Jump to content

Wet Stuff on Hot Stuff


Recommended Posts

Instead of posting this in Operational Topics, I thought I would throw this one in here. You will see why as I move on.

In GMFRS we are currently sending all our crews on 1 Day BA courses, as we have done previously. However, there is a twist in this one and Im curious as to whether other services are doing the same. 

Over the past few years, gas cooling was the main topic and we were taught to cool doors, crack doors open, gas cool and the list goes on. Along with this came the painting of doors and hanging of ceilings as it was more commonly known. All in all, this was the new way in which we were now to tackle compartment fires compared to sticking a jet through the window and getting on with it. However, in reality, this was what continued I think.

Moving on to the new 1 day BA, we are now teaching what we used to do, straight off the pump and get some water on the job as quickly as possible even if that means sticking a jet through the window. Of course I have simplified the above to make a point.

However, we do seem to be going back to basics on putting the wet stuff on the hot stuff. Speed and weight of attack anyone ;)

  • Kudos 1
Link to comment

It’s actually a valid tactic and one that the 'old hands' despite their protestations have been doing for many years. Historic photographs, now widely available and frequently posted on the internet prove the point. The way it was thought about and the implication of "putting a fire out from the outside" may not have been what it was called or considered as.

However, it has been used for generations, probably to be fair without any scientific consideration but always to gather up a 'runaway' fire with a tank of water and a high flow jet and bring it back within the control of the first arriving attendance. As long as you don't push a wide angled spray pattern though an opening, the belief that putting water on from the outside will 'spread' the fire and make conditions for anyone trapped inside worse is nonsense. A straight jet will knock down the progress of the fire in a way that far outweighs any minor effect of pushing the products of combustion further into uninvolved areas. Any anyone trapped within the flow path (the path that the products take whether they are spreading by fire growth or by products 'pushed' by a jet) is in all probability in a bad place with limited survivability. If they are elsewhere and trapped but relatively safe because they are behind a fire door or other means of compartmentation... then the same rules apply. If the fire growth isn't directly affecting them, nor will the results of a jet.

The biggest critics of the so called 'hit it hard from the yard' tactic... the US Fire Service have actually done a lot of ground work and disproved their own beliefs. FDNY among others, working with Underwriters Laboratories have done lots of research/training burns and proved the advantages against the perceived pitfalls.

From my own point of view, I was taught to 'stick a jet on it' in my part of London at fires that were well vented and spreading to buy us a few minutes while BA crews started up and water supplies were secured. Off the top of my head, I can think straight away of four of five jobs I have done this as a Firefighter and as many where I've asked for it to be done as a JO.

I think what has happened is younger officers, who are going into training to work as BAI’s etc. Now looking at research, fire behaviour, flow paths and other science have come to a theoretical conclusion that tactics previously employed by busy City Firefighters without research or understanding but with experience of ‘what works’ and have effectively dusted off some old tools and put them back in the box. Long may it continue.

  • Like 1
  • Kudos 2
Link to comment

Agreed guv...only been in a short time but the older hands on my watch have shown me this technique (prior to the BA course) and I've used it in anger once...totally changed the situation we arrived at. 

Link to comment

When I joined in 1963 No5's first task on arrival at a that type of fire was pull off the pre-connected 45mm hose line and point it at the fire. Every pump had one ready in the bay and nothing had changed when I retired in 1990

The link appeared in the middle of the post 😕

Edited by Keith
Link fixed
Link to comment

I recently attended the new LFB 2 day BA course and the general gist, alongside the standard compartment gas cooling techniques, was trying to encourage firefighters to make an active decision to make a difference from the outside - not as the only method of extinguishing the fire, but as a lead up to BA entry and an initial attack on the fire. 

Echoing the points made above, we were shown the video (below) demonstrating the difference between a single jet through an opening (3min 55s) as opposed to putting a wide angle spray on a vent which has the effect of positively pressurising the fire back into the building  (2min 25s). Basically don't do this or bad things WILL happen, do this and good things COULD happen.

Some firefighters I've met (includong a lot of experienced senior hands) cant get their heads around it seeing it as a change and replacement to the gas cooling techniques always taught when in reality it's just an extra tactic being re taught to us. Another string to our bow if you will!

YouTube link

Link to comment

And so it goes....

"wet stuff on hot stuff"
 

"No its way more complicated than that! uni directional flowpaths, bi directional, heat release rate, thermal inversion, fan spray or jet etc etc"
 

......fire happens.....
 

"Sh1t there's smoke, what do I do now? ** rustles through a tattered Paul Grimwood book in tunic pocket**

*Jet goes through window*


"Hey, that worked alright, lets let Ops Development know and they can get a course designed!"

* subsequent job....*

"Ah ok we've just cooked that other BA team in sector three with our nice steamy flowpath we created"

"Ok, let OD know, they'll rustle up another training course"


I love the technical stuff but I'll be honest it makes me spin my wheels and overthink sometimes. Its a case of what works, where, and how much information you can gather on the incident ground.

On 27/10/2019 at 12:55, Steve said:

Any anyone trapped within the flow path (the path that the products take whether they are spreading by fire growth or by products 'pushed' by a jet) is in all probability in a bad place with limited survivability. If they are elsewhere and trapped but relatively safe because they are behind a fire door or other means of compartmentation... then the same rules apply. If the fire growth isn't directly affecting them, nor will the results of a jet.

I think that's the bottom line for me.

Im a big fan of simple measures like Fogspike, where we can at least take fire gases our of their flammable range without too much water usage. But if we are all about creating more survivable conditions and we can clearly make an intervention with a jet that will knock the damn fire back why not do it.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...