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

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on December 7, 2010 at 1:26pm

FETC:
I have to agree with you on this.
NOBODY in their right mind should ever admit to letting something burn itself out, unless it is an industrial property that owner, insurance agent and fire department would agree that it would be better to burn to off vent chemicals or has water reactive issues.
But to let it burn for any other reason makes no sense.
And our rule of thumb when the fire department was under my command was to always leave something for the fire investigator.
What happened? We couldn't get ahead of the fire.
Never say: we let it burn.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Avery Dale on December 8, 2010 at 7:16pm

Regardless of how far gone it is we put water on it until the fire is out & use all available/needed resources. The only time we back off if there is a potential hazard such as haz-mat, electrical wires, etc. We don't just "let it burn" if we don't have to.

Example...
We was dispatched 3rd due to an early morning church fire but ended up arriving as second due with an Engine & Tanker. The single story brick building was fully invlolved with a partial collapse, no exposure's. The IC just wanted 1.5" hand lines pulled for a surround & drown & refused to set up a drop tank just using Tenders to refill Engine's as needed because it was "too far gone". Despite the Engine's running out of water prior to the tanker(s) returning the IC seemed content. The State Fire Marshall arrived & after he had a "conversation" with the IC the assignment went to a multiple alarm Tanker Task Force with two drop tanks, two master streams, multiple 1.5" & 2.5" handlines, a non-stop Tanker shuttle & water supply operation for 6 hours.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Mclennan on January 9, 2011 at 9:45pm

there are MANY reasons and concerns about this. in our area, we are legally obligated to contain and extinguish the fire, as safely as possible. if safety or other reasons to a complete loss there are many forms , even more than usual lol, to be filed. however surrounding property protection is then number 1. like i said, there are MANY angles to look at every scene, as everyone is different