(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Question for volunteer fire fighters

O

oldtanker

Well-known Member
Got one volunteer fire department here that has a policy of containment. They will not go into an unoccupied structure to fight a fire. Basically they stay outside and watch it burn. and spray some water around to prevent it from spreading. I know a guy, widower, who lost his house that way. He woke to smoke, call 911 who told him to wait outside for the fire fighters to show up. They arrived, no visible flame but smoke coming from his house. They wouldn't allow him back inside to retrieve anything nor did they go inside to determine where the house was burning or to try to save any part of the house. Total loss. I'm wondering is this is the new normal to prevent the volunteers from being injured or killed or if the guy in charge just doesn't like the risks. So volunteers, first thanks for being there! 2nd what do you guys do?

Rick
 
Around here, if the small town VFD's save the basement and foundation they are praised for doing a great job.

Or did I misread the issue?
 
(quoted from post at 21:46:15 03/29/16) Around here, if the small town VFD's save the basement and foundation they are praised for doing a great job.

Or did I misread the issue?
Click to expand...

We have a couple that are real good and then this other one that basically does just that, saves the basement/foundation. The one only started doing this a couple of years ago. I was wondering if this is the shape of things to come? That to prevent unnecessary injury that they are more or less going to just let em burn?

Rick
 
Probably varies dept to dept.

When I was on our local VFD we had a number of guys on the dept. who were fire fighters for their day job in big cities. They were able to give good training on when to go in and when not to and when to get out. We also had the breathing packs and everything was up to date and checked and in good working order. It may come down to that no one in that dept can give adequate training or they can't afford the breathing equipment so they err on the safe side. We had workman's comp but no other insurance beyond that so if you got hurt you were out of luck.

The other thing is that we had some young guys who were super gung ho, drove red pickups with light bars and such and probably slept in red pajamas. They would tend to take unnecessary risks and want to go into burning structures where there was nothing left to save and not worth any health risk. Basically they were there for the thrill. So again, probably erring on the safe side with policies to keep the scene under control.
 
when I was on our local fire dept. we did what was needed, pending how involved the fire was we would go in and open up drywall to make sure the fire was out up to the surround and drown if the place was fully engulfed. like one other person said some of it could be just that dept. I know our fire still does entry's based on how bad the fire is and if someone could be trapped.
 
What does your homeowners insurance cost, with a fire dept policy like that?

I can understand not going in, if the house is fully engulfed, and everyone is out. I'd be a little upset if it was a grease fire on the kitchen stove and they let the house burn down around it.

We are lucky to have a great VFD, and surrounding vfd's with automatic mutual aid. I have the utmost respect for these guys and support them every way I can.

My biggest wish is that our VFD has the nicest equipment money can buy and it never has to leave the fire dept bay.

Our TWP Trustees oversee the fire dept. I'd be raising heck at their meetings, if they had a policy of not trying to put out fires.
 

Back in prehistoric days, when I in the VFD, a dept. just outside our jurisdiction got sued because they didn't answer a call fast enough to suit a home owner. The house was too involved when they got there. She actually sued the Volunteers. I'm still flabbergasted about that one. We had to answer their calls for about 6 months until it got sorted out. :shock: That summer, we had a big drought here and lots of call outs because of people using burn barrels and setting the country side on fire from the cinders. Someone was starting fires too in the woods in our district. I never even thought about a fire bug until after the 5th or 6th call out that day. I was off of work that day and I was completely worn out from going to calls and putting out fires. Heck of a way to spend days off...lol Anyway me and old fellow that were active, drove the fire truck back to the barn and got out and started getting the equipment off. I was good and tired and very angry by then and spouted off that I wish I could catch who ever was starting these fires in the woods. I would gladly beat their arse and hang whoever it was. Now this young guy went flying out of the firehouse and jumped in his car and tore off out of there. I turned to the old partner and asked him what was up with that? He looked at me and said that was the firebug and the chief was working on catching him in the act. He didn't come back and eventually got caught starting one in the woods about two weeks later. The sad thing is that he had already been to juvenile detention for doing the very same thing! What? Who let him into the dept.??? Never did understand that one either.
 
I am on our local VFD, and yes we do go into a burning house to put out fires, even if no one is inside. We will not go into a fully involved fire if no one is inside, we will not do that. In other countries I know that unless there is someone inside they don't enter. We are trained and continue to train to do interior attacks and try to do minimal damage. I know people joke about being basement savers, but I tell them, we have an opening why don't you join us?
 
I was with a volunteer dept for 14 years in southern Illinois and I can tell you that none of the departments in this area stay outside. And they are certified in Fire fighter 1
and 2 the same as paid depts. The only way to put a fire out correctly is go in and get it! By shooting water from outside to in just feeds the fire with air. Last thing you want.
Also most (not all) of the volunteer depts have a better insurance rating for your homeowners insurance due to more men responding, more equipment on scene earlier, faster knock
down time, and overall less property damage.
 
Fire departments around here are very active and aggressive. They don't stand around waiting for anything. The concern here is on the other side of the equation. If an old, unoccupied building is fully engulfed, every department around is called in to haul water. 14-18 departments is not unheard of. Traffic jams ensue. Every effort is made to knock the fire down, then an excavator(which you can't hire for weeks out) is brought in to knock the saved portion down.
 
When my house burnt down in Ga. in 1990 the VFD went in the end of the house that was not burning and fought its way back toward the totally engulfed end. While the house was a loss they saved a lot of personal things inside for me.

Around here in La they will also go in. Our biggest problem here before we got city water was getting water.
Those city firefighters think they are good. They should watch a VFD that has to get water from a mile away to fight a fire.

I can remember years ago when one guys house caught on fire in the middle of the night.
The VFD had a list of ponds in the area where the owner had given them permission in advance to use the water.
They went to this house that was on fire and found there was a pond at the next store neighbors house but it was not on the list. They woke the guy up at about 2am to ask if they could use the pond water.
Neighbor told them "NO"
Guys house burnt down because they could not get enough water on site fast enough.
Never did figure out if it was a fight between neighbors or just the guy was more worried about saving his fishing pond.
 
Was this the guy who refused to let the fire
department pull water from his pond to help
fight fires? :)
In order of importance:people most
important, property least important. Pets
somewhere in the middle. Last year's
firefighter class I went to said that if you
HAVE to go in to try and save someone you
have 2 minutes from the time you break down
the door to get them out or have the fire
under control. That's not a lot of time when
you probably don't know the floor plan of
the house, don't know where in the house
someone may be, and may have to haul water
from miles away. One previous poster
mentioned hauling water a mile, that would
be a short haul around here but it still has
the same problems. Then consider that while
a fire doubles in size every 30 seconds the
response depends on someone seeing smoke,
calling it in, dispatch calling it out,
everybody dropping what they are doing,
drive to fire station, start trucks, drive 5
miles down a muddy gravel road with 1500
gallons of water. At this point you are 15
minutes into the fire and there isn't a hose
on the ground and maybe only 2 people there
at this point. So it is not usually an issue
of not wanting to but not having the ability
to safely do it.
Police are not legally bound to lay down
their life to save yours or your property
and neither are firemen.
 
(quoted from post at 23:04:20 03/29/16) What does your homeowners insurance cost, with a fire dept policy like that?

I can understand not going in, if the house is fully engulfed, and everyone is out. I'd be a little upset if it was a grease fire on the kitchen stove and they let the house burn down around it.

We are lucky to have a great VFD, and surrounding vfd's with automatic mutual aid. I have the utmost respect for these guys and support them every way I can.

My biggest wish is that our VFD has the nicest equipment money can buy and it never has to leave the fire dept bay.

Our TWP Trustees oversee the fire dept. I'd be raising heck at their meetings, if they had a policy of not trying to put out fires.
Click to expand...

Actually not to bad insurance wise. We are about 1.5 miles from a very good department. The one that causes me at ask questions is about 8 miles away. The one that covers me also covers my BIL. When he was in the field and his tractor burned they were on site on a work day with the first truck and fire fighters in 14 minutes from his 911 call. When a town of less than 100 people, with most of the volunteers working on the farm or in towns 6-9 miles away 14 minutes is awesome! (11 had my BIL stay on the line until the first truck arrived. The chief later looked at the history of my BIL's cell so they could document the response time for department records.

Rick
 

A bit OT, but this is a pet peeve of mine. The courts and OSHA got together and somehow decided that rural FD's should be held to the same standards as urban, professional FD's. Now thats great for the blue light heroes that live to get the latest and greatest $350K fire truck or new turnout gear that's resistant to Kryptonite and depleted uranium projectiles, but it has the side effect of making it impossible for a rural area to maintain, much less create a FD where one doesn't exist and very hard to get volunteers that will/can put hundreds of hours of time into training. The real killer here is that the volunteers are going to have to work the fundraisers the FD's we do have are always organizing so they can get a new 60" plasma or white walls for the fire truck or whatever. I was a fireman/EMT years back, I know how much these guys put out for the community and I appreciate it. But I tried to form a FD here and it would have cost a couple million $$$. Can't do it. What they've done is create a system that deprives the public of the ability to protect their lives and property. It's all we can do to pay the bills now. This is just wrong on multiple levels.

So, getting back to the original question, the FD's around here will go into a house and try to save it. But the chances of them getting to a large section of their area in time to save a house or barn decreases exponentially as the distance from the fire house increases.
 
I was on a volunteer fire department for 33 years, chief for 18 years. Our department trained on interior attack for fires that were not fully envolved or life hazard. We followed the 2 in 2 out rule which required 4 fighters on scene with an engine to enter a burning building, Many fires could be extingished before they progessed to full envolvement. During a mutual aid ISO training we were able supply 2000 GPM for 2 hours using tankers and portable tanks and mutual aid. To enter a burning structure the decision must be made on scene and affect the safety of everyone. I question how chiefs can have firefighters with beards and respond to fire calls. NFPA 1500 states that no beards or other hair to shall interfer with the seal of the SCBA mask.
 
How does the saying go? The enemy of good is
perfection. Like what you're saying, the
process isn't perfect but it usually works.
We are headed to a point where we will have
only paid departments because the
requirements will be too much for
volunteers. The problem in the rural areas
is that most of the young people are gone or
working 30 miles from home during the day.
 
I dunno about that question. One of my tax clients is chief of a nearby community, I will have to ask him when he gets here this year. When I was on the department our officers were all tough retired Detroit fireman. You went inside the building with complete SCBA, officer right beside you wearing coat and helmet and barking orders. You did what you were told or you got a darn good chewing out, sometimes in front of civilians and peers. Last structure I entered was a home under construction. Propane tank in use for heat in the garage. There was a leak and the garage was blown to pieces, only the slab remained. Attached house had flames above the roof that were half again the height of the house. Couldn't see to save your life. We went up the stairs to the source and put her out in a few minutes. Never was a thought of staying outside but it might have been the better choice. Open hole to basement in there, no railing and no steps and no visibility. Could have been a bad fall, glad the fire was upstairs! I have to tell you, working with those guys was a privilege. Taught you more than just how to fight fires.
 
(quoted from post at 06:44:24 03/30/16) How does the saying go? The enemy of good is
perfection. Like what you're saying, the
process isn't perfect but it usually works.
We are headed to a point where we will have
only paid departments because the
requirements will be too much for
volunteers. The problem in the rural areas
is that most of the young people are gone or
working 30 miles from home during the day.
Click to expand...

Very true but we have just enough farmers and younger guys who do have local jobs that they can accomplish the mission.

Was kinda interesting when I worked as a mechanic in a town about 15 miles from my home. The show was right across the street from the VFD's building. The alarm would go off in that town of about 150 people and guys would come running down the streets. From the bank, from the COOP, from a gas station. Was faster for them to run to the building that it was for them to drive. Within 4-5 minutes of the alarm going off the first truck was rolling! I know I timed it more than once. One guy I'm friends with has a dairy farm. His wife generally helps out while he's milking. He's also a volunteer fireman. That alarm goes off while he's milking and his wife takes over and he goes. Lot of guys like that! I'm glad they are there! My banker is a volunteer EMT. Don't matter what he's doing, that beeper goes off and he's gone.

Rick
 
I have an even better story than that. In the county I live in, a volunteer was a firefighter in the neighboring county, until he was caught, and admitted to burning down an old one room school house, next door to the house he was stationed at. Commonwealth's Attorney plead it down to a misdemeanor, he paid a $66.00 fine, and made restitution of less than $4500.00. He is now the CHIEF of Vol. Co. #1. You think maybe background checks are in order?
 
When my farmhouse burned in 2007 the fire co made it out to it in good time. Even though we had three ponds to go to they set a swimming pool up in the front road and the trucks traveled back and forth to keep it filled. I made the mistaked of going back inside to get the cats and had trouble getting back out. Could not go back to live there after the repair.
a222030.jpg
 

Have to disagree on that. If the FF is not protected with the proper gear and does not have quality efficient equipment. They should not be messing around with more danger than necessary.
What was good enough for 1946 is not good enough for 2016.
 
Our local VFD do a great job with what they have to work with. I've never heard of any not going into a hows to save the structure. Sometime it appears like it might have been better if they had let it burn. A problem I'm hearing more is the lack of personnel. The ones that are able to volunteer are having to work jobs 50 miles away. The ones that have time are either to old or too dam lazy.
 
I was a member of a 30 person VFD for 32 years. If they have the proper training on structure design, fire behavior and learn how to do a complete size up of the situation at hand, there shouldn't be any reason they can't fight from the interior. Obviously if it is fully involved it is a different story. We have saved a lot of structures by simply knowing what you have and make descisions accordingly. Speed is of essence. Lots of property can be saved by simply knowing where the fire is and how to access it and get quick initial knockdown which takes very little water in most cases and get the ventilation going. I would say 95% of most structure fires can be addressed in this manner. The surround and drownd theory is simply the result of poor training and poor leadership. Then if that is the case it would probably be best to stay out. funtwohunt
 
20 year a vol fireman retired now but many a time I would have given a 100 bucks for a five gallon bucket of water.
 
You might want to ask your local fire chief to get the details for your situation. In McLeod county the 911 line is manned by full time county employees who coordinate the sheriff, city police, ambulances, and the volunteer city and township fire departments as needed. Individual fire departments are equipped for some common tasks and for some specialized tasks and hazards. The restriction on one department could be a shortage of funds or of qualified and trained volunteers. It takes tax dollars to support all the fire departments in a county.
 
I was a member of our local department for eight years. Main jobs were medical first response, highway wrecks, field and stubble fires, and structure fires, in that order. We didn't have a lot of luck with structure fires out of town, but would do our best. Too often, by the time you got there it was too late. We were equipped with decent bunker gear and air packs, and would fight from within the structure if there was a chance of saving it. Never lost a basement. As in any volunteer organization, a handful of people did the work, and the rest criticized. It got tiring to be out at 3:00 am on yet another rollover or medical call, and know that most of your people were laying in bed, listening to the call on the radio. Always had full turnout if there was a free dinner, though. unc
 

That is the truth about people not showing up except to eat barbecue. The worst time I ever had was getting a call at midnight to a burning house with children in it. We got there and found out the single "mama" had left the kids inside alone while she went out honky tonking. All three kids were burned to death. Heck of a thing to have to get kids that were small (five to eight years old) and put them in a body bag.
 
This is one we had yesterday--when I rolled in it was fully involved so we just did an exterior attack.
a222073.jpg
 
(quoted from post at 21:14:26 03/30/16) You might want to ask your local fire chief to get the details for your situation. In McLeod county the 911 line is manned by full time county employees who coordinate the sheriff, city police, ambulances, and the volunteer city and township fire departments as needed. Individual fire departments are equipped for some common tasks and for some specialized tasks and hazards. The restriction on one department could be a shortage of funds or of qualified and trained volunteers. It takes tax dollars to support all the fire departments in a county.
Click to expand...

I did ask and was basically told it was none of my business. This was when he was asking for money? This FD isn't the one who would respond to me unless they were called in as backup. It's also one of the better funded FD's in the area. Most of the local ones around here have the breathing apparatuses and bunker gear that they should have. Really surprising the number of people around here who support the various departments with donations and such. The big problem they have are qualified EMT's. They just don't have enough.

Rick
 
I guess the first question I might ask is what exactly you mean by an unoccupied structure? If you're simply talking about a house in which
all of the inhabitants got out, that's one thing... What we would term 'unoccupied' around here is generally vacant type buildings.
Generally speaking, we're not going into that type of mess unless we have a real good reason to do so. There's just some structures around
here that are known to be compromised... holes in the floor, no stairs, poor structural integrity... nobody is going in. The mantra is that
we will risk a lot to save a lot (a life), risk a little to save a little (property) and risk nothing to save nothing (a basement).

What is beginning to develop in this area is a discussion about departments that were deemed as interior attack and those that are deemed
as defensive. The line in the sand is having 15 members trained to NFPA 1001 with a minimum of 5 turning out on scene to mount an attack.
If you can't put 5 on scene you DO NOT HAVE A CREW (1 officer, 2 in, 2 out). I'm not going there to die for someones cat. Reality is that
building have changed a lot in the last 50 years and fires have changed dramatically with them. Once upon a time you had mabey 20 minutes
to flashover. Now you have less than 5 due to the fire load in the structure and the type of materials used. With the use of lightweight
floor joists made of sawdust and glue it doesn't even have to burn anymore. It just gets hot and fails... then falls into the fire below it
with your sorry arse in the midst of it. So it's not just about putting the wet stuff on the red stuff anymore. You have to be trained. You
have to know what's going on, read the fire and know when it's time to call it. What we are seeing an increase in today is the use of
transitional attacks where we launch a defensive attack until we either gain the manpower to go in after it or knock it down enough that
it's safe to go in. I don't think any of us would want to sit there and watch it burn, but reality is that sometimes protecting exposures
is all you can do with the manpower and water supply you have.
What people are going to have to start understanding is that if they want a well equipped, well trained and well funded fire department
they are going to have to step up, volunteer, get involved, do the training and then show up when the alarm goes off. Otherwise you're
going to have a few guys who protect the neighbors siding and cool the basement.

Rod
 
well you never really know if its occupied--we got called in to assist on this one last night in the next town,
building boarded up and listed for sale--neighboring chief first to arrive and heard screams coming from it--he went in alone and pulled a severely burnt guy out.
a222107.jpg
 
That is quite true.........
Just the same.. there was one not too far from here about 6 weeks ago. Commercial building, 3 stories, basically a whole block of ramshackle buildings stuck together.. and absolute death trap. They knew what it was like inside due to their pre plan... and they found foot prints in the snow where he had entered with no corresponding foot prints coming out. They attempted entry but were forced back out due to fire conditions. They're pretty sure nobody was in it now but who knows. It's a tough call to make... but the way I look at it and I think most here now look at it... I'm not risking my people to an inferno with no absolute known occupants. If someone is hanging out the window screaming, that's another matter and you do your best... but reality is if there's already heavy smoke and fire with full involvement, whomever was in there is gone anyway.

Rod
 
yes Rod in this case there was a confirmation due to the screaming heard--and in your case there was the attempt made to make the primary search and it was a no go---in a lot of cases though entry can be made if heavy smoke and the heat and flames are on the upper level---this is where the ladder company crew is invaluable to get it ventilated and get fresh air coming in for the crew to search and find victims and or fire---at least that's the theory!!
this house was saved despite no visibility when the crew went in
a222113.jpg
 
(quoted from post at 09:29:00 03/31/16) I guess the first question I might ask is what exactly you mean by an unoccupied structure? If you're simply talking about a house in which
all of the inhabitants got out, that's one thing... What we would term 'unoccupied' around here is generally vacant type buildings.
Generally speaking, we're not going into that type of mess unless we have a real good reason to do so. There's just some structures around
here that are known to be compromised... holes in the floor, no stairs, poor structural integrity... nobody is going in. The mantra is that
we will risk a lot to save a lot (a life), risk a little to save a little (property) and risk nothing to save nothing (a basement).

What is beginning to develop in this area is a discussion about departments that were deemed as interior attack and those that are deemed
as defensive. The line in the sand is having 15 members trained to NFPA 1001 with a minimum of 5 turning out on scene to mount an attack.
If you can't put 5 on scene you DO NOT HAVE A CREW (1 officer, 2 in, 2 out). I'm not going there to die for someones cat. Reality is that
building have changed a lot in the last 50 years and fires have changed dramatically with them. Once upon a time you had mabey 20 minutes
to flashover. Now you have less than 5 due to the fire load in the structure and the type of materials used. With the use of lightweight
floor joists made of sawdust and glue it doesn't even have to burn anymore. It just gets hot and fails... then falls into the fire below it
with your sorry arse in the midst of it. So it's not just about putting the wet stuff on the red stuff anymore. You have to be trained. You
have to know what's going on, read the fire and know when it's time to call it. What we are seeing an increase in today is the use of
transitional attacks where we launch a defensive attack until we either gain the manpower to go in after it or knock it down enough that
it's safe to go in. I don't think any of us would want to sit there and watch it burn, but reality is that sometimes protecting exposures
is all you can do with the manpower and water supply you have.
What people are going to have to start understanding is that if they want a well equipped, well trained and well funded fire department
they are going to have to step up, volunteer, get involved, do the training and then show up when the alarm goes off. Otherwise you're
going to have a few guys who protect the neighbors siding and cool the basement.

Rod
Click to expand...

OK by unoccupied I mean the FD arrives and are inform for certain that no one is in the building as opposed to a vacant building.

Rick
 
Your post leaves out some very important details. How many fire fighters with interior attack training initially showed up? How many pieces were on scene for the initial attach? The size of the apparatus, meaning the tank size and gpm.
The smoke with no visible fire can be a very dangerous situation. Smoke that is coming out the eves can give a sign if the house is about to flash over, a very dangerous situation in which you don't want to be inside when that happens.

As a 39 year active fire fighter serving all those years as chief or asst chief I would rather error on the side of safety. Dead hero's serve no purpose.

Without being at the scene myself I can't second guess the fire department.
 
(quoted from post at 13:56:48 03/30/16) Why bother to call if they are to scared to fight the fire?
Click to expand...

What good is a house filled with smoke and water damage? Major job to rebuild. Away further ahead to let it burn to the ground, a whole lot less to clean up.
 
(quoted from post at 11:28:13 03/31/16) This is one we had yesterday--when I rolled in it was fully involved so we just did an exterior attack.
a222073.jpg
Click to expand...

This one should have been let burn to the ground, nothing there salvageable. Let it go in a controlled burn. Why save a charred shell?
 

I was a volunteer for 35 years and for twenty of them I was lead nozzleman and did I ever love it. There is just nothing else in the world that I have found as exciting and as good at generating adrenaline. We had about five of us on the department, all about the same age and we all loved the interior attack, and for the most part the other guys would support me. Our chief would trust us to use our judgement, and we would back out if we weren't making headway after awhile, but usually the fire just gave up too quickly for our liking. These days though it is very different. As RodNS said there are a lot of rules and also a lot more liability if a firefighter got hurt. Back in the day you weren't doing your job if you didn't get burned now and then, but today the municipality would have a law suit on it's hands if somebody got burned. So these days there is a lot more thought put into the decision of whether to attack or go defensive.
 
I was an insurance claims adjuster for 47 years and worked with a lot of great fire departments about one-half of them volunteer. I have no
complaint overall how they handled their job. But smoke and water damage as a rule do not total a house or commercial building. Each fire
is different and there are no hard and fast rules, it all depends on the individual circumstances. In the new climate of tort
considerations there may be more conservative decisions made but that is the case in any and all potential liability situations.
 
I'm not really disagreeing with you... I know in our department we would do all we could. My basic point is just that sometimes we need to take a step back and think about what we're doing. I see a certain number of people who will not take that step back and some day they (or their crew) is going to pay the ultimate price for it. Some of the people I know have the idea that there is just simply risk involved in what we do and you toss the coin and see what happens. That's an attitude that has to change. There is risk for sure... but the way I see it, we use our training and our PPE to mitigate that risk as fully as we can.... and know when to go defensive...

Rod
 
OK guys, I not complaining. I just wanted to know if this is going to become the new normal. If once a volunteer FD is sure that no humans are in a burning structure that they will no longer try to save the building?

I'm sure that if that's the way it's going that it's over safety and liability concerns. And I can not only understand that but actually support it.

The nearest VFD tome has younger guys, many of them married with small children. I'd rather see them go home to raise their kids than to have them die saving my house once no one is inside.

Rick
 
(quoted from post at 22:29:08 03/31/16) OK guys, I not complaining. I just wanted to know if this is going to become the new normal. If once a volunteer FD is sure that no humans are in a burning structure that they will no longer try to save the building?

I'm sure that if that's the way it's going that it's over safety and liability concerns. And I can not only understand that but actually support it.

The nearest VFD tome has younger guys, many of them married with small children. I'd rather see them go home to raise their kids than to have them die saving my house once no one is inside.

Rick
Click to expand...

Rick, I don't see that all the responses given support your conclusions at all. And there is no reason at all to think that volunteers are going to be any less aggressive than volunteers.
 
(quoted from post at 22:29:08 03/31/16) OK guys, I not complaining. I just wanted to know if this is going to become the new normal. If once a volunteer FD is sure that no humans are in a burning structure that they will no longer try to save the building?

I'm sure that if that's the way it's going that it's over safety and liability concerns. And I can not only understand that but actually support it.

The nearest VFD tome has younger guys, many of them married with small children. I'd rather see them go home to raise their kids than to have them die saving my house once no one is inside.

Rick
Click to expand...

Rick, I don't see that all the responses given support your conclusions at all. And there is no reason at all to think that volunteers are going to be any less aggressive than volunteers.
 
I wouldn't say there is a move in that direction tactically if the capacity is there to attack. What is happening... is a drive to more
clearly define who has the capacity to mount an interior attack... and who doesn't... and make that clear to the community as well as the
fire underwriters. That will eventually impact your insurance rates... and if that' what it takes to have people volunteer.. so be it.
Trained manpower is the main concern, at least here... in determining whether or not you can go inside. Equipment and money for equipment is
a secondary concern for us.

Rod
 
(quoted from post at 05:26:19 04/01/16)
(quoted from post at 22:29:08 03/31/16) OK guys, I not complaining. I just wanted to know if this is going to become the new normal. If once a volunteer FD is sure that no humans are in a burning structure that they will no longer try to save the building?

I'm sure that if that's the way it's going that it's over safety and liability concerns. And I can not only understand that but actually support it.

The nearest VFD tome has younger guys, many of them married with small children. I'd rather see them go home to raise their kids than to have them die saving my house once no one is inside.

Rick
Click to expand...

Rick, I don't see that all the responses given support your conclusions at all. And there is no reason at all to think that volunteers are going to be any less aggressive than volunteers.
Click to expand...

No, no conclusions. Just asking if that is the future. Thought maybe guys who members of VFDs might have some knowledge of this.

Rick
 
Rick--in my area that is not the norm--our training is to be more aggressively safely getting in and putting the fire out no matter if occupied or not---we do not want to be there for hours on end if the whole structure is let to be consumed. now volunteer fire departments are quite autonomous so it varies quite a bit among them---and it even varies on who the chief is at the time
Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Galion 104H
Replies
10
Views
532
Nolbyone
N
billonthefarm
Thanks for the kind words
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
730virgil
7
G
Beak away brakes on trailer
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
Jim.ME
J
O
Question for cops/EMT's/PARAmedics/fire fighters
Replies
5
Views
579
1948CaseVAI
1
jon f mn
Today's funny
Replies
13
Views
1K
730virgil
7
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top