I hate to Monday morning QB anything, but with this accident, there were complaints and rumblings I'd heard from some in the EMS community about the slow fire response to this accident. One crewmwmber was killed on impact. Two others survived the accident, but died either enroute or at the hospital.
As an ARFF-trained firefighter, and one who currently does contract firefighting operations with local raceway, I'm well aware of the operational aspects of aircraft crash/fire/rescue operations as well as operations involving Class B/D fire classes (flammable liquids/metals), and know that time is of the essence regards survivalibility in these type of fires (and of course, in any fire), as well issues surrounding extrication involved/needed.
Referencing the video of the immediate post-accident, there's selected commentary that was posted with it, which I'll comment to. Watching it is tough, seeing as how there seems to be much time being taken to size-up, versus commencing firefighting operations. Yes, a proper size-up is important, and that's usually done approaching the scene initially. But commencing suppression operations ASAP is equally important, if only to enhance the survivability aspects of any potential live victims. In this case, there were two still alive in the wreckage.
Yes, a post crash fire. Yes, survivability is generally low. But "probably dead" isn't good enough, and further treating this as an exposure protection and recovery based on "probably" also isn't good enough. Firefighter safety always ranks above the safety of potential victims, yes, (ie- don't make yourself a victim too) but there's a fine line between your safety as a firefighter and taking the risks you get paid to take.
Incorrect there. There's a reason fire trucks carry a water tank, so they can begin initial attack on a fire immediately, while other crew or the second-due engine takes the reponsibility of supplying them; either by laying them back to a hydrant, laying from a hydrant forward to them, or supplying them with their own truck if a hydrant isn't available. Either way, quick initial attack on something like this is paramount. And this isn't an ARFF specific idea, it's something all firefighters should at least know.
Since I'm certed and current as both in your last sentence here, I will comment. Yes, the average structure engine (regular fire truck) isn't specifically equipped for aircraft fires. But that doesn't mean they don't do anything on scene, as they still possess the ability to fight aircraft or fuel fires. Yes, in any situation scene safety is very important, but equally important is commencing suppression operations.
Never say never. DO NOT carry AFFF (a Class B foam for fuel fires)? It depends. Some do, some don't. Most all engines carry Class A foam, which can be used on a Class B fire, but isn't optimal due to its inability to secure explosive vapors due to some chemical incompatibility; but it will extinguish the fire, which is the important thing. Secondarily, all engine trucks carry limited stocks of dry chemical, normally in an extinguisher...also useful. Sure, it's important to determine what's burning before you start extinguishing it, but you also would know that prior to arriving on scene, and a simple 10 second size-up would also give you most of what you need to know in a situation like this.
And lastly: "Survivors weren't going to be found?" Really? Guess what, they were found, and later succumbed. Could've/should've/would've.....but what if, they had been extricated even 1 minute earlier? You cannot go by that instant assumption. You simply cannot.
