We saw an interesting press release from the National Fire Protection Association, they released an EV firefighting video game for free with the help of a private developer and a Department of Energy grant. So far, more than a million firefighters have used the game to learn about fighting EV fires.
Well, that pitch was irresistible to us. We wanted to know more about how EVs work in emergencies, and we get to play video games to do it? Awesome, count me in, let the games begin. Here’s how the game plays and what we learned from it.
Pretty interesting, though the current primary method of EV Fire fighting tactics is the use of fire blankets, which isn’t as exciting or game worthy.
Also lol @ the author confusing backdraft and flashover.
Some departments are getting water tanks to drop the vehicle in too.
A retired firefighter mentioned that her department was using something very interesting - these are flood control barricades, think plastic sandbags.
You put up the barricades, and then use that to make a sort of moat, fill it with water, and you basically build the water tank around the burning EV.
This page shows the concept, site’s in India, but this is being done in the western hemisphere some places, too: https://www.floodbarriers.in/ev_fire_fighting.php
Ya know, we actually don’t use fire blankets where I’m at! The training videogame also made no mention of them, and it is very recent, released last year.
Interesting, right? There’s a huge amount of variation for firefighting techniques nationwide for EVs. I’ve seen them used, but only out West.
As for confusing backdraft and flashover, no, I got that correct. To the best of my admittedly very spotty memory :)
See this article, it means different things different places, how I learned it is that every backdraft is a flashover, but not every flashover is a backdraft. If that’s wrong, take it up with the lieutenant who trained me, who was incidentally stellar at his job: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdraft
Flashover and backdraft are two different things with two very different mechanisms behind them. The naming of each are standardized across the nation as each academy should be teaching to the NFPA 1001 standard at a minimum.
In order to address that with your lieutenant, I would direct him to NFPA 921.
Edit: I should have lead with… thanks! I appreciate a second set of eyes on it, I want everything in my articles to be factually correct. If ever I’m way off in content I share, please do tell me, and I’ll correct it.
Tell you what, to avoid confusion, I’ll simplify the language in that paragraph, it seems to be distracting a few folks.
I should mention, my experience is very old, I haven’t held a valid cert in decades - so, if there is a flaw in my knowledge, that wouldn’t be my old LT’s fault (as our training was broadly excellent), that is almost certainly foggy memory.
In this case, I’m still pretty sure I’ve described the behavior correctly. I’m removing the reference to avoid distraction, but I’m pretty sure it is correct as-is. See bolded text if you only want to read a single sentence about it.
The definitions you’ve linked above do not contradict what I’ve posted below or how I’ve described the behavior in the article. You’re running a narrow definition, I’m running a broad definition, the distinction is really fine and neither is wrong.
From the linked Wikipedia article I linked above:
Ok so a couple things here. You mention your knowledge is decades old. If you’re talking more than two decades ago there’s a chance your definition was correct a very long time ago. But to be clear, today in the year of our lord 2025, in the United States of America, your definition is not correct. There are no “narrow” and “broad” definitions. There is a single definition for each in the context of firefighting in the U.S.
One of the things you’ll want to get in the habit of doing, is not quoting Wikipedia as your source, but rather the source that Wikipedia refers to when it says something:
The disagreement mentioned here refers to the long history of loose definitions in the distant past of fire science as these phenomena were being studied and categorized, as well as differences between scientific and firefighting applications, and European/ US entities. If you follow that reference in your quote [5],
You’ll see it goes over the history of the terms and how we’ve ended up with the current definitions. In the U.S. based fire service, the be-all end-all of these terms in NFPA 921-2004 which is as follows:
The source goes on to explain:
The whole “All backdrafts are flashovers but not all flashovers are backdrafts” comes from studies done by the Swedes in the 1980s which, depending on how long ago you spoke with your lieutenant, may have been what he was referring to. The source article touches on these as well, but again, these are not acceptable terms today.
So if in your article you wanted to use the non-specific broad definition of these phenomena, you’d use “Rapid Fire Progress”. But if you wanted to use terms like flashover or backdraft, you’d need to use the correct one for the phenomena you’re trying to describe because they are not interchangeable any longer.
Here is another great article in PDF format about RFP and its categories that really goes into detail on their differences. It also explains the issue I take with your article, which is that these terms are still to this day sometimes casually misused as if they’re unimportant and interchangeable. This is harmful when presented in an educational context (like your article is to some degree), because these terms need to be clear, distinct, and have a universal meaning so that conditions can be accurately communicated when you’re fighting a fire.
I hear you! That’s very interesting to know about RFP, that term is 100% new to me. Makes a lot of sense.
Point taken. Article amended with a thank you for your more specific terminology.
Have a good one.