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 Richard Armstrong on
-
Well I'm sure iy's been on FF's minds at one time or another as to "why are we wasting our time here" at a scene or two but I think t boils down to when you pull up to a scene like this the first concern is protect the surrounding buildings or maybe a field of crops close by you could wet down so it don't go up.But seriously there is no chance for evidence preservation left in this situation and even if there was the amount of water that is going to be needed will take care of it for sure.
I personally wouldn't waste to muach on man power on the burning structure as a handline wil basically be like takin a leak on it but use your hand lines for exposures and foucuse monitors and aerials on the big fire.Public perseption does not allow us to do nothing even if you were to explain the obvious to them so you have to do your job but it doesn't mean you have to kill yourself in doing this on a scene like this.Like you said put on the show.
You also have to take into account the environmental issues of just letting it burn.It maybe a drop in the bucket as to everything else that goes on in the world but why add to the pollution if you don't have to.
This is definatly a good question and perspective on the "scratchin your head" part of what we come across and will be interesting to see some comments that are made.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Probably the most important is if you have a well involved fire involving hazardous materials inside a structure and you have accounted for the occupants (NO rescue problem) then it's best to let it burn.
I call this the "Purify By Fire" approach. One of the best ways to eliminate a hazmat threat is to have it completely consumed by the fire.
The total contamination is controlled, as you won't generate thousands of gallons of contaminated runoff if you don't fight the fire.
Pre-emergency planning is the key - KNOW what's there before the fire occurs and KNOW how to quickly access the MSDS file from occupancies that make, store, or use hazmat.
Even in the rural setting, hazmat can be a factor. A classic example is a farm co-op - fertilizers, pesticides, etc. make for extremely risky firefighting and the possibility of poisoning the community for a long time after if you choose to fight the fire and can't extinguish it immediately.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymond Herington on
-
Health and safety to all on scene. Sometimes surround and drown is all that can be done. Yes firefighters are expected to fight fire and protect property, but how can you protect what is already gone. All you can do is protect your equipment, manpower, and surrounding structures. Proper Incident Command and decision making starts at your initial scene size up.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/investigation-begins-...
This is a link to a recent fire which was a defensive approach and at one point, every rig in the city was there. The reason to not "just let it burn" comes down to exposure control. One of the surest was to control the exposure is to extinguish the fire.
Now of course all situations are different and it depends on what is burning, (some things are best allowed to burn themselves off) and also immediate exposures or life threats. Situational awareness.
-
Permalink Reply by Talbot Brooks on
-
Yep - that sucks. I've been there and hate being in that position, but have realized that often our "saving" what's left does much of what's described above in terms of exposure control, hazmat, etc... but found the owner oddly appreciative when they've been there and I've been frank - if I get a good vibe off the owner - especially one with no insurance - I'll be clear with them and let 'em know all is lost and we'll save you a bunch of money in cleanup costs by turning this into a controlled burn. I just never go home and sleep well when I feel like the fight was lost before I ever left the station...
-
Permalink Reply by John Dobson on
-
Great post, I ask this question alot. We get alot of calls where the roof is collaspsing or the whole building is falling in. We go put it out and a year later there is still a big mess. Most have no power and have not been lived in in years. I have even had to cut trees out of the way to pull tin or get to what was the door. The fire marshall's office has told us there not going to spend manpower and money to investigate these messes.
They are good to use as training for new guys let them run a hose, water supply, pump.
We did have a new barn that had 270 bales of hay in it burn not long ago. The owner heard something banging outside. Got up to see what was going on and the tin was falling off. He called it in when we arrived all the tin was laying on the burning hay. The owner ask if we would let it burn and the chief agreed. We would have hauled water for a day and just made a big mess.
A couple of why did we even bother photos these are still just like we left them messes.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Montpetit on
-
#1 Due to the type of construction a Church fire may very well be the most dangerous that you will ever face.... Now for your main point....there is a very simple answer....actually 2 answers....#1...If the Chief says it is defensive only....#2....If the risk out weighs the rewards...there is no sense in risking someones life for a "parking lot"
-
-
Did you say tin-roofed hay barn? Never had an experience like that, lol...
-
-
Paul - good points and your second question is the true cajone buster and brings forward the core question - how to weigh risk versus reward. I am often the OIC (and have in the past held Chief ranks of every kind) and I'm just poking around to see how others make the decision - it's not an easy one and I've heard some new things here (or at least some old ones repeated enough to give me pause) that the discussion is proving beneficial. Example - toxic smoke from fire with HAZMAT: bad thing; toxic runoff from fire with HAZMAT: bad thing. Which is the lesser of two evils? No matter how you cut it, its a mess and I appreciate your thoughts and those of all who are joining the conversation.
I think most of us work a fire based on experience and what we're looking at and some sort of mental checklist or decision tree in the back of our head (often based on said experience). For some types of calls, that checklist or decision tree is fairly straightforward with minimal potential for surprises. For me, this sort of thing is a bit more complicated and again, I appreciate the conversation as my checklist/decision tree is maturing a bit here.
I might also note that we're very seldom talking about life-risking here - oddly enough for me that's usually a pretty straight forward (albeit sometimes pretty cold) decision to make. This has a finer edge. Take my hay fire picture above. Teams of firefighers in full turnouts working a hoseline in 30 minute or so shifts for several hours for smoldering hay: waste of time. That the smoke was drifting in heavy banks across a busy state highway adjacent to the property and limiting visibility that could result in a dangerous motor vehicle accident - may have made the effort worthwhile. No huge risk to firefighters but one could pull a muscle or something like that and probably not that big a risk to motorists if they used common sense and slowed down a bit to deal with the smoke. So, was the right call made?
Sorry if I write/talk to much - doing it out loud seems to help sometimes....
-
-
By the way, click here for more of the hay barn fire. Sorry, no photos when it was absolutely rolling on arrival - was a bit busy - these are still pretty interesting though...
-
-
Notice the foam in the top photo. We tried somethings new with the CAFS to see how they worked.
This a photo of the fire by a neighbor right after they called it in. The remains is in the bottom of the photos above.
-
-
Huh - that's interesting - was wondering if it was foam or ice. Need to find a thread about CAFS as that's another discussion and I want to try to keep on topic. However, we want to pull the trigger on CAFS around here for a variety of reasons, but some reading has indicated that while it's a good thing, it is expensive and not all it's cracked up to be. Our engineering team pretty much has standing orders that if it's an obvious total loss with few exposure problems, don't use the foam (we use FireAde 2000 and I swear by the stuff) - it's not worth a couple hundred bucks in agent...
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
