View Poll Results: Is it worth agressive interior attack on known vacant buildings?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, it is worth the risk

    20 55.56%
  • No, it is not worth the risk

    16 44.44%
Like Tree136Likes

Thread: Risk/Reward Interior attack vacant buildings presentation

  1. #451
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whammer79 View Post
    The key word in the poll question was "aggressive". To me that means a building, in this case a vacant building, with very heavy fire conditions and only a very "aggressive" interior attack is going to have a chance of putting it out. So that means lot's of crews inside. If that is my course of action as an IC, I am risking a lot to save what?

    Is this an abandoned building? A building no one wants? I'm not risking my people for something like that.
    Is it a vacant/unoccupied business? A business that is closed for the day and all employees have gone home. Some businesses are built cheap, easy to knockdown into the ground and be rebuilt. Why risk people for that?

    Size up is very important. Are conditions such that no unprotected human could survive them? The reality is there is no one to save. It's a body recovery operation and no one risks the lives of their people to recover a body. You don't do it on ice or river rescue, so don't do it at a building fire.

    I have 32 years on a career dept. and I am currently a District Chief. It's tough to make blanket statements and no two calls are ever the same. In the real world I will let my size up guide my actions. But the more red flags I note the more my strategy meter is going to move towards the defensive side of the scale.
    Whammer -most agree with you --- the problem I see, is a growing minority are greasing the slippery slope, and using safety as an excuse to do basically nothing.
    ?

  2. #452
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whammer79 View Post
    The key word in the poll question was "aggressive". To me that means a building, in this case a vacant building, with very heavy fire conditions and only a very "aggressive" interior attack is going to have a chance of putting it out. So that means lot's of crews inside. If that is my course of action as an IC, I am risking a lot to save what?

    Why does aggressive fire attack equate to heavy fire conditions? I don't think the 2 are automatically related at all. Sometimes a small fire aggressively attacked prevents the fire from becoming heavy fire conditions.

    Is this an abandoned building? A building no one wants? I'm not risking my people for something like that.

    Is it a vacant/unoccupied business? A business that is closed for the day and all employees have gone home. Some businesses are built cheap, easy to knockdown into the ground and be rebuilt. Why risk people for that?

    First of all, an "abandoned by the owner building" doesn't necessarily mean the building isn't occupied by squatters, kids partying, or drug abusers. Local conditions would dictate the odds of that occurring in your area.

    Secondly, a closed business doesn't necessarily mean all employees have gone home. It is VERY common in my area to have employees in doing stocking, cleaning, or maintenance after hours. You can't even count on cars in the lot to tell you whether the business is occupied or not.


    Size up is very important. Are conditions such that no unprotected human could survive them? The reality is there is no one to save. It's a body recovery operation and no one risks the lives of their people to recover a body. You don't do it on ice or river rescue, so don't do it at a building fire.

    NO ONE, let me repeat this for you, NO ONE is advocating running willy nilly into a heavily involved, or fully involved, structure in some super hero attempt at rescue. Whether the building is abandoned, unoccupied, vacant, or occupied, the fact doesn't change that we must make proper tactical decisions based on size-up of the situation.

    I have 32 years on a career dept. and I am currently a District Chief. It's tough to make blanket statements and no two calls are ever the same. In the real world I will let my size up guide my actions. But the more red flags I note the more my strategy meter is going to move towards the defensive side of the scale.

    I don't think anyone disagrees with that line of reasoning.
    I don't like blanket statements of always and never regarding structural firefighting. Every situation presents its owns clues on what action we should take. It is up to us to make the proper decisions.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  3. #453
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10

    Default

    FyredUp,

    The problem is the poll question is not very complete, it's leave a great deal to the reader's imagination. That's why there are so many differing responses.
    In my mind his question produces an image of a large abandoned building with heavy fire. Only aggressive fire attack actions are going to have an impact upon it.
    His reference to how Detroit is treating these structures is another tip off to what he's asking.

    Your points are valid and trust me we are thinking the same way. There can be no one size fits all answer to the OP's original post, just too many variables and too many unanswered questions.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. interior attack
    By whitefishfire in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 07-28-2009, 02:55 PM
  2. Is the risk worth the reward??
    By Rivwarrior in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-30-2005, 06:59 AM
  3. first interior attack
    By smfd232 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-29-2002, 03:43 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-13-2002, 02:09 PM
  5. interior attack communications
    By mtperry in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-02-2002, 04:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register