When Did It Become OK to Say "No"....

Comment

Comment by Michael Bricault on September 30, 2010 at 12:04pm

-Pat, no one is talking about running around with reckless abandon. We're talking about doing a search on a building just like any other fire and not letting the fact that the building is abandoned be the ONLY dictating factor about the search.
-The fact is until the search is complete the only assumption is that the building IS occupied. If it is abandoned someone got in and started the fire.
-Your post is seems to be making the assumption that the building is heavily or fully involved on arrival. Of course in that case a proper strategy involving a risk/benefit must be employed.... just as in every other scenario.
-Just because the building is abandoned doesn't necessarily mean the fire be well advanced on arrival. It could very well be discovered in the early stages.
-The building must be searched, just like every other structure fire is.
-Until the search is completed it is unknown whether or not the structure is occupied.

Comment by Patrick Brown on September 29, 2010 at 6:03pm

Every action on the fire ground must be dictated by a thorough size up and a rational risk assessment. The risk assessment includes a survivability assessment (based on time,smoke and fire conditions what are the chances of finding a salvagable occupant?) and a structural integrity assessment ( what is the likehood the building will maintain its integrity and allow me to perform a search?) Rushing in to a fully involved abandoned structure to do a search is pointless and dangerous...occupants can't survive the environment and the structure (depending on the construction) can't withstand the fire very long. Some might think this is obvious but common sense and experience are both lacking in the fire services today. As Chief Dunn (FDNY, ret.) says, "When no other person’s life is in danger, the life of the firefighter has a higher priority than fire containment.”
Stay safe. Continue to learn and continue to teach.

Comment by Michael Bricault on September 27, 2010 at 3:20pm

-In response to Mike France's post, of course I emphatically believe that common sense needs to be exercised on scene and did say as much in my post. Firefighting is and always has been about calculated risks not foolish chances.
-Mike, I can't help but feel that your post betrays your lingering reservation about conducting a search of a vacant building.
-As previously stated, the vacant building didn't set itself on fire and those that started the fire may still be inside waiting for rescue, therefore a search must be carried out. The mantra is:
1. Risk everything to safe a life
2. Risk a little to save property
3. Risk nothing for what is already gone
-The real trick is knowing and differentiating between these tenets and not misunderstanding that taking risks does not mean acting foolishly or recklessly.
-And I cannot overstate the point that it is not the vacant building that is injuring and killing firefighters. That blame is squarely on the shoulders of poor tactics. Don't fear the building, fear poor tactics employed by poorly trained firefighters.
-Standing outside of a vacant building, never attempting to enter to conduct a search and opting to park out front and operating master streams emphatically says to the public the fire dept is more concerned with suppression and not LIFE SAFETY.
-I'm not saying to avoid or delay firefighting operations BUT our primary mission of conducting the primary search is becoming primarily overlooked. Pulling lines is a knee jerk reaction to firefighting that many do instinctively and without ever performing a true size up that includes creating an immediate rescue profile for the operation. There are times when it will be appropriate to delay suppression in favor of rescue. John Norman talks about this very idea in his book, Fire Officer’s Handbook, and calls it CONCEPT NO. 1.
-Too many firefighters are concerned with establishing a water supply, implementing RIC, having at least tree companies on scene, back up lines stretched and starting fans BEFORE they ever consider the primary search. To many ICs and company officers are heard to utter the reactionary phrase, "Its an abandoned building so we're not going in". Or, "There's nothing to save, they're just gonna knock it down".
-The thought of life safety is lost on such firefighters and ICs who misunderstand the point about conducting interior operations. Until verified by INTERIOR companies, it must be assumed the fire building is occupied. Anything else is irresponsible and unprofessional.
-Interior structural firefighting operations are not nor have they ever been about saving the fire occupancy. Interior operations are performed to facilitate the primary search and any resulting rescue.
-Being honest with ourselves, more times than not a simple room and contents fire renders most occupancy contents unusable and permanently damaged from heat and smoke while the occupancy itself is many times left uninhabitable. Typical suppression operations for a room and contents fire will leave the occupancy uninhabitable at least until professional clean up and abatement can take place. The true property conservation aspect of fire fighting comes from the fire dept stopping the fire from spreading to the neighboring occupancy.
-The primary search, barring structural compromise or full fire involvement, should take place immediately. Consider that most true rescues occur in the first four to five minutes of operations.
-Allowing an abandoned building to determine whether or not firefighters search is not fulfilling our mission of LIFE SAFETY. The building is empty ONLY when interior companies have made a search and found no victims.
-I’m a fireman and I AM my brother’s keeper.

Comment by Chris Piepenburg on September 27, 2010 at 11:17am

I am in total agreement with Brick, yet once again. I have posted other places on the topic of searching "vacant" buildings and have stated the same...These buildings do not set themselves on fire. I am lucky to work in an affluent area, but you still see the homeless wandering around and they are living somewhere, like it or not! We have a 400 some room "vacant" hotel that we use for training and everytime we go up, there is always evidence of folks living there.

It is upon us to educate those who don't know about these buildings. We are beginning to see a change in the way tactics are evolving and it is not good! The next thing you know we will all be standing outside shooting water into a building because people are under educated in reading buildings and fire conditions. The "Everyone Goes Home" mantra has been drilled into the heads of many that this is all they care about. We get paid to aggressively fight fire and do the best job we can to save a human life. We don't get paid to decide who gets saved and who doesn't based on the fact that the building is boarded up, so nobody is in there!

Comment by John K. Murphy on September 27, 2010 at 10:00am

Amen to all the comments. However, common sense is not all that common. Good training and appropriate size up will create the best of both worlds - accomplishing our mission of life safety and preventing injury and death to our firefighters. Many abandoned buildings are vacant and yes they do not start on fire by themselves. Many times the homeless occupy these structures and are smart enough to get out of the structure when the fire starts. We should remember that in our size up and risk management and engage in the appropriate strategy. There are a couple of programs across the country where the fire service is pre-fire planning those abandoned structures. Many times they will be written off as being too dangerous to enter. With budget restrictions cutting our firefighting forces – we need to do what we can with what we have.

Comment by Mike France on September 27, 2010 at 7:38am

I too believe you need to use Common Sense , and do a proper size up, everyday we more of the buildings being empty . With the economey the way it is and homeless people you need to take all of this into consideration for your Sizeup.

Comment by Mark Akins on September 26, 2010 at 9:47pm

Well said Michael, well said. I believe we are palcing fear in the new recruits and trying to shy away from the reason for us being here to start with. We waste time on many things once on the scene and forget the fire is growing. A skilled, calculated offensive attack is the best way to stop an advancing fire and will always be the best way. We should never hear "back to the basics" simply because we should never leave them.
We need to arm new and old members with knowledge and a true understanding of what fire is and of building construction. This will save firefighters.

With the trend we are following the public will loose trust in us and we will receieve no support from them, when we need it. I firmly beleive our best PR is when we make an excellent stop on a fire and when we save many irreplaceable items. Not by birthday parties, and some of the other ideas now being spread throughout the fire service.
Let's remember what our job still is and do it.

Comment by Jeff Schwering on September 26, 2010 at 8:15pm

Common Sense, good size-up everytime, and a true understanding of our Profession, means we risk alot to save alot. Simply put, we go if we can, never assume, never profile! The rest my Brother Brick hit on so very well!

Comment by Michael Bricault on September 26, 2010 at 5:31pm

-With regard to fires in abandoned structures, those that believe vacant buildings should not be searched have blindly overlooked the obvious. And anyone making such comments is a self-identified neophyte speaking beyond the level of their expertise.
-ABANDONED/VACANT BUILDINGS DO NOT SET THEMSELVES ON FIRE!!!!! And unless the building was struck by lightning the fire is the result of human intervention. Wether malice was intended or not is irrelevant. And the person that started the fire, intentionally or accidentally, may in fact still be inside the building.
-Therefore, an interior search must take place.
-Moreover, the ever increasing homeless population in this country, from which no community is immune, demands that abandoned structures be searched.
-Whats more, empty buildings make attractive "playgrounds" for children as well as being ideal locations for drug dens or clandestine drug labs.
-The common denominator is that abandoned buildings are attractive locations for many segments of the population and the fire department must therefore search these buildings. A potential victim's life is not appraised by the financial worth of the occupancy that contains them.
-Firefighters do not have the luxury nor responsibility of passing judgment as to the value of those people that will seek out these structures. Rather, we are charged with the protection of those souls that may be in peril within. If this is unreasonable to any firefighter or if they prefer to judge the worth of their fellow man than than they are in the wrong line of work.
-Ask yourself, "Am I my brother's keeper?" If the answer has to be qualified you should evaluate your choice of profession.
-Abandoned buildings do not not kill firefighters; poor firefighting tactics kill firefighters. Each building, regardless if occupied or not, must be evaluated on a standard risk benefit analysis that considers the potential of trapped victims and their probable location within; the fire conditions, structural integrity and departmental resources... just like any other structural fire scenario.
-Firefighting is about calculated risks not foolish chances.
-I AM my Brother's Keeper. I am a fireman.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page