a tremendous amount of fire with a 500 gpm deck gun with a solid tip nozzle and even if you only flow 30 seconds of water onto the fire you will knock down a tremendous amount of fire and still have half a tank left for an interior stretch. Best tip I can offer here is to make sure you don't waste a drop of water so don't open the deck gun until its set up and ready to flow water. Do yourselves a favor and put a gate valve on your deck gun so it can be opened and closed by the person on top of the engine that's operating the appliance.
Great point! 👩🏻🚒🔥🔥🔥🔥👩🏻🚒💦
YES! NIST, everyone needs to review those findings, first time scientists looks into fire services tactics to study and record the effects on the fire and had film and monitors on everything, putting water from exterior early reduces temperatures and fire spread significantly as well as the survivability of structure, occupants and fire personnel.The video and gauges don’t lie. you should go over all the NIST tapes on this channel to open everyone’s aperture if ya haven’t already. Change is hard but the evidence is pretty clear.
👍👍👍👩🏻🚒🔥🔥
Completely agree - that fire was screaming 'Deck Gun me!'
For 25 years I was a Federal Agent but in town I lived they had a mostly full time career FD augmented by about 10 "call firefighters" and I was one of the call FFs.
When I was "hired" as a call FF, the FD had a whacky Deputy Fire Chief. He was a very nice man but had some very quirky personality issues and he was loved by some and hated by others. As the Deputy Chief he was responsible for training which didn't happen often but when it did he was fun to be around. He hammered, I mean hammered that if the FD apparatus rolled up to a 'barn burner' as he called them, he always wanted to deck gun to be put into operation as soon the truck stopped. Next thing was, always look for a hydrant on the way in and when someone saw one, call it out and have someone ready themselves to grab it and drop a supply line, then proceed to the fire. Once in front of the fire building, again, he wanted someone to man the deck gun and the chauffeur start putting tank water into the deck gun. While this was going on, the hydrant was being dressed and getting ready for water as quickly as possible.
He may have been, and he was, a strange dude but he believed in two things, the wet stuff on the hot stuff ASAP and a building can be rebuilt but a FF life can not be.
So in closing, I will always remember him saying, deck gun, deck gun and deck gun. And it is such a simple, yet highly effective way of fighting a fire like the one in this video.
I honestly wish more fire departments would do this as a usual practice when confronted with a fire like this one.
Just my humble opinion developed by good trainer.
Thanks for the story and the comments.
‘ No sir, we don’t want the big bombs, those little ones will do “ said no soldier ever😂
First thoughts were "deck gun" but it has to be coordinated with water supply. Theoretically there should be a hydrant nearby, but in some of these smaller, and frankly poorer communities, that rely heavily on volunteers, hydrantsay be broken or underpressured.
A lot of moving parts, this is why analysis should not tranfser into criticism necessarily
👍👍🔥
This is a classic blitz attack with a master stream. Especially with minimal manpower at a very crucial time in the fire. Water needs to be put on this fire NOW! With exposures on both sides, time is of the essence. This is not to say, if my career department with 29 personnel rolled up, this would probably be an AGRESSIVE interior attack with multiple lines stretched. The crews would have to show significant progress pretty quickly or master streams would be put into service. Lines would be advanced to the exposures by second alarm companies. All with in the first 8-10 minutes. That is not what you have here. Overall a good stop considering the potential for a small town disaster.
👍👍👍👩🏻🚒👩🏻🚒👩🏻🚒🔥🔥🔥👍👍👍
Deck gun no question about it. Am I looking at 5 or 6 firefighters going through the door and no 2 line pulled?
The constant pausing and playing of the video, makes things extremely difficult to get proper perspective and context. But yes, a secondhand line would certainly be a good idea.
If any of our chiefs arrived and found that, before we arrive. They will all be screaming big water. And depending upon what side of town we are on, we've been second engine in multiple times, and ordered to deploy the tank through deckgun when there is a exposure issue such as this.which is very common in my area. Rows here are typically built on elevated slopes, and when there's wind involved, it's a no brainer. Burning down entire blocks should be a thing of the past , considering the flow volumes of today's equipment.
Definitely use the Deck gun right off the bat saves time and property. One guy on the deck gun,one guy securing a water source, and one or 2 guys pulling hand lines to make a interior attack. 3 and 4 engine crews. Second engine in hooks up the hydrant 4 or 5 LDH. I was on a combination department.
👍👍👩🏻🚒👩🏻🚒🔥🔥
Thanks. I'm from the Chicagoland area's. We had 3 maybe 4 max on a engine or truck company.
There definitely should've been a transitional attack with some sort of heavy water (2.5, Deck Gun, Blitz, etc) and a line going immediately to the exposure as well.
In my experience as a volunteer and paid FF, for some reason many companies due not roll their ladder first or even second due, they rarely deploy their deck guns and even more rarely will pull a 2 1/2 line. Large fire, large water, with the proper nozzle you can add an 1 3/4 to the end of a 2 1/2 line for mop up etc. Deck gun should have been the first call while establishing water supply, command should have requested 2 ladders and a FAST team from mutual aid if needed. it appears there are Mutual aid companies on the first due sheet as there are both black and tan turn out gear on scene.
Thanks for info. I think the town area has 2 or 3 firehouses. I suspect each house operates as tits own empire. 😉
I was in a department not to far outside the city from 92-97. Fairly busy with some good work.
We 100% believed "real" fireman get to the seat of the fire. Deck gun got lots of use on the dumpsters, and when saving the basement.
You also rarely were masked up during overhaul.
But never at a house fire that clearly had tenable areas was that deck gun used. .
The god honest belief was you were pushing the fire into those tenable areas. Lowing the chance of survivability.
Appreciate the videos.
Most departments seem to rarly use them. out of sight out of mind
deck gun
I'm all about the deck gun in this situation, as long as a water supply can be set up in a timely manner. If one isn't readily available, and you blow your wad prematurely, it won't take long before your back to square 1 again.
I didn’t spot a hydrant in this video. However, since it’s downtown, I would have to assume there’s one somewhere. Though, I agree with your concern I still think slowing the trajectory of the fire down, has far more value then regaining water supply quickly. Either the fire needs that much water or it doesn’t, I don’t buy into the saving water mentality.
Takes discipline to not exhaust the entire booster tank but remember that GPM is the determining factor in containing this type of fire. The conservation of water is a misplaced priority. But it's possible to do both as I said. Even with a 500 gal booster tank. Officer has to be very specific to the apparatus operator. I want you to open up the deck gun into the top floor and flow water for 30 seconds then shut it down. This should buy adequate time for an interior stretch as well as knock down fire that is extending to the exposure that a crew would not be able to attack by accessing the interior of the original fire building with a handline
@@Firemedic2547
Exactly, I believe it's called a "blitz attack." Very effective in the right situation and with good water placement.
One department on Long Island said they will discontinue using a deck gun. They have been a proven winner in early getting water on the blaze then why stop using them ?
Maybe they work for a construction company. 🤪
Absolutely should’ve used the deck gun absolutely
I had read a comment / story about a Chicago Fire Officer, don't recall his exact title but with one engine he would attack the fire with a deck gun and hand lines, Era was in the late fifties going into the sixties. Maybe someone knows who I am referring to. He would bark probably will HOLD and keep putting water on the fire.
DECKGUN,DECKGUN !
Where is this actual video
You really enjoy listening to your voice....we've heard you more than we have seen footage.....
Yes, that’s why these are called fire critiques. If you want to just watch fire incidents live 99.9% of all the other videos are just that, I suggest you seek those. There is a segment of firefighters here that want to discuss, critique and learn via discussion.
Yes, quick knock-down with a master-stream!
I think too many times that FFs, Officers, etc, were taught (or believe) that master-streams on 'big fire' will increase temps, (STEAM) and hurt/kill any occupants!
Exactly
That's a strange conclusion to make. That steam is sucking away the heat and starving the fire of oxygen. It's also creating a net reduction in fire gas. If a building's occupants are going to be hurt by the steam, then they're probably already dead by the fire gas.
I wonder what sort of events or conditions led to that conclusion and further led to that conclusion becoming a tradition.
@captainotto
Training and 'war stories' from academy instructors and 'old' timers.
AND... a neighboring Dept advancing a handline to floor 2 of a moderately-involved attached taxpayer.
The Engine crew opened up unaware(?) of location of primary search team. Nobody died, but many lengthy stays in the Burn Unit!
I AM NOT BLAMING ANYONE (engine crew, search crew, Co. Officers, Command, etc). The crews involved and the investigation know exactly what happened (tactics, strategies, operations, communications, etc)
I was not on-scene or involved in the firefight.
This is ALL from news media and anecdotal, on-scene accounts.
Water+Fire=Steam
When I started out you would get reprimanded for spraying any water from the outside. You approached from the unburned to the burned no matter how hard. Thank goodness times have changed and transitional fire attacks are accepted now.
This would have been a great opportunity to use an elevated master stream if one was available. With the higher exposure that fire needed to be knocked down quickly. The only hesitation I would have with a deck gun is spraying high as it is very easy to overshoot your target. We've all seen videos of streams watering the back yard.
I don't know how long it took to put the fire out but the end result wasn't too bad in my opinion considering they were late with the big water. A complete video would have helped a lot.
Thanks for the comments
If a hydrant is close by then could have definitely used the deck gun. Just don’t want to use all your water up without a supply line..
The White Helmet Is Normally For Chiefs That Was The First Person In The Part Of The Video. Yellow Helmets Are Captains And Sometimes Lieutenants Pending On Department Protocol. 🇺🇸😊😎🤗
I completely agree, but I’ve seen everything. Particularly with small rural departments.
CHEERS TO THE VOLUNTEERS !
As long as there is a water supply to that first engine this is an obvious deck gun first fire, that amount of fire coupled with attached exposures is a no brainer, stretch your soon to be interior 1 3/4 hand line and hook up your supply line while that deck gun is flowing
The original video showed several engine mounted deck guns in operation immediately ……. This video has been altered to delete this deluge attack …… perhaps because there was plainly audible arguing over using this tactic ……..a total of three guns were trained on this fire from 1st three engines on scene ……
This town has seen more than its share of large fires over the years in closely built older rowhomes as well as large buildings in the business district ……
Introducing exterior hose streams into structures that could be occupied should be done w/ extreme caution; based on the situation, not as a default tactic.
Exterior hose streams do push hot smoke. I’ve seen and felt it.
I’d take the risk. With the massive benefits of fire going out, stopping growth and preventing further extension.
@@TransmitThe1075 If there were firefighters just outside the third floor entry door or making entry through the rear, would you still use the deck gun? If your answer is no, then you shouldn’t use the deck gun because there could be civilians in those locations. Locations that may be survivable for a bit- that you’re making worse by using the deck gun. And by delaying entry you’re delaying possible rescue. Civilian life safety is our priority. That building looks like it could be occupied. Interior attack needs to be the default approach for the reason of life safety.
We’ve all seen fires that look bad until a hose line goes into operation and then the situation gets better fast. I’d get a line to that third floor (checking first and second quickly on way up) and into the exposures asap.
@@danmac344 Agree a misapplied exterior line (usually from a fog or combo nozzle on the wrong setting) will entrain a lot of air and can push heat and smoke further into the building
A straight steam/smooth bore does not push fire, heat, or smoke...Hit the ceiling with it from outside. It's no different than a sprinkler head operating...It comes out as a straight steama and hits the pendant...
Big fire ,big water
I seen the uncut video why they cut it I am not sure but they did Deck Gun It before that line went in. Their are other videos but no one has that initial but their is a 2nd video from th-cam.com/video/DsvD7mbfw04/w-d-xo.html but its little after they arrived and you can see deck gun in operation. If I am not mistaken the news and other reports was this was 3 story vacant. Buildings on both sides was occupied.
Thanks for linking this video, it seems to me the deck is later on in the incident. Which is fine, but I suspect would’ve been better initially. Would be great if the original poster, posted the entire thing un edited.
@@TransmitThe1075 100 percent agree. Video being edited might be because of people question tactics but if I can find any others I will share. I can not tell from the picture on the type of outside covering but in this area of PA we have gasoline shingles or siding. Many older houses and building use this so not sure if that would be part of that. The first due ladder on that fire was Mt Carmel which is from another county away. If you have other questions let me know as I live in the county where this occured.
@@TransmitThe1075 found the uncut but not sure if you need to be member to access it on another platform.
Deck gun. Elevated master streams. First.
I don't know why that this isn't basic protocol .
I’m not a fire fighter, but I think a deck gun could have helped here.
Bottom line water on the FIRE
im a past chief and i would have iniated a deck gun operation while hand lines were being played out
Thanks chief! 👍👍🔥
Hit it with the deck gun!!
This is not a “Taxpayer.”
Please explain.
@@TransmitThe1075 I believe that the term originated in NYC. The FDNY has used the term for many years. It had been used in print in their in-house training journal "WNYF" since IDK when. Sometime in either the late 70s or early 80s (I forget exactly) they published a rather long bulletin entitled FIREFIGHTING PROCEDURES, TAXPAYER FIRES. Here is an excerpt relative to the definition of the term.
2. DESCRIPTION
2.1 The term "Taxpayer" is not defined or recognized in the building code. The term
originally referred to the practice of real estate investors who, while holding land for
speculation, resorted to minimal investment in construction to produce income to offset
the cost of taxes. These structures were usually of cheap and flimsy construction with
little or no fire retarding features.
2.1.1 Supermarkets and one-story shopping centers of more recent construction do not
fit the above description but contain many of the inherent hazards associated with
taxpayers. For the purpose of this book, they shall be considered "taxpayers."
2.2 A taxpayer building is commonly taken to mean a business structure one or two stories in
height of Class 3 construction (exterior firewalls with wooden interior structural
members).
2.2.1 Their areas vary from 20' x 50' to areas of whole city blocks, the most common
size being approximately 100' x 100'. They can be built on one or more lots with
adjoining structures of greater heights on three sides.
2.2.2 These buildings are usually single structures commonly sheltering from one to as
many as 15 different businesses with weak non-fire resistive partitions and no fire
stops in the cocklofts.
Section 2.3 of the bulletin goes on to state that there are three broad categories of Taxpayers and goes on to describe the differences among them. None of those describe structures as we see in this fire.
@@TransmitThe1075
Again, this is not brain surgery. You lay in. That's all there is to it. If there are no hydrants, you have onboard water and you should be following up with tankers. You stop, you activate the pump and you deck gun this until the flames are gone. By then you might just have firefighters who are fully dressed so they can pull a line to the front door to go in and surgically apply water to stop the threat completely. If you aren't doing exactly what I said you aren't a real firefighter or department. Everything else is a waste of time and doesn't stop combustion. Which is the JOB of a fire department,
This was a recent job in Ashland Borough, Schuylkill County PA. It appears in the link attached that they eventually got some "stangs" running on exposure 1.
th-cam.com/video/DsvD7mbfw04/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for sharing
3 story taxpayer???????
Yes, you can have a three-story, defined “taxpayer”.
Nice big lip smack to open. Wish you tubers used pop filters and or better editing.
We try to focus on content, and not editing perfection. But I will try to do better.
Exterior water pushes fire/products of combustion to other unaffected parts of the building/ any potentially trapped occupants
OK, I’m sure there’s some truth to that statement. However, burning hot temperatures, flames and black smoke are also major threats. I don’t think anyone is suggesting there isn’t a risk, but I would suggest the positives greatly outweigh the negatives.
@@TransmitThe1075 time and place. To me aggressively committing the handline to the interior and pushing the fire out and putting it out is the best option
There is a right and wrong way to apply water from the exterior. Must be a solid stream and must be applied at the correct angle. If done right then you don't cause the detrimental effects you mentioned
The Firemen with the White Helmet are the officer. The Deck should be used to knock most of the Fire down.
The two gentlemen in the white helmets at the beginning, appear to be rather old and likely to be in capable of interior, fire fighting. I suspect they are Chiefs not company officers.
yes 100 persent
What's your email I want you discuss a tactic?
Getting the job done eventually, doesn't mean the job was done well. This is how you do this JOB! th-cam.com/play/PLkp0E1ao1XEzg384QZ4ovMA_6P7gCY3nJ.html
Fantastic video, thank you so much for sharing.
@jb91710 🐔💩