Firefighter Tactics

[RescueKujo 130]

Years ago, when I was still an active Firefighter (Volunteer), I listened to a frank discussion of tactics after Houston FD lost 3 firefighters. The Houston incident was a unoccupied McDonald's at 3 a.m. The discussion was at a conference, and was between Tom Brennan and Chief Brunacini. The question asked that started the discussion was "Why are we (The Fire Service) doing interior attack on buildings that are non occupied and a bulldozer will tear down in 24-48 hours away?

My question is, is the Fire Service still doing this and if so, why? Firefighter's lives are not worth an insured buildings. Am I wrong?

Thanks for your replies in advance.

Edited June 19, 2007 by RescueKujo

[DOC22 1]

Years ago, when I was still an active Firefighter (Volunteer), I listened to a frank discussion of tactics after Houston FD lost 3 firefighters. The Houston incident was a unoccupied McDonald's at 3 a.m. The discussion was at a conference, and was between Tom Brennan and Chief Brunacini. The question asked that started the discussion was "Why are we (The Fire Service) doing interior attack on buildings that are non occupied and a bulldozer will tear down in 24-48 hours away?

My question is, is the Fire Service still doing this and if so, why? Firefighter's lives are not worth an insured buildings. Am I wrong?

Thanks for your replies in advance.

←

I think what you mean is that insured buildings are NOT worth the lives of our Firefighters, and I agree 100% with you on that!

[ny10570 745]

I agree to a point. When a building is reported to be unoccupied you definately should not be as agressive as you would be with people trapped, but then there's the whole what if game. Just recently there was a fire in a bronx supermarket where the cleaning crew had been locked inside. Then there's the squatters and vagrants inside abandoned buildings. If I remember that fire correctly, there were a few mistakes made that might have changed everything. Hoseline selection and inspection holes in the celing are the two that cometo mind now.

[firemoose827 324]

I agree 100% with no unnecessary risks on abandoned buildings. You can not be 100% sure that no one is inside an abandoned building though; squatters, hormone filled teens, drugies, runaway kids....the list goes on. With this situation I would do the following:

1) Do a rapid search by searching the immediate area around doors and windows while trying to find anything out from neighbors or by-standers. Search for signs of occupants like bicycles near entrances, cars parked nearby, forcible entry, etc.

2) Blitz fire from the safety of a big DECK GUN through large natural openings. If there are none, make 'em.

3) Im not trusting the roof of ANY abandoned building, vent the roof from a bucket or ladder. Or just do horizontal venting.

4) OBEY the COLLAPSE zones regardless of how many stories there are, park in a safe position and make sure FF's are constantly monitoring the stability of the building. SIZE-UP.

No one gets put in harms way, Id rather sit and watch a 2 1/2" drowned the building for hours and hours than have to explain to someones family WHY they died in a vacant building.

Good Post.

Moose

Edited June 19, 2007 by Jonesy368

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Kujo:

Unfortunately there have been several LODD's since that Houston incident which it seemed as history repeated itself. The walls are lined with names of brothers and sisters who have been killed while operating on or under truss roofs. Some are mind numbing when reading the LODD reports of vacant and unoccpied buildings while operating on the roof.

Risk vs. benefit analysis is what makes or break's many of these decisions. Even then when life safety is involved we often react as trained and do what are job is when its in the grey area of safety vs. attempting to locate and rescue trapped occupants.

[Guest]

How does one determine how large the collapse zone is, and how far away from the building you should be. Appologies for my ignorance.

Jared

[lad12derff 283]

How does one determine how large the collapse zone is, and how far away from the building you should be.  Appologies for my ignorance.

Jared

←

The collapse zone should be a minimum of 1 1/2 times the height of the structure. This is DEFINITLY NOT A STUPID QUESTION!!!!!!!

[RescueKujo 130]

I need to apologize for the rambling of the initial post. Some understood it, some did not. I should not post immediately after arriving at work when the brain hasn't started functioning.

What I meant to ask, was Why is the Fire Service still doing interior attack on nonoccupied buildings? After the initial search, an all clear, the building is well involved and the insurance company is going to have to bulldoze it anyway. Is it really worth someone's life for something like this?

I guess I'm jumping the gun, I should wait until the report comes out. But it just floored me that 9 could be taken just like that in one moment. The video I saw looked like the building was a total loss, but I don't know at what point of the incident the video was shot.

Thank you for your patience and sharing your thoughts. I just wanted to get everyone's thought process going on this again.

Duane

Edited June 20, 2007 by RescueKujo

[turk182 37]

What I meant to ask, was Why is the Fire Service still doing interior attack on nonoccupied buildings? After the initial search, an all clear, the building is well involved and the insurance company is going to have to bulldoze it anyway. Is it really worth someone's life for something like this?

The cut and dry is it is our job! Just because a building is not occupied should not mean you can right it off as a complete loss. Size up, pre planning, and firefighter safety should dictate what type of attack.

[ny10570 745]

So now you have the same McDonalds but you have mulitple reports of one person missing. You would be gearing up for a fight. What I was trying to say before is that there is a way to attack these fires and be agressive. You just have to be more careful and more concious of your surroundings. If I have a fully involved celing space in a wood truss structure, there could be a dozen people inside I'm not sending anyone in till I get some water into there.

[Guest]

Agreeing with some of those who posted already, everything we do is being able to analyze risk/reward. FireRescue magazine May 2007 has a great article that goes on to say "...every officer must be able to look at an incident and know what is going to happen at that moment, as well as what will happen in 30 minutes..."

Those that do not study history are bound to repeat the same mistake.

That being said, repeat the following every morning when you look in the mirror: Truss Construction. Seat Belts. Flash Over. When doing so, remember those who came before you, those standing by your side and those that will follow in your foot steps.

Every call has it's own, unique set of parameters. While similar, no two jobs are the same. Do not analyze the actions of others to intentionally find fault, do it so their actions were not in vain.

[firecapt32 282]

How about this--- recently at a seminar--i was informed that most stand alone fast food places--ARE NOT INSURED FOR FIRE- cost prohibited--cost more then the building is worth. They do have liability though.

[johnvv 20]

How about this question-

Does anyone know of any Corporation, Company, Builder, or Developer who has ever provided any additional passive fire protection features into a building to assist firefighters who were not mandated by some City or Town entity? They only provide the protection that is mandated. They couldn't care less about us, unless by providing some safety features into their buildings reduces their insurance premiums.

For this reason I believe no fire department personnel should make tactical life safety decisions based on possibilities, ONLY PROBABILITIES in un occupied structures. Remember the first mission of the fire service is Life Safety- and that includes our personnel. We should not accept tradeoffs of firefighters for civillians.

As for the events that occurred in SC- I grieve for my Brothers. I hope that the building owner, and occupancy owners grieve as well for the part they played in the deaths of our brother firefighters.

History has shown that the fire service is reactionary when there is large loss of lives at fires. I hope that this fire in SC is a catylyst to people to make the changes necessary to help reduce lost lives at fires. Lets not have these firefighters die in vain. Make changes through actions, and awareness, and your training.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

firecapt and vv good posts.

I see no reason for anyone or even I to make a decision to attempt an interior attack on certain types of buildings that are known to be unoccupied and the fire has a good hold on its building construction features. You won't even have reach the temperature of the ground your in before some kid will be eating a McNugget right where you cashed it in.

I also agreed with an article I once read that simply stated...the decisions you make in the first 2 minutes upon arrival will dictate your next 20 minutes. Those first 20 minutes will dictate what you will be doing in the next 2 hours.

[Remember585 815]

firecapt and vv good posts.

I see no reason for anyone or even I to make a decision to attempt an interior attack on certain types of buildings that are known to be unoccupied and the fire has a good hold on its building construction features.  You won't even have reach the temperature of the ground your in before some kid will be eating a McNugget right where you cashed it in.

I also agreed with an article I once read that simply stated...the decisions you make in the first 2 minutes upon arrival will dictate your next 20 minutes.  Those first 20 minutes will dictate what you will be doing in the next 2 hours.

←

Good stuff ALS & JohnVV, but in my eyes I think any person on the fireground making operational decisions must be willing to live with them the rest of their lives. We all know (or should know) that things happen in the blink of an eye, and we must base our decisions on the worst-case scenario, and in my eyes that is loss of life, not property. Buildings, like people, have a life span, but we can't rebuild a person.

We should train ourselves to realize that laying down our lives for a building is not an option. We should train ourselve that putting a firefighter's life at risk for a civilian is noble and is our jobs, but we have to ensure we minimize that risk by, as others said, pre-planning, code enforcement, training and knowing our districts.

I may be a small-town volunteer - but I treat every single incident as if the building has been designed to hurt me and my brothers and sisters. Being over-cautious as some would say will hopefully keep me alive long enough to see my pension....if it really exists!

[RescueKujo 130]

Guys-thanks for taking to time to post and keeping it civil. There were some great posts in the thread. This is something everyone will have to discuss, and maybe a new train of thought will need to be put into place.

[Monty 35]

Interesting article from the Charleston Post and Courier on questioning whether the Charleston fire department is being 'too bold'. From a distance, seemed to be well written. Also, the comments are quite interesting too. I think it puts things in to perspective for this area as to how progressive we are - as much as some of us would like to accelerate some of the changes.

For background, another article, this one on the Fire Chief.

It will be interesting to see the outcomes of the various investigations - and more importantly whether they cause any changes to happen in Charleston and elsewhere.

[bob803 1]

The collapse zone should be a minimum of 1 1/2 times the height of the structure. This is DEFINITLY NOT A STUPID QUESTION!!!!!!!

Bow String truss should be 2x the height.

[Guest]

Why 2X the height?

[Remember585 815]

If it is steel trusses, they will heat up and expand. When they fail, they push out exterior walls substantially. I think this is why with bowstrings the collapse zones is expanded.

[Guest partyrock]

I've heard the 2x for bowstring truss before too, but never heard a realistic explanation other than to emphasise collapse zone safety due to the catastrophic nature of their collapse. The 1 1/2 the height is more than enough to account for debris being thrown by the impact.