General fire discussions

WA Department of Fire and Emergency Services (6AR and 6IP) (Including the Fire Services, SES & VMRS) and Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions

Moderator: bogged

singkenten
150+ posts
150+ posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:47 pm

Re: General fire discussions

Post by singkenten » Fri May 15, 2009 9:35 pm

I would dare to say the fact that the driver of the truck said he was smoking when the fire started would allow for a fair assumption... And I never said that Maddington pump was involved, just 'melted' as in the side of the cab sustained a reasonable amount of damage. There were a lot of people at the incident...

Tyranus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3905
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Amateur callsign: VK6FWDH
Scanners and Receivers: UBC93XLT
Location: Helena Valley
Contact:

Re: General fire discussions

Post by Tyranus » Fri May 15, 2009 9:37 pm

where do you see/hear the driver saying he was smoking?
There was another witness that suggested it, but until the FIO's come out and say it was caused by someone lighting a cigarette, then I think it shouldn't be speculated on.
Stirling SES
Team Leader (Stirling 53)
Vertical Rescue Team Member
K9 7 Support

VK6FWDH
ex-Darlington FB
WARSUG Demi-God I mean Mod
If stupidity got me into this mess, why can't it get me out.
Image

Fastlane
WARSUG top poster
WARSUG top poster
Posts: 1730
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:24 pm
Amateur callsign: VK6FLMZ

Re: General fire discussions

Post by Fastlane » Fri May 15, 2009 9:39 pm

Tyranus wrote:where do you see/hear the driver saying he was smoking?
There was another witness that suggested it, but until the FIO's come out and say it was caused by someone lighting a cigarette, then I think it shouldn't be speculated on.
he didn't say it was the driver of the truck either...

singkenten
150+ posts
150+ posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:47 pm

Re: General fire discussions

Post by singkenten » Fri May 15, 2009 9:48 pm

Without saying to much... the driver of the truck that was on fire, told crews he was smoking at the time of pumping, if you would like to wait for an official word that is your choice. Like I say there were many many people at the incident, as it was, it was described as a once in a lifetime blaze...

WPXZBP

Re: General fire discussions

Post by WPXZBP » Sat May 16, 2009 12:01 am

Until the official word has been given by the FIO no further discussion on the cause will be made. Any speculation will not assist the thread so therefore consider this part of the discussion closed and any posts to the contrary will be deleted.

'Nuff sed!

Helitak_670
WARSUG top poster
WARSUG top poster
Posts: 1071
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:56 pm
Location: Everywhere

Re: General fire discussions

Post by Helitak_670 » Sat May 16, 2009 6:20 am

2 lines, far out, no wonder why they couldnt put it out. Why didnt they just call the Airport boys, would have been out in seconds. They have done that in NSW a few times. Also goes to show that perhaps they need more training in fuel fires and PUVCE and BLEVE ;)

observer
150+ posts
150+ posts
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:14 am

Re: General fire discussions

Post by observer » Sat May 16, 2009 7:04 am

Looks like the arm chair experts are starting to come out again. How can you make an informed decision about the incident based on a 2.45 video which only shows one side of the incident?

How to you come to the conclusion there is only 2 lines out? From the video I can see 2 lines working from behind the DM's car and one from behind the Pump. Later when the vide moves around to show the other side of the pump you can see 2 more lines (I most likely was one from behind the pump). We can not see what is on the other side of the fire, but I would guess there is more lines out there.

Why do the f/f need more training in PUCVE and BLEVE? Just because it appears a PUCVE happened how does that equate to more training is needed? I don't know what happened on site, but maybe they couldn't prevent this from happening. You can see f/f behind the pump moving back just before the explosion happened, so maybe they identified what was about to happened and reacted accordingly (therefore well trained). There could have been a water supply issue that prevented them getting enough water on the fire? Only the crews on site can answer what happened, why they chose particuliar tactics, and the results of these tactics.

Just like we shouldn't be talking about how the fire started, based on hearsay, leave the armchair comments about tactics out of it.

ace of spades
150+ posts
150+ posts
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:57 am

Re: General fire discussions

Post by ace of spades » Sat May 16, 2009 8:33 am

Totally agree observer. Don't forget that the first arriving crews had 4 men. That means the SO is doing his job in assessing, the pumpy is trying to get water and doing his job then really it is up to the 2 other guys only and to suggest that more training is required is a joke. Well done to all crews there. No one was injured, the fuel fire did not spread which leads to the fact that correct foam techniques were used and no further loss of property. Well done, to be faced with that on arrival is a very scary notion.

On the comment about getting the Aviation firies to help, that is a good idea and they would be very happy to actualy go to an incident where there is actual flame involved but they are not allowed to leave the airport grounds if there are planes coming and going which at that time of the day I would have thought would have been the case

dlcat1
150+ posts
150+ posts
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:54 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: General fire discussions

Post by dlcat1 » Sat May 16, 2009 9:17 am

I want to back observer and ace of spades up here.

Unless you were there and have as much experience as the crews that were, your opinion will be taken by me as editorial, not factual and therfore of no value. If you saw it on the internet it was probably doctored. If you rely on the statement of witnesses without a thorough investigation, you will miss the details. If you want to be the FIO, go and ask them how they got the job. If you are not the FIO, let them do their job, if I have offended you, I am not sorry, some people round here need to step back.

4353
150+ posts
150+ posts
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:14 pm

Re: General fire discussions

Post by 4353 » Sat May 16, 2009 9:57 am

Im glad no one was killed !!!!

You see these incidents happen in europe and other countries were usually people are always killed and injured lucky it wasnt later on during the day at peak hour couldve been alot worse.

Strange question but is it out ?
RIP

BuddahFRS
150+ posts
150+ posts
Posts: 467
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: Armadale

Re: General fire discussions

Post by BuddahFRS » Sat May 16, 2009 11:52 am

Helitak_670 wrote:2 lines, far out, no wonder why they couldnt put it out. Why didnt they just call the Airport boys, would have been out in seconds. They have done that in NSW a few times. Also goes to show that perhaps they need more training in fuel fires and PUVCE and BLEVE ;)
i know a BLEVE is a
Boiling
Liquid
Evaporative
Vapor
Explosion

but what is a PUVCE??
----BUDDAH VFRS----

Zebedee
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3176
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:42 pm
Amateur callsign: VK6DB
Location: Perth
Contact:

Re: General fire discussions

Post by Zebedee » Sat May 16, 2009 12:14 pm

observer wrote:Why do the f/f need more training in PUCVE and BLEVE?
I was wondering what the meanings of the acronyms were as well ;)
Doug Bell (Zebedee) VK6DB
WARSUG Forum Administrator.

It is very dark.
You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

written_ficton
WARSUG top poster
WARSUG top poster
Posts: 2867
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:08 pm

Re: General fire discussions

Post by written_ficton » Sat May 16, 2009 12:17 pm

Helitak_670 wrote:2 lines, far out, no wonder why they couldnt put it out. Why didnt they just call the Airport boys, would have been out in seconds. They have done that in NSW a few times. Also goes to show that perhaps they need more training in fuel fires and PUVCE and BLEVE ;)
That would have been a stupid decision, potentially leaving the airport unattended, leaving the airport wide open....

Its all hearsay, if you were not there not be a armchair expert and critise the event. The boys / girls did an excellent job... I daresay some reading this would be a little pissed off that people who were not involved or watched telling them how to do it.

I'm backing up observer, ace of spades & dlcat1
I've closed the door!

Toottoot
Banned
Posts: 1205
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:48 am

Re: General fire discussions

Post by Toottoot » Sat May 16, 2009 12:23 pm

Purcussive
Unconfined
Vapour
Cloud
Explosion

Fastlane
WARSUG top poster
WARSUG top poster
Posts: 1730
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:24 pm
Amateur callsign: VK6FLMZ

Re: General fire discussions

Post by Fastlane » Sat May 16, 2009 2:44 pm

BuddahFRS wrote:i know a BLEVE is a
Boiling
Liquid
Evaporative
Vapor
Explosion
BLEVE is Boiling Liquid EXPANDING Vapour Explosion and well done to those that can use Google.. Search for PUVCE and wow, it's the first result.

Post Reply