Wcross
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-02-06 12:50 PM
Original message |
|
I have a question for you. Say there is a house fire and you arrive on the scene. All the occupants and animals are out of the home and it is fully involved. There is little chance anything can be saved. My question is, can the homeowner request that you let it burn? What prompts the question is a neighbors house fire. The volunteer department arrived 40 minutes after the call. The house had about 1/2 of the wall left and not much else. They extinguished what remained. The homeowner had to pay an extra 2000.00 for demolition of the remaining structure whereas if they had let it burn they could have just pushed the basement walls in and buried it. Keep in mind this is in a rural area where no other homes are in danger.
|
Rabrrrrrr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-02-06 12:53 PM
Response to Original message |
1. That's an interesting question - |
|
I don't have an answer, but I'm curious to hear what others say.
It would seem to make sense that, especially if the firefighters say there's no chance of saving the building, if a building is pretty well fucked already to just let it burn itself up, assuming such burning is not a threat to anything else.
|
BikeWriter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-02-06 01:49 PM
Response to Original message |
2. That won't happen in a populated area... |
|
1. Fire fighters do not stand around and watch a fire burn; It would be a public relations nightmare! 2. Evidence it was arson might be destroyed. The insurance company would refuse payment. 3. Harmful emissions from the smoke with no permit. 4. Legal ramifications if the owner changed his mind later. Note: I was employed as a Texas City, Texas fire fighter from 1973 to 1978.
|
Bombero1956
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-02-06 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. I've been on the job 28 years now |
|
and it depends on the situation and setting. In an urban setting the firefighters would have a duty to extinguish the fire quickly, especially if there were exposures on either side of the structure. If it were a windy day embers could be carried aloft and ignite another house or grassy area nearby and now you'd have 2 fires. In the case where the house is too far gone to save we employ a tactic called surround and drown, otherwise we use a very aggressive interior attack strategy. The number of firefighters available to fight a fire also determines how to fight the fire. The insurance company could hold off paying for the loss pending determination of the cause and for that the arson squad would need to gather evidence and examine the interior to find the place of origin and to bring in an arson sniffing dog.
|
BikeWriter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-03-06 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. Yep, I don't see burning the debris anywhere in your priorities, either. |
|
Here's what I recall of our coordinated attack after thirty years. It may not be taught the same now. 1. Size up 2. rescue 3. exposures 4. confinement 5. control 6. extinguishment
|
Thtwudbeme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-02-06 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Ex-paramedic on a fire dept.
these are the absolute correct answers--
|
BikeWriter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-03-06 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Thank you. I also attended Galveston College's... |
|
Associate Degree program for Fire Technology. The fire fighting classes were taught exclusively by experienced officers of Galveston's Fire Department with state approved textbooks.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:45 AM
Response to Original message |