Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience

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%
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 453
Like Tree136Likes

Thread: Risk/Reward Interior attack vacant buildings presentation

  1. #41
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    CheeseFF/EMT...

    You have to ask yourself WHY this poster won't post his opinion here in the open forum. While the rest of us had no problem doing so.

    [B[/B].

    The reason is on this topic he is so FAR out of the mainstream of the fire service as to be eliminated from any serious consideration as a resource for any relevant information.
    Simply because I don't want to deal with the anadotal and fire service cultural nonsense that most in here throw out in defense of this truly dangerous practice of entering abandoned structures in communities where there is no historical data to justify the risk.

    As I have said, if you can look at the widow and the kids of a firefighter killed operating in abandoned building, and feel thtn you can truly justify the risk of entering based on the realistic possibility of that building being occupied, have at it.

    You are the one that will have to sleep at night.

    But there is not one community in which I have served where the historical and statistical data can even come close the justifying that risk, and no, I could not look them in the eye and even come close top justify thier husband or father being in that structure, unless we have a direct, relaible and current report of occupancy or clear exterior evidence of such.

    It is not part of our job - career or volunteer - to die in such low probability operations.

    Actually, if you look at the trends nationwide and how many departments are starting to approach abondoned buildings, I'm not.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-21-2013 at 04:10 PM.
    HeightsFF likes this.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.


  2. #42
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Actually, if you look at the trends nationwide and how many departments are starting to approach abondoned buildings, I'm not.
    Care to list 10 of those departments and what their "new" approach is?

    Please keep in mind though that "abandoned" and "vacant" are not fully interchangeable terms and neither specifically means the building is in poor condition and structurally unstable.

  3. #43
    Forum Member snowball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Just North of South Central
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    We don't even use the word "abandoned" here. That would indicate that we know who and/or where the owner is. Assuming nobody is inside is not our call. If we are met outside by someone who can confirm the vacant structure is unoccupied, we will switch attack modes, but that also depends upon how involved in fire the building is.

  4. #44
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Simply because I don't want to deal with the anadotal and fire service cultural nonsense that most in here throw out in defense of this truly dangerous practice of entering abandoned structures in communities where there is no historical data to justify the risk.

    First of all, what college did you go to again? The word is ANECDOTAL.

    The fact is, despite your belief that things only happen the way they do in your 1/4 inch of the universe, that in many areas, most medium to large sized cities, there is really no such thing as an abandoned structure. They have squatters, homeless, drug users, kids drinking, drugging, or doing whatever it is that kids do. If a structure is abandoned, with no utilities, how did it catch on fire? A miracle? Spontaneous combustion? HOW? And since it is now on fire how do we know that those that started the fire aren't still in there?

    Frankly, I don't give a damn and 5/16ths what you do in Bossier Parrish Louisiana, and really neither does anybody else on here. If you truly believe that you will NEVER have anyone in an abandoned structure that miraculously catches on fire then go with that. Hopefully YOU can look in Mom and Dad's eyes and say
    someting meaningful to explain why you didn't even try to save junior who was in the building screwing around.

    Further no one is saying to enter ANY building with wreckless abandon on a suicide mission. If the building is deemed safe to enter then entry is made, if not then it isn't. Your definition is any building that YOU deem vacant is automatically written off, sorry that is not how the rest of the world works.



    As I have said, if you can look at the widow and the kids of a firefighter killed operating in abandoned building, and feel thtn you can truly justify the risk of entering based on the realistic possibility of that building being occupied, have at it.

    Like I said above, if you can look Mom and Dad in the eye and say "Well, even though the building was standing and probably one hose line could have put out the fire initially we just don't enter abandoned buildings so sorry your kid died. Maybe if there had been a smoke detector he would have known to leave." Then you can justify NOT EVEN TRYING to determine if the structure is actually vacant or not.

    If conditions allowed I would have not one second thought about entering with my firefighters to do a quick search. Why? Because it is my job. It is that simple to me. If conditions do not allow then we don't enter. WHY? Because that is common sense that a well trained and experienced fire officer uses to make tactical decisions.


    You are the one that will have to sleep at night.

    I sleep very well thank you and frankly if you don't have the guts to make tough decisions then you shouldn't be a command officer.

    But there is not one community in which I have served where the historical and statistical data can even come close the justifying that risk, and no, I could not look them in the eye and even come close top justify thier husband or father being in that structure, unless we have a direct, relaible and current report of occupancy or clear exterior evidence of such.

    And again, good for you. Then say that when you spread your absolute yard breather nonsense here. Don't make it sound like your community is the way it is everywhere.

    It is not part of our job - career or volunteer - to die in such low probability operations.

    It is also not part of our job to stand outside, in situations where a search is possible, and write people off because we don't have the guts to do the job.

    Actually, if you look at the trends nationwide and how many departments are starting to approach abondoned buildings, I'm not.

    YES, you are. Because you automatically write off a building, because it is an "abandoned building." You simply can't do that in more urban areas where they are more than likely occupied.
    Just wondering what college did you go to?
    Last edited by FyredUp; 03-22-2013 at 12:31 AM.
    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

  5. #45
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,565

    Default

    Fryed ...

    Funny thing is that I have asked the "urban guys" many, many times to give me a number ... a percentage ...that they find squatters in abondoned buildings, and I have yet to get one firm, hard, staistically based answer. Ya, I have heard a bunch of "one time at fire camp" stories, but I have never gotten a percentage based on run data. Not once.

    I have even asked for a guesstimate .. 5% of the time .... 10% .... but I can't even get that out of them.

    Problem is that you want to tell me how often it happens but nobody seems to be able to give me a number so that we can truly analyze the issue with actual, real data rather than stories ,emotions and "It's our job".

    So Fryed, what percentage of the time do you find squatters still in the building when you respond to fires in abandon's in your "urban" career gig?

    When I get some firm data, I'll admit I'm wrong if the percentage is significant enough to justify the risk. The problem is ... I'm still waiting on data.

    Fact is in my communties, over a 33 year career, the answer is 0%. Not once. So based on that, I'm damn sure not going to asssume that the next time will be the first time. And if it's a run where I am in command, I'm damn sure not going to send anyone inside, especuially if it's a structure where the owner has decided to longer maintain and allow to fall to the ground. It's simply not worth the price my member's kids and spouse may have to pay if things go wrong.

    Siometimes it takes more guts to do what is not typical and do what is right for the troops. And sometimes that means letting a building burn, even if you may have been able to knock it out, to protect them from the unknown dangers.

    And by the way, I would have a much easier time looking in the face of Mom and Dad then the faces of the family of one of our members. Call that cold. Call it heartless, but yes, WE do come first, and abandon's and vacant's simply aren't worth it unless somebody can TELL me that it's occupied.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-22-2013 at 09:20 AM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  6. #46
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Care to list 10 of those departments and what their "new" approach is?

    Please keep in mind though that "abandoned" and "vacant" are not fully interchangeable terms and neither specifically means the building is in poor condition and structurally unstable.
    Fully agree, which is why I have stated numerous times that I have no issues entering vacants , which in our nomanclature means that the building is till structurally sound and maintained, and could be occupied but currently is not, under specific fire and response conditions.

    Abandoned means that the building is no longer being mainatained and that the building may not be structurally safe and habitable.

    Those buildings should not be entered, IMO, unless there is a reported and known occupancy, and that includes even to extinguish a small fire, unless there are exposure issues.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  7. #47
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I won't get into the details here in the open forum as in the past it's gotten some of the posters in quite a lather, but if you want details, just shoot me a PM and I'll be happy to talk about it.
    ...followed by several posts of your usual "details."
    You are such a useless liar.

  8. #48
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    A couple of points before I start ignoring this useless thread:

    When cops process people they arrest, they don't use "data" to determine who is likely to be carrying a weapon; everybody gets searched. If you think you can live with yourself after not at least making an attempt to search, and some kids or an elderly homeless person is found the next morning, then get the hell out of the fire service...you don't belong here.

    This entire thread is a joke. No legitimate college student would even begin to think this crap would be accepted as a good source or reliable poll. It was either started by a complete idiot, or a troll...or both.
    Last edited by ThNozzleman; 03-22-2013 at 10:21 AM. Reason: I felt like it.

  9. #49
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Fryed ...

    Funny thing is that I have asked the "urban guys" many, many times to give me a number ... a percentage ...that they find squatters in abondoned buildings, and I have yet to get one firm, hard, staistically based answer. Ya, I have heard a bunch of "one time at fire camp" stories, but I have never gotten a percentage based on run data. Not once.

    I have even asked for a guesstimate .. 5% of the time .... 10% .... but I can't even get that out of them.

    Problem is that you want to tell me how often it happens but nobody seems to be able to give me a number so that we can truly analyze the issue with actual, real data rather than stories ,emotions and "It's our job".

    So Fryed, what percentage of the time do you find squatters still in the building when you respond to fires in abandon's in your "urban" career gig?

    When I get some firm data, I'll admit I'm wrong if the percentage is significant enough to justify the risk. The problem is ... I'm still waiting on data.

    Fact is in my communties, over a 33 year career, the answer is 0%. Not once. So based on that, I'm damn sure not going to asssume that the next time will be the first time. And if it's a run where I am in command, I'm damn sure not going to send anyone inside, especuially if it's a structure where the owner has decided to longer maintain and allow to fall to the ground. It's simply not worth the price my member's kids and spouse may have to pay if things go wrong.

    Siometimes it takes more guts to do what is not typical and do what is right for the troops. And sometimes that means letting a building burn, even if you may have been able to knock it out, to protect them from the unknown dangers.

    And by the way, I would have a much easier time looking in the face of Mom and Dad then the faces of the family of one of our members. Call that cold. Call it heartless, but yes, WE do come first, and abandon's and vacant's simply aren't worth it unless somebody can TELL me that it's occupied.
    This kind of post is EXACTLY why you will NEVER be taken seriously here by the majority of the members of this forum. Once again you post absolutely ludicrous crap about suicidal Banzai charges into "abandoned" buildings on the verge of collapse fully involved in fire. Who said they would do that? Show me one poster who said they would enter a building like that. In fact the opposite is true, everyone has said CLEARLY, REPEATEDLY, they would search IF CONDITIONS ALLOWED. So how about you hop off the drama train and try to have a serious discussion on this topic just once. Or is being the drama queen clown just easier for you?
    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

  10. #50
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    A couple of points before I start ignoring this useless thread:

    When cops process people they arrest, they don't use "data" to determine who is likely to be carrying a weapon; everybody gets searched. If you think you can live with yourself after not at least making an attempt to search, and some kids or an elderly homeless person is found the next morning, then get the hell out of the fire service...you don't belong here.

    This entire thread is a joke. No legitimate college student would even begin to think this crap would be accepted as a good source or reliable poll. It was either started by a complete idiot, or a troll...or both.
    Not even the same thing. Once somebody is in custody they are searched for the safety of the police officers and others in the vicinity.

    As far as who gets stopped, yes, smart cops do use data and historocal evidence to determine who they suspect may be committing criminal activity. Smart firefighters do the same thing. We profile the structure and yes, historical data in the district or that part of town to make a determination on the probability of occupancy, and then all other decisions work from that starting point.

    And yes, I could sleep at night if a civilian died in an abandoned building and I made the call not to search it. I have no control over the decsions they make regarding personal safety or a parents call regarding the supervision of thier kids, but I do have complete control over the safety of the personnel under me, and I could not sleep at night knowing that i sent somebody in my command into a situation where they were killed for no meaningful purpose.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  11. #51
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    .

    And yes, I could sleep at night if a civilian died in an abandoned building and I made the call not to search it. I have no control over the decsions they make regarding personal safety or a parents call regarding the supervision of thier kids, but I do have complete control over the safety of the personnel under me, and I could not sleep at night knowing that i sent somebody in my command into a situation where they were killed for no meaningful purpose.
    So attempting to rescue the citizens we protect is "NO MEANINGFUL PURPOSE?" Again, show me anyone on here saying run into a building that is fully involved or on the verge of collapse. Come on Bobby, I'll wait. YOU CAN'T BECAUSE NO ONE SAID THAT.

    Remind me again why you are a firefighter? You feel no obligation to save lives or property. Golly, aren't those the 2 main reasons for being a firefighter?
    Last edited by FyredUp; 03-22-2013 at 12:10 PM.
    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

  12. #52
    the 4-1-4 Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    So attempting to rescue the citizens we protect is "NO MEANINGFUL PURPOSE?"

    Should you really be surprised? This is the same individual who feels no obligation, as a human, to try and intervene in an event that has a direct, "meaningful purpose". One in which the entire world was able to see the success of it.
    This is an individual with no conscience. None. A person who could not only watch a child burn to death but, then actively promote their despicable justification.

    We're not even talking about this firefighter to firefighter, but as human to human. This goes beyond our jobs and our oath to office. What kind of human being could sit and watch another human suffer one of the worst possible fates imaginable; burning alive. It really makes you wonder.
    Last edited by Jasper 45; 03-22-2013 at 12:30 PM.
    Trkco1 likes this.

  13. #53
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    So attempting to rescue the citizens we protect is "NO MEANINGFUL PURPOSE?" Again, show me anyone on here saying run into a building that is fully involved or on the verge of collapse. Come on Bobby, I'll wait. YOU CAN'T BECAUSE NO ONE SAID THAT.

    Remind me again why you are a firefighter? You feel no obligation to save lives or property. Golly, aren't those the 2 main reasons for being a firefighter?
    Entering a vacant or abandoned building in either one of my jurisdictions, where the likelihood of occupancy would be extremely low, would likely serve no meaningful purpose unless there was a reliable and current report of occupancy, as the building it all likelihood would be empty.

    IMO a room or two going in an abandoned building would easily be, for me, sufficient reason to not make entry. The idea of sending personnel into a building, which is not maintained and has been abandoned by it's owner, under limited or no visibility conditions, even for a room or two going is ... well, just flat out stupid and dangerous unless I have a reliable and current report of occupancy, or some advisable evidence of such.

    I have no obligation to save a property that the owner has abandoned. None. Now, given an urban situation with exposure issues, there is an obligation to protect adjoining properties, but that is not the case in my area except for some very limited areas. And even then, our lives trump property.

    If the building is vacant, and is being maintained, that may be a different scenario, depending on the people, experience, training and water supply at hand, but even then, I would likely err on the side of firefighter safety and entry may not occur.

    I feel an obligation to save lives and property when the risk to my personnel is limited and controlled. In an abandoned structure, I have neither, even with limited fire.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-22-2013 at 06:22 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  14. #54
    Forum Member HuntPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Let me explain why I asked the questions that I did and why I did not answer with an absolute yes or no.

    In my very rural coverage area, the risk of squatters in an "abandoned" structure is extremely low. We do, however, have several 100+ year old buildings within 10 feet of each other. These are all wood frame structures with wood siding and who know what inside. If we get a call and there is a reasonable amount of smoke, the fire has not breached the roof, and we know the building to be structurally stable, than there is no question that we would enter an "abandoned / vacant" structure. The risk of loosing several buildings is too great not to. There is no adequate way to protect the neighboring buildings with the one next door fully engulfed. We would soon have at least 3 or 4 invlovled. When you consider we have no hydrants, and no loops for tankers consisting of all paved roads, this would turn out to be a total loss.

    While the loss of one of these buildings may be acceptable, the neighboring ones that are occupied would be unacceptable.

    Now if we show and it is through the roof with partial collapse, we are all going to the church and praying, because it is going to take a miracle to not lose 3 or 4.

  15. #55
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    78

    Default

    I like the idea of defensive but depending on a few things: how much and how long has it been burning? In my dept. we get to scenes w/in 5 mins or less so it is usually not an inferno so we have time to try a quick K/D and search.; do we know its actually vacant? you never really know. at least search as much of structure as possible.

    It all depends, if your IC thinks its worth it and if the fire isn't so far along as to put the members in a precarious position. We mark our vacants on the outside of structure on how bad it is on the inside. If the roof is open and there are numerous holes in the floors we mark the building as a "defensive operation preferred."

  16. #56
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Fully agree, which is why I have stated numerous times that I have no issues entering vacants , which in our nomanclature means that the building is till structurally sound and maintained, and could be occupied but currently is not, under specific fire and response conditions.

    Abandoned means that the building is no longer being mainatained and that the building may not be structurally safe and habitable.

    Those buildings should not be entered, IMO, unless there is a reported and known occupancy, and that includes even to extinguish a small fire, unless there are exposure issues.
    I'm still waiting for that list of departments and their new approaches.

  17. #57
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,937

    Default

    [QUOTE=LaFireEducator;1361649]Entering a vacant or abandoned building in either one of my jurisdictions, where the likelihood of occupancy would be extremely low, would likely serve no meaningful purpose unless there was a reliable and current report of occupancy, as the building it all likelihood would be empty.

    Again, and I will type this slower this time so maybe you can finally understand what I am saying. I don't give a damn what you do in Bossier Parrish Louisiana. You can write off every building that is on fire and every occupant of those buildings if that is what YOU feel is right for YOUR community. My issue is when you try to broad stroke that for evrywhere in the country when it is frankly none of your business what any other FD does or how they do it.

    IMO a room or two going in an abandoned building would easily be, for me, sufficient reason to not make entry. The idea of sending personnel into a building, which is not maintained and has been abandoned by it's owner, under limited or no visibility conditions, even for a room or two going is ... well, just flat out stupid and dangerous unless I have a reliable and current report of occupancy, or some advisable evidence of such.

    Are you F**king kidding me? ONE OR TWO ROOMS OF FIRE IS REASON, ON ITS OWN, TO NOT MAKE ENTRY? You are painting 2 different pictures here which once again makes me wonder if you have a single damn clue what you are talking about. Unless the building is to the point of collapse structurally there really is no reason why one or 2 rooms of fire couldn't easily be handled by a skilled, trained, and experienced team of firefighters. Most likely with one hoseline of medium size. But then again, if you always look for reasons not to enter, then finding a reason to enter must be extremely difficult.

    I have no obligation to save a property that the owner has abandoned. None. Now, given an urban situation with exposure issues, there is an obligation to protect adjoining properties, but that is not the case in my area except for some very limited areas. And even then, our lives trump property.

    You believe you have no obligation as a firefighter, or human being for that matter, to risk anything for anything. Once again, other than for a paycheck, why the hell are you a firefighter?

    If the building is vacant, and is being maintained, that may be a different scenario, depending on the people, experience, training and water supply at hand, but even then, I would likely err on the side of firefighter safety and entry may not occur.

    Because if you never make a decision you can't make a wrong one...but then again you really can't make a right one either can you? Again, all you list are excuses not to enter. If you pre-plan, like a progressive fire department would, the water supply would be figured out ahead of time. You keep saying how good your firefighters are. Realistically what does that mean? Good at what? Standing outside and spraying water on smoldering remains?

    I feel an obligation to save lives and property when the risk to my personnel is limited and controlled. In an abandoned structure, I have neither, even with limited fire.

    You don't get to pick that in this business. Sometimes risks must be taken to save lives. Let's suppose you pull up to this abandoned structure and little Betty Lou Who says 3 of her little friends are in there...THEN WHAT?
    Last edited by FyredUp; 03-23-2013 at 04:37 PM.
    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

  18. #58
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Sounds to me Lafire and his cohorts are of such low quality as firemen, they are afraid of meat on the stove turning into an LODD.

  19. #59
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Somewhere in our mission statement it says something about protecting property. To me that means that if conditions allow we go in and put the fire out, reguardless the status of the property.

    I have said in the past and will say again. What I think is junk might mean a lot to the owner.

    LA - Are you one of the guys that will let a barn of hay burn because its to much work to try and save? Even though that barn of hay is feed for someone livestock and is their 'job' (their only source of income).

  20. #60
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nameless View Post
    Sounds to me Lafire and his cohorts are of such low quality as firemen, they are afraid of meat on the stove turning into an LODD.
    My combo department has some very aggressive and well trained members, including many volunteers that work either in the neighboring cities or fire districts as career members, some at the rank of Captain and/or Training Officer.


    The fact that they are well trained has no bearing on the fact that you somehow see it as our duty to enter structures that have been abandoned and no longer maintained by the owners to save property that has been abandoned and is no longer maintained by the owners.

    Why? It's a very simple question. Why?

    The volunteer department has a few experienced members, but overall they are quite young, quite inexperience and have a fairly basic level of training. For that reason, it would be unlikely that I would commit them to any operations in an abandoned structure, especially if the experienced hands are not responding. Simply no the time or the place for them to get experience. Far too much risk. far to much unknown.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-24-2013 at 02:33 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

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, 01:55 PM
  2. Is the risk worth the reward??
    By Rivwarrior in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-30-2005, 05:59 AM
  3. first interior attack
    By smfd232 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-29-2002, 02:43 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-13-2002, 01:09 PM
  5. interior attack communications
    By mtperry in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-02-2002, 03:25 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