Vehicle Fire Safety

General firefighting discussion.
User avatar
Ladderup
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:33 pm

Vehicle Fire Safety

Postby Ladderup » Fri Jun 04, 2010 8:09 pm

Hey brothers and sisters just wanted to get some opinions on car fire safety.
We have all been taught that the safe way to attack a car fire is approach at a 45 degree angle hitting the surrounding area first and than to cool down the vehicle itself before approaching and extinguishing the blaze. Right? This allows things like gas shocks, tires, shock absorbing bumpers, ect to cool off a bit before our approach to make things overall safer. Agreed???
However recently my guys have been told the new way to do an initial attack on a vehicle fire is to attach a foam tube to the nozzle and attack the vehicle with 0.3 to 0.5 class A, air aspirated foam. (not CAFS)
In my opinion, because of the limited range of a foam tube, this puts my guy’s way to close to a fully involved vehicle before it’s properly cooled down. It also takes away the ability to go to full fog for protection and back out.
What do you all think? Looking for some opinions from some senior members.
Stay Safe
Ladderup

User avatar
LTPVFD
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 3:00 pm

Vehicles Fires

Postby LTPVFD » Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:46 pm

I was always taught that to use two attack teams, one approaching from the front at a 45 degree angle to the vehicle, and one approaching from the rear, also at a 45 degree angle.

Depending on location, the team at the rear cooled the back side of the vehicle, including under the vehicle to keep the drive shaft from heating up. The team the front came in and attacked the fire. Both teams are located out of the hazard zone, where bumpers, shocks, struts, etc can launch. Start with the "reach of stream" and work your way in as the fire is knocked down.

All will depend on accessibilty. Depending on the location of the vehicle, it may not be approachable from the 45 degree angles, so the attack formations would have to be adapted accordingly, ensuring fire fighter safety. I've seen too many videos, where fire fighters were in harms way by being right in front of the vehicle, or right behind the vehicle, while it was burning. :eek:

If the fire is under the hood, and contained within, approach from the side and use a halligan or pry bar to gain/make an access hole, or if available, a piercing nozzle works well too. :top:

Stay safe !!

LTPVFD
Safety First - EVERYONE Goes Home !!

User avatar
irsqyu
Posts: 2512
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:33 pm

Postby irsqyu » Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:14 am

LTPVFD wrote: I've seen too many videos, where fire fighters were in harms way by being right in front of the vehicle, or right behind the vehicle, while it was burning. :eek:


Don't forget that full PPE including SCBA is a must, there are some great videos around showing magnesium reacting to water and exploding, make sure your skin is fully covered, including flash hood.
"The dictionary is the only place where success comes before work."

User avatar
Hacienda216
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:33 pm

Postby Hacienda216 » Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:28 pm

How many thousands of gallons/tanker loads does it take when you're using TWO attack teams reaching from a distance with straight streams? If your water supply is limited, your foam approach will certainly help stretch that out. I'm more of a fan of a fast moving fog pattern directly inside the compartment than using the foam tube though. And like irsqyu said, FULL PPE for a car fire.

User avatar
LTPVFD
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 3:00 pm

Vehicle Fires

Postby LTPVFD » Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:22 am

"Hacienda216" wrote:How many thousands of gallons/tanker loads does it take when you're using TWO attack teams reaching from a distance with straight streams?


We can do it with one tank of water if required. If possible we start with a reach of stream, then move in on the vehicle as we are knocking the fire down. I say "if possible" because some locations do not permit this approach. The first line is the "attack" line, while the backup line is a "safety" line keeping things that might go boom cool :eek: ie: drive shaft if fire is impinging on it.

And I totally agree - full PPE. Hope this clarifies.

Stay safe !!

LTPVFD
Safety First - EVERYONE Goes Home !!

DFC
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:33 pm

Postby DFC » Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:36 pm

If you’re going to use class A foam inducted then you should really use a foam inductor at the pump end of the line so it can be dipped into the foam tank/ pail. 3% or 5% as you wish and as long as your using a fog nozzle you will get pretty good foam for your application. But for a car fire I would save the foam unless your applying class B type foam on a fuel fire. Lots of water and a good reach of stream can get things started so an effective seat off the fire attack can be accomplished..
"If you don't know where your going, any road will get you there"

Rodger
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:33 pm

Postby Rodger » Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:55 pm

i have been to quite a number of car fires and seen the difference class A foam makes. we all know that foam enhances the effectiveness of water so why not use it. a simple .3 or .5 class A foam solution works like a charm, especially on car fires. my 2 cents.

guitarmedic87
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:33 pm

Postby guitarmedic87 » Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:05 pm

I've been doing some research on this topic aswell (Thats how I found this old post) Anyway, http://www.midsouthrescue.org have 4 powerpoint presentations about vehicle fire safety and techniques, well worth checking out. If anyones looks at them let me know what you think. Agree or Disagree? I found them very interesting

Ruckus
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:33 pm

Postby Ruckus » Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:57 pm

Training Standard here in MB as far as I know is still a 45 degree approach with a single water stream.

Our Standard Operating Guideline is 45 degree Class-A Compressed Air Foam (probably moving to All-Purpose foam next year) with a water backup line. This is primarily due to our experience with CAFS and the limited water supply in our area (primarily Rural, little or no Hydrant access, and the Hydrants available don't have much flow (~200GPM max).

User avatar
arrow
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:58 pm

Car fires

Postby arrow » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:53 pm

You had better be able to put out a car fire with less than a tank of water.

Otherwise,your training officer should get the boot!


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests