water on the hill

I have a couple other videos that give examples of how to read a roof to understand what’s going on below. There’s a lot of resources out there that dive into that subject more thoroughly. Sagging, a spongy feel, smoke seeping through the roofing material…I would also say communication with interior crews and inspection holes are excellent tools in the toolbox.

100’

It gives the option of placing the gated wye in an easier spot to use. For example, on an old low or mid-rise with an exterior dry standpipe on the rickety fire escape, you can attach the 6’ whip and have the gated wye in a more accessible space, like the window to the center hallway. I’m sure there are others uses but that’s what I’ve used it on. A sketchy escape.

It’s to keep the wye from shutting off unintentionally.

@@thefireminute625 Thank you for the answer. 👍

Everybody’s a little different, I suppose. But I try to encourage excitement about the job and an environment where one feels comfortable to ask questions. I subscribe to a positive environment.

It doesn’t happen that often, it was already having issues, but a lot of smoke can contribute to it stalling. That’s why we bring two saws and wear axes on our belts.

Thank you for what you do! Glad you find it useful. Mi esposa es Mexicana y mis suegros no hablan inglés. And, good eye, that’s right around imperial avenue and the 805.

@@thefireminute625 Thank you for sharing your knowledge, it's really appreciated and helpful. I knew it, been driving there many times lately, I usually take the 805 over the 5. Vaya, que bien que hable español, útil cuando la familia no habla inglés. Are you a captain? I saw your red helmet in the video, here red is for captains.

Thanks for the encouragement!

Thank you!

Thank you! I appreciate you reaching out

I had a bout with cancer. Back to work now and will have some new ones soon. Not quite as frequent as I was dishing them out, though. Thank you!

Glad your back working . Praying for your health 🙏.

Generally speaking, I refrain from judging other ways of “putting the wet stuff on the red stuff”, because I don’t presume to know more than them or be able to do it better than them. It’s KZfaq, after all. But, you always have a person behind a keyboard with an opinion. I would also consider a fellow firefighter stating a fire being “bread and butter” as one they regularly go on and not call into question that it’s a fire, and as it being a fire, is inherently dangerous. Fatalities occur on such a fire, we know this. But, still, the commonality of said fire can be inferred as “bread and butter”. The frequency of said fire versus fatality is, well, more something people use in the comments section as complacency? I’m not sure the inference. Look up the amount of firefighter fatalities during vertical ventilation as a trend the last twenty years. I’d say, we, as a whole, are doing a good job, despite firefighting as a whole being inherently dangerous. Regardless, since 2000, I have seen a lot of progress in the fire service. We put science into our approach now. Transitional attack is a thing. Understanding flow path and not just blowing out all the windows is a thing. We recognize PTSD and the need for behavioral wellness. We recognize all our people and appreciate their contributions. So, I’d put our training staff, or any professional fire dept, up against anyone who would call into question tactics such as vertical ventilation. Especially, saying they are blind to the science and simply see what they want to see. I work with ranking Firefighters far more educated than I, who would put me up on that roof. And I Trust them. Because You should be able to do that. But, also, because I’ve been in fires without water on fire where vertical ventilation made a significant difference, in heat and, especially, in visibility. One of the many things I’m proud of about my profession and where I work, is that our training staff never presume to know all, despite traveling the country for educational enrichment, are fully aware of a NIST UL studies, along with others. To presume a professional fire department of the top ten most populated cities would have no clue as to the research your citing demonstrates, if not anything, an ignorant, or egocentric way of stating our way is somehow wrong and you are inherently right because you mention a NIST UL study. As a member of a major metropolitan department, I wouldn’t presume to know as much as my counterparts in our training and education who specialize in being progressive, but I will say that they still encourage us to get on that roof and cut a hole. The message with the fire minute, generally, is one of humility and expressing a lesson learned where we don’t look great because things didn’t go all that well. What’s to learn from everything going right? We check the ego and try to share a lesson learned, rather than how good we look ( which can be many fires or edited to look that way). All this being said, 32 years in the fire service, regardless of where, is to be respected. Thank you for what you do and, by all means, reach out to said metropolitan departments with this data you have and change how we do things. I, personally, would be more than happy to oblige.

@@thefireminute625 thank you for your reply. I will agree that it is easy to sit back and look from the cheap seats and look at an operation and second guess. I believe this forum however does lend to the discussion. We should never shy away from questioning what we do and why we do it. The things that bother me are when we make statements that firefighting is inherently dangerous. Our goal should be zero injuries and deaths. We should strive for that in all we do and evaluate the risk benefit of all operations. Calling a methodology that has been done for decades yet new science demonstrates as having negligible success, rather adds to the overall risk of operations, calling this “bread and butter”. The other term for this is normalization of deviance. We can do it over and over but will it eventually lead to major injury or death? We must take that into consideration. In this case, single family vertical vent is something I’ve performed for decades. Many times a week. It wasn’t until observing the fire ground realities through the lens of new studies and science that my views of what was actually occurring changed. We must always strive to grow and learn. We must decide if putting a brother in the ground is a part of the inherent danger of the job on a 1200 square foot house that was probably torn down anyway. Use of videos with an open forum to debate or ask why something was done is one of the greatest tools we have to discuss together what we see. Otherwise the videos are for entertainment purposes only and their value diminishes as such. Thank you for your opinion, and taking the time to reply. Stay safe and keep moving forward.

@@JB91710 you contradict yourself. UL stops just short of saying don’t do it. All of the data they provide however does say don’t do it. One just needs to look very clearly at the data. I would say that is the most frustrating part of the UL information is that they provide a slouch of data that clearly identifies what actions should be or should not be taken, yet they don’t just directly spell it out. It leaves many to make the correlation that if they don’t say not to then it’s ok. As you stated in the beginning, for it to work in the incredibly rare scenario that it might, everything has to be worked out perfectly in timing. A timing sequence that is virtually impossible to replicate outside of a lab. The end result is that performing the vertical vent is overwhelmingly not a tactic that holds validity in the modern aggressive fire attack. In a residential structure, the main tactic should be aggressively applying water to the fire as quickly as possible. In the majority of residential structures that means through the nearest door or window to the fire utilizing the reach and disbursement of a high flow handline. This attack in most cases would accomplish fire control well before a crew could even begin ventilation. In the cases it’s not controlled that quickly, are the cases where the last thing you might want to consider is creating a highly efficient yet uncontrollable flow path.

You must take a lot of classes. All talk no walk. Go work on an engine somewhere that has real truck work and you’ll understand why it’s valuable…

@@dillydilly7722 your youth and inexperience show in your answer. Pay attention to the science. Find a NIST UL boot camp class and sign up. You will then hear directly from instructors from FDNY, Chicago, Boston, LA and many others. I have spent over three decades crawling hallways and popping roofs in some of the busiest stations on the east coast and have learned that in the end you can look back and see if you have repeated a years worth of knowledge for 30 or 40 years or you can learn something from trainings and classes your entire career and advance yourself and your professionalism. To look down your nose at training and classes shows you to be headed in the direction of the former. Don’t make that mistake.

@@dillydilly7722 That was unnecessary. He has a right to voice his opinion. He did not engage in attacking personalities but addressed issues seen in the video. It is called constructive criticism. He is also right.

@@dillydilly7722 If you don’t take classes you’ll be riding backwards on the truck you’re whole career 😂 Man only stated facts and you still got hurt. I’m a 19 y/o fire cadet who just graduated and I know that being quiet when someone knows more than you is what gets you respect in this service.

@@giannirodriguez3615 Congrats on graduating. You got a long career ahead of you. Enjoy every minute of it because time flies by quickly.