Andy Fredericks (RIP) Squad 18 FDNY

Andy Fredericks was a great firefighter and an inspiration to generations of firefighters worldwide. He worked and tragically died, alongside 342 other FDNY firefighters, as a member of Squad 18 attending the scene of terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, in September 2001. Andy and I had a series of endless, but enjoyable, exchanges of views not long before his death. We used to talk for what seemed like hours over water-fog tactics versus high-flow solid stream fire attack. We also took our hardened beliefs and opinions into the pages of Fire Engineering magazine (US) where he would write about the benefits of solid streams over water-fog and I would counter with an alternative viewpoint.

Andy wrote, quoting my previous publications, in Fire EngineeringMagazine 2/2000

 ‘As a result of two Swedish firefighters being killed in a flashover in the early 1980s, fog nozzle techniques were devised to counter the effects of fire gas ignition and prevent injuries from flashover and backdraft. Termed ‘offensive’ or ‘three-dimensional’ water fog application, these techniques have been explained in detail in the writings of Paul Grimwood, a retired veteran firefighter from the London Fire Brigade’.

Grimwood was kind enough to address my questions and concerns about ‘3-D’ fog techniques. Although I agree with his assessment of the modern fire environment and its attendant hazards-particularly the volatile nature of fire gases and the increasing hazards of flashover and backdraft, I disagree with several of the specific tactics he advocates’.

Author’s response to Andy Fredericks in Fire Engineering Magazine 10/2000

"Most recently, I read with great interest Andrew A. Fredericks’ two-part discussion of water fog applications and the direct form of attack. I noted that generally the U.S approach to compartmental (interior) firefighting currently seems to favour the low-pressure, high-flow, solid stream attack. The results of a recent Internet survey suggested that 54 percent of US firefighters preferred smooth bore over the 42 percent who support fog nozzles. However, these figures are mainly influenced by the direct attack vs. the indirect attack experience. I have been fortunate enough to have served on both sides of the Atlantic [as a firefighter] and am fully aware of the varying approaches made and the differences in construction and cultures that exist between our nations to appreciate why preferences may evolve. Having advanced hose-lines alongside Fire Department of New York firefighters into burning South Bronx tenements during the 1970s and having experienced the effects of smooth bore streams directed into heavy fire fronts [in both London and New York], I can testify to the reasons why such an approach is effective and remains popular.

I have enjoyed conversing with Andrew Fredericks in the past and fully respect his views and opinions in relation to compartment firefighting, which are based on many years of sound experience. I certainly do not oppose his viewpoint that the flow from a straight stream attack, at the base of a fire, is the most effective (and safest) application a firefighter can use to control a room-and-contents fire. The new wave concepts of water fog applications [also termed three-dimensional (3-D) water fog] are aimed essentially at flashover control and may be applied both defensively (pre-flashover gaseous cooling) and offensively (post-flashover suppression of gaseous combustion). In simple terms, the water droplets are placed directly into the fire gas layers in the overhead to prevent flashover".

Kyle Romagus recently reminded me that Andy wrote again just a few weeks before his tragic death at WTC 9-11

"When pockets of CO ignite, firefighters performing searches and even those advancing handlines are often burned. Insulated by modern bunker gear and protective hoods from the heat radiating downward from the smoke above them and blinded to rollover by the dark smoke that surrounds them, the critical warning signs of impending flashover go unnoticed. Even "state of the art" turnout clothing cannot protect against burns caused by flashover. Remember too that a charged handline cannot offer protection if it is not in operation. Perhaps opening the nozzle on smoke, despite what we have been taught, is something we should consider in some cases. If we can reduce the volatility of the smoke, we can prevent burn injuries. Fires involving commercial occupancies, cellars, and confined spaces should be considered prime candidates for applying “water on smoke.”

Fire Nuggets June/July 2001 WHY FIRES ARE MORE DANGEROUS TODAY BY ANDREW A. FREDERICKS

It was great to remember that after so many years of debate, we were finally on the same page in our practical firefighting beliefs. I wish Andy were still here … inspiring others and always promoting sound firefighting guidance.

EuroFirefighter 2 p192-194

https://eurofirefighter.com/downloads

Addendum