1 / 27

Commercial Fire

Commercial Fire . Date: 10-14-2013 Incident # AB13001507 Address: 4800 Harbour Pointe Blvd. SW Time: 16:49:54. PIA Format. The PIA is not to blame or point fingers at anyone. It is presented to analyze the following: What actions took place? What actions were beneficial?

garry
Download Presentation

Commercial Fire

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Commercial Fire • Date: 10-14-2013 • Incident # AB13001507 • Address: 4800 Harbour Pointe Blvd. SW • Time: 16:49:54

  2. PIA Format • The PIA is not to blame or point fingers at anyone. It is presented to analyze the following: • What actions took place? • What actions were beneficial? • What actions could be changed/taken in the future? • Any safety issues and/or equipment failures? • Any suggestions to improve our service?

  3. Building Size & Layout

  4. Units Dispatched • M25 16:49:54 (BLS) • L23 16:54:? (FS) • B11 16:56:? (FC) • B16 • L15 • E10 • E11 • TR21 • EN6 • A24 • MDC (CH25)

  5. Self Added Resources • AC16 • AC11 • FM25 • SF25 • MSO21

  6. Dispatch • Was the alarm reported, received, and dispatched correctly? • Reported = NO initially. YES by additional callers. • Received = Yes • Dispatched = Yes

  7. Was IC Established and Followed? • Established & maintained = M25 • Had one unit arrive and “report to command” • Had one unit arrive and ask “report to command?” after being told to standby.

  8. IC Flow Chart

  9. Size Up • Did the initial arriving officer properly size-up the building? For the most part. No mention on size or use of building. Officer did state smoke conditions, location and initiate command.

  10. Extent of Fire • Smoke showing from the C/D Corner. Some evacuation had occurred. One sprinkler head was operational over the fire area.

  11. Incident Action Plan • Recon • Rescue • Confinement • Extinguish • Overhaul

  12. Safety Benchmarks • Was 2in/2out established? = Yes • Was ISO established? = Yes. AC16 • Was gross decon established? = No • Was rehab established? = It was determined that the incident would not need an official rehab. • Was appropriate PPE in place during fire attack? During overhaul? = Yes. Proper PPE was being used during the incident. • Was there air monitoring and appropriate PPE in place after overhaul was completed? = Yes

  13. Rescue • Was there a need for rescue efforts and if so were they done appropriately? • Aggressive evacuation was needed. Officer from M25 went to doorway and told all remaining employees of the business in the fire area to evacuate.

  14. Exposures • Were there any exposures? If so, were they addressed? • Yes. The rest of this mega size building was a potential exposure. M25 crew closed the fire doors early on in the incident.

  15. Overhaul • Was the fire completely extinguished? = Yes • Was the area of origin preserved as much as possible? = Yes • Was the structure secured prior to leaving? = Business continued operations in the building. • Was the building turned over properly? = Yes

  16. Hose Layout L23

  17. Traffic Control • Did law enforcement provide traffic control? • Mukilteo PD arrived, but there was no need for traffic control.

  18. Utilities • Were the utilities handled effectively and within a reasonable timeframe? • There was no need for a utility company response. However, in the fire room there was some operating electrical that had not been dealt with. There was an operational sprinkler head, yet there was still some equipment operating in the room.

  19. Support • Was support 7 requested? Incident size did not need the resources of Support 7. • Was a chaplain offered? No

  20. Communications • Were radio communications clear & concise? Yes. The IC did an excellent job of communicating the initial assignments on the TAC channel in clear, concise terms. Were all communications answered & understood? Yes. Interior crew’s communications were received routinely on the first transmit.

  21. Safety Problems/Equipment Failures • Were there any safety issues? • Trip hazards in the doorway • The ladder might have been a little close to the building if it needed to be relocated in a hurry • IC failed to don a command vest • IC was more mobile than he needed to be. Were there any equipment failures? None reported

  22. Pictures

  23. Pictures cont.

  24. Pictures cont.

  25. Water Supply PIV & Hydrant Location

  26. Fire Cause • Sparks from a grinding operation made entry into a filter system that caused the filters to catch on fire.

  27. Any suggestions that would improve our service? Any comments? • A comprehensive pre-fire plan for the building and its suppression system would have been very beneficial. • Discontinue stealth mode responses. Staff each station with a Captain, PM, & FF and only send one EMS unit to BLS emergencies. • Grid was not correct with SNOCOM. • Definitive direction for the basing of apparatus and the location of staging. Especially applicable because of multi-jurisdictional response. • Pre-fire plan would have been very beneficial to us for RIT.

More Related