*Firefighter I & Firefighter II - 2017
Chapter 9 - Online Activity Submission Dropbox
Student Activity:
For this activity you will consider how to practice safety during search and rescue situations. Follow the steps below to complete this activity
Step One: Read through the scenario(s) assigned to you by your instructor.
Step Two: Choose two or three of the 16 Life Safety Initiatives developed by the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation (http://www.lifesafetyinitiatives.com/initiatives.html) that relate to your assigned scenario.
Step Three: Discuss/think about how these initiatives may be able to prevent these types of scenarios in the future.
Step Four: Write up a short report that addresses
- how your chosen initiatives relate to the scenario
- how the initiatives could be used to prevent similar scenarios
- what you believe to be the important lessons about searches, victim removal, and survival that the rest of the class should know about the scenario
Make sure to point to details in the scenario that relate directly to each of the initiatives you chose.
Step Five: Post your report by [deadline here].
Sample Rubric:
Criteria |
1 – Poor |
2 – Below Average |
3 – Average |
4 – Excellent |
Student Total |
Connection between initiatives and scenario |
No attempt to connect initiative and scenario evident |
Report attempts to connect initiative and scenario with some supporting evidence |
Report connects initiative and scenario with some supporting evidence |
Report clearly connects initiative and scenario with specific supporting evidence |
|
Important lessons and prevention |
Report makes no attempt to draw important lesson from scenario or does not detail how chosen initiative could work to prevent a similar situation |
Report attempts to draw important lesson from scenario and details how chosen initiative could work to prevent a similar situation, but details are unclear |
Report draws important lesson from scenario and details how chosen initiative could work to prevent a similar situation by providing one or two details |
Report clearly draws important lesson from scenario and details how chosen initiative could work to prevent a similar situation by providing specific details |
|
Scenarios to Use:
Scenario 1
Firefighters responded to a fire on the third floor in a fireproof multiple dwelling. Upon arrival, the firefighters were alerted by a neighbor that there was possibly a wheelchair-bound, elderly woman in the apartment. As the Truck Company forced open the door, smoke started issuing out into the hallway. The Truck Company Officer found the victim lying face down in the apartment hallway with a medium-sized fire burning in the back bedroom. A radio transmission to the Incident Commander verified the recovery of the victim, and the Truck Company began to remove the victim from the apartment. At the same time, the Engine Company stretched the hose line through the door and had to wait until the Truck Company removed the victim before the line could be advanced to the fire room. When the Engine finally reached the fire room and was ready to open the nozzle on the fire, a firefighter from the Outside Vent Team entered the fire room through the window to conduct a search. Had the nozzle team opened up the line seconds earlier, they would have pushed the firefighter through the window and, and that firefighter would fallen three floors below. As the firefighter crawled through the room and over the nozzle team, the nozzle became lodged between the Outside Vent Man’s leg and his safety harness. The firefighter was freed from the entanglement, and the fire was extinguished without further incident. Upon venting the room of heat and smoke, an oxygen tank was found in the corner of the bedroom.
Scenario 2
At 0054 hours, firefighters responded with a full assignment for a confirmed working house fire. Upon arrival, they found a one-story, single family dwelling with moderate smoke showing. Two occupants were on the front porch and in need of medical attention. One occupant stated it was a basement fire. Engine Company 1 was assigned fire attack while Ladder Company was assigned primary search. Engine Company 2 was directed to establish a water supply and advance a backup line, and Engine Company 3 was assigned as the RIT. R-(unit number deleted) was directed to care for the two occupants on the front porch. Engine 1 stretched a 1 ¾”-line through the front door, looking for the basement stairs. Ladder 1 entered through the same door and began a primary search. They completed a 360 degree survey and confirmed there was fire in the basement.
Upon returning to the front of the building, firefighters could see that conditions were getting worse. The fire building was approximately 50 years old with neither balloon frame nor lightweight truss construction, and as a result, firefighters believed that they had time to operate in this structure. Engine 1 called to say they were unable to find the basement stairs and requested that a line operate on the basement fire through the outside basement windows. The IC directed Engine 2 to perform this task. Engine 2’s line had little if any effect on the fire. A short time later, Engine 1 called and requested an immediate backup line inside the building. The IC directed Engine 2 to take their line inside the building and back up Engine 1. The IC also directed Engine 2 as the RIT team to pull a 2 ½”-line and operate it through the basement window on the visible fire, but the 2 ½”-line had little if any effect on the basement fire. This information was communicated to the inside crews. The IC walked around to the back of the house for a second time and noticed visible fire at a first floor window on the “C” side of the building as well as fire venting through the roof. Seeing this, the IC ordered an evacuation of the building. This was done via radio, and IC ordered the pump operators on the scene to sound their air horns in accordance with standard operating procedures (SOPs). This was approximately 10-12 minutes into the interior attack. All crews evacuated the building, a Personnel Accountability Report (PAR) was completed, and an exterior attack was initiated. In the end, this 25’x 50’ ranch dwelling required two 2 ½”-lines and two 1 ¾”-lines to extinguish.
In talking to the interior crews, the “close call” was revealed. Engine 2’s crew reported exiting the front door (“A” side) on “carpet”, meaning the supporting floor was gone. Ladder 2’s crew reported finding a 4’-hole burned through the floor on the “C” side. Engine 1’s crew reported not hearing the evacuation order via radio because of the sound of the fire and their operating hoseline, but they did hear the apparatus air horns. Fire investigation revealed that the fire had free burned for 45-60 minutes AFTER being discovered by the homeowner’s live-in caregiver. The caregiver had spent 15-20 minutes searching for the origin of the smoke and trying to fight the fire that was caused by furnace malfunction. The caregiver then spent 15-20 minutes evacuating the bedridden homeowner and removing his personal possessions from the building. Once out of the building, the caregiver went from neighboring house to house trying to get someone to call the fire department. Due to a language barrier, the neighbors thought the caregiver was a vagrant or someone trying to break in. Police investigating the disturbance discovered the fire. The fire investigation also revealed the presence of a combustible void space that started in the basement and went all the way to the underside of the roof. This void space served no discernible purpose but allowed the fire to vent through the roof. Fire spread through the ductwork laterally and extended the fire throughout the first floor.
Scenario 3
Units were responding to a working building fire, called in by an off-duty firefighter from a neighboring area. The building in question was an HVAC business and was a multi-section building of multiple types of construction. The original building, now the office area, was a single family residence. Attached to this were two metal buildings, the first approximately 40 x 60, and the second approximately 60 x 100. The metal buildings were attached in sequence to the original building. The fire was in the center section, the first added metal building, and had self-vented through the roof prior to arrival on the scene. There were no hydrants in the area, so tanker shuttles were used for water supply. The initial crews entered through the “A” side of the structure. The attack crew deployed a 2 ½”-attack line with an automatic nozzle and proceeded to the seat of the fire. The search crew deployed into the building without a hoseline. Visibility in the building was fair with low heat conditions in the search area. Smoke conditions in the search area were within 24” of the floor. During the search, heat conditions changed rapidly, and the crew decided to evacuate. During the evacuation, one member of the crew became separated, and a MAYDAY was declared by the search crew officer. A backup line was deployed as a rescue crew, and the remaining members of the search crew began looking for the missing firefighter. Within one minute of the MAYDAY, the missing firefighter breached an exterior second floor window and bailed out through that window. Another member of the search crew fell during the search for the missing firefighter when a stairwell collapsed. This individual was able to exit the building under personal will power. Both firefighters were transported to local hospitals for treatment. When the MAYDAY was declared, all non-emergent traffic was suspended and rescue efforts undertaken. Following the exit, all crews were removed from the building, and a personnel accountability report was obtained from all crews prior to clearing the MAYDAY. Following this event, the attack was maintained as defensive.
Scenarios courtesy of National Fire Fighter Near-Miss Reporting System