3 ms·

> And here we are in modern times where we do, indeed, let buildings burn. The linked article aside, letting buildings burn down is in fact standard procedure

> And here we are in modern times where we do, indeed, let buildings burn. The linked article aside, letting buildings burn down is in fact standard procedure for fire fighters. A sufficiently dense fire is extremely hard to stop as long as it can fuel itself and a controlled burn down is often the only reasonable way to end a fire. It's not like anything would be recoverable in any case.

leetrout 4y ago
Yes and no. Defensive operations on an active fire ground are standard operating procedures; no argument. But most departments do not operate the way this department in Tennessee does where they did not run the call when it was received because the caller was not on their participant list. They would have likely encountered a brush fire or, at most, a room and contents fire from the structures closest exposure based on the story and they would not have let it just freely burn.
- constantcrying 4y ago
  I am absolutely not defending whatever happened in that article. Truly a bizarre situation. Where I live firefighters certain actions will require a fee (obviously not paid to the firefighters), like pumping out a cellar or felling a tree on private land which is not threatening any property, but actually not fighting a fire when it would be easily possible would be unthinkable.
jasonhansel 4y ago
I would hope, at least, that firefighters would always prioritize saving lives over saving property.
- constantcrying 4y ago
  Yes. And these duties can easily conflict (in which case preservation of life always has priority). Another reason to let a house burn is because there are still firefighters in there, searching for people. The clothing of firefighters (at least the Nomex based used here) is extremely good at insulating from heat, but looses almost all protection the moment it gets wet, as the water starts boiling. Obviously that is extremely dangerous for the wearer. This means that often saving lives and saving property can not be done simultaneously. Some time ago here there was a report about house ownwers getting upset at firefighters for just standing around "doing nothing", while their property burned, which happened exactly for the reason outlined above.

leetrout 4y ago

Yes and no. Defensive operations on an active fire ground are standard operating procedures; no argument. But most departments do not operate the way this department in Tennessee does where they did not run the call when it was received because the caller was not on their participant list. They would have likely encountered a brush fire or, at most, a room and contents fire from the structures closest exposure based on the story and they would not have let it just freely burn.

constantcrying 4y ago
I am absolutely not defending whatever happened in that article. Truly a bizarre situation. Where I live firefighters certain actions will require a fee (obviously not paid to the firefighters), like pumping out a cellar or felling a tree on private land which is not threatening any property, but actually not fighting a fire when it would be easily possible would be unthinkable.

jasonhansel 4y ago

I would hope, at least, that firefighters would always prioritize saving lives over saving property.

constantcrying 4y ago
Yes. And these duties can easily conflict (in which case preservation of life always has priority). Another reason to let a house burn is because there are still firefighters in there, searching for people. The clothing of firefighters (at least the Nomex based used here) is extremely good at insulating from heat, but looses almost all protection the moment it gets wet, as the water starts boiling. Obviously that is extremely dangerous for the wearer. This means that often saving lives and saving property can not be done simultaneously. Some time ago here there was a report about house ownwers getting upset at firefighters for just standing around "doing nothing", while their property burned, which happened exactly for the reason outlined above.