“Son of Brady St.”…
By thehousewatch | October 20, 2009
Photo by Milwaukee Fire Department Historical Society
It’s great to see good press in bad times…
We should all remember that Firefighters not only protect the socioeconomic vitality and health of neighborhoods, we also know them better than anyone.
Topics: Editorials | 5 Comments »
“Tactical Safety: Winning Fires With Water”…
By thehousewatch | October 19, 2009
“Examining the process of firefighting to see if there is a better and safer way to operate”
Tactical Safety – Winning Fires with Water
By: Ray McCormack
Winning fires with water is based on several key factors such as: the amount of water brought to the battle, from supply volume to actual usage volume, to proper targeting of each individual water stream, and the selective placement of streams for maximum coverage and timely extinguishment. Firefighting is war. To win our individual daily battles, we must strategize on which tactics will safely and effectively give us the upper hand against the enemy. We can have multiple streams in operation, but if they are missing the target, we are loosing the battle. We must use our primary attack tool (water) effectively in both the advanced tactical mode and in offensive/defensive platforms in order to win.
Water supply both upon arrival and after supplementation gives us a foundation and reserve for continuous operations. The higher the number of supply and supply methods used the higher our level of safety should be. Supply provided by only a single source no matter what the number (volume) is never as prudent as having multiple sources. All of our water sources should be maximized with total volume pulled surpassing need.
When we arrive with our pumpers, provide a static amount of water to initiate some type of fire operation. If you feel that your fire race is equal to 1,000 gallons then starting off with a pumper that only contains 500 gallons can lead to a disappointing finish. We must be able to judge the effect of our actions prior to implementing them. A fire that requires thousands of gallons of water for extinguishment may be quickly reduced if the sweet spot is hit with those 500 gallons of water. These are judgment calls based on many factors; two of the leading contributors being urgency and growth potential.
Having a sustained water supply is one of the keys to an effective offensive/defensive operation. Many times our offensive water demand will later be dwarfed by the increased water supply demand of defensive operations. Defensive operations that switch from small handline suppression to appliance assisted suppression require a tremendous increase in water volume to work effectively. This transition time can allow for exponential fire spread. When larger handlines are used, this transfer works better because these lines double nicely as supply lines for appliances, thereby saving time and effort. Any appliance that can be feed from multiple supply lines with separate water sources allows for a fail safe(r) operation.
When we miss the target by not hitting the seat of the fire we have a problem. You can lob all the water you want at the fire but if it is not getting there it is a wasted effort. Many times we follow standards of line placement that embrace interior attack; when we move to defensive operations, hoseline placement considerations change. We must place stream reach high on our list of priorities to keep us outside the collapse zone. Proper stream placement helps to prevent many things including collapse, due to reduced burn time and water/absorption.
Fires don’t exist in a vacuum; most times they leave behind a debris field for us to examine. If you are not standing on top of or amongst a pile of burned out rubb, then you may still have more work to do. An even bigger problem is when we think we have extinguished the fire and we have not. I once had this happen to me. Just as I reported “all visible fire knocked down” I knew I had spoken too soon. The IC quickly countered with “What about the fire blowing out the window into the shaft”? I replied “I haven’t gotten to the invisible fire yet!”
We must make sure that we also understand volume. The volume of space contained within the fire compartment and the need for effective hoseline selection and a heightened awareness for usage. Compartment height is often a dimension that gets little consideration for its relationship to dramatic fire growth, and potential fireground emergencies. Water does a great job of extinguishment; it is up to us to know the correct amount to bring to the battle, to reinforce the battle and to win the battle. Redundancy and independence are the two foundational blocks of water supply that increase tactical safety on any fireground.
Next Tactical Safety – SOP’s – Standard Operating Positions
Topics: Training and Development | No Comments »
“The Long Stretch”…
By thehousewatch | October 19, 2009
The definition of a long stretch varies among departments nationwide. If you ask me, I’d consider a long stretch anything over four lengths. Whenever you stretch more than four lengths, you’re probably stretching above the second floor and or have a deep setback; it also seems the potential for kinks and finding car tires, bumpers, fences, newel posts, lawn gnomes, etc. with the trailing line increases exponentially. It is incumbent upon Engine Company members, actually it should be all members on the fireground, to remain ‘heads-up’ with the line’s maintenance and progress. If your pressure sucks or your line goes limp on the fire floor, notify the pump operator and IC immediately. If the pump operator states the line appears charged or ‘fine’ outside, then your problems are inside. With that, the pump operator is responsible for all hose maintenance from the engine to the building entrance. That way problems can be handled on the inside and outside simultaneously and systematically by the inside and outside Engine Company assignments.
Video hat tip Bill:
Topics: Training and Development | No Comments »
“Moment of Zen”…
By thehousewatch | October 17, 2009
Topics: Editorials | No Comments »
“Budget-Buster”…
By thehousewatch | October 14, 2009
The Pentagon is rushing to production a new “Bunker-Buster” bomb, aptly named the Massive Ordinance Penetrator, or ‘MOP’ Bomb. It’s a weapon that packs quite a punch and its design makes it virtually indefensible. Times are admittedly tough and Cities are furiously defending their justification of cuts to fire departments. In order to take on politicians on their own battlefields, you need an indefensible weapon yourselves that destroys their ability and desire to wage war. A similar weapon was rushed to production in the Milwaukee Professional Firefighters Association’s “War-Strategy Center.” It’s called the “Budget-Buster” and it also packs quite a punch; and it’s time for us all to drop our own…
AP Photo
Click on the link below to see the Milwaukee Professional Firefighters Association’s “Budget-Buster:”
Local 215 Frontline Analysis ‘09-1
Topics: Editorials | No Comments »
“Fighting Bob”…
By thehousewatch | October 11, 2009
Photo by Michael Sears: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Democracy has become a contemporary virtue in our polarized political spectrum. The Country was founded upon principles related to freedom to practice religion and transcended religious ideology. This gave us free speech and the right to assembly. This was epitomized this afternoon in Milwaukee when the public safety dichotomy of Police Officers and Firefighters met not at the scene of a fire or vehicle accident, but in a meeting hall. “Fighting Bob” Donovan, a Milwaukee Alderman, organized a rally to protest the forthcoming public safety cuts to Milwaukee’s Police and Fire Departments. And the turnout was enough to send the Mayor’s mouthpiece into spin mode.
Times are tough, no one needs to be reminded of that; but everyone understands what a decimated Police and or Fire Department leaves for their municipalities. Just take a historical look back to the 70’s when we saw the previous cycle of layoffs and company closures. History is repeating itself. Moreover, this time we (and our cities) may not recover or feel like we even work for the same fire departments we were hired by. They will look entirely different when it’s time for the gold watch. Always remember however, that no one can make you hate the job or tell you the mission has changed. It hasn’t and we can’t become defeatists. Furthermore, we all need to get behind our own “Fighting Bobs,” and others with a proverbial set of balls to ensure we never do.
Topics: Editorials | No Comments »
“Tactical Safety-Attack Supervision: One Box That Should Always Be Filled”…
By thehousewatch | October 11, 2009
“Examining the process of firefighting to see if there is a better and safer way to operate”
Tactical Safety – Attack Supervision: One Box That Should Always Be Filled
By: Ray McCormack
Photo by thehousewatch.com
There are several boxes in an attack strategy that should be filled at every fire. Under supervision we have several layers, and the ability to segment our operations into manageable chunks. Initial supervision on arrival and command-control is generally handled by the first in officer. Under certain departmental operational models, this officer’s role is lost at the task (company) level. The merits of any operational model can only be judged over time as to its effectiveness and overall operational safety. Taking a supervisor and placing them in a different role may fill one box, but what about the other box that is now missing its supervision?
Having an officer assigned to the engine company is extremely important and doubles that company’s attack efficiency. Staffing for most departments is an issue that is ongoing. Depending on the type of fire occupancy and layout presented, a lack of hoseline supervision should be criminal. We can have enough people for a timely hoseline advance; however when the officer takes on the role of back up firefighter we are operating less efficiently and less safe.
The command model that allows for the first hoseline officer to be pulled off the engine company and into another operational position is sacrificial in nature; as important as command is to overall operational effectiveness, so is command at the company (task) level; and especially for the primary attack hoseline. It is a judgment call for some departments; it is policy for others and it is always inherently tricky. Where is the IC? The true IC: the fire chief? This person must be assigned right away on any potential structural fire call.
When a nozzle team consists of just ‘workers’ and no supervision, it is not only understaffed, it is ineffectively staffed. Yes, I know the realities of real world staffing and there isn’t much we can do about severe staffing shortages, but many times the loss of the engine boss is an obligation and is not about numbers. Having someone with the nozzle team, that is solely concentrating on extinguishment and tactical safety without other operational distractions, raises the effectiveness of that team, period. Can we do things over time (luck out) that allow us to develop a skewed prospective of operational effectiveness and the proper deployment of resources? Is every fire difficult? No, but that’s not the point. The point is where do we place value? Is it only found in the command role? Or do we find value at the end of a nozzle?
There is a lot of emphasis on the whole picture or exterior view/perspective of a fire, the typical view of the IC. However nice that view is, it is only a portion of what is occurring inside. Let’s not forget it is the interior view that is leaking to the exterior. That interior view is much more telling and the IC needs someone to share that view with everyone on the fireground. We can not move to a place in firefighting that we just read the cover of books/ buildings without further exploration or venturing inside. The engine company officer will supply that critical interior view. He will also supply the encouragement and quiet confidence of forward movement that puts fires out.
Many seem to be concerned with outside views and what it says, and that’s fine for awhile; but when you become overly concerned and can not move past that feature then no matter what you think you are seeing you are only seeing a portion of the fire puzzle. To solve most fire puzzles we need to go inside. We need to be lead by someone who is solely looking out for our safety up close and personal and who has their eye on the prize – putting the fire out and saving lives in the process. If you do not subscribe to the platform of hoseline supervision being the foundation of operational effectiveness and tactical safety then you have much to relearn. Leaving the primary attack line without supervision is bad firematics, because one day the results you will get will add up to more than just poor tactical safety; and ineffective extinguishment; it will add up to something much worse. If we have to choose boxes to fill, the engine company leadership box is at the top.
Next Tactical Safety – Winning Fires with Water
Topics: Training and Development | 2 Comments »
“Ring of Fire”…
By thehousewatch | October 9, 2009
I always hated getting stuck with the accordion position at fires. It’s worse than getting stuck as the RIT Truck…
Topics: Editorials | No Comments »
“Ut Vivant AII”
By thehousewatch | October 8, 2009
Buffalo Fire 2009 Awards video from Michael Zarbo on Vimeo.
Topics: Editorials | No Comments »
“Tactical Safety: Nozzle Technique”…
By thehousewatch | October 5, 2009
Tactical Safety – Nozzle Technique
By: Ray McCormack
Photo by Michael Dick
There are several forms of nozzle technique: one form centers on how the nozzle is held relative to hand and body position, the other deals with extinguishment style. I have made it a habit to evaluate almost every student I have ever taught during a hands on engine class as to how they hold the nozzle, and how they operate it during a fire advance. Some firefighters have been taught poorly from the beginning; others have adopted habits that lessen their individual effectiveness at the nozzle position. Are these deficiencies correctable? Yes and no, it all depends.
No technique is correctable long term unless the firefighter sees value in the change. The change must have benefits that are easily recognizable and tangible. Solutions to a poor habit can not be internalized. As the saying goes “It’s not personal, its business”. Most times we are trying to refine a style of operation that has worked but could work even better with some adjustment; as opposed to major corrections.
Because nozzle technique is taught to all new firefighters, how a firefighter operates the nozzle has deep roots that revolve around their time at the training academy. Many senior firefighters can still remember their instructors, so the influence factor can be quite a hurdle to overcome when we talk about redesigning a firefighter’s extinguishment style. The flip side to how the firefighter operates the nozzle is the instructors who have taught them and others over the years. Instructors have the most difficulty adjusting to a different set of consequences from what they have taught as applicable. Remember, academy lessons are often handed down with little alteration. Why aren’t they modified? At rookie school student feedback is almost non existent. The reasons for that are fairly obvious, the student firefighters may have no additional base knowledge and those that do know that their status and or rank does not afford them a strong voice for change.
You can be as progressive as you like in teaching, but you must also be realistic and know that change-connections between rookies and academy instructors are rare; Even between instructors change is difficult to come by, because certain methods have been taught for years (institutionalized). To be fair, any new technique that would be taught at an academy should under go peer review before being formally presented as curriculum. Okay, lets to move on past my ‘Dr. Phil’ and examine some different nozzle techniques that are used by firefighters in schools and on the fireground.
Without going over the many different styles of holding the nozzle, I’ve come across three that stand out as being potentially problematic. The first is holding the pistol grip portion of the nozzle which has your upper arm and lower arm at a right angle close to your body with no hose for cornering. The next is when a firefighter holds on to the bale. This is not necessary and depending upon what happens and the type of nozzle used, you can unknowingly reduce your flow as well as accidentally shut down. The use of a palm-over technique where the hand closest to the bale is in line with it frames another accidental shut down of the nozzle. With all these techniques comes reduced targeting ability and emergency control. These habits lessen your effectiveness and can lead to that ‘oops’ moment when you need nozzle control the most.
There are three basic types of nozzle (flow) techniques that are used in training: The first is penciling which is a rapid on and off movement of the nozzle’s bale. This technique is often used in flashover simulators. It is also more prevalent outside this country and is often used with higher pressure hoselines and specifically designed nozzles. Even when you learn this technique, it is not recommended for full- room involvement and heavy fire extinguishment.
A technique that is possible using any nozzle is closing the bale and then opening back up after the fire near you has been knocked down. I do not agree with this type of approach to multi-room fires. Every time we shut down the nozzle, is another chance that opening back up will fail. Some say it makes it easier to advance which is true, however, that should not be the overriding concern. Firefighter and civilian safety is the concern. Don’t worry about excessive water damage just yet, as that usually occurs during the washdown. A well trained engine officer knows when water is being wasted and during the aggressive (forward advance and knockdown) attack on the fire my concern is safe and efficient extinguishment, not a small puddle. For the majority of multi-room fires encountered a standard handline will be used. Two firefighters as the nozzle team should be able to advance the line while flowing water. If we were to go back to the academy setting and just ask our recruits to train only to the level of hit-for-a-bit, shut down, then advance, then open up again, the question then becomes: would you say those firefighters have been properly trained?
The safest and most effective extinguishment of multi-room fires is to open the nozzle and only shut down after the fire has been knocked down. Yes, it is that simple! “Set it and forget it.” Remember, suffering a bale failure because you wanted to save several gallons of water is not very prudent if you now have fire enveloping the nozzle team. The nozzle team extinguishes the fire; We are all depending on them to do their job, the safety of even remote firefighters depends on it; why tempt fate? I want firefighters who can move a flowing line through a turn and sweep the floor and move to the next room and cover the unexpected effectively. Hitting fire only temporally often produces temporary results and then it’s back again. Let’s get some final results. The fires out! It works for me. How about you?
Next Tactical Safety – Attack Supervision One Box That Should Always Be Filled
Topics: Training and Development | 1 Comment »