There is a continuing debate on the offensive fire attack, particularly with the spread of lightweight construction. The volume and animosity between sides at times resembles our current political spectrum. One extreme argues that other than in highly limited circumstances, attacks should be initiated and conducted from the exterior until the bulk of the fire is extinguished in order to better ensure firefighter safety. The other extreme advocates interior attacks unless structural collapse has begun or is imminent in order to ensure that a primary search is completed for unknown victims.The safety extreme seems to see the other side as dinosaurs. The interior attack proponents view the safety side as radical (to be kind). This is not an age issue; there are younger and “seasoned,” firefighters as I prefer to refer to them, on both sides.
I’ve looked carefully at the arguments on both sides and after careful consideration, I agree with…..neither.
I’m all for safety in an inherently dangerous job, but a common sense middle ground needs to be struck. The question needs to be asked are conditions tenable in areas of the structure that a live victim could survive. If not, then initiation of the attack from the exterior may be warranted; especially as if conditions are not survivable for people, there is also likely little property to save. Conversely, if the answer is yes, an interior attack and search should be started.
There is a significant flaw in the extreme safety position. In their scenario, they allow for entry for rescue of a known victim. The problem is this: where will the entry teams obtain the experience and more importantly, judgment to understand the interior conditions they will be facing in such a high stress and challenge situation if it is as rare as the perfect diamond. In reality, such a process increases the potential for injury or death because such crews would be inherently inexperienced and lacking in situational awareness and—that word again—judgment; something which they can only attain through repetition.
The flaw on the other side is obvious. If conditions are such that the presence of a survivable victim is not possible, and granted, this too is a judgment call, why take the risk? The argument that such a decision can’t be made accurately is ludicrous.
Are there buildings today we go into which we shouldn’t? Absolutely. Is the reverse true? I’ve frustratingly seen more than a few of these as well.
What I would suggest at this juncture is that the rhetoric on this question be dialed back and that we remember we’re all on the same team with the identical desired outcome. That we are talking about these things is good. However, a little common sense and restraint could go a long way in these debates.