Skip to content


Archives for

See all posts in the network tagged with

Chicago LODD and Old School Thoughts on Firefighting in “Vacant” Structures

This post is dedicated to Firefighter Edward Stringer, Firefighter Corey Ankum, those injured, their families and to the Chicago Fire Department.  RFB-KTF.

This post is written out of respect for our fallen brothers in Chicago and to all of us who respond to fires in these types of buildings.  This is NOT a commentary, only a sharing of considerations, in general, for fighting fires in vacant/abandoned buildings.

How does your department operate at vacant building fires? Do your operations change?  Does your personal mindset change?

A wall collapse that reportedly trapped and/or injured over a dozen firefighters at a vacant/ abandoned commercial building fire in Chicago has turned out to be a double Line Of Duty Death.  Numerous other firefighters were injured during the collapse and/or rescue efforts.

The topic of firefighting in so-called vacant buildings is always an interesting, and sometimes heated, kitchen table discussion.  I wanted to share some points of consideration that have been passed on to me when operating at fires in vacant buildings.

Here are three basic considerations for strategic and tactical decision making in vacant buildings:

1) Life Safety (occupants, vagrants & firefighters)

How did the fire start?  If this fire is in a truly vacant structure, theoretically utilities have been disconnected.  Though spontaneous combustion sounds good, we have to assume a person started the fire, for any number of reasons, and that a life hazard is present.  Some of these reasons may include:

  • Vagrants seeking shelter and warmth (especially in winter months)
  • Children playing with matches (we recently had the same structure burn three times, believed to be kids playing)
  • Arsonists… professional or recreational (times are tough, it’s a reality)

Always remember, we are not the judge or the jury.  Our job is to search for ANYONE who may be savable inside a burning building and rescue them.  In doing so, however, we have to ALWAYS be aware of our surroundings and the conditions.  If the building is too far gone, it’s gone.  If areas are searchable and things get too risky, be a strong enough leader to pull the plug.

2) Incident Stabilization

The best way to make a fire safer is to put it out!  There are collateral risks involved with allowing a fire to burn when it is (or was) controllable.

  • Increased risk to exposures (attached, nearby or across town (from embers))
  • Increased risk of collapse, or more catastrophic collapse
  • Increased strain on resources due to additional alarms, move-ups, etc.
  • Overall increased risk to everyone on scene due to all of the above

3) Property Conservation

Simply put…THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CANNOT AFFORD TO LET BUILDINGS BURN.  If we start letting buildings burn OR make lack luster efforts at suppressing fires, the ramifications could impact operations, politics, finances and perhaps most importantly, loss of public trust.

Not all “vacant” buildings are derelict (though some are) and likewise some buildings are simply empty but still can be occupied/ leased/ bought or whatever.  IT’S NOT OUR JOB TO THINK LIKE REAL ESTATE BROKERS, SLUMLORDS OR DEVELOPERS.  IT’S OUR JOB TO THINK LIKE FIREFIGHTERS and DO WHAT WE DO BEST which is SAVE LIVES, PUT OUT FIRE & PROTECT PROPERTY.

I know these considerations are not very creative, however they are time tested.  Also consider that things (i.e. fires) are not always black and white.

By the nature of our job, we work in the gray area.  Conditions are never ideal, information is never complete and resources are never enough. WE STILL HAVE TO GET THE JOB DONE!

We all know that firefighting is UNAVOIDABLY dangerous.  Though firefighters have been injured or worse as a result of poor decision making, sometimes we get hurt or die despite making solid decisions despite ample experience and the best information and resources available.  The best way to prevent future tragic events is to study and learn from close calls and LODD and honor those who have fallen by learning from their incident and educating ourselves and others to recognize common situations.

RIP Brothers Stringer and Ankum

Thanks and Be SAFE

Posted in Command & Leadership, Fire Rescue Topics, Firefighter Safety & Health, Firefighting Operations, Fires, In the Line of Duty, Line of Duty, Major Incidents, News, Training & Development

Tagged , , , ,

The What, Where & Why of the First Line

Nothing does more to improve safety on the fireground than correctly stretching, positioning and using the first attack line (sorry Truckies).  The question is, do we take our most effective life and property saving skill for granted?  Do you know the WHAT, WHERE & WHY before and/or during the initial attack line stretch? This post asks these questions and offers some discussion to the most fundamental fireground tactic.

1. Does the first line always have to go through the front door?  Why or why not?

Always, no… preferably, yes!  The most basic reason to (almost) always take the first line through the front door is our number one priority, life safety.  We are taught in rookie school to “think like a civilian” when searching and that civilians will try to exit through primary means of entry.  If that’s true, and we truly are there to protect lives, then the first line should be positioned through the front door by default; if not to search for victims than to protect their means of egress.

2. Does the first line always have to go to the fire?  Why or why not?

Often times we, especially new firefighters, forget that there is more to fighting a fire than putting out the flames.  There are considerations for ventilation (hopefully coordinated), victim search and additional lines.  Sometimes the first line may better serve as a protection line for a search crew, they may have to hold the stairs in a basement fire (or protect the interior of a home for an attached garage fire) or may need to allow some of the conditions to be controlled prior to making an advance (i.e. flashover or backdraft conditions or unique hazards).

3. What information is needed when sizing up the stretch for the initial attack line?

Since preconnected attack lines are the norm these days, sometimes the mentality (truthfully) is “IN CASE OF FIRE, PULL HERE” with little or no thought to the adequacy of the size, length and/or nozzle of the preconnect.   We risk becoming desensitized to adequately sizing up not only the first line but all attack lines.

Poorly sizing up the first line could result in not enough line to reach and/or extinguish the fire, too much line that is cumbersome to move and constantly kinks or maybe stretching the wrong size line.   All of these scenarios will require the second engine, usually assigned to the second/backup line, to assist the first engine with making their line effective.  All three scenarios expose all crews involved to unnecessary risk.

Let us know what your thoughts and experiences are.  Thanks and be SAFE!

Posted in Engine Work, Fire Rescue Topics, Firefighter Safety & Health, Firefighting Operations, Strategy and Tactics, Training & Development

Tagged , , , ,