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 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4567891017 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 453
Like Tree136Likes

Thread: Risk/Reward Interior attack vacant buildings presentation

  1. #121
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    When someone does not do the job they were hired to do, to serve and protect life and property, to attempt to save lives as they were sworn to do, and does not train their personnel to meet standards, make excuses, lie about facts and figures and makes their FD look like a bunch of idiots... they need to be fired.

    Look in the mirror.
    Pardon my stealing your catch phrase...


    BING FREAKING O!!
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...


  2. #122
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    When someone does not do the job they were hired to do, to serve and protect life and property, to attempt to save lives as they were sworn to do, and does not train their personnel to meet standards, make excuses, lie about facts and figures and makes their FD look like a bunch of idiots... they need to be fired.

    Look in the mirror.
    Interesting .....

    Since you have made some pretty significant accusations, prove them.

    Name one time where I have not attempted protected life and property within the limits of the qualifications and safety of my personnel.

    Name one time where I have not trained my personnel to the training standards as set and determined by the Command Staff of any fire department I have served on.

    name one time where I have lied about facts and figures.


    C'mon big boy. Prove what you have said.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-25-2013 at 04:43 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  3. #123
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Interesting .....

    Since you have made some pretty significant accusations, prove them.

    Name one time where I have not attempted protected life and property within the limits of the qualifications and safety of my personnel.

    Name one time where I have not trained my personnel to the training standards as set and determined by the Command Staff of any fire department I have served on.

    name one time where I have lied about facts and figures.


    C'mon big boy. Prove what you have said.
    How about this one for you...Name one other person anywhere on this forum that has as cavalierly as you stated that they wrote off a victim in a fire and then bragged about not losing any sleep over it.

    C'mon big boy. Show me one other cold hearted bastard that said anything close to that here. Because it surely is one thing to acknowledge the fact that a victim may not be savable and surely another to brag about the complete lack of conscience you have over it. I still wonder about a fire I was at many years ago that was a double fatal. The first crew had to back out because of an air pack malfunction and we went in instead. They were at the door on the second level outside deck and we were on the ground, they came down and we went up. I have wondered all these years if those moments of delay made the difference. I can logically know they didn't, but that doesn't seem to matter to me, it still eats at me on occasion. So you see Bobby, I find your attitude, your not losing one second of sleep, your lack of human compassion, your complete lack of conscience, your ease of writing people off, disturbing, disgusting and not at all what the fine tradition of service firefighting was built on. No one is saying suicidal charges into abandoned dilapidated buildings...no matter how many times you wish that is what we are saying. Your definition of viable is so far out of wack that it is pathetic.

    So answer my challenge, find another post anywhere on here as cold blooded as yours...I'll wait.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 03-25-2013 at 05:21 PM.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  4. #124
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    How about this one for you...Name one other person anywhere on this forum that has as cavalierly as you stated that they wrote off a victim in a fire and then bragged about not losing any sleep over it.

    I never bragged about losing a victim, but I'm simply not the type of person to look back and "what if" a situation. I accept the fact the people are going to die in fires, MVAs and other situations, and a majority of the time, we are simply not going to make a difference. No smoke detectors. Delayed alarm. Extended travel response time. Weather. Muddy backroads. Heavy fire or smoke on arrival. Inadequate manpower. Inadeaquate water supply. lack of training in a specialized area. I could go on and on, but no, I don't beat myself up when I am involved with a fatal unless it directly relates to some action that we took or could have taken. In the example that I gave, there was no action that could have changed the outcome, so call my appraoch cold, but people die in fires, will alwways die in fires and usually there is very little from the supression side, especially in the rural enviroment to change that.


    C'mon big boy. Show me one other cold hearted bastard that said anything close to that here. Because it surely is one thing to acknowledge the fact that a victim may not be savable and surely another to brag about the complete lack of conscience you have over it.

    Consience has to do with right or wrong. There was nothing at that fire that we did wrong. We simply didn't get there soon enough and didn't have enough water.

    Stuff happens, and there was nothing that could have been done to change that. We did what we could with what we had. Period.


    I still wonder about a fire I was at many years ago that was a double fatal. The first crew had to back out because of an air pack malfunction and we went in instead. They were at the door on the second level outside deck and we were on the ground, they came down and we went up. I have wondered all these years if those moments of delay made the difference. I can logically know they didn't, but that doesn't seem to matter to me, it still eats at me on occasion. So you see Bobby, I find your attitude, your not losing one second of sleep, your lack of human compassion, your complete lack of conscience, your ease of writing people off, disturbing, disgusting and not at all what the fine tradition of service firefighting was built on.

    So I should beat myself up over everything that's out of my control when we have a fatal or significant incident? The fact that they maybe they didn't have working smoke detectors for early warning? The fact that the fire happened during the day when my rural VFD can only respond 2 or 3 members, or that the house was in a remote area in the district? The simple fact is that most of the contributing factors that lead to a fatal fire, or even a fire that destroys a building are beyond my, is well beyond my, or the department's control. Am I sad when I am involved in any fatality, wether it be a fire, MVC or some type of rescue? Sure. But the simple fact is I didn't control the actions of the person(s) that lead to the incident and I have no control over any of the contributing factors.

    So no ... I don't beat myself up and I do not allow it to affect me emotionally. I'll look at the incident from a distance to see what possibly could have been done better, but as far as allowing it to affect me on an emotional level, No, that's not going to happen as it may affect my response and actions the next time a similiar incident occurs.

    Again, I have accepted that people will die in fires, and there are many departments that through no fault of thier own, can't change that. There are people that will die in water, through ice, in confined spaces and other places where the local volunteer department has niether the training nor the equipment to rescue them, and will never have the funds or the time to change that situation. people die. It sucks. But I simply refuse to tear myself apart over something that I can't change.


    No one is saying suicidal charges into abandoned dilapidated buildings...no matter how many times you wish that is what we are saying.

    Funny thing is, I have never said that.

    What I have questioned is the practice of risking our lives, or even risking a simple injury that may keep a volunteer out of work and his paycheck out of his/her pocket, for a building that the owner has decided is no longer valauble enough to maintain, even in the case of a small fire, given the hazards of an abandoned structure. The fact that I would commit members into a structure that the owner is perfectly happy watch slowly fall apart and fall to the ground simply makes no sense to me, and never will.

    We are not protecting property. We are "protecting" what the owner views as nothing more than a standing dumpster.

    The fact is most communities occupancy in these buildings are not an issue. In the places where occupancy is more common, I have said have at it, as long as you can justify the loss of that firefighter to the spouse and kids.


    Your definition of viable is so far out of wack that it is pathetic.

    Maybe. But I disagree.

    I think you'd be surprised what I consider viable when we arrive in a timely fashion and have the resources on hand, not enroute, for the incident.


    So answer my challenge, find another post anywhere on here as cold blooded as yours...I'll wait.
    I doubt I will.

    When you start your career running EMS in a 400 sqaure mile area, with no ALS capabilites and no helicopter transport available, and you run a lot of trauma due to the nature of the area, a pretty fair number of people die both at the scene and in your bus. I quickly developed the ability to emotionally detach myself from the situation and the patient as a way to cope.

    And it worked.

    While many of the other members of the squad had issues when they lost patients, I didn't, and it has carried me through to this day. Call it cold blooded. Really doesn't matter. It's my way of dealing with the death that we see. And I still do that today.

    Certainly I feel compasion for the victims, but I simply do not let it get inside me or get under my skin. And I never will.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  5. #125
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,653

    Default

    Originally Posted by FyredUp
    How about this one for you...Name one other person anywhere on this forum that has as cavalierly as you stated that they wrote off a victim in a fire and then bragged about not losing any sleep over it.

    I never bragged about losing a victim, but I'm simply not the type of person to look back and "what if" a situation. I accept the fact the people are going to die in fires, MVAs and other situations, and a majority of the time, we are simply not going to make a difference. No smoke detectors. Delayed alarm. Extended travel response time. Weather. Muddy backroads. Heavy fire or smoke on arrival. Inadequate manpower. Inadeaquate water supply. lack of training in a specialized area. I could go on and on, but no, I don't beat myself up when I am involved with a fatal unless it directly relates to some action that we took or could have taken. In the example that I gave, there was no action that could have changed the outcome, so call my appraoch cold, but people die in fires, will alwways die in fires and usually there is very little from the supression side, especially in the rural enviroment to change that.

    Apparently reading comprehension wasn't taught at that college you went to either. I NEVER said you bragged about losing a victim. I said you bragged about not losing one second of sleep over it.

    I want no part of working with someone who is that cold blooded. you decide to write them off and feel nothing. I actually pity you with that attitude.


    C'mon big boy. Show me one other cold hearted bastard that said anything close to that here. Because it surely is one thing to acknowledge the fact that a victim may not be savable and surely another to brag about the complete lack of conscience you have over it.

    Consience has to do with right or wrong. There was nothing at that fire that we did wrong. We simply didn't get there soon enough and didn't have enough water.

    Stuff happens, and there was nothing that could have been done to change that. We did what we could with what we had. Period.


    It doesn't end there, you made a decision to not even try to save another human being. That may or may not have been the right choice. But to feel absolutely nothing about it afterwards is simply inhuman.

    I still wonder about a fire I was at many years ago that was a double fatal. The first crew had to back out because of an air pack malfunction and we went in instead. They were at the door on the second level outside deck and we were on the ground, they came down and we went up. I have wondered all these years if those moments of delay made the difference. I can logically know they didn't, but that doesn't seem to matter to me, it still eats at me on occasion. So you see Bobby, I find your attitude, your not losing one second of sleep, your lack of human compassion, your complete lack of conscience, your ease of writing people off, disturbing, disgusting and not at all what the fine tradition of service firefighting was built on.

    So I should beat myself up over everything that's out of my control when we have a fatal or significant incident? The fact that they maybe they didn't have working smoke detectors for early warning? The fact that the fire happened during the day when my rural VFD can only respond 2 or 3 members, or that the house was in a remote area in the district? The simple fact is that most of the contributing factors that lead to a fatal fire, or even a fire that destroys a building are beyond my, is well beyond my, or the department's control. Am I sad when I am involved in any fatality, wether it be a fire, MVC or some type of rescue? Sure. But the simple fact is I didn't control the actions of the person(s) that lead to the incident and I have no control over any of the contributing factors.

    So no ... I don't beat myself up and I do not allow it to affect me emotionally. I'll look at the incident from a distance to see what possibly could have been done better, but as far as allowing it to affect me on an emotional level, No, that's not going to happen as it may affect my response and actions the next time a similiar incident occurs.

    Again, I have accepted that people will die in fires, and there are many departments that through no fault of thier own, can't change that. There are people that will die in water, through ice, in confined spaces and other places where the local volunteer department has niether the training nor the equipment to rescue them, and will never have the funds or the time to change that situation. people die. It sucks. But I simply refuse to tear myself apart over something that I can't change.


    First of all, I never said I beat myself up over it. I believe it is human nature to look back at events and play them over in your head. It has helped me realize that there was nothing I was going to do to change the outcome for the victims. It certainly did not make me have absoutely no feelings for their death. You seem to think either it doesn't exist at all or it is a boat anchor dragging you down. Sorry for normal people it doesn't work that way. You process and file it. You don't erase the hard drive.

    Further as I have stated repeatedly if all you can get is 2 or 3 people during the day then you simply do NOT have a fire department. You have a sham and the community is being mislead.

    Again drama queen I never said I was torn apart, nice try at diverting and trying to make yourself look superior. In fact you come off cold and reptilian.


    No one is saying suicidal charges into abandoned dilapidated buildings...no matter how many times you wish that is what we are saying.

    Funny thing is, I have never said that.

    What I have questioned is the practice of risking our lives, or even risking a simple injury that may keep a volunteer out of work and his paycheck out of his/her pocket, for a building that the owner has decided is no longer valauble enough to maintain, even in the case of a small fire, given the hazards of an abandoned structure. The fact that I would commit members into a structure that the owner is perfectly happy watch slowly fall apart and fall to the ground simply makes no sense to me, and never will.

    We are not protecting property. We are "protecting" what the owner views as nothing more than a standing dumpster.

    The fact is most communities occupancy in these buildings are not an issue. In the places where occupancy is more common, I have said have at it, as long as you can justify the loss of that firefighter to the spouse and kids.


    You say you aren't saying it, yet you are saying it right here again. The difference is doing a size-up, checking for occupancy, fighting the fire, they all depend on structural stability, not on some pre-ordained "let it burn down and anybody inside die" policy.

    Your definition of viable is so far out of wack that it is pathetic.

    Maybe. But I disagree.

    I think you'd be surprised what I consider viable when we arrive in a timely fashion and have the resources on hand, not enroute, for the incident.


    When you arrive in a timely fashion? Apparently that never happens with your volly FD. So is anything ever viable?

    So answer my challenge, find another post anywhere on here as cold blooded as yours...I'll wait.

    I doubt I will.

    When you start your career running EMS in a 400 sqaure mile area, with no ALS capabilites and no helicopter transport available, and you run a lot of trauma due to the nature of the area, a pretty fair number of people die both at the scene and in your bus. I quickly developed the ability to emotionally detach myself from the situation and the patient as a way to cope.

    And it worked.

    While many of the other members of the squad had issues when they lost patients, I didn't, and it has carried me through to this day. Call it cold blooded. Really doesn't matter. It's my way of dealing with the death that we see. And I still do that today.

    Certainly I feel compasion for the victims, but I simply do not let it get inside me or get under my skin. And I never will.


    Once again, I would bet I have seen as many dead, and deformed bodies as you have, since I have been at this for 37 years. I didn't say they get inside my head or under my skin. I just said I don't cold bloodily look at it as apparently nothing like you do.

    Honestly, I feel sorry for you, you are so delusional about almost everything in the fire service it is pathetic.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  6. #126
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,380

    Default

    Apparently reading comprehension wasn't taught at that college you went to either. I NEVER said you bragged about losing a victim. I said you bragged about not losing one second of sleep over it.

    I want no part of working with someone who is that cold blooded. you decide to write them off and feel nothing. I actually pity you with that attitude.

    Well that's your choice.

    I didn't in all likelihood know the person. In all likelihood I never met the person. I certainly feel sadness for the family but the passing of the victim does not represent a personal loss for me.

    I would not call it writing them off. I have never not made an effort. But there have been times when clearly making an aggressive effort to save them represents an extraordinary risk on our part which subjects our personnel - people I do know and have relationship with - and a positive outcome is highly unlikely.

    Removing emotion from the equation eliminates that you may decide to make an effort based on that emotion, not logic or facts.

    I really don't know what you want me to feel. People die in fires. Always have, Always will. And in most cases there is nothing we can do to change that.

    I am far more concerned about my people. And I would lose sleep over that if one of them were hurt or killed.


    It doesn't end there, you made a decision to not even try to save another human being. That may or may not have been the right choice. But to feel absolutely nothing about it afterwards is simply inhuman.

    Because there simply was nothing that could have been done with the resources we had. Nothing. After we used the little water we had, we had simply not knocked down enough fire to make entry with the experience level I had on scene. I made a decision to protect my folks even though that may have cost the victim her life, though given fire conditions, I highly doubt that she was still alive. So yes, in essence, I made a trade.

    It was another 10 minutes plus before the town FD could get the engine up the muddy driveway, and by that time there was simply no point in attempting make entry as clearly the victim was dead, and the building was no longer structurally sound. The officer from the town department on-scene fully agreed with that decision.

    Was I frustrated? Sure. But at the fact that I didn't have the water, but at the same time I realized that everything that could have been done, short of putting my crew into a high risk situation without water and a backup team, which would have been irresponsible, was done.

    We did everything that we could have done. There was no reason to feel emotional about it.




    Further as I have stated repeatedly if all you can get is 2 or 3 people during the day then you simply do NOT have a fire department. You have a sham and the community is being mislead.

    The community knows exactly what they are getting. Short of hiring, which simply is not an option unless the public wants to vote in a significant tax increase for a very limited number of occasions where manpower is an issue, there is little that we can do.

    The AMA agreement with the next city over will give us their 5 career members initially with about a 5 minute travel time to the district line, followed by, if available, under 4 volunteers.

    Is it the best solution, but right now, and likely for a very long time, it's the only solution.


    Again drama queen I never said I was torn apart, nice try at diverting and trying to make yourself look superior. In fact you come off cold and reptilian.

    Not making myself look superior, but yes, if you want to call me cold and reptilian, have at it. Everybody comes up with a way to deal, and for me, it works.


    You say you aren't saying it, yet you are saying it right here again. The difference is doing a size-up, checking for occupancy, fighting the fire, they all depend on structural stability, not on some pre-ordained "let it burn down and anybody inside die" policy.

    I have no issues with allowing abandoned structures to burn to the ground. The owner has already determined he is not going to maintain it, so obviously he will not repair it. And likely he won't even spend the money to bulldoze, so now you have a half-burned, even more dilapidated building sitting there just waiting to catch fire again, putting our members at even greater risk the next time it burns.

    There are several buildings in my volunteer district that I have already identified as buildings I likely won't even pull a line on. And the Chief has no issues with that.

    And that includes likely not checking for occupancy unless there is some external reason for making entry.


    As I have stated before... many times ... occupancy is simply not an issue here in abandoned structures. Abandoned structures are not worth the risk of injury to my personnel and never will be, short of a known rescue or exposure issue.

    I have simple policy. If it's abandoned, we're not going interior.

    I'm sorry that bothers you but I see no purpose in knocking down a fire in a building with zero value to the owner, who likely is no longer paying taxes on the building, irregardless of fire conditions.



    When you arrive in a timely fashion? Apparently that never happens with your volly FD. So is anything ever viable?

    [COLOR="#FF0000"]Actually it does. In fact, the last 2 structure fires were daytime and we made a stop in both cases. One in the attic and contained to the attic while the other started in the water heater closet and had minimal spread down the hallway.

    They were both in the village area, located quite close to both of our stations. We had 4-5 members respond plus AMA.

    I'm not going to get into a discussion here regarding what is viable and what is not as it very much depends on fire conditions vs. resources on hand. Simply put, if making entry puts the members at significant risk, no, in my book, it is not viable. If I have resources including a backup team, water supply and sufficient exterior support to feel comfortable, then yes, it is viable.

    For me, the decision comes down to resources, manpower and water supply, not fire conditions.

    As an example, if I have a working room and contents fire, and three members, including myself, that will be a no-go as entering without exterior backup is simply not acceptable to me. Give me another three man crew on scene when we are ready to make entry and it becomes quite viable.



    Once again, I would bet I have seen as many dead, and deformed bodies as you have, since I have been at this for 37 years. I didn't say they get inside my head or under my skin. I just said I don't cold bloodily look at it as apparently nothing like you do.

    That's either a good thing or a bad thing, depending upon each one's perspective.

    Honestly, I feel sorry for you, you are so delusional about almost everything in the fire service it is pathetic.

    Again, disagree, and I doubt I could find many that know me that would agree with you, but that's ok, and have an nice night.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-25-2013 at 08:43 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  7. #127
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Interesting .....

    Since you have made some pretty significant accusations, prove them.

    Name one time where I have not attempted protected life and property within the limits of the qualifications and safety of my personnel.

    Name one time where I have not trained my personnel to the training standards as set and determined by the Command Staff of any fire department I have served on.

    name one time where I have lied about facts and figures.


    C'mon big boy. Prove what you have said.
    I don't have to.. your 8,965 posts have proved it for not only me but for everyone else to see.
    Last edited by DeputyChiefGonzo; 03-25-2013 at 10:46 PM.
    SPFDRum and FyredUp like this.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  8. #128
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    I don't have to.. your 8,965 posts have proved it for not only me but for everyone else to see.

    GAME, SET,
    and MATCH!!
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  9. #129
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,570

    Default

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

    Voters
    17.

    Yes, it is worth the risk
    6 35.29%

    No, it is not worth the risk
    11 64.71%
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  10. #130
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,555

    Default

    Bones.. the question as it is written (and misspelled) is quite vague. There is a difference between "vacant" and "abandoned".

    In theory, every time people send their kids off to school and leave for work, the structure becomes "vacant".

    A house on the real estate market that is unoccupied is "vacant"

    A boarded up, vandalized building is abandoned.

    Would you want your brothers in the PPBVFD to let your home burn because it was known that you were not home at the time of the fire? The way this question is worded, 11 of those voting would.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  11. #131
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    I don't have to.. your 8,965 posts have proved it for not only me but for everyone else to see.
    Nopeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  12. #132
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Nopeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
    No pee? You should call a urologist...
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  13. #133
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,570

    Default

    Yes Gonz, that was discussed back on page 1 and 2....before it turned into another multi post, multi page, LA/FyredUp routine.

    Thought maybe posting the poll results could possibly bring it back on track....
    ATFDFF likes this.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  14. #134
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Yes Gonz, that was discussed back on page 1 and 2....before it turned into another multi post, multi page, LA/FyredUp routine.

    Thought maybe posting the poll results could possibly bring it back on track....
    Glad I could entertain you!

    Have a nice day!
    Last edited by FyredUp; 03-26-2013 at 10:07 AM.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  15. #135
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,653

    Default

    The issue is truly what is the definition of a vacant building versus and abandoned building. As Gonzo said any building that is normally occupied but has no one in it at that moment is vacant. An abandoned building should be a building that has no owner, or owner present that is maintaining the building. They are different as night and day and the priginal poster's question was so vague as to be almost ludicrous. The fact that they never came back to clarify the question and instead left in a huff leads me to wonder what the point of the question truly was in the first place. If you are looking for information for a supposed research paper why wouldn't you take note of the comments saying it is vague and try to reword it in such a manner to get valid responses.

    Whereas a vacant building may be in top top shape and in use daily, an abandoned building may be in good shape initially and deteriorate over time to become dilapidated. While occupancy in rural areas may be unlikely in an abandoned structure, it is not a absolute that some kids, whether youngsters exploring, or teens doing whatever teens do, aren't in there. The odds of occupancy increase in the more urban areas and especially in areas with a higher population of the poor and homeless.

    You see it is possible for both sides to be right in their opinion tha it happens all the time or rarely if at all in their area. The problem is one side trying to tell the other that they are wrong. The other issue is automatically writing off buildings without even a cursory glance to see if there is anyone inside. No one is recommending running willy nilly into buildings fully involved in fire, or on the verge of collapse. That was never the point I was attempting to make. We must still do an appropriate size-up and make good tactical decisions, no matter what the structure is or what it is used for.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  16. #136
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    The issue is truly what is the definition of a vacant building versus and abandoned building. As Gonzo said any building that is normally occupied but has no one in it at that moment is vacant. An abandoned building should be a building that has no owner, or owner present that is maintaining the building. They are different as night and day and the priginal poster's question was so vague as to be almost ludicrous. The fact that they never came back to clarify the question and instead left in a huff leads me to wonder what the point of the question truly was in the first place. If you are looking for information for a supposed research paper why wouldn't you take note of the comments saying it is vague and try to reword it in such a manner to get valid responses.

    Whereas a vacant building may be in top top shape and in use daily, an abandoned building may be in good shape initially and deteriorate over time to become dilapidated. While occupancy in rural areas may be unlikely in an abandoned structure, it is not a absolute that some kids, whether youngsters exploring, or teens doing whatever teens do, aren't in there. The odds of occupancy increase in the more urban areas and especially in areas with a higher population of the poor and homeless.

    You see it is possible for both sides to be right in their opinion tha it happens all the time or rarely if at all in their area. The problem is one side trying to tell the other that they are wrong. The other issue is automatically writing off buildings without even a cursory glance to see if there is anyone inside. No one is recommending running willy nilly into buildings fully involved in fire, or on the verge of collapse. That was never the point I was attempting to make. We must still do an appropriate size-up and make good tactical decisions, no matter what the structure is or what it is used for.
    A this is where the problem occurs. I can do a size-up from the exterior and simply look through the windows (which liklley will be already broken) for victims from the exterior to determine if there is occupancy. There is simply no need for me to commit members interior on a single story abandoned structure for search operations. Obviously on a two-story, the IC can't do that, but seeing as we have no such abandoned animals like that here, it's not an operational concern.

    As far as "writing buildgs off", once again, the owner has already done that when they decided to abandon the structure. Given he/she has already made that call, it's not my place to ask or request that my personnel make entry into a structure where the owner has already determined that it has no value.

    The fact is that deciding not to make entry because the building is abandoned is a solid tactical decsion. The goal is simply not to get anyone hurt in a building that the owner has determined has no value. The tactics to to conduct a defensive operation, or even possibly, not even put any water on the fire to eliminate the hazard and both perfectly sound and valid operations.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  17. #137
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    A this is where the problem occurs. I can do a size-up from the exterior and simply look through the windows (which liklley will be already broken) for victims from the exterior to determine if there is occupancy. There is simply no need for me to commit members interior on a single story abandoned structure for search operations. Obviously on a two-story, the IC can't do that, but seeing as we have no such abandoned animals like that here, it's not an operational concern.

    As far as "writing buildgs off", once again, the owner has already done that when they decided to abandon the structure. Given he/she has already made that call, it's not my place to ask or request that my personnel make entry into a structure where the owner has already determined that it has no value.

    The fact is that deciding not to make entry because the building is abandoned is a solid tactical decsion. The goal is simply not to get anyone hurt in a building that the owner has determined has no value. The tactics to to conduct a defensive operation, or even possibly, not even put any water on the fire to eliminate the hazard and both perfectly sound and valid operations.
    You couldn't just leave it alone could you?
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  18. #138
    Forum Member EastKyFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    2,971

    Default

    ALL structures should be candidates for search. Even before we arrive, we should be making plans for life safety first. At the scene, command personnel should assess the situation and determine--based on the building condition and the degree of fire involvement--whether a search should be done.

    Abandoned structures are un-maintained structures, so before too many years they can have holes in the roof, broken or open windows, rotted floors, and other un-sound features that, first, can contribute to faster-than-normal fire spread and, second, make them more dangerous to search.

    Knowing what you are doing in fire scene size-up, and knowing the buildings of your district BEFORE they are spewing smoke, is key to knowing when to search and when not to. You have to know when that line has been crossed. All the arguing on this thread is about nothing more than where the line is.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
    --General James Mattis, USMC


  19. #139
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF View Post
    ALL structures should be candidates for search. Even before we arrive, we should be making plans for life safety first. At the scene, command personnel should assess the situation and determine--based on the building condition and the degree of fire involvement--whether a search should be done.

    Abandoned structures are un-maintained structures, so before too many years they can have holes in the roof, broken or open windows, rotted floors, and other un-sound features that, first, can contribute to faster-than-normal fire spread and, second, make them more dangerous to search.

    Knowing what you are doing in fire scene size-up, and knowing the buildings of your district BEFORE they are spewing smoke, is key to knowing when to search and when not to. You have to know when that line has been crossed. All the arguing on this thread is about nothing more than where the line is.

    How many FD's go out and look at the abandoned and known vacant structures in their response districts and use a building marking system?

    We use the ones listed in 527 CMR 10.13 (7) fire prevention regulations. Buildings marked with a half slash / have limited interior operations due to known structural hazards Building marked with the X should have no interior operations whatsoever. The decision to make entry to do a perfunctory search rests with the incident commander.

    As many others have said... nobody in their right mind advocates a full banzai charge on a well involved or fully involved structure, but the fire started somehow and the fact is someone could be inside, whether they be transients, drug addicts or kids using the place to party. To me, nobody in their right mind could just say "screw it, it is vacant and we are not going in" when the fire is at a small incipient stage or a room and contents. Just because one states that it has never been an issue in their community does not mean it cannot happen.
    Last edited by DeputyChiefGonzo; 03-26-2013 at 03:08 PM.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  20. #140
    Forum Member snowball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Just North of South Central
    Posts
    2,731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I can do a size-up from the exterior and simply look through the windows (which liklley will be already broken) for victims from the exterior to determine if there is occupancy. There is simply no need for me to commit members interior on a single story abandoned structure for search operations. Obviously on a two-story, the IC can't do that, but seeing as we have no such abandoned animals like that here, it's not an operational concern.
    What the actual fcuk????

    You cannot be in the fire service.
    rm1524 likes this.
    IAFF

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