've wanted to weigh in on this topic since it was publicly denounced by a well respected, fire service leader last month. So today I'm going to spend a few moments talking about the, seemingly dreaded, transitional attack. Before I go any further I'd like to reiterate a few things: I do not believe transitional attack is warranted on every fire, I believe that getting inside and performing extinguishment at the seat of the fire is usually the most effective fire suppression technique, and I do not think transitional attack should be used as an excuse or crutch by those who do not like to go inside and extinguish fires.
Now that we have that out of the way. I believe transitional fire attack can be defined as rapidly knocking a large volume of fire from the exterior and quickly transitioning to an interior fire attack. Notice I said "large volume of fire". I'm not talking about a room or two off. I believe implementation of this tactic is largely driven by the building construction of the fire building combined with the volume of fire. Ordinary or heavy timber construction may allow interior operations to commence, and successfully progress, with 2 or more full floors of fire. The same cannot USUALLY be said for lightweight, wood frame buildings with large open spaces. A key phrase in that statement was successfully progress. Successful progression in fire attack means actually using hoselines to extinguish the fire, not letting the fire go out because all of the fuel burned away!
Failure to RAPIDLY put a large amount of water on large volumes of fire in lightweight, wood frame buildings with large open spaces will almost certainly allow fire growth and spread. This growth and spread may lead to defensive operations for the duration of the incident. If we want a chance to get inside and make a difference, choosing to implement a transitional attack MAY be our best bet. I would rather spend 1-2 minutes outside in the beginning stages of an incident and transition inside for the duration than spend 1-2 minutes inside and get chased outside where we flow water for the next 2 hours.
Life safety concerns or reports of occupants trapped throw a whole other twist into things. Company officers will have to make decisions that will give the occupants the best chance of survival. Many times these decisions will be driven by the resources that are available. Depending on resources available, the only line stretched may be used to protect the search efforts and not necessarily conduct fire extinguishment. This will allow the fire to grow and spread which, if more resources do not arrive and go to work, may mean defensive operations will commence upon completion of the searches. Conversely if resources are plentiful, simultaneous lines can be stretched that protect egress and conduct fire extinguishment. Regardless of the results of recent studies, I am not a fan of flowing exterior lines INTO an occupied building. Occupied by civilians OR firefighters. With that said, I would not advocate transitional attack at fires with reports of occupants trapped UNLESS: immediate darkening of the fire from the exterior will give the occupants the best chance of survival, the occupants are known to be in an isolated compartment remote from a large volume of fire, or if entry into the fire building is significantly delayed.
So how do we effectively AND efficiently implement a transitional attack? We establish when this tactic is appropriate and we train for it before we have to use it. Staffing levels will dictate how efficiently this occurs. With that said, train with the amount of folks that arrive on an Engine Company. If your staffing varies, as most volunteer fire departments do, train with the worst case scenario and the best case. For instance, I have a goal that a 4 person Engine Company can successfully stretch and flow a 400 GPM line, establish a water supply, and stretch a 1.75" line to be used inside within 2 minutes of pulling the maxi brake. This takes practice and coordination, however it is attainable. As the saying goes, "failing to plan is planning to fail".
In closing I would like to reemphasize that I do not think transitional fire attack is appropriate for all incidents, however there are instances where its implementation will give us the best chance of a successful outcome. A successful outcome means minimizing property loss and minimizing life safety concerns through confinement and extinguishment. Don't get me wrong: getting your you-know-what whipped as the lineman is about as good as it gets but if you aren't gaining ground and actually extinguishing the fire because you've implemented poor tactics, than you aren't doing the job you were sent to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment