The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Why make a fire defensive, when it doesn't have to be?
Hello all. I live in a Rural area and am a volunteer with a Rural Department. I have been noticing a few issues as of late and would sincerely value your input. One of my biggest concerns is mentioned in the title. It seems that every fire we respond to mutual aid or otherwise, no matter how large or small, from a seemingly simple room and contents, to a fully involved structure is deemed by the powers to be as unsafe. If we were just going to surround and drown, what is the point of even having the title of Firefighter? I thought the point of our job was to save lives AND property...not just to watch a small fire get bigger. I'm a firm believer that if you have interior qualified personnel, and a pumper on the scene capable of containing the fire, then why not? If an interior attack can be effectively done, then do it!
I don't have a whole lot of experience, but I do have enough experience AND common sense to know what I can and cannot do on the scene. If any of you have any input you can offer me on this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
I don't have a whole lot of experience, but I do have enough experience AND common sense to know what I can and cannot do on the scene. If any of you have any input you can offer me on this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Fireyladd - Retired Chief Sharp on
-
Jeff, first and foremost what your asking us should be done with your Chief. That said if your Chief or leadership says to deal with the fire from a defensive position then by all means do just exactly that. The first thing you as a FIREFIGHTER must do is carry out the orders of your Chief or he wouldnt carry that title. He has the responsibility and liability no matter what happens on a scene. If the Department isnt putting out the fire and thus NOT saving lives and property it is his neck thats on the line and possibly thankfully not yours. It may well be there is more to this story then whats being said but there is my response based on what you said. In my position if I had a Firefighter who was questioning my authority and position I would want to hear about it. He may be leading at the best level he had the ability to lead at. Go talk to him or simply do what he directs. Hope that helps.
Chief Sharp
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Montpetit on
-
Jeff....that is not your call....it is the decision of the IC on the method and mode of the attack....Remember the addage....Risk a lot to save a lot....Risk little to save little....Risk nothing to save nothing....Our primary goal is to save life and property when possible....but we have been killing ourselves fighting fires that don't make a damn bit of difference....My department is rather agressive in our attacks....but even here sometimes we get the orders to stay out....it is deemed to high a risk.....If you disagree with the methods then I suggest you talk things over with your IC's or become a member of the command staff...Just don't get anyone killed in the process....Stay safe and always remember to Keep the Faith.....Paul
-
Permalink Reply by John on
-
I agree with Chief and Paul on this one there are to many of us getting killed for no reason. Our dept will go in as long as the fire is not fully involved in the attic over the crews heads. It is a call by IC on whether defensive or not they have the expirence and the training, plus they rely on feedback from the crews when doing a 360 as well.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
WTF?
With heightened awareness of LODD's and the dangers of aggressive interior attacks, why not go defensive?
It's about risk assessments- and don't dribble off this crap line about Risking a lot to save a lot- what a load of BS!
If there's no rescue to perfrom, why put people in danger?
Go and find the discussion on Interior Attacks- there's soem relaly good arguments on there about going defensive and staying defensive...
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Well Jeff, I will provide input as you asked but you may not like my opinion.
As many other fine FFN members have mentioned, firefighters are to follow orders not create the Incident Action Plan. Secondly, as you have suggested in your post, in a mutual aid situation; one engine company doesn't cover the requirements set forth to initiate a interior attack. Who is going to make entry and operate your backup line, search and rescue or ventilation? Now let's look at the 2-in 2-out aspect. If the remaining firefighters on scene are not interior certified, then are they really capable of rescuing you the agressive "I fight what you fear" firefighter? Now who is going to fill out your rapid intervention team? To be operationally agressive with a proper interior fire attack, you really need 15-17 personnel ON SCENE who were ALL properly trained.
In your case, going mutual aid, these department's are probably not comfortable with interior attacks because they lack training or have identified the lack of an adequate manpower response in a timely manner. I can respect that they understand their limitiations.
In respect to your mutual aid response; you personally should take into effect how long it took to identify that fire, was there delayed notification, and what is your turnout time combined with your over-the-road response time... Now if you are the first interior trained crew on scene with a pumper, the previous considerations are more often than not a RED FLAG to formulate an IAP that screams let's go defensive because this building is likely UNTENABLE. Civilians are most likely DEAD, the interior environment has either already flashed, (again untenable to us and them) NIST has proved flashover in less than ten minutes, or even if you had a really good response time, you may be entering just as it flashes, or the roof support is ready to fall down (lightweight) or the floors are about to send you for a dirt nap in the basement.
The furnishings of today burn much hotter, and people are making their houses tighter for the energy savings and the interior fires of today are just waiting for an overly agressive firefighter to kick in the door.
I have been doing this enough to understand EVERYONE has limitations and saving someone's property is very low on my list of priorities. Mark my word, we will see a suggested standard in the future saying; no life hazard = no entry.
Wanna save some lives and property? Tell your neighbor and friends to invest in a residential sprinkler system.
-
-
lutan this "dribble" as you call it about risk a lot to save a lot....think about it.......There is nothing short of a human life that I would risk my a_ _ for...it may sound cruel or mean but to be honest personal belongings can be replaced a life cannot...thus the risk a lot....to save a lot. Paul
-
Permalink Reply by andrew shapiro on
-
Great professional discussion here from some obvious seasoned pros whose comments are right on the mark! I would like to offer my perspective which is civilian, though deeply involved in the firefighting industry/community.
To me this is the defining issue of firefighting in this day and age. Other than the absolute imminent and distinct possibility of LIFE to be saved or protected, the inherent and unpredictable hazards of agressive interior attack do not seem to justify the tremendous risks. There are just too many heartbreaking stories (1 is too many) where it appears that unnecessary interior risks were taken.
Fact is, the average civilian has absolutely no clue whatsoever what goes into firefighting much less aggressive interior attack. Or for example, that human skin can third degree burn from temperatures as modest as 160F! Or that a candle burns at 1000 F + !
I just hope firefighters/departments don't ever think they are letting down their "customers" by foregoing agressive interior attack when the issue is property only. I don't see how any civilian/tapayer with any sensibility (or sensitivity) could expect agressive interior attack from their local department under these circumstances. But perhaps civilian ignorance (and I don't mean it in a condescending way) might lead to such kinds of unfair expectations from their F.D. and that might subsequently lead to feelings of external pressure upon the local department or individual firefighters to be more agressive.
I hope that is not the case. You firefighters already have the respect of the community for what you do day in and day out. And to Jeff dealing with his apparent internal pressures, your colleagues have given you superb and sound advice here.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Teeters on
-
I appreciate the input, all of your opinions are valued. I agree with everyone for the most part. You're right, it isn't my call, and I DO follow the orders that I am given. Not that I like it, but in many instances it is necessary. Thank you, I look forward to more replies
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Stoltz on
-
"I'm a firm believer that if you have interior qualified personnel, and a pumper on the scene capable of containing the fire, then why not? If an interior attack can be effectively done, then do it!
I don't have a whole lot of experience, but I do have enough experience AND common sense to know what I can and cannot do on the scene."
Jeff, as the others have noted, the IC is the one that makes the decision whether to fight offensively or defensively. A chief officer must have considerable experience and training in order to make an "informed decision" on the fireground.
Sometimes, it's not just what is burning when you pull up, rather what will be burning when you are able to assemble a crew of sufficient size to properly attack the fire, and a water supply capable of providing the flow needed to make the attack successful. You mentioned the word "rural" and if you define it the way I do (my fire district) you know that water is a scarce commodity. The IC has to take all of these factors into account, and roll with it.
I can't think of a single structure that would be worth placing my life (or someone else's) in imminent danger. Buildings can be replaced; people cannot.
Remember the words: Everyone Goes Home. Everyone.
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Koontz on
-
According to the NFPA 2 in 2 out rule, anything except a known room and contents fire that hasn't breached the wall or ceiling can be fought offensively. Everything else needs two in and two out. (I may be wrong, if so I welcome corrections. This is what we're taught). But mainly its usually a cost vs benefit decision for us.
-
-
Jason, the only time we can disregard the 2-in/2-out rule (according to OSHA) is when there is a substantial risk that life inside the building is in imminent danger. In other words, confirmation that people are still inside the building.
And Brian - yes we will do what we can to save a house that is mostly saveable. That’s what I thought we were doing a couple of years back at this call:
http://www.firefighternation.com/group/buildingconstructionfirefigh...
Hey, not too bad… FF through the floor but unharmed… a good “save”… or was it? What would have happened if the FF had died? What was the point of saving the structure if it was to be demolished anyways?
Hey, people might call me a wimp or a p----y if I err on the side of caution and elect to fight defensively. That’s all right; as long as EVERYONE GOES HOME to their loved ones, I will be happy as a clam.
-
-
How did we get here? If they responded M/A with 4 personnel than yes the rule is covered. We were discussing the first interior attack on a rural fire with the first-in company being mutual aid. That means the attack is delayed. Which the fire is contining to free burn without interruption of the BTU curve.
My question now because I am curious... What/where is the benchmark you are using to constitute a 2-in / 2-out fire or not?
Is it clearly defined in writing as to what that benchmark really is?
Example: Finished rec room in a basement 18x30' already flashed, but it is one room fully involved and not breached. That is one ripping fire with the amount of contents...
What is the risk/gain; risk/benefit; cost/benefit model on that one?
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
