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 John Dobson on
-
Are saying is bubbles are better. We used are deck gun CAFS on that fire alot of us had never seen it used so it was for training.
Oh the foam or ice thing, It was icy foam. LOL When you start that post I will throw my two cents in.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Montpetit on
-
Not at all Sir....I might be old school...but if my OIC or Chief says go defensive then we go defensive...no second guessing here....He Has the hard calls to make and I am glad it is him and not me...
-
Permalink Reply by Just Plain Craig Moyer on
-
Years..okay decades (God that makes me feel old) While working at the 9-1-1 center the company across the street got hit out for a building fire. We could see flames out the window. At first you could tell they were in a defensive mode. The building had been abandoned for at least 20 years. Then all of a sudden the IC started requesting equipment. I can only assume somone put a bug in his ear and got him to try to put it out. 3 hours and 25 pieces of equipment later..........
At least we were entertained.
-
Permalink Reply by 55 TRUCK on
-
Well from the picture it is more of a contain and nock out hot spots, I can't tell from the pictures the % of involvment when the first due pieces arrived. At the stages shown. In a Rural area I would start to let companies go. Mostly your there to spray a few hot spots and make sure little timmy and his cousin Bart don't decide to try and throw things in the pretty flames..Liability, type stuff. In a urban or city with multiple exposures. It's a whole diffrent ball game.
From the pics it looks like the Church wasn't close to any other structures. I'd send most pieces home, no use having a bunch of Firemen doin nothing. Plus with what I assume is a small paid or Vol. Rural dept. There are probably multiple Vol. mutual aid companies that need to get back in service.
As for the Pic with the Straw or hay. One word..Tractor.
God Bless
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
phillip,
What was showing and what were the available resources when the decision was made to burn the place down?
-
Permalink Reply by phillip hice on
-
when the call came in to 911,the caller had been drinking, she said she had trouble understanding him so she sent a officer to check it out. needless to say it was through the roof by the time we got the call. Part of the house was used for storage & part was lived in. The homeowner said the only way to the upstairs was a ladder.We had put 40000 gl of water on this house form the outside before the call was made. All the water was hualed with tankers.
-
-
If it was "through the roof" on arrival, you obviously made the correct decision.
-
-
We thougth so ,the lady that owned the house, but did not live there , had last her husben about 3 weeks ago ,so we thought it would be less of a mess for her to get cleaned up
-
Permalink Reply by Al "Top" Styles on
-
Great topic to discuss..
I guess the simplest answer would be to ask ourselves a few things.
First, life safety, than property conservation, and lastly environmental concerns
The second is the B.A.G methodology, Where’s it BEEN, where’s it AT, and where’s it GOING.
Lastly and I feel most importantly, risk/benefit analysis…… risk a little to save a little, risk a lot to save a lot and risk nothing to save nothing…..
We and our fellow brothers & sisters come first; I understand that these situations can be challenging to explain to those we protect, the media and so on, but we ALL MUST GO HOME. If we don’t let the incident “drive” us, than we can mitigate it with minimal consequences.
Again it may not seem to be the most popular decision, but it is one that must and has to be made. Most citizens and even responders will understand if you take the time to explain why we do what we do.
I wish everyone a safe and happy holiday season. Stay safe all.
Top
EGH-DTRT
-
-
I think we did the right thing.The people next door to this house told us there was a hand dug well under this house that had been covered by the floor. Went back this morning to check on hot spots scence we have 15 to 25 mph winds & the well could be scene in the middle of the house. We never know what we find in someone else home.
-
-
I would agree.... Though is seems tough/wrong to do, because we are suppose to make it better, it sounds like the right thing. Nice job. Stay safe.
Top
EGH-DTRT
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
I have only been to one fire for which we backed off and let it burn and it was a hazmat. The exposure to the chemicals both during suppression and the environmental impact of H20 run off.
All others, to include as you state, when the roof collapses and you know you are going to see a bulldozer in a few days, must be extinguished. We discussed this pretty heavy here, a while ago and the thread was what would you do "if the owner says he is the owner and has no insurance, please let it burn"
First thing that comes to mind is the insurance company is going to come after the fire department/town for additional loss of property, lack of evidence preservation, and the ability to determine a potential cause.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
