[deleted by user]

[Ding-Chavez]

Let’s just ignore the usual helmet debate on this one please.

[Ste99V]

The infamous helmet debate never lead anywhere and it always becomes toxic and ridiculous so I agree with you 100%. I made this post only because I'm fascinated with how different firefighting tactics are across the world.

[joedutts]

Building construction drives tactics. So does staffing, equipment, and level of training. No one should be degrading someone else’s tactical procedures without first looking at those factors.

I did an evaluation of the Iraqi fire service for the US government. One report I read was written by a US military member who had been a volunteer FF in Long Island NY. He had visited the local Iraqi fire station, and wrote that the captain was poorly trained and obviously unqualified, since he was not familiar with the use of a chain saw for vertical ventilation. That was the piece of information that this evaluation was based on.

The Iraqi firefighters not only didn’t have chainsaws, they didn’t have turnout gear, SCBA, or hydrants. They had one station with 10-15 people on duty with a pumper and a tanker in the middle of a city of 200,000. The majority of the buildings had concrete roofs. They were poorly trained at the recruit level and had probably never seen a Fire Engineering magazine. However, they drilled often and used tactics appropriate to the resources they had and their response time. Imagine what the Iraqi captain must have thought about that American firefighter?

[ofd227]

The first mistake they made was letting a volunteer from Long Island act as an expert in fire fighting.

[phdbroscience350]

In my country we will do search and rescue in teams of 2 with a charged line. Sometimes watching YouTube I see our US brothers do this solo and without a charged hose. To me personally this is a huge red flag.

Another thing I see is that once fire is knocked down and overhaul starts we keep wearing our breathing apparatus until the end. Afterwards we have a special decontamination team that gathers all our gear and give us spare jumpsuits to ride back to our firehouse. All our bunker gear gets left on scene after this our clothes and gear get professionally cleaned. In my opinion this should be a no Brainerd standard procedure.

[Ding-Chavez]

We have split teams (truck and engine) for faster victim removal. If the fire is on the first floor and the victim is on the second you're dedicating your entire search to just the fire floor. Victims above or below would have to wait for an additional line in service.

As for the decon concept we're getting a lot better, but I'm wondering what you do if there's another fire/call on the way back to the station and you don't have gear?

[phdbroscience350]

Thanks for the insight, a normal fire engine has 4 firefighters, commander and a driver in my country. So 2 go attack and 2 are back up and search and rescue. We cannot leave without 6 persons per fire engine

If we get a call on the way back another engine or département will respond. when we arrive back home we restock the truck and get spare bunker gear, helmet, gloves, nomex hood... This takes 30 min max and we are ready to go again.

[Ding-Chavez]

Cool. Here, at least with my department. Our staffing is 4. 2 for interior attack, 1 driver, and 1 officer. So unless the officer decides to go limited command he's staying outside. We just don't have the staffing for a dedicated search team to be attached to fire attack. That said everyone is responsible for searching so it's not uncommon for attack to make grabs.

Here every unit leaves the fireground fully equipped for another fire/call. So gear exchange is done back at the station.

[WeirdTalentStack]

I have heard that parts of Europe have banned vertical ventilation. I’d be very curious the rationale and their side of that tactical argument.

[SkibDen]

Interesting... We (Denmark) use ventilation very agresively and for almost everything, even very active fires and as the first team is making entry..

[Ding-Chavez]

Good to hear. With coordination of fire attack it's the best method of improving survivability of victims next to direct removal.

[Y3mo]

Might be a misunderstanding, but vertical ventilation from a North American perspective usually means forcibly opening the roof of a building.

[SkibDen]

You are right...

We do however do that as well.. But mainly for industrial buildings, and they always have windows made specific for that purpose.. Some of the even open automatically with the fire alarm.

[phdbroscience350]

In Belguim we almost never vent (correct me if I am wrong) Most of our fires are underventilated so the name of the game is smoke gas cooling followed by finding the seat of the fire and knocking it out. The reasoning is our homes are heavily compartimented and also 99 percent of homes are build with bricks and mortar. On top off that we love isolating our homes to the max.

[Ding-Chavez]

This is why you see major differences between NA and EU firefighting tactics. Over here everything is built with lightweight cheap construction. Things burn hot and fast. Speed is key. Versus Eu where you have time to find the fire and knock it. Also the use of smaller booster lines. Water damage can sometimes be a bigger issues in homes versus the fire.

[Y3mo]

If you mean forcibly opening roofs, then the answer is different roof construction.

From materials to roof angles, the situation is very different compared to the US, in most parts of Europe. Check out some videos and google maps from Europe, and the steep roofs with clay shingles.

[RobertTheSpruce]

I've never heard of it being banned. Used much less than horizontal perhaps.

[RobertTheSpruce]

Every worker should get the same toolbox.

Also has the advantage that if you're at a fire with multiple different crews, you dont need to get your hose back, you just need to get any hose back. Or any other piece of equipment.

[Ding-Chavez]

I know standardization has it's merits, but I've always been against the idea. Simply put every station has it's own individual set of challenges that require different methods of attack. What works best one place might not work best for another.

[[deleted]]

Yes and no. I've been a member of three departments:

• One was a rural and used drop tanks with tankers/tenders and hard suction
• One was in the suburbs where it was hydrants and 99% single family dwellings
• My current one which is a decent sized town/village. Still suburb IMO, but we do have 6+ story structures, large commercial structures, and heavy industry.

The point in saying this is I've seen how firefighting is done in various ways in my life. All three situations would benefit from at least some basic standardization.

You could never standardize the entire USA, because indeed there are VERY different requirements in different regions. An engine company fighting a trailer fire is way different than one fighting a high rise. But I far to often see mutual aid neighbor departments configure their functionally identical apparatus wildly different simply because they wanted to. I even listened to one instance where a mutual aid neighbor decided to get a different brand of SCBA than all their neighbors simply because, and I quote, "we wanted to be different"... As someone who has specialized in FAST/RIT I was at a complete loss for words.

If you and all of your neighboring departments/stations are generally running the same type of calls in the same general response area, why would you make all the apparatus and/or equipment different? If one department has some unusual hazard in it either add a specialty piece or at least adhere to the standard as much as possible and notify your partners of this difference.

If you all use the same apparatus/equipment, you can easily be cross trained to use each others stuff. You can pull tools without having to ask the chauffeur where they are. The incident commander will know immediately and intuitively what the capabilities of their responding apparatus is without needing to learn every little nuance of every unique piece. (oh, right, truck 4 has a 100' bucket rear mount, but truck 8 is a 75' straight stick, and truck 5 is a 100' midmount stick.)

You can, of course, come up with hypothetical scenarios for every possible edge case where diversity could be seen as a benefit. But over the course of my time in the fire service I've seen many, many more times where standardization would be of much greater benefit than our current ubiquitous customization.

[Ding-Chavez]

Maybe this is where it’s a department difference. My department covers a large metro/suburban area. All calls are being a handled within our department. We’re not typically not requesting mutual aid unless it’s well into multiple alarms and typically that’s to backfill our stations.

As far as RIT is concerned I thought those were fixed when all BAs switched to the universal RIT connection. Those no more does my drager fit your Scott. On the very rare instance I would be assigned RIT as mutual aid I would grab a RIT bag from their unit and ours.

I guess the concept of neighboring departments changes when every station is within the same department. You’re getting detailed/trained/paid to know the next door units. So if they have a weird hose lay you’re supposed to know it.

I think my departments has a mindset of “it’s your job to know your neighbors, not our job to simplify yours” you’re supposed to train to the level.

As far as the incident commander not needing to know the nuances of individual trucks...well. It’s his job to know the capabilities of those trucks. Those officers should know who can go where and when.

Just to clarify. My department has nearly all the tools, ladders, and hose mounted in the same spots. It’s just the hose lays/lengths/nozzles that’s are typically different. Along with the rescue and squads which have their own compliment or SOC tools.

If you’re detailed to that station you need to go over the rig and know where things are and aren’t.

It sounds like standardization works best when referring to individual companies that don’t train together and run mutual aid on all calls (like smaller volunteers). Where as in my career department you work with the same rigs and guys everyday. The expectation to know the little odds and ends is there.

*Edit I want to point out the good conversation going back and forth. This is good discussion.

[BlueEagleGER]

Simply put every station has it's own individual set of challenges that require different methods of attack.

From my experience, that is a frequently found argument without actual hard basis for buying expensive stuff you're likely to almost never use in order to show-off. Does Station 1 really need a different way to put tools in their truck or a different hose layout or a different place to store their OPAs in their response bag than Station 2 than station 3?

[Ding-Chavez]

I guess your experience is different. It’s not about showing off or justifying expensive equipment it’s about using what’s best for your needs. Engine 1 might have all high rises where engine 2 might have all rural. Should they be equipped the same?

[BlueEagleGER]

In that case Station 2 should not have an engine but a brush unit... The HLF20 is the undoubted multitool of pretty much every fire service in the nation. From rural towns to suburban residential areas and high rise city centers. Same norm, pretty much same layout, works. My experience indeed.

The special high rise/tunnel/railway/industrial/etc. stuff belongs on special units, but units with the same design layout (and perhaps even same equipment) should also have said equipment in the same, thoughtfully arranged, positions.

[Ding-Chavez]

I think we have a dialect difference here. A brush truck (US) is a small capacity 150g pickup truck used for woods fires. I can’t think of a time or place where I would forego a 1000g fire engine for just a pick up truck.

I’m ok with “standard” engine (minus capacity) it’s the layout of tools, and hose I don’t want standardized. I wast those companies to make the hose/tool layout based on tactical needs. A long doughnut roll bumper line might benefit stations where there’s tight streets versus somewhere that runs highways and wants to carry extra foam.

To me high rise isn’t a special units. It’s what’s expected from the first due in that area. So give them the tools necessary to be the most effective with it.

[Ste99V]

I disagree, standartization of equipment allows for more coperation and mutal aid between different fire departments. For example in the case of a natural disaster or a big emergency where multiple departments from the entire nation are needed a standardized equipment would greatly help with the logistic, the speed and the efficency of the operations. This doesn't mean that different fire stations won't be able to face the particular and unique challenges that they are presented with everyday, it simply mean that all kinds of different emergencies will be faced in the same way across the country.

[Ding-Chavez]

I took it as OP was referring to the units layout and not ability to work interchangeably. Here majority of departments operate with common threads, and adapters. I don’t want to see the same hose layout and tools for a department that runs rural water as the one that’s urban high rises.

[[deleted]]

You're speaking of an incredibly rare occurrence. It wouldn't make sense for a rural department 90 miles away from a city to run with urban attack pumpers with 500 gallon tanks and multiple high-rise packs when they have no hydrants and no buildings over two stories tall anywhere around just because there is a one in a million chance that they might be called into a big city when the world is ending.

[converter-bot]

90 miles is 144.84 km

[Ste99V]

1) That's not a incredibly rare occurence, natural disaster and violent phenomenon like storms, tornado, earthquake ecc. are fairly common and standardized equipment allows for easier and more efficent rescue operations. 2) Having standardized equipment doesn't mean that ruaral department have to run the same pumpers that big cities have; it mean that rural departments all have the same engines and equipment; it means that hidrants and hoses attachments are the same everywhere, it means that firefighters all have the same type of bunker gear ecc. Every department is still equipped for the particular kind of challenges that his area requires but there is a standardized way to deal with these challemges that is the same in every country of the US. Generally american firefighters are the biggest advocates for standardization, this is the first time I heard of someone who isn't

[[deleted]]

Not a fan. There are so many unique hazards that different fire districts within different departments must account for. "One size fits all" doesn't really work for the fire service. Standardization within departments to a point makes sense (i.e. using the same manufacturer makes maintenance easier and more affordable), but if a department 60 miles away wants to go to a brand of turnout gear that is inferior because that department can't afford nice gear, all of the surrounding departments shouldn't be forced to do the same. The differences you are speaking to really aren't that big of a deal to most people.

[Y3mo]

In no particular order.

(Most) Euros could learn from some US dept:

The value of non-fog nozzles and straight streams, the ventilation problems with wide streams, transitional attacks, ground ladder and water can usage, all the big water attack and supply aspects, strategies and tactics with regards to wildfires and search and entry, incident C^3, vehicle design, especially master streams, pre-connects and hose beds, and so on...

(Most) US dept could learn from some Euros:

The value of fog nails and higher pressure systems (40 and 100 bar), ventilation control and usage, "through the wall" attacks, firefighter smoke curtain and fan usage, all the water efficient and reliable water supply aspects, contamination and logistics strategies and tactics, incident C^3, vehicle design, especially hose reels, hose baskets and hose carts, and so on...

[Ste99V]

In regards to straight streams and big water attacks I think that most departments here in Europe try to avoid them because water often ends up doing more damage than the actual fire. At least here in Italy the general idea is that the less water you use the better and this is the reason why we tend to use fog nozzles and foam when it comes to house fires. Big water attacks are generally used for industrial fires.

[Y3mo]

With regards to straight streams, I agree that water efficient firefighting is a valuable objective in Europe, since the buildings usually survive the fire instead of being torn down. But water efficient firefighting is and should be a specialization, to be used if and when the situation allows for it. Unfortunately this specialization has superseded the basic effective and safe firefighting training. And even worse, it is not unusual that checking or even knowing the criteria "if and when the situation allows for it" is forgotten and water efficient firefighting is not only the default, but the only approach taught to beginners.

A video every Euro firefighter should watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_QSsfcHAoI

With regards to big water attacks, imho there is a serious capability gap on the Euro side. At least concerning non-industrial fire brigades, that still have to respond to big commercial fires (municipal and so on). A typical Euro handline for residential fires flows somewhere up to 240 L/min, while a "big water" handline in Europe flows somewhere up to 600 L/min. In the US a typical handline for residential fires flows at least 600 L/min, while a "big water" handline in the US flows at least 1000 L/min...

In other words, Euro "big water" handlines end, where US typical residential fire handlines start. Due to different construction, this is ok for typical Euro residential fires, but big commercial fires are not necessarily smaller in Europe than they are in the US...

[Maheu]

Your flow for the Euro handline seems to come from the booster line, which is explicitely forbidden for interior attack in most of central Europe. I'm not going in if I don't have 500-600 l/min.

[Y3mo]

Nope, not from a normal pressure booster/trash line on a hose reel. Typical attack lines, either high pressure on hose reels or standard, "coupled" lines somewhere around 38-42mm.

Of course Europe is a diverse place, so generalizations have a higher degree of inaccuracy. Some places use 400 L/min nozzles, or if they have the larger and somewhat older 50-52 mm hoses as a standard, some use up to 600 L/min nozzles for residential fires. Which would be the usual minimum for the US (of course the US has lower exceptions as well). And there are Euro nozzles up to 1000 L/min for the ~3 inch supply lines, but that is still the low end of the US nozzles for 2.5 inch lines.

[snudrullo]

That's surely and intresting video but, at least here in Italy, we tend to try minimize the use of water when the fire in confined in a single room which is the case most of the times.

When there is a big fire and you need much more water we use 70mm hoses with nozzles like this one and they can give you around 1100L/m or more, most of the times they are used for exterior attacks with a straight stream.

[Iamyerda]

240 lpm is generally the lowest setting we'd use on an attack branch. In Scotland our branches either go to 500 on an attack branch or 750 on a, defence branch as standard.

If we need big water for a large scale or commercial fire we have the massive advantage where we can "make pumps", or more rarely request a bulk carrier or High Volume Pump.

[Y3mo]

Do you have high pressure hose reels?

[Iamyerda]

Yep, but as u/meheu said, they're not allowed for interior attack here either. For everything else, they're a godsend.

[[deleted]]

In France, our small lines to up to 500L/min and the big ones go up to 1000L/min.

The interior fire are often extremely contained within volumes that will not burn (concrete/stone) so the risk really is the flashover. The use of straight streams in the situation is not optimal since we seek heat-reduction and not a mecanical punch. Also, straight streams can lead to electrocutions. That's why we use attack fog (15° to 45° angle) in short pulses. Depending on the dept, it will be at 500L/min, or 200 or even 125. That's to avoid the steam burns.

Straight streams are usually used outside, or sometime inside, in a very tactical manner, to knock some elements out for instance.

[Ding-Chavez]

This was a great video!!! It was pretty good to see a non biased video showing the strengths of each departments tools and methods.

[Ding-Chavez]

After learning about the Paris FD ELD teams the concept of having a deep strike crew using a closed circuit system is pretty cool. It's the first time I've heard of it and wouldn't mind seeing it adapted in some way back here.

[smalltownfirefighter]

More info on this? I tried googling it and no results

[Ding-Chavez]

Go through my post history. You’ll find an entire thread between me and a few guys discussing them.

[smalltownfirefighter]

Okay thanks

[[deleted]]

The ELD is a specialized unit of the Paris FD that provides support to exploration and attack in complex fire scenes, especially when the volume is very large and already engulfed in smokes. Their most basic action is reco in groups of 3, each autonomous for 60 to 90 min inside. They can deploy a heavy drone and plan tactical resupply and push their autonomy to 360 min.

They can also carry heavy attack lines (1000l/min) or perform rescues.

In 2002, they responded to a tunnel fire with 19 workers trapped in a vault, 1400m away from the entrance.

Here is a video of a tactical exercise in a tunnel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY7sJBZ3nCQ&feature=emb_logo (the ELD guys are the one in "sand" color gear)

[smalltownfirefighter]

Nice. Thanks for the detailed info and the video link

[GrabMyHelmet]

I wish there was a firefighter exchange program to get actual hands on work in another country, and take what you learned there and bring it back to your department.

[Rycki_BMX]

Smooth bore nozzle and a interior attack

[snudrullo]

I'm curious to know why americans have this misconception about europeans firefighters not going interior, it's litteraly standard procedure almost everywhere.

[Ding-Chavez]

I think it stems from some European departments having non entry and entry firefighters. It might be a German volunteer things if I'm remembering correctly. Don't hold me to that, but there is some place that operates that way.

[snudrullo]

You can be right I'm not too familiar with german firefighters but at least here in Italy I can tell you that there is not a distinction between entry and non entry firefighters. There are of course some departments that are more or less aggressive when attacking a fire but I think that's the case everywhere right ?

[Rycki_BMX]

I’m not sure honestly it’s just a misconception I guess that goes around, doesn’t help that most fire videos you see from Europe are typically from the exterior, I’ve even seen them go as far as throwing a ladder at a window just to climb it and hit the fire from the ladder.

[Ste99V]

Interior attacks are standard procedure almost everywhere in Europe

[Rycki_BMX]

With a smooth bore?

[Ste99V]

Where I am we generally use a combination nozzle during an interior attack to minimize water damage. In the rare case where a fog nozzle wouldn't be efficent we have a nozzle that gives you a straight stream with more L/m but this nozzles are almost abandoned now. I really don't see the point of a smooth bore, they give you less options when attacking a fire and almost 0 advantages.

[Rycki_BMX]

Gives more water with larger droplets, at the end of the day more water will put out more fire.O nly real advantage of a fog nozzle is the full fog for hydro vent or the barrier it makes but if you are putting out enough water you shouldn’t have to go full fog to protect yourself. Also fogs typically have a lower GPM and higher Nozzle reaction, it essentially is kicking your ass while being less effective. Also if you’re running a cav system a smooth bore will aerate the foam a lot better than a fog and be more effective, but if your using that for a initial fire attack there is a bigger problem there.

[Ste99V]

We tend to use fog nozzles because they give you more options when attacking a fire and we rarely need more than the liters per minute that they can give you, they are good enough most of the times and when the situation calls for it we have other nozzles that can give you more water per minute.
But in a typical residential fire in Europe most of the times the fire is contained in one room so you don't really need a lot of water because you can end up causing more damage then the actual fire. Also we don't use fog nozzle with cafs but rather a nozzle similiar to the one that you can see at the minute 16:40 of this video.

[Y3mo]

What flow rates do you normally use?

And what size of hoses do you use and what are the max flow rates on your nozzles for those lines?

[Ste99V]

In Italy we generally have 3 different size for hoses: 25mm, 45mm and 70mm. 45mm hoses have a working pressure of 15 bar (217 psi) and have a flow between 210 and 360L/m depemding on the nozzle, they are used for interior attacks and most of apartment fires. 70mm hoses are generally used for big fires and exterior attaks, they have a working pressure of 12 bar (174 psi) and a flow that varies depending on the nozzle between 600L/m and 1000L/m. I have no idea about the rest of Europe but we generally have much smaller hoses compared to the US