|
|
Post by reify on Nov 27, 2007 8:18:58 GMT -5
Units from 22, 23, 24, 27, 26, 34, 35, 45, 9, 69, York City and more that I don't know of.......           |
|
|
|
Post by irons on Nov 27, 2007 13:06:02 GMT -5
i cant imagine how much of a pain in the ass it must be for surrounding towns to use different SCBA companies. That has got to mess up the buddy breathing system as well as the rit packs.
|
|
|
|
Post by PUMP on Nov 27, 2007 18:46:11 GMT -5
Great shots Reify!!!
As for the cylinders... that might change soon.
Cylinder interoperability is another concept being proposed for the 2007 edition of NFPA 1981. This proposed change has generated the majority of controversy and confusion amongst the fire service in relation to the standard.
Because the terrorism threat has raised the perceived need to provide air resources for responders at a large-scale incident, the 2007 edition proposes that an SCBA cylinder from one unit be compatible with any other brand available to the fire service. This concept has been recognized as a need for a long time, but it will present negatives as well as positives through the changeover period if accepted.
Presently, using components from different manufacturers will void warranties and NIOSH certifications on the original unit and may not even work. This proposed change would definitely provide the exception to this rule.
The fire service came close to SCBA interoperability in the 2002 edition of NFPA 1981, which required a rapid-intervention crew universal air coupling for firefighting. This connection allows a cylinder that's low on air to be trans-filled from another cylinder, regardless of manufacturer. Each cylinder has an equal amount of air after the fill. This universal connection must be permanently fixed to the unit within 4 inches of the SCBA cylinder valve's threads.
The next level of compatibility will be attainable only if every fire department complies, which won't be fiscally feasible in the short term. The success of this change may not be noticeable for a very long time as departments continue to use older SCBA. Without adapters, existing cylinders may not be compatible with SCBA units manufactured after the implementation of the revised standard, and new cylinders may not work with existing units. Over time, this interoperability proposal may help alleviate some of the issues with compatibility, but there will always be departments with budgets that won't allow new purchases or retrofits to take place all at once.
|
|
|
|
Post by RBrandau on Nov 27, 2007 20:31:18 GMT -5
Awesome pictures!!! How much of that extension to the upper floors was interior and how much was extension due to balloon frame construction?
It would have been easy to think you had an attic or upper level fire from the front side pics!
|
|
|
|
Post by reify on Nov 27, 2007 20:49:03 GMT -5
The fire was located on the first floor laundry area (if I heard correctly), which is located in the corner of Bravo/Charlie. The fire then ran the wallls to the attic and spreaded across the attic area to 106. There was also fire located on the second division, towards side charlie. As crews would get the fire knocked down the fire would reappear on another floor. Towards the start of the fire, manpower was an issue and with limited crews, being used for interior operations. Company 9 members were the first on to start throwing ladders to the house with some assistance. Truck 16 was then requested to get to more of side bravo, with Truck 24 working the roof.
Some of the tankers were abandoned at station 22 and the firefighters reported to the scene. At one point they had more interior firefighters without airpacks, so crews had to go around and locate extras to use.
At first, the incident command system was just one preson and slowly grew as more chief officers arrived. But overall I believe the incident was ran well, just short on manpower at some points.
I have more shots that I will post tomorrow, just had a small amount of time before shifts. I'm hoping to get a new camera next year with more features and more zoom.
|
|
|
|
Post by engine922 on Nov 29, 2007 15:59:49 GMT -5
Nice shots reify, good job!
|
|
|
|
Post by FIREMAN392 on Nov 29, 2007 16:46:00 GMT -5
Great Photos! Job Well Done!
|
|
|
|
Post by reify on Dec 4, 2007 21:48:59 GMT -5
Rescue 69 was requested as the 3rd RIT to the scene, I guess they go where they are requested
|
|
|
|
Post by litick on Dec 6, 2007 22:50:33 GMT -5
Alot of guys standing outside. MAKE THE PUSH!
|
|
