It needs to be understood a line is being put into place in order to make an aggressive interior attack. We are still going inside to do our searches, and put the rest of the fire out. Why in God's name wouldn't we want to put water on a fire in less than a minute? How long does it take to deploy, flake, get on air, force entry if needed, charge a line, advance the line to the room involved and/or possibly have to contend with obstacles? We've come across hoarders in my community that are nothing but a fire trap, something we seem to come across a lot more these days. If your department can advance a line to a third floor multi-family and get water on the fire in less than a minute, then kudos to you.
Great video. I saw much the same show at FDIC 2012 and have been trying to convince my bosses about it ever since. Being able to see this for themselves hopefully will help. Thanks
Boy, thank goodness... I heard this some years ago, right after UL and NIST did the initial tests of this old theory. this works folks. It's old school and NOT what many of you have learned. sorry it's the right thing to do for all these reasons. thank you LA county.
2:355:06 For the most part, people are followers. This is what I call Fountain Statue Fire Fighting. If they see a firefighter standing in one spot putting water on one spot, that's exactly what they will do. They need to constantly move their feet to adjust the angle of that stream to cover the entire room after they have imagined where the water is going and what it is doing. You can't just demonstrate applying water from the exterior, you have to show them the effective way of doing it. 4:42 THIS is how to determine if you need an interior attack over an exterior one. 6:20 95% of departments in these RUclips videos, will ignore that fire location and their access to the burning material to allow it to continue burning while they walk Into the fire to Push it out the window. The Time and Danger involved in doing that is what kills victims and firefighters and destroys property.
I am not a FF, but i think 2 reasons why you have to be careful - first not to block the steam output - so the stream must be steady, aimed statically not to block the window. Second is that you should not open a new flow path. If the paths are already there (eg window is broken anyway) then just go ahead and cool the fire from outside as soon as you can. I saw that difference between US and other FF videos, previously the US departments spent much more time to assess situation etc than others. In EU videos you can see the first stream up in 30s-1min while in US videos it is 2-4mins sometimes because they do the 360 first (which is not a bad thing - considering flow path and smoke assessment) but it can be because team size is smaller and you can't start cooling before you can finish 360. Just a thought as a civilian. Happy to learn further.
... I think the problem is that this concept is being pushed out there to be "THE" tactic, THE only way,... at least that's my impression... I think it is a good option, but not by no means the "one and only" way to operate at EVERY fire... it doesn't make sense to me, to waste time to pull a line all the way to the back of a house (for example) to squirt water and then come around and go in... what if I cant get to the back side??? firefighting requires flexibility...
Awww come on man!! Pulling a line to the rear and then relocating it back to the front is not flexibility. It means tunnel vision in your part! Pull another line for Pete's sake!! Geez!!!
Great videos UL keep up the good work. I did have a question though in this and other videos using this tactic it seems only temperature is used to say worthier one is burned or not. Also you speak about steaming someone on the interior. To my understanding steam only gets about 212 degrees F unless pressurized (may or may not be correct), but causes burns that would not be received without extended periods of exposure time without it. Sort of like sticking your hand in a dry oven at 400 degrees vs a pot of boiling water at 212. Is there any research out there that would account for a "humidity factor"?
Good to see that the US is finally adopting what the rest of the world has known for decades, I am sure that a lot of old fashioned FD’s are resisting these changes like the US are resisting the metric system, but if it works for the rest of the world, it should work for the US. 🙂
Been saying this since the late 90's. UL proved it. But there are some that will still reject the proof because they can't admit they have been wrong all these years. It's nice to see the rest of the world is figuring this out finally. It will save lives and that's what is important not that I was right all along. But I WAS RIGHT AGAIN.
good work ....we are looking at heading towards transitional attack and going one better with Smooth bore CAFS from the yard then transitioni ng to Wet CAFS with Fog branch anything that improves fftr safey and occupant survivability has got my vote
they didnt say it was bad, and thats one step, to help keep heat down for trapped people. its just and added step, you still have to get in and knock the fire
Whether you know there are victims inside or not, the firefighting is exactly the same. Find what is burning, vent the fire room windows and put tank water on it. By then an entry team has been assembled, are fully dressed and the front door is open. The victims have been protected along with the entering firefighters. That's called responsible and effective firefighting
Important thing to note, "are you going to notice the difference between 100 and 120 at the floor"? Yes you will, if you are trapped in the structure. A person can survive in 120 -130 degree DRY heat. That same temperature will kill the victim if it is steam.
+David Dinelli, 130° STEAM?!? In the universe I'm from, steam condenses at 212° and it is therefore physically impossible to have 130° steam. If steam is produced in a compartment where survivable victims were, you either: 1- used the wrong technique, 2- you used exterior attack in the wrong situation, 3- the wind changed direction, or 4- a window away from the fire was opened. 1 & 2 are your fault, 3 is beyond your control and 4 is likely a fault of a freelancing firefighter, but none of them are a result of a proporly performed exterior offensive fire attack. Were I a trapped victim, I would rather wait 5 minutes in a room that has gone from 500° to 300° than have you come get me in 3 minutes in a room that is at 500° and rising. Exterior application improves conditions for trapped victims throughout the structure. And THAT is our primary objective.
Dan their is no difference between breathing 300 and 500 air in a structure. Your respiratory system will burn and shut down. Time is what saves lives. And you wasting it outside doesn't help
+Dan Oberste - What David meant to say is that dry heat versus humid heat has different effects on our respirator tract. A person can withstand a higher temperature of dry heat than they can moist heat. That being, it's important to note that 75% of civilian fire victim's cause of death is ruled smoke inhalation(CDC). Improving conditions using the hard from the yard tactic does not remove them from this smoke, nor does it make the smoke less deadly. The only thing that will save these victims is removing them from the smoke, and you can't do that from the yard. Also, 35% of fire victims are found unconscious in the egress paths while attempting to flee. By simply taking a hose line interior to attack the fire we have a good possibility of finding an unconscious victim because our access paths to the fire are also the victim's exit paths. Another 36% are found where they were sleeping. That means if we Vent enter search the bedrooms and attack the fire with interior hose lines we have a 70% chance of finding the victims.
+Ken P Couldn't agree more Ken P, These guys at NIST and UL don't know what they're talking about. Its like come on guys what business do you have telling us how to fight fire? Bunch of scientists that have never touched a hose. This theory doesn't make any sense, makes less sense than silly things like thermal imaging cameras, Pre planning, Size ups, Halogen bars.
This test was conducted with cooperation of the FDNY which have stated that they need to revamp the way fires should be approached in order to save the lives of both the victims and Firefighters.
They don't know what theyre talking about? How do you know that? They have a warehouse of houses that are built to burn. They bring in firefighters to burn and perform different fire suppression tactics, then they analyze the data. This is progressive, this works in the right application. Stop thinking with your balls and think with your brain.
Don't knock it till you try it. This works. Done it 3 times in the last 2 months with no delay extinguishment time.
Some of the best tactics & information I've ever received in my 5 1/2 years in the fire service.
Todd Jones well now you have 9 1/2 years in have you realized that this tactic is a giant mistake yet?
@@oldanddisgusted5998 Giant mistake? And why may I ask?
Been doing this for the past 10 years and it works! Victims do survive!
I learned this from reading "Report From Engine Co. 82" soon after it was published.
Great Information. Study-Train-Implement
I am not a fireman, but I sure love this education. I am so happy to learn it should I ever be in trouble.
It needs to be understood a line is being put into place in order to make an aggressive interior attack. We are still going inside to do our searches, and put the rest of the fire out. Why in God's name wouldn't we want to put water on a fire in less than a minute? How long does it take to deploy, flake, get on air, force entry if needed, charge a line, advance the line to the room involved and/or possibly have to contend with obstacles? We've come across hoarders in my community that are nothing but a fire trap, something we seem to come across a lot more these days. If your department can advance a line to a third floor multi-family and get water on the fire in less than a minute, then kudos to you.
Thank you for understanding this and why tactics are always changing. There is nothing wrong with Transitional Fire Attack. Nothing.
Great video. I saw much the same show at FDIC 2012 and have been trying to convince my bosses about it ever since. Being able to see this for themselves hopefully will help. Thanks
Boy, thank goodness... I heard this some years ago, right after UL and NIST did the initial tests of this old theory. this works folks. It's old school and NOT what many of you have learned. sorry it's the right thing to do for all these reasons. thank you LA county.
2:35 5:06 For the most part, people are followers. This is what I call Fountain Statue Fire Fighting. If they see a firefighter standing in one spot putting water on one spot, that's exactly what they will do. They need to constantly move their feet to adjust the angle of that stream to cover the entire room after they have imagined where the water is going and what it is doing. You can't just demonstrate applying water from the exterior, you have to show them the effective way of doing it.
4:42 THIS is how to determine if you need an interior attack over an exterior one.
6:20 95% of departments in these RUclips videos, will ignore that fire location and their access to the burning material to allow it to continue burning while they walk Into the fire to Push it out the window. The Time and Danger involved in doing that is what kills victims and firefighters and destroys property.
JB on his alt? lol
@@leadingfiremancross7211 Anymore worthless and childish comments?
@@oldskier3019 I think you just made one 😂😂😂
Very good training aid. Time is our enemy. We are learning to buy time with good tactics. Thank you.
SLICERS approach.
A straight stream into a window that is banked off the ceiling will act like a sprinkler head. Explain to me how that's bad...
I am not a FF, but i think 2 reasons why you have to be careful - first not to block the steam output - so the stream must be steady, aimed statically not to block the window. Second is that you should not open a new flow path. If the paths are already there (eg window is broken anyway) then just go ahead and cool the fire from outside as soon as you can. I saw that difference between US and other FF videos, previously the US departments spent much more time to assess situation etc than others. In EU videos you can see the first stream up in 30s-1min while in US videos it is 2-4mins sometimes because they do the 360 first (which is not a bad thing - considering flow path and smoke assessment) but it can be because team size is smaller and you can't start cooling before you can finish 360. Just a thought as a civilian. Happy to learn further.
... I think the problem is that this concept is being pushed out there to be "THE" tactic, THE only way,... at least that's my impression... I think it is a good option, but not by no means the "one and only" way to operate at EVERY fire... it doesn't make sense to me, to waste time to pull a line all the way to the back of a house (for example) to squirt water and then come around and go in... what if I cant get to the back side??? firefighting requires flexibility...
Awww come on man!! Pulling a line to the rear and then relocating it back to the front is not flexibility. It means tunnel vision in your part! Pull another line for Pete's sake!! Geez!!!
so who hits the window on the way to entry? We have a hose resource going out apart from the cross lay too would ma reel hose be enough?
Great videos UL keep up the good work. I did have a question though in this and other videos using this tactic it seems only temperature is used to say worthier one is burned or not. Also you speak about steaming someone on the interior. To my understanding steam only gets about 212 degrees F unless pressurized (may or may not be correct), but causes burns that would not be received without extended periods of exposure time without it. Sort of like sticking your hand in a dry oven at 400 degrees vs a pot of boiling water at 212. Is there any research out there that would account for a "humidity factor"?
Good to see that the US is finally adopting what the rest of the world has known for decades, I am sure that a lot of old fashioned FD’s are resisting these changes like the US are resisting the metric system, but if it works for the rest of the world, it should work for the US. 🙂
Been saying this since the late 90's. UL proved it. But there are some that will still reject the proof because they can't admit they have been wrong all these years. It's nice to see the rest of the world is figuring this out finally. It will save lives and that's what is important not that I was right all along. But I WAS RIGHT AGAIN.
good work ....we are looking at heading towards transitional attack and going one better with Smooth bore CAFS from the yard then transitioni ng to Wet CAFS with Fog branch anything that improves fftr safey and occupant survivability has got my vote
The quickest and safest way to extinguish a fire is to get in there and put it out!
+kyle mccormick thank you for saying this..it needs to be said...hitting it hard from the yard..fuck out of here!!
A straight stream into a window that is banked off the ceiling will act like a sprinkler head. Explain to me how that's bad...
they didnt say it was bad, and thats one step, to help keep heat down for trapped people. its just and added step, you still have to get in and knock the fire
Whether you know there are victims inside or not, the firefighting is exactly the same. Find what is burning, vent the fire room windows and put tank water on it. By then an entry team has been assembled, are fully dressed and the front door is open. The victims have been protected along with the entering firefighters. That's called responsible and effective firefighting
Excellent presentation.
Knowing that this is LACOFD was this test done with straight water or are those wet CAFS lines.
Straight water. They probably do have CAFs systems, but this is a study with water only.
This test was conducted on Governors Island in NYC.
What is a neutral plane ?
Great video, very informative! Thank you very much for this!
Important thing to note, "are you going to notice the difference between 100 and 120 at the floor"? Yes you will, if you are trapped in the structure. A person can survive in 120 -130 degree DRY heat. That same temperature will kill the victim if it is steam.
+David Dinelli Believe me I'm not a fan of exterior attack at all. But you're just spewing BS.
Eric Maurouard elaborate, you just can't call someone names and walk away.
+David Dinelli, 130° STEAM?!? In the universe I'm from, steam condenses at 212° and it is therefore physically impossible to have 130° steam. If steam is produced in a compartment where survivable victims were, you either: 1- used the wrong technique, 2- you used exterior attack in the wrong situation, 3- the wind changed direction, or 4- a window away from the fire was opened.
1 & 2 are your fault, 3 is beyond your control and 4 is likely a fault of a freelancing firefighter, but none of them are a result of a proporly performed exterior offensive fire attack.
Were I a trapped victim, I would rather wait 5 minutes in a room that has gone from 500° to 300° than have you come get me in 3 minutes in a room that is at 500° and rising. Exterior application improves conditions for trapped victims throughout the structure. And THAT is our primary objective.
Dan their is no difference between breathing 300 and 500 air in a structure. Your respiratory system will burn and shut down. Time is what saves lives. And you wasting it outside doesn't help
+Dan Oberste - What David meant to say is that dry heat versus humid heat has different effects on our respirator tract. A person can withstand a higher temperature of dry heat than they can moist heat. That being, it's important to note that 75% of civilian fire victim's cause of death is ruled smoke inhalation(CDC). Improving conditions using the hard from the yard tactic does not remove them from this smoke, nor does it make the smoke less deadly. The only thing that will save these victims is removing them from the smoke, and you can't do that from the yard. Also, 35% of fire victims are found unconscious in the egress paths while attempting to flee. By simply taking a hose line interior to attack the fire we have a good possibility of finding an unconscious victim because our access paths to the fire are also the victim's exit paths. Another 36% are found where they were sleeping. That means if we Vent enter search the bedrooms and attack the fire with interior hose lines we have a 70% chance of finding the victims.
KEEP THEM COMING GOOD STUFF.
Great video!
hiT iT HArD fROm tHe yArD
This guy has the whitest teeth ever.
This video shows everything the fire service SHOULDN'T be
Jonathan Noble ,what do you mean ? They shouldn’t put out fires ????
hitting it hard from the yard.what a joke..get in there make your primary searches
+Ken P Couldn't agree more Ken P, These guys at NIST and UL don't know what they're talking about. Its like come on guys what business do you have telling us how to fight fire? Bunch of scientists that have never touched a hose. This theory doesn't make any sense, makes less sense than silly things like thermal imaging cameras, Pre planning, Size ups, Halogen bars.
A straight stream into a window that is banked off the ceiling will act like a sprinkler head. Explain to me how that's bad...
This test was conducted with cooperation of the FDNY which have stated that they need to revamp the way fires should be approached in order to save the lives of both the victims and Firefighters.
They don't know what theyre talking about? How do you know that? They have a warehouse of houses that are built to burn. They bring in firefighters to burn and perform different fire suppression tactics, then they analyze the data. This is progressive, this works in the right application. Stop thinking with your balls and think with your brain.
@@jasongilberts294 what the hell do you mean thermal imaging cameras don't make any damn sense.