Firefighters do nothing and let house burn down because family hadn't paid a fee

[BlaqueKatt]

Either way, it was their HOME and should be treated no differently than a house built with brick and mortar.

except that the materials used to manufacture some of them go up in flames almost 4x as fast and hotter than a brick and mortar, or even standard wood construction single family dwellings. And they only have to comply with Federal(HUD)construction regulations, they are exempt from local and state construction regulations and fire codes.

A family friend died almost two years ago in a fire that burned his manufactured home to the ground in under 15 minutes-from start to finish, it started from the kerosene stove that came pre-installed as a primary heat source. Within 2 minutes of the fire starting all exits were blocked by fire-he had no chance...and he was a fireman, so he had the skills to get out, but couldn't.

sorry: I also deeply, deeply resent ANY notion of, "oh, it's just a trailer." As I said above, it was their home. Pre-fab houses are good, affordable housing for people who live out in the country. I should know...I lived in 'em for 18 years.

and if you weren't so defensive you'd have noticed it was in response to "if they could afford a house...." Just pointing out most people think of "house" as expensive($100k-$200k) single-family dwelling with a $1000 a month mortgage payment-not a $30,000-$50,000 manufactured home.

[HYHYBT]

The faster burn rate makes a difference to the main point, too: by the time the fire truck gets to a mobile home fire, it's almost always going to be too far along for them to save anything anyway.

[dendawg]

The faster burn rate makes a difference to the main point, too: by the time the fire truck gets to a mobile home fire, it's almost always going to be too far along for them to save anything anyway.

And that's supposed to excuse what the firefighters did (or didn't) do??? Grasping at straws there.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I don't know about you, but if all I saw in front of me was a heap of rapidly burning something no longer resembling a structure of any kind, trying to save it would be a pretty moot point.

[AdminAssistant]

*sigh* Again, it's not about saving the structure. It's about putting out the BIG FIRE before it catches something else on fire.

[protege]

except that the materials used to manufacture some of them go up in flames almost 4x as fast and hotter than a brick and mortar, or even standard wood construction single family dwellings. And they only have to comply with Federal(HUD)construction regulations, they are exempt from local and state construction regulations and fire codes.

Yep, some of them really are shit. But, some modular homes are quite nice...not to mention expensive! One of my grandmother's neighbors (a young couple) had a two-story modular home. When they bought their home, the husband worked for a contractor, and knew what to look for. They only signed off on it after checking all their options. Of course, the one they bought was just a bare shell--no siding, no windows/doors, or even interior walls for that matter. It came in four pieces, which required a large crane to assemble.

But, at the other end of the spectrum, many trailers are designed to be as cheap as possible. Because they're also designed to be movable, they have to be as light as possible as well. That's why you won't find them being made from brick and mortar.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

*sigh* Again, it's not about saving the structure. It's about putting out the BIG FIRE before it catches something else on fire.

*sigh* Again, it's much better to CONTAIN something if possible, because it's not worth anyone's LIFE to extinguish it if you don't have to.

That said, mobile homes have their advantages and disadvantages like anything else. But when you get right down to it, most everything requires s certain amount of labor, transportation and raw materials in one form or another and it's less to do with using more or less as it is about ready-to-sell vs. exactly as desired. Either way it blows if it get's burned down, but at least with the mobile/modular the process of replacing it once you have the funds will go much quicker than starting from scratch.

[Hobbs]

I don't know about you, but if all I saw in front of me was a heap of rapidly burning something no longer resembling a structure of any kind, trying to save it would be a pretty moot point.

Let us thank the gods you're not a firefighter then.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Let us thank the gods you're not a firefighter then.

Because I can recognize that something's already been destroyed? and appreciate that trying to save something that's already been destroyed is physically impossible?

Whether or not the blaze constitutes enough of a threat to public safety in order to warrant risking my life/ the lives of others to put it out immediately is an entirely different matter. And IMO it's entirely up to the fire department to decide that, after all, it's their department (in the 'area of expertise' sense, not the other.)

[Hobbs]

<snip>

A firefighter's job is to put out a fire, yes? If we had to wait for every department to assess the value of saving a structure/not saving a structure, half of our cities would be charred cinders.

This next part is meant as a constructive criticism and not in anyway meant to be an attack. I'm not sure what your job is, or your profession, but at times you mention making decisions that are...questionable (in my opinion). For instance, I would not want someone under me, or serving with me, who would take the time to calculate the loss/gain of their actions in the way you seem to. Um, I have more to say, but that's all I can articulate correctly at the moment.

[crashhelmet]

Wingates, where you're wrong in this is that there are so many things that can o wrong in letting a fire continue to burn. The winds could change, something explosive that hadn't yet exploded may go off, not to mention the possibility of toxic fumes released into the air. Even if the house is unsalvageable, a firefighter still puts the fire out.

CH

[Boozy]

Or, in the case of the article linked by the OP, the fire can set something else on fire.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think firefighting is a government service that can reasonably be expected to be based on the "user fee" system. There are just far too many instances where a fire can cause problems for the general public. It's not something that only harms the individual.

Where public safety is a concern, the government needs to provide the service to all citizens equally.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Okay, let's do this in order of responses.

Hobbs, I am not suggesting that all firefighters take a minute to stare at a flame and weigh each and every factor and debate with each other to arrive at a consensus, and then act. That would indeed be very stupid. However, when it comes to things like firefighting that require both speed and organization, such decisions are handled in two ways. First is doctrine/training, in this case, firefighters have a set of prescribed actions for basic situations, varying only across major changes (in this case, perhaps, rural v urban or people inside v no people inside.) Beforehand the weighing is done and the doctrine created for general situations, and the guys filling the boots are trained to act in a specific way based on that. The second is the leadership element. Whilst everyone else is busy getting equipment ready, setting up a perimeter, establishing facts or whatever it's their responsibility to do, the chain of command is free to assess the situation and make changes where necessary. In this way speed is accomplished whilst allowing the whole to, through the leader, make intelligent context-related decisions.

Crashhelmet: What you've just listed are all things that would factor into a certain radius of concern, changing wind will only change the direction of spread if indeed there is any in a different direction and can thus be accounted for, explosives, barring all but the most significant examples, can only extend a fire a certain distance from the location of that explosive, and toxic fumes from any mundane material can be accounted for as does pertain to immediate or imminent threat and as does pertain to long term, well, I don't really give a fuck about long term when it comes to sending people into the fire, literally.

Boozy: I've read a number of different articles on this event. But from only those linked here it's been established that the house caught fire due to a trash fire that got out of control, engulfed the house and was left to burn until it spread to the neighbor's field. It was then that the firefighters stepped in to stop/reverse the spread. In an urban setting, where the average distance between structures is a factor of only a few yards if any, I could see a catch-all extinguish-them-all rule. But in a rural setting, where the structures are many yards apart to where only the original is within the 'danger zone' I just don't see the justification for risking firefighters' lives on what may happen as opposed to what will more or less definitely happen.

[Boozy]

But in a rural setting, where the structures are many yards apart to where only the original is within the 'danger zone' I just don't see the justification for risking firefighters' lives on what may happen as opposed to what will more or less definitely happen.

The average home contains many, many materials that release toxic fumes into the atmosphere when burned. Allowing a fire to continue reduces air quality -- even in rural areas.

As far as putting the firefighters lives at risk, all I can say is that they chose to become firefighters; this is their job. I'm grateful to those that choose to pursue risky careers in service to others, but I'm not going to let them pick and choose who and what is "worth it" or not.

[AdminAssistant]

The average home contains many, many materials that release toxic fumes into the atmosphere when burned. Allowing a fire to continue reduces air quality -- even in rural areas.

As far as putting the firefighters lives at risk, all I can say is that they chose to become firefighters; this is their job. I'm grateful to those that choose to pursue risky careers in service to others, but I'm not going to let them pick and choose who and what is "worth it" or not.

Ah, pshaw, Boozy. Apparently, people in rural areas don't deserve the same public services as those city folk do. Just let the house burn! They shouldn't'a lived in the sticks. Lord knows that in rural areas people don't live next to barns and sheds with things like fertilizer, pesticide, seed, gasoline, propane, farm implements, and other such goodies stored inside. And, I mean, grass never catches fire, particularly in fall when there's less rain and it's a bit dry. And who cares about air quality? Psshhhh. Country folk don't deserve that either.

As I mentioned before, I grew up with a volunteer fire department. Those guys weren't getting paid anything, and they would NEVER sit on the sidelines and let a house burn because, "Oh, we might get hurt." If there was a genuine danger to their safety, such as a house with a known meth lab burning, then they'd put on their masks and make sure the fire didn't spread. Otherwise, they put out the fire. And stayed until they were sure it was out and that any hot spots were taken care of. If volunteers can do that, then surely the paid firefighters can do the same. If not, then they should consider changing careers.