The First Line:

Flowing & Moving, Part 2

Despite its long-standing tradition and proven effectiveness (both experiential and now
scientific), there are still firefighters who question or even dispute the practicality of the flow
and move advance. A great deal of the skepticism and arguments stem from its purpose and
application being misconstrued. While many well-intentioned firefighters attempt to advocate
for flowing and moving, they, unfortunately, do so by focusing on the ‘how;’ most often
demonstrating the technique in the unrealistic environment of an open parking lot and at an
unreasonable pace. The heart of this discussion, however, lies within the ‘when,’ ‘where,’ and,
most importantly, the ‘why;’ which should be the starting point of the conversation.

For its value to be understood and appreciated, an explanation must be provided as to the
impact it has on the environment, how it benefits the fire attack and search effort and any
trapped occupants, as well as the specific parameters for its use. Without this critical
background, there is no context or intent and, in turn, the message can be misinterpreted that
flowing and moving is being advocated for as the only approach to fire attack. What must be
conveyed is that not every fire will require a flow and move advance to reach the seat of the
fire, nor will the push always be initiated from the point of entry. The decision to implement
this approach is dictated by the conditions encountered and, most significantly, what will best
support the firefighting operations and victim survivability.

A continuous size-up to read the progression of the conditions is imperative to the initial
selection of the fire attack approach, as well as the need for any modification throughout its
execution. When opening the door to the fire area, staying low and off to the side, briefly pause
to let the smoke blow and lift. This opportunity should be seized to observe the presentation
and characteristics of the smoke as it discharges. This information will provide you with a better
assessment as to the location and severity of the fire and how the fire should be approached. If
there is a defined break in the smoke (i.e., the “neutral plane”)—providing a layer of fresh air
below (intaking towards the fire)—move in until you are in position to get water on the seat of
the fire (the threshold of the fire area/room) or until conditions necessitate intervention.

As with anything else on the fireground, critical-thinking and commonsense must prevail. If you
are able to see your feet, then walk as you move in. If you cannot, then crouch down until you
can (i.e., “duck-walk”), or drop down to the floor and move in a “tri-pod” position. Whenever
there is visibility at the floor-level, it should capitalized to scan the area for potential victims,
the fire, and the general layout of the space, prior to opening up; as the disruption in the smoke
layer will (temporarily) obscure your vision once the stream is applied.

When that “clean space” is not present (which is often the case) or conditions begin to
deteriorate while moving in, and it is lost, the nozzle should be opened as soon as the fire
becomes visible or heat is experienced (either physically or indicated through the thermal
imaging camera); utilizing the reach of the stream. The nozzle should continue to operate until
sustained relief is experienced and/or the fire darkens down. The same approach should be
taken if fire or dark, turbulent smoke is encountered at the entryway. If the initial hit is
successful and the conditions hold after closing the bale, the handline can then be advanced in
further; hopefully, all the way to seat of the fire (i.e., a “hit and move” approach). If conditions
immediately rebound after shutting down, however, the nozzle should remain open throughout
the remainder of the advance – progressing into a flow and move approach.

The flow and move is most commonly attributed to the following scenarios: a room offset from
the avenue of approach that is post-flashover and extending out (where the stream is initially
not reaching the seat of the fire); a wind-driven condition is present (where the handline is
advancing from the downwind side of the fire); a below-grade fire (where the handline is
advancing down the interior stairs); or a well-advanced fire that is under-ventilated (where the
fire is aggressively venting toward the point of entry). Because they are not the typical “bread
and butter” fires, a firefighter may balk at the necessity of flowing and moving if they have yet
to encounter any of those situations. The problem is that the fireground is not the time or the
place to have that epiphany moment. There is often little margin for error in these instances –
requiring decisive and swift action. The ability to flow and move can be the difference between
you making the push, or getting pushed out.

There still exists an apprehension among many firefighters to (continuously) flow water, if no
fire is visible, even when encountering a considerable heat condition. Much of this problem can
be attributed to the negative habits and assumptions that can be inadvertently spawned out of
live fire training. Because the instruction in these evolutions has historically been to advance in
as close to the fire as possible (allowing for the greatest amount of heat and fire to be
experienced), and for years the mantra of “do not flow water on smoke” was professed,
firefighters were programmed to advance all the way to the seat of the fire without flowing
water.

This problem is further reinforced by the complete encapsulation and thermal protection
afforded by modern turnout gear, which can shield tremendous amounts of heat. The
subsequent loss of tactile acuity distorts our perception of the environment and its severity;
since discomfort is typically not experienced until the gear starts to saturate. This can produce
an anecdotal confirmation bias each time a fire is extinguished without flowing and moving
where it was warranted. Just because the fire went out, does not mean it was the best course
of action. The question that must be posed is, “Were the (potentially) trapped occupants given
the best chance of survival?” Despite the proliferation of phrases such as, “another tool in the
toolbox” and “its situationally dependent,” there is absolutely a hierarchy of effectiveness when
it comes to the tactical options at our disposal. Maximizing the preservation of life and property
must remain the core metric for our decision-making.

Another issue which can be derived from live fire training is the common practice of restricting
the suppression to only short burst of water (i.e., “penciling”) to avoid completely extinguishing
the fire so, it can be quickly reset for the next evolution; which, at times, may be harshly
reinforced by the instructors or burn tenders. As the burn building itself becomes saturated
with heat, the (insufficient) application of water can result in excess steam production, banking
down on top of the firefighters.

These experiences create “training scars” which can lead firefighters to become hesitant to flow
water. In reality, when the appropriate flow rate is properly applied, the rate that the fire gases
contract as they are cooled by the stream (causing an immediate reduction in pressure) can
exceed the rate at which the water will expand as it absorbs heat. Unlike the thick concrete and
steel walls and ceilings of a burn building, which eventually begin permeating/radiating heat
back, the surfaces within most residential (wood-frame) structures will, instead, be cooled
more rapidly with less steam production. This misconception regarding steam and “inverting”
the thermal layer can be furthered by the negative encounters that firefighters may have had in
the past where fog streams were utilized in the fire attack. Fire instructors must ensure they are
instilling best practices, as well as prompting and debriefing firefighters as to the actual
conditions they can expect to encounter and the impact their tactics will have on the
fireground.

Engine company firefighters must be well-versed in flowing and moving in various settings, as
the approach will not always be a straight-forward, unobstructed hallway. They must be
capable of advancing forward and backward, up and down stairs (including straight run, return,
and circular types), navigating 90- and 180-degree turns, as well as open- and closed-ended
corners, and contending with restricted pathways. In each of these configurations, the nozzle
team must be able to make the push in tandem (married up together and advancing as one
unit) and separated (the nozzle firefighter knee-walking while the back-up firefighter provides
support a few feet down the handline). These operations are labor intensive and require
finesse, forethought, and teamwork, especially for under-staffed engine companies. The
associated techniques are nuanced and take proper instruction and continual practice to
develop the communication, coordination, and proficiency to operate both effectively and
efficiently.

Sadly, flowing and moving is not emphasized or even included in many fire academies. Because
people can have a tendency to reject or avoid what they are not familiar or comfortable with,
this can also be another source of contention regarding its use. Once competent in the proper
body mechanics to distribute weight, maximize leverage, and displace (reaction) force, as well
as proactive hose management, however, that daunting task, which may have seemed
unreasonable or even impossible to those firefighters, can become not just a reality, but one of
their greatest assets; as flowing and moving enables an engine company to wield the full
suppressive power of their handline to overwhelm the fire with superior force and tempo.

Flowing and moving is a matter of life safety – both for firefighters and civilians alike. Not only
can it restore/preserve the means of egress and the survivable space, but it is also essential if
the nozzle team starts to get over-run or outflanked and needs to retreat under fire. For an
engine company, the ability to flow and move is simply a requisite skill-set that they must be
proficient in. An engine company must be able to operate in any environment and contend with
any conditions they may encounter to reach their objective and accomplish their mission –
protecting the evacuation/removal of any occupants and extinguishing the seat of the fire.

References:

1) Fields, Aaron. The Nozzle Forward Curriculum.

Nicholas Papa is lieutenant with the New Britain (CT) Fire Department, where he served for
over 13 years, presently assigned to Engine Company 1. He previously volunteered in a
neighboring suburb, where he became a second-generation firefighter. Nick has been a
contributor to Fire Engineering and an FDIC classroom instructor since 2017. He was also a
technical panelist for the UL-FSRI Study on Coordinated Fire Attack in Acquired Structures. Nick
is the owner and lead instructor of the training organization Fireside Training.