« “The Constant”… | Home | “Chronology”… »
“Tactical Safety: Understanding Aggressive Interior Attack”…
By thehousewatch | November 2, 2009
“Examining the process of firefighting to see if there is a better and safer way to operate”
Tactical Safety – Understanding Aggressive Interior Attack
Photo by Michael Dick
By: Ray McCormack
Aggressive interior attack does its job every day across this country; it is how most fire departments operate the majority of the time. It is our common game plan when we head out the door. When we arrive, we will determine if the plan is suitable for a particular fire or building; or if the plan needs modification. The American fire service saves the most lives and property by fighting fires from inside buildings Aggressive interior attack is a coordinated, well thought out method of interior fire extinguishment. There are two reasons why we enter structures for extinguishment, the protection of life and property.
The majority of dwelling fires are extinguished utilizing the initial handline. This tells us several things. First we are arriving in a timely fashion; we are stretching the correct size handline, and aggressive interior attack gets the job done efficiently and effectively. Tactically safe interior fire extinguishment begins with the correct hoseline choice, sustained water for extinguishment, and the ability to determine if the interior fire fight is winnable. ‘Winability’ and safe operations are at the heart of interior attack. Safety is the biggest factor that weighs on initiating this form of firefighting. What will the building do next? How far has it been compromised? Most times it is evident and sometimes it is cleverly hidden from us.
What does the word aggressive mean when it comes to attack? Is it just a slogan or does it quantify a select method of operation. I believe it is the latter. If the hoseline’s not moving we’re losing! For any interior fire to be extinguished quickly we must move (march) a hoseline from the building entrance to the fire. This is the where aggressiveness comes into play. Remember aggressiveness does not imply an unsafe advance or reckless disregard for operational safety. Aggressive is the opposite of passive; we must fight fires with determination or the job will not be done in a timely manner. Time is what aggressive attack is about. We wish to extinguish the fire quickly while maintaining egress protection.
Determination is something most officers and firefighters arrive on scene with. However, difficult conditions often test our determination. Tough firefighting is like climbing a steep hill. The fire (climb) is intense and hot but finally we make it to the top and then we can relax just a bit realizing the worst is over, and we then proceed downhill; we have the fire knocked down. It is not just technical skill that gets us through a difficult fire, it is often headlong determination. We improve our chances of success by getting all of our ducks in a row. We flake out the line, we get properly dressed, we check for good water, and we continue to evaluate our attack progress and conditions around us while pushing forward at a pace compatible with fire conditions.
Officers evaluate the fire and look for evidence of progress. Looking at a whole host of variables is part of every IC’s job, with steam conversion being high on the list of favorite sights to see. Aggressive interior attack usually presents quick results and gives the IC the non verbal inside view of what is occurring. It will be a back and forth conversation between inside and outside as to how well we are progressing in our fire attack. The IC always has the option of pulling the plug and switching tactics if he feels or is told that we are losing; or that even winning the battle could be too costly.
The interior of the building is a tricky thing; some appear common while others are more intricate. The path to the fire may be decided upon using several factors: the most direct route, timeliest route, egress route, or building entrance. The need to go interior for your attack is not based on machismo. It is based upon the fact that fires are extinguished more rapidly from up close. Fire knock down is not fire extinguishment. When the risk to personnel rules out interior operations, we will hit the fire from an exterior vantage point. Will it take longer that way? Yes, because you can no longer get close to open up a wall or move debris to get to hidden fire.
How much of the building is involved in fire? What is the tipping point for either suspending or abandoning this attack method? It is different for many officers and IC’s as it is for buildings and occupancies utilizing various amounts of light weight components. Total losers however, we all can agree upon, such as well involved buildings, structurally degraded, and derelict structures. All fire buildings need to be constantly evaluated relating to interior attack commencement and viability.
We must train our firefighters to utilize effective extinguishment tactics and proper nozzle technique within the fire compartment. We must train our companies to quickly get a handline in service so that extinguishment can begin within the quickest time frame after arrival size up is performed. Remember time is not on anyone’s side at a structural fire. Different buildings and occupancies within buildings can be vastly different. Some homes have more of a fire load than others. Some occupancies have shapes that can make extinguishment more difficult. If we have decided to enter an occupancy/building then we must have our (gun drawn) hoseline ready to attack at a seconds’ notice. The importance of hoseline protection should never be an after thought. You must understand how building methods and materials can dramatically accelerate the collapse potential. Could we successfully extinguish an occupancy that has fire through out it? Yes we could but what we have to worry about is the structure degrading in the amount of time it will take to progress through the occupancy. This is why it is important to fight dirty against the enemy. We must be ready to bring overwhelming (force) water to the battle. That does not always equate to multiple small hoselines. Remember initial attack gives us our best punch in the shortest amount of time.
However with all things being equal an engine company that covers all the bases, and uses a systematic approach to extinguishment, will win more battles than one that is unprepared. Initiating an aggressive interior attack demands strong leadership, tactical safety, good nozzle technique, knowledge of engine emergencies, and fire behavior. There are many fire behaviors that we learn about such as flashover, backdraft, and rollover which often overshadows the more common threats associated with fire extinguishment. Firefighters must know how to combat battle multi-room fires, deal with cluttered conditions, fire wrap around, extension, black fire and accelerated fire growth just to name a few. Hoseline management must be understood and appreciated by everyone on the fireground, especially understaffed departments. Back up hoseline positions must be placed in advantageous locations that do not restrict the movement of the guarded handline and commanded by officers who understand line placement.
The use of larger handlines is predicated on many factors such as the D.A.L.L.A.S. acronym as well as occupancy type and building size. The post incident action report of difficulty using a large handline and low staffing is often just an excuse that attempts to mask a lack of relevant and comprehensive hoseline training. Is a larger line more difficult to use? Yes, it may be more difficult, but the results are what we are after, not a sob story. All handlines should be properly staffed in order to facilitate a timely extinguishment. Safe extinguishment comes with a through knowledge of engine company operations and interior attack hazards and how to counter them. Absolute safety can never be achieved unfortunately, but that is no reason to abandon or put down aggressive interior attack, which is by far our most powerful and effective life saving tactic once we are engaged in structural fire operations.
Look at all the statistics the fire service collects on fires and firefighters and you will see multiple negative categories. Many in the fire service look to the private sector for ideas and trends. Corporate reports don’t dwell on the negative. Maybe we should start keeping statistics on how much property and how many lives we save; and they way they’re saved instead of always focusing on loss. These new numbers would help to display the positive impact our service has on the community and our value.
Next Tactical Safety – CANceling Fire
Topics: Training and Development | 5 Comments »
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:38 am
Beautiful. As always. You’ll be compiling these Tactical Safety articles into a book one day, yes?
November 4th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I wonder if calling it “active” fire attack instead of “aggressive” would be more acceptable to those who automatically equate aggressive with reckless/dangerous. It wouldn’t change what it is or isn’t, but may change the perception.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Some people equate “attack” with being. reckless/dangerous. Maybe we should call it active fire intervention. It has a nice ring to it.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Very well and thought out presentation. I still like the word aggressive, it is what it is. Its what we do, and it can be done aggressively as well as safely.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
The use of the word aggressive is appropriate and important. We are a fighting force, we fight fires which are the bane our civilized progress and our status quo. Any force throughout history that operates in a perilous situation has a mindset and a methodology for their profession. We do no actively deploy lines, we aggressively run lines. can we inactively deploy a line? no. But some meekly walk them. “Active” is reserved for policy. Active policy will stop a fire before it starts, but only aggressive and disciplined firemen will stop a fire when it does occur.
The perception does not need to change. If someone has the wrong idea it should be fixed while drilling or in training.