Author Topic: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard  (Read 43172 times)

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2011, 10:10:44 PM »
My username relates directly to what i read on this forum.
And you numbers, illustrate this perfectly.Full of theories, pity you werent in a position to try them and then you may see just how amateur hour you sound.

And we were just having this nice little discussion about fire fighting...

Sorry to offend you with my inexperienced, non-urban brigade amateur hour "theories" :)
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline bittenyakka

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,342
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2011, 01:52:31 PM »
Stop slagging of at each other.


unfknblvable  would you care to pleas explain yourself? It doesn;t take much to cause cables to drop from a cealing and i am sure it can happen well before the structure is unsafe.

Numbers, As for tools in my pockets it is usally the whole radiant heat on a metal tool not that this has ever been an issue for me.

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2011, 06:41:07 PM »
Stop slagging of at each other.

unfknblvable  would you care to pleas explain yourself? It doesn;t take much to cause cables to drop from a cealing and i am sure it can happen well before the structure is unsafe.

Numbers, As for tools in my pockets it is usally the whole radiant heat on a metal tool not that this has ever been an issue for me.

I can see the concern, but it's not something I have ever experienced myself (even in a CFBT cell) or read about occurring. If your tools are getting hot enough to burn you through your structural ensemble, I'd suggest you've got bigger problems than just your tools burning you.
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

Offline BundyBear

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #28 on: May 27, 2011, 02:58:11 PM »
The initial thread described a suspended ceiling, which its frame work is made from light gauge steel or aluminium. The ceiling tiles are either a mineral fibre, vinyl wrapped plasterboard or heavier acoustic tiles with a plaster outer and fiberglass inner. If this fell on you it would be relatively easy to remove. If a plasterboard ceiling fell on you once again easy to break up and remove, the only concern is if the trusses lost their integrity and the ceiling, timber frame work, tiles or metal roof sheets came in on you all at once but you have to ask the question how well did you size up the incident before you committed crews offensively to an interior?

As for entanglement in wires etc if you lay on your side and get your arms out in front of you you can push the wires up and down to you knees and wriggle forward. Some fire services train their fire fighters in such scenario's.

As for getting help and setting off DSU's, why not use that VHF radio that you should have clipped to your CABA set's harness!



Offline jaff

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2011, 01:20:11 AM »
The BA ready response crew needs to attach the snatchem strap around the entraped operators ankles in preparation for rapid extraction technique 2b!
Just Another Filtered Fireman

Offline jaff

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2011, 01:24:17 AM »
Sorry should of mentioned 2b states that helmet chin straps may need to be tightened on structural helmets, before "rapid extraction is attempted"
Just Another Filtered Fireman

unfknblvable

  • Guest
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2011, 12:00:48 PM »
Or you could read SAMFS SOP 14 Rapid Intervention Team, been in vogue for a couple of years.
Oh sorry forgot the yellow gang cant do what the Mets do!!! LOL

flyonthewall

  • Guest
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #32 on: May 28, 2011, 12:24:55 PM »
There are some reasonable points made here but...........

Do not compare the Australian fire services to the US services.

The US do things COMPLETELY different to us. They go into structures that are carparks when they arrive.

flyonthewall

  • Guest
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #33 on: May 28, 2011, 01:56:43 PM »
Quote
Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« on: May 07, 2011, 10:37:51 PM »  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're fighting a fire in a medium sized commercial premises. The ceiling falls in on you and your partner. In the mess of ceiling tiles and assorted debris lies bundles and bundles of electrical, telephone, network, and other assorted cabling. The airconditioner ductwork has burnt through to its metal ribbing and has falling in on you as well.

You and your partner are stuck, and massively entangled. You've got a minimum amount of movement but its obvious that you're not going anywhere fast. Visibility is low, as always. You've been in there a while, and your cylinder is emptying by the breath.

What do you do?

I would.......first try to find out if my buddy is OK. Secondly, follow the 'mayday' procedure. I would then attempt to conserve my air.

I know what you are getting at numbers.

But, If you have had no training, then you should not be there in the fist place. If you do not know what the 'Mayday' procedure is ,then again, you should not be there.

If this was in MFS area, then there are problems using the CFS due to the equipment compatability with MFS equipment and Vice Versa.

I hope this has satisfied your fishing trip! The worms will come out of the can and dance to the sound of a broken record if you keep pushing.





« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 02:07:18 PM by flyonthewall »

unfknblvable

  • Guest
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #34 on: May 28, 2011, 02:47:55 PM »
Those who are actually proficient in the use of BA are,during their annual reaccredit, including RIT scenarios to ensure all are proficient in RIT methods.
SO T. Cox is the instructor who no doubt can enlighten you!
 :?

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #35 on: May 28, 2011, 03:38:49 PM »
Or you could read SAMFS SOP 14 Rapid Intervention Team, been in vogue for a couple of years.
Oh sorry forgot the yellow gang cant do what the Mets do!!! LOL

Yep, it's tough that services don't want to share information, nor do they actively seek out what other services, both in SA and elsewhere in the country, are doing.

There are some reasonable points made here but...........

Do not compare the Australian fire services to the US services.

The US do things COMPLETELY different to us. They go into structures that are carparks when they arrive.


Totally correct. Houses of ordinary burn differently, tilt slabs collapse differently, and firefighters get stuck differently. Are you sure about that?

Also to compare the "US" is rather difficult. Which departments are you referring to? Its like calling all Australian services the same. We certainly know that they're not.

The US, typically, are far more aggressive in their firefighting style, sure, and this does lend itself to some practices that are unsafe and do lead to line of duty deaths. But shouldn't we look to departments that are trying to mitigate the risks that their members are exposed to for ideas on how to mitigate these same risks here?

For example, say you have a Fire Service that has a house collapse, causing some deaths and injuries. It comes out in investigations that having a "Safety Officer" would have prevented the deaths/injuries by observing the signs of collapse. Now, should our Fire Service (that doesn't use a "Safety Officer") wait until it too suffers deaths and injuries too investigate and then learn that using a "Safety Officer" could have prevented them? Or should our Fire Service implement a Safety Officer based on what has occurred and been previously learn by the other Fire Service?

Why do we all insist on learning our own lessons, paying the price in deaths and injuries?

To say that we CANNOT compare, nor learn anything from the US phenomenal, given that they are lightyears ahead of us in terms of PPE and RIT. Let's not ignore them just because they have some different procedures to the Aus/European way of doing things.

I know what you are getting at numbers.

But, If you have had no training, then you should not be there in the fist place. If you do not know what the 'Mayday' procedure is ,then again, you should not be there.

If this was in MFS area, then there are problems using the CFS due to the equipment compatibility with MFS equipment and Vice Versa.

I hope this has satisfied your fishing trip! The worms will come out of the can and dance to the sound of a broken record if you keep pushing.

I'm not trying to "get" at anything beyond trying to see what people are thinking about in an area that has been largely ignored by CFS. If we learn some bits and pieces along the way, then that's a bonus.

Certainly no fishing trip, I was looking forward to the discussion, but sadly it seems as though its turned into a SAMFS vs SACFS cock measuring contest.

Those who are actually proficient in the use of BA are,during their annual reaccredit, including RIT scenarios to ensure all are proficient in RIT methods.
SO T. Cox is the instructor who no doubt can enlighten you!
 :?

Could you enlighten us as to these "RIT Methods" you speak of?
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

flyonthewall

  • Guest
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #36 on: May 28, 2011, 05:30:37 PM »
Quote
For example, say you have a Fire Service that has a house collapse, causing some deaths and injuries. It comes out in investigations that having a "Safety Officer" would have prevented the deaths/injuries by observing the signs of collapse. Now, should our Fire Service (that doesn't use a "Safety Officer") wait until it too suffers deaths and injuries too investigate and then learn that using a "Safety Officer" could have prevented them? Or should our Fire Service implement a Safety Officer based on what has occurred and been previously learn by the other Fire Service?


The MFS would have a safety officer at this particular incident, so I'm not sure about the CFS?


Quote
Certainly no fishing trip, I was looking forward to the discussion, but sadly it seems as though its turned into a SAMFS vs SACFS cock measuring contest.

No one turned this into an MFS vs CFS cock measuring contest.



Quote
If this was in MFS area, then there are problems using the CFS due to the equipment compatability with MFS equipment and Vice Versa.

Can you tell me if the CFS log onto their airsets?
Would their DSU work and show up on the tablet that was being used at this incident as a personal activation?
If an entry control board was in use (which I'm presuming it would be), do the CFS set tallies fit into an MFS enrty control board?
Or would an MFS tally fit into a CFS board?

Sure, you can pull out your leatherman and try to cut yourself free but there is a procedure that should be followed which would be part of my escape plan.

This is not a CFS vs MFS post. You have asked what would the firefighter do. If an MFS firefighter was stuck, I would hope that they would do the same as a CFS firefighter. All that I have said is that I would instigate a 'Mayday" and take it from there, once again, this is what I would do.

Quote
Could you enlighten us as to these "RIT Methods" you speak of?

As per a RIT team, a crew (of 4)is put aside and designated as a RIT team that is only used for an emergency rescue with a complete set of rescue resources eg. stretcher, tools, cutting gear and anything that may be needed to effect a rescue. This team is not used for any firefighting.

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #37 on: May 28, 2011, 05:53:06 PM »
Or you could read SAMFS SOP 14 Rapid Intervention Team, been in vogue for a couple of years.
Oh sorry forgot the yellow gang cant do what the Mets do!!! LOL

More like not allowed to....need to re-invent the wheel

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #38 on: May 28, 2011, 05:58:13 PM »
Further more, this comes back to my post under training " CFS have no urban firefighting courses"

EVERYTHING we talk about here is learnt on the job, and its a freakin joke!!

Thankgod some of us learn our craft elsewhere.

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #39 on: May 29, 2011, 09:46:07 AM »
Quote
For example, say you have a Fire Service that has a house collapse, causing some deaths and injuries. It comes out in investigations that having a "Safety Officer" would have prevented the deaths/injuries by observing the signs of collapse. Now, should our Fire Service (that doesn't use a "Safety Officer") wait until it too suffers deaths and injuries too investigate and then learn that using a "Safety Officer" could have prevented them? Or should our Fire Service implement a Safety Officer based on what has occurred and been previously learn by the other Fire Service?


The MFS would have a safety officer at this particular incident, so I'm not sure about the CFS?

You've totally misunderstood my point. I'm not talking about any services in particular, merely trying to ask why is it that we can't learn from the mistakes made and lessons learnt by other services in the world, rather than wait for the same set of circumstances to occur in our own service. At the end of the day we all do a similar job, are exposed to similar risks, and one would think that we could mitigate these risks in a similar manner. It was an example. You could substitute "Coffe Truck" for "Safety Officer".

It also goes without saying, if you read CFS Operational Management literature, that the CFS should have a safety officer at incidents, although as we all have experienced, how often does this actually happen?

Quote
Certainly no fishing trip, I was looking forward to the discussion, but sadly it seems as though its turned into a SAMFS vs SACFS cock measuring contest.

No one turned this into an MFS vs CFS cock measuring contest.

Are you sure about that? I'm getting a very hostile CFS vs. MFS feeling from certain people.

Quote
If this was in MFS area, then there are problems using the CFS due to the equipment compatability with MFS equipment and Vice Versa.

Can you tell me if the CFS log onto their airsets?
Would their DSU work and show up on the tablet that was being used at this incident as a personal activation?
If an entry control board was in use (which I'm presuming it would be), do the CFS set tallies fit into an MFS enrty control board?
Or would an MFS tally fit into a CFS board?

I'm slightly confused here, as you've quoted yourself and then argued against a point that was never made, but anyhow:

(Obviously you well know the answers)

You essentially "log in" to a CFS airset when you fill out a tally tag. No, its not a telemetry system as MFS run, but assuming you have a  switched on ECO/BACO it works.

Of course CFS DSU's work, but you well know that they won't show up on the tablet that is monitoring a system that they aren't part of. That's like asking will an Incident Report that you hand write show up on CRIIMSON if you wave it in front of a PC monitor. Of course not.

In a perfect world we would all use one system, but in the meantime, doesn't the system still work using different tally boards? Can't one ECO/BACO monitor multiple boards? It's a basic skill, but the issue should be rectified.

This is perfect example of where CFS can implement a procedure without having to endure a costly lesson. We know that BA tally's don't fit MFS to CFS or even between CFS Brigades in certain groups. Why not work to resolve this before something happens, like we lose a tally, that person gets lost and is thus missed in an accountability check?


Sure, you can pull out your leatherman and try to cut yourself free but there is a procedure that should be followed which would be part of my escape plan.

This is not a CFS vs MFS post. You have asked what would the firefighter do. If an MFS firefighter was stuck, I would hope that they would do the same as a CFS firefighter. All that I have said is that I would instigate a 'Mayday" and take it from there, once again, this is what I would do.

I wasn't suggesting that you were getting into a CFS vs. MFS post, although small parts of it do read that way. Can't we discuss different methods, including RIT here? Actually having people share personal experiences and what their agency manages to do? God forbid we might all learn something here, both the "professionals" and the "amateurs".

Of you original post, the only part I disagreed with was your assertion that we should not compare ourselves to what occurs in the USA, and we cannot learn anything from their mistakes and the changes to firefighting equipment/policy and procedures that some parts of the USA has implemented. Totally agree with your suggestion of entrapment procedure, etc. Although I'd say that given you follow you agencies SOP for entrapment procedure, there is no reason you can't attempt to effect self rescue, rather than lay like a limp fish in what may end up being an easily escapable entanglement.

Quote
Could you enlighten us as to these "RIT Methods" you speak of?

As per a RIT team, a crew (of 4)is put aside and designated as a RIT team that is only used for an emergency rescue with a complete set of rescue resources eg. stretcher, tools, cutting gear and anything that may be needed to effect a rescue. This team is not used for any firefighting.

I was asking the ever so enlightened name dropper unfknblvable to help us through these MFS RIT methods, but thanks for jumping in. It seems a pretty standard RIT setup, although I'm assuming the RIT officer is completing their own RIT specific size-up and appropriate staging etc etc?

Wind me up and watch me go!
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

flyonthewall

  • Guest
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #40 on: May 29, 2011, 02:35:00 PM »
Can I ask how many of you have been into a serious structure fire?

I know this is going be taken the wrong way but it's a genuine question.

Offline 6739264

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,806
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • RETARD RETARD RETARD Need I say more?
    • View Profile
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #41 on: May 29, 2011, 03:48:30 PM »
Can I ask how many of you have been into a serious structure fire?

I know this is going be taken the wrong way but it's a genuine question.


It's also a very valid question.

It'll be interesting to see the varying definitions of "serious". Is a room and contents "serious"? Or is going in for a marginal S&R run "serious"?

And to answer the question, oddly enough, yes.
To think they employed me as a drooling retard...

flyonthewall

  • Guest
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #42 on: May 29, 2011, 04:41:46 PM »
Fair enough question about "serious".

 A medium sized commercial premises. Partially involved.


Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #43 on: May 30, 2011, 10:12:29 AM »
Quote
Could you enlighten us as to these "RIT Methods" you speak of?

As per a RIT team, a crew (of 4)is put aside and designated as a RIT team that is only used for an emergency rescue with a complete set of rescue resources eg. stretcher, tools, cutting gear and anything that may be needed to effect a rescue. This team is not used for any firefighting.

When is the RIT set up?  Is this only for commercial fires, or all fires where crews are inside a structure?  If you have a relatively small domestic fire where you only have 2 operators committed, would the standby crew outside have tools ready in case something goes wrong? (or would you have a 4 member RIT at the ready?)

Also, does anyone know where one can get a copy of the SAMFS SOPs?

flyonthewall

  • Guest
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2011, 10:07:02 AM »
I'm at a loss for words.

Obviously there is something missing from your Command and Control at incidents and who is enforcing it.

« Last Edit: May 31, 2011, 10:17:50 AM by flyonthewall »

Offline CFS_Firey

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #45 on: May 31, 2011, 11:09:17 AM »
I'm at a loss for words.

Obviously there is something missing from your Command and Control at incidents and who is enforcing it.


Que?

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #46 on: May 31, 2011, 11:54:09 AM »
Quote
Could you enlighten us as to these "RIT Methods" you speak of?

As per a RIT team, a crew (of 4)is put aside and designated as a RIT team that is only used for an emergency rescue with a complete set of rescue resources eg. stretcher, tools, cutting gear and anything that may be needed to effect a rescue. This team is not used for any firefighting.

When is the RIT set up?  Is this only for commercial fires, or all fires where crews are inside a structure?  If you have a relatively small domestic fire where you only have 2 operators committed, would the standby crew outside have tools ready in case something goes wrong? (or would you have a 4 member RIT at the ready?)

Also, does anyone know where one can get a copy of the SAMFS SOPs?

For MFS, generally at B or A risk greater alarms only.

For CFS, never seen it done properly.

flyonthewall

  • Guest
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #47 on: May 31, 2011, 02:32:20 PM »
I wouldn't be in there in the first place.......... :-o



Offline bittenyakka

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,342
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #48 on: May 31, 2011, 02:54:52 PM »
I think it is a fair question to ask a question and get a proper answer. Rather than take a dig at eh CFS for not having much of a RIT plan how about suggesting what brigades can do with what is currently available to them.

Unfortunately for multiple reasons we haven’t considered RIT a high priority to allocate resources to implement. Rightly or wrongly this is the fact and what Ideas can you offer other Fire-fighters to improve the status qou

misterteddy

  • Guest
Re: Structure Fire Entanglement Hazard
« Reply #49 on: May 31, 2011, 09:06:24 PM »
I wouldn't be in there in the first place.......... :-o




ahhh well...I hear the Salvos are always looking for volunteers for the lunch wagon, so you can still feel involved

 

anything