41 / 260
27
discharge large volumes of water until the fire goes out. In these situations the ability to enter the
building is very limited and if victims are trapped in the structure, there are very few safe options
for making entry.
Today’s fire service is actively debating the options of interior firefighting vs exterior firefighting.
These terms are self-descriptive in that an
interior fire attack
is one in which firefighters enter a
burning building in an attempt to find the seat of the fire and from this interior position extinguish
the fire with limited amounts of water. An
exterior fire attack
is a tactic in which firefighters’
initially discharge water from the exterior of the building, either through a window or door, and
knock down the fire before entry in the building is made. The concept is to introduce larger
volumes of water initially from the outside of the building, cool the interior temperatures, and
reduce the intensity of the fire before firefighters enter the building. An exterior attack is most
applicable in smaller structures, typically single family, one-story detached units which are
typically smaller than 2,500 square feet in total floor area.
There are a number of factors that have fueled this debate. The first and most critical of which
are staffing levels. As fire departments operate with reduced levels of staffing, and this staff is
arriving at the scene from greater distances, there is little option for a single fire unit with two,
three, or four personnel but to conduct an exterior attack. The United States Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), has issued a standard that has been termed the
“Two-
in-Two-Out”
provision. This standard affects most public fire departments across the U.S.,
including CAL FIRE. Under this standard, firefighters who are engaged in
interior structural
firefighting
and enter an area that is immediately dangerous to life or health (an IDLH
atmosphere) must remain in visual or voice contact with each other and have at least two other
employees located outside the IDLH atmosphere. This assures that the "two in" can monitor each
other and assist with equipment failure or entrapment or other hazards, and the "two out" can
monitor those in the building, initiate a rescue, or call for back-up if a problem arises.
9
There is
also a provision within the OSHA standard that will allow two personnel to make entry into an
IDLH atmosphere without the required two back-up personnel. This is allowed when they are
attempting to rescue a person or persons in the structure before the entire team is assembled.
10
When using an exterior attack, the requirement of having the four persons assembled on-scene
prior to making entry would not apply. Recent studies by UL have evaluated the effectiveness of
interior vs. exterior attacks in certain simulated fire environments. These studies have found that
the exterior attack to be equally effective in these simulations.
11
This debate is deep-seated in
the fire service and traditional tactical measures have always proposed an interior fire attack,
specifically when there is a possibility that victims may be present in the burning structure. The
long-held belief in opposition to an exterior attack is that this approach may actually push the
fire into areas that are not burning or where victims may be located. The counterpoint
supporting the exterior attack centers on firefighter safety. The exterior attack limits the
firefighters from making entry into those super-heated structures that may be susceptible to
collapse. From CPSM’s perspective, and given the limited number of on-duty personnel and the
likelihood that a single crew of three or four personnel will encounter a fire situation, it is prudent
that CAL FIRE build its training and operating procedures around the tactical concept of the
exterior fire attack when the situation warrants such an approach.
9
OSHA-Respiratory Protection Standard, 29CFR-1910.134(g)(4).
10
Ibid, Note 2 to paragraph (g).
11
“Innovating Fire Attack Tactics,”
U.L.COM/NewsScience, Summer 2013.