Are fog nozzles not the answer?
While it is undoubtedly true that turnout clothing protects better today, the turnout clothing in use then did not prevent firefighters from making an interior attack. In fact I can personally testify that in the 60s I have made an interior attack on a number of occasions, and I did not suffer any harm from the turnout coat that I was wearing. The main difference was that we wore rubber boots that pulled up to our hips. Admittedly this was not nearly as good protection as the turnout pants worn today.
Likewise, we had air packs, the same Scott air packs that are in use today. To be sure we used them to make interior initial attacks. We had four packs per pumper (an ISO requirement then) and so did our neighboring fire departments, and as far as I know, so did all the fire departments in the entire state. There was a difference. Our air packs were carried in suitcases stored in a compartment on our pumper.
Fredericks has made assertions about fire fighting in the 50s and 60s without any real knowledge of what took place then I asked Keith Royer about this sometime ago. After a moment of reflection, he said: “Come to think of it, we did an awful lot of interior fire fighting.” So there was no essential difference in strategy or tactics between now and 50 years ago. The combination attack and the indirect attack can be used as an interior attack or an exterior attack with equal effectiveness. Here again Fredericks has made assertions about fire fighting in the 50s and 60s without any real knowledge of what took place then. Whether few, or many, fire departments lacked air masks or adequate turnout clothing is irrelevant. The essential point is that the research done by Layman, Royer, and Nelson did involve the use of air masks and interior fire fighting.
One final note. The videos produced by Royer and Nelson could not have been done if an interior attack were made. It would not have been possible to do so inside a structure with all the smoke and lack of lighting.
