Time to stop training burns?

[EastKyFF]

In light of the tragedy at Lairdsville and this most recent incident (see the firehouse.com main page about 7 injured in NY), is it beyond our risk tolerances to continue burning real dwellings?

Should we confine our live burns to buildings designed for such?

Can we get as much out of those fires as a real house, or more?

[shammrock54]

The outright ban of all non burn building live burns is way over the top. In comparison to the number of live burns conducted yearly in the United States to incidents such as Lairdsville, most are conducted w/o incident and good trainings can result for usualy several depts for one weekend at a house. I think that a possible revision or creation of individual state regulations concerning these types of trainings maybe needed, but to ban live burns and restrict it to academies and burn buildings would robb many depts of needed experience and training of its members ,as well as the interdepartment cooperation that can result from participating in such trainings.

What is needed is common sense and for people to learn from the mistakes and misfortunes of others, NOT taking valuable training away from FFs.

[Steamer]

I don't think stopping live burns in acquired structures is the answer. Using some degree of common sense is a good start. Whether you like NFPA 1403 or not, it just makes sense. It provides a check-off for conducting a drill, so it's not really difficult to follow the requirements. Another step would be to stop unqualified persons from conducting these drills.

One thing that has me thinking a lot is this. If an officer has no more knowledge about fire behavior and fire ground tactics than to be unaware that the floor above the fire is one of the most dangerous locations on a fireground, and that gasoline blows up when it's allowed to vaporize and reaches an ignition source, how in the world can they safely function as an Incident Commander, or an officer at all for that matter??

If I had someone like that in charge, I'd think I'd have to look at a greeters job at Walmart. :rolleyes:

[Adze39]

Perhaps only in Upstate NY :)

[911WACKER]

OK, lets just punish everyone for a isolated few incidents.:eek:

Maybe we should all just bend over and take it like real men or we could use a little common sense. I do not agree that aquired structure use should be banned, however I do think that maybe something should be done to tighten the rules under which they occur.:rolleyes:


The fact is that not all departments have easy access to these "burn buildings" that everyone refers to. Besides that, real structures or aquired structures are far better for "real life training". This of course is providing that the proper prep and saftey measures were taken. Pre-planning and a few extra minutes to ensure saftey is all that is needed, not drastic measures like "banning"!!:D

[NJFFSA16]

Live fire training in acquired structures can be a valuable tool, IF it is done under the control of competent, experienced, knowledgeable officers. One would hope that somewhere in that cranial space they might have some "common sense!" You can not use non SCBA certified "probies" as victims and you can not send untrained firemen into situations without them being accompanied by an instructor or highly experienced firefighter. They're going to get into trouble!

Of course, senior officers, posessing basic knowledge regarding fire behavior, fire spread and the dangers of flammable vapors would also help....as it would seem that the officers involved with the aforementioned incidents lacked those basic skills. IMHO, a 19 or 20 year old officer can not possibly have the experience or fireground maturity to supervise any drills of this nature.

Continue the live training exercises....but do it with some COMPETENT, TRAINED and EXPERIENCED supervision. Follow guidelines. Consider having another departments FAST team in place while the drill is in progress. Keep backup lines charged, in position and at the ready.

Those officers might have been good decision makers under normal conditions, however:

Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm. -Publilius Syrus:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[JTL]

I personally don't like live burns but I think banning them is not the way to proceed. I think the answer is in accountability. If a live burn is conducted it should be done so under the auspices of trained personnel who are responsible. That responsibility should be inclusive of all safety items. Naturally there are ways for errors to occur even if 1403 and common sense is followed. Fighting fire is like combat in that injury and death can come at the most unfortunate time. However, if the live burn goes bad and it is found that standards were not followed, then swift prosecution of those responsible should occur. Just my 3 cents.

Jay

[PuffyNPFD]

Banning live burns is not the answer. There is probably no other truer to life scenario that could prepare veterans and probies alike for what they will face. However, safety is paramount!!!!! The people that are running these trainings should be thoroughly experienced FF's or officers. Live victims should not be used, the overuse of any accelerants should be avoided, accountability should be strict, and handlines and sector safety officers should be utilized. I guess the prevailing attitude among many is that a training burn is a harmless fun activity. wrong!!! The incidents over the past few months have shown us the tragic consequences when a carefree attitude is taken. We don't approach a real structure fire with this attitude, nor should we with a training burn.

[SPFDRum]

Ban Training Burns...
That is not the answer by any stretch of the imagination. Live burn training in aquired structures is essential to the proper training of fire fighters. With-in a couple of burns, I can have the entire layout of a burn building memorized, great for basic training like fire streams, ventilation and ect, but is it a "real world" senario?
The paramount aspects of safety for live burn training are spelled out in NFPA 1403, that's where the burns need to start, not when you show up. Maybe the answer is to ban those fire departments that don't recognize the NFPA standards. We all that won't happen, so the next best thing would be to prosecute those responsible. Reckless homicide/endangerment comes to mind...I hate to be the one to break the bad news, but this job can be dangerous, maybe even deadly. The only way to give us the edge is real world training. If that is to much, stocking shelves a Wal-mart may be in order for some. This isn't a hobby.
You want to take the authority and perks that come with the white helmet, you had better damn well be able to take the responsibility that comes with it.

[prometheusd]

Alright, I haven't even started training yet, but in the past couple weeks I have learned quite a bit regarding common sense. One of the questions I was asked in my oral exam was what would you do if someone in authority asked you to do something you felt was life threatening or you didn't fully comprehend. Does that apply here. Shouldn't someone in both incidents have said, "Wait a minute, I don't think we are all on the same page." or " Sir, I don't believe I have enough experience for this."
All I'm saying is someone should have said something. Even if they get yelled at or something.

God Bless

PD
:rolleyes:

[SilverCity4]

I agree with those that are for live fire training. It is priceless.

So is human life. Therefore, I think we should hold those responsible for these disasters accountable--particularly if they blatantly ignore established standards.

Accidents happen. But a total disregard for safety is no accident.

[JTL]

Shouldn't someone in both incidents have said, "Wait a minute, I don't think we are all on the same page."

Yes! And you don't need to be a 30 year veteran to realize it Pro.

[StayBack500FT]

I feel the only thing that should be banned are unsafe live burn operations.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

If you compare live fire training for FD's with hazardous training conducted in other occupations, very few of those occupations conduct their hazardous duty training without regulations or standards.

NJ was in desperate need of live fire training standards several years ago. A live fire training accident motivated the legislature to have them developed and promulgated. They were pushed by respected fire people in NJ who really cared.

Seems to me that there has to be alot of fire people who care in NYS. Maybe it's time you guys got together to motivate the legislature to enact some standards before anyone else gets hurt.

[Bones42]

All the standards in the world won't matter if they are not followed. Lairdsville is a perfect example. The standards already exist, they just didn't use them. As long as no one gets in trouble for it, why would they worry about it? Thank God that finally someone is being held accountable, although it should be more than one guy. I think that once a few departments get in some trouble for what they do and it is publicized, that will do more to force the issue.

[CHFD-LT]

Yes, all live fire training should be banned, in the state of New York. It seems that fire departments in that state do not know how to put on a safe live burn exercise. They should be banned in that state until every department develops standards and procedures, preferably using NFPA 1403, covering the operation at live burn exercises.

Stopping live fire training will only hurt the fire service. If done properly, following strict safety guidelines, live fire training can be a very effective teaching tool.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I think that is an injustice to say that there isn't a FD in NYS that can run a safe live burn training operation. You don't really believe that do you? If you want to say that all live burn training in NYS should be suspended until safety regulations are adopted I could really agree with you. There are an awful lot of fire fighters in NYS who are committed to safety and would never get involved in a situation like that.

[FFTrainer]

Time to stop training burns?? No, that's not the answer. But stopping contributing factors to training injuries needs to be more of a focus.

1. It's time to stop letting any FF off the street acquire a structure, set it on fire and call it training. There needs to be a uniform level of training for those running the 'show' and it needs to be enforced by things such as applying for live fire training permits and in that application process someone (or more depending on instructor to student ratio) with an instructor cert and a live burn instructor cert needs to put his/her name on the line and take the responsibility of running this exercise safely.

2. Area 2 points right back to us as the FF's operating at the drill. Realize that ANY fire can go bad and can go bad quick. Take away the safety precautions built into some of today's academy burn buildings by using an acquired structure and you are just about learning via the old 'trial and error' method and those errors can and have cost lives. With that being said, we need to ditch the complacency and the 'it's training we don't need to be as serious here as we would be on a scene' attitude. Unfortunately complacency kills FF's. During Fire Prevention lectures we get upset when people don't take us serious and have the attitude of 'this won't ever happen to me' yet we turn around and do it to ourselves on the training ground. I doesn't add up!

Sorry for the preaching, but I guess that's what they made opinions for ;)

[ALSfirefighter]

Thank you George. The problems recently experienced in upstate NY is not a statewide problem. Just as Mercer and Mesa and the accident in NJ didn't mean their respective states were all screwed up. The fact also is NY is a home rule state, just as NFPA with their AHJ blanket statements in regards to certain policies. NYS OFPC has a live burn policy, but it is for their SFI's. While its a respectful idea of the legislature to enact legislation regarding training burns, it can also cause later problems. Today live burns tomorrow something else, and when each chief/department has their own way about everything, I'm willing to bet it would be nothing but headaches. We have a speed limit in NY and a no cell phone while driving law and people still speed and still talk on their phones. The fire service is no different.
For those of you who have read my past posts on this topic, many of you already know that I do not believe in acquired structure live fire training. I'm sure if all injuries related to live burns were actually reported properly the percentages would be much higher. We now have a great sense of awareness in regards to vacant large windowless commercial buildings from the Worcester fatalities, I've seen chiefs on TV and lectures talk about incidents in their areas and not putting firefighters into these buildings and many of us supporting those tactics. However, we still have these fatalities and injuries in training burns regardless of what is supposed to be followed. We have the ability to control these deaths/injuries. It also bothers me to see how much we take note to incidents like Worcester, Houston, and other fatalities that involve tactic type scenarios but many of us still do not have physical training policies or physical training equipment in our firehouses to reduce cardiac illnesses. Burn buildings may not be the most realistic form of live fire training, however it is safer, and controlled. It still allows the basics to be practiced, hose advancement and stream placement. You can also achieve much higher temperatures in a burn building then you can in an acquired structure, much higher then what you will see in your average (I know I hate that word also) structure fire.

[Lewiston2Capt]

I agree with ALSff, live fire training can be held in burn buildings, use the acquired structures for forcible entry, ventilation, overhaul, or anything else you cant do in burn buildings.
As for the people that seem to be making gross generalizations, like I said in the other forum on this topic, you tend to detract from your credibility when you make those statements, not everyone in NY is an imbicile.

[SilverCity4]

ALS and Lewiston (and anyone else),

Is there no circumstance that you think using an acquired structure is appropriate for? How about teaching the basic firefighting skills in burn buildings and using acquired structures as advanced training?

The live burn exercises I have been involved in were overseen by experienced officers and state instructors. Safety was paramount. In fact, I thought we went overboard on safey at the time, but I was REAL green (not that I've got that much time in now LOL). Looking back, I understand the decisions that were made, and if my current department were to do a live burn, I'd have the same concerns.

Give appropriate safety measures, what's wrong with live burns?

[ghettotruckster]

ALMOST 40 BURNS
IN OVER 4 YEARS
NO ACCELERANTS
NO LIVE VICTIMS
------------------
= NO INJURIES........

[gfdtrk4]

I'm with my fellow ghettotruckster

10 years
Approx. 100 burns (in acquired structures)
No accelerants (ever!)
No live victims (ever!)
1 injury (However this "victim" learned (actually "re-enforced") a valuable lesson..... Never, ever put a VERY, VERY hot glove into the fire stream.....just take it off....outside!)....Small burn on hand, due to steam.

Everyone that has attended this training has called it the "Best training" they have ever had.

Just like the Porsche ad says

"Acquired structures.......There is NO substitute!"

[ALSfirefighter]

Ok, I'll try this one more time, thanks to this forum system, I lost the first one I typed due to it said I wasn't "logged on."
Anyway, yes Silver, I believe they can be used for exactly what Lewiston put in his post. They are valuable for Vertical ventilation on a real roof, forcible entry, overhaul, and Search & Rescue. I've also been involved in numerous acquired structure burns when I was an instructor in Virginia, and never had any problems other then routine bumps, scrapes, and a few minor steam burns. However, that still doesn't account for the numerous other fatalities and injuries we have had nationwide over the past 2 decades alone. I still believe that you can have effective live burns in burn buildings. What effect do you get in a acquired structure vs. burn building. We still get rollovers, have "windows" that need to be taken out, and can build up higher temperatures in a controlled environment. Class A materials are class A materials. I don't think many of us can even find a couch that is pure class A. We have panels on our building that simulate wallboard. Our building is also a replica of a residential house, and we have the ability to get high rise live fire training also. Myself, and the guys I work with are products of burn building trained firefighters, and even our probies do just fine on their first actual structure fires. I just still find it ironic that many depts/agencies evaluate themselves and/or their tactics when a fatality occurs and NIOSH issues the report and/or deficiencies, but when they occur in a training burn we hear quotes of "we don't do it that way, we are safe, we follow this, they're just stupid." We can have standards/laws whatever you want, but that won't ensure 100% compliance, banning acquired live fire training will. This isn't just limited to NY either, AZ, MI, and NJ have had incidents with non-burn building live fires that have led to death or injury. The aftermath of NJ's accident led to the ban on using any transportation vehicle for live fire training. Why not add acquired structure to that list and leave it to burn buildings.
On a lighter note, I just wanted to say this is a good forum, honest opinions, questions and answers with bashing, or beligerent tones. This is the way it should be and is a compliment to those of us who attempt to maintain professionalism even during times of disagreement and humor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is my opinion only and doesn't reflect that of any dept/agency I work for, deal with, or am a member of. :D

[truck6alpha]

The standards developed by NFPA Committees are consensus standards- everyone is given a chance to comment on them when they are developed and it always amazes me at the people who complain yet have never bothered to contribute to fixing the problem. Thus the comments I hear about standards being "unrealistic" tend to rub me the wrong way.

There is a standard for live fire burns and I have no idea if it was adhered to in this last case or not, but where I come from, if someone screws up, they should take responsibility for the outcome. I don't care if you're volunteer or career, standards are there to protect us (from ourselves, sometimes it seems) and it amazes me when I hear someone say, "Well, these standards are just too hard to live up to". Well, if that's your philospophy, my suggestion is to get out of the business and leave it those of us that follow the rules and can do the job, especially since these are MINIMUM standards. That goes for fitness standards; otherwise, the heart attack parade is just going to keep on coming. It goes for professional standards; if volunteers are going to keep throwing out the old "we're professionals too", then they should back it up by supporting professional standards across the board. And it goes for safety standards.

I wholeheartedly believe that those of you out there who are volunteers and meeting the standards are truly professionals. And likewise, if you are career and not meeting standards, you are unprofessional. Fire doesn't differentiate between volunteer or career, so therefore the requirements should be similar.

My prayers are with the firefighters that got hurt last week. I don't, however, believe that banning live burns will solve the problem. Getting rid of the leaders who fail to protect their crews and getting rid of people taking shortcuts WILL solve the problem.

Well, let the screaming begin...

[JTL]

everyone is given a chance to comment on them when they are developed and it always amazes me at the people who complain yet have never bothered to contribute to fixing the problem. Thus the comments I hear about standards being "unrealistic" tend to rub me the wrong way.

Good point Mick. As someone who has been involved in the process I believe in what you are saying. Given the opportunity we should all be involved or at least members of every department. The one problem, and others know this as well, is that on some standard committee's, the fire service is not welcomed. That should be a target of the fire service. However, doing nothing but complaining is no excuse. Action is the order of the day. Be a part of what has an effect on the job.

Holding those accountable through the law is also the best way to reinforce the fact that leadership is not a title, but a responsibility.

[LadyCapn]

JTL, could you expand on that? I'm curious as to which committees the fire service is not welcome on, I mean it's not like we don't have a vested interest in just about every standard the National FIRE Protection Association is developing or enhancing.

[SilverCity4]

Alright ALS, we may just may to agree to disagree on this one.

I think burn buildings are great. You can light 'em over and over, the degree of safety is there, and you can train for one story single family dwellings to high rise tactics.

BUT (there's always a "but") what I'm getting from your last post is that we shouldn't allow burns in acquired structures because of injuries and fatalities in them versus burn buildings?

Here's what I'm thinking, and I don't have research to back me up. Burn buildings are generally located in larger municipalities with full time instructors or at state training facilities. Many smaller departments (paid and volunteer) don't have the easy access to them. Therefore, they fall back on acquired structures. Thus, these smaller departments may not have the same level of training or experience that departments with burn buildings have. That, I figure, is where the injuries and fatalities come into play.

Now, I'm not offering up excuses. But I don't think we should ban training in acquired structures just because some people are reckless. I think it does a disservice to those of us that use acquired structures responsibly.

What I think should happen is that stronger penalities should exist for those that wantonly dismiss accepted standards on live fire exercises.

An example: many, many people are killed every year by drunk drivers. Many, many, many more people drink responsibly and DON'T kill anyone. I don't think we should outlaw alcohol just because a few ignore the law. I think we should severely punish those that violate the law as an incentive not to. I know we're talking breaking a law versus not following a standard, but I hope you see my point.

BTW, I have the same problem with the board saying I'm not logged on--copy the text before you hit that "submit" button.

[F52Westside]

We do quite a few training burns, and we DO NOT USE gas, diesal or the like to get the fire going. We use pallets, straw and flares and the fires will get ripping without the use of accelerants, so why use them. There is an arson crew - that sets and monitors the fire's progress, an attack crew - that does the obvious and a backup crew that is in place if an additional line is needed.
Live fire trainings is how I learned to fight fire and I am thankful I had the chance to learn it in a semi-controlled setting and not O.T.J. so to speak.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Eddie, it might be a good idea to refer to them as the "ignition team" in your operational plan and not "arson crew".

[captstanm1]

It is not time to stop training burns. Burns in an acquired structure are very beneficial.

It is time to act mature, use common sense, practice safety, exercise good judgement and use recognized training standards.
Oh yea...I left out one thing....

BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF YOU ARE IN CHARGE AND DONT FOLLOW ACCEPTED NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STANDARDS!

[JTL]

Lady CappyJTL, could you expand on that?

Sure! For example, firefighters who serve on certain committees, are not welcomed because the industry wants their people on them. Business does not like the firefighter participating because we may ask for more stringent standards. This occurs throughout the standards world, not in every standard, but as a general practice. A group of us were told once that you "fire marshals" are a pain in the rear. Perhaps we were but we were advocating safety. So it does occur.

If you need more elaboration I will email you some more specifics.

[ChiefReason]

"From the naturalistic point of view, all men are equal. There are only two exceptions to this rule of naturalistic equality: geniuses and idiots".
Mikhail Bakunin

Clearly knowing which category that I fall in to, I believe that banning live burns for the reason stated would be like banning driving for everyone because some idiot can't obey the traffic laws!
Establish the rules; then follow the rules(geniuses). If you break the rules; then expect to be held accountable(idiots).
Someone please tell me: what is the difference between an arsonist who sets a fire and as a result, a firefighter dies while attempting to suppress it or a firefighter who sets a fire and as a result, a firefighter dies? Without bringing in the other issues involved with arson as a crime, the bottom line is that, in both examples, a fire was intentionally set and a firefighter died as a result. The arsonist will be charged with aggravated circumstances because of the firefighter death, but for some reason, the firefighter who set the fire believes that accidents happen; that our profession is dangerous, even when we train. Forget the fact that he used a high octane cocktail to start it and then fed it with furniture with a petroleum base and all the while, proclaiming that he didn't know what he was doing. All he knows is that he was following orders and someone else should pay for his stupidity. What a load of crap!
Many think that national standards for live burn training isn't possible. Maybe we aren't looking at it from the right direction. Maybe we should be looking at it from the direction of the insurance companies. Perhaps they could offer help in getting everyone in this country on the same training page. Just a thought.
The bottom line is that I am tired of feeling SAD AND ANGRY.
We have to find a way to turn the idiots into geniuses. AND FAST.
Just my opinion; I could be wrong.
Please find a way to be safe!

[JTL]

Reason: Where have you been?



Someone please tell me: what is the difference between an arsonist who sets a fire and as a result, a firefighter dies while attempting to suppress it or a firefighter who sets a fire and as a result, a firefighter dies?

Actually we are getting into the philosophical realm here. The arsonist is getting some sort of gratification from his handiwork, be it power, sex, etc. While certainly some firefighters could be included here, I don't believe that Bobby Joe, the training officer, is necessarily benfitting from the act of setting the fire.

George where are you??? Give us some guidance here.




Perhaps they could offer help in getting everyone in this country on the same training page.

Perhaps so Chief. Money hurts and that is a fact. However ignorance surpasses all fines.



The bottom line is that I am tired of feeling SAD AND ANGRY.

Same here brother!

[FireFighterMO]

If live burns stop because of this, then the Army's Basic Training should stop too. I hear a few trainees have died in the past. (nevermind the fact that they're training for WAR)
Maybe they should stop the driving part of the Driver's License Test?
What about all of those cops who practice shooting guns? I know that's dangerous.
I guess Lifeguards could stop swimming too.

Chief Reason, I have to agree with you on this one.

[Temptaker]

Before you read this please understand I am not trying to start a discussion about vol vs paid FF. It is just what is done here, and it seems to work.

Several years ago the Justice Institute of BC (JI) implemented standards for vol depts. The JI is one of a hand full of fire academies that are recognised by our province for FF training. The training itself is not conducted at the academy, it is done within the jurisdiction of the Vol dept, by a group of experienced FF's (10+ yrs) from Loc 18. They go out, spend the day with these guys, make sure beyond any reasonable doubt that they know what they should be doing, and what they should do incase there is a problem. Then they do the burn. The FF's that go out are the ones that are in command of the scene. To my knowledge there has only been one serious injury that has happened at one of these training exercises, and it was because of a refusal to follow orders. The guy ended up having a small tree fall on him, and came out of it with a broken collar bone.

I'm not saying its perfect, but is it possible?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

George where are you??? Give us some guidance here.

Oh sure, somebody asks the tough arson question and all of a sudden everybody looks to the bullpen for the big righty from Jersey.

Someone please tell me: what is the difference between an arsonist who sets a fire and as a result, a firefighter dies while attempting to suppress it or a firefighter who sets a fire and as a result, a firefighter dies?

I can only speak for Jersey law. In NJ, it is necessary to have a purposely set fire to get an arson charge. After that, the motivation of the firesetter actually determines the degree of the charge. If the fire is not purposely set, it is still possible to charge someone with criminal mischief if the fire purposely or knowingly damages tangible property of another and it was recklessly or negligently set.

The death actually has little or nothing to do with it. There is a seperate charge of Felony Murder when a death occurs as a result of the commission of another crime. For example, I investigated a case where a moron set an old bus on fire. A Security Guard attempted to put out the fire and had an MI and died. The homeless maggot who set the fire was also charged with Felony Murder.

I know that in many states, a death will be a factor which elevates the degree of the arson charge. However, in states like Jersey, where the statutes are based on Common Law, that is not the case.

That being said, one of the problems I had in the Parsippany case was getting the fire to fit into one of the statutes. Yeah, I had an intentionally set fire, but I had no intent to harm anyone or destroy any property. Yeah, fire was used in a reckless or negligent manner, but it would be kind of hard to argue that the FD purposely or knowingly damaged the property. Besides, the property belonged to them.

From a practical standpoint, they are vastly different. From an emotional standpoint, the fire fighter who sets this type of fire is far worse, because he SHOULD have known better and SHOULD be held to a higher standard.

Please note, that laws in other states are probably different and there may be another side to this. I am speaking only of New Jersey law.

[JTL]

Thanks George. that helps me in my understanding and I agree with: From an emotional standpoint, the fire fighter who sets this type of fire is far worse, because he SHOULD have known better and SHOULD be held to a higher standard.

Thanks for the response.

[ChiefReason]

JTL:
Been pretty busy as of late. I have only had time to read the threads; haven't had the time until now to respond.
In my mind, a fire that is intentionally set, regardless of the motive, that injures or kills a public safety official should carry a serious penalty; period!
George:
I have a good working knowledge of the basis for a charge of arson. If there needs to be other factors in order to charge a person for setting a fire for the purpose of training that results in the death of the firefighter, how about "impersonating a training officer" or even "impersonating a fire officer". I think that that is a crime!
All too often, you have people involved with acquired structure burns who don't have a basic knowledge of fire behavior setting fires for practice. Add to that a certain desire on the parts of some to give the newbies the impression that they have set huge fires a million times and you get firefighters dying in practice burns. There seems to be the end goal of misleading the newbies into believing that they will only be fighting the more glamorous, large structural fires, so setting the big fires is necessary. Smoke machines or small fires in half-barrels using proper fuels will not yield the desired results, which is to daze and amaze the newbies. It is that mentality that is killing firefighters and along with it, the practice of live burn training.
I truly believe that if firefighters aren't allowed to hold practice burns that follow the same principles of the nation's fire colleges, more firefighters will be injured or killed. Not everyone can take off of work to go to fire college. Consequently, we have to simulate that type of training during evening hours during the week or on weekends. IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY! We have to remember that it is a crime in this country to knowingly allow a hazard to exist that causes the injury or death of a person. I think in the most recent training deaths, hazards were present that were not addressed. Care was not taken to minimize the safety risks. As a result, someone died, while others were seriously injured. The person responsible for insuring safety must be held accountable. That is a fact.
Why is it that the only thing we learn from a firefighters' death is how to throw a better funeral? We are constantly reminding ourselves, that with each new firefighter death, we are smarter than that. And yet, the body count continues to rise.
Apparently, we are giving ourselves too much credit.
Just my opinion; I could be wrong.
Stay safe.

[sfdlt5]

I myself dont believe taht stopping live burn training in aquired houses should be stopped. I do believe that, that is one real good way to get realistic training. I also know that currently in Oneida county we are not even allowed to burn anything in the training towers either. Thanks to the recent accidents.

I feel taht if you dont get a little live fire training that when you get put in a real fire you will panic. Not saying all will, but training is the only way to know for sure.

[F52Westside]

I wrote - There is an arson crew - that sets and monitors the fire's progress, an attack crew - that does the obvious and a backup crew that is in place if an additional line is needed.

George writes - Eddie, it might be a good idea to refer to them as the "ignition team" in your operational plan and not "arson crew".


I think that is a good idea George, I will let the boss know.

Thanks

:D

[SPFDRum]

I also know that currently in Oneida county we are not even allowed to burn anything in the training towers either. Thanks to the recent accidents.
Holy smokes sfdlt5, that's like getting a drivers license with out ever having to drive... With recruits like that, stay low and watch your back Brother!:eek:

[CaptainGonzo]

I learned a lot from doing live fire training in an acquired structure...my Recruit class at the Massachusetts Firefighting Academy was the last one to actually to live fire training in an acquired structure. There are some things you just can't experience in a concrete burn building.

When it comes to live fire training in an acquired structure, common sense should prevail....

NFPA 1403 should be followed..it's not expensive, only $24 for members, $26.75 for non members...funerals and lawsuits cost a hell of a lot more!

NO LIVE "VICTIMS"!!! (a training dummy can be made with some old hose and a pair of coveralls!)


All hazmats should be removed from the structure prior to training.

NO LIVE "VICTIMS"!!!

No flammable liquids or furniture!

NO LIVE "VICTIMS"!!!

Experienced fire officers who have a clue to what they are doing should be placed in charge of safety.

NO LIVE "VICTIMS"!!!

No fires are to be lit without charged lines in place.

NO LIVE "VICTIMS"!!!

To paraphrase a MasterCard commercial...

A copy of NFPA 1403....$27
An old pair of coveralls.... $25
some junk hose.... $50

Knowing that you are training your personnel safely....Pricele$$

[Temptaker]

Capt Gonzo... priceless and perfect :)

sfdlt5,

That is really SCAREY!!! How do they expect that new recruits are going to have a clue, and NOT panic when they have to go into an actual fire situation, if you can't even burn in the tower? Do the decision makers in your neck of the woods have some power over fires that none of the rest of us know about? I think the next time you have to go to a fire, you should ask your dispatch to call them and tell them to come down, since they seem to think it isn't something that you need REAL training for maybe they'd like to give it a shot!!!

Hopefully you work with experienced people. Stay safe.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I have a good working knowledge of the basis for a charge of arson. If there needs to be other factors in order to charge a person for setting a fire for the purpose of training that results in the death of the firefighter, how about "impersonating a training officer" or even "impersonating a fire officer". I think that that is a crime!

Perceptually, I agree with you. If stupidity, ignorance and incompetence were crimes, we'd have to wall off entire states as prisons.

All too often, you have people involved with acquired structure burns who don't have a basic knowledge of fire behavior setting fires for practice. Add to that a certain desire on the parts of some to give the newbies the impression that they have set huge fires a million times and you get firefighters dying in practice burns. There seems to be the end goal of misleading the newbies into believing that they will only be fighting the more glamorous, large structural fires, so setting the big fires is necessary. Smoke machines or small fires in half-barrels using proper fuels will not yield the desired results, which is to daze and amaze the newbies. It is that mentality that is killing firefighters and along with it, the practice of live burn training.

I couldn't possibly agree with you more. Interestingly, I started a thread on this very subject awhile back and the popular opinion was that this type of knowledge was not necessary when compaered to "experience". How wrong they are.

IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY!

Amen.

Why is it that the only thing we learn from a firefighters' death is how to throw a better funeral? We are constantly reminding ourselves, that with each new firefighter death, we are smarter than that. And yet, the body count continues to rise.

Here's where I stir up some crap. I believe part of the reason is we are giving ourselves toomuch credit. Part of the reason is we, as a profession refuse to change. Part of the reason is that there is too damn much romanticism of the dangers of this job and too little emphasis on doing the job right and safely. Even if it means writing off the building and letting it burn.

[sfdlt5]

Hey Temptaker:)

Well Iam somewhat lucky to have about 6 other guys with experience with real fire. WE also have an excellent nieghboring dept. with some great guys also. We are lucky that we all can work together with out any problems. I am very scared that without being able to put probies into real fire, moer tragedies may accur. I hope that they find a way to change the rules back. We should not all be punished cause of others ignorance.

The people who made the no burn rule are the county coordinators. They do come to most fires. Usually they sit on the back of a truck and drink coffe and talk with old buddies. What kind of help is that.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

[Temptaker]

sfdlt5

Typical.. the people who make the rules don't have a clue. I'm impressed that they actually show up at fires. Try handing them a hose next time and asking them if they want to help, if they say I'm not trained for this, smile and say neither are any of my probies thanks to your rule. :)

At least you have experienced guys to work with. Can't even imagine the 'pucker factor' if you didn't.

Maybe someone else knows how to get these guys to wake up... Chief Reason... Capt Gonzo... JTL... George

Temp

[ChiefReason]

sfdlt5:
Exactly, what is a county coordinator? Why do they go to the fires?
Are they elected or appointed? Do they have any fire service experience? I might be able to offer some suggestions if I know the functions of county coordinators.
As you may know, I am a strong supporter of acquired structure burns for practice, but they must be done safely.
Where I come from, they actually serve two purposes; 1) The property owner saves a bundle on demolition and 2) Invaluable live burn training for newbies and vets alike. Our department has been involved in over 100 live burns and NO SERIOUS INJURIES! Band aid cases, yes; no maydays; no close calls and the reason is simple; if the building starts to get away from us, we set up defensive tactics school. We will not risk it for a practice burn, period.
Experienced people from our department, state instructors and friends from career departments help out and it pays in spades.
What I would suggest is that someone from your fire college comes and speaks with your county coordinators. They may convince them that live burns can be done safely and are a very important segment of the learning experience for firefighters.
Countless numbers of live burns are being done all over the country. Most are being done without incident, but unfortunately, the few that go wrong are the ones that make the headlines. It's important to know about the ones that go wrong, but it is wrong to ban them because a department didn't follow acceptable practices to insure safety. And they can be done safely. The record of my department speaks for itself. We didn't get there by relying on Lady Luck. We got there by following safe practice.
Get back to me on my questions. They almost sound like trustees. I have some experience with them.
Stay safe.

[ALSfirefighter]

sfdlt5, I feel for you brother. Our county coordinators are pretty proactive, and know their place...to assist the IC with mutual aid and resources. What you coordinators did was overy drastic. The only way I could slightly agree with them is if they realized they had no SOG's for any type of live burn. However, if they stopped them it wouldn't take anymore then 3 days to write a county policy, have it checked by legal and distributed. And I'm being conservative in my opinion on time, it doesn't take much to write a policy that says you will follow NFPA 1403 at all times. Hope it all works out for you guys soon. No live fire training is absolutely ridiculous. Kinda like taking a driving test without every driving a car, or swim lessons without ever going into the water.

FirefighterMO made good points of other "dangerous" training operations that help support my opinion of anti-acquired structure live fire training. Yes, the military trains men and women for war, in very controlled situations, just like police officers on a range, controlled. The military and PD's don't have their guys shooting at each other, yes fatalities happen, and usually do to a stupid act or accident, and the military investigates them very tediously to change things or reprimand people. That is one of the reasons I believe in live fire training, but only in burn buildings. Regardless of what you do, no one should die during training.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is my opinion only and doesn't reflect that of any dept/agency I work for, deal with, or am a member of. :D

[Funkyfire13]

Just a little more info from Oneida county, or to many in the fire service the home of incompetent fireman. The Ban on buring so speak is actually more of a reaction to the pending legle action as a result of the lairdsville incident....it is not a set ban on burning as there have been departments in the county that have continued to do live burns of some sort. As it pertains to the towers, what has come done is a sog from the county levle that needs to be reviewed and singed off on by the department chief....it does allow for the burning of hay in a barrle for smoke purposes but that is about it. Having been part of a a handfull of live burn traingings myself, i belive that they are a essential part of what we do. How are u supposed to be able to perform your job if u are not trained in how to do it. As for the County co-ordinators they are appointed i belive by the County's Board of legislators or the Head of the county's emergency services. ANd yes they are quite famous for coming to a call...they only respond to multi agency fires, and sipping on there coffe while wearing only a fire coat for gear....and most people are afraid to approach them to put on more gear as they fear that they are of a higher power, when even if they are on the scene the incident commander is still in charge. The bigger problem here is still the shape of the fire system in NYS and the districts that have fire commisioners....Hopefully the state will step up to the plate and realize that they need to be more pro active and help the rest of us and not just FDNY.

[truck6alpha]

Anyone read the latest regarding the Lairdsville incident? This comes straight from the article:

“It’s definitely a jury case,” Moran said. “All I’m looking for is 12 people with common sense and they’ll do the rest. He’s a volunteer and you can’t really hold him to a professional standard.

NOW you see what upsets me about this and every other volunteer/career issue. We're all "professional" until someone has to take responsibility. THEN the standard is too hard to meet.

We're either in or out of the pool here- if you consider yourself a professional (career OR volunteer), then you've got to say, "Hey, we have standards in the industry and we're going to use them." You can't pick and choose and still do the job.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

“It’s definitely a jury case,” Moran said. “All I’m looking for is 12 people with common sense and they’ll do the rest. He’s a volunteer and you can’t really hold him to a professional standard.

Oh My God.

Gonz...you have been in contact with this guy. Is it worth setting the volunteer fire service back 30 years to get his client off.

[TCFire]

I think the prohibition on live burns that is being referred to by sfdlt5 is a result of a memo from NYS OFPC (Office of Fire Prevention and Control). I just received the memo from our County Fire Coordinator (don't have it with me) and it basically states that OFPC is prohibiting any live burn, whether in an acquired structure or in a Training Tower Burn room, unless the people in charge have had the 2 OFPC Live Burn Safety training classes offered by NYS. Once these requirements have been met, NFPA 1403 is the rule of thumb at a live burn. This is a direct result of the Lairdsville incident and the other recent explosion that occurred during training.

My own company routinely conducts live burns in the County burn room, as well as any structure we or our surrounding companies may have acquired. We've never had an injury to speak of and have always erred on the side of safety. We have now suspended live burns until our officers have met the safety training requirements....CYA.

Word on the street also has it that NYS has hired over a dozen new investigators for PESH (NYS version of OSHA as NYS is not an OSHA state) that are specifically targeting Fire Dept's due to the recent deaths that have occurred in training and at actual emergency's.

I have no doubt that there will be Dept's/Companies that will have to be dragged kicking and screaming (and paying fines) into the 21st century the hard way. And thanks to statements like Mr Moran's there will probably still be some who think that rules and standards apply to everyone but them.

[glowpop]

My experience with live burns done in accordance with NFPA 1403 is the same as others on this thread.

I have also found that two types of live burn training are different than that offered at Concrete burn structures. PPV in the attack mode and Class A foam just don't react the same way as they do in an acquired structure.

Mr. Moran if your still monitoring this forum, you're doing a disservice to the fire service in general. Although I know that this is not your job; your job is to plead the case of your client. Lord knows that that would probably require him to admit that he was not qualified to hold the position that he had or to admit that he made mistakes, both of which he is not likely to do.

Here in PA good has come of the Lairdsville incident. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality requires that all training fires receive an "Open Burning Exception" permit from them prior to any such fires. The State Fire Academy in conjuction with the State Fire Commissioner and DEP, has just required that all live burns submit this application to the local Educational Training agency as well as the DEP 45 days in advance of the training dates. This exception may be disapproved by the State Fire Academy Supervisor if he/she feels that the purposes of, and the drill objectives do not meet certian criteria, which basically is NFPA 1403. This new procedure requires that all acquired structural burns are conducted by certified state fire instructors and that the training must be a part of the State Fire Academy local level training program. It also requires the signature of the "Responsible Fire Chief". The form and information can be downloaded from www.osfc.state.pa.us See proactive change is possible when the right people recognize when and how it should be accomplished. Congrats to Commissioner Mann and those at the PA State Fire Academy for accomplishing this!

[ChiefReason]

It sounds as if Mr. Moran is going to lead the fine folks in New York to believe that volunteer departments are not capable or qualified to conduct live burn training without someone being seriously injured or killed. Mr. Moran would lead us to believe that volunteer departments should be held to another standard when conducting live burns. Is there anything wrong with NOT conducting them if you cannot meet NFPA 1403? Is there anything wrong with asking your state for qualified instructors when undertaking such an exercise?
I am starting to get upset; I will see you all over at the "Lairdsville Revisited" thread. Got some things to get off my chest.
Bradley Golden deserves better.

[truck6alpha]

Actually, Mr. Moran is the lawyer. I pulled the quote from an article www.withthecommand.com got off of a news wire. Let me get the link for you all.

[truck6alpha]

Here it is, fresh from the Utica Observer-Dispatch, the current events:

http://www.uticaod.com/news/daily/local1.htm

[CaptainGonzo]

George...

Bob Moran (or should it be MORON) has not contacted me...after seeing his opening argument in his defense of Alan Baird, if he did contact me, I would unleash a torrent of hatred upon his sorry butt.

He has the unmitigated audacity to feign ignorance of the standards, then state that that because his client is a volunteer, that he should not have to meet the standards. In one statement, he has set the entire fire service back 30 years, not just the volunteer sector!

In a way, I'm glad this is not on Court TV... it would have cost me some serious dinero! I would have thrown something through my set in the family room...then gone upstairs to watch on the set in the bedroom and throw something through that one, then into my son's room and probably thrown something through that one, too!

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Sorry Gonzo, I think Imixed you up with mongo.