An offensive fire attack in a vacant building can offer both advantages and serious drawbacks. You honestly do not know the building is 100% vacant until the primary search has been completed. One key benefit is the potential to quickly suppress the fire, limiting its spread to adjacent occupied structures and reducing overall damage. It may also provide a real world training opportunity for firefighters. However, the risks often outweigh the benefits. Vacant buildings may have compromised structural integrity, concealed hazards, or unpredictable layouts, increasing the danger to firefighters. Additionally, the absence of known occupants weakens the justification for aggressive interior operations. if injuries occur in such a setting, it can lead to public scrutiny and questions about risk management.

You make a good point, an offensive attack in a vacant building can offer some benefits, such as quickly stopping fire spread and protecting exposures, but the risks are significant. Structural instability, hidden dangers, and potential for rapid collapse make these operations especially hazardous. Without confirmed life safety concerns, committing crews to an aggressive interior attack may not be justified. Vacant buildings often have limited salvage value, and the conditions inside are unpredictable. Firefighter safety must remain the top priority, and a defensive strategy is often the more prudent choice unless there is clear justification for going offensive. Careful size-up is essential.