Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on December 26, 2011 at 12:27pm

My belief is any building capable of being searched, should be searched.  We have no way of knowing whether kids, vagrants or the homeless, have decided to hang out inside the building. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Glen "Darren" Borror on December 26, 2011 at 5:50pm

There has been some discussion lately in the Fire Service of how departments are to handle vacant/derelict buildings.  

My concern is that the mere thought of a of the idea of a policy to include not to do a "Primary Search" at these fires when the property is known or reported vacant. 

I am an "old school" firefighter.  Primary search upon arrival of ANY report of a fire should be performed.  I am not sure if this was what happened at this incident, CFD has always been pretty good about searches, but I do know that this has been some talk throughout the Fire Service nationally.

It is sad that todays society has lead to the increase to these kinds of structures.  And it is definitately a true safety concern to the Fire Service.  The safety of our firefighters has always been our top priority as Fire Service Leaders.

However, I HOPE that the Fire Service will not lax and forget that the first priority at any incident is the preservation of LIFE. 

Just some food for thought.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on December 26, 2011 at 6:31pm

No offense, but I think such a topic has been hashed out and even similar discussion on the "Risk a lot save alot is BS" thread.

 

The simplistic answer is that any fire tactic approach comes down to size up and knowing your capabilities. This means that while one can take the approach that every structure is searched, or even to create a policy that vacants are considered empty doesn't account for the size up and conditions presented with.

 

This article and other numerous examples show us how seemingly "vacant" structures can be anything but, yet those examples don't necessarily constitute a necessity to search. It still boils down to size up. I don't believe there should be a policy or even SOG to address vacant buildings because they really do vary. Instead of looking to create policy, depts should instead focus on training, incorporate size up tactics for all members, and focus on the overall picture.

 

If encountering a vacant structure on fire, especially if known vacant prior to arrival, then the size up starts with the dispatch. Something started the fire, but let's perhaps also slow down and get as much information as possible to determine if we need to or should commit crews inside. If we do commit crews inside, are they armed with the best knowledge, tools, and tactics? Sounding floors? Using TICs? Watching for changes?

 

In the end approaching a vacant structure can be no different than any other structure, but still have to be wary of conditions. This doesn't mean that interior operations are to be committed or that a search needs to be made, but instead to also step back and evaluate the conditions presented. In a way, it is no different than choosing to do offensive or defensive attack.....it boils down to knowing your resources and capabilities and determining if the risk is worth the benefit. Creating policies only take away from the decision making....instead of policy that can't account for every situation, arm your personnel with the best knowledge and training to make an informed decision and size up.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on December 27, 2011 at 10:15am

I agree.

 

My department does not have a separate SOG for abandoned/vacant buildings.  Our SOGs are based on assessment of on-scene conditions, not a pre-determination.

 

We train our company officers and battalion chiefs to do a complete 360-degree size-up, assess ALL of the building, fire/smoke, and victim variables, use pre-plans for commercial and  multi-residential occupancies, assess resources, and to develop an IAP based on the results of the size-up.

 

Our first-due officer (company officer, line chief, or staff captain or chief) has two options on any working fire - Establish Command or Pass Command.  If the first-due officer chooses to Pass Command, the second-due officer Establishes Command, period.  We use the common-sense rule for passing Command when first due - if the officer's hands-on work can make an immediate impact on the situation (immediate rescue, immediate extinguishment) then passing Command is OK.  If not, it generally isn't.

 

The bottom line is that how to handle a specific fire is an on-scene, specific decision.  It should be a fact-based, thoughtful risk-benefit analysis, not a knee-jerk reaction.

 

There is nothing wrong with policies, procedures, or SOGs, but they should be written in a way that reflects reality, not one that is based on unrealistic assumptions.  That said, we expect our officers and firefighters to use more caution in dilapidates buildings, to do size-ups that are as complete as possible, and to avoid well-intentioned suicide attempts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on December 27, 2011 at 8:50pm

I'm not sure exactly what Detroit's policy is, but I know they have a high level of awareness of vacant/abandoned/derelict structures due to the dozens hundreds thousands of abandoned buildings they face. 

 

Here's an interesting report on how they fight fires in at least some of those structures:

 

"Detroit, MI - October 31, 2011 at 1720 hours Companies from the 6th
Battalion responded to the area of Gratiot and Sylvester on the report of a
dwelling fire. Leaving Quarters L10 reported heavy smoke in the area of Gratiot
and Ellery and the first Engine would be stretching. E23 arriving on the scene
reported they were stretching on a vacant 1 1/2 story wood frame going
through out. Heavy fire was observed on the first floor and crews took a
defensive posture in fighting this fire. L10 was placed to the roof and
vertical ventilation operations were performed. Upon deeming the structure
safe to enter C6 allowed crews inside to complete the knock down of the fire
and perform overhaul operations. E9/23/41 L10 S3 and C6 worked at this fire."
Submitted by Jason Frattini  (emphasis supplied)

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion