Many times when talking about first due operations of the engine company, the phrase transitional attack comes out. Next thing you know some are in a heated conversation about what this style of attack is and how the fire service is responding to the possible misconceptions this phrase associates with.

Recently I attended a training seminar regarding first due operations of an engine company, specifically focusing on Suburban America.

During the presentation many ideas were bounced around regarding hose line selection, officer assignments, and overall goals of the first due rig. The speaker spoke of the initial attack either being Offensive of Defensive however there was no middle area.

He mentioned transitional attack to the fact that people are holding this idea of an attack to be the go to initial attack. Not in so many words but it had a hold of me. We walked right over from offensive to defensive and didn’t get stuck on the remote island of transitional.

At the break I questioned myself to why this wasn’t being discussed. As the break went on I kept replaying in my head what I just heard and asked myself why?

Coming back in the speaker launched into the officers position on the hose-line, and then it hit me. If you show up and the front door is engulfed in fire what would one do? Would they find another way in? Would they go defensive and then to a offensive position?

Truthfully it would be hard to say what many would do yet we constantly fight on the issue of transitional attack. Everyday firefighters go to work using the transitional attack method with great success and not even realizing it. Nor do they have to announce we are going transitional. So why are some constantly pushing the envelope of transitional attack. How come the fire service hasn’t come to terms that we already do this and have done it for years.

Why haven’t we as craftsman realize we are wasting our time with the word transitional. Going back to that engulfed door, a crew stretches off and hits the door from 10 feet away, extinguishing the entryway then stretches in. Do you consider this a transitional attack?

Transitional attacks requires going from one tactic to another. In our case from offensive to defensive or the opposite. Hitting the door thats on fire and stretching into the foyer or front room is an offensive attack.

Flowing wa ter to while heading towards main body of fire while trying to hit the seat of the fire from the doorway into the room. In what many consider a transitional attack is in the form of shooting water through a window or door then stretching in to the seat of the fire.

Is this not the same thing as hitting that door and moving in? Now on arrival there is to much involvement for a crew of two with limited tank water to really put a good knock on it, one may start with a defensive attack.

As other arriving companies fill in strategic tasks a water supply is established an offensive attack is orchestrated. Some

would consider this to be the transitional attack. In a way yes you can argue that but it should not be considered an attack. It should be looked at as the next move. Or essentially the transitional period. Defensive to offensive.

It goes for the same if guys are making
a push in the interior but command recognizes possible collapse issues or
a sign where the building needs to be evacuated and orders everyone out, they go defensive. There is no transitional attack but a change of tactics. A transition period where PAR checks and master streams come into play.

I urge many to leave the phrase transitional attack out of the arguments and focus on making sound decisions with what
you see on the fire ground. Either we are going offensive with an aggressive interior attack or we are going defensive with a ton of water. Both attacks using the most appropriate hose line for the amount of fire they are confronted with.