The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
When To Let It Burn?
Time to throw some controversy into the mix and see if I can't raise some dander...
While this is likely more of a rural FD problem as alarm and response times are typically longer than in urban areas, what governs the decision about the level of effort to expend on extinguishing a fire when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. In other words, when you know the ultimate result is going to involve the use of a bulldozer after the rubble quits smoldering, what guides your actions (yeah, I know, there are some legalities here and sometimes we need to "put on a show" for the public, but let's get real)?
The church fire video at the link below is the sort of thing I'm thinking about. I'm acknowledging in advance that evidence preservation and a sobbing congregation must come into the decision making process somewhere, but how many tanker task forces, master streams, supply lines, and man-hours would you commit to this and how do you arrive at that decision?
http://www.firefighternation.com/video/111810-church-fire-west-penn
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by phillip hice on
-
There was no insurance on this house. A wood stove was probly the couse of the fire.
-
Permalink Reply by Al "Top" Styles on
-
FETC,
You bring up a very valid point about the insurance companies….It has been my experience that if you (the fire dept) call for the “bulldozer” than you (the fire department) accrues the cost of the “bulldozer”.
I do know this to be true, when I was on a different department the Chief called for the dozer and the company charged the fire dept because we called for it. Which raises a whole different dilemma, call or not, it is hard to convince an insurance company over the phone that a bulldozer is needed.
After the afore mentioned situation, a policy was drafted to state that NO “dozers” were to be called. So we had to just “dump water” to try and keep it in check.
So what is the answer???? Do the best we can with what we have.
Take care
Top
EGH-DTRT
-
-
I did put 6000 gl water on it befoe i left it
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Thanks Al,
Well if people choose to let it burn how do you truly know it was an unoccupied dwelling? Imagine the dollar figure on that civil lawsuit. So yes we should do the best we can... cover the bases.
Stay Safe
-
-
Oh so true... We must and have to make every effort to make sure the structure is unoccupied... If we can do that than we are ahead of the game. Risk/Benefit is paramount, I have been on both sides of the one and man what a tough choice. Stay safe brother, great talking to ya.
Top
EGH-DTRT
-
-
Totally agree Chief, I have held my breath on those fires that you pull out the men or do not commit to begin with because it is too risky and hope that nothing presents itself afterwards in the "overhaul/search" mode.
Now there is something they don't teach in the IFSTA book.... Good talking to you too.
FETC
www.fetcservices.com
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
From my experience, rarely is it the fire command's decision to "let it burn".
We throw resources at it, can't make any gain, so more burns until it eventually burns down.
Firefighters have to keep moving at a scene for a couple of reasons: cameras may be capturing the firefighters "who are doing nothing" and to keep those pesky PASS devices from going off.
As FETC said; unless you have a water reactive situation, if you have fire and you have firefighters, you will be putting water on it. Brains are wired to put fire out.
This is NOT to be confused with going defensive. Though you may not be saturating the building of origin, you are making sure that exposures are properly protected with water curtains and such.
So; to summarize, I don't think that we consciously let anything burn.
TCSS.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Blackburn on
-
I will speak for all the Demolition contractors out there when I say, leave as much of the walls standing as possible, but let all the contents burn completely!
It's the clothes, beds, furniture, carpet etc that is the hardest to handle, can't be recycled and after we pour 40,000 gallons of water on it, it weighs many tons extra! (more trucks to haul and dumps charge by the ton, so water gets real expensive)
If it is a total loss anyway, letting it burn all the way saves the Ins. Co./owner quite a bit of money in demo/disposal costs.
Walls and floors and such condense pretty good with an excavator, and the more of them left, the higher the contractor can bid the job.
Oh, and call for an excavator not a dozer next time! Much safer for all concerned...
-
-
And to clarify, I was referring to buildings that are already far enough burned that nothing can be saved, structure or contents.
Granted, a fire dept's job is to put out fires, but shouldn't we consider the entire picture when making decisions? The more almost-burned stuff is left, the more money it costs to clean it up, and most of that cost is just going straight into the Waste Management bank account by way of the landfill.
-
Permalink Reply by Talbot Brooks on
-
Randy - I'm right there with you and that's a bit of what motivated me to start the post. Even with 300+ runs a year (all fire and rescue - no EMS - 50-70 working structure fires a year) it isn't very often that we get to put one in the "save" column in terms of a save. In fact, I was just bitching to my wife about one earlier this year that was a rolling contents, single compartment (bedroom) fire. We are an extremely aggressive department and launched an interior attack that stopped the fire cold. Due to building design and heat we did vertical ventilation. When it was all over, this was truly one for the "save" column. Then the homeowner was told by insurance not to touch a thing in the house until the adjuster looked everything over. Two thunderstorms later and 3 weeks later, the house was infested with black mold and had to be torn down. I ask myself why the heck I bother sometimes - I don't really mean it and will do this job until I am physically unable, but it did lead me down this path of why make much of an effort when the conclusion is foregone and there's nothing exposed, to be saved, in danger, etc... Started to wonder if I was burning out in thinking "when do you just give up and put on the show at a reduced energy level" and so on. Glad to see the responses here as they've been both interesting and motivating.
T.
-
-
I know most of the people that do this job ,have to love it & just want to help others that can't help themselves at the time. As a volunteer , the help we do give is free, it cost us to be volunteer's. Every time the pager goes off, every time we go spend hours training or for what ever reason you have to get up an leave your family. I think some departments here pay 7 or 8 $ per call.
I was watching the Nashville TN. news the other day an it was said thay had to pull out an let a fire burn itself out. I know most rural depts. don't have people @ the station 24/7 an we have a longer response time then a staffed dept. But a lot depends on when the call is made or how far long the fire is.I have gone in an maybe use 2 or 3oo gl. of water, shut the door an let the steam work . Those are the good one's. But if you know for a fact the home owner dose not have ins., there is a hand dug well under the floor of a house ,why would you leave a single wall standing for it to maybe fall on a child or anyone as far as that goes .We had 3 chief's from mutual aid dept's all make the call to stay with it till it was all down. We put water on the house next door becouse we had 15 to 20 mph winds blowing out of the north [fire started on north end of house] And we stay all night from 7:30 to 5:00. Now go ahead bet my up, but I think it was the right call. I love this websight becouse we can come here & talk about things & maybe learn from what others have done or not done. stay safe LIFE IS GOOD
-
-
Departments can choose to do what they want. I am not here to say what you did is wrong. But I am here to offer some what if's and maybe others will see a different point of view.
So when the fire burns itself out, what is left to locate the fire's cause and/or origin? What if the insurance investigator later has a discrepancy on his interview's and financial audit pretaining to potential arson? But you as a department chose to let it burn out? Do you see any liabilty there? What if there was someone inside the dwelling even though someone said they own the property? I have seen people in places they do not belong before. Finding dead bodies days later is costly.
We put out fires to stop the process of combustion. That process is called a loss stop, you may incurr times when the property is a "save" or a "total loss". Sometimes post extinguishment you have instability issues, (walls or chimneys still standing unsupported)
If you are making decisions whether to extinguish or not on the basis of it will be easier to clean up or safer for the neighborhood after the fire, then we have lost focus on the fact we extinguish property to save, any remaining property or evidence preservation.
I for one will never let something burn for the reasons you have stated. The insurance company could easily come after the fire department for additional damages from lack of suppression. How about a civil lawsuit for the lack of extinguishment, or a life safety search. What if a demolishion crew finds some bones later and you essentially let it burn? Don't get "going defensive" and letting it burn as the same thing. Going defensive is part of the process of firefighter safety. We extinguish fire and overhaul them to assure not only the fire is completely out but to assure nobody was inside the building.
Stabilization of the property post fire is the responsibility of the homeowner or his/her insurance company. Not to say we havent knocked over chimney or unsupported walls before we have left the scene. Thats just good risk management for the community.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
