# Fire fighters die for what???



## Vonny (Mar 6, 2009)

This guy will pay for his crime but what about the fire fighters who died defending an empty building???
Something is wrong with that!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090306/ap_on_re_us/arson_firefighters_killed
We lost a father of 14 here last year fighting a fire in an empty warehouse. Its just not worth it I think.


----------



## Foxbat (Mar 6, 2009)

Vonny, fighting fires in unoccupied structures (exterior or interior operations, how much risk is acceptable) is debated on fire forums about as much as "career vs volunteer" or "east coast vs. west coast". The main problem with unoccupied structures is that you never know for sure if they are unoccupied. There may be children playing, homeless people, drug addicts etc. inside - after all, somebody started the fire.
There have been cases where FF's died in abandoned structures only to have the building being torn down later, and there have been cases where they rescued somebody from "unoccupied" structure.
I don't know if the firefighters in this particular case they had any reason to think there might be somebody in the house. And even then, most firefighters are willing to take certain risk to save property.


----------



## benkfd (Mar 6, 2009)

Foxbat said:


> Vonny, fighting fires in unoccupied structures (exterior or interior operations, how much risk is acceptable) is debated on fire forums about as much as "career vs volunteer" or "east coast vs. west coast". The main problem with unoccupied structures is that you never know for sure if they are unoccupied. There may be children playing, homeless people, drug addicts etc. inside - after all, somebody started the fire.
> There have been cases where FF's died in abandoned structures only to have the building being torn down later, and there have been cases where they rescued somebody from "unoccupied" structure.



This is very true! Those of us that are FF's will tell you that you never know for sure if a building is truely unoccupied until you find out for yourself.  Now my dept. has a list of buildings that if we show up on scene NO ONE goes inside if there are flame or smoke showing.  These are buildings that are unsafe or have unsafe parts to them that we know of.  That's part of our pre-planing for the city. 
  We all also know that there is that possibility of injury or the ultimate sacrifice. It's a risk that we all know about in the back of our minds.  The same could be said for EMS calls.  Remember your training SCENE SAFETY!


----------



## Tincanfireman (Mar 6, 2009)

Vonny said:


> what about the fire fighters who died defending an empty building???


 
It's always a judgement call, based on the circumstances at that particular time. Foxbat and Benk nailed it on the head; "Do we", based on the chance the place may be home to a few (dozen) Urban Outdoorsmen, or "Don't we", if the building is known to be structurally unsound or otherwise unsafe? Our stated purpose is to save lives and protect property, and I would probably push the envelope if we had confirmed people inside, whereas I'd gladly let a known-to-be unoccupied facility burn straight to the earth-dirt if it was untenable. Ultimately, the decision lays with your officers and your brothers/sisters who did the most recent pre-fire planning trip to the occupancy. Let me emphasize, *every situation is different*, and my ultimate stated goal is to go home to my dear wife at 0800, no matter what happened the previous 24 hours. Now, to put an EMS spin on things, what about the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th trip to the same address in a 24 hour shift to pick up the same frequent flier. Do you run code 3 the first time, but not the fourth, even if it's a known abuser?  Getting creamed by a semi at a red light on the third trip will leave you just as dead as if it happens on your first trip.  You always treat it as an emergency, because you just never know.  Same with fighting fires in "unoccupied" structures; you just *never know*.....


----------



## Fragger (Mar 7, 2009)

*Firemen , especially volunteers have a burning "duty to act" and a "deep moral obligation" to their fellowman and comunity.That is why they are willling to die  fighting a fire that can not be supressed. They old fire fighter term "surround and drown" means little to us as we attack a "burner"  head on.

I remember back in 1970 going into a totally fire engulfed house because we thought someone was in it. We had 2   2 1 /2 " lines and  we los tthe pump on the unit that was drafting to us, yes I could have been one of those fatalities , instead I learned a good lesson .You don't go into a building totally  engulfed  in fire .   
I get an angry,  unexplainable feeling comes over me everytime I hear that we lost someone in an empty burning  building. God Bless them. *


----------



## Duncan Hitchcock (Mar 7, 2009)

An empty building is never worth a life.


----------



## seanm028 (Mar 7, 2009)

I like the Phoenix Fire Department's strategy:

We will begin our response on the assumption that we can protect the lives and property.
We will risk our lives *a lot*, if necessary, to protect *savable lives*.
We will risk our lives *a little*, and in a calculated manner, to protect *savable property*.
*We will not risk our lives at all* to protect lives or property that are *already lost*.

If a building is totally engulfed in flames, they assume it is already lost and switch into "defensive" mode.  Sure, they'll still try to extinguish the fire, but they're not going to go running inside the building that is totally engulfed.


----------



## Vonny (Mar 7, 2009)

Fragger said:


> *
> I get an angry,  unexplainable feeling comes over me everytime I hear that we lost someone in an empty burning  building. God Bless them. *



Thats exactly how I get... I understand the dedication of these men and women who risk everything to save lives but their own life should be top priority.
It is to be commended, I could not do a job like that, I'm a scaredy cat.

But a dead hero is still dead.

It devastates families and communities when good people are lost like this.


----------



## Tincanfireman (Mar 7, 2009)

seanm028 said:


> I like the Phoenix Fire Department's strategy:


 
 I was fortunate enough to have the chance to be in one of Chief Brunacini's Fire Command classes a few years ago; best 8 hours I've ever spent in a classroom...


----------



## Ridryder911 (Mar 7, 2009)

Tincanfireman said:


> I was fortunate enough to have the chance to be in one of Chief Brunacini's Fire Command classes a few years ago; best 8 hours I've ever spent in a classroom...



I as well in the 80's as he is a former alumnus. Although mine was a week long, many of his "wise statement" I still find to be profound. His other notable statement was, "when in doubt; it is better to surround and drown, than to burn to the ground in disgrace and loose a life"

R/r 911


----------



## reaper (Mar 7, 2009)

It is the worst decision command can make, to preform an interior attack on a known unoccupied structure. Anyone remember the Charleston 9? That was a bad command decision at it's worst!


----------



## benkfd (Mar 8, 2009)

reaper said:


> It is the worst decision command can make, to preform an interior attack on a known unoccupied structure. Anyone remember the Charleston 9? That was a bad command decision at it's worst!



AMEN! You are very right on this.  And my dept. has pretty much the same philosophy that Sean talks about earlier in this thread with the Pheonix Dept.  You have to use your head (the one superior to you shoulders that is) when you are on a fire scene. One of our moto's, if you will. is that we all go home at the end of the run!   I consider myself rather fortunate to be on the dept. that I am.  I have some awesome brothers/sisters to work with.  We watch out for each other and support each other. Sorry, don't mean to ramble, I guess my point is....be smart and use the brain that the good Lord gave you!!!! And as I said before remember your training SCENE SAFETY!!  Stay safe out there everyone!


----------



## STATION4 (Apr 16, 2009)

Hey reaper i agree with u 100% i wouldnt send any my crew in.


----------



## EMTinNEPA (Apr 16, 2009)

*fails to understand why this is in EMS-related news*


----------



## AZFF/EMT (Apr 17, 2009)

I feel very fourtunate to work under chief brunacini's standard operating procedures and in the system he built here in metro phoenix.


----------



## BLSBoy (Apr 17, 2009)

reaper said:


> It is the worst decision command can make, to preform an interior attack on a known unoccupied structure. Anyone remember the Charleston 9? That was a bad command decision at it's worst!



Actually, 
It was poor SOPs, poor information, and poor training, which had ingrained them to use the booster line, rather then the deuce and a half for a commercial fire. Also, reports were that civvies _*were*_ trapped in the building. The Brothers that day were attempting to affect a rescue.


----------



## BLSBoy (Apr 17, 2009)

I challenge you to explain to me how an *unoccupied* structure catches fire. 
Especially those that have utilities DCed. 

Ask FDNY, CFD, DCFD how many grabs they make a year in "known unoccupied" structures. 
Sorry folks, but the facts are that a structure is NOT unoccupied until *we* say so. 

You really wanna piss and moan?
Look at how many LODDs are caused by cardiovascular incidents. Piss and moan about that. NOT doing the job.


----------



## reaper (Apr 17, 2009)

They were sent in after ,the two and only two occupants were already out! Sorry, just because "that is the way we have always done it", does not make it right. FF's are sent into unoccupied structures all the time. It is the stupid decisions like that, that get them killed.

There was no reason for them to be inside. A furniture warehouse is going to burn hot and any first day FF should know that the structural steel will not handle that heat. That is why the roof collapsed so fast. I think the chief should have been brought up on charges, not just allowed to resign. Luckily lessons have been learned from the disaster, that might save others!


----------



## Vonny (Apr 17, 2009)

EMTinNEPA said:


> *fails to understand why this is in EMS-related news*



What??  how come?


----------

