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. #51
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,033

    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

  2. #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.

  3. #53
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,592

    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.

  4. #54
    Forum Member
    HuntPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    482

    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.

  5. #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."

  6. #56
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,961

    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.

  7. #57
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,033

    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

  8. #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.

  9. #59
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    1,154

    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).

  10. #60
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,592

    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.

  11. #61
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1524 View Post
    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).
    Not a fair comparison. The hay is not "junk" and has considerable value. It is not abandoned property.

    Being a rural firefighter and responding to farms, especially dairy farms, many times in the first 20 years of my career, I have been in this situation many times. As a rule, we would ask the owner if he felt that the hay was salvageable as feed. If he answered yes, we would take an aggressive stance within the structural limitations of the building. if he said no, many times he would ask that we simply let it burn so he would have less to dispose of.

    Our mission statement also says protecting lives, which first and foremost includes ours. If you are one off those that believe that an abandoned, or even vacant structure is worth the risk to our lives and safety have it, but anyone under my command is not going to be put into that position.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  12. #62
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,592

    Default

    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.



    And I would suspect that in most communities in this country squatters and occupied abandoned structures are not an issue.

    Yes, there are places where that is the case but I will say that I doubt it's more than a fraction of the communities in this country.

    Once again, I have asked, and asked, and asked for percentages .. data .. concrete information rather than generalized statements and anecdotes so that we can discuss this using concrete information, but I have yet to get one number from anyone who states that we have a duty to enter abandoned structures to conduct searches.

    Last post I asked you a very simple question - What is the percentage where you find occupants at the time of the fire in the abandoned buildings you run to at your career gig, and I'm still waiting on a solid figure.

    When I was in rural, northern VT, the figure was 0%. When i was in suburban upstate NY, the figure was 0%. When I was in southern MA, the figure was 0% When i was in central, rural VT, the figure was 0%. When i was in suburban western VT, the figure was 0%. And here in LA, the figure is 0%.

    So it's more than my little piece of LA.

    As I have stated, if your figures indicate that you have a problem in that area, have at it, but I suspect in most places the numbers simply won't bear that out.

    And I'll ask again .. what is the percentage in your career community?



    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.


    Yes, I need a reason to go interior. Life. Building or contents value. Exposures that would be threatened. Yes, you are right, I need a reason to put personnel interior and work under a higher level of risk compared to defensive operations.

    And abandoned structures do not give me a reason. No life threat. No contents or structural value. And around here is is very rare that the structures are close enough together to constitute an exposure risk.

    The fact is abandoned properties are unknowns. Unknown structural and unknown floor conditions, and I'm not going to commit anyone, no matter how well trained into a building that the owner has given up on with any type of limited visibility conditions. My folks are not going to put put into a risk situation with zero reward.



    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?

    Wrong. I have never stated that and you know that.

    Risk is valid when savable lives are at stake, and in some situations, limited risk is valid for property.

    In most communities abandoned builds offer no life risk. if they are standalone, they offer no significant property benefit. Yes, there are urban areas where the offer significant exposure threats, and in those cases, there are valid reasons for risk, but as a stand alone property without exposure threats, no, they justify no firefighter risk.




    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?

    Water is rarely an issue in my combo department, but that has no bearing on the fact that an abandoned structure has no real value to the owner, as he/she is allowing it for fall down. So why should it have value to us?

    In my VFD, we have limited drafting sites and limited manpower. As a rule daytime I can count on 6500g and nightime 8000g to 9500g on the initial response. If we call for mutual aid, which we do on just about every structure fire, I can count on about another 2000-3000g on their initial response including an engine w/ Class A foam capabilities.

    Actually, I have made a decision. My standard operating procedure for abandoned structures is a no go policy. Real simple. Unless there are lives involved there is simply no reason, under any fire conditions to exposure my personnel to the risk of the unknown in terms of building conditions and make entry.

    And yes, my combo department guys are very good and very aggressive. IMO. too aggressive.



    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?

    And the reality is in most departments saving lives is a rare event. In many places, if not most VERY rare. As an example in the 33 years, I have been doing this I can think of less than 10 fires total where there have been lives at stake and required some type of rescue when we arrived. In all other cases, the building was not used as an occupancy, vacant, not occupied at the time, or the occupants had gotten out long before we arrived, and in a couple of cases, the fire conditions indicated that they were clearly dead.

    Most rural volunteers will go an entire career with never having to make a rescue or work a fatality fire. It's that rare.

    Yes, in the event that lives are at stake, risk is justified, but only if they are viable. In the case of abandoned structures in most communities there simply isn't, and in all probability never be the life risk. Sorry, but that is the reality.

    I have made a life and death call very, very early in my career and decided not to make entry on a fire with known and reported occupancy. I had a limited crew in both size, training and especially experience that would likely have had their own issues if they made entry and I felt that it was my duty to protect them over the needs of the civilian. Could we have rescued that person? Maybe. But at the time I simply felt that it exposed my manpower on scene to too much risk. And there is never a day that I regret the decision.

    The fact I will protect my own first. if I feel that they can perform the rescue and make entry and go home, I'll commit them. if for some reason I feel that they may not go home, I will not. It's really that simple. We come first.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-24-2013 at 03:24 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  13. #63
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    1,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Not a fair comparison. The hay is not "junk" and has considerable value. It is not abandoned property.

    Being a rural firefighter and responding to farms, especially dairy farms, many times in the first 20 years of my career, I have been in this situation many times. As a rule, we would ask the owner if he felt that the hay was salvageable as feed. If he answered yes, we would take an aggressive stance within the structural limitations of the building. if he said no, many times he would ask that we simply let it burn so he would have less to dispose of.

    Our mission statement also says protecting lives, which first and foremost includes ours. If you are one off those that believe that an abandoned, or even vacant structure is worth the risk to our lives and safety have it, but anyone under my command is not going to be put into that position.
    Yes I believe that a vacant or abandoned property deservers the same effort that a occupied property does. If conditions allow, it does not matter the status of the property. The owner might have personal property stored in what appears to a vacant structure.

  14. #64
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1524 View Post
    Yes I believe that a vacant or abandoned property deservers the same effort that a occupied property does. If conditions allow, it does not matter the status of the property. The owner might have personal property stored in what appears to a vacant structure.

    We need to discuss abandoned buildings and vacant buildings as two very different animals.

    I disagree on the issue of abandoned, which are buildings that, as defined by both my 2 current departments, and previous volunteer departments, as buildings that the owner has given up maintenance on, or in other words, no longer has sufficient value to the owner as to be maintained. Sorry, but if the owner no longer cares enough about the structure to maintain it, I'm not going to commit any personnel interior and will not commit any risk to save, and that may even include a cold tanker shuttle.

    No, we are not obligated to commit risk to a building the owner no longer maintains.

    Vacants, on the other hand, are still maintained by the owner and hence, has value. Does that value exceed the value of firefighters's life? Certainly not. But we can take limited risk in situations where warranted and backed up by sufficient resources and water supply to save that property, including interior attack where manpower, resources, training, experience, water supply and command structure and sufficient to minimize firefighter risk. Of course, the property type, property occupancy, hazardous-materials and building construction will determine the above required to minimize that risk.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  15. #65
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    I havent read the entire thread, so this may have been mentioned, but I think it depends on where you are. I understand in more urban areas where there is a possibility (or even a likelihood) that someone might be in a vacant building being more aggressive than in a small town/rural environment where the probability is unlikely. In the small town where I live, 10 years ago, there were only 2 or 3 structures where someone might have been in temporarily. Now there may be 5-8. Even with that number, we are aware of where these structures are. To the rural firefighter, an abandoned structure may be an old farmhouse that is completely grown over. You can tell that no one has been there for years and if someone where there, the neighbors would be talking. Firefighters shouldnt treat this as the same risk as a residence that is usually occupied.

  16. #66
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,033

    Default

    LA,

    You will NEVER, and let me repeat that for you NEVER, be taken serious on this topic when you keep posting the following nonsense post after post:

    1) Whatever your latest version is of the suicidal charge into abandoned. collapsing buildings, fully involved in fire. NO ONE has ever said that is what we are talking about. Yet you keep repeating it.
    2) When you keep posting over an over again about your cavalier attitude regarding writing off citizens.
    3) When you jump back and forth between saying we don't have the staffing, experience, equipment or water to do the job and then saying you do when someone calls you on it.
    4) Constantly painting your RURAL fire experience as a barometer for URBAN fire reality. Sorry they aren't the same. We don't fight barn fires where I work anymore than you fight inner city abandoned/vacant building fires where you work. To be brutally honest, we don't fight a ton of vacant building fires where I work. It is an upscale community for the most part. But right next door to us is Milwaukee. Do you want to tell them how wrong they are?
    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

  17. #67
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I have made a life and death call very, very early in my career and decided not to make entry on a fire with known and reported occupancy. I had a limited crew in both size, training and especially experience that would likely have had their own issues if they made entry and I felt that it was my duty to protect them over the needs of the civilian. Could we have rescued that person? Maybe. But at the time I simply felt that it exposed my manpower on scene to too much risk. And there is never a day that I regret the decision.
    If your decision to not let your crew make entry on a fire with a known victim is being based on them not having sufficient training and experience to accomplish a victim search, then you and your crew should've been arrested for impersonating firefighters.

  18. #68
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    LA,

    You will NEVER, and let me repeat that for you NEVER, be taken serious on this topic when you keep posting the following nonsense post after post:

    1) Whatever your latest version is of the suicidal charge into abandoned. collapsing buildings, fully involved in fire. NO ONE has ever said that is what we are talking about. Yet you keep repeating it.

    And where have I said anything about full involved, collapsing buildings anywhere in this thread?

    In fact, I was quite clear when I said that a room or two going in an abandoned is enough for me to call it a no go situation. The fact is the visibility issues alone which could easily mask localized floor or other structural issues until the firefighters are injured by a floor, wall or ceiling collapse is enough for me to say flat out that these buildings present too much risk for entry unless there is a reported and confirmed life threat in these buildings at the time of the fire.

    The fact is any injury, including something as simple as a torked knee from a floor giving way or a banged up shoulder from a ceiling collapse is too high a price to pay for a building with no life hazard, in most places and little or no property value. My volunteers are not going miss time from work for an injury sustained inside a building with no value, It's my responsibility to protect their physical and fiscal health (as LA Workman's Comp does not cover missed time from work for volunteer firefighters). If that means keeping them out of abandoned structure to protect them from unecessary injuries, that's exactly what I'll do. On my combo side, it is our job to protect taxpayer's from having to pay salaries and cover salaries while fulltime members are recovering from unecessary injuries, which IMO, covers injuries sustained operating interior in abandoned structures with no life threat.

    In my area, there are simple very few reasons to enter these structures, even if the involvement is limited.


    2) When you keep posting over an over again about your cavalier attitude regarding writing off citizens.

    People die in fires. People will always die in fires. In rural areas, such as covered by my combo and volunteer departments, people are at a much higher risk of dying in a fire, and honestly, there is little that most rural VFDs with spread out districts can do about it from the suppression side as response times and delayed notifications often seal the deal before we even leave the station.

    The reality is that in the rural area combo department and the area outside of the village on my volunteer department, if the citizen's have not self escaped before we arrive, they are more than likely dead. That's just the simple reality of response time vs. the physical affects of smoke and heat on the body. It's really that simple.

    Maybe in your rural community it's different, but when you covering almost 120 sqaure miles with less than 20 volunteers in my VFD, you learn that the fire department's ability to intervene in a fire situation in terms of early rescue, is really quite limited.

    Are there exceptions to that, based on slower fire development in some limited situations? Sure, but those are the exception and not the rule, especially given that in both area the housing stock in 40-45% mobile homes and another 20% of old, wood frame shotgun type homes.

    The fact is that I will not risk my personnel, whose families have entrusted them with me as an officer, in situations where the presence of a civilian inside a structure is unknown, or situations where the viability of that civilian is questionable unless I have the fire conditions (which are unlikely given the housing stock) or the resources on hand to just about guarantee that the firefighters under my supervision will be able to go to work tomorrow. That is my job. That is my primary responsibility. And I will never, nor should any fire department ever let that responsibility slide for civilians where the viability of those civilians is a question or the department simply does not have resources, training, equipment or experience which puts those firefighters at significant risk.

    Yes, there are situations where we have a shot, but even them, if it comes down to them, of the safety of my crew and all of them going home, I will pick my crew everyday.

    If you call that cavailiar, have at it. I call it taking care of my primary responsibility.

    As a rural department the best thing we can do is educate folks on prevention and self escape, and let them know that frankly, self-escape will have to happen before we arrive. We can install smoke detectors for seniors. We can teach classes such as CERT and wildfire preparedness. Most rural VFDs will simply never get there in time.



    3) When you jump back and forth between saying we don't have the staffing, experience, equipment or water to do the job and then saying you do when someone calls you on it.


    Ok .. I'll do this really slow.

    I live in 3 worlds .... 2 on my combo department and one on my volunteer department.

    My combo department is very well funded and for the most part, very well trained, with a large number of volunteers, many of which either work fulltime as firefighters elsewhere or who have been doing this for quite awhile as volunteers and whom have accumulated significant experience and training. We send personnel to training at LSU, TEEX and many other places quite often.We have a much smaller group with limited training and experience. We average 15-20 during the day and 25-30 at night for structure fires.

    In our core area, where our only staffed station is located and most of the volunteer staffing lives, response times for both apparatus and volunteer manpower is quite good, generally under 4-5 minutes. As a rule, the fire has not spread much beyond the room of origin if we get early notification and victims if they have not self escaped are likely viable. That is world 1.

    World 2 is the rural area of my combo department where we still have the same apparatus, training and experience but where there are very limited responders for the first 10-15 minutes of the fire as the paid staff and most of the volunteers have some travel time from the core area, and the buildings are primarily single and double wides. In those situations, the fires have spread much farther by the time that the bulk of the manpower arrives and any one still inside is simply no longer viable the vast majority of the time.

    World 3 is my VFD where we cover 100 square miles with 10-12 active personnel and another 5-8 semi-active members. Apparatus is split between newer and older (like 1972 and 1966 for primary engines out of 2 out of 5 stations older). We have mostly newer members with very limited experience as we only have 1-2 working fires per year. training is improving but we have no live burn capability as this time. So yes, our abilities are quite limited and I have no problems admitting that.

    We are improving as we have recently seen a 40% increase in revenue, increased training requirements, instituted a 42-hour rookie class and worked out an AMA agreement with the neighboring city for it's entire on-duty staffing ( 5 w/ an engine) for any structural response.


    4) Constantly painting your RURAL fire experience as a barometer for URBAN fire reality. Sorry they aren't the same. We don't fight barn fires where I work anymore than you fight inner city abandoned/vacant building fires where you work. To be brutally honest, we don't fight a ton of vacant building fires where I work. It is an upscale community for the most part. But right next door to us is Milwaukee. Do you want to tell them how wrong they are?
    As I have said, if they can look that widow of a firefighter killed operating in an unoccupied abandoned structure, in the eye and say that he died for a purpose, let them have at it, but the reality that MOST of the fire departments in this country do not have a problem with abandoned buildings being occupied and do not need to send members interior.

    If they can justify it, fine, but they are the ones that will have to live with the consequences.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-24-2013 at 05:34 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  19. #69
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    but the reality that MOST of the fire departments in this country do not have a problem with abandoned buildings being occupied and do not need to send members interior.

    If they can justify it, fine, but they are the ones that will have to live with the consequences.
    Name ONE Fire Department in this country (other than your own, and quite frankly unless it comes out of your Chief's mouth I don't believe it) that has a written SOP which forbids members from operating inside abandoned/vacant/whatever structures WITHOUT VERIFICATION of potential occupants by performance of a primary search when possible? Name one department, and post their SOP or show us some form of written verification.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  20. #70
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FWDbuff View Post
    Name ONE Fire Department in this country (other than your own, and quite frankly unless it comes out of your Chief's mouth I don't believe it) that has a written SOP which forbids members from operating inside abandoned/vacant/whatever structures WITHOUT VERIFICATION of potential occupants by performance of a primary search when possible? Name one department, and post their SOP or show us some form of written verification.
    I was posting an opinion.

    Reading comprehension issues?

    The fact is most communities do not have issues with squatters in abandoned buildings. We didn't have the issue in Vermont, even in the suburban departments. We didn't have an issue in NY. And with the exception of the cities, we don't have that problem here in my part of LA.

    I do know of departments that have policies that highly discourage any operations in abandoned structures unless certain parameters exist, but no, I won''t name them and post them, as frankly, it's none of your damn business.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  21. #71
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I won''t name them and post them, as frankly, it's none of your damn business.
    None of my damn business? Wow.....That's the first time I have ever had a (supposed) fire department "instructor" or "educator" say anything even remotely close to something like that, much less the actual words "none of my damn business."

    Here- let me help you....What you REALLY meant to say was "I have no f ucking clue what I am talking about, and it sounded good at the time, until you ask for proof of my claim, of which I cannot produce as I am speaking out of the mouth on my posterior."
    FyredUp and DeputyChiefGonzo like this.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  22. #72
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FWDbuff View Post
    None of my damn business? Wow.....That's the first time I have ever had a (supposed) fire department "instructor" or "educator" say anything even remotely close to something like that, much less the actual words "none of my damn business."

    Here- let me help you....What you REALLY meant to say was "I have no f ucking clue what I am talking about, and it sounded good at the time, until you ask for proof of my claim, of which I cannot produce as I am speaking out of the mouth on my posterior."
    I guess I assumed that, based on the way I phrased it, that most folks would have taken it as an opinion or observation.

    Looking at it again, it would have been clearer if I have stated, IMO, before the opinion.

    But nowhere in the statement did I say "most departments in the country have a policy/SOP that forbid members from ... (insert FWD's out of left field statement here ...... , so I have no clue where your statement came from.

    Even if I had their policies in hand (which I have no idea why I would), I would not post them here as frankly, that would likely be a breech of confidence, and honestly, how they operated really wouldn't be your business.

    But that's Ok. I understand.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-24-2013 at 06:17 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  23. #73
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FWDbuff View Post
    None of my damn business? Wow.....That's the first time I have ever had a (supposed) fire department "instructor" or "educator" say anything even remotely close to something like that, much less the actual words "none of my damn business."

    Here- let me help you....What you REALLY meant to say was "I have no f ucking clue what I am talking about, and it sounded good at the time, until you ask for proof of my claim, of which I cannot produce as I am speaking out of the mouth on my posterior."
    To quote our esteemed colleague Chief Gonzo:

    "BING FREAKING O!!"
    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

  24. #74
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    If your decision to not let your crew make entry on a fire with a known victim is being based on them not having sufficient training and experience to accomplish a victim search, then you and your crew should've been arrested for impersonating firefighters.
    College fire department.

    Myself and 2 other officers were conducting some rookie training early in the semester, so they were still non-interior. Saw the fire from the station in a nearby farmhouse. Notified the town department and they responded with a 15-minute ETA due to a very steep 1-mile grade up to the college. Some of the other members were responding but they would be a few minutes getting from the dorms.

    No interior backup without abandoning command for at least 5-10 minutes. 220 gallons of water on board the mini-pumper and no supply. 3 rooms going plus part of the hallway to get back to the room she was likely in, which was built in the center of the room with no exterior access. Sorry, but that was an easy call.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-24-2013 at 06:29 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  25. #75
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    and honestly, how they operated really wouldn't be your business.
    And you call yourself an "educator...." I thought one of the virtues of a good educator/instructor was to learn and study the ways of your colleagues? Or maybe you consider the rest of the US Fire Service as your Adversaries?

    None of my business??? But with your every post that chastises another organization, you seem to think that it's YOUR business????

    Therefore, next time you decide to insert your 2 cents (and then usually your own feet into your mouth within a short timeframe afterwards) into the "business of others" and how another organization does things, think about your very statement here and now, and then.....


    Wait for it...


    Wait......


    SHUT THE HOLE UNDER YOUR NOSE THE EFF UP!!!!!!!
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register