Page 32 of 108

Re: General fire discussions

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:35 pm
by singkenten
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...

Re: General fire discussions

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:37 pm
by Tyranus
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.

Re: General fire discussions

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:39 pm
by Fastlane
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...

Re: General fire discussions

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:48 pm
by singkenten
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...

Re: General fire discussions

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:01 am
by WPXZBP
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!

Re: General fire discussions

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 6:20 am
by Helitak_670
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 ;)

Re: General fire discussions

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 7:04 am
by observer
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.

Re: General fire discussions

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

Re: General fire discussions

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 9:17 am
by dlcat1
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.

Re: General fire discussions

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 9:57 am
by 4353
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 ?

Re: General fire discussions

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 11:52 am
by BuddahFRS
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??

Re: General fire discussions

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:14 pm
by Zebedee
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 ;)

Re: General fire discussions

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:17 pm
by written_ficton
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

Re: General fire discussions

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:23 pm
by Toottoot
Purcussive
Unconfined
Vapour
Cloud
Explosion

Re: General fire discussions

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 2:44 pm
by Fastlane
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.