Hartsdale Deputy Chief Responds To NIOSH Unoccupied Structure Bulletin

[x635 4,066]

What do you guys think about this issue? A well-written response and strong position, however I'm not too familiar with this NIOSH alert to be in any position to comment in too much detail, but from what I know this was an excellent response. I hope the Deputy submited this to some Fire Service magazines as well.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/pdfs/NIOSH-141/0141-021409-spinelli.pdf

[v85 212]

I agree with the Deputy Chief. The decision to fight an fire from the interior can only be made by an experienced officer ON SCENE. To write a blanket policy like this really doesn't make sense.

On a very related note, how do you know a builiding is unoccupied? Because dispatch said so? We all know that sometimes isn't accurate.

[JFLYNN 681]

What do you guys think about this issue? A well-written response and strong position, however I'm not too familiar with this NIOSH alert to be in any position to comment.

http://www.cdc.gov/n...09-spinelli.pdf

I have read the NIOSH alert. NIOSH does valuable work for the fire service and is staffed by dedicated, knowledgeable professionals, however in this case, I agree completely with the response written by Frank Spinelli. I could not have said better myself.

[Remember585 815]

A "Vacant building" in a rich community is probably safer then a "Non-Vacant" building in the ghetto. Well said by DC Spinelli, every incident requires a risk vs. benefit analysis. I do agree that knowing your district, building construction and fire behavior can help formulate pre-plans and Incident Action Plans that will effectively save lives, conserve property and most importantly, ensure that our brothers go home at the end of the call.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Not for nothing, the way I was always taught in my strategy/tactics classes was "if the house has no one it it, how did the fire start?" Sure, there are plenty of other ways, but can you definitely take that chance? I'm not familiar with the NIOSH report, but if anyone is trying to make a blanket policy for "vacant" buildings, that would be foolish.

[Lucifer 6]

Well said there Frankie, We signed up to fight fires. Just because nobody's home doesn't mean it's no bodys home. If a fire appears to be in it's incipient stage and/or the IC's size up (risk/benefit analysis) deems that it's still within the capabilities of gettin in there and putting the fire out, Why shouldn't we? Because some governmental agency said not to enter an unoccupied structure and let it burn?? Bullshit! It's what we signed up for and what we do. When good Chiefs have good information they make good decisions. And those decisions should be based on their knowlege and experience. Not some governmental agency putting up a "Do Not Enter" sign.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Lucifer

[ex-commish 490]

I have read countless NIOSH reports and believe they are usually on the money with thier findings but I have to say I am scratching my head on this one. Chief Spinelli presented an excllent response on thisone.

[hudson144 150]

Most of the NIOSH reports sent out can be a learning experience for all of us, they usually have a detailed reason on what,why when went wrong. On a yearly basis 100+ firefighters die in the US alone. If we can all learn from other incidents where a LODD occurs thats a benefit. The point stated by many too include FJ is that the warning signs are there in some situations however it is never known for sure that the structure is vacant or occupied. How many times has a victim been found both during the primary and secondary search when the report from the people in the street stated that nobody lives there or they aren't home? At a recent "VACANT" fire that my co workers went to there was 3 persons in the building. Although the fire was minor the structure was still occupied (illegally) however occupied. With the economy down the tubes there are more "VACANTS" out there that may be occupied because some people have no place to go. The statement from NIOSH here IMO is wrong. Be Safe!

[helicopper 1,050]

Here is the NIOSH report in question.

NIOSH Alert - Unoccupied Structure Fires.pdf

[wraftery 1,275]

That's my boy, FJ

Our Best tool is the one that lies directly beneath our helmet

[ajsbear 11]

FJ hit it right. How do we know the house is vacant? OK the obvious, boarded up windows etc. Well what if it's an occupied home that you are told "they are away" only to find a house or dog sitter, An older couple who's in Florida etc where an adult child stopped by and decided to spend the night, the list and reasons go on and on. Leave it to the IC to make that desision. They know the area, they've made it this far let their experience and knowledge guide them to make the right call.

So when you pull up and someone in the street tells you they're away are you just going to man the deck gun?

[JFLYNN 681]

FJ hit it right. How do we know the house is vacant? OK the obvious, boarded up windows etc. Well what if it's an occupied home that you are told "they are away" only to find a house or dog sitter, An older couple who's in Florida etc where an adult child stopped by and decided to spend the night, the list and reasons go on and on. Leave it to the IC to make that desision. They know the area, they've made it this far let their experience and knowledge guide them to make the right call.

So when you pull up and someone in the street tells you they're away are you just going to man the deck gun?

One important pointto remember... (and there are many and this discussion can get quite complex- it is not a black and white issue as NIOSH has attempted to make it in this case)

...anyway, I think we in the fire service sometimes need to remember that we take an oath to protect lives AND PROPERTY. Sometimes, the protection of property requires taking a calculated risk. Risk vs. Reward thinking will tell us that, as FJ mentioned so eloquently, every day, all over this country, Firefighters make an interior attack on an "unoccupied" structure and no one gets hurt. How much property would be lost if we went to a strict policy of no offensive attacks on "unoccupied structures"? How many people would be temporarily homeless and in need of shelter? What would be the cost to the economy? How many people would lose possessions with not only monetary value, but irreplaceable mementos, art, heirlooms, etc? The idea of a sliding scale of how much risk you will take based on what there is to save is not new to the Fire Service at all...every Fire Chief knows that the loneliest spot on this earth is that spot that the Fire Chief stands on in front of a burning building, where he alone must make a decsion, in the heat of the moment, usually based on limited information, whether to continue with an offensive attack or withdraw....Firefighters and Company Officers of course, must make the decision whether to intitiate an interior attack in the absence of a Chief Officer, and they, as well as the Chiefs, should, and generally do realize that we will risk less to save property than we will risk to save lives, and that at a certain point, we will risk nothing. However, this decision must be made by well trained, experienced people on a case by case basis and cannot be made by beurocrats in an office, no matter how well intentioned they may be.

P.S. I am actually able to write without using run on sentences and I do know what a paragraph is, but, as usual, I'm in a hurry.

[sklov5949 23]

FJ hit it right. How do we know the house is vacant? OK the obvious, boarded up windows etc. Well what if it's an occupied home that you are told "they are away" only to find a house or dog sitter, An older couple who's in Florida etc where an adult child stopped by and decided to spend the night, the list and reasons go on and on. Leave it to the IC to make that desision. They know the area, they've made it this far let their experience and knowledge guide them to make the right call.

Poughkeepsie just had a fatal fire and it was a vacant building that was boarded up.