Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robert Owens on May 16, 2009 at 7:27pm

There are just times were we have to say no go unless there is significant reason to belive someone is in there. I know for my FD boarded up structures and the like we are not going in unless the boards are peeled off doors are open etc. but even then there are exceptions.

At our last vacant fire it seemed that there were signs that some oen might be in the abandoned building. When the first due truck company wen to make entry they reported no flooring only floor joists on the first floor and the second floor....with this information the IC pulled everyone out and we went defensive. To quote Jhon Norman "if people are determined ot hide from us there is nothing we can do" We would have been risking our lives in an extremly dangerous situation for the thought that a victim might be there. That is irresponsible IMO and the Chief did the right thing.

It turned out that no one was there during the fire but they had been there to set the fire. In my experience this is what happens 9 out of 10 times no matter homeless or arsonist people sho set fires are not sitcking around and if they do they are usually already dead by the time we get there so there would be no reason to enter in either case.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on May 16, 2009 at 9:28pm

Here are the results of a study that Flint, MI did on their excessive rate of firefighter injuries at fires in vacant and abandoned structures:

http://www.cityofflint.com/Fire/FFD%20Injuries%20at%20Vacant%20Stru...

Flint FD Firefighting in Vacant Structures Policy

Other departments have also studied this problem and published recommendations and policies related to these fires:

Managing Our Risk at Fires Involving Vacant Structures

A good example of a defensive attack on a vacant structure fire here:

Guidance for writing a vacant structure fire policy for your department can be found here:

And Billy G's comments on Detroit's most recent LODD, Walter Harris here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DUST on May 16, 2009 at 9:37pm

Thanks for posting the link, very good info, there!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Walker on May 17, 2009 at 10:24am

To me what makes this issue so complicated are those very distinctions that Ch. Goodrich brought up. My initial reaction is to search it, regardless of the buildings supposed "status," but like most things in our profession, it is difficult to always say "always" or never say "never." Exceptions exit.

For instance, if we knew the building was barely standing prior to the fire and then to send people in would be difficult to justify. I've seen rescues happen in "vacant" structures and I've also seen rescues occur when a person in the front yard was "positive" that no one was in the house/structure. They weren't trying to decieve us, they were just wrong. What I've experienced most of all is someone convinced that someone was inside when that wasn't the case. I'm sure my experiences are not unique from others.

When I critique my performance at a fire and the crews I lead, I start by asking, "Did we fight the fire in such a manner that would have given a victim the greatest chance of survival?" If my answer to the first question is no, then I ask, "why?" Had the fire already progressed to the point that we couldn't save them? Did we fail to recognize something that would have changed our course of action? Was it because of a skill deficiency? etc.

I don't think this gives any answers but it is my "two cents."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on May 17, 2009 at 10:35am

Mike:
Excellent points.
I have to wonder out loud thoughts like:
We USED to think that we had to jump on the back of the truck as it was pulling out of the station and we USED to think that we had to drive fast, blow through intersections, because WE were the most important vehicles on the road. We don't think like that anymore or at least the majority doesn't think like that.
If we can change things that have existed in our culture for decades like my example, then why can't we come up with criteria that determines GO/ NO GO? If A doesn't equal B then there is no C. Or if A equals B then do C.
We have to give everyone the tools to make the best decisions on the fireground whether they are big or small; career or volunteer.
TCSS.
Art

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Asst Chief Tim Cook on May 17, 2009 at 8:43pm

Not as easy in more populated areas but knowing the buildings in your first due can lend itself to the decision making process.Abandoned,but sound? Abandoned with damage,be it water,fire or neglect.History of entry as noted by periodic inspection? Marked by the city or FD with paint of placard as to the feasibility of interior operations? We don't have many abandoneds but we have a few that are "target" hazards and a few that have had vagrants in them in the past.Knowing this it becomes a factor in the go?no go equasion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chiefy on May 18, 2009 at 11:52am

I think the definitive term here is "DETERMINED" to be vacant. I applaud Flint Mi's policy; basically if it is abandoned AND determined to be vacant, you protect the exposures and let it burn. Why would you risk a single Firefighter's life to save a crack house?
I asked a City official in Detroit why they could not eliminate the burned out abandoned buildings? His answer was simple; it costs approx $40,000 to mitigate the asbestos from average house and drop it. You do the math. The structure is worth $4000.00 on a good day. Who's gonna pay ten times what it's worth to dispose of it. Now times that by hundreds or thousands.
Flint is reducing their dangerous structures everyday. How much are they saving? Ask Detroit how much their Brother was worth.......then you tell me.

We can debate when is empty empty all day. The point is what are you willing to risk on it?

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page