Skip to content


FDNY Brooklyn Box 4080: 17 Vandalia Avenue 12.18.1998

No comments
FDNY Brooklyn Box 4080: 17 Vandalia Avenue 12.18.1998

Take a moment to look back at an incident: On December 18, 1998, Three FDNY Firefighters died in-the line of duty while conducting suppression and rescue operations at  fire on the tenth floor of 10-story high-rise apartment building for the elderly.  At 0454 hours Brooklyn transmitted box 4080 for a top floor fire at 17 Vandalia Avenue in the Starrett City development complex. The sprawling complex is located on Brooklyn’s south shore in the Spring Creek section. The 10 story 50 x 200 fireproof building is used as a senior citizen’s residence. Engine 257 and ladder 170, both quartered in Canarsie, were assigned 1st due and arrived within 4 minutes. By that time the fire already could be seen blowing through two windows. Second and 3rd alarms were quickly transmitted.

As the 1st due Ladder Company, L170′s duty is to search the fire floor. Lieutenant Joseph Cavalieri, and fire fighters Christopher Bopp and James Bohan ascended 10 flights of stairs with extinguishers and forcible entry tools. Their mission was to rescue the resident of apartment 10-D who was believed trapped inside.

NIOSH INVESIGATIVE REPORT SUMMARY (F99-01) On December 18, 1998, several fire companies and fire fighters responded at 0454 hours to a reported fire on the tenth floor of a 10-story high-rise apartment building for the elderly. The fire had been burning for 20 to 30 minutes before it was called in because the resident attempted to put the fire out with small pans of water. As the fire fighters approached the building from the rear, an orange glow was observed in the window of Apartment 10D. As the fire fighters were arriving in front of the high-rise, a call was received from Central Dispatch that a female resident in the apartment next door to the fire apartment was trapped in her apartment and needed help. Several fire fighters entered the lobby area, and some took the stairs to the ninth floor, while others took the elevator to the ninth floor. A Lieutenant and two fire fighters on Ladder 170 (the victims), along with the Lieutenant on Engine 290, took the B-stairs from the ninth floor to the tenth floor, and entered the hallway, in search of the fire, while 4 fire fighters on Engine 290 were flaking out the hose line on the ninth floor and in the stairwell between the ninth and tenth floor in preparation for hookup.

During this same time period, other fire fighters had gone to the tenth floor A-stairwell landing to attempt a hose line hookup to the standpipe in the landing. Engine Company 257 fire fighters, who were attempting to make a hook-up on the fire floor landing, experienced trouble with the heat, heavy smoke, and heavy insulation on the standpipe and were forced to abandon this hook-up. The Lieutenant on Engine 290 and the victims, who were on the B-side, were approaching the center smoke doors (see diagram), when the Lieutenant radioed his driver on the outside, and asked, “Where is the fire?”

The driver radioed back, the fire is in the rear, towards exposure 4. The Lieutenant on Engine 290 then left the tenth floor, descended the stairs to the ninth floor and helped his men drag the hose to the A-stairwell, where they met up with fire fighters on Engine 257, who assisted them in stretching their line and hook-up on the ninth floor. The victims proceeded through the center smoke doors in search of the fire. From the information obtained during this investigation, it is believed the victims found the fire apartment, with the door partially opened, allowing smoke and hot gases to enter the hallway. They then opened the door fully, the wind pushed the fire and extreme heat in the apartment into the hallway, and a flashover occurred, exposing the victims to extreme radiant heat that potentially elevated their body core temperature.

The last radio transmission from the victims was a Mayday call. When the victims were found, all were unresponsive, they were treated at the scene and taken to the hospital where they were pronounced dead by the attending physician.

This wind-driven fire event and the lessons-learned contributed directly to the current body of research and new insights on emerging strategies and tactics. The NIOSH Investigative Report HERE.  NIST References on Wind Driven Fire Research HERE . FDNewYork.com HERE. New York Times Archived Articles, HERE and HERE. Photos and legacy, HERE

Take the time to remember FDNY Lt. Joseph Cavaleiri, FF Christopher Bopp and Firefighter James Bohan from Ladder 170

Remembering Brackenridge 1991 Floor Collapse and LODD

No comments

Remembering Brackenridge, Pennsylvania December 20, 1991: Four Firefighters Killed, Trapped by Floor Collapse

Four volunteer firefighters died when they were trapped by a partial floor collapse during a structure fire in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania, on the morning of December 20, 1991. All four were members of a mutual aid truck company that had responded to the early morning incident and were assigned to prevent fire extension from the basement to the ground floor of a 2-story building.

Although they were wearing full protective clothing and using self-contained breathing apparatus, it appears that they were overwhelmed by the severe fire conditions that erupted when a section of the ground floor collapsed into the basement.

The collapse cut off their primary escape path, and the fire burned through their hose line, leaving them without protection from the flames.  

SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES

  • Situation: Fire in enclosed room in basement. Unable to locate fire because of smoke. Smoke and heat increasing, but no visible fire.
  • Structure: Appeared to be heavy concrete construction. Actually thin concrete floors supported by unprotected steel.
  • Contents: Furniture refinishing business. Quantities of flammable finishes and solvents in basement.
  • Exits: One entrance/ exit on each level; no alternate exits.
  • Structural Collapse: Floor section collapsed between interior crew and their only exit. Fire overwhelmed crew.
  • Rescue Attempts: Valiant rescue efforts proved unsuccessful. Unsure if missing members fell into basement or were trapped on ground floor.
  • Incident Command: No formal command system or personnel accountability in place. Chief of first-due company in command of incident; Assistant Chiefs assigned to basement and ground floor.
  • Information: No pre-fire plan and no detailed knowledge of occupancy. Clues of structural danger not recognized as fire conditions increased
  • Communications: Radio system inadequate for current needs.
  • Response: Independent volunteer companies. Mutual aid requested on arrival and additional companies called in succession.
  • Weather: Extremely cold night, predawn hours. Problems with frozen hydrants.
  • Water System: Weak supply. Extensive mutual aid and long relays needed to protect exposures.

The analysis of this incident provides several valuable lessons for the fire service. Unfortunately these are all revisited lessons, not new discoveries. These firefighters died in the line of duty, while conducting operations that appeared to be routine, and were unaware of the situation that was developing below them. They died in spite of the fact that they were experienced, they were operating with a standard approach to operational safety, and they were the object of repeated rescue attempts by highly capable comrades.

There are several factors that could have provided warning or changed the outcome of this situation. Like most accidents, this situation was the result of a number of problems that came together under the worst possible circumstances. Firefighting obviously involves inherent dangers that must be accepted by its practitioners. The important messages for the fire service are to identify risk factors in advance of an incident and to develop mechanisms to react appropriately when critical situations present themselves.

This situation bears distinct similarities to other incidents that have claimed the lives of several firefighters in the past. The lessons that must be derived from this incident are not a condemnation of the actions or judgment of anyone who was involved in the situation; they simply identify information that can help to prevent this type of accident from occurring in the future.

  • USFA Report; HERE
  • NFPA Summary; HERE
  • NFPA Report Order; HERE 
  • Issues related to recent trends in floor collapse incidents, HERE

USFA Releases 2010 Fire Estimate Summary Series

No comments

2010 Fire Series

U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) issued the 2010 Fire Estimate Summary Series which presents basic information on the size and status of the fire problem in the United States as depicted through data collected in USFA’s National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). The data summary series was developed by USFA’s National Fire Data Center and is further evidence of FEMA’s commitment to sharing information with the American public, fire departments, and first responders around the country to help them keep their communities safe.

Direct Links to the USFA:

Information from the USFA web site, HERE

U.S. Fire Administration Fire Estimates

Fire Estimate Summaries present basic data on the size and status of the fire problem in the United States as depicted through data collected in the U.S. Fire Administration’s (USFA’s) National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). Each Fire Estimate Summary addresses the size of the specific fire or fire-related issue and highlights important trends in the data.1

Residential Building Estimates

Definition of Residential Building


A structure is a constructed item of which a building is one type.

The term residential structure commonly refers to buildings where people live. To coincide with this concept, the definition of a residential structure fire includes only those fires confined to an enclosed building or fixed portable or mobile structure with a residential property use.

Such fires are referred to as residential buildings to distinguish these buildings from other structures on residential properties that may include fences, sheds, and other uninhabitable structures.

  • Residential buildings include, but are not limited to one- or two-family dwellings, multifamily dwellings, manufactured housing, boarding houses or residential hotels, commercial hotels, college dormitories, and sorority/fraternity houses.

Fire Estimate Summaries of Residential Building Fire Trends and Causes (2010)


Residential Building Fires (2006-2010)

Year Fires Deaths Injuries Dollar Loss
2006 392,700 2,490 12,550 7,188,000,000
2007 390,300 2,765 13,525 7,527,000,000
2008 378,200 2,650 13,100 8,124,100,000
2009 356,200 2,480 12,600 7,378,800,000
2010 362,100 2,555 13,275 6,646,900,000

Residential Building National Estimates (2003-2010)

Cause Definitions

Download

Nonresidential Building Estimates

Definition of Nonresidential Building
Nonresidential buildings are a subset of nonresidential structures and refer to buildings on nonresidential properties. Buildings include enclosed structures, subway terminals, underground buildings, and fixed portable or mobile structures.

  • The term nonresidential buildings refers to those nonresidential structures that are enclosed.
  • Nonresidential buildings include assembly, eating and drinking establishments, educational facilities, stores, offices, basic industry, manufacturing, storage, detached garages, outside properties, and other nonpermanent residential buildings.
  • The term nonresidential also includes institutional properties such as prisons, nursing homes, juvenile care facilities, and hospitals, though many people may reside there for short (or long) durations of time.

Fire Estimate Summaries of Nonresidential Building Fire Trends and Causes (2010)


Nonresidential Building Fires (2006-2010)

Year Fires Deaths Injuries Dollar Loss
2006 98,900 75 1,350 2,536,100,000
2007 103,000 90 1,275 3,015,900,000
2008 97,100 100 1,250 3,496,300,000
2009 89,200 90 1,500 2,804,700,000
2010 84,900 80 1,375 2,400,700,000

Nonresidential Building National Estimates (2003-2010)

Cause Definitions

Download

1 Fire Estimate Summaries are based on the USFA’s national estimates methodology. The USFA is committed to providing the best and most current information on the United States’ fire problem and, as a result, continually examines its data and methodology. Because of this commitment, changes to data collection strategies and estimate methodologies occur, causing estimates to change slightly over time. Previous estimates on specific issues (or similar issues) may have been a result of different methodologies or data definitions used and may not be directly comparable to current estimates.


Related Topics

Links of Interest

Click charts below to enlarge.

Residential Building Fire Trends: Fires & Deaths

Residential Building Fire Trends 2006-2010 Residential Building Fire Trends 2006-2010 - Deaths

Residential Building Fire Trends: Injuries & Dollar Loss

Residential Building Fire Trends 2006-2010 - Injuries Residential Building Fire Trends 2006-2010 - Dollar Loss

Residential Building Fires: Causes Of Fires & Deaths

Leading Causes of Residential Building Fires 2006-2010 Leading Causes of Residential Building Fires 2006-2010 - Deaths

Residential Building Fires: Causes Of Injuries & Dollar Loss

Leading Causes of Residential Building Fires 2006-2010 - Injuries Leading Causes of Residential Building Fires 2006-2010 - Dollar Loss

Nonresidential Building Fire Trends: Fires & Deaths

Nonresidential Building Fire Trends 2006-2010 Nonresidential Building Fire Trends 2006-2010 - Deaths

Nonresidential Building Fire Trends: Injuries & Dollar Loss

Nonresidential Building Fire Trends 2006-2010 - Injuries Nonresidential Building Fire Trends 2006-2010 - Dollar Loss

Nonresidential Building Fires: Causes Of Fires & Dollar Loss

SFFD Diamond Heights LODD Safety Violations

No comments

State investigators have cited the San Francisco Fire Department for “serious” worker safety violations in the deaths of two firefighters killed battling a Diamond Heights house fire in June. Reports were published in the San Francisco Chronical, HERE  and HERE.

 Firefighters lost track of Lt. Vincent Perez, 48, and firefighter-paramedic Anthony Valerio, 53, after they went into the four-level home at 133 Berkeley Way on June 2 and failed to respond quickly to the men’s last radio communication, investigators with the state Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health said in a report issued Monday.

In recommending that the Fire Department be fined $21,000, the state investigators also said the department had violated state rules requiring that two firefighters be designated outside to assist any two firefighters who venture into a life-threatening environment.

Only one firefighter from Perez and Valerio’s engine company – the first on the scene – was available to come to their help during the blaze, the investigation found.

The state also cited the Fire Department for an incident – evidently before the fatal flareup – in which an unidentified battalion chief ventured into the burning building alone, without keeping in contact with Perez and Valerio. That was also deemed a serious violation of safety rules.

“These are serious in that they had protocols in place, but they weren’t following them,” said Erika Monterroza, spokeswoman for the worker safety agency. “There’s no question that a lack of communications was a big issue here. The investigator found there was a breakdown there.”

Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White said the department would appeal the findings. She said state officials have told her commanders that the violations fell short of finding the department’s actions responsible for the two firefighters’ deaths. “None of the citations involved a direct cause of the line-of-duty deaths,” Hayes-White said. Monterroza confirmed that, saying the exact circumstances of the firefighters’ deaths could not be determined.

Valerio, Perez and a third member of Engine Company 26 in Diamond Heights were the first firefighters to arrive at the mid-morning blaze, which started when a sparking electrical outlet set curtains on fire.

The third firefighter manned the pumper hose while Valerio and Perez went inside to fight the fire, but the safety regulations require a fourth firefighter to be available outside to assist.

A scene commander, identified by firefighters as Battalion Chief Thomas Abbott, ordered a crew from Engine Company 24 to back up Valerio and Perez inside the building. For several minutes, however, scene commanders tried to find the Engine 26 firefighters, without success.

There was an unspecified gap between that last communication and any effort by firefighters to respond over the radio or track down the men, the state investigation found.

The reports goes on to state that Hayes-White said the department’s investigative report – still in draft form – concluded that the fire had melted one of the firefighters’ microphone cords, cutting off communications. She said any delay in firefighters’ response would be addressed in the final report.

Firefighters ultimately found Perez and Valerio in a landing area and carried the injured men outside. Perez was pronounced dead at San Francisco General Hospital, and Valerio died there two days later.

The state probe also faulted the actions of the unnamed battalion chief who went into the building “alone and also did not remain in contact with the firefighters who were inside.”

Hayes-White said the battalion chief had gone inside only briefly, had seen Perez and Valerio alive and had never been out of other firefighters’ view.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/02/BANQ1M7JBO.DTL#ixzz1fUEug7hu

Previous Coverage on CommandSafety.com below:

 

Residential Pre-Arrival: What are your Considerations?

No comments

 

 A video clip of a structure fire occurring in a single family residential occupancy shows, in the first few frames a back draft occurring per-arrival of fire services. It’s apparent there is a developing and progressing fire in the Charlie division which may have originated in the, or vicinity of the detached garage (B-C) which had a breezeway connected to the main house.  

 

Alpha Street View

 

The large volume hip style (concealed space) roof may have become rapidly charged with elevated temperatures, superheated gases, products of combustion and possibly the initial stages direct flame extension through the eaves and into the truss loft.  Incident scene operations photos depict an engineered structural roof system.

 

Aerial View- Divisions

 

Building Profile

  • Single family (SFD), Residential Occupancy
  • Built: 1981
  • 2, 263  Sq. Ft.
  • 4 Bedrooms
  • 2 Bathrooms
  • 7 Rooms
  • Detached Garage
  • Wood frame, slab on grade
  • Type/Class- V/5
  • Brick Veneer
  • Divisions:
  • A-      Street
  • B-       SFD Residential; similar
  • C-       Yard, with Detached Garage (B-C) and large room extension
  • D-      SFD Residential; similar

 

Aerial Alpha and Charlie with Roof

 
 

Roof Profile

 

Pre-arrival fire conditions exhibit indicators that suggest the need for the rapid intervention of arriving companies and a coordinated aggressive posture tactically if the incident action plan is formulated to achieve an interior attack. Given the scenario of the backdraft conditions, the likelihood for a degraded or compromised ceiling membrane enclosure (intact ceilings, thus limiting fire extension)  being present will hamper and may be an operational concern for interior operating companies as fire conditions continue to grow in magnitude and severity and full extend and take command of the truss loft enclosure.

These fire conditions will extend into the space, resulting in degradation of the structural components and roof assembly-which will present a high risk potential for isolated or catastrophic collapse. This intrusion into the truss loft would require interior operating company officers to maintain attentiveness towards the effectiveness and progress of tactical suppression and support tasks with the potential for fire quickly dropping into operating areas and affecting firefighter safety.

Coordinated and timely vertical ventilation and roof work may be warranted if part of the normal operating parameters of the fire service agencies. In some areas of the county, vertical ventilation is not considered a tactical functional objective and is not implemented.

Adequate fire flow for suppression must be established early on in the operations, if an interior attack is implemented. Projected fire intensity and severity may challenge initial engine companies if hand lines and fire flow rates and the placement of hose streams are ineffective or marginal.  In the event of master stream operations it would be crucial to ensure interior fire suppression operations are suspended, a transition to a defensive mode is communicated and acknowledge on the fireground with collapse zone considerations.

Operational Considerations

In viewing the video of pre-arrival conditions and fire parameters and indicators; as an arriving company officer or commanding officer, how would you establish your incident action plan (IAP) and establish operations? Present and discuss why you would make these decisions, what is/are the basis?

What would you be considering in the areas of:

  • Building Integrity
  • Collapse Potential
  • Interior Fire Attack Considerations
  • Resource Needs: Staffing and Apparatus
  • Critical Operational Tasks
  • Apparatus Placement
  • Hose Line Placement
  • Safety Considerations  
  • Exposures
  • Contingency Issues: What can go wrong?  

 Assuming you are just arriving on scene and observe the backdraft conditions from the front seat; What would your operational IAP be and why?

Identify and discuss the types of mission critical size-up consideration that must be recognized and processed?

How does apparatus placement affect incident operations?

What first-due operational factors have you experienced that were contingent upon other tasks or considerations that were apparent to you or you implemented?

How does extreme fire behavior and fire dynamics affect your fire ground position?

 How does this scenario and building size and type relate to similar structures and occupancies in your district or mutual aid/greater alarm response area?

Link

 

  • Charlie Division

 

Training Download and Discussion Questions

 

Training Download from Buildingsonfire.com

 

 

 

NFPA releases state-level fire service needs assessment for every U.S. state

No comments

 

NFPA releases state-level fire service needs assessment for every U.S. state.  Findings based on Third Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service with comparisons to earlier studies

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) released a fire service needs assessment for each state based on findings from the Third Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service, a study that looked at the current needs of America’s fire departments as compared to those identified in assessments done in 2001 and 2005. The goal of the project was to identify major gaps in the needs of the U.S. fire service and to determine if the Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (DHS/FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) programs are continuing to reduce the needs of fire departments.

The report looked at personnel and their capabilities, including staffing, training, certification, and wellness/fitness; facilities and apparatus; personal protective equipment, fire prevention and code enforcement; the ability to handle unusually challenging incidents; and communications and new technologies.

Selected Findings:

  • Nearly half (46 percent) of all fire departments that are responsible for structural firefighting have not formally trained all their personnel involved in structural firefighting, down from 55 percent in 2001 and 53 percent in 2005.
  • Seven out of ten (70 percent) fire departments have no program to maintain basic firefighter fitness and health, down from 80 percent in 2001 and 76 percent in 2005.
  • Nearly half (46 percent) of all fire department engines and pumpers were at least 15 years old, down from 51 percent in 2001 and 50 percent in 2005.
  • Half (52 percent) of all fire departments cannot equip all firefighters on a shift with self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), down from 70 percent in 2001 and 60 percent in 2005.
  • Two out of five (39 percent) fire departments do not have enough personal alert safety system devices (PASS) to equip all emergency responders on a shift, down from 62 percent in 2001 and 48 percent in 2005.
  • Except for cities protecting at least 250,000 population, most cities do not assign at least four career firefighters to an engine or pumper and so are probably not in compliance with NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, which requires a minimum of four firefighters on an engine or pumper.

Third Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service conducted by NFPA concluded: 

  • Needs have declined to a considerable degree in a number of areas, particularly personal protective and firefighting equipment, two types of resources that received the largest shares of funding from the AFG programs.
  • Some innovative technologies that have not been identified as necessary in existing standards but are known to be very useful to today’s fire service – including Internet access and thermal imaging cameras – have also seen large increases in use.
  • Declines in needs have been more modest in some other important areas, such as training, which have received much smaller shares of AFG funds.
  • Still other areas of need, such as apparatus, stations, and the staffing required to support the stations, have seen either limited reductions in need (e.g., apparatus needs in rural areas) or no reductions at all (e.g., adequacy of stations and personnel to meet standards and other guidance on speed and size of response).
  • Fire prevention and code enforcement needs have shown no clear improvement over the past decade.
  • In all areas emphasized by the AFG and SAFER (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response) grants, there is ample evidence of impact from the grants but also considerable residual need still to be addressed, even for needs that have seen considerable need-reduction in the past decade.
  • There has been little change in the ability of departments, using only local resources, to handle certain types of unusually challenging incidents, including two types of homeland security scenarios (structural collapse and chem/bio agent attack) and two types of large-scale emergency responses (a wildland/urban interface fire and a developing major flood).

 

The full report and state reports are available at www.nfpa.org/needsassessment.

  • National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Web Site, HERE
  • NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, 2010 Edition, Order HERE

 

Additional Supplemental

NFPA has conducted a series of national surveys to identify the needs of the fire service for resources required to safely and effectively carry out their responsibilities. The surveys indicated the resources fire departments had, while NFPA codes and standards and other national guidance documents defined the requirements. The gaps between resources in hand and resources required defined the needs. 

These reports look at personnel and their capabilities, including staffing, training, certification, and wellness/fitness; facilities and apparatus; personal protective equipment; fire prevention and code enforcement; the ability to handle unusually challenging incidents; and communications and new technologies. 

All three studies began with requests from Congress, and the first two studies were conducted with and sponsored by the U.S. Fire Administration and its parent agencies. 

2011
A Third Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service (PDF, 1 MB)
June 2011. 216 pages
Updated study examining the needs of the U.S. fire service in such areas as training, certification, personnel, apparatus, equipment, and fire prevention, with particular attention to homeland security type incidents.

 

State-by-state reports

The following are state-level reports based on the findings in each of NFPA’s needs assessment reports.

Alabama 
2004 2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Alaska  
2004  2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Arizona 
2004  2007 2011 
2011 fact sheet 
Arkansas  
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
California
2004  2007  2011 
2011 fact sheet   
Colorado
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Connecticut
2004  2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Delaware 
2004  2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Florida 
2004  2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Georgia 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Hawaii 
2004  2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Idaho 
2004  2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Illinois 
2004  2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Indiana 
2004  2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Iowa 
2004  2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Kansas 
2004  2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Kentucky 
2004  2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Louisiana 
2004  2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Maine 
2004  2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Maryland 
2004 2007 2011
2011 fact sheet 
Massachusetts 
2004 2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Michigan 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Minnesota 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Mississippi 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Missouri 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Montana 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Nebraska 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Nevada 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
New Hampshire
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
New Jersey 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
New Mexico 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
New York
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
North Carolina
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
North Dakota 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Ohio 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Oklahoma 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Oregon 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet
Pennsylvania 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Rhode Island 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
South Carolina 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
South Dakota
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Tennessee
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Texas
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Utah
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Vermont
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Virginia 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Washington
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
West Virginia 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Wisconsin 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 
Wyoming 
2004  2007  2011
2011 fact sheet 

From the NFPA Web site, link  above


2006
Four Years Later – A Second Needs Assessment of the U.S.Fire Service (PDF, 4 MB)
Department of Homeland Security, USFA, and NFPA, October 2006. 159 pages
Updated assessment of needs of U.S. fire service in such areas as training, certification, personnel, apparatus, equipment, and fire prevention, with particular attention to homeland security type incidents.
Also see: Download an errata for this report. (PDF, 16 KB)  

Matching Assistance to Firefighters Grants to the Reported Needs of the U.S.Fire Service (PDF, 2 MB)
Department of Homeland Security, USFA, and NFPA, October 2006. 41 pages
Analysis of whether grants requested and received have addressed reported needs, by type of need, and whether popular types of grants have resulted in significant change in the overall national level of need.

2002
A Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service (PDF, 1 MB)
FEMA, USFA, and NFPA, December 2002. 160 pages
A comprehensive study done by FEMA, USFA and NFPA examining the needs and response capabilities of the U.S. fire service. Among the factors examined are personnel and their capabilities; fire prevention and code enforcement; stations, apparatus and equipment; and the ability to handle unusually challenging incidents. Results are reported by nationwide and community size.

Also see: “Underfunded, Understaffed, and Undertrained”: Read NFPA President Jim Shannon’s and others’ reactions to the study in an NFPA Journal® Special Report (March/April 2003)

 

 

 

Size-Up: Report of the Week (ROTW)

No comments

 

Size-Up and Risk Assessment Skills: How are yours?

 

In this week’s issue of the National Fire Fighter’s Near-Miss Reporting System’s Report of the Week (ROTW) an informative focus was provided on near-miss reports related to Size-Up. We’re posting the ROTW alert in it’s entirety below.

Go over to the National Fire Fighter’s Near-Miss Reporting System and check out the resources and subcribe to the weekly ROTW today.

Sizing up a structure for a fire attack is a skill that takes time, practice and experience to fully develop. When the first arriving (and any other arriving) officer surveys the structure, the process needs to be rapid and thorough. In some cases, if the size-up is too rapid, critical points can be overlooked. This oversight can result in unintended consequences for the initial attack team.

As seen in ROTW 11-216, it is worthwhile to take an extra minute to process the situation prior to attack.

“We were dispatched to an attic fire in a single-family home. Initial arrival was an on duty engine and ladder truck with two firefighters and one officer, who gave an on scene report of a two-story wood frame residential structure with heavy smoke showing from the rear…After seeing three sides of the building, the officer (myself) ran around to back side and found heavy flames venting from the second floor gable end off the rear of the structure. At the time it was not known if this area was an attic over a first floor addition or a room on the second floor. The officer decided a quick interior search and fire attack, pushing the fire out the already vented hole, would be the initial strategy…After searching the first floor and finding no stairs, the initial team exited the first floor and went to the rear of the structure where an exterior stairwell was found to the second floor. On initial size-up, the stairwell and two mailboxes on the house were missed, causing approximately a one minute delay to fire attack…Upon entry to the second floor, conditions were a light haze with complete visibility of the occupied area…A small pike pole was used to breach the wall while the nozzleman stood ready and the third firefighter moved hose. After an area between the studs and about two feet tall was opened, the attack line was discharged. Conditions went from almost clear to black and steamy instantly. After spraying the nozzle for less than 30 seconds (maybe even sooner) the room became too hot to occupy. All three of us announced we had to get out, almost at the same time…”

Reading the structure is as important as reading the smoke and fire conditions prior to mounting an interior attack. Aesthetics can play a large role in the building design, and what appears to be structural may truly not be safe to load. As 11-216 illustrates, the fire blowing from an upper floor window may not be as visible on the inside as it is on the outside. Once you have read the entire account of 11-216, and the related reports, consider the following:

  1. The report notes that, “…exterior stairwell and two mailboxes on the house were missed”. What situational loss factor would best describe why that occurred? Go to our Facebook Page and record your answer and the reason why you selected the factor.   
    • a. Distraction
    • b. Fixation  
    • c. Overload
  2. What fire behavior phenomenon occurred when the crew opened the interior wall and experienced conditions that went from “clear to black”?
  3. If you were dispatched for fire in the attic and arrive to find heavy smoke and fire showing, what attack line would you select and why?
  4. Based solely on the information provided in 11-216, would a two out be necessary before the interior attack could commence?
  5. The reporter states “heavy smoke” was observed. Jot down a few factors that mean “heavy smoke” to you. Discuss what you wrote down with your colleagues. 

The time pressure to go into action when we arrive at a working fire will often cause the size-up to be hurried. Remembering the lessons learned from 11-216 will make your next size-up more complete. The NMRS staff expressed thier thanks to the lieutenant from Region V for sharing what was learned.

 

Related Reports- Topical Relation: Size-up    

Have you avoided a disaster because of a good size-up? Submit your report to www.firefighternearmiss.com today to pass on your experience.

Realize that the resource center and the near-miss reports are all formulative and can very easily support training drill development, just in time training, table-top discussions, scenario based exercises and review discussions with company, staff or command officers and all station or company personnel.NMRS Resource Section, HERE
 
Links:  
 
Near-Miss Reporting Form example, HERE
  • NFFNMRS Facebook Page, HERE
  • Past Report of the Week Library, HERE
  • 2011 Calendar and Annual Report, HERE

 

Got a Near-Miss Report to Submit? Click on the button for a direct link to the NFNMRS here

 Don’t forget to go to the National Firefighter Near Miss Reporting System for  number of exceptional training aids, resources, PPT and more. NFFNMRS, HERE

FDNY: The 23 Street Collapse October 17,1966 Box 55 598

No comments

Accessed from FDNY - Remembering the "23rd Street Fire" October 17, 1966, Facebook Page

On October 17th 1966, Manhattan Box 598 was struck at 21:36 hours for the report of a building fire at 7 East 22nd Street, an art dealer in a four story brownstone. On arrival, the heat and smoke was so intense companies could not make entry through the art dealer, and so attempted to make entry by way of the abutted building 6 East 23rd Street, The Wonder Drug store.

Crews were dealing with a very intense and spreading fire. With companies operating above the fire, little indication of a catastrophic collapse was present. Suddenly, a 16×35 foot section of the floor collapsed at around 22:39 hours causing ten firefighters to fall into the burning cellar. Two other firefighters on the first floor were killed in a burst of heat.

Firefighters evacuated immediately, except for some whom were trapped on the roof with direct flame impingement. Hand lines from the ground and a truck company ladder was able to rescue the group in time. Rescue operation ensued long into the morning. Several evacuations were ordered, and further collapses occurred. Aside from 9/11, this was the largest single line of duty death event in the FDNY’s history.

Stored in the basement of the art dealer were large quantities of highly flammable lacquer, paint, and finished wood frames. The first floor was supported by 3″ x 14″ wood beams. 3/4″ wood planking atop these beams was covered with five inches of concrete finished with terrazzo and insulated against all heat to the firefighters operating above. As part of a recent project, a common cellar under the two buildings was renovated, removing a load-bearing dividing wall that had supported the floor above. The cellar of the art dealer extended under the drug store illegally from this renovation.

The fire burned unknowingly in the Wonder Drug basement for over an hour when it finally collapsed. It took 14 hours to locate all downed firefighters in the rubble; the cause of the fire is unknown.

Building Construction Insights

  • Location of Fire Origin: Cellar of 7 East 22 St.
  • Location of Collapse: First floor of Exposure 3 building: 6 East 23 St. “The Wonder Drug Store.”

Fire Building Construction:

  • 7 East 22 St: a brownstone, 20 x 60 brick and joist, four story residence.
  • The cellar, where the fire started, and first floor were occupied by an art dealer.
  • The cellar extended under the first floor of Wonder Drug for approximately 35 feet.

Collapse Building Construction:

  • 6 East 23 St: a five story, 45 x 100 commercial building, brick & joist construction.
  • The rear, 16 x 35 foot, section of the first floor collapsed into the cellar occupied by 7 East 22 St.
  • The rear and side walls butted up to a 3-story white brick commercial building to the West at 3940-948 Broadway and to a 5-story brown brick building to the North at 6 East 23rd Street

    Diagram NY Times (2006) Accessed from the internet 10.18.2011

 

Building Alteration

(1) The fire building, 7 East 22 St, had a two story extension which abutted the rear of 6 East 23 St.

(2) The Cellar of 7 East 22 St extended under the first floor of 6 East 23 St for approximately 35 feet.

(3) The floor construction of 6 East 23 St was 3″ x 14″ wood beams topped by 3/4″ wood planking. On top of this, five inches of concrete with a terrazzo finish was added.

 The firefighters in exposure 3, (6 East 23 St), killed in the collapse did not know they were operating directly over the cellar fire in 7 East 22 St. The five inch concrete terrazzo floor acted as an insulator.

It concealed the severe fire and heat below. The 3 inch x 14 inch floor beams spaced 16 inches on center were reduced in size and strength by the fire.

The first sign of weakness was the sudden collapse of a 15 x 35 foot section, which plunged the ten firefighters to their deaths. Two other firefighters were killed on the first floor by a ball of flame.

The 5-alarm fire wasthe single worst loss of New York City firefighters in the line of duty prior to Sept. 11, 2001. 
 

FDNY LODD Twelve Members of Every Rank

Twelve members of every rank, from a probationary firefighter to a deputy chief, made the Supreme Sacrifice when the ground floor of the Wonder Drug store collapsed. The fire originated in a basement storage area, which was concealed by a four-inch thick cinderblock wall, illegally constructed by the building’s previous owner.

  • DC Thomas A Reilly, Division .3
  • BC Walter J Higgins, Battalion. 7
  • Lt John J Finley, Ladder 7
  • Lt Joseph Priore, Engine 18
  • Fr John G Berry, Ladder 7
  • Fr James V Galanaugh, Engine 18
  • Fr Rudolph F Kaminsky, Ladder 7
  • Fr Joseph Kelly, Engine 18
  • Fr Carl Lee Ladder, 7
  • Fr William F McCarron, Division 3
  • Fr Daniel L Rey, Engine 18
  • Fr Bernard A Tepper, Engine 18

 

From NYFD.com http://nyfd.com/history/23rd_street/23rd_street.html

 

 

A wreath is laid at the new plaque honoring the 12 FDNY members killed at the 23rd Street fire on Oct. 17, 1966. © FDNY Photo Unit.

FDNY Remembers the 23rd Street Fire on its 45th Anniversary

Fire Loss in the United States 2010 report from the NFPA

No comments

NFPA 2010 Report and Analysis

The NFPA recently released its report on Fire Loss in the United States During 2010. According to the report, public fire departments responded to 1,331,500 fires last year, a decrease of 1.3 percent from the year before.

U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated 1,331,500 fires. These fires resulted in 3,120 civilian fire fatalities, 17,720 civilian fire injuries and an estimated $11,593,000,000 in direct property loss. There was a civilian fire death every 169 minutes and a civilian fire injury every 30 minutes in 2010. Home fires caused 2,640, or 85%, of the civilian fire deaths. Fires accounted for five percent of the 28,205,000 total calls. Eight percent of the calls were false alarms; sixty-six percent of the calls were for aid such as EMS.

In 2010, public fire departments responded to 1,331,500 fires in the United States, according to estimates based on data NFPA received from fire departments responding to its 2010 National Fire Experience Survey. This represents a slight decrease of 1.3 percent from the previous year and is the lowest since NFPA started using its current survey methodology in 1977 – 78.

An estimated 482,000 structure fires were reported to fire departments in 2010, an increase of 0.3 percent, or virtually no change from the year before. For the period from 1977 to 2010, inclusive, the number of structure fires peaked in 1977 when 1,098,000 structure fires occurred. The number of structure fires then decreased steadily, particularly in the 1980s, to 688,000 by the end of 1989, for an overall decrease of 37.3 percent from 1977. Since 1989, structure fires again decreased steadily for an overall decrease of 24.7 percent to 517,500 by the end of 1998. They stayed in the 505,000 to 530,500 range from 1999 to 2008, before dropping to 480,500 in 2009, and increasing in 2010.

Of the 2010 structure fires, 384,000 were residential fires, accounting for 79.7 percent of all structure fires, an increase of 1.9 percent from the year before. Of these residential structure fires, 279,000 occurred in one- and two-family homes, accounting for 57.9 percent of structure fires. Another 90,500 occurred in apartments, accounting for 18.8 percent of all structure fires.

NFPA 2010 Overview

 

For nonresidential structure fires, some property types showed notable changes. In public assembly occupancies, such fires decreased 17.2 percent to 12,000. In stores and offices, they increased 9.1 percent to 18,000. And in special structure properties, they dropped 11.1 percent to 20,000.

2010 Report Overview

  • 1,331,500 fires were responded to by public fire departments, a decrease of 1.3 percent from the year before.
  • 482,000 fires occurred in structures, an increase of 0.3 percent from 2009.
  • 384,000 fires, or 80 percent of all structure fires, occurred in residential properties.
  • 215,500 fires occurred in vehicles, a decrease of 1.6 percent from the year before.
  • 634,000 fires occurred in outside properties, a decrease of 2.3 percent from 2009.

CIVILIAN FIRE DEATHS

  •  3,120 civilian fire deaths occurred in 2010, an increase of 3.7 percent from 2009.
  • About 85 percent of all fire deaths occurred in the home.
  • 2,640 civilian fire deaths occurred in the home, an increase of 2.9 percent from 2009.
  • 285 civilians died in highway vehicle fires.
  • 90 civilians died in nonresidential structure fires.

 CIVILIAN FIRE INJURIES

  •  17,720 civilian fire injuries occurred in 2010, an increase of 3.9 percent from the year before.
  • 13,800 of all civilian injuries occurred in residential properties, while 1,620 occurred in non-residential structure fires.

 PROPERTY DAMAGE

  •  An estimated $11.6 billion in property damage occurred as a result of fire in 2010, a decrease of 7.5 percent from 2009.
  • $9.7 billion of property damage occurred in structure fires.
  • $7.1 billion of property loss occurred in residential properties.

 INTENTIONALLY SET FIRES

  •  An estimated 27,500 intentionally set structure fires occurred in 2010, an increase of 3.8 percent from 2009.
  • Intentionally set fires in structures resulted in 200 civilian deaths, an increase of 17.7 percent from the year before.
  • Intentionally set structure fires also resulted in $585,000,000 in property loss, a decrease of 14.5 percent from 2009.
  • 14,000 intentionally set vehicle fires occurred, a decrease of 6.7 percent from the year before, and caused $89,000,000 in property damage, a decrease of 17.6 percent.

 

Estimate of Fires by Type in the United States (1977-2010) NFPA Statistics

Chicago Fire Fighters Battle 3 Alarm Apartment Fire on the City’s North Side

No comments

Laura Thome Photo

Chicago Firefighters battled an (3-11) extra-alarm blaze saturday afternoon in the Lakeview neighborhood on the City’s  North Side.

The extra alarm was called around 14:00 h0urs for a building on the 800 block of West Cornelia Avenue, bringing more than 100 CFD firefighters to the scene, according to preliminary information from Fire Media Affairs and reports publishedon Chicagoland media outlets.

About 15:00 hours the alarm was raised to a 3-11 alarm, and added an Emergency Medical Services Plan 1 mostly as a precaution, according to published erports.

 At least one firefighter was checked over because of the extreme heat, but there were no immediate reports of other injuries, he said.

The fire has affected at least two buildings, including one 3-story courtyard apartment building.

 

View more videos at: http://www.nbcchicago.com.

 

 

ALSO: Earlier Fire sends several firefighters in for Heat Exhaustion; HERE

Chicago Attic Fire: Firefighter Maydays, Four Injured UPDATED

No comments

Eric Clark for the Chicago Tribune / August 25, 2011

Four Chicago firefighters have been injured while battling a fire in the city’s West Englewood neighborhood Thursday night according to news media outlets. The fire was located within a 1-1/2 story wood frame residential occupancy in which fire suppression operations were underway.

Fire companies operating within the attic area with attack lines operating, experienced rapidly degrading conditions in which published reports indicated the “room lit up” suggesting a possible flashover condition. It was reported that vertical ventilation had been completed on the gable style roof and that coordinated company operations were well established both on the number one floor, within the attic and on exterior support operations.

Research indicates the house was built in 1905 and has 990 square feet of space. Constructed of balloon wood framing, the 1-1/2 story single family residential occupancy is typical of this vintage style housing.

Division Alpha Street Side (Google Maps)

 

Aerial of House and Exposures (Google Maps)

A series of links and videos are attached;

UPDATED:Fire commissioner credits quick rescue: ‘It’s a matter of seconds ‘

Chicago’s fire commissioner credited the quick response of rescuers after firefighters were hit by a flash of flames while working in the attic of a home in theWest Englewood neighborhood. “It’s a matter of seconds before we would have had a different outcome,” Fire Commissioner Robert Hoff said at Loyola University Hospital, where two of the four firefighters injured in the blaze remained hospitalized.

As reported by the Chicago Tribune (HERE) The fire started in the basement of a 1 1/2-story home in the 7000 block of South Justine Street and spread through the walls to the attic, Hoff said. As firefighters ventilated the roof and worked to extinguish the blaze, they were not aware of fire burning inside the walls behind them, Hoff said. Flames suddenly “lit up on them,” he said. “This is an example of how extremely dangerous and unpredictable this job is,” said Tom Ryan, president of Chicago Firefighters Union Local 2. “There is no such thing as a routine fire.”

The two firefighters still hospitalized are a 52-year-old captain who suffered burns to his ears and back of the neck; and a 31-year-old firefighter with burns to his left hand and forehead. They suffered the burns when their masks were knocked loose as they tried to escape, Hoff said. Both are from Engine 54 and are stable, Hoff said.
 
A third firefighter who was taken to Loyola was released early this morning, and a fourth taken to Mount Sinai Hospital Thursday night. Fire Officials credited the Fire Department’s five-person rapid intervention team — which is routinely called to fires — for responding so quickly.

View more videos at: http://nbcchicago.com.


 

 

Construction Insights for Typical Gabled Roof Attic with enclosed knee wall voids (typical examples)   Occupied or Storage Attic Space Enclosure

 
 
 
 

Typical Enclosed Attic Voids and Kneewalls

 

 

 

 

 

NIOSH Report addresses Operational Issues at Metal Recycling Facility Fire

1 comment

 NIOSH Report Issue: Seven Career Fire Fighters Injured at a Metal Recycling Facility Fire – California

NIOSH Exective Summary

On July 13, 2010, seven career fire fighters were injured while fighting a fire at a large commercial structure containing recyclable combustible metals. At 2345 hours, 3 engines, 2 trucks, 2 rescue ambulances, an emergency medical service (EMS) officer and a battalion chief responded to a large commercial structure with heavy fire showing. Within minutes, a division chief, 2 battalion chiefs, 3 engines, 3 trucks, 4 rescue ambulances, 2 EMS officers and an urban search and rescue team were also dispatched.

An offensive fire attack was initially implemented but because of rapidly deteriorating conditions, operations switched to a defensive attack after about 12 minutes on scene. Ladder pipe operations were established on the 3 street accessible sides of the structure. Approximately 40 minutes into the incident, a large explosion propelled burning shrapnel into the air, causing small fires north and south of structure, injuring 7 fire fighters, and damaging apparatus and equipment. Realizing that combustible metals may be present, the incident commander ordered fire fighters to fight the fire with unmanned ladder pipes while directing the water away from burning metals. Approximately 2 ½ hours later, two small concentrated areas remained burning and a second explosion occurred when water contacted the burning combustible metals. This time no fire fighters were injured.

Contributing Factors

  • Unrecognized presence of combustible metals
  • Unknown building contents
  • Unrecognized presence of combustible metals
  • Use of traditional fire suppression tactics
  • Darkness

Key Recommendations

  • Ensure that pre-incident plans are updated and available to responding fire crews
  • Ensure that fire fighters are rigorously trained in combustible metal fire recognition and tactics
  • Ensure that policies are updated for the proper handling of fires involving combustible metals
  • Ensure that first arriving personnel and fire officers look for occupancy hazard placards on commercial structures during size-up
  • Ensure that all fire fighters communicate fireground observations to incident command
  • Ensure that fire fighters wear all personal protective equipment when operating in an immediately dangerous to life and health environment
  • Ensure that an Incident Safety Officer is dispatched on the first alarm of commercial structure fires
  • Ensure that collapse/hazards zones are established on the fireground. 

The fire department had a comprehensive list of SOGs and policies. However, the policy for the extinguishment of combustible metal fires was out dated. This policy called for copious amounts of water to be put on the combustible metal fire. The SOG for pre-incident planning was followed at this incident. However, due to the constantly changing business environment, the company had submitted a business plan that identified hazards to the city but this information did not get updated in the computer-aided dispatching (CAD) database for the fire department or dispatch.

A month prior to this incident on June 11, 2010, at 11:00 a.m., the same business owner’s metal processing facility located diagonally across the street from this incident, had several small explosions and fire. This incident required 36 fire department companies, 16 rescue ambulances, 1 USAR team, 2 hazardous material teams, 7 BCs, 1 DC, and a DDC, totaling 248 fire department personnel, in addition to mutual aid. Approximately 2 ½ hours of fire suppression operations with water brought the fire under control, which encompassed a 150′ x 100′ area of combustible metal shavings.

The company had metal –X (a brand of combustible metal fire extinguishing agent) available, but not enough of it to be effective. No fire fighters were injured. However, a civilian worker was critically injured and a police officer received minor injuries.

NIOSH REPORT 2010-30 Direct Link HERE

Fom the LAFD Press Release on July 15, 2010

On Tuesday, July 13th, 2010 at 11:43 PM, 41 Companies of Los Angeles Firefighters, 21 LAFD Rescue Ambulances, 3 Arson Units, 1 Urban Search and Rescue Unit, 1 Rehab Unit, 1 Hazardous Materials Team, 3 EMS Battalion Captains, 8 Battalion Chief Officer Command Teams, 1 Division Chief Officer Command Team and 2 Bulldozers under the direction of Deputy Chief Mario Rueda responded to a Major Emergency Structure Fire at 761 East Slauson Avenue in South Los Angeles (CA).

More than 200 Los Angeles Firefighters were requested over the course of the incident to help battle a blaze at a large two-story commercial structure that encompassed six occupancies over an entire city block. Firefighters quickly arrived at United Alloys and Metals to find heavy fire at an industrial facility known for processing titanium and super alloy scrap.

The 73 year-old structures between Paloma Avenue and Mckinley Avenue, were quickly engulfed in flames and forced firefighters into a defensive attack early during this huge fire fight. Shortly after midnight the decision was made to pull all Firefighters out of the structure and attack the flames from the exterior.

Approximately 20 minutes following this decision a partial wall collapse, roof collapse, and a total of three explosions took place. These massive blasts rained down debris of concrete and titanium on Firefighters and even shattered windows of emergency vehicles.

From this point forward it became a heavy stream operation with ladder pipes and portable monitors that provided huge volumes of water against the intense flames. Despite the challenges of extinguishing burning titanium and the devastating explosions, the blaze was controlled in just five hours. Exhausted Firefighters were relieved the next morning by their colleagues who continued the extended overhaul and detailed salvage procedure. Link HERE

LAFD News and Information Web Site; HERE

The at the time of the fire  LAFD stated damage was estimated at $5,000,000 ($4,000,000 structure & $1,000,000 contents). 

 The LAFD battled a similar blaze at 900 East Slauson Avenue on Friday, June 11th in 2010.

Fire Scene Photo from LAFD News HERE

LAFD Photo

The Structure

The incident involved a 45,000 square foot multiple business commercial structure that measured approximately 300′ x 150′ and was built in 1939. The commercial structure was divided into 3 sections with both Type III and Type V (metal clad) construction. The A-side (west) of the structure measured 60′ x 100′ under a heavy timber bowstring truss roof and exterior block walls covered with a stucco finish. This section of the structure contained denim fabric altering machinery.

The larger 210′ x 150′ open warehouse middle section of the structure was under a metal sawtooth roof (a roof composed of a series of small parallel roofs of triangular cross section, usually asymmetrical with the vertical slope glazed or windowed to allow for light) with concrete reinforced metal beam exterior walls covered with an exterior stucco finish. This section of the structure contained bins, bales, and piles of recyclable metals. The C-side of the structure was an office area that measured approximately 30′ x 150′. It was comprised of two stories with a conventional flat roof, wood framed interior walls, and concrete reinforced metal beam exterior walls covered with an exterior stucco finish.

 

 

Occupancy hazard placards existed at the A and C/D corner of the structure. The placards had a 3 health rating (a serious hazard) in the blue quadrant, a 4 flammability rating (flammable gases, violate liquids, pyrophoric materials) in the red quadrant, a 2 instability rating (a violent chemical change possible at elevated temperatures and pressure) in the yellow quadrant, and an OX (material is an oxidizer) in the white quadrant.

The commercial structure had been recently acquired, within the past year or two, by a local metal recycling company. The company had submitted the annual business plan to the city, which identified potential hazards, but this information had not been updated in the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) database for the dispatch center or fire department. The construction features of the occupancy such as the bowstring trusses, presence of combustible metals, and access restrictions would have been critical information to the fire department for fighting a fire at this location. The fire department had pre-planned the structure prior to the metal recycling company acquiring the commercial structure.

Approximate Placement of Key Fireground Apparatus, Hoselines and Explosion Areas Relative to Commercial Fire Structure.

 

BC11 left the command post and was walking towards T10 and T66 when an upper section of wall on the D-side near the C/D corner collapsed followed by a larger upper midsection of wall on the D-side. BC11 recalled seeing white hot metal and was about to instruct the trucks to direct water away from the white burning metals. Seconds later, approximately 40 minutes into the incident, at 0026 hours, a large explosion propelled burning shrapnel into the air and caused small fires north and south of the structure. T33 and E66′s hoseline crews were blown backwards by the blast. T10 and mutual aid E9 were hit with flaming debris which broke through E9′s driver-side door window and ignited the seat.

T10 received several large dents and wooden ground ladders were ignited. Approximately 10 feet away, T10′s hoseline crew was blown approximately 20′ back and off the 2 ½” hoseline by the explosion. T10′s captain was backing up the nozzleman and was hit with burning debris causing serious burns on his hand and ear. T66′s captain jumped on the hoseline to stop it from whipping around. T10′s fire fighter operating the ladderpipe had seen 2 white flashes and greenish plumes just prior to explosion. When the explosion occurred he turned his head to the left causing pain and ringing in his right ear as white hot debris went all around him. Multiple hose beds and hoses on the ground were burned through. The explosion was reported to have been broadcast up and out in all directions .

The IC called for a personnel accountability report (PAR) which accounted for all personnel and indentified 2 injured fire fighters and a captain. Note: The other 4 fire fighters injuries were not made apparent until after the incident. Minutes later, the Division C chief (BC13) reported to the IC that he identified a National Fire Protection Association 704 placard above the entrance door on the C/D corner of the structure.

BC13 relayed to command the placard classifications of Health – 3, Flammability – 4, Reactivity – 2, and Special Hazards – OXIDIZER. The command team discussed the current fire department policy of using copious amounts of water on combustible metals and decided to alter the tactical plan based on information learned through the 704 placard and the fire conditions. The IC called for aerial ladderpipe personnel to move from the tip of the aerial to the aerial turntable. Note: When the decision is made to go defensive, ladderpipe personnel should be removed from the tip of the aerial to minimize any risk associated with being at an elevated height, such as explosions or falling. On Division C, two monitors and a 2 ½” hoseline were directed on the office area of the structure.

NIOSH Report Photo Image

 

Recommendations

Recommendation #1: Fire departments should ensure that pre-incident plans are updated and available to responding fire crews.

Discussion: NFPA 1620 Standard for Pre-Incident Planning, states “The purpose of this document shall be to develop pre-incident plans to assist responding personnel in effectively managing emergencies for the protection of occupants, responding personnel, property, and the environment.” A pre-incident plan identifies deviations from normal operations and can be complex and formal, or simply a notation about a particular problem such as the presence of flammable liquids, explosive hazards, modifications to structural building components, or structural damage from a previous fire.

Building characteristics including type (or more importantly risk) of construction, materials used, occupancy, fuel load, roof and floor design, and unusual or distinguishing characteristics should be recorded, shared with other departments who provide mutual aid, and if possible, entered into the dispatcher’s computer so that the information is readily available if an incident is reported at the noted address.

Since many fire departments have thousands to hundreds of thousands of structures within their jurisdiction, it is a challenge to establish an effective preplanning system that addresses all structures and hazards. Priority should be given to those locations having elevated or unusual fire hazards and life safety considerations.

Written SOGs enable individual fire department members an opportunity to read and maintain a level of assumed understanding of operational procedures. Conversely, fire departments can suffer when there is an absence of well developed SOGs. The NIOSH Alert: “Preventing Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters” identifies the need to establish and follow fire fighting policies and procedures. Guidelines and procedures should be developed, fully implemented and enforced to be effective. Periodic refresher training should also be provided to ensure fire fighters know and understand departmental guidelines and procedures.

One tool for fire departments to use in assessing their risks for structures within their jurisdictions is the mnemonic, BECOME SAFE:

  • Building
  • Evaluation
  • Construction/occupancy
  • Operational hazards
  • Manage time and elements
  • Engagement
  • Situational awareness
  • Assessment and risk analysis
  • Fire behavior and effects
  • Evaluate and execute 7

A pre-planning process should integrate the BECOME SAFE concepts and include updated information from the annually submitted business plans and any other pertinent fire safety information needs to be developed by involving fire department personnel, dispatch center personnel, and building and fire code officials. NFPA 1, Fire Code, Annex Q, Fire Fighter Safety Building Marking System, makes direct reference to potential resolution towards identifying structures and contents.

It contains a standard symbol that integrates information about building construction features, content hazards, life safety systems and NFPA 704 placards into one placard. High hazard and life safety considerations for the storage, handling, and manufacturing of chemicals should be indicators to prioritize processing of the information and expediting it to the CAD system.

Current and correct information is needed to adequately address risk management issues and to comply with NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program, Annex A, Section 8, that addresses guidelines for the IC to consider when evaluating risk versus gain.

In this incident, the construction features of the occupancy, such as the bowstring trusses, presence of combustible metals, and access restrictions, would have been critical information to the fire department for fighting a fire at this location. A more complete pre-planning process and/or business plan updating process, involving fire department personnel, dispatch center personnel, and building code officials could have noted this information which may have aided the IC in developing a safer and more effective offensive or defensive strategy. In order to facilitate open communication, fire department personnel, dispatch center personnel, and building and fire code officials should develop a process to effectively update building information and to share this information in a timely manner. The relay of this information could be used to facilitate dynamic risk management and enhanced command and control. (Note: The fire department did a business survey following this incident and found 68 business sites that had combustible metals.)

Recommendation #2: Fire departments should ensure that fire fighters are rigorously trained in combustible metal fire recognition and tactics.

Discussion: Fire departments often respond to complex or unique hazards which require specialized/advanced knowledge and/or training in dealing with that hazard. Combustible metal fires present unique and dangerous hazards to fire fighters which are not commonly encountered in conventional structure fire fighting operations. The temperatures encountered in a combustible metal fire far exceed those of a structure fire.A block wall near the first explosion had an appearance of brown and black glass, suggesting that temperatures exceeded 3000 degrees F

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 484, Standard for Combustible Metals, states that it is extremely important to conduct a good size-up by identifying the combustible metals involved, the physical state of the metals (e.g., shavings, chips, fine dust, etc.), the location relative to other combustible materials, and the quantity of the product involved. NFPA 484, A.13.3.3.10.3, states that the application of a wet extinguishing agent (particularly water hose streams) accelerates a combustible metal fire and could result in an explosion.

This is due to the water reacting with the combustible metal and giving off highly flammable hydrogen gas and oxygen. This conversion of water into hydrogen has a heat value (British Thermal Units per pound (Btu/lb)) of about 2.8 times that of gasoline, assuming 100 percent conversion of the hydrogen in the water. This equates to flowing 42.8 gallons per minute (gpm) of gasoline on the fire for every 100 gpm of water. NFPA 484, A.13.3.3.5, states that the following agents shall not be used as extinguishing agents on a combustible metal fire because of adverse reactions or ineffectiveness: water, foams, halon, carbon dioxide, nitrogen (except on iron, steel, and alkali metals, excluding lithium), and halon replacement agents.

Thus, in lieu of using a wet extinguishing agent, primarily water, it is recommended that a bulk dry extinguishing agent compatible with the product involved, such as dry sand, dry soda ash, or dry sodium chloride, be used. In most cases for large fires beyond the incipient stage, the application of a dry agent is not feasible. In these cases the best approach is to isolate the material as much as possible, protect exposures, and allow the fire to burn out naturally. Thorough training is a must to properly identify and handle these unique fires. Businesses that manufacture, use or store combustible metals, and fire departments with combustible metals in their jurisdiction, should review Chapter 13 of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 484: Standard on Combustible Metals.12

Combustible metal fire training should only occur in the classroom since combustible metals are not a practical substance to use for live exercises. The excessive temperatures and the unstable nature of combustible metals when burning would put fire fighters in an unnecessary and dangerous situation, if used in live exercises.

In this incident, several fire fighters noticed the unusually bright white hot fire, white sparks, bluish green hues of the fire, and white smoke but did not recognize that this could be indicative of burning combustible metals. The fire department did not suspect that combustible metals were present until after the first explosion and the discovery of the placard indicating oxidizers were in the structure. Once identified, command directed water away from areas of suspected burning combustible metals. Later in the incident, a few concentrated areas remained burning, and copious amounts of water were directed on these areas to extinguish them. This caused a second explosion, in which no one was hurt. The titanium that was involved in the second explosion had developed a protective crust during the fire which was over 2 feet thick and contributed to the shaped charge effect when the molten metal under the protective crust came in contact with the water being applied by the ladderpipes and exploded. The development of the protective crust is a normal occurrence in combustible metal fires which actually limits open burning of the combustible metal and will result in control and extinguishment of the fire, if no actions are taken which disturb the protective crust.

In June, an incident had occurred diagonally across the street at different structure, owned by the same company, where the fire department had a combustible metal fire and was informed by employees not to use water. The fire department updated their training bulletin addressing tactics for combustible metals and removed the use of copious amounts of water.

Recommendation #3: Fire departments should ensure that policies are updated for the proper handling of fires involving combustible metals.

Discussion: The fire department had an outdated policy on the handling of combustible metal fires which primarily called for copious amounts of water to be put on a metal fire. The policy had been based on a training scenario in which burning magnesium Volkswagen engine blocks, when hit with water, would spark, but the water cooled the large mass of magnesium enough to put the fire out. Numerous fire departments across the country remember this training scenario and have not kept up with the increasing and varied uses of combustible metals in everyday products. Manufacturing and recycling facilities for these combustible metal products have been on the rise. This poses a new and different hazard for fire fighters. Combustible metals in smaller pieces and particle sizes burn at much higher temperatures, 5000 degrees F for magnesium to 8500 degrees F for zirconium, and present an explosion hazard when water comes into contact with these burning metals. When applied to burning combustible metals, water and carbon dioxide will disassociate into their base chemical elements. For example, water disassociates into hydrogen and oxygen. The added fuel and oxygen increases burning and causes extreme reactions, such as explosions. An example standard operating procedure (SOP) for the proper handling of combustible metal fires that reflects modern day hazards is provided in

Recommendation #4: Fire departments should ensure that first arriving personnel and fire officers look for occupancy hazard placards on commercial structures during size-up.

Discussion: NFPA 704, Identification of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Response, states that all buildings or areas storing, using, or handling hazardous materials should be marked by use of a standardized placard system. The placard system identifies hazard categories for health, flammability, reactivity and special hazards, including water reactivity and oxidizers.

When conducting a size-up at commercial structures, fire officers should look for such placards. Placard locations should be located at or near entrances and unobstructed by landscaping, fencing, etc.

In this incident, placards existed at the A and C/D corner of the structure. However, they were not identified until after the explosion. The late night hour, poor lighting, angled corners of structure, and fire attack from doorways other than the front entrance may have contributed to first arriving personnel and fire officers not seeing and acting upon the information on the placard.

Recommendation #5: Fire departments should ensure that all fire fighters communicate fireground observations to incident command.

Discussion: National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1561, Standard on Emergency Services Incident Management System, Section 6.3 Emergency Traffic states: To enable responders to be notified of an emergency condition or situation when they are assigned to an area designated as immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH), at least one responder on each crew or company shall be equipped with a portable radio and each responder on the crew or company shall be equipped with either a portable radio or another means of electronic communication.The U.S. Fire Administration report, Voice Radio Communications Guide for the Fire Service, provides an overview of radio communication issues involving the fire service. Effective fireground radio communication is an important tool to ensure fireground command and control as well as helping to enhance fire fighter safety and health. It is every fire fighter and company officer’s responsibility to ensure radios are properly used. Ensuring appropriate radio use involves both taking personal responsibility (to have your radio, having it on, and on the correct channel) and a crew-based responsibility to ensure that the other members of your crew (subordinates, peers, and supervisor) are doing so as well.

Receiving interior/exterior status updates is critical to the safety of fire fighters on the incident, rescue/recovery efforts, and overall control of the incident. The decision to commit interior fire fighting personnel or establishing a collapse/hazard zone for exterior fire fighting personnel should be made on a case-by-case basis with proper risk-benefit decisions being made by the incident commander.

The fireground is very dynamic, and conditions can either improve or deteriorate based on fire suppression activities, and available resources, and most importantly assessments/size-ups of the incident are necessary to detect a change on the fireground.

In this incident, several fire fighters noticed the unusually bright white hot fire, white sparks, bluish green hues of the fire, and white smoke (all potential signs of combustible metal involvement), but did not communicate it to command.

Recommendation #6: Fire departments should ensure that fire fighters wear all personal protective equipment when operating in an immediately dangerous to life and health environment.

Discussion: NFPA 1500 Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program states, “the fire department shall provide each member with protective clothing and protective equipment that is designed to provide protection from the hazards to which the member is likely to be exposed and is suitable for the tasks that the member is expected to perform…protective clothing and protective equipment shall be used whenever a member is exposed or potentially exposed to the hazards for which the protective clothing (and equipment) is provided.”

NFPA 1971 Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting has established minimum requirements for structural fire fighting protective ensembles and ensemble elements designed to provide fire fighting personnel limited protection from thermal, physical, environmental, and bloodborne pathogen hazards encountered during structural fire fighting operations.

These requirements will assist in protecting firefighters, but only if they wear the PPE as recommended by the manufacturer. The potential for injury at all incidents exists when fire fighters do not wear the full PPE ensemble, including gloves.

In this incident, numerous fire fighters did not don their facepiece and/or wear hoods or gloves. The potential for unknown toxic gases and flying debris as evidenced by the 2 explosions makes wearing full PPE critical for protecting fire fighters from immediate and chronic hazards. If gloves and hoods had been worn, the hand and ear burn injuries would have been less severe or perhaps totally eliminated.

Recommendation #7: Fire departments should ensure that an Incident Safety Officer is dispatched on first alarm of commercial structure fires.

Discussion: According to NFPA 1561 Standard on Emergency Services Incident Management System, “The incident commander shall have overall authority for management of the incident and the incident commander shall ensure that adequate safety measures are in place.” This shall include overall responsibility for the safety and health of all personnel and for other persons operating within the incident management system. While the incident commander is in overall command at the scene, certain functions must be delegated to ensure adequate scene management is accomplished.According to NFPA 1500 Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program, “as incidents escalate in size and complexity, the incident commander shall divide the incident into tactical-level management units and assign an incident safety officer (ISO) to assess the incident scene for hazards or potential hazards.” These standards indicate that the incident commander is in overall command at the scene, but acknowledge that oversight of all operations is difficult. On-scene fire fighter health and safety is best preserved by delegating the function of safety and health oversight to the ISO. Additionally, the incident commander relies upon fire fighters and the ISO to relay feedback on fireground conditions in order to make timely, informed decisions regarding risk versus gain and offensive-versus-defensive operations. The safety of all personnel on the fireground is directly impacted by clear, concise, and timely communications among mutual aid fire departments, sector command, the ISO, and the incident commander. NFPA 1521 Standard for Fire Department Safety Officer defines the role of the ISO at an incident scene and identifies duties such as recon of the fireground and reporting pertinent information back to the incident commander; ensuring the department’s accountability system is in place and operational; monitoring radio transmissions and identifying barriers to effective communications; and ensuring established safety zones, collapse zones, hot zones, and other designated hazard areas are communicated to all members on scene.

Larger fire departments may assign one or more full-time staff officers as incident safety officers who respond to working fires. In smaller departments, every officer should be prepared to function as the ISO when assigned by the incident commander. The presence of an incident safety officer does not diminish the responsibility of individual fire fighters and fire officers for their own safety and the safety of others. The ISO adds a higher level of attention and expertise to help the fire fighters and fire officers. The ISO must have particular expertise in analyzing safety hazards and must know the particular uses and limitations of protective equipment.

In this incident, for the size of the fire department and responsible coverage area, there is an insufficient number of incident safety officers (ISO) and/or qualified personnel (certified to NFPA 1521) to act as an ISO. The ISO should be of a rank worthy of the significant responsibility.

Recommendation #8: Fire departments should ensure that collapse/hazard zones are established on the fireground.

Discussion: During fire operations, two rules exist about structural collapse: (1) the potential for structural failure always exists during and after a fire, and (2) a collapse danger zone must be established.

A collapse zone is an area around and away from a structure in which debris might land if a structure fails. The collapse zone area should be at least 1½ times the height of the building—the height of the building plus an additional allowance for debris scatter. For example, if the wall was 20 feet high, the collapse zone would be established at least 30 feet away from the wall. In this incident, the structure was approximately 18 feet high at the top of the parapet wall, and the collapse zone extended at least 27 feet from the structure.

Fire fighters must recognize the dangers and take immediate safety precautions if factors indicate the potential for a building collapse. An external load—such as a parapet wall, steeple, overhanging porch, awning, sign, or large electrical service connections—reacting on a wall weakened by fire conditions may cause the wall to collapse. Other factors include fuel loads, building damage, renovation work, pre-existing deterioration as well as deterioration caused by the fire, support systems, and truss construction.

Whenever these contributing factors are identified, all persons operating inside the structure must be evacuated immediately and a collapse zone should be established around the perimeter. Once a collapse zone has been established, the area should be clearly marked and monitored to make certain that no fire fighters enter the danger zone. Positioning companies at the corners of the building is usually safer than a frontal attack. In this incident, a collapse zone should have been established given the age of the structure and deteriorating fire conditions.

Recommendation #9: Vendors/Training Organizations should develop and offer a training program on combustible metal fires.

Discussion: There are a limited amount of training materials/programs that exist on combustible metal fires. There have been a small number of presentations and workshops conducted at fire conferences over the years but nothing offered by outside training organizations that pertains to what the fire service needs to know. Programs should be developed to highlight the characteristics of a combustible metal fire, tactics, and strategies for handling them.

Delayed Standpipe Operations Investigated in Asheville Medical Building Fire

2 comments

Photo: C.J. Naum, 2010

 

Apparent delays with establishing a sustained water supply via the building standpipe system are being published in the Asheville Citizens-Times.com today. Direct link HERE

Published reports are indicating possible problems with water delivery to the standpipe system designed to supply water from a street hydrant system to the fifth floor of a burning medical office building likely delayed firefighters as they battled the deadly blaze, according to Fire Department radio transmissions.
Nearly 25 minutes passed from the time the first trucks left their stations about 12:30 p.m. Thursday until a company reported they were finally putting water on the blaze at 445 Biltmore Center from a ladder truck.

Typical Standpipe Stairwell Valve Connection

Firefighters repeatedly made references to a lack of water, even as they reached the fourth floor and made their way toward flames one floor above according to same publication. They are referencing transcripts from fireground radio transmissions. HERE.

  • Asheville NC Fatal FF Mayday Audio 7/28/11; The audio has been edited and most of the Mayday audio from the FF has been edited out

The lack of timely application of water as a suppression agent to disrupt the progressing fire growth and magnitude could contribute towards increased fire severity based upon the fire load package and heat release rate and likely contribute towards untenable interior conditions in the absence of a vent path and confinement of the escalating products of combustion due to fire growth.

  • Refer to the CommandSafety.com posting HERE with a typical floor layout plan and interior photos
  • Reports indicating delays and challenges in gaining access into various rooms and locations are also being reported whcih should be expected based upon typical medical office layouts and configurations.

Vent path considerations, when addressing interior suppression operations, ventilation profiles and avenues and fire and heat propagation all have considerations and applications when working a seated fire within a compartment fire in a commercial occupancy

Refer to the following links for some further insights on the aforementioned elements and factors;

 

 

Fire Location on the Number Five Floor. Medical Office Building Copyright 2011 Microscoft Pictometry Birdseye View Pictometry Intl. Corp

 

 

  •  PDFs On Standpipe Systems: HERE and HERE
  • San Diego Fire & LIfe Safety Services LINK HERE
  • FDNY Standpipe Operations, HERE
  • STANDPIPE SYSTEM OPERATIONS: ENGINE COMPANY BASICS BY ANDREW A. FREDERICKS, FDNY (1996),

 

Medical Office Building Multiple Alarm Fire Leds to Fire Captain LODD

1 comment

Medical Office Building A multiple 4-alarm fire took command of a medical office suite located in a five story non-sprinklered Medical Center Office Building in the City of Asheville, North Carolina on Thursday July 28, 2011.

The mid-day fire was reported on the fifth floor at 445 Biltmore Center medical offices and was found extending from exterior perimeter windows as arriving companies went to work.

According to published reports, companies encountered heavy smoke and heat conditions. As initial suppression operations were being conducted, coordinated search and rescue operations were assigned and being conducted.  AFD Capt. Jeff Bowen was among the first alarm assignment of firefighters to reach the building’s fire floor as unabated fire development and growth caused the perimeter windows to fail causing fire extension to the exterior and the induction of fresh air onto the fire floor. The intensity of the flame front and extension was evident as photographed out fifth-floor windows.

Fire Showing During primary search and rescue operations, approximately 45 minutes into the operations Captain Bowen transmitted a mayday for reasons undetermined at the present time. Heavy smoke and pronounced heat conditions filled that top floor, where he and fellow firefighter Jay Bettencourt were conducting search efforts.  Command quickly directed efforts to manage the mayday with companies deployed to support the RIT and mayday. There were reported sixty fire fighters assigned the suppression and rescue operations for the multiple alarms. About 200 patients and staff were in the building at the time of the fire.

Captain Jeff Bowen, Asheville FDPreliminary information suggests that Captain Bowen went into cardiac arrest after succumbing to intense smoke and heat, the city said in a statement released on Friday. Firefighter Bettencourt was transported to the Joseph M. Still Burn Center at Doctors Hospital in Augusta, Ga., for treatment. He was listed in critical condition Thursday night. Nine other firefighters were taken to the hospital in connection with the blaze. Six remained hospitalized late Thursday. Three were treated and released, according to Mission spokeswoman Merrell Gregory and published reports. Captain Bowen was a thirteen year fire service veteran and was a husband and father of three children. He was 37 years of age.

The Building comprising the occupancy at 445 Biltmore Center medical offices was occupied by the Cancer Care of WNC which had its laboratory and information and technology offices on the fifth floor.

The building was constructed in 1982 and was not required by codes to have a sprinkler system at the time of occupancy. Since that time, state code provisions have changed that mandate sprinkler system protection. There were no requirements for retrofitting according to published reports.

The five story building with non-combustible construction classification consisted of approximate 120,000 square feet of space with approximately 20,000 SF per floor level.  

Links

 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program

No comments

Video Clip recorded live by Fire Department Network News TV (FDNNTV) at the 50th IAFF Fire Fighter Convention in San Diego, CA on August 23, 2010.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, also known as NIOSH, is a federal agency that is part of the Centers for Disease Control. NIOSH has a mission of generating new knowledge in the occupational safety and health field and to transfer that knowledge into practice for the advancement of workers, including firefighters and emergency responders.

In 1998, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) requested that Congress fund NIOSH to start a firefighter safety initiative called the NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program.  “We investigate fatalities to learn from the mistakes the others made and to try to prevent future fatalities and injuries from occurring in similar events,” stated Project Officer Tim Merinar with the NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program. According to NIOSH, the Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation Program has made over 1,000 recommendations arising from over 300 investigations since its inception in 1998.

Merinar claimed that some do not fully understand who NIOSH is and what their goals are, often being confused with OSHA. However, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is not an enforcement agency, they are a research and education agency. Merinar added, “We’re not looking to find fault or place blame on the fire departments or the individual firefighters in the incidents.”

As soon as possible after an incident, a NIOSH investigator will meet with the fire department. “Oftentimes, we have to explain who we are, why we’re there, what we’re trying to accomplish,” added Merinar. NIOSH investigates as many firefighter fatalities as possible involving structure fires, deaths from cardiovascular disease, as well as deaths during non-fireground incidents.

NIOSH offers many different publications to firefighters, including their newest one about risk management at structure fires. This literature is distributed to the fire service free of charge. Another publication offered to firefighters deals with floor joists and the risk of falling through fire-damaged floors. “They work very well for the construction industry, but when they’re exposed to fire they also fail very rapidly. Which leads to early building collapses,” explained Merinar. “Many firefighters have been injured and killed in these collapses.”

NIOSH FFFIPP

Trends such as this uncovered during their investigations and spread to the fire service, could help prevent future deaths. Another trend found several years ago by NIOSH involved PASS devices not sounding on firefighters who died. According to Merinar, NIOSH worked with the National Fire Protection Association to have the standard changed to make the PASS devices more reliable and more effective for firefighters. Currently, they are working with the NFPA on the thermal degradation characteristics of face piece lenses.

Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program

For more information on the NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program, incident reports or fire fighter publications, visit www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/.

Cold-Storage and Warehouse Building Fire

Topic Index:

Reports and Publications
  Safety Advisories
  Fatality Reports
  Pending Investigations
  Safety Quizzes
  Publications
Program Information
  Program Description
  What to Expect During a NIOSH Investigation
  Public Comment Docket
  Future Directions
  Inspector General’s Program Review
  IAFC’s Program Review
  Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program Evaluation
  Strategic Plan – 2009

 

NIOSH Request for Comment on the Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program The NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program (FFFIPP) is seeking stakeholder input to ensure that the FFFIPP program is meeting the needs and expectations of the fire service, and to identify ways in which the program can be improved to increase its impact on the safety and health of fire fighters across the United States. Additional information can be found in the FFFIPP Progress Report and Proposed Future Directions document.

Stakeholder Comment on the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program (FFFIPP)-2011
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is seeking stakeholder input on the progress and future directions of the Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program (FFFIPP). Since its initiation in 1998, NIOSH has sought public input to help plan and direct the goals and objectives of the FFFIPP. NIOSH received public comments on the FFFIPP in 1998, March 2006, and November 2008. NIOSH is again seeking input on the progress and future directions of the FFFIPP to ensure that the program is meeting the needs and expectations of the U.S. fire service and to identify ways in which the program can improve its impact on the safety and health of fire fighters across the United States. NIOSH will compile and consider all comments received and use them in making decisions on how to proceed with the FFFIPP.

There are several resources that may be useful to individuals and groups who would like to comment on the FFFIPP:

  • The NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program Progress (FFFIPP) Report and Proposed Future Directions – 2011. This document includes specific topics for stakeholder input.
  • The Strategic Plan for the NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program that was finalized in 2009 after public input.
  • The FFFIPP web site that includes an overview of the FFFIPP, fatality investigation reports and other publications.

Related Dockets
NIOSH Docket number 063NIOSH Docket number 063-A
——————————————————————————–

Public Comment Period
Written comments on the document will be accepted through July 29, 2011 in accordance with the instructions below. All material submitted to NIOSH should reference Docket Number NIOSH-063-B. All electronic comments should be formatted as Microsoft Word documents and make reference to docket number NIOSH-063-B.

Comments will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 29, 2011

To submit comments, please use one of these options:

  • Send NIOSH comments using this online form
  • Send comments by email.
  • Fax comments to the NIOSH Docket Office: 513-533-8285
  • Send by Mail to:
    NIOSH Mailstop: C-34
    Robert A. Taft Lab.
    4676 Columbia Parkway
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
    All information received in response to this notice will be available for public examination and copying at the …
    NIOSH Docket Office
    4676 Columbia Parkway, Room 111
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45226.

A complete electronic docket containing all comments submitted will be available on the NIOSH docket home page, and comments will be available in writing by request. NIOSH includes all comments received without change in the docket, including any personal information provided.

Contact persons for technical information

  • Paul Moore
    Chief, Fatality Investigations Team
    NIOSH/CDC
    1095 Willowdale Road
    Mailstop H-1808
    Morgantown, WV 26505
    304/285-6016

Recent NIOSH Fire Fighter Safety Publications

Preventing Deaths and Injuries of Fire Fighters Operating Modified Excess/Surplus Vehicles
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2011-125
Fire fighters may be at risk for crash-related injuries while operating excess and other surplus vehicles that have been modified for fire service use. Fire departments with limited resources often craft fire apparatus out of excess/surplus military and other vehicles as an affordable alternative to purchasing new or used apparatus. NIOSH urges fire departments to take precautions and actions to minimize the hazards and risks to fire fighters when using modified excess/surplus vehicles.

Evaluation of Chemical and Particle Exposures During Vehicle Fire Suppression Training (2010)this document in PDF (56 pages, 4.85 MB)
Health Hazard Evaluation Report, HETA 2008-0241-3113
In September 2008 and July 2009, NIOSH researchers collected area and personal breathing zone air samples during a Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) to evaluate firefighters’ exposures to airborne chemicals during vehicle fire suppression training. Several hazardous chemicals were found on the area samples, including respiratory toxicants and potential carcinogens. Of the chemicals measured in the personal breathing zones, levels of formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, and isocyanates were near or above short term exposure limits or ceiling limits. In addition, the number of particles and mass of the particles in the air increased during knockdown and remained elevated throughout the fire overhaul. Based on this evaluation, the levels of gases and particles released during vehicle fires have the potential to cause acute health effects to firefighters who do not wear self-contained breathing apparatus.

NIOSH Alert: Preventing Deaths and Injuries of Fire Fighters using Risk Management Principles at Structure Fires
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2010-153
Fire fighters are often killed or injured when fighting fires in abandoned, vacant, and unoccupied structures. These structures pose additional and sometimes unique risks due to the potential for fire fighters to encounter unexpected and unsafe building conditions such as dilapidation, decay, damage from previous fires and vandals, and other factors such as uncertain occupancy status. Risk management principles must be applied at all structure fires to ensure the appropriate strategy and tactics are used based on the fireground conditions encountered.

Preventing Exposures to Bloodborne Pathogens among Paramedics
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2010-139
Patient care puts paramedics at risk of exposure to blood. These exposures carry the risk of infection from bloodborne pathogens such as hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes AIDS. A national survey of 2,664 paramedics contributed new information about their risk of exposure to blood and identified opportunities to control exposures and prevent infections.

Preventing Deaths and Injuries of Fire Fighters Working Above Fire-Damaged Floors
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2009-114
Fire fighters are at risk of falling through fire-damaged floors.

Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program: Leading Recommendations for Preventing Fire Fighter Fatalities, 1998–2005
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2009-100
This document is a synthesis of the 1,286 individual recommendations from the 335 FFFIPP investigations conducted from 1998 to 2005.

Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program Evaluation
NIOSH report of findings from its national survey of U.S. fire departments.

Preventing Fire Fighter Fatalities Due to Heart Attacks and Other Sudden Cardiovascular Events
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2007-133
Fire fighters are at risk of dying on the job from preventable cardiovascular conditions.

FDA AND NIOSH Public Health Notification: Oxygen Regulator Fires Resulting from Incorrect Use of CGA 870 Seals External Web Site Policy
This document provides information on the danger of fires at the interface of oxygen regulators and cylinder valves because of incorrect use of CGA 870 seals, and identifies measures to prevent such fires.

NIOSH Alert: Preventing Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters due to Truss System Failures
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-132
Fire fighters may be injured and killed when fire-damaged roof and floor truss systems collapse, sometimes without warning.

NIOSH Workplace Solutions—Preventing Deaths and Injuries to Fire Fighters During Live-Fire Training in Acquired Structures
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-102
Fire fighters are subjected to many hazards when participating in live-fire training. Training facilities with approved burn buildings should be used for live-fire training whenever possible. However, when acquired structures are used for live-fire training, NIOSH strongly recommends that fire departments follow the national consensus guidelines in NFPA 1403, standard on live-fire training evolutions [NFPA 2002a] to reduce the risk of injury and death. These guidelines are summarized in the recommendations in this document.

Radio Communication

The past few decades have seen major advancements in the communication industry. These advancements have improved radio frequency spectrum efficiency, but also have added complexity to the expansion of existing systems and the design of new systems. The U.S. Fire Administration in conjunction with the International Association of Fire Fighters has released the report Voice Radio Communications Guide for the Fire Service External Web Site Policy this document in PDF 3.85 MB (77 pages) This report is designed to help fire service leaders and members understand new communication and radio system issues in order to remain informed players in the process.

Current Status, Knowledge Gaps, and Research Needs Pertaining to Firefighter Radio Communication Systems
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) commissioned this study to identify and address specific deficiencies in firefighter radio communications and to identify technologies that may address these deficiencies. Specifically to be addressed were current and emerging technologies that improve, or hold promise to improve, firefighter radio communications and provide firefighter location in structures.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building and Fire Research Laboratory publication “Testing of Portable Radios in a Fire Fighting EnvironmentExternal Web Site Policy this document in PDF 265 KB (24 pages)
focuses on the thermal environment that radios would be expected to withstand while being used in structural fire fighting operations. Current NFPA standards for radios are reviewed and recommendations for establishing performance standards are presented. The need for providing additional protection from the thermal environment is documented.

NIOSH Findings Reported on Bridgeport (CT) Double LODD Fire; Failed to Respond to Maydays

No comments

 

2 Bridgeport firefighters die in line of duty: wtnh.com

Fire vented through the roof. Note: NIOSH investigators believe this photo shows conditions very close to the time that the Mayday was called for Victim #2 by FF4. Wind was pushing the smoke plume from right to left. (Photo courtesy of Keith Muratori.)

Bridgeport (CT) fire officials’ failure on nearly ever level led to the line-of-duty deaths of two firefighters battling a fire in a residential occupancy in Bridgeport, CT on July 24, 2010. 

Among the findings of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) released Wednesday:

  • the deputy fire chief and his assistant at the scene of the Elmwood Street fire were having a discussion about whether they heard a mayday call from the two fallen firefighters instead of taking immediate action to rescue them.
  • The report also stated firefighters failed to immediately treat one of the firefighters who managed to make it to relative safety before collapsing.
  • Officials also did not properly managed firefighters’ air supplies — both firefighter’s air cylinders were empty when they were found, the report stated.
  • The department’s incident safety officer, who is required to be on scene for assistance in a fire also did not arrive more than 20 minutes after the initial dispatch.

Lt. Steven Velasquez and Firefighter Michel Baik were on the third-floor of the wood-frame home at 41 Elmwood Ave. checking for hot spots and making sure there were no people in the smoldering blaze. Then trouble hit. The two sent mayday signals back to dispatch. Within minutes, the fire department’s rapid intervention team found the pair on the floor, unconscious, and gave them CPR. The two men could not be revived.

Full NIOSH Report F2010- 18 FINAL CT F2010-18

NIOSH Executive Summary

On July 24, 2010, a 40-year-old male career fire lieutenant and a 49-year-old male career fire fighter were found unresponsive at a residential structure fire. The victims and two additional crew members were tasked with conducting a primary search for civilians and fire extension on the 3rd floor of a multifamily residential structure. The fire had been extinguished on the 2nd floor upon their entry into the structure.

While pulling walls and the ceiling on the 3rd floor, smoke and heat conditions changed rapidly. The first firefighter transmitted a Mayday (audibly under duress) that was not acknowledged or acted upon. Minutes later the incident commander ordered an evacuation of the 3rd floor. As a fire fighter exited the 3rd floor, the lieutenant was discovered unconscious and not breathing, sitting on the stairs to the 3rd floor.

Approximately 7 minutes later, the second firefighter  was discovered on the 3rd floor in thick, black smoke conditions. Both victims were removed by the rapid intervention team (RIT) and other fire fighters who assisted them. Both victims were pronounced dead at local hospitals.

Contributing Factors

  • Failure to effectively monitor and respond to Mayday transmissions
  • Less than effective Mayday procedures and training
  • Inadequate air management
  • Removal and/or dislodgement of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) facepiece
  • Incident safety officer (ISO) and rapid intervention team (RIT) not readily available on scene
  • Possible underlying medical condition(s) (coronary artery disease)
  • Command, control, and accountability.

Aerial View of House and Exposures

 
 

Key Recommendations

  • Ensure that radio transmissions are effectively monitored and quickly acted upon, especially when a Mayday is called
  • Ensure that Mayday training program(s) and department procedures adequately prepare fire fighters to call a Mayday
  • Train fire fighters in air management techniques to ensure they receive the maximum benefit from their SCBA
  • Ensure that fire fighters use their SCBA during all stages of a fire and are trained in SCBA emergency procedures
  • Ensure that a separate incident safety officer (ISO), independent from the incident commander, is appointed at each structure fire with the initial dispatch
  • Ensure that a rapid intervention team (RIT) is readily available and prepared to respond to fire fighter emergencies
  • Consider adopting a comprehensive wellness and fitness program, provide annual medical evaluations consistent with NFPA standards, and perform annual physical performance (physical ability) evaluations for all fire fighters.

Timeline

This timeline is provided to set out, to the extent possible, the sequence of events according to recorded and intelligible radio transmissions. Two channels were used during this incident: the main dispatch channel and channel 2 (fireground). Times are approximate and were obtained from review of the dispatch records, witness interviews, photographs of the scene, and other available information. Times have been rounded to the nearest minute. NIOSH investigators have attempted to include all intelligible radio transmissions, but some may be missing. This timeline is not intended, nor should it be used, as a formal record of events.

  • 1544 Hours E3 and L5 dispatched to a report of an elevator rescue.
  • 1546 Hours While en route, E3 contacted the dispatcher on the main dispatch channel and advised them they needed to redirect all companies to a possible house fire.
  • 1547 Hours L5 copied E3‘s transmission on the main dispatch channel and redirected to the possible house fire. E3 advised the dispatcher, on the main dispatch channel, that they had a fire on the 2nd floor and that they did not have a hydrant. Note: It is unclear whether E3 established command, but L5 arrived just after E3 and established command.
  • 1548 Hours E3, E4, E1, E7 as RIT, L11, L5, R5, and B1 were dispatched on the main dispatch channel to the house fire.
  • 1549 Hours L5 arrived on scene and their officer stated over the main dispatch channel, ―2½-story wood frame with heavy fire coming from the 2nd floor, Alpha/Bravo side, L5 is now command.‖
  • 1550 Hours E7 en route.
  • 1551-1552 Hours E4 arrived on scene and laid a supply line in from the hydrant. Over the main dispatch channel, L5 officer (initial arriving IC) advised the dispatcher that the bulk of the fire was knocked down by E3 and the primary search was in progress. Over the main dispatch channel, the dispatcher advised L11 and E7 which way they should approach the scene. Over the main dispatch channel, L5 officer requested an ambulance for an injured fire fighter (ankle injury). Over the main dispatch channel, B1 advised the dispatcher that he was on scene, and he confirmed the first report of heavy fire with the bulk of the fire knocked down. B1 then took command of the incident.
  • 1553 Hours L11 arrived on scene. E1 took an additional hydrant. A7116 dispatched to the incident for an injured fire fighter. Note: Dispatch of A7116 was not part of the initial fire assignment. The 9-1-1 center contacted the EMS dispatch center via landline to request an ambulance for the injured fire fighter on scene after the request from the L5 officer.
  • 1554 Hours Over the main dispatch channel, the BA advised the dispatcher that the command post would be in front of the fire building and tag collection would be at the command post. On channel 2, E4 officer asked E3 to charge the second hoseline. E7 (RIT) arrived on scene.
  • 1555 Hours On channel 2, E4 officer asked E3 again to charge the second hoseline. Over the main dispatch channel, the IC requested the dispatcher to have the safety officer respond to the incident. IC checked on the status of the ambulance. Fire dispatch advised the IC that the ambulance was en route.
  • 1556 Hours E3 advised the IC (on the main dispatch channel) that he needed hooks on the 2nd floor in the room of origin; the IC acknowledged the request. Over the main dispatch channel, IC advised all companies, ―Channel 2 fireground, channel 2 fireground.‖ Note: Up to this point, companies on scene were operating on the main dispatch and channel 2. Fire dispatch assigned fireground operations to channel 2 for the incident.
  • 1557-1558 Hours IC called L11 on channel 2. IC (on the main dispatch channel) confirmed with the dispatcher who was RIT (which was E7) on scene and advised them that their equipment was available at the command post. Victim#1 acknowledged the IC‘s request for L11 on channel 2, but the IC did not respond. E3 officer, who incorrectly identified himself as ―E4,‖ called command on channel 2 and stated they had a slight extension into the A/B corner. Note: He was working overtime the day of the incident at the station that houses E3 and E4, which is also his normal duty station. The IC copied the E3 officer‘s transmission on channel 2 and asked him if he had enough hooks available; the E3 officer stated he did. A7116 arrived on scene.
  • 1559 Hours E3 officer on channel 2 advised the IC that they needed a hoseline to the 3rd floor because they could not reach it (fire extension) from the 2nd floor. The IC acknowledged the E3 officer‘s transmission on channel 2. The IC, on channel 2, advised Victim #1 that E1 was bringing a hoseline to the 3rd floor. Victim #1 acknowledged the IC‘s transmission on channel 2 and advised, ―A primary is in progress, which is negative; and, they are still checking for extension.‖ The IC acknowledged Victim #1‘s transmission.
  • 1600 Hours Over the main dispatch channel, the ISO advised the dispatcher that he was responding (from home). A7116 contacted EMS dispatch requesting a single ambulance to standby at the incident per the IC. A7110 dispatched and en route to fire to standby. On channel 2, the IC (at the command post) advised the E4 officer that he could see fire extending up the A/B corner. Note: NIOSH investigators were not sure if this transmission was meant for the E4 officer or the officer from E3 who identified himself as E4. At 1559 hours, the E3 officer advised the IC of the extension to the 3rd floor. On channel 2, the E4 officer advised the IC that he was working on getting a line up to the 3rd floor.
  • 1601 Hours Over the main dispatch channel, the dispatcher advised the IC that the ISO and DC were responding. On channel 2, the L5 officer contacted ―L5-Alpha‖ (believed to be L5‘s aerial ladder) to assist in the bucket; L5-Alpha acknowledged the transmission.
  • 1602-1603 Hours On channel 2, the IC contacted the L5 officer to verify whether he thought he could make the roof with L5. On channel 2, the L5 officer stated that he was sending the driver down to talk to him. R5 officer advised the IC on channel 2 that the primary was negative on the 2nd floor. E4 attempted to contact L5 on channel 2, but was walked-on by R5-Alpha attempting to contact the R5 officer twice. E3 officer advised L5 on channel 2 that they needed to overhaul the porch on the 2nd floor, but he did not think L5 could get to it. L5 officer acknowledged E3 engineer‘s transmission on channel 2.
  • 1604 Hours DC en route to the incident. Over channel 2, R5 called the IC three times (no response). Over channel 2, the E4 officer called the E3 pump operator twice to shut the fog nozzle hoseline down; the E3 pump operator acknowledged. Victim #1 called the IC twice on channel 2 (no response).
  • 1605 Hours Over the main dispatch channel, the IC requested another RIT from the dispatcher. On channel 2, R5-Alpha advised the R5 officer that the primary above the fire floor (2nd floor) was complete. On channel 2, the R5 officer attempted to contact the IC (no response). E4 officer advised the E3 pump operator to recharge the fog nozzle hoseline; the E3 pump operator acknowledged.
  • 1606-1607 Hours A7110 arrived on scene. E12 dispatched and responded as the RIT. Note: At 1604 hours, E12 was en route to the elevator rescue. On channel 2, the IC advised Victim #1 that he was getting a second hoseline to the 3rd floor for him. The IC asked Victim #1, ―What‘s the situation up there?‖ Victim #1 stated, ―We got the line in place, it‘s charged, we have extension into the attic space…‖ The IC then asked for Victim #1 to verify ―if‖ he already had a line in place, but there was no response. A member of E4 advised the IC that they had, ―…line in operation on the number three floor.‖ A7116 en route to hospital with injured fire fighter.
  • 1608 Hours R5 contacted the IC on channel 2 and advised him that they had one line in operation and he recommended that the roof be opened. Note: A Vibralert® could be heard alarming during his transmission. IC advised R5 that they were preparing ground ladders to access the roof.
  • On channel 2, the L5 officer stated that he was sending the driver down to talk to him. R5 officer advised the IC on channel 2 that the primary was negative on the 2nd floor. E4 attempted to contact L5 on channel 2, but was walked-on by R5-Alpha attempting to contact the R5 officer twice. E3 officer advised L5 on channel 2 that they needed to overhaul the porch on the 2nd floor, but he did not think L5 could get to it. L5 officer acknowledged E3 engineer‘s transmission on channel 2.
  • 1604 Hours DC en route to the incident. Over channel 2, R5 called the IC three times (no response). Over channel 2, the E4 officer called the E3 pump operator twice to shut the fog nozzle hoseline down; the E3 pump operator acknowledged. Victim #1 called the IC twice on channel 2 (no response).
  • 1605 Hours Over the main dispatch channel, the IC requested another RIT from the dispatcher. On channel 2, R5-Alpha advised the R5 officer that the primary above the fire floor (2nd floor) was complete. On channel 2, the R5 officer attempted to contact the IC (no response). E4 officer advised the E3 pump operator to recharge the fog nozzle hoseline; the E3 pump operator acknowledged.
  • 1606-1607 Hours A7110 arrived on scene. E12 dispatched and responded as the RIT. Note: At 1604 hours, E12 was en route to the elevator rescue. On channel 2, the IC advised Victim #1 that he was getting a second hoseline to the 3rd floor for him. The IC asked Victim #1, ―What‘s the situation up there?‖ Victim #1 stated, ―We got the line in place, it‘s charged, we have extension into the attic space…‖ The IC then asked for Victim #1 to verify ―if‖ he already had a line in place, but there was no response. A member of E4 advised the IC that they had, line in operation on the number three floor.‖ A7116 en route to hospital with injured fire fighter.
  • 1608 Hours R5 contacted the IC on channel 2 and advised him that they had one line in operation and he recommended that the roof be opened. Note: A Vibralert® could be heard alarming during his transmission. IC advised R5 that they were preparing ground ladders to access the roof.
  • The IC called the L11 officer (Victim #1) on channel 2 (no response).
  • 1615 Hours On channel 2, the IC stated, ―Command to all companies on the 3rd floor, vacate the 3rd floor; I repeat, command to L11 and E1, vacate the 3rd floor.‖
  • 1616-1619 Hours (2nd Mayday Call) The IC attempted to contact L11 again on channel 2 (no response). The IC, on channel 2, then stated, ―Command to E1.‖ (1616.50 hours) On channel 2, FF2 stated, ―Mayday, Mayday…Rescue 5 Bravo command we have a downed fire fighter rear steps. Mayday-Mayday-Mayday fire fighter down rear steps, 2nd floor.‖ IC called L11 again on channel 2 (no response). FF4 on channel 2 stated, ―Ladder 11 irons to Ladder 11‖ (no response). Note: An apparatus air horn is heard sounding in the background of this transmission. FF2 on channel 2 stated, ―Rescue 5 Bravo command, Rescue 5 Bravo command we need help 2nd floor, send the RIT, we need fresh bodies.‖ Note: No audio transmissions or emergency tones are heard on channel 2 or the main dispatch channel advising that the Mayday call had been acknowledged. DC contacted the IC on channel 2 to have him send the RIT to the rear stairs; the IC acknowledged. Note: The RIT may have already been advancing up the rear stairs, but they ran into difficulty accessing the 2nd floor landing off the rear stairs because a charged hoseline was against the closed door. Dispatch attempted to contact command on channel 2 (no response). The IC called L11 again on channel 2 (no response). The DC contacted the IC requesting the ambulance on scene to come to the rear of the house. Victim #1 was extricated out the rear of the house.
  • 1620 Hours A7110 began medical care for the downed fire fighter (Victim #1). Over the main dispatch channel, the BA requested an advanced life support ambulance to the fire scene. A7126 was dispatched to intercept A7110 at the fire scene to provide advanced life support. (~1620.35 Hours) The following transmission is heard on channel 2, ―…Ladder 11 ‗mayday‘ (very quick transmission)…Ladder 11 (unintelligible word(s)).‖ Note: The dispatch caller ID for this radio is designated as “L-11 FF3,” which was assigned to the fire fighter (designated as FF4 for this report) who later finds Victim #2 (see below 1624 hours). FF4 had not found Victim #2 at the time of this transmission. On channel 2, FF4 stated, ―Ladder 11 irons to Ladder 11 can‖ (no response). Note: “Ladder 11 can” was Victim #2’s designation that shift.
  • 1621 Hours A7126 en route to fire scene.
  • 1622 Hours On channel 2, the ISO advised the IC that the fire fighter (Victim #1) was removed and they needed to do a roll call for everyone on scene. On channel 2, the IC advised all company officers that the ―incident is taking a PAR‖ (personnel accountability report). Officers began calling in their respective PARs.
  • 1624 Hours (3rd and 4th Mayday Calls) FF4 on channel 2 stated, ―Mayday-Mayday, I have a fire fighter trapped on the 3rd floor, Mayday-Mayday-Mayday 3rd floor.‖ Note: This Mayday is for Victim #2. A PASS device is heard alarming during FF4‘s transmission. On channel 2, the IC stated, ―This is command to all companies, vacate the building, I report, command to all companies, vacate the building.‖ FF4 on channel 2 stated again, ―Mayday-Mayday-Mayday, I‘ve got another fire fighter down, another one, 3rd floor, hurry!‖
  • 1625 Hours Over channel 2, the dispatcher stated, ―For a Mayday,‖ and activated the emergency evacuation tones. Note: It is unknown why the evacuation tones were sounded instead of the Mayday tones. Their evacuation tone is an alternating, high-low sound, similar to a European siren. Their Mayday tone is a rapid, high to low pitch, chirping sound. This was dispatch’s first acknowledgement of a Mayday over the radio. No further radio traffic regarding the Mayday was provided by the dispatcher following the tone activation on channel 2. Over the main dispatch channel, the dispatcher stated, ―For a Mayday,‖ and activated the emergency evacuation tones as well. No further radio traffic regarding the Mayday was provided by the dispatcher following the tone activation on the main dispatch channel.
  • 1626 Hours The IC contacted the DC on channel 2. DC acknowledged with no further traffic from the IC. The IC on channel 2 again advised all companies to vacate the building. The dispatcher then activated the emergency tones on channel 2 and the main dispatch channel, and stated, ―All companies per command vacate the building, all companies vacate the building.‖
  • 1627 Hours The ISO contacted the IC on channel 2 and stated, ―We need to make contact with that Mayday, we need more information, we have not heard from them since the initial call.‖ On channel 2, the IC stated, ―Command to company declaring a Mayday; I repeat, command to the company declaring a Mayday sound off, sound off.‖ A fire fighter from the RIT advised the IC on channel 2 that they were moving the fire fighter off the 3rd floor. On channel 2, the dispatcher advised the IC that the Mayday call was for the 3rd floor. A7126 arrived at the fire scene.
  • 1628 Hours RIT advised the IC that they have the fire fighter (Victim #2) on the 3rd floor and will be bringing him down the rear stairs from the 3rd floor.
  • 1630 Hours A7110 en route to the hospital with Victim #1 without assistance from A7126.
  • 1632 Hours ISO asked for a progress report from the RIT on the Mayday. RIT replied, ―Coming down…3rd floor.‖ ISO asked RIT to repeat their traffic. A radio was keyed, but there was no transmission.
  • 1634 Hours RIT personnel advised the IC that they had the fire fighter (Victim #2) down to the 2nd floor landing.
  • 1640 Hours A7110 arrived at local hospital with Victim #1.
  • 1643 Hours A7126 began medical care on second downed fire fighter (Victim #2). Note: This time was taken from Victim #2’s patient care report and may not be accurate.
  • 1703 Hours A7126 arrived at local hospital with Victim #2.

 

Fire Behavior

The room and contents fire was determined to have originated in a bedroom on the 2nd floor, A/B corner; it was quickly knocked down by E3 (see Photo 2). It is believed that the fire got into the eves when it was lapping out the A/B corner windows, and then spread within the large void spaces in the ceiling and walls of the 3rd floor. The fire was situated toward the A/B corner of the 3rd floor, but the open void areas allowed smoke to accumulate within the ceilings and walls before they were opened.

Operating on the 3rd floor at varying times were members from L5, R5, L11, E4, and E7. Initially, light-to-moderate smoke conditions were observed on the 3rd floor, depending on how close fire fighters were to the A-side of the 3rd floor. Fire fighters recalled the 3rd floor being very hot. TICs used by different individuals on the 3rd floor showed the room to be hot on the A-side and ceiling. Windows on the A-, B-, and D-sides were opened, allowing most of the smoke to self ventilate. Light smoke remained within the 3rd floor, with good visibility.

Extension was checked around A- and B-side baseboards. Some fire fighters recall Victim #1 telling them the fire was in the ceiling and possibly the walls, and to not open those areas until a hoseline was in place. Even after providing horizontal ventilation on the 3rd floor, smoke conditions worsened, banking down to fire fighters‘ chin levels and becoming denser.

While waiting for the hoseline, L5 members were reassigned by the IC to ventilate the roof to provide additional relief to the 3rd floor. The IC reported to NIOSH investigators that he ordered the roof vented because he saw smoke pushing out the B-side windows. Personnel from E4 advanced the charged hoseline to the 3rd floor, allowing the ceilings and walls to be opened. A mixture of thick, brown/black smoke quickly filled the room, reducing visibility.

  

Initial conditions observed when the BC arrived on scene at approximately 1551 hours. Note: Fire was under control on the 2nd floor and fire fighters were checking for extension. White-to-gray smoke can be seen flowing in the direction of right to left from the gables. The A-side window on the 3rd floor had been opened for ventilation (unsure at what stage of the fire or by whom).

  

  

Structure

Built in the early 1900s, the two-and-half-story house (see Photo 1) was purchased approximately 4 years prior to the incident as a multifamily rental occupancy. One family lived in the 1st floor apartment (approx. 1,300 sq. ft.); a second family lived in the 2nd floor apartment (approx. 1,300 sq. ft.) and the owner occupied the finished half-story or attic space (approx. 700 sq. ft.).  The house also contained an unfinished basement (approx. 1,300 sq. ft.).

The common front entrance contained access to the 1st floor apartment and a private stairwell, located at the A/D corner of the house, which provided access to the 2nd floor apartment. The house also had a single rear-entry door that provided access to a stairwell that led up to the owner‘s apartment and had landings to access all the apartments from the rear. According to the owner of the house, smoke detectors were installed within the house about a year prior to the incident. These smoke detectors were installed in every bedroom, in each hallway, and in the stairwells.

The house did not have an installed sprinkler system and had been inspected in accordance with Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8a guidelines, according to the homeowner. The house was Type V wood frame construction, but, during the initial stages of the fire, was presumed by arriving fire fighters to be balloon-framed due to the era when it was constructed. State fire investigators were able to confirm Type V construction after closer inspection.

The Office of the State Fire Marshal‘s building code compliance inspection showed that the house did not meet certain Connecticut Fire Safety Code requirements for this type of structure. NIOSH investigators do not believe that these non-compliance issues contributed to the deaths of the two fire fighters.

  

Typical Ballon Framing Construction

 

 LINKS

 

2 Bridgeport firefighters die in line of duty: wtnh.com

NIOSH LODD Report Issued: Fire Department faulted in firefighter deaths

No comments

NIOSH Released its report (F2010-18) on the July 24, 2010 house fire that resulted in the two fire fighter LODDs. Bridgeport fire officials’ failure on nearly every level led to the deaths of two firefighters battling a West Side blaze last July, the NIOSH report has concluded.

Among the findings of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health report released Wednesday:

  • The deputy fire chief and his assistant at the scene of the Elmwood Street fire had a discussion about whether they heard a mayday call from the two fallen firefighters instead of taking immediate action to rescue them.
  • There was no rapid intervention team readily available to come to the firefighters’ aid.
  • The report stated firefighters failed to immediately treat one of the firefighters who managed to make it to relative safety before collapsing.
  • Officials also did not properly manage firefighters’ air supplies — both firefighters’ air cylinders were empty when they were found, the report stated.
  • The department’s incident safety officer, who is required to be on scene for assistance in a fire, also did not arrive until more than 20 minutes after the initial dispatch.

According to the NIOSH report, the 40-year-old Velasquez and the 49-year-old Baik, along with two other firefighters, had been assigned to conduct a search for victims and hot spots on the third floor of the multi-family house. The fire already had been extinguished on the second floor.

While the two were pulling the walls and ceiling on the third floor, the fire suddenly reignited. Velasquez transmitted a mayday that was not acknowledged or acted on, the report states. Minutes later, the incident commander ordered an evacuation of the third floor. As a firefighter exited the third floor he discovered Velasquez sitting on the stairs unconscious and not breathing. Baik was found about seven minutes later on the third floor in heavy smoke conditions.

The investigation of this fatal fire by CT State Fire Marshal’s Office remains ongoing.

The NIOSH report details will be published following a more detailed review of the findings and recommendations.

Supervisor cleared on all charges in Deutsche Bank Building Fire that killed 2 FDNY Firefighters

1 comment

AP Photo

 

5-5-5-5 August 18, 2007

Published reports are being stating that the least senior of three construction officials in the Deutsche Bank manslaughter trial was acquitted of all charges today — after telling jurors that he had no idea the giant pipe he helped remove from the basement had anything to do with providing water to firefighters.

A construction foreman charged with the deaths of two firefighters in the Deutsche Bank building blaze was acquitted of all charges. Salvatore DePaola was cleared by a Manhattan jury of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide on the eighth day of deliberations.

According to reports published in a number of NYC newspapers; “It’s a happy day and a sad day,” said DePaola. “We’ve still got two firefighters that are deceased.” Firefighters Robert Beddia, 33, and Joe Graffagnino, 53 perished after they raced into the burning Ground Zero tower in 2007.

Prosecutors argued that DePaola, who works for the John Galt Corporation, and two of his colleagues should have known a key firefighting pipe had been cut. Salvatore DePaola, 56, of Staten Island, broke into tears as he was found not guilty of manslaughter and reckless endangerment charges in the August, 2007, smoke inhalation deaths of firefighters Robert Beddia and Joseph Graffagnino.

“I had no idea it was a standpipe,” DePaola insisted of the primary physical evidence in the case — a 42-foot section of pipe that all three defendants were accused of intentionally disregarding and discarding after it crashed to the ground from the basement ceiling nine months before the fire.

The jury is still deliberating in the case of DePaola’s colleague, site safety manager Jeffrey Melofchik.

AP Photo   Deutsche Bank office building Fire in New York
 

Jurors have yet to reach a verdict on identical manslaughter and endangerment charges against their remaining defendant, Jeffrey Melofchik, 48, who worked as site safety manager for the demolition’s general contractor, Bovis Lend Lease. They will continue their deliberations tomorrow.

A third defendant, project asbestos abatement director, Mitchel Alvo, 58, has opted for a non-jury verdict; Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Rena Uviller has not said when she will render that decision.

As to who he thought should have been prosecuted in the defendants’ stead, De Paola — whose own son is a firefighter at Engine 160 in Staten Island — made a reference to “lieutenants” with the FDNY before his lawyer advised him to remain silent on that issue, given that deliberations are continuing.

Today was the seventh full day of deliberations in the three-month-long trial.

Previous CommandSafety.com coverage:

Other References and postings;

  • NY Daily News: Battle to save trapped firefighters
  • WABC: Fatal Deutsche Bank fire report released (2008)
  • FDNY Penalties After Deutsche Bank Fire
  • Lawyers: Evidence Withheld in Deutsche Bank Fire Trial
  • FDNY Disciplines Company Officers Following Tragic Deutsche Bank Fire
  • Attorney Claims Deutsche Bank Contractors Are “Scapegoats”  
  • Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week 2011, Day Seven; Fire Fighter, Fire Officer and Command Training and Preparedness

    3 comments

    Preparing for the Mayday Event; Not a matter of IF, But a Question of When… Are you ready? Are you Prepared?

    As the official Fire/EMS Safety Week 2011 begins to wind down, in many stations around the country this weekend is dedicated to training, drills and evolutions dedicated toward the many facets and functional elements that focus upon Surviving the Fire Ground – Fire Fighter, Fire Officer and Command Preparedness. 

    The Safety Planning and Resource Aid and Guide published by the IAFC and IAFF (HERE) and the direct link here 2011 Planning and Resource Aid for Training Deliveries provided resources and planning templates and suggested training and activities to support the focus and emphasis on fire ground survival, increased focus on firefighter operations and mayday elements crucial to company integrity, firefighter safety and operational excellence.

    Being ready for a mayday (mentally and physically), self-rescue and self-survival training and methodologies are mission critical when engaging in structural firefighting operations. Proficiencies, capabilities, rigor, demeanor and performance must be orchestrated in a manner that requires optimum execution of required actions and engagements to enable a successful outcome to a reported single or multiple mayday calls.

    On a crisp fall day in October, 2009 two fires, both in residential occupancies but over 350 miles apart had similar operational needs, deployment and fire suppression and rescue engagement consistent with modern firefighting practices, methodologies and expectations.

    In one, three firefighters become trapped, resulting in a mayday, bailout and resulting LODD of a 16 year fire service veteran. City of Yonkers (NY) Firefighter Patrick Joyce  died during the operations at a 3-Alarm fire in a three story residential occupancy while conducting search and rescue operations for reported trapped civilians. Incident overviews; HERE and HERE .

    The other structure fire in a residential occupancy in Syracuse, NY, results in a fire fighter mayday and successful RIT extraction that is captured on video.  Two structure fires with common elements, each with projected predictable outcomes based upon past fire department operational experiences at similar structures, occupancies and fire conditions and reports; however with two different outcomes.

    The program information from The IAFF Fire Ground Survival Program (FGS)which forms a major component of thsis year’s Safety Weeks activities with the focus on comprehensive survival-skills and mayday-prevention programming  incorporating incident-management best practices and survival techniques from leaders in the field, and real case studies from experienced fire fighters, with the FGS program objectives  aimed to educate all fire fighters to be prepared if the unfortunate happens.

    • For links to the IAFF Fire Ground Survival Program, HERE and HERE

    Here’s a recap of the Self-Survial Procedure insights from the FGS Chapter 3 Section;

    Self-Survival Procedures

    FGS Online Program Chapter 3
    To improve survivability in a Mayday situation, a fire fighter must know how to alert rescuers to his or her location and perform self-survival techniques. Through the study of fire fighter fatalities, NIOSH has identified specific actions fire fighters can take to help save themselves. Variations of this same NIOSH recommendation have appeared in numerous fire fighter fatality reports. These recommendations were used to create a self survival procedure that is easy to remember using a mnemonic (GRAB LIVES). Following these steps increases the likelihood of the rescuers finding and assisting the fire fighter to safety.
    When a fire captain died when trapped by partial roof collapse in a vacant house fire in Texas, NIOSH recommended in report number F2005-09 that trapped fire fighters should:

    • First, transmit a distress signal while they still have the capability and sufficient air.
    • Next, manually activate their PASS device. To conserve air while waiting to be rescued, try to stay calm and avoid unnecessary physical activity.
    • If not in immediate danger, remain in one place to help rescuers locate them.
    • Survey their surroundings to get their bearings and determine potential escape routes.
    • Stay in radio contact with the IC and other rescuers.
    • Attract attention by maximizing the sound of their PASS device (e.g., by pointing it in an open direction); pointing their flashlight toward the ceiling or moving it around; and using a tool to make tapping noises on the floor or wall. 

    The following video clip depicting FDNY Rescue Co. 1 operations at a Mayday, and provides some insightful and subtle commentary that should put some things in proper perspective about the job its hazards and the unexpected that can occur in the blink of an eye.

     

    Another exceptional training piece that we are providing again here on CommandSafety.com are the two part video clips provided by TheBravestOnline.com that covers the mayday distress cakk an subsequent RIT extraction of HFD Captain Joel Eric Abbt at a four alarm fire with civilian fatalities in a six story high rise office building on March 28, 2007.

    This video along with the information obtained from the FGS  program can provide substantial opportunites for training, discussions and dialog.  Take the time to watch the HFD vdeo and the elapsed time, communications and actions deployed. This mayday event had a successful outcome due to a variety of factors.

    The question is how prepared are you, your firefighters, the officers and commanders? Surviving the fire ground requires a  wide variety of skills, knowledge , training and experience.

    Training is the foundation from which proficiencies are developed. If your organization has invested in supporting this weeks activities, don’t stop here. There are additional day ahead to take teh momentum gathered from this week and use it to chart a new course of actions and committments for the weeks and months ahead. If you didn’t have the opportunity to engage or involve, its not a missed opportuity- just find the right time and place to have your own safety day of week.

    Houston FD Mayday Part 1

    Houston FD Mayday Part 2

    Other Training and Drill Opportunties

    Suggested Considerations include the follow, as well as encouraging Departments to identify and integrate local issues, needs and identified gaps or enhancements that can contribute towards operational excellence and safety integration

    • Review and Select a Near Miss Event Report from the National Fire Fighter Near Miss Reporting System or the Report of the Week (ROTW) series related to functional area topics or mayday actions and discuss the event in a small group or company setting to identify similarities or difference from your our organization. Is your company or department susceptible to a similar event? What should be addressed? http://www.firefighternearmiss.com/
    • Review and Select a NIOSH LODD Report from the NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation Program related to functional area topics or mayday actions and discuss the event in a small group or company setting to identify similarities or difference from your our organization. Is your company or department susceptible to a similar event? What should be addressed? http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/
    • Take out your Rapid Intervention Equipment and review the purpose and function of each piece of equipment. Identify and discuss alternative uses or tools that can be obtained or used in the event of unavailability, malfunction or additional resource needs. Discuss protocols, procedures, safety awareness and operational hazards, expectations and precautions. Inspection the equipment for operability and integrity.
    • Identify and select a recent departmental or local/regional incident event that was either a near-miss/close-call or transitioned into a mayday event. Discuss and facilitate dialog on lessons learned, gaps, enhancements or operational successes, achievements and positive elements. Identify any factors or elements that were presented in the FGS training series that are applicable to the event, strategies, tactics or operations: can anything be improved or enhanced?
    • Lead a discussion on how to call and initiate a Mayday. Discuss the factors and insights from FGS Program Chapter 3 Self-Survival Procedures and Chapter 4 Self-Survival Skills.
    • Select and lead a discussion on a pertinent incident case study from either the list provided or your own selection and discuss the relevancy of the event in terms of mayday operations, fire ground survival, incident outcome and relationship to your Department or agency. What is the relevancy, similarities or differences? Can this event or circumstances occur in your jurisdiction?  What can be done to prevent a history repeating event (HRE)?
    • Review and discuss Roles and Responsibilities for mayday events and operations. How do they match up with your operating procedures, policies and expectations?
    • Develop and facilitate a table top exercise (TTE) on a mayday event scenario utilizing a building in your first-due or response jurisdiction. Take photographs and integrate into your program. Refer to example of a simple TTE  attached or go to Fire Fighternation.com for an example here; http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/box-2752reported-fire-in-an
    • Visit a residential or commercial construction site (with pre-arrival authorization and approvals) and tour the stage of construction, looking critically at the type of construction and structural systems being implemented, materials used, workmanship and signs of deficient or adverse conditions that may affect operational integrity, safety or collapse and compromise once the building is occupied. Discuss issues such as structural integrity, collapse risk, occupancy risk versus occupancy type considerations, avenues for fire travel, effects on fire load package and rate of heat release and projected fire intensity. How would you fire a fire in the occupancy? What will define the strategy and tactics that would be or should be selected and used?
    • In a controlled setting with or without PPE, Practice calling a mayday with the identified communication attributes defined in the FGS training program. Critique and practice the evolution until the group feels that it is acceptable.

    Here are some additional Resource Links to Support your training and drill needs;

    Selected References

    • IAFC: The Rules of Engagement for Firefighter Survival and The Incident Commanders Rules of Engagement for Firefighter Safety, HERE and HERE
    • NIOSH Publication No. 2010-153:NIOSH Alert: Preventing Deaths and Injuries of Fire Fighters using Risk Management Principles at Structure Fires, HERE
    • What’s on your Radar Screen; http://commandsafety.com/2010/07/whats-on-your-radar-screen/
    • Reflecting upon these days of June; http://commandsafety.com/2010/06/reflecting-on-these-days-of-june/
    • http://www.isfsi.org/Resources/ResourceLinks.aspx
    • ·         NIST References HERE and HERE 
    • ·         Fire Fighting Tactics Under Wind Driven Conditions Report, HERE 
    • ·         Reference Data HERE 
    • ·         NIST Firefighter Safety and Deployment Study; Report on Residential Fireground Field Experiments download at the NIST, HERE or Synopsis HERE 
    • Report: Trends in Firefighter Fatalities Due to Structural Collapse1979-2002
    • Report: Early Warning Capabilities for Firefighters:Testing of Collapse Prediction Technologies
    • ·         UL University on-line Program HERE 
    • NIOSH LODD Reports
      • Each year an average of 105 fire fighters die in the line of duty. To address this continuing national occupational fatality problem, NIOSH conducts independent investigations of fire fighter line of duty deaths. The dedicated web page provides access to NIOSH investigation reports and other fire fighter safety resources.
      • NIOSH Web Page HERE
      • Through the Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program, NIOSH conducts investigations of fire fighter line-of-duty deaths to formulate recommendations for preventing future deaths and injuries. The program does not seek to determine fault or place blame on fire departments or individual fire fighters, but to learn from these tragic events and prevent future similar events.
      • Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation Reports, HERE
      • NIOSH Alert: Preventing Deaths and Injuries of Fire Fighters using Risk Management Principles at Structure Fires
        • Fire fighters are often killed or injured when fighting fires in abandoned, vacant, and unoccupied structures.
        • These structures pose additional and sometimes unique risks due to the potential for fire fighters to encounter unexpected and unsafe building conditions such as dilapidation, decay, damage from previous fires and vandals, and other factors such as uncertain occupancy status. Risk management principles must be applied at all structure fires to ensure the appropriate strategy and tactics are used based on the fireground conditions encountered.
        • Report HERE
        • NIOSH Report; Preventing Deaths and Injuries of Fire Fighters Working Above Fire Damaged Floors
          • Fire fighters are at risk of falling through fire-damaged floors. Fire burning underneath floors can significantly degrade the floor system with little indication to fire fighters working above.
          • Floors can fail within minutes of fire exposure, and new construction technology such as engineered wood floor joists may fail sooner than traditional construction methods.
          • NIOSH recommends that fire fighters use extreme caution when entering any structure that may have fire burning beneath the floor.
          • Report HERE
          • NIOSH ALERT: Preventing Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters due to Truss System Failures
            • Fire fighters may be injured and killed when fire-damaged roof and floor truss systems collapse, sometimes without warning.
            • The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) requests assistance in preventing injuries and deaths of fire fighters due to roof and floor truss collapse during fire-fighting operations. Roof and floor truss system collapses in buildings that are on fire cannot be predicted and may occur without warning.
            • NIOSH recommends that fire departments review their occupational safety programs and standard operating procedures to ensure they include safe work practices in and around structures that contain trusses. Building owners should follow proper building codes and consider posting building construction information outside a building to advise fire fighters of the conditions they may encounter.
            • ALERT Report HERE
            • National Near Miss Reporting System (NNMRS) Operating Experience
              • The National Fire Fighter Near-Miss Reporting System is a voluntary, confidential, non-punitive and secure reporting system with the goal of improving fire fighter safety.
              • Submitted reports will be reviewed by fire service professionals. Identifying descriptions are removed to protect your identity. The report is then posted on this web site for other fire fighters to use as a learning tool.
              • National Fire Fighter Near-Miss Reporting System Web Site, HERE
              • Search Reports, HERE
              • Resources, HERE
              • Prince William County (VA) Fire Rescue Kyle Wilson LODD Report-Remembrance and Learning’s HERE
                • Resources and Report
                • LODD Report Fact Sheet (23.9kb)
                • LODD Investigative Report (9.16 mb)
                • LODD Report Presentation (6.65 mb)
                • LODD Report Basic House Model (Section 1) (1.87 mb)
                • LODD Report Fire Model (Section 3) (5.16 mb)
                • LODD Flashover Chart (60 kb)
                • Prince William County (VA) Fire and Rescue Web Site, HERE
                • NIOSH LODD REPORT: Career fire fighter dies in wind driven residential structure fire – Virginia, HERE
                • NIST Fire Fighting Tactics Under Wind Driven Conditions: Laboratory Experiments
                  • A series of experiments was conducted in our Large Fire Laboratory to examine the impact of wind control curtains and externally applied hose streams on a wind driven fire.  The results from these experiments will allow us to better understand the fire dynamics within a structure and provide guidance as to the important measurements needed in the future experiments in a high-rise on Governor’s Island in New York City.
                  • Fire Fighting Tactics Under Wind Driven Conditions Report, HERE
                  • Reference Data HERE
                  • Colerain Township Eleven Minutes to Mayday; What You Need to Know HERE
                    • Colerain Township Department of Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Web Site HERE
                    • Investigation Analysis of the Squirrels nest Lane Firefighter Line of Duty Deaths April, 2010 Full Report HERE
                    • NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation Report F2008-09| CDC/NIOSH July, 2009, Report HERE
                    • WLTW.com news report Summary HERE
                    • Charleston Sofa Super Store Fire; Final NIST Report
                    • Analytical Study Reveals Patterns in U.S Firefighter Fatalities Report 
                      • The entire report is available at a nominal fee, HERE; 
                      • Journal Reference: 
    1. Kumar Kunadharaju, Todd D. Smith, David M. DeJoy. Line-of-duty deaths among U.S. firefighters: An analysis of fatality investigations. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2011; 43 (3): 1171 DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.12.030

     

    Training Drill Template

    This Training Schedule Template utilizes a Three Hour, Thirty minute (3.5) Hour Format integrating Suggested basic Functional Area Topics as a lead-in introduction that can be interchanged based on local needs and incorporates two (2) primary modules of the IAFF Fire Ground Survival Program (FGS). Please note you can select any modules determined to be of local need or interests. An optional Weekend Session is attached for FGS Chapter 3 and 4 Module Deliveries and a Hands-on Field Exercise Component.

    Go HERE for the Color PDF Format

    Safety Week 2011: Surviving the Fire Ground-Fire Fighter, Fire Officer & Command Preparedness

    Functional Area 3.5 Hour Schedule with FGS Modules

    Time

    Hour Functional Area Key Issues and Considerations

    Reference and Links

    00:30 1 Fire Fighter Life Safety Initiatives Procedures, Policies and Guides
    • Discuss and facilitate discussion on organizational

     

    • Review key SOPs & SOGs related to Fire Ground Operations culture and safety

     

    • How does Safety Week 2001 fit into your operational environment?

     

    • Agency Mission Statement
    • Overview & Explanation: View | Download 
    • Initiative 1: CultureView | Download 
    • Initiatives 1 – 4View | Download 
    • Initiatives 5 – 8View | Download 
    • Initiatives 9 – 12View | Download 
    • Initiatives 13 – 16View | Download
    • Agency SOPs, SOGs, Policies
    • Agency Expectations
    • Company Expectations or Gaps
    • What defines your level of preparedness?
    00:30 Building Construction
    • Discuss pertinent issues relate to Building Construction that is present in your area

     

    00:30          

     

    2

    Review FGS Chapter 1; Preventing the Mayday  Modules 1-1 thru 1-4
    • Mayday Prevention
    • Pre-Planning
    • Building Construction
    • UL Structural Stability
    • LT Wt. Truss Systems
    • Overhead Hazards

     

    00:30 Review FGS Chapter 1;  Preventing the Mayday Modules 1-5 thru 1-8Continued
    • Mayday Prevention
    • Pre-Planning
    • Building Construction
    • UL Structural Stability
    • LODD Reports
    • Interior Size up
    • Reading Smoke
    • Air Management
    • Defensive Operations
    • Situational
    • Awareness
    • Rapid Heat Release
    • Fire Suppression OPS
    • NIST Fire Modeling

     

    00:30 3 Review FGS Chapter 2;Mayday Ready Modules 2-1 thru 2-3
    • Preparing for the Mayday
    • Are You Ready?
    • Mayday Training
    • Personal safety Equipment
    • Tools & Equipment
    • Mission Critical Resources

     

    00:30 Review FGS Chapter 2;Mayday Ready Modules 2-4 thru 2-5Continued
    • Three Point Communications
    • Role of Dispatch
    • Personal Radio Position
    • Communications Training
    • Radio Discipline
    • Comm Order Model
    • Portable Radios
    • Why “Mayday?”
    • Accountability

     

    00:30 4 Wrap-up and Closing Discussions
    • Facilitate discussion on the presentations
    • Are there any identified gaps or identified areas for improvement?
    • How will the information presented be implemented during future shifts or operations?
    • What level of individual and/or company level accountability can be implemented?
    • How can the organization become safer and effective to minimize and reduce risk to mayday events to improve fire ground survivability?
    • Agency Specific and/or developed or;
    • Utilize  resources from the Functional Matrix
     
    00:00  
    •  
    •  
     

    Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Four -The New Fire Ground

    4 comments

    Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Four -The New Fire Ground    

     

    There is an immediate need for today’s emerging and operating command and company officers to increase their foundation of knowledge and insights related to the modern building occupancy, building construction and fire protection engineering and to adjust and modify traditional and conventional strategic operating profiles in order to safeguard companies, personnel and team compositions.

    Strategies and tactics must be based on occupancy risk, not occupancy type, and must have the combined adequacy of sufficient staffing, fire flow and tactical patience orchestrated in a manner that identifies with the fire and building profiling, predictability of the occupancy profile and accounts for presumptive fire behavior. It is not your old method of size-up and operational deployment.

    The dramatic changes in buildings and occupancies over the past ten years have resulted inadequate fire suppression methodologies based upon conventional practices that do not align with the manner in which we used to discern with a measured degree of predictability how buildings would perform, react and fail under most fire conditions. These past presumptions, which many of us debated with our esteemed colleagues, are being validated through empirical data resulting from the cutting edge research and testing being conducted today by UL and NIST.

    Predicting Fire Behavior and Building Stability

    We predicate certain expectations that fire will travel in a defined (predictable) manner that fire will hold within a room and compartment for a predictable given duration of time; that the fire load and related fire flows required will be appropriate for an expected size and severity of fire encountered within a given building, occupancy, structural system and given an appropriately trained and skilled staff to perform the requisite evolutions, we can safely and effectively mitigate a structural fire situation in any  given building type and occupancy.

    • Past operational experiences, both favorable and negative; gave us experiences that define and determine how the fireground is assessed, react and how we expect similar structures and occupancies to perform at a given alarm in the future; this formed the basis for the naturalistic decision-making process.

    Implementing fundamentals of firefighting operations built upon nine decades of time-tested and experience-proven strategies and tactics continues to be the model of suppression operations. These same fundamental strategies continue to drive methodologies and curriculums in our current training programs and academies of instructions.

    Are you aware of the defining changes in structural systems and support, the degree of compartmentation,

    • the characteristics of materials and the magnitude of the fire-loading package in today’s buildings and occupancies?
    • When was the last time you were out in the street with the companies, or spent some time doing a walk-through of construction or renovations site?
    • Have you asked you commanding officers, division or battalion chief or your company officers for insights into what operational demands and risks are being imposed upon them while operating in the street and within the buildings, occupancies and structures that comprise your jurisdiction?

    The structural anatomy, predictability of building performance under fire conditions, structural integrity and the extreme fire behavior; accelerated growth rate and intensively levels typically encountered in buildings of modern construction during initial and sustained fire suppression have given new meaning to the term combat fire engagement.

    It’s no longer just brute force and sheer physical determination that define structural fire suppression operations, although any seasoned command and company officer knows that at times. It’s what gets the job done under the most arduous and demanding of circumstances.

    However, from a methodical and disciplined perspective; aggressive firefighting must be redefined and aligned to the built environment and associated with goal-oriented tactical operations that are defined by risk assessed and analyzed strategic processes that are executed under battle plans that promote the best in safety practices and survivability within known hostile structural fire environments.

    The demands and requirements of modern firefighting will continue to require the placement of personnel within situations and buildings that carry risk, uncertainty and inherent danger. As a result, risk management must become fluid and integrated with intelligent tactical deployments and operations recognizing the risk problematically and not fatalistically, resulting in safety conscious strategies and tactics.

    Today’s incident commanders need to think about the Predicative Strategic Process, refined Tactical Deployment Models integrating intelligent Structural Anatomy and Predictive Occupancy Profiling, while implementing Tactical Patience.

    Think about the following;

    • Read, comprehend and implement the new IAFC The Rules of Engagement for Firefighter Survival and The Incident Commanders Rules of Engagement for Firefighter Safety
    • Take a tour of your response area, district, community or city.
    • Take a good look around and begin to recognize the apparent or subtle changes that are affecting your incident operations; Take note and think about what needs to be adjusted, modified or changed in your operations.
    • Read up on the latest research and technical literature on wind driven fires, extreme fire behavior, structural ability of engineered lumber systems, fire loading and suppression theory
    • Take the time to personally read a series of the latest NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program LODD reports and relate them to your organizations operations and jurisdictional risks.
    • Start thinking in terms of Occupancy Risks versus Occupancy Type and align your operations and deployments to match those risks
    • Increase your situational awareness of today’s fireground and refine your strategic and tactical modeling
    • Implement both Strategic and Tactical Patience; Slow down and allow the building to react and stabilize, for fire behavior to stop behaving badly and for your companies to increase survivability ratios while meeting the demands of  conducting fire service operations
    • Think about Adaptive Fire Ground Management and Command Resiliency
    • Reprogram your assumptions and presumptions and options on building construction and firefighting operations; the buildings have changed, our firefighting has not; what are you going to do about that gap?

    If you don’t fully understand how a building truly performs or reacts under fire conditions and the variables that can influence its stability and degradation, movement of fire and products of combustion and the resource requirements for fire suppression in terms of staffing, apparatus and required fire flows, then you will be functioning and operating in a reactionary manner that is no longer acceptable within many of our modern building types, occupancies and structures.

    This places higher risk to your personnel and lessens the likelihood for effective, efficient and safe operations. You’re just not doing your job effectively and you’re at risk. These risks can equate into insurmountable operational challenges and could lead to adverse incident outcomes. Someone could get hurt, someone could die, it’s that simple; it’s that obvious.

    Without understanding the building-occupancy relationships and integrating; construction, occupancies, fire dynamics and fire behavior, risk, analysis, the art and science of firefighting, safety conscious work environment concepts and effective and well-informed incident command management, company-level supervision and task-level competencies … You are derelict and negligent and “not “everyone may be going home”.

    It’s all about understanding the building-occupancy relationships and the art and science of firefighting, equating to Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety.

      

    Taking it to the StreetsTM is a monthly radio show featured on BlogTalk Radio and is hosted by nationally renowned fire service leader Christopher Naum, a  36-year fire service veteran and highly regarded national instructor, author, lecturer and fire officer and  the distinguished leading  national authority on building construction and fire ground operations.  Taking it to the StreetsTM is a Buildingsonfire.com Series and FireFighternetcast.com Production,   © 2011 All Rights Reserved 

    Check out the latest downloads of recent programs in the archives by visiting Taking it to the Street’s webpage on Firefighternetcast.com or for program insights at CommandSafety.com.    

    • Firefighternetcast.com HERE
    • Taking it to the Streets Radio Programs, HERE and HERE 
    • Buildingsonfire.com, HERE

     A Buildingsonfire.com Series and Firefighter Netcast.com Production

      

    Taking it to the Streets had its premier July 21st on Firefighter Netcast.com with a lively and provoking discussion on “What’s on YOUR Radar Screen?” The program theme aligned with a recent posting on the same topic. Joining me on the program were two prominent and nationally recognized fire service leaders, who I’m honored to have known for many years, Chief Billy Hayes and Chief Doug Cline; the program explored leading fire service issues affecting firefighter safety, training, credentialing and education; fireground operational variables related to the continuing changes in building construction, engineered systems and extreme fire behavior,  and the emerging need for “Tactical Patience” as I’ve been exploring the relationships towards the need for tactical enhancements to our current fire suppression theory and firefighting models.

    Conversations expanded on the NFFF/Everyone Goes Home Campaign and programs, the newest EGH initiatives on Behavioral Health and the successes achieved through the Courage to be Safe Programs and the Advocacy Program.

    The Premiere of Christopher Naum’s “Taking It to the Streets”

    Podcast: Play in new window | Download

    Taking it to the Streets premiered  on  Wednesday July 21st 9:00pm ET

    Download the Program HERE

    The New Fire Ground

    NIST Wind Driven Fire Study

    • Smoke and heat spreading through the corridors and the stairs of a building during a fire can limit building occupants’ ability to escape and can limit fire fighters’ ability to rescue them.  Changes in the building’s ventilation or presence of an external wind can increase the energy release of the fire.  This can also increase the spread of fire gases through the building.  In some cases, such as the Cook County Administration Building fire in October 2003, the fire gas flow, into the corridors and the stairway prevented fire fighters from suppressing the fire from inside the structure.  This fire resulted in 6 building occupant fatalities and fire fighter injuries in the stairway.  The Fire Department of New York City has experienced many wind driven fire incidents which have resulted in fire fighter fatalities and injuries, as have a number of other incidents nationally that have resulted in increased research into this operational and tactical challenge.
    • What tactics or tools are appropriate for use with a wind driven fire and how should the tactics or tools be implemented?  Positive Pressure Ventilation (PPV) is being used by fire departments on smaller structures, such as single family homes, to control the fire flow by introducing pressure from the front door and venting the house through a strategic exit opening.  If done correctly, this tactic can remove significant amounts of heat and smoke from the structure, thus improving the fire fighters’ working environment and improving the chances of survival for the building occupants.  NIST has completed several studies which have a two fold impact: 1) providing guidance on the safe use of PPV and 2) characterizing and validating the modeling of PPV with a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) computer model, so that the model can be used as a training tool for the fire service.
    • This project extends previous work for ventilation under wind driven conditions.  There are many questions regarding wind driven fires.  For example can these PPV fans be used successfully under wind driven fire conditions in large structures?  Large structures, such as high rise buildings, provide additional challenges to fire fighter and building occupant safety: increased travel distance (exposure time), more complicated egress path, and potentially larger fires.  In 2002 there were 7,300 reported fires in high rise structures.
    • Other tactics incorporating devices, such as wind control devices (WCD) to control the ventilation conditions or the use of a “high rise” nozzle from the floor below the fire floor have been tried by the fire service under “real fire” conditions with varying levels of success.
    • A comprehensive free DVD set from the NIST includes a presentation video that explains PPV, examines the results of NIST’s PPV research, and closes with a focus on the use of PPV tactics in high-rise buildings.  All of the NIST PPV reports referenced in the presentation are included on Disc 1 of the set.  All of the videos from the high-rise fire experiments are also provided with a user-friendly, graphic menu that can be used on a PC or a DVD player.  NIST, with support from USFA, DHS, and fire departments across the country, has taken engineering principles and applied them to fire service PPV tactics in order to improve fire fighter safety
    • NIST References HERE and HERE

    NIST Fire Fighting Tactics Under Wind Driven Conditions: Laboratory Experiments

    • A series of experiments was conducted in our Large Fire Laboratory to examine the impact of wind control curtains and externally applied hose streams on a wind driven fire.  The results from these experiments will allow us to better understand the fire dynamics within a structure and provide guidance as to the important measurements needed in the future experiments in a high-rise on Governor’s Island in New York City.
    • Fire Fighting Tactics Under Wind Driven Conditions Report, HERE
    • Reference Data HERE

    NIST Firefighter Safety and Deployment Study; Report on Residential Fireground Field Experiments

    • The NIST Firefighter Safety and Deployment Study; Titled- Report on Residential Fireground Field Experiments was recently released to the public providing . A copy of the report is attached.
    • Report Abstract:
    • Service expectations placed on the fire service, including Emergency Medical Services (EMS), response to natural disasters, hazardous materials incidents, and acts of terrorism, have steadily increased. However, local decision-makers are challenged to balance these community service expectations with finite resources without a solid technical foundation for evaluating the impact of staffing and deployment decisions on the safety of the public and firefighters. For the first time, this study investigates the effect of varying crew size, first apparatus arrival time, and response time on firefighter safety, overall task completion, and interior residential tenability using realistic residential fires.
    • This study is also unique because of the array of stakeholders and the caliber of technical experts involved. Additionally, the structure used in the field experiments included customized instrumentation; all related industry standards were followed; and robust research methods were used. The results and conclusions will directly inform the NPFA 1710 Technical Committee, who is responsible for developing consensus industry deployment standards.
    • This report presents the results of more than 60 laboratory and residential fireground experiments designed to quantify the effects of various fire department deployment configurations on the most common type of fire—a low hazard residential structure fire. For the fireground experiments, a 2,000 sq ft (186 m2), two-story residential structure was designed and built at the Montgomery County Public Safety Training Academy in Rockville, MD. Fire crews from Montgomery County, MD and Fairfax County.
    • Report results quantify the effectiveness of crew size, first-due engine arrival time, and apparatus arrival stagger on the duration and time to completion of the key 22 fireground tasks and the effect on occupant and firefighter safety.
    • The report is also available for download at the NIST, HERE
    • Synopsis HERE

    USFA/NIST Trends in Firefighter Fatalities Due to Structural Collapse, 1979-2002

    • Between the years 1979 and 2002 there were over 180 firefighter fatalities due to structural collapse, not including those firefighters lost in 2001 in the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. Structural collapse is an insidious problem within the fire fighting community. It often occurs without warning and can easily cause multiple fatalities.
    • As part of a larger research program to help reduce firefighter injuries and fatalities the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) funded the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to examine records and determine if there were any trends and/or patterns that could be detected in firefighter fatalities due to structural collapse. If so, these trends could be brought immediately to the attention of training officers and incident commanders and investigated further to determine probable causes.
    • Report: Trends in Firefighter Fatalities Due to Structural Collapse1979-2002

    UL Fire Academy CBT

    • UL Structural Stability of Engineered Lumber in Fire Conditions
    • Base on the UL research and
    • This two-hour presentation summarizes a research study on the hazards posed to firefighters by the use of lightweight construction and engineered lumber in floor and roof designs. This free on-line computer based presentation will allow fire professionals to better interpret fire hazards and assess risk for life safety of building occupants and firefighters.
    • This online firefighter training course is the result of a research partnership among UL, the Chicago Fire Department, IAFC, and Michigan State University, funded in part by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This self-guided course, which focuses on the structural stability of engineered lumber under fire conditions, is targeted toward the 1.1 million fire service personnel in the United States and Canada. The knowledge developed and shared in this course is critically important to firefighter and civilian safety.
    • This two-hour presentation summarizes a research study on the hazards posed to firefighters by the use of lightweight construction and engineered lumber in floor and roof designs. This free on-line computer based presentation will allow fire professionals to better interpret fire hazards and assess risk for life safety of building occupants and firefighters.
    • Program Objectives:
    • Provide brief history of events leading up to DHS Grant tests
    • Identify the fire test hypothesis, parameters, and steps completed in the testing process
    • Compare tests results (legacy vs. modern construction)
    • Communicate learnings from our partners representing the fire service
    • Discuss code recommendations
    • UL University on-line Program HERE

    Fire Behavior 101; Taking it to the Streets

      

      

    Impact of Ventilation on Fire Behavior in Legacy and Contemporary Residential Construction

    For many of you that have been following my writings and perspectives on building construction, firefighting, command risk management and operational excellence for firefighter safety have long recognized that I have been promoting and advocating the fact the fireground is changing, our strategies and tactics demand change and does the demand for increased knowledge within the areas of building construction, fire dynamics, while integrating the art and science of firefighting. The most recent release of the testing report from Underwriters Laboratories; Impact of Ventilation on Fire Behavior in Legacy and Contemporary Residential Construction and the accompanying empirical data further validates assumptions and premises that many of us shared based upon field observations and first hand incident operations related to the dramatic changes being witnessed as a result of operational challenges in a wide variety of occupancies and building types.

    This material is a must read for all emerging and practicing company and command officers ( for starters) to being grasping the magnitude and extent of quantifiable data that supports the premise that combat fire engagement and suppression operations and the rules of engagement are going to change and that change is fast approaching.

    Here’s the executive summary of the report and findings from UL. For an download of the entire UL Report, go HERE.

    The results of these experiments provide knowledge for the fire service for them to examine their thought processes, standard operating procedures and training content. Several tactical considerations were developed utilizing the data from the experiments to provide specific examples of changes that can be adopted based on a departments current strategies and tactics.

    Under the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program, Underwriters Laboratories examined fire service ventilation practices as well as the impact of changes in modern house geometries.

    There has been a steady change in the residential fire environment over the past several decades. These changes include larger homes, more open floor plans and volumes and increased synthetic fuel loads. This series of experiments examine this change in fire behavior and the impact on firefighter ventilation tactics.

    This fire research project developed the empirical data that is needed to quantify the fire behavior associated with these scenarios and result in immediately developing the necessary firefighting ventilation practices to reduce firefighter death and injury.

    • Two houses were constructed in the large fire facility of Underwriters Laboratories in Northbrook, IL.
    • The first of two houses constructed was a one-story, 1200 ft2, 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom house with 8 total rooms.
    • The second house was a two-story 3200 ft2, 4 bedroom, and 2.5 bathroom house with 12 total rooms.
    • The second house featured a modern open floor plan, two story great room and open foyer.

     Fifteen experiments were conducted varying the ventilation locations and the number of ventilation openings. Ventilation scenarios included ventilating the front door only, opening the front door and a window near and remote from the seat of the fire, opening a window only and ventilating a higher opening in the two-story house.

    One scenario in each house was conducted in triplicate to examine repeatability. The results of these experiments provide knowledge for the fire service for them to examine their thought processes, standard operating procedures and training content. Several tactical considerations were developed utilizing the data from the experiments to provide specific examples of changes that can be adopted based on a departments current strategies and tactics.

    Room Flashover from Sofa Fire

     

    The tactical considerations addressed include:

    • Stages of fire development: The stages of fire development change when a fire becomes ventilation limited.
      • It is common with today’s fire environment to have a decay period prior to flashover which emphasizes the importance of ventilation
    • Forcing the front door is ventilation: Forcing entry has to be thought of as ventilation as well.
      •  
      • While forcing entry is necessary to fight the fire it must also trigger the thought that air is being fed to the fire and the clock is ticking before either the fire gets extinguished or it grows until an untenable condition exists jeopardizing the safety of everyone in the structure.
    • No smoke showing: A common event during the experiments was that once the fire became ventilation limited the smoke being forced out of the gaps of the houses greatly diminished or stopped all together.
      • No some showing during size-up should increase awareness of the potential conditions inside.
    • Coordination: If you add air to the fire and don’t apply water in the appropriate time frame the fire gets larger and safety decreases.
      • Examining the times to untenability gives the best case scenario of how coordinated the attack needs to be.
      • Taking the average time for every experiment from the time of ventilation to the time of the onset of firefighter untenability conditions yields 100 seconds for the one-story house and 200 seconds for the two-story house
      • In many of the experiments from the onset of firefighter untenability until flashover was less than 10 seconds.
      • These times should be treated as being very conservative. If a vent location already exists because the homeowner left a window or door open then the fire is going to respond faster to additional ventilation opening because the temperatures in the house are going to be higher.
      • Coordination of fire attack crew is essential for a positive outcome in today’s fire environment.
    • Smoke tunneling and rapid air movement through the front door: Once the front door is opened attention should be given to the flow through the front door.
      • A rapid in rush of air or a tunneling effect could indicate a ventilation limited fire.
    • Vent Enter Search (VES): During a VES operation, primary importance should be given to closing the door to the room.
      • This eliminates the impact of the open vent and increases tenability for potential occupants and firefighters while the smoke ventilates from the now isolated room.
    • Flow paths: Every new ventilation opening provides a new flow path to the fire and vice versa.
      • This could create very dangerous conditions when there is a ventilation limited fire.
    • Can you vent enough?: In the experiments where multiple ventilation locations were made it was not possible to create fuel limited fires.
      • The fire responded to all the additional air provided.
      • That means that even with a ventilation location open the fire is still ventilation limited and will respond just as fast or faster to any additional air.
      • It is more likely that the fire will respond faster because the already open ventilation location is allowing the fire to maintain a higher temperature than if everything was closed. In these cases rapid fire progression if highly probable and coordination of fire attack with ventilation is paramount.
    • Impact of shut door on occupant tenability and firefighter tenability: Conditions in every experiment for the closed bedroom remained tenable for temperature and oxygen concentration thresholds.
      • This means that the act of closing a door between the occupant and the fire or a firefighter and the fire can increase the chance of survivability.
      • During firefighter operations if a firefighter is searching ahead of a hoseline or becomes separated from his crew and conditions deteriorate then a good choice of actions would be to get in a room with a closed door until the fire is knocked down or escape out of the room’s window with more time provided by the closed door
    • Potential impact of open vent already on flashover time: All of these experiments were designed to examine the first ventilation actions by an arriving crew when there are no ventilation openings.
      • It is possible that the fire will fail a window prior to fire department arrival or that a door or window was left open by the occupant while exiting.
      • It is important to understand that an already open ventilation location is providing air to the fire, allowing it to sustain or grow.
    • Pushing fire: There were no temperature spikes in any of the rooms, especially the rooms adjacent to the fire room when water was applied from the outside. It appears that in most cases the fire was slowed down by the water application and that external water application had no negative impacts to occupant survivability.
      • While the fog stream “pushed” steam along the flow path there was no fire “pushed”.
    • No damage to surrounding rooms: Just as the fire triangle depicts, fire needs oxygen to burn.
      • A condition that existed in every experiment was that the fire (living room or family room) grew until oxygen was reduced below levels to sustain it.
      • This means that it decreased the oxygen in the entire house by lowering the oxygen in surrounding rooms and the more remote bedrooms until combustion was not possible.
      • In most cases surrounding rooms such as the dining room and kitchen had no fire in them even when the fire room was fully involved in flames and was ventilating out of the structure.

    Online Training Program

    In order to make the results of this study more user friendly for the fire service to examine, UL developed an online interactive training module that can be viewed by clicking here. The program includes a professionally narrated description of all of the experiments, their results and the tactical considerations. Experimental video is used and graphical data is explained in a way that brings science to the street level firefighter.

    UL University On-Line CBT

     

     

    Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Three-The New Rules of Engagement

    5 comments

    Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Three-The New Rules of Engagement

     With so many changes (budget cuts, staffing reductions, reduced training, etc.) in so many fire departments, it is critical for fire fighters to focus on their own survival on the fire ground. There is no other call more challenging to fire ground operations than a Mayday call the unthinkable moment when a fire fighter’s personal safety is in imminent danger. Fire fighter fatality data compiled by the United States Fire Administration have shown that fire fighters becoming trapped and disoriented represent the largest portion of structural fire ground fatalities. The incidents in which fire fighters have lost their lives, or lived to tell about it, have a consistent theme inadequate situational awareness put them at risk.

    New Rules of Engagement

     Fire fighters don’t plan to be lost, disoriented, injured or trapped during a structure fire or emergency incident. But fires are unpredictable and volatile, and they will not always go according to plan. What a fire fighter knows about a fire before entering a blazing building may radically change within minutes once inside the structure. Smoke, low visibility, lack of oxygen, structural instability and an unpredictable fire ground can cause even the most seasoned fire fighter to be overwhelmed in an instant.

    It's Not a Matter of IF, It's a Matter of When

    It’s not a matter of IF the MAYDAY happens, it’s WHEN! Thius the reason for the 2011 Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week focus on Surviving the Fire Ground Fire Fighter, Fire Officer & Command Preparedness

    Theme: Surviving the Fire Ground Fire Fighter, Fire Officer & Command Preparedness

    • IAFC Safety Week Resources: Firefighter Survival, HERE
    • National Fire Fighter Near Miss Reporting System Resources, HERE

    With that being said, there must be a means and a method to better defined and more accurately

    • Without understanding the building-occupancy relationships and integrating; construction, occupancies, fire dynamics and fire behavior, risk, analysis, the art and science of firefighting, safety conscious work environment concepts and effective and well-informed incident command management, company level supervision and task level competencies…You are derelict and negligent and “not “everyone may be going home”.
    • Our current generation of buildings, construction and occupancies are not as predictable as past conventional construction; risk assessment, strategies and tactics must change to address these new rules of structural fire engagement.
    • There is a need to gain the building construction knowledge and insights and to change and adjust operating profiles in order to safe guard companies, personnel and team compositions. It’s all about understanding the building-occupancy relationships and the art and science of firefighting, Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety (Bk=F2S)
    • Refer to: Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Two- Building Knowledge = Fire Fighter Safety 
    • When we look at various buildings and occupancies, past operational experiences; those that were successful, and those that were not, give us experiences that define and determine how we access, react and expect similar structures and occupancies to perform at a given alarm in the future.
    • Naturalistic (or recognition-primed) decision-making forms much of this basis. We predicate certain expectations that fire will travel in a defined (predictable) manner that fire will hold within a room and compartment for a predictable given duration of time; that the fire load and related fire flows required will be appropriate for an expected size and severity of fire encountered within a given building, occupancy, structural system; in addition to having an appropriately trained and skilled staff to perform the requisite evolutions.
    • Executing tactical plans based upon faulted or inaccurate strategic insights and indicators has proven to be a common apparent cause in numerous case studies, after action reports and LODD reports.
    • Our years of predictable fireground experience have ultimately embedded and clouded our ability to predict, assess, plan and implement incident action plans and ultimately deploy our companies-based upon the predictable performance expected of modern construction and especially those with engineered structural systems.
    • If you don’t fully understand how a building truly performs or reacts under fire conditions and the variables that can influence its stability and degradation, movement of fire and products of combustion and the resource requirements for fire suppression in terms of staffing, apparatus and required fire flows, then you will be functioning and operating in a reactionary manner, that is no longer acceptable within many of our modern building types, occupancies and structures.
    • This places higher risk to your personnel and lessens the likelihood for effective, efficient and safe operations.
    • You’re just not doing your job effectively and you’re at RISK. These risks can equate into insurmountable operational challenges and could lead to adverse incident outcomes. Someone could get hurt, someone could die, it’s that simple; it’s that obvious

     

    Original IAFC 2001 ROE

     

    • Combat Fire Suppression and Engagement has been dramatically influenced by numerous challenges in terms of effectiveness, methodologies, risk and operational capabilities….yet we implement strategic and tactical models and protocol predicated on past performance of building structures and occupancies and fire fighting successes….
    •  It’s no longer just brute force and sheer physical determination that define structural fire suppression operations
    • We used to discern with a measured degree of predictability, how buildings would perform, react and fail under most fire conditions. Implementing fundamentals of firefighting and engine company operations built upon eight decades of time tested and experience proven strategies and tactics continues to be the model of suppression operations.
    • These same fundamental strategies continue to drive methodologies and curriculums in our current training programs and academies of instructions.
    • 2009 was a significant and decisive year for the fire service in a number of ways….
    • Controversy, debate, argument; enlightenment, knowledge, insights, awareness, comprehension, understanding….
    • Which leads me to call this the emerging tactical renaissance….

     

    The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) is committed to reducing firefighter fatalities and injuries. As part of that effort the nearly 1,000 member Safety, Health and Survival Section of the IAFC has developed the NEW  “Rules of Engagement of Structural Firefighting” to provide guidance to individual firefighters, and incident commanders, regarding risk and safety issues when operating on the fireground.

    The intent was to provide a set of “model procedures” for Rules of Engagement for Structural Firefighting to be made available by the IAFC to fire departments as a guide for their own standard operating procedure development.

    In August, 2008, following a year of discussion, the Section moved to develop a set of “Rules of Engagement for Structure Firefighting”.

    A project team was created consisting of Section members and representatives of other several other interested fire service organizations.

    These included the;

    • Fire Department Safety Officer Association (FDSOA),
    • the National Fallen Firefighter Foundation (NFFF),
    • the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC), the
    • National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and other organizations.
    • All draft material has also been shared with representatives of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) who developed a joint IAFF/IAFC Fire Ground Survival Project”.

     Three Section members also participated in the IAFF project.

    The direction provided the project team by the Section leadership was to develop rules of engagement with the following conceptual points;

    • Rules should be a short, specific set of bullets
    • Rules should be easily taught and remembered
    • Rules should define critical risk issues
    • Rules should define “go” or “nogo” situations
    • A companion lesson plan/explanation section should be provided

    Early in development the Rules of Engagement, it was recognized that two separate rules were needed –one set for the firefighter, and another set for the incident commander.

    Thus, the two sets of Rules of Engagement were conceived and developed.

    Each set has several commonly shared bullets and objectives, but the explanations are described somewhat differently based on the level of responsibility (firefighter vs. incident commander).

    The 2010 Rules of Engagement reflects nearly two years of public comment and feedback from several presentations at fire service conferences, including the National Fallen Fire Fighters Safety Summit held at the National Fire Academy this past March 2010.

    The “Rules” was formally adopted by the IAFC Health, Safety and Survival Section at the Fire Rescue International Conference that was held in Chicago this past August 2010

    The project team was lead by Chief Gary Morris,

    Document Description

    Section One

    • includes introduction statements and background regarding the Rules of Engagement project.

    Section Two

    • acknowledges the Project team members and others that assisted in the project.

     Section Three

    • contains the individual “Bullets” for both the Rules of Engagement for Firefighter Survival as well as the Incident Commanders Rules of Engagement for Firefighter Safety.

     Section Four

    • describes the objectives attached to each of the individual “bullets” for both set of Rules.

     Section Five

    • provides an introduction and overview of the lesson plans for the Rules of Engagement.

     Section Six

    • includes the lesson plan for the Rules of Engagement of Firefighter Survival.

     Section Seven

    • contains the lesson plans for the Incident Commanders Rules of Engagement for Firefighter Safety.

     Section Eight

    • serves as appendixes and contains full investigation reports of several significant firefighter fatality incidents.

     The Need for Rules of Engagement

    • Firefighter safety must always be a priority for every fire chief and every member. Over the past three decades, the fire service has applied new technology, better protective clothing and equipment, implemented modern standard operating procedures, and improved training.
    • According to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) data during this same period the fire service has experienced a 58 percent reduction in firefighter line of duty deaths. But, the country has also seen a paralleling 54 percent drop in the number of structural fires over the same period – thus, reducing firefighter exposure to risk.
    • With a continued annual average of more than 100 firefighter fatalities, the question remains; have we really made a difference with all these technology improvements? Or, is there more that we can do to improve the safety culture of the American fire service?
    • The U.S. Firefighter Disorientation Study, conducted by Captain Willie Mora, San Antonio, Texas, Fire Department, conducted a review of 444 firefighter fireground deaths occurring over a recent 16 year period (1990-2006).
      • The project broke out traumatic firefighter fatalities occurring in “open structures” and “enclosed structures”. Open structures was defined as smaller structures with an adequate number of windows and doors (within a short distance) to allow for prompt ventilation and emergency evacuation.
      • Enclosed structures were defined as large buildings with inadequate windows or doors to allow prompt ventilation and emergency evacuation. Research determined that 23 percent occurred when a fast and aggressive interior attack was made on an “opened structure”. When fast, aggressive interior attacks occurred in “enclosed structures” the fatality rate rose to 77 percent. Many occurred in “marginal” or rapidly changing conditions in which the firefighter should not have been in the building.
    • The fireground creates a significant risk to firefighters and it is the responsibility of the incident commander and command organization officers to minimize firefighter exposure to unsafe conditions and stop unsafe practices.
    • The fire service has always been a para-military organization when it comes to fireground operations. In most cases, the Incident Commander makes a decision, sends the order down to through supervisors to the company officer and crew.
    • Fire crews generally view these orders as top down direction. There is often little two‐way discussion about options.
    • Where this culture exists, crews have been trained to accept the order and do it – generally without question.
    • While these orders may be viewed as valid when issued they may involve inadequate risk assessment.
    • There has been little national development of basic “rules” that the incident command should use in defining risk assessment process and what is too high risk that may result in a “no-go” decision.
    • Furthermore, for the individual firefighter who is exposed to the greatest risk, we have not defined “rules” for them to follow in assessing their individual risk and when and how to say “no” to unsafe conditions or practices. The “Rules of Engagement” changes that.
    • The “Rules of Engagement” have been developed to assist both the incident command (as well as command team officers) in risk assessment and “Go” – “No-Go” decisions. Applying the rules will make the fireground safer for all and reduce injuries and fatalities.

     

    The development of the rules integrated several nationally recognized programs and principles. They included risk assessment principles from NFPA Standards 1500 and 1561.

    Also included where concepts and principles from Crew Resource Management (available from iafc.org) and data and lessons from the National Near-Miss Reporting System (firefighternearmiss.com).

    The development process also included review of lessons learned from numerous firefighter fatality investigations conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program.

    It’s incumbent that the fire chief and the Departments management team insure the safety of all firefighters working at structural fires.

    • All command organization officers are responsible for their own safety and the safety of all personnel working with them.
    • All officers and members are responsible are responsible for continually identifying and reporting unsafe conditions or practices.
    • The Rules of Engagement allows both the firefighter and the incident commander to apply and process these principles.
    • One principle applied in the Rules of Engagement is firefighters and the company officers are the members at most risk for injury or death.
    • The Rules integrate the firefighter into the risk assessment decision making process.
    • These members should be the ultimate decision maker as to whether it’s safe to proceed with assigned objectives.
    • The “Rules” allow a process for that decision to be made while still maintain command unity and discipline.

     

    Operational Excellence and the ROE

     

    The NEW Rules of Engagement

    It is well known that firefighting is hazardous with varying levels of risk to the firefighter.

    However, firefighting is not a military campaign where lives are lost to establish a beach head.

    No firefighter’s life is a building that eventually will be rebuilt. Keep all members safe so “Everyone Goes Home”!

    Rules of Engagement for Firefighter Survival

    • Size-Up Your Tactical Area of Operation.
    • Determine the Occupant Survival Profile.
    • DO NOT Risk Your Life for Lives or Property That Can Not Be Saved.
    • Extend LIMITED Risk to Protect SAVABLE Property.
    • Extend Vigilant and Measured Risk to Protect and Rescue SAVABLE Lives.
    • Go in Together, Stay Together, Come Out Together
    • Maintain Continuous Awareness of Your Air Supply, Situation, Location and Fire Conditions.
    • Constantly Monitor Fireground Communications for Critical Radio Reports.
    • You Are Required to Report Unsafe Practices or Conditions That Can Harm You. Stop, Evaluate and Decide.
    • You Are Required to Abandon Your Position and Retreat Before Deteriorating Conditions Can Harm You.
    • Declare a May Day As Soon As You THINK You Are in Danger. 

    The Incident Commanders Rules of Engagement for Firefighter Safety

    • Rapidly Conduct, or Obtain, a 360 Degree Size‐Up of the Incident.
    • Determine the Occupant Survival Profile.
    • Conduct an Initial Risk Assessment and Implement a SAFE ACTION PLAN.
    • If You Do Not Have The Resources to Safely Support and Protect Firefighters – Seriously Consider a Defensive Strategy.
    • DO NOT Risk Firefighter Lives for Lives or Property That Can Not Be Saved – Seriously Consider a Defensive Strategy.
    • Extend LIMITED Risk to Protect SAVABLE Property.
    • Extend Vigilant and Measured Risk to Protect and Rescue SAVABLE Lives.
    • Act Upon Reported Unsafe Practices and Conditions That Can Harm Firefighters. Stop, Evaluate and Decide.
    • Maintain Frequent Two‐Way Communications and Keep Interior Crews Informed of Changing Conditions.
    • Obtain Frequent Progress Reports and Revise the Action Plan.
    • Ensure Accurate Accountability of All Firefighter Location and Status.
    • If, After Completing the Primary Search, Little or No Progress Towards Fire Control Has Been Achieved -Seriously Consider a Defensive Strategy.
    • Always Have a Rapid Intervention Team in Place at All Working Fires
    • Always Have Firefighter Rehab Services in Place at All Working Fires

      

     
     
     

    ROE Fire Fighter

     

      

      

    ROE Command

     

    Other ROE Insights

    Size-Up Your Tactical Area of Operation.

    Objective:    To cause the company officer and firefighters to pause for a moment and look over their area of operation and evaluate their individual risk exposure and determine a safe approach to completing their assigned tactical objectives.

    Rapidly Conduct, or Obtain, a 360 Degree Situational Size Up of the Incident

    Objective:    To cause the incident commander to obtain an early 360 degree survey and risk assessment of the fireground in order to determine the safest approach to tactical operations as part the risk assessment and action plan development and before firefighters are placed at substantial risk.

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Determine the Occupant Survival Profile.

    Objective: To cause the company officer and firefighter to consider fire conditions in relation to possible occupant survival of a rescue event as part of their initial and ongoing individual risk assessment and action plan development.

      

    Determine the Occupant Survival Profile.

    Objective: To cause the incident commander to consider fire conditions in relation to possible occupant survival of a rescue event before committing firefighters to high risk search and rescue operations as part of the initial and ongoing risk assessment and action plan development.

      

    Go in Together, Stay Together, Come Out Together

    Objective: To ensure that firefighters always enter a burning building as a team of two or more members and no firefighter is allowed to be alone at any time while entering, operating in or exiting a building. 

      

    Maintain Continuous Awareness of Your Air Supply, Situation, Location and Fire Conditions

    Objective: To cause all firefighters and company officers to maintain constant situational awareness their SCBA air supply and where they are in the building and all that is happening in their area of operations and elsewhere on the fireground that may affect their risk and safety.

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    You Are Required to Report Unsafe Practices or Conditions That Can Harm You. Stop, Evaluate, and Decide.

    Objective: To prevent company officers and firefighters from engaging in unsafe practices or exposure to unsafe conditions that can harm them and allowing any member to raise an alert about a safety concern without penalty and mandating the supervisor address the question to ensure safe operations.

      

    Act Upon Reported Unsafe Practices and Conditions That Can Harm Them. Stop, Evaluate and Decide.

    Objective: To prevent firefighters and supervisors from engaging in unsafe practices or exposure to unsafe conditions that will harm them and allowing any member to raise an alert about a safety concern without penalty and mandating the incident commander and command organization officers promptly address the question to insure safe operations. 

    ______________________________________________________________________________  

    Declare a May-Day As Soon As You THINK You Are in Danger

    Objective: To ensure the firefighter is comfortable with, and there is no delay in, declaring a May Day when a firefighter is faced with a life threatening situation and the May Day is declared as soon as they THINK they are in trouble.

      

    Always Have a Rapid Intervention Team in Place at All Working Fires.

    Objective: To cause the incident commander to have a rapid intervention team in place ready to rescue firefighters at all working fires.

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Ensure Accurate Accountability of Every Firefighter Location and Status

    Objective: To cause the incident commander, and command organization officers, to maintain a constant and accurate accountability of the location and status of all firefighters within a small geographic area of accuracy within the hazard zone and aware of who is presently in or out of the building.

    If You Do Not Have the Resources to Safely Support and Protect Firefighters, Seriously Consider a Defensive Strategy

    Objective: To prevent the commitment of firefighters to high risk tactical objectives that cannot be accomplished safely due to inadequate resources on the scene.

    SOPs/SOGs

    Rules of Engagement for Structural Firefighting (pdf)

    Risk Management

    General Order: Two-In, Two-Out Compliance, Rapid Intervention Team, and Firefighter Survival

    Emergency Evacuation
    This policy identifies a standard system for the emergency evacuation of personnel at an emergency incident or training exercise.

    Fire and Rescue Departments of Northern Virginia – Rapid Intervention Team Command and Operational Procedures
    A collaborative RIT manual developed by fire and rescue departments in Northern Virginia. Promotes interoperability between multiple fire agencies.

    Lost or Trapped Firefighters
    This policy identifies the required actions for the search and rescue of lost or trapped firefighter(s).

    Model Procedures for Responding to a Package with Suspicion of a Biological Threat
    Local and world events have placed the nation s emergency service at the forefront of homeland defense. The service must be aware that terrorists, both foreign and domestic, are continually testing the homeland defense system.

    Safety Initial Rapid Intervention Crew (IRIC)
    This policy establishes procedures for ensuring the highest level of safety when conducting interior operations in an atmosphere that is Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH).

    Safety Rapid Intervention Team (RIT)
    This policy establishes the department s criteria and procedures for Rapid Intervention Teams.

      

    Operational Excellence in 2011 and Beyond

      

    Taking It To The Streets: My Closing Commentary and The Rules of Combat Fire Suppression  

    The essence of fire service suppression operations is predicated upon the deployment and application of water as an extinguishing agent, in sufficient quantities, location and duration to extinguish a fire within an enclosed structural compartment. The universal engine company correlation of: “putting the wet stuff on the red stuff” is fundamental to structural fire suppression operations but is ambiguous at best in the context of today’s modern building construction, occupancies, structural systems and building features. 

    We used to discern with a measured degree of predictability, how buildings would perform, react and fail under most fire conditions. Implementing fundamentals of firefighting and engine company operations built upon eight decades of time tested and experience proven strategies and tactics continues to be the model of suppression operations. These same fundamental strategies continue to drive methodologies and curriculums in our current training programs and academies of instructions.

    The lack of appreciation and the understanding of correlating principles involving fire behavior, fuel and rate of heat release and the growth stages of compartment fires within a structural occupancy are the defining paths from which the fire service must reexamine engine company operations in order to identify with the predictability of occupancy performance during fire suppression operations thus increasing suppression effectiveness and firefighter safety.

    Our buildings have changed; the structural systems of support, the degree of compartmentation, the characteristics of materials and the magnitude of fire loading. The structural anatomy, predictability of building performance under fire conditions, structural integrity and the extreme fire behavior; accelerated growth rate and intensively levels typically encountered in buildings of modern construction during initial and sustained fire suppression have given new meaning to the term combat fire engagement.

    The rules for combat structural fire suppression have changed, but we have yet to write the rule book from which the new games plans must be derived…..

    However, we now have a new set of Rules for Engagement….

    • The Incident Commanders Rules of Engagement for Firefighter Safety
    • Rules of Engagement for Firefighter Survival
    • Tactical Renaissance ……….Tactical Patience

    …….integrate cutting edge research and emerging concepts on Tactical Patience, Tactical Entertainment, Command Compression, Structural Anatomy of Buildings, Five Star Command Model, Predicative Strategic Process, refined Tactical Deployment Models integrating intelligent Structural Anatomy and Predictive Occupancy Profiling and Integrating the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT for Structural Firefighting much more.  

    It’s really all about Fighting Fire with More Knowledge and smartly

      

     

    Taking it to the Streets with Christopher Naum

       

    Taking it to the StreetsTM, radio program hosted by highly regarded national instructor, author, lecturer and fire officer Christopher Naum, continues to provide provocative insights and dynamic discussions with leading national fire service leaders and guests on important issues affecting the American Fire Service with applications internationally within the tradition and brotherhood of the Fire Service.

     

    Taking it to the Streets “Tactical Renaissance and the Rules of Engagement”

    Podcast: Play in new window | Download

    Share

    This is the netcast which was offered live on September 22, 2010. Taking it to the Streets “Tactical Renaissance and the Rules of Engagement” Chief Gary Morris (ret) Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department, and Dr. Burt Clark from the NFA join Chris Naum as they discuss the emerging Tactical Renaissance of Combat Fire Suppression Operations [...]

    Taking it to the StreetsTM is a monthly radio show featured on BlogTalk Radio and is hosted by nationally renowned fire service leader Christopher Naum, a  36-year fire service veteran and highly regarded national instructor, author, lecturer and fire officer and  the distinguished leading  national authority on building construction and fire ground operations.  Taking it to the StreetsTM is a Buildingsonfire.com Series and FireFighternetcast.com Production,   © 2011 All Rights Reserved 

    Check out the latest downloads of recent programs in the archives by visiting Taking it to the Street’s webpage on Firefighternetcast.com or for program insights at CommandSafety.com.    

    • Firefighternetcast.com HERE
    • Taking it to the Streets Radio Programs, HERE and HERE 
    • Buildingsonfire.com, HERE

      

    A Buildingsonfire.com Series and Firefighter Netcast.com Production

    Taking it to the StreetsTM  with Christopher Naum
     
     

    Listen to all of the Taking It To The Streets shows here

     On the Air Monthly on Firefighter Netcast.com

    Advancing Firefighter Safety and Operational Integrity for the Fire Service through provocative insights and dynamic discussions dedicated to the Art and Science of Firefighting and the Traditions of the Fire Service.

     

    2nd San Francisco Firefighter Dies After Diamond Heights Fire

    2 comments

    SFFD Firefighter Anthony Valerio

    It’s being reported that San Francisco Fire Fighter Anthony Valerio passed away this morning as a result of injuries sustained while operating the Diamond Heights fire on Thursday June 2nd. This becomes the second line of duty death from this incident that also resulted in the LODD of Lt. Vincent Perez.  Anthony “Tony” Valerio, a 53-year-old firefighter and paramedic critically injured in the Thursday blaze, died at San Francisco General Hospital at about 7:40 a.m., city officials said.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/04/BA2F1JPNS2.DTL#ixzz1OKjGjnNs

    San Francisco firefighter Anthony Valerio is the second firefighter to die from Thursday’s Diamond Heights fire.  According to San Francisco Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White, Valerio had “significant damage to his respiratory system” and burns across his body after Thursday’s fire. Valerio has burns to 12 percent of his body.

     WKGO TV  ABC7 reports that according to San Francisco Fire Deputy Chief Mike Gardner said most of Fire Fighter Valerio’s burns were from steam and not from fire, adding that the temperature inside the structure was between 500 and 700 degrees.

    Previous Coverage, HERE, HERE and HERE

    • Logs show desperate hunt for doomed SF firefighters, HERE

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/03/BAJG1JPBKV.DTL#ixzz1OKn7vgot

    From Thursday

    San Francisco FD: The Diamond Heights Fire Updates

    5 comments
     
    Courtesy Patty Stanton

     

    Courtesy Patty Stanton

     

    Courtesy Patty Stanton

     

    Updates from San Francisco;

     

    Charlie Side

     

    Charlie Side, Fire Extending

     

    Alpha Street Side from Google Streets

     

    Aerial Charlie Side

     

    Coincidentially, we posted a remembrance to the DCFD Cherry Road Townhouse Fire and Double FireFighter LODD from May, 1999 that is worth another look as it has similar connotations related to fire behavior, flashover conditions and multiple floor level construction factors during initial fire suppression operations, HERE

    Flags at the NFFF Memorial; SFFD LODD

    3 comments

    National Fallen Fire Fighters Memorial this morning

    The flags at the National Fallen Fire Fighter Memorial at the National Fire Academy are once again lowered this morning as a result of the line of duty death of Lieutenant Vincent Perez of the San Francisco (CA) Fire Department as a result of injuries sustained while conducting  fire suppression operations in a residential occupancy on June 2, 2011.  More on the incident HERE.

    Lt. Vincent Perez, San Francisco FD

    Another SFFD Fire Fighter Anthony Valerio, 53, is still in critical condition at San Francisco General Hospital’s intensive care unit with severe burns as a result of operations in the same fire.

    Firefighter Anthony Valerio remains in critical condition

    Being on campus this week at the NFA, there is seldom a time in which the flags are at full staff, and if so, its for a short time span. We should take pause and reflect on our job as fire fighters this morning and keep our brothers and sisters of the San Francisco Fire Department and these firefighter’s families in our thoughts and prayers.

    The demands and requirements of modern firefighting will continue to require the placement of personnel within situations and buildings that carry risk, uncertainty and inherent danger in order for  us to carry out our mission, goals and objectives, because of who we are; Fire Fighters.

    Other Links;

    Update:

    • The fire was first reported around 10:45 a.m. in a four-story home in the 100 block of Berkeley Way, according to San Francisco Fire Lt. Mindy Talmadge.
    • Perez, Valerio and an unidentified female firefighter were inside the structure fighting what was described as an “aggressive fire” when an emergency alarm beacon attached to the active department employees went off, according to Talmadge.
    • Staff tried to contact the firefighter, but was unable to do so.
    • The communications center then notified the command staff of the problem.\Additional crew members were sent in, and they found two firefighters down and “pretty badly burned,” Talmadge said.
    • Perez and Valerio were pulled out of the burning building, the woman walked out on her own.
    • Perez later went into full cardiac arrest after suffering burns and smoke inhalation during the morning blaze,  Hayes-White said at a news conference outside San Francisco General Hospital.

     

    Side Charlie Balcony, Photo Jeff Chiu/AP

    AP Photo/Patty Stanton

     

    SFFD

    San Francisco FD Flashover LODD, two others injured

    3 comments

    San Francisco firefighters carry one of their own from the scene of a house blaze today in the Diamond Heights neighborhood. Patty Stanton / Special to The Chronicle

    San Francisco (CA) Fire Department Lt. Vincent Perez, 48, died in the line of duty during fire suppression operations trying to extinguish a fire at a four-story residential occupancy in the Diamond Heights section of San Francisco. FF Anthony Valerio, 53, is reported in critical condition at San Francisco General Hospital’s intensive care unit with severe burns.

    According to published reports, a third firefighter was treated and released for minor burns and smoke inhalation, Talmadge said. Her name was not released.

    The single family home was constructed in 1975 and has 2058 square foot of living space,  3 bedrooms and 3.0 bathrooms.

    by Mark (via uReport) ( Photo)

    Alpha Street Side

     

     

    San Francisco Chronical; S.F. firefighter dies, second fighting for life; Article and Photos HERE