The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Decision Making at Vacant Structure Fires- Are You Brave Enough?
Fire Engineering has a good little article thsi week about vacant structure fires, questioning are we brave enough to stay out?
It's a quick read but raises some good food-for-thought questions about our decisions to go interior or not. Check it out at http://www.fireengineering.com/index/articles/display/9407237913/ar...
A read through many discussions in these and other forums seems to split the firefighters- some saying you HAVE to go interior to be a firefighter, it's what we do, etc, to those who say, no way- my (or my crews) life safety takes priority.
It's vacant, it's confirmed that everyoen is accounted for, why do we need to go interior if it's unsafe (or potentially unsafe)?
We must continuously risk assess the scene and change tactics based on what we see, hear, smell, feel, etc. You're no less of a FF if you decide to stay exterior....
It's a quick read but raises some good food-for-thought questions about our decisions to go interior or not. Check it out at http://www.fireengineering.com/index/articles/display/9407237913/ar...
A read through many discussions in these and other forums seems to split the firefighters- some saying you HAVE to go interior to be a firefighter, it's what we do, etc, to those who say, no way- my (or my crews) life safety takes priority.
It's vacant, it's confirmed that everyoen is accounted for, why do we need to go interior if it's unsafe (or potentially unsafe)?
We must continuously risk assess the scene and change tactics based on what we see, hear, smell, feel, etc. You're no less of a FF if you decide to stay exterior....
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by LC Otto on
-
Firefighter Saftey is the biggest issue. Some intial questions need to be answered. Has the structure been vacant for years,is theere no sign of entry (Victim Wise), the call is easy, its a surround and drown. I know some depts. think that "tarnishes" the reputation of there Dept., but the risk is alot less in a "surround and drown" attack.
There are many other factors that need to be added in, the Mr. Crabbe mention. There is a great possibilty that there are people inside. Just in common discussion, if my fire department was activated for a Vacant Structure Fire, we would respond as if we were going to perfrom and interior attack. Upon arrival is when a quick decison will need to be made. I belive the Fire Marshall should be immediatly called in the case of a Vacant (No Power to Building) Structure Fire. CYA.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
Which is a catch-phrase quoted by many on forums. I think it better to use the more useful Dynamic Risk Assessment - it says that you look properly at the risk and possible benefits for a situation, any situation. The nothing-little-lot thing is too simplistic, after all, can you define 'lot' without DRA?
-
Permalink Reply by Rick on
-
As metioned earlier you have an obligation to confirm that a structure is "vacant" meaning no squatters, vagrants etc. before you opt for the "safe" surround and drown metod of extinguishment. About a month ago Wash. D.C. rescued 2 from a "vacant" building, I'm sure they were appreciative that the OIC didnt take the easy I mean safe way out. Common sense, exprience, building construction and the amount of fire involvement should let you know when to make a interior attack and when to play it safe. Sometimes you have to manup or have have your justifiable excuses ready for the media.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
I'm sure they were appreciative that the OIC didnt take the easy I mean safe way out.
Sometimes you have to manup or have have your justifiable excuses ready for the media.
Now there's some words of wisdom in 2010 when we're trying to reduce the number of LODD's. NOT! My friend, I'm 100% against that sort of mentality in the fire service. It's not about manning up, it's not about excuses. It's about looking out for #1- me! Then my crew, then the public.
However, what a contradiction in your response Rick- I agree 100% with the following- " Common sense, exprience, building construction and the amount of fire involvement should let you know when to make a interior attack and when to play it safe. ."
-
-
Reality is sometimes ugly my friend. I know all to well that what happens on the fireground is not remotely what is reported on the 6 oclock news and that public preception is more important than reality. I dont know about you but I learned the job from men who didnt turn minor blisters into "near misses" . You expected that at some point in your career if you did this job correctly it would be uncomfortable. "It's about looking out for #1- me! Then my crew, then the public".I took an oath 18 years ago to protect life and property, I take that seriously. Obviously you have not seen the video of Lt. Ray McCormic of the FDNY concerning keeping fire in your life, 18 minutes will pretty much sum up what being a fireman is all about. It's people with your mentality that are destroying the fire service. I have been to LODD funerals in my Dept. and witnessed friends and co workers burned, it's not enjoyable at all, we all try to learn from mistakes. Unfortunately in our line of work these things are going to happen, it's an unpleasent fact of life. With that said I'm not looking to be a statistic but our duty is to the public we serve and sometimes that means doing things that jeapordize our safety to save their lives. If that is a problem for you or anyone else I recommend that you find a cube farm to work in, then paper cuts and the common cold will be your safety issues.
I'm glad that we agree on the other issue, unfortunately the shift from placing importance on experience to education will also be an issue debated. I dont know about you but I would rather have the 20 year vet flying my plane than the rookie just off of the flight simulator.
-
-
It's people with your mentality that are destroying the fire service.
And it's people that don't undertake proper risk assessments, size ups and understanding when to change tactics that will keep the LODD rate so high....
As for your oath, as noble as it is, and the warm fuzzy feeling it gives many, you can't follow or live by it if you're dead. Period.
-
-
Your reply deals more with the second part of my first post which I thought we agreed on. I also addressed the fact that I didnt want to be a statistic but I do understand my role in public safety. I only hope our military doesnt adapt the same safety views that our fire service is leaning towards.... AlQuidea will run the world next year!!!
-
-
Lutan, I think it's a lack of understanding of what risk assessment means. A lack of understanding of the word 'dynamic'. People who DO understand, who DO make assessments, who DO know how to make quick decisions on 'is the benefit worth the risk', who are willing to change tactics instantly depending on changing conditions, they (we) are so often seen by some others as needing to 'man up' or similar. Let's all just run straight into (or onto) any building that's on fire? No thanks.
You know how I explain the safety thing to people? I tell them like you just mentioned, that 1st is me, 2nd is my crew, 3rd is anybody else. Why, I say? Because if we don't do it that way we may not be around to help anyone in the future who might be saved due to different conditions. Has that decision been made? To not go into a burning building? Not to my knowledge - but the possibility is always there.
Oh, and taking an oath? We don't have any such thing. We just do the job.
In reality, there is no barrier between DRA and being 'aggresive' firefighters. It just means we THINK before we go in. Does everyone over here follow the concept perfectly? No of course not. Only a few months ago a highly experienced officer told two FF's in front of him to "get inside, there are people in there!" A two year member of my Brigade said "NO" and actually held the other guy back, stopped him from entering. Why? No BA on either of them, the smoke was almost at floor level and the officer hadn't been properly taking note of what was happening, that coming up behind him were six FF's in BA... Tunnel vision due wholly to the phrase 'multiple people trapped'. We must think. We must be aware. We must be smart enough to say 'NO' when necessary.
PS. Keeping the LODD rate high? You've seen seen our own honour role haven't you mate. Thankfully very low (low enough has to be zero) and we strive to keep it there. For those that don't know, I'm in a service with around 58,000 volunteers, not small.
PPS. There was nobody in the house I mentioned. The neighbour who called it in thought there was, at 03:00. There was a car in the driveway. As far as we were concerned there were possibly victims. I was one of the first in searching on and under beds etc. And the team with a hose that went for the fire. We saved most of the house too. Aggressive? yes. Thinking? YES.
-
Permalink Reply by larry jenkins on
-
Occupied, unoccupied, vacant, abandoned they all have separate tactics. The only way to make the right decision is by gaining experience from actually fighting fire in the field. You can’t get it from reading a book or from the burn building. Those are for gaining basic firefighting knowledge and can’t substitute for real experience.
“Risk a little to save a little, risk a lot to save a lot”. Occupied structures you have to risk a lot and unoccupied structure you risk little. The biggest decision you will make is do you really know if the structure has occupants who are survivable. If the answer is no then you need to decide how much to risk to mitigate the incident.
I am a very aggressive officer, but I have 36 years in a busy company and have had some great mentors. Have I made mistakes? Yes, but I have never gotten anyone hurt. A month ago I was the 1st in engine at a single family dwelling fire. The call came in at 0300 hrs. I did my lap and fire was coming out of every window and from the crawl space. There were no cars in the driveway and I decided to make an exterior attack. Within one minute of operations the 1st floor collapsed into the basement. I didn’t make that decision because of any books I read but from past experiences. All I’m saying you can’t substitute experience for book knowledge.
-
-
Common sence,experience, building construction and the amount of fire involvement. You either have the first 2 or you dont and note that I didnt mention the number of certificates from your local or natonal training center. Building construction and the amount of fire involvement should be obvious within seconds. It's easy to make the call not to go in when a structure is fully involved as Larry mentioned or to make a call to go in with light smoke showing. The problem is how you handle the responses that fall in between those 2 scenarios. The structure is occupied until a search proves otherwise. If a search can't be completed because conditions worsen or change then so be it but a legitimate attempt should be made. Your duty is to the community that you serve, be it rural, urban or surburban. This job is dangerous and unfortunately injuries and in worst case LODD's will happen its the nature of what we do. I fully support any new equipment or techniques that make it safer for us to do our job. I absolutely despise the incompetent, inexperienced leadership in the fire service that utilizes "safety" as an excuse not to do our job! So for you guys with the "It's about looking out for #1- me! Then my crew, then the public" mentallity consider this, If you 1st and your crew 2nd dont do their jobs then the public wont want, trust or need us.
The "oath" is pretty much a paid thing. It generally has to do with your departments mission statement. When I became a volunteer it was pretty much a yea/ nea vote on a meeting night, both had great parties afterward.
-
-
Sorry Lutan. We keep trying, but there's a blockage somewhere.
"So for you guys with the "It's about looking out for #1- me! Then my crew, then the public" mentallity consider this, If you 1st and your crew 2nd dont do their jobs then the public wont want, trust or need us."
There are plenty of civilians I've explained it too and they have understood what I was saying. That if we don't look after ourselves we won't be able to help anybody. Some people refuse to understand it, because it's not their way, they prefer to change what I have written to "It's about looking out for #1- me!" - which puts a totally different meaning to what I said.
We may as well leave this thread alone.
-
Permalink Reply by paula beckham on
-
For us its a case of assessing it when we arrive if its vacant but not fully involved a int search and knock the fire down if its fully involved surround and drown. If there is a chance there may be some one inside who may be retrievable alive and we assess the structure stable and fire conditions survivable we go in and do a search and knock the fire down.
And again if fully involved and no chance of a person surviving in the structure we surround and drown
We live by our rule of we may in a calculated manner risk our personal safety to save life and also property however we will not risk our personal safety if the life or property is a lost cause
The whole thing hinges on the calculated part which is where the risk assessment comes in can we get in and if needed get back out if it is going pear shaped and that is where the experience comes in we can all attend courses and do papers ect but you wont know what you ill do until you are face to face with the situation
I understand the public have a perception that when we arrive that we will go rushing into a burning building but id rather burst their little fantasy bubble than risk myself or one of my crew just to be flash
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
