No Interior Attacks?

[ChicagoFF]

Recently I was talking to a guy who was in a smaller town and watched the fire dept. let a house burn down from a basement fire. When they arrived they just started setting up to protect exposures and made no attempt to go in. Are there any depts. out there that don't do interior work? I would find that hard to believe but he witnessed it happen.

[Plattsfire2]

Omaha fire has a policy that if the building is a suspected meth lab there is no interior attack. Other than that, I can't think of any.

[Rossco]

I hope there's no departments that by rule, don't make interior attacks. That is just not what we are about.

Was this guy in the fire service? Was there a safety issue that maybe was not obvious to him? Usually, as you know, there is a lot more to fire fighting than what the public can understand by watching an incident.


That said, I have heard this same type of comments from people around our area. I made entry into a heavy smoke in the building call, only to find the forst floor was gone due to fire in the basement. The call went defensive, and we could hear some muttering from a rubber necker about how we didn't go in like real firemen.

[ChicagoFF]

Was this guy in the fire service? Was there a safety issue that maybe was not obvious to him? Usually, as you know, there is a lot more to fire fighting than what the public can understand by watching an incident.

He's a ff here.

[Rossco]

To answer your original question, no, I've never heard of any with a policy like that. Somewhere, there probably is though.

Maybe all there interior people were not able to respond for some reason.

[JackTee09]

It's a sad state of affairs.

[FF715MRFD]

We mutual aided a department and when we showed up the were just standing outside, their asst. chief grabbed a couple of their airpacks, handed them to us and said here ya go we think it's upstairs. My jaw almost hit the floor. BTW we saved the house and that department has a completely new roster.

[CaptainGonzo]

Thereare many questions here that need to be answered prior to making judgement, such as..

Is the Department career, call or volunteer?

If career, it is unconcionable to let a structure burn down, unless there was prior knowledge of the structure being a meth lab or containing significant firearms and explosives
(there are enough nutcase groups on both the right and left wings that could possibly have explosive devices and have a "fight to the death" mentality).

If it was paid call/volunteer, herein lies the problem of having firefighters certified for exterior ops only. All firefighters should be interior certified for just that reason.

Was the struture a suspected or known meth lab?

Meth labs are known for booby traps set up to deter law enforcement personnel from conducting raids. These same traps will kill firefighters, as they don't discriminate which badge the person is wearing.

What was the staffing level of that FD? How many firefighters were on scene?

You can't mount an successful interior attack and expect to save a structure with just a few personnel.

Until the factors are known, we can't really comment, can we... although some of you will!

[crankshaft]

Basement savers

[jaybird210]

Basement savers

What's the point of this comment?

We don't know all of the circumstances. Was there no life to save? How many personnel did the FD have on scene? Was this a rural fire, where water supply was limited? Was this a suburban fire where the water supply may have been inadequate to mount an aggressive interior attack? How far along was the fire when the FD arrived?

If there's no life threat, then FFs become the life threat. If I have only four FFs to throw at a structure fire, I am remiss in my responsibilities as a chief to send two FFs into a fire when I have no outside help to get them for at least ten minutes (the amount of time it takes our M/A to get here). Plus, there is no ventilation going on, no other support tasks. Say what you want about the two-in-two-out rule; it's still the law, and if I get my guys killed trying to save somebody's stuff, how do I explain that to their widows/widowers/family? How do I explain that to OSHA?

How many of you have actually experienced a fire from the homeowners perspective? Or had close friends from that perspective? I would like Weruj1 to post on this question: Josh, being as your house was unoccupied when the fire broke out, and after all that you had to go through to get your house repaired, would it have been better if the FD had let it burn to a point of being unrepairable and you could've rebuilt from new? I have never talked to anybody who has had a good experience REPAIRING fire damage.

It is our policy to do a risk-vs.-gain assessment on all interior attacks. We do not have the luxury of four man engines and five man trucks. I don't like it, and we're trying to change it, but that's the reality. I simply cannot justify risking someone's life to save somebody else's stuff; most of which may be ruined anyway, and can be replaced.

It's too easy to point at another department and say: "They suck. They're just a bunch of basement savers." I say, pound sand up your ass, you don't know all the circumstances.

[JackTee09]

The term basement savers is obviosly inflammatory and should be disregarded. This thread points out the hazards of not having any information to go on. I made my comment "It's a sad state of affairs" because what we don't have is any viable information from which to form an opinion. Thus it gets turned into a rant about who goes in and who stays out without once pointing out that the fire in question is, insofar as we can determine, not available for critique.

[arhaney]

I've started to notice that a large number of "saves" that we've made that nothing is ever done to the structure. So all we've done is saved some belongings for the family. Granted, some of these are important. I can think of atleast 4 or 5 "Manufactered Homes" that we had really good saves on that are now just as we left them..........Perhaps it would be different if they were $200,000 homes......

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Thats not the way we do hit here out south. We go in and put the fire out. I would be interested to know more about this particular incident and where it occurred. Answer this one for me. Have you ever seen the tower ladders or the snorkel set up at any of the fires you were working at ? You know, a defensive operation?

[LaFireEducator]

As has been stated, there are so many variables that nobody can even hazard a guess as to what he saw, and why it was happening. That being said, I do know of fire departments in very rural areas that routinly do not make interior attacks for a number of reasons, including lack of consistant manpower, lack of SCBA and equipment, lack of reliable water, travel time for mutual aid and yes, lack of training.

While in the best case scenerio, interior attacks would be the rule, at least they recognize thier shortcomings (many of which, especially the lack of funding, are not thier fault and simply cannot do anything about) and do not put thier people into a posistion where a firefighter or multiple firefighter death(s) or injury(ies) are highly likely. The community is aware of these shortcomings and accepts what capabilities they do have. As George has said many times, the community dictates the l;evel of fire protection, and in most of these cases, they are happy with the services they receive.

[ChicagoFF]

..........

[Spectre08]

will somebody explain the term "basement savers" to me? I think i kinda get it, but not really.

[Res343cue]

will somebody explain the term "basement savers" to me? I think i kinda get it, but not really.

Any time the department does not do an appropraite risk vs benefit analysis and size up of the situation, and instantly goes into a defensive operation, no matter what the conditions are.

[JackTee09]

The departments I have been a part of are all very aggressive. However we had no staffing issues. Thus, with little known about the department in the original post it is hard to comment.

[doughesson]

We don't go into known meth labs due to the hazmat issue.If there is no life threat we don't go in but we will try to stop the fire where it is using the deck gun and exterior attack lines.
We've lost about 3 homes in the last 4 months but they were gone before we got there and two of them turned out to have meth chemicals in them.

[rapidentry]

Just yesterday, I was told by someone who had recently gotten out of FireFighter I that instructors are now teaching that if all occupants are out of the structure then there is no reason to perform an interior attack and that the operation should turn into a defensive one. My jaw, as well as most of the people around me, dropped! Anyone know of this being taught anywhere else? I'm from Pennsylvania.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

If we didnt make interior attacks, we would be out of business. Property conservation is right up there after life safety. If any firefighter decides to not fight a fire from the inside just because the building is unoccupied, they need to find a new vocation.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Heres a photo of an occupied structure in your 5th Battallion. There is nothing wrong with going to surround and drown mode when it's the only option. I feel as though sometimes city guys think fires somehow burn differently in the suburbs. I will put many of the firefighters I know in my division up with anybody.. City or otherwise.

[Peetmoss]

Just yesterday, I was told by someone who had recently gotten out of FireFighter I that instructors are now teaching that if all occupants are out of the structure then there is no reason to perform an interior attack and that the operation should turn into a defensive one. My jaw, as well as most of the people around me, dropped! Anyone know of this being taught anywhere else? I'm from Pennsylvania.

I am from Central NY presently taking FF1. My class is almost half over we just completed search skills. At no time have any of the instructors advicated using surrond and drown if there are reports of all people out. They do stress our saftey is the most important and situational awarness. They have been teaching us to get information from the people outside, to facilitate the search and fire attack. Basicly what I have gotten so far from the class as far as interior attack with all occupants supposably out, is if it can be done with relitive safety do it if it can't go defensive. This is provided you have the at least the minum trained manpower. Basicly Risk alot to save alot risk alittle to save a little, and risk nothing to save nothing.

I think that the person you talked to either misunderstood or the instructer deviated from the class.

On a side note one of my instructors lost two of his fellow FF's. They were going intierior on an unoccupied structure in Pompey NY and fell through the floor. This instructor hasn't advicated celar saving so neither should your friends instructor.

[Smoke20286]

will somebody explain the term "basement savers" to me? I think i kinda get it, but not really.

Any Fire Dept that is either incompetant or overly timid

[dmleblanc]

Is the Department career, call or volunteer?

If career, it is unconcionable to let a structure burn down, unless there was prior knowledge of the structure being a meth lab or containing significant firearms and explosives

If it was paid call/volunteer, herein lies the problem of having firefighters certified for exterior ops only. All firefighters should be interior certified for just that reason.

Shouldn't matter....we are a volunteer department and I also find it unconscionable to make no effort to save the structure. I also find it unconscionable to not train every firefighter for interior operations.

When I first started in this department we specialized in exterior attacks....going inside the building was strictly for overhaul, after the fire was out. We don't do things that way any more.

You can't mount an successful interior attack and expect to save a structure with just a few personnel.

Until the factors are known, we can't really comment, can we... although some of you will!

I agree....we don't know all the details here.

Also, to ChicagoFF....bear in mind that even if these guys are certified to do interior attack, this department probably does not have the experience you have...what appears to be a relatively safe attack to you may have seemed too risky to them. The kind of fire you may fight routinely, week in and week out, might be "the big one" to these guys, the kind of fire they'll be talking about for years.

My point is, even with training in building construction, fire behavior, etc., a small-town or rural department may not have the experience to read a building as well as their urban counterparts. So they choose to err on the side of caution, rather than risking a decision that may get somebody killed.

By the way, around here we have "slab savers"....we don't have basements :D

[Weruj1]

210 ....our house was occupied ......all did get out. And yes in overall terms it would have been easier if the place had burned to ground. However we were able to save somethings while as you know others are lost forever................The last I read about this was not long ago on here of a rural department that only responded to wildland/outdoor fires. They had 2 OLD vehicles and like 8 or 10 members.

[CaptainGonzo]

Shouldn't matter....we are a volunteer department and I also find it unconscionable to make no effort to save the structure. I also find it unconscionable to not train every firefighter for interior operations.

When I first started in this department we specialized in exterior attacks....going inside the building was strictly for overhaul, after the fire was out. We don't do things that way any more.



I agree....we don't know all the details here.

Also, to ChicagoFF....bear in mind that even if these guys are certified to do interior attack, this department probably does not have the experience you have...what appears to be a relatively safe attack to you may have seemed too risky to them. The kind of fire you may fight routinely, week in and week out, might be "the big one" to these guys, the kind of fire they'll be talking about for years.

My point is, even with training in building construction, fire behavior, etc., a small-town or rural department may not have the experience to read a building as well as their urban counterparts. So they choose to err on the side of caution, rather than risking a decision that may get somebody killed.

By the way, around here we have "slab savers"....we don't have basements :D

Dwane..allow me to apologize.. I meant in no way to slight call and volunteer personnel. I know a few of both and they are just as aggressive in doing interior fire attack as their career brethern.

[SSTONER]

Heres a photo of an occupied structure in your 5th Battallion. There is nothing wrong with going to surround and drown mode when it's the only option. I feel as though sometimes city guys think fires somehow burn differently in the suburbs. I will put many of the firefighters I know in my division up with anybody.. City or otherwise.

That was a lot of water used in that fire! - Sorry - us non FF's are easily amused :D

[ChicagoFF]

Heres a photo of an occupied structure in your 5th Battallion. There is nothing wrong with going to surround and drown mode when it's the only option. I feel as though sometimes city guys think fires somehow burn differently in the suburbs. I will put many of the firefighters I know in my division up with anybody.. City or otherwise.

Take it easy, I didn't say all suburbs - I said one. It wasn't directed towards anyone in particular, just a question, and a few have said they won't go in if it is unoccupied.

[mcaldwell]

This is far too complex an issue to discuss with "Are you a fire dept or aren't you". We really need to know the why's and how's of that dept and incident to discuss it properly.

Many in urban, suburban, or moderately populated areas don't understand what it can be like in a very very small rural area. Many departments in these areas are little more than a handful of well intentioned individuals who got their hands on an old fire truck and some hose, and decided to do what they can.

"What they can", is the key statement there. Not all fire Dept's have the budget to train personnel anywhere near FF1, or event to buy satisfactory SCBA or other "essential" equipment. Obviously, the responsible Chief/Dept will not engage in any activity that unreasonably endangers its members without equivalent gain, even if that decision excludes basic interior ops.

I have a picture on my bulletin board at my desk of a "Volunteer" fire dept in rural England. A friend sent it to me when he worked there for a summer about 6 years ago. It is of a small red shed with some simple hand tools inside (rakes and shovels), a rain trough on one side, and two buckets hanging there marked "F" in red. That's their fire dept.

Don't forget that Bucket brigades are where we came from, and there are still all manner of fire department from the most basic rural to most advanced metro all over North America and the World.

[dmleblanc]

Dwane..allow me to apologize.. I meant in no way to slight call and volunteer personnel. I know a few of both and they are just as aggressive in doing interior fire attack as their career brethern.

No apology necessary, Cap....I understood the point you were making. I know of a few volunteer departments who for whatever reason, be it lack of training, equipment, personnel, or cajones , still do not make interior attacks. I also know a paid chief near here, a friend of mine, who is very quick to pull his guys out of a building when there is nothing left to be gained. I respect him for that....no building is worth a firefighter's life.

And to echo arhaney's sentiments, I've seen us bust our butts on many houses, make what I considered a save, only to see them bulldozed a couple of weeks later. If there's any significant structural damage (or sometimes even relatively minor damage), they usually don't get repaired....why get somebody hurt to save a building that will end up being torn down?

[Trafficjockey93]

Just yesterday, I was told by someone who had recently gotten out of FireFighter I that instructors are now teaching that if all occupants are out of the structure then there is no reason to perform an interior attack and that the operation should turn into a defensive one. My jaw, as well as most of the people around me, dropped! Anyone know of this being taught anywhere else? I'm from Pennsylvania.


Yes, I am from PA also and it is being discussed at the Fire Academy.

Also my company is an aggressive interior company as long as there are occupants inside or thought to be inside. Other than that we rethink going inside. With all the new construction going on in our area and the truss roof concerns, our Chief has made a policy that if there is no life threat at one of these new homes it is an exterior attack only. Nobodies Barbie Doll or coin collections are worth your life. Just about everything in a home can be replaced. Can your life or the life of one of your brothers?
We all hear the saying "Everybody goes home" over and over again, would you want to have to explain to the widow/widower that her/his husband/wife won't be coming home anymore or to the kids that Mom/Dad died trying to save someones possesions?
That is why they have insurance, to replace things.

Personally, If my house went up tomorrow and my family was out, I would forbid an interior attack. There is no way in hell that I would be able to live with myself if a firefighter got killed trying to save my house when there was no life threat.

I can hear some of you now saying, cellar savers, wussies, foundation savers etc. Say what you want sooner or later you will realize.
I've been at this for 30 years and I've seen it go from exterior only, to interior attacks, now to interior only for a life threat.
Some of the 2/20 firefighters probably think if you don't do interior then your not a real firefighter.
I thought the same thing when air packs first came out.

[arhaney]

I've got a little more time now to put in a few more thoughts......

As for myself, If it's safe, I'm still going to make entry into the house.....occupied or not! You simply can't put the fire out effectively from the outside! I enjoy making entry, but I'm not going to take unnecessary risks doing so. I have a wife and two boys that need a dad!

We have about 24 members at the present time, but only about 4 or 5 of us currently have the exp. and desire to enter a structure fire. You're going to have that in some volly departments, that's just the way it is in our part of the world.

I've also seen two different departments lose structures in the last year that would have PROBABLY been saved with a good interior attack, instead they opened her up, and let the water fly from the outside..........and we know what happens then. :o ......yep, saved the chimney.

That is why they have insurance, to replace things.

True enough, but there's something to be said for those "priceless" items in your and my house. Photos of your parents, keepsakes, whatever.....
Worth my life , NO! Worth saving if the risk is not that great....YES! You know, if you can ease in the front door, down the hallway 25 feet and then use 150 gallons of water and knock it out, Then GREAT! Or you stand in the window and push it through the house, use 3,000 gallons of water and save nothing! I'll take the first.

[cozmosis]

With all the new construction going on in our area and the truss roof concerns, our Chief has made a policy that if there is no life threat at one of these new homes it is an exterior attack only.

Any department that is properly equipped and trained to mount an interior attack but has a blanket policy against it should not be a fire department. :mad: Our job is to save lives and property.

Perhaps there are many of you well off enough to go out and buy everything new once it goes up in flames. I am not one of those people. Neither are many of the people we are sworn to protect. Do they have your wedding pictures at Wal-Mart? Can you buy your great-grandmother's quilt at Target? I'm sure you can pick up replicas of your grandfather's war medals on eBay -- they'll be just as good.

If I arrived at a fire and knew that my department could extinguish it but we didn't just because there was no one inside, I'd quit on the spot. Whether to go interior should be based on a risk analysis, not whether or not you know someone is inside. Can you go inside and put the fire out? If so, do it. If not, don't. It's that simple.

Also, how do you know a structure is unoccupied without going interior? :confused: It's gonna be a dark day in your department when you have to dig a victim out after thinking that, "there's no one home, so we can stand in the yard and spray water through the windows." :rolleyes:

[arhaney]

If I arrived at a fire and knew that my department could extinguish it but we didn't just because there was no one inside, I'd quit on the spot. Whether to go interior should be based on a risk analysis, not whether or not you know someone is inside. Can you go inside and put the fire out? If so, do it. If not, don't. It's that simple.

Also, how do you know a structure is unoccupied without going interior? :confused: It's gonna be a dark day in your department when you have to dig a victim out after thinking that, "there's no one home, so we can stand in the yard and spray water through the windows." :rolleyes:


Good points cozmosis, great minds think alike! :D
Even being low on interior firefighters, we will start a quick search while suppresion operations are ongoing. We will not search without suppresion on, just the way we operate.

[Trafficjockey93]

Originally Posted by Trafficjockey93
Also my company is an aggressive interior company as long as there are occupants inside or thought to be inside. Other than that we rethink going inside.

Make sure you read all the words in a post. As I said above we rethink going inside. I never said we wouldn't go inside, with the exception of the newer style truss roofs. If you have no idea what I am talking about then you need to start reading building trade publications and visiting SFD that are under construction.

Originally Posted by cozmosis
Do they have your wedding pictures at Wal-Mart? Can you buy your great-grandmother's quilt at Target? I'm sure you can pick up replicas of your grandfather's war medals on eBay -- they'll be just as good.

Nope, they sure don't have copies of my wedding pictures at Wal-Mart, but the Photography Agency does. Don't have any Targets around here, I'll have to get a quilt from the Amish instead. Nope sorry don't have my Grandfathers medals, just my fathers and mine. Still not worth someone dying over!

Originally Posted by cozmosis
Any department that is properly equipped and trained to mount an interior attack but has a blanket policy against it should not be a fire department. Our job is to save lives and property.

Suprisingly we are pretty well equipped and the majority of our members are FFII trained. So does that make us be stupid by going where it isn't safe?
BTW we aren't a department we are a company and yes there is a big difference.

For the record any buyer of these newer style truss homes are informed in writing of our policy and they sign a form stating as much.

[cozmosis]

I never said we wouldn't go inside, with the exception of the newer style truss roofs. If you have no idea what I am talking about then you need to start reading building trade publications and visiting SFD that are under construction.

If we refused to enter truss-roof construction, we'd never make interior attack. The vast majority of buildings in the community I work for are single-family residential -- with truss roof construction. It is possible to enter these homes and extinguish fires. We do it every year.

Suprisingly we are pretty well equipped and the majority of our members are FFII trained. So does that make us be stupid by going where it isn't safe?

I never advocated making entry when it isn't safe. However, just because there is a fire in a building with a truss roof doesn't mean that it's totally unsafe. That's where the risk analysis comes into play. If you have fire running the length of an attic with truss construction, do you put people beneath that roof? Of course not. However, what about only a room or two going in the same home? Go in and put that fire out.

For the record any buyer of these newer style truss homes are informed in writing of our policy and they sign a form stating as much

I wonder what their insurance company thinks knowing that you won't be doing an interior attack. Essentially, they should be charged as though they live in an ISO Class 9 community because you're going to be hard pressed to save a house from the front yard.

Finally, you never answered one of my more important points. How do you know if a structure is unoccupied without going inside of it to do a search?

[NonSurfinCaFF]

I've seen a few of these kinds of posts lately, saying that a department that doesn't do interior attack isn't a fire department, all I can say is rescue, EXPOSURES, CONFINE, extinguish, overhaul. If your department doesn't have the equipment, staffing and / or training to make an aggressive interior attack but you can keep the fire from spreading to other structures or to the wildland (and eventually other structures) you are still providing a great service to your community and it is far better than no fire department (ever hear of the Chicago fire, Pestigo, the fires of 2003?) I guess Chicago FD, San Bernardino FD, LA County and CDF are not real fire departments because they couldn't stop a few structure fires from destroying major parts of towns and cities.

It is rather hypocritical for people to bash on departments that show up in photos with incomplete gear or reply to stories where the fire department is minimal or even non-existant (anyone recall the fire outside Quartzite where the town has no fire department, or everybodies favorite AZ fire Chief?), and then turn around and bash on departments for doing what they can with inadequate means. Not everybody can afford fire departments capable of saving a single home but some can afford a department that keeps the neighbors from losing their home as well.

[peon30]

all structures are occupied until proven unoccupied by a complete and thorough search.

[CaptainGonzo]

This whole "no interior ops if no one is home thing" for fires in residential structures proves that the fire service has gone full circle. Back in the days of the bucket brigades, nobody went interior and worked to protect the homes with the firemarks expecting to be paid by the insurance company for saving their client's home... everyone else be damned :rolleyes:

[jaybird210]

This whole "no interior ops if no one is home thing" for fires in residential structures proves that the fire service has gone full circle. Back in the days of the bucket brigades, nobody went interior and worked to protect the homes with the firemarks expecting to be paid by the insurance company for saving their client's home... everyone else be damned :rolleyes:

Back in the days of the bucket brigades they didn't have Nomex or PBI. They also didn't have plastics and foam rubber that burns exponentially hotter and faster than wood, cotton, straw, etc. So, yeah, we've come full circle. But not they way some people think.

[JackTee09]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[mcaldwell]

all structures are occupied until proven unoccupied by a complete and thorough search.

Blanket statements like that can lead to W6 type tragedies.

Risk Vs Reward. I won't make my guys risk thier ass in an overly dangerous building/scenario based on a longshot chance that some homeless guy or kid roamed in there. Plain and Simple.

[Bones42]

Basement fire. hmmm. No details other than that. (still trying to figure why anyone would start a post on soemthing with so little information, but that's another story :rolleyes: ) Maybe they opened the door, saw no floor, decided to stay out.

[slackjawedyokel]

Peon 30 --------- did you think before you made that statement ?

[Dave1983]

Years ago I used to shoot pool with a guy who worked for Tampa FD. He said they did not do interior attacks. Now that was almost 20 years ago, and he may have been pulling my leg, but thats the only time Ive heard of it.

We have a couple of departments (one in particular) that pretty close to that. They pretty much only go in if they are completely comfortable, have a lot of resources on scene and they have their finger on the trigger when it comes to emergency retreat. They take time to set of sectors, make sure a safety officer and RIG (RIT) is in place and so on. No such thing as first due engine pulling up, pulling a line and makeing entry. They had a fire a couple months ago, and I actually heard them say on the radio that they are "standing by for 2in-2out". They stood around and whatched the fire burn. And they gutted a million dollar house.

Im not surprised that instructors are teaching new recruits not to go in. Think about it, when you have a recognized expert on building construction and the fire service saying "there is no reason to EVER put FF's on roofs" what do you expect.

There are some, who I like to call, "Safety Freaks". People who take the safety issue to the extreem. Now, Im all about being safe and going home at the end of shift. But this IS a dangerous job and will always be so. The only way too completely eliminate the danger is to not do the job in the first place (ie: interior attacks).

[cozmosis]

...and then turn around and bash on departments for doing what they can with inadequate means. Not everybody can afford fire departments capable of saving a single home but some can afford a department that keeps the neighbors from losing their home as well.

I agree totally! I know of several small communities who have a fire department (a few men and a pumper) not to provide aggressive interior attack, but to prevent conflagration from fire spread. However, it upsets me when people like Trafficjockey93 say that they are trained and equipped... but just won't provide the service if they don't think anyone is inside. That's shirking your duty as a fire department.

[Ladder27]

Well, It could be worse than no interior attack... I've seen several times around here where departments (both paid and volunteer, so forget that argument) sent crews to the interior AND set up exterior lines and master streams...and used both at the same time! One was a 3 story duplex with fire on the A side of division 2. They sent a line to make entry from the rear 2nd story deck...so far so good. But then they set up the tower and rather than venting they used the monitor to fight the fire through the 2nd story windows on side A. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened next...the fire (and the interior crew) was blown out the back and the 2nd and third stories were burnt off by room and contents fire that should have been knocked down with 500 gal on the first engine. Well, at least no one got hurt and it was entertaining to watch. In their defense I have also seen them make some good saves.

We do not have "interior" and "exterior" or "non-interior" FF's. To volunteer with us you have to have FF1 at a bare minimum and be competent and willing to enter a burning structure. As long as response times are low most of your fires are going to be room-and-contents or a couple rooms off. Most of ours this year have been handled with a can or 2...if we were there several minutes later it would be a whole different story.

Below are images of a restaurant fire from last summer. When we arrived there was heavy smoke pushing from the roof with little or no visible flame. the restaurant looked like you could sit down and eat dinner. We made entry and were inside for about 15 seconds before we called command to notify him it was going to be a defensive operation due to rapidly deteriorating conditions. The building collapsed within about a minute and the fire was fought with a deck gun, 2 ladder pipes and 2 2 1/2's from the exterior.

The first picture is at 0404 upon arrival. The second is at 0407 after the call had been made to go defensive, and the third was taken a 0410.

[bobsnyder]

Just yesterday, I was told by someone who had recently gotten out of FireFighter I that instructors are now teaching that if all occupants are out of the structure then there is no reason to perform an interior attack and that the operation should turn into a defensive one. My jaw, as well as most of the people around me, dropped! Anyone know of this being taught anywhere else? I'm from Pennsylvania.

I really think somebody misunderstood something here. That said, it would not surprise me to find out that instructors were pushing the idea of being more careful and methodical in choosing when to do interior attacks versus moving to defensive operations. I've been in this biz a long time, and I've seen and heard of quite a few fire companies around the state who basically employ an approach to fireground tactics which can maybe be best summarized as "if it hasn't fallen down yet, then get a line in there." On the other hand, there are also fire companies who pull out at the first sign of heat, and that's not good either, in my opinion. Given the current emphasis on reducing LODDs, I would imagine the State Academy is probably working to get everyone to take a more thoughtful approach to their strategies and tactics in order to eliminate the reverse of what we're talking about here...the "damn the torpedos" approach.

Another interesting point related to this is that there is ongoing work at the legislative level in PA to rationalize the bizarre patchwork system of emergency services in the state. Among the recommendations of the blue ribbon panel which assessed the current state of affairs in 2004 was the recommendation that a commom service delivery model be developed and implemented for the emergency services in PA. Part of that was the recommendation that each municipality, in concert with its service provider(s), be required to determine the level of protection it requires, and then see that its provider(s) were able to provide that level of protection. A matrix of six service levels were proposed, ranging from Offensive Level A; with capability to successfully fight structural fires up to 10,000 square feet, provide full vehicle rescue capabilities, etc.; all the way down to Defensive level F; with capability to protect surrounding exposures while allowing the loss of the involved property. So, should this system be adopted, it would be possible for municipalities to decide that the best they could ever do is save the house next door, and the state would be OK with that.

On a more personal level, my own company is pretty aggressive when it comes to interior attack, but we do recognize that every burning building isn't necessarily worth entering. We pay attention to the latest trends in built-to-burn McMansions and high-density Pseodo-cities, and we certainly see the potential for disaster in using a business-as-usual approach to individual incidents. At the same time, I don't think you'll see us failing to go after your average room-and-contents fire anytime soon just because we happen to know everybody is out of the building.

[coldfront]

RISK VS GAIN !!

There is a changing mindset in some departments locally,if there no rescue involved,why risk firefighters.No fire is same.Look at factors such as structure design,staffing,water supply, ect.That's part of sizeup.

Risk vs Gain.

Why have the mindset that we go inside? Just because were firefighters?No structure is worth one firefighter death.
I think you will see more outside attacks if you place firefighters at the top of the food chain using the Risk vs Gain theory.

Sorry if some of us bad A** firefighters lose a change to melt a faceshield or blacken a helmet.
Ten years ago I would have called a statement like I just made yellow belly.However after you carrying two fellow firefighters to there final resting site you learn about real risk!

[JackTee09]

However after you carrying two fellow firefighters to there final resting site you learn about real risk!

So are you saying that those who have been to hundreds of funerals of firefighters yet continue to go inside of buildings to extinguish fires don't know about real risk? The FDNY, Worcester, Miami-Dade, Boston, and other fire departments that have lost personnel continue to be agressive? Isw it your contention that they don't know risk?

[coldfront]

So are you saying that those who have been to hundreds of funerals of firefighters yet continue to go inside of buildings to extinguish fires don't know about real risk? The FDNY, Worcester, Miami-Dade, Boston, and other fire departments that have lost personnel continue to be agressive? Isw it your contention that they don't know risk?

Being agressive is great if we remember Risk vs gain.Lets not just be agressive without sizeup.Any department that has loss personal knows the risk.We should continue to make inside attacks if need be.The departments you name have suffer loss just like so many smaller departments across this country.My contention is this! We should NOT arm chair quarterback a officers DECISION to not make a inside attack.

[JackTee09]

Lets not just be agressive without sizeup

I don't believe anyone would advocate an agressive or passive attack without size-up. :rolleyes:

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Good officers are able to determine how the fire will be fought in a very short amount of time. Good firefighters are able to predict what the officers orders will be. This is how fires get put out. Lets not get hung up on thinking that firefighting is much more then dirty,dangerous manual labor. It's all the experience, training and knowledge we gain that allows us to do what we do. Now don't flame me on the "manual labor" line. We do so much in the fire service that we are in the unique position of being able to use complex technical skills and equipment, operate heavy apparatus and even in some cases we also get to practice "street medicine". We aren't dummies. I know I drifted a bit off topic, but you and your officers know what you can and cant do. The rural volunteer firefighter is a true hero. It is a diffcult situation when you don't have many fires. When you do, you may have manpower,water problems etc. along with many other things that just dont happen in the urban/suburban setting. One size fits all approach to firefighting will never work in this country. Thats not a bad thing.

[cozmosis]

Lets not just be agressive without sizeup.

Where did this come from? Who here is advocating agressive firefighting without size-up?

We should NOT arm chair quarterback a officers DECISION to not make a inside attack.

No, but I can stand against any trained and equipped department who refuses to go interior as a matter of practice when they could alter the outcome of the incident by doing so.

[coldfront]

Where did this come from? Who here is advocating agressive firefighting without size-up?

NOT ME!



No, but I can stand against any trained and equipped department who refuses to go interior as a matter of practice when they could alter the outcome of the incident by doing so.

Just wondering how much did you pay for that crystal ball that can guess the outcome of a incident.I just keep doing sizeup.

[cozmosis]

Just wondering how much did you pay for that crystal ball that can guess the outcome of a incident.I just keep doing sizeup.

What are you talking about?

[JackTee09]

This really comes down to the cult of safety versus reality. In an ideal world no one would have to enter a building. No one would have to make a decision.

MIKEY hit's the nail on the head - we are now so busy convincing ourselves that we are technicians that we often forget that firefighting is dangerous work.

If some people who are in charge of fire departments were in charge of military units or anything that required one ounce of deviation from a set, perceived absolute safe plan - nothing would get accomplished. It is far better that great advances have been made by those who understand that danger is part of being a firefighter.

[coldfront]

[QUOTE=cozmosis]What are you talking about?[/QUOTE

I am just as confused you are. :D

The question is to go or not to go inside for attack?

I hope most fire officers make there fire ground decisions during sizeup and not base it on the size of there nut sack!

If a department does not have the staffing (trained),water supply,equipment or leadership to make a inside attack have they made a bad call not to go inside?I think not.However the community funding the department should demand the highest standards.I feel that most communities pay for what they get!

[JackTee09]

I hope most fire officers make there fire ground decisions during sizeup and not base it on the size of there nut sack!

Poking out my minds eye. :D

If a fire officer is not trained or if he does not have firefighters who are trained - then really there is no fire department. What you have then is a social club. A very expensive, useless social club.

[coldfront]

Poking out my minds eye. :D

If a fire officer is not trained or if he does not have firefighters who are trained - then really there is no fire department. What you have then is a social club. A very expensive, useless social club.

Your right on target with that statement.

All we can hope for is that they keep doing outside attacks.

This should cut back on workers comp.claims.

[bobsnyder]

If a fire officer is not trained or if he does not have firefighters who are trained - then really there is no fire department. What you have then is a social club. A very expensive, useless social club.

True...and there are so many of these useless social clubs...many with bars attached to their engine bays...out there posing as fire departments that it's absolutely terrifying.

[JackTee09]

All we can hope for is that they keep doing outside attacks.

No - we can only hope that they are disbanded and not allowed to serve. We need people who can do the job - the entire job. If we only use them for outside attacks then they are no more firefighters than a neighbor with a garden hose.

[arhaney]

No - we can only hope that they are disbanded and not allowed to serve. We need people who can do the job - the entire job. If we only use them for outside attacks then they are no more firefighters than a neighbor with a garden hose.


I must %100 agree with you on this point!

[mcaldwell]

I'm really amazed at you guys. Where does this attitude suddenly come from?

If a very small rural department cannot afford top shelf equipment or training, but maintains a basic structural engine, basic first aid skills, maybe some wildland/interface firefighting abilities, and practices conservative firefighting do they not still provide value to thier community?

While my area is fortunate to have very high property values, and therefore a good budget, many in my region do not. There is still a bunch of local depts running on operating budgets less than $30K per year (barely 20K US/year). Just try and maintain an NFPA compliant dept with two or more apparatus on 20K. It ain't gonna happen.

Most of those very rural departments focus on medical first responder, which has proven to save lives in remote areas, and can be done relatively cheaply. Most are in the extreme urban interface, so a small grass/brush fire can wipe out a community or two. They can do that without SCBA and TIC's. Many can still keep a dumpster fire from becoming a downtown strip mall fire, or keep one house fire from becoming 10.

Don't give me this BS opinion that you can't be a fire dept if you don't have a $300,000 engine with state of the art equipment and a $50,000 training program. Hundreds of fire depts in North America are doing it with little more than an old truck an intent to help.

When those guys are shamed or pressured into getting in over thier heads by attitudes like you have just demonstrated, now we start to have a real problem.

[arhaney]

I'm really amazed at you guys. Where does this attitude suddenly come from?

If a very small rural department cannot afford top shelf equipment or training, but maintains a basic structural engine, basic first aid skills, maybe some wildland/interface firefighting abilities, and practices conservative firefighting do they not still provide value to thier community?

While my area is fortunate to have very high property values, and therefore a good budget, many in my region do not. There is still a bunch of local depts running on operating budgets less than $30K per year (barely 20K US/year). Just try and maintain an NFPA compliant dept with two or more apparatus on 20K. It ain't gonna happen.

Most of those very rural departments focus on medical first responder, which has proven to save lives in remote areas, and can be done relatively cheaply. Most are in the extreme urban interface, so a small grass/brush fire can wipe out a community or two. They can do that without SCBA and TIC's. Many can still keep a dumpster fire from becoming a downtown strip mall fire, or keep one house fire from becoming 10.

Don't give me this BS opinion that you can't be a fire dept if you don't have a $300,000 engine with state of the art equipment and a $50,000 training program. Hundreds of fire depts in North America are doing it with little more than an old truck an intent to help.

When those guys are shamed or pressured into getting in over thier heads by attitudes like you have just demonstrated, now we start to have a real problem.

Thank You! Very well put.

[Bones42]

If you read between the posts and use some guestimating and common sense, I think most people on here would agree the appropriate department for an area is Ok. I think the problem stems from where a department chooses not to make entry when they have the proper training and proper equipment. Although, this thread (like so many others) has spiralled a little off that course. :rolleyes:


Someone better call their local State forest fire service and tell them they aren't firefighters since they don't "go interior". :rolleyes: :cool:

[JackTee09]

MCaldwell:

With all due respect I don't know if you are referring to my post or not but if you are I am making the comment that if a fire department exists without any training for a company officer or firefighters they are not a fire department. My response was to Coldfronts posts and I don't know if you read them through.

Bones:

You talk about a thread on a spiral and then add to it. :rolleyes:

[TEKRSQ]

This is very interesting to me. There has been a long running debate with some of our "neighboring, suburb" depts about this. While there is no formal, written policy that they do not enter a structure (because that's asking for a lawsuit), there is very strong unwritten push on the Risk vs Benefit theory. While some will go in on rare occasion, it is prefered that the firefighters verify noone is inside (the best they can), then stay outside and protect the exposures. This has caused MANY heated arguments during mutal aid response, because we are an aggressive, interior dept, and they refuse to go in with us...or refuse to let us enter a structure (in their jurisdiction) that is simply a room & content fire that could easily be extinguished. I have personally witnessed several simple bedrom fires that ended up with only the foundation standing because the dept stuck a lline in a window and blew the fire right through the rest of the house.

I've heard this was a growing trend, but damn.

[bobsnyder]

...or refuse to let us enter a structure (in their jurisdiction) that is simply a room & content fire that could easily be extinguished. I have personally witnessed several simple bedrom fires that ended up with only the foundation standing because the dept stuck a lline in a window and blew the fire right through the rest of the house.

That's just wrong. It's like we've jumped in the Way-Back Machine and landed in 1975. That's about the time period when you used to see this sort of thing going on around here.

[bobsnyder]

Don't give me this BS opinion that you can't be a fire dept if you don't have a $300,000 engine with state of the art equipment and a $50,000 training program. Hundreds of fire depts in North America are doing it with little more than an old truck an intent to help.

Er, no, I don't think any of us ever said that.

For myself, I was taking aim at the purposefully untrained and ineffective fire companies out there...those more interested in running their bar or their bingo hall and/or keeping their apparatus parade-ready than actually saving lives and property. There are many of them, at least in this part of the country, and they need to disappear. Yesterday, if possible.

[mcaldwell]

For myself, I was taking aim at the purposefully untrained and ineffective fire companies out there...those more interested in running their bar or their bingo hall and/or keeping their apparatus parade-ready than actually saving lives and property. There are many of them, at least in this part of the country, and they need to disappear. Yesterday, if possible.

I can certainly understand your and everyone elses issues there, but that is a whole other topic. :)

[JackTee09]

Er, no, I don't think any of us ever said that.

You are correct Bob - no one here said that.

[cellblock]

True...and there are so many of these useless social clubs...many with bars attached to their engine bays...out there posing as fire departments that it's absolutely terrifying.
True. I can name one right off the top of my head. A department with no requirements for training or certifications, where the members only meet once a month for dinner and a short business meeting. Where the Chief and other officers actually boycotted those monthly meetings after a ban on beer (which was later overturned) at the firehouse was passed because "If I have to stop drinking to come to the monthly meeting, I'm not coming." Where a decission to take one of the fire trucks to a neighboring community for a parade turned into a 20 minute discussion of who would be the designated driver of the fire truck. Where those with intentions of being a real firefighter who join this private social club often either quit or are expelled by the group within a short time for upsetting the status quo.
And for the record,
I was expelled. :D

[ChicagoFF]

They can do that without SCBA and TIC's. .

We just got TIC's A year ago. You don't really need them to be effective.

[LRFPD60]

In my particular county most of the departments are aggressive. I'd say mine is probably the most aggressive out of all of them. But if you go up into the north part of our county and then the extreme west of our county, we have departments that do not have the same mentality as the rest of us.

One department in particular does not get many fire calls, in fact I think they had maybe 2 or 3 and they were mutual aid calls last year. The majority of their calls are MVA's and natural cover fires. If you know anything about this stretch of county, they have Interstate 44 running right smack through their district. They are extremly good at extrication and cutting fire lines. They have older equipment but get the job done.

A department in the north part of our county can be summed up with one word......WACKERS. I have had the "privilege" of having them in some of my classes at school. If you ever talk to them, you better be prepared to talk lightbars and sirens as opposed to tactics and technology. I do hand it to them, they attempt interior but most of the firefighters on their department are not even FF1. They go in, do an interior until the mutal aid department shows up then they back out and do support/exterior while the mutual aid companies do interior. I don't know if this is bad because they don't really know what they are doing or if its good that they attempt to save property but back out because they know they don't have the training to properly fight a house fire. In my opinion I think this department needs to step up and require some formal training or not even attempt interior due to the lack of training, if they keep it up someone on that department is gonna get seriously hurt.