Wow!!!

[CVFD5342]

Anybody with a few free mintues take a look at the slide show of the fire in Ohio in which a Firefighter had to "leap" from a 3rd floor window. Maybe its just me but Picture #8 really concerns me. I dont know the whole story of course but it doesnt look very good.

[gunnyv]

Wow, that took 24 hrs longer than I thought it would, for one of the "safety nazis" to rip on a guy working outside the building for not wearing turnout pants.

You know, there are other depts that work inside the building without turnout pants, mostly on the west coast. Without knowing the dept in question's SOPs, tactical assignments, and strategy, I wouldn't be so quick to criticize.

[CVFD5342]

Like i siad i dont know the whole story it just was quite surprising to me

[columbusfire]

were are the pic's ?????? can you give me the link?

[gunnyv]

The slideshow link is at the top of the page at this link

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=46480

[pkfd7505]

Never thought I would hear someone call someone else a Nazi for being safe. SOGs and SOPs aside, if your working a fire you should have gear on, that is what the fire department buys it for right? He wasen't "ripping" on the guy, he made an observation, an intelligent one at that.

[phillipmc]

Working a fire without proper protection in my opinion is just wrong at our dept if your not wearing full gear you dont go into the "hot zone" simple as that.

[gunnyv]

at our dept if your not wearing full gear you dont go into the "hot zone" simple as that.

That's the point-your dept. All I'm saying is that we don't know the reason why he's not wearing full gear. The picture could have been taken at the overhaul stage, and he was only working outside the building. You will notice that all the firefighters going into or coming out of the building are in full turnouts and SCBA. Maybe we should go back to the thread about the pump operator wearing full PPE in case the pumper explodes :rolleyes:

[ChicagoFF]

Working a fire without proper protection in my opinion is just wrong at our dept if your not wearing full gear you dont go into the "hot zone" simple as that.
We go in everyday with no pants (bunker pants, that is :D ). No problems with it.

[mcaldwell]

We go in everyday with no pants (bunker pants, that is :D ). No problems with it.


But we all know Chicago FF's are a crazy bunch. :p :D

I don't condone partial gear in the hot zone either, but I also admit that as a Chief, if I roll up to scene behind a fully crewed 2-engine response to assume command, I don't always don my pants and boots. I wear my jacket and helmet and my gloves are in my pocket, but if I was required to assist with ops, I would jump into my pants.

It looked like this guy was venting or at least evaluating up close, and to me, that should get full dress.

[jerrygarcia]

Quote:

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A Columbus firefighter was forced to jump from a burning home overnight.

The fire forced two college students from their apartment on Clinton Street at about 12:45 a.m. Wednesday, NBC 4's Marshall McPeek reported.

The residents were planning to report an electrical problem to the landlord Wednesday morning so they went out for the evening.

"They said they were having trouble with the electric. It actually went off a few hours before this fire," the battalion chief on the scene said.

When the residents returned home, they found two fire companies, dozens of firefighters and flames shooting from their apartment.


"We had to get a lot of fire lines in there quickly and a result, we kind of ran out of water pretty fast before we could get a hydrant hooked up. For a few seconds, we ran out of water," he said.

The fire was so strong that a firefighter was forced to jump from a third-floor window, McPeek reported.

"One of the guys had to bail out of the third-floor window, dropped down, hung out and just dropped down onto the porch. He's alright. In fact, he went back in and did some more firefighting after that," that battalion chief said.

No injuries were reported.



The above quote is the issue you all are missing. Forget for now about the PPE issue. Is this not a glaring tactical error in your eyes?

I could care less about the guy without bunkers, you don't know what was happening at the time. I would have someone's a$$ if they charged multiple lines off a tank without the backup of a 'working hydrant'. Notice the use of the term 'working'. Just because there is a hydrant close, doesn't mean it has water.

It is working rule of thumb here, and should be everywhere, that you charge '1' line, your company officer's, on tank water until a water source is secured if not before. "A lot of fire lines", just my guess that 2-3 were charged on tank water. You run the risk of putting all in danger, especially your officer if that is who has your line when they run out of water really quick.

I don't know how their department is SOP'd, but I think there should be discipline involved for the officer and operator of that first due engine that made that type of decision.

This post is not meant to be inflammatory, but thought provoking. Look at the forest, not the first tree that isn't wearing bunkers.

:cool:

[jerrygarcia]

Talking about killing a thread, did I do it by mentioning non-bandwagon stuff?

:cool:

[mcaldwell]

Talking about killing a thread, did I do it by mentioning non-bandwagon stuff?

:cool:

Murderer. :cool:

Actually that was an astute observation you made there, and I would tend to agree with you. I didn't spend enought time studying the article and slideshow to put the whole scene together, but it is probably be worth a second look.

It sure would be concerning to run an interior crew off just tank water if you did in fact have other lines operating.

[Bones42]

Talking about killing a thread Yes, please don't let firefighting tactics be discussed on this forum anymore. ;) By the way, if it was Black gear, he would have been Ok. :cool:

[Ladder27]

I may be wrong, but it appears to me the FF in slide 8 is working on a roof. If this is the case then there is absolutely no excuse for not wearing full gear. I won't even mention an airpack as Ill probably be compared to the Hitler of safety. To those who think this is excusable - What would your reaction be if I told you that was the only gear that FF was issued? Would you not blast the municipality for not providing its FF's with the necessary equipment? Why fight for proper equipment and training and then use neither? As far as the water situation, Jerry is right on the money. One line should be charged off tank water. The others should be stretched if manpower permits, but you cannot expect to supply multiple lines at a structure fire with tank water.

[columbusfire]

he probally was an outside ladderman i'm guessing probally the driver not the tillerman. As long as he was not entering the house i see nothing wrong with it. If it's o.k with him why not. It may not follow the sop's but those are just guide lines "in some people's eyes"....well that's how most people veiw them. Air tank?? I think there is no need for a bottle he's only on the front porch not the roof and it looks like the fire in knocked down at thiis point. If he was on the roof i would say full ppe. As for multiple hand lines there where 5 engine companies there ...so they all did not come off the same truck welcome to the big city

[MemphisE34a]

he probally was an outside ladderman i'm guessing probally the driver not the tillerman. As long as he was not entering the house i see nothing wrong with it. If it's o.k with him why not. It may not follow the sop's but those are just guide lines "in some people's eyes"....well that's how most people veiw them. Air tank?? I think there is no need for a bottle he's only on the front porch not the roof and it looks like the fire in knocked down at thiis point. If he was on the roof i would say full ppe. As for multiple hand lines there where 5 engine companies there ...so they all did not come off the same truck welcome to the big city
I don't think the attire in this situation is a big deal. We really don't know at what stage the incident was in by looking at a single picture frame. Personally, I think taking a window from the exterior without bunker pants is okay.

I do have to agree however, that if multiple handlines are necessary, a permanent water supply should have been established. This is the perfect example why. Even multiple lines from multiple apparatus resulted in a time period that "we ran out of water temperarily", most likely resulting in whatever occured that caused this guy to bail.

[jerrygarcia]

he probally was an outside ladderman i'm guessing probally the driver not the tillerman. As long as he was not entering the house i see nothing wrong with it. If it's o.k with him why not. It may not follow the sop's but those are just guide lines "in some people's eyes"....well that's how most people veiw them. Air tank?? I think there is no need for a bottle he's only on the front porch not the roof and it looks like the fire in knocked down at thiis point. If he was on the roof i would say full ppe. As for multiple hand lines there where 5 engine companies there ...so they all did not come off the same truck welcome to the big city

My point was only about water supply. So for multiple handlines from multiple engine companies, multiple water supplies? I don't mind the first engine gaining a water supply, then feeding a second engine with handlines off of both, but as a driver of that rig, I would want to make sure that the officer on the line has the benefit of an independent water source. My officer, my line? I'd bring my own water. What is the use of pulling up to a working fire without water?

Welcome to the big city? Is there a difference in little city water and tactics as opposed to 'big' city water and tactics? I work on an aggressive interior department in a 'big' city. Might not be as big as yours or maybe bigger, but I still work in the busiest section in town and that comment wouldn't hold water. Wait a minute(about as long as they had water), they didn't have any.

:cool:

[ehs7554]

he probally was an outside ladderman i'm guessing probally the driver not the tillerman. As long as he was not entering the house i see nothing wrong with it. If it's o.k with him why not. It may not follow the sop's but those are just guide lines "in some people's eyes"....well that's how most people veiw them. Air tank?? I think there is no need for a bottle he's only on the front porch not the roof and it looks like the fire in knocked down at thiis point. If he was on the roof i would say full ppe. As for multiple hand lines there where 5 engine companies there ...so they all did not come off the same truck welcome to the big city

The big city? Yeah I agree with Jerry, water is the same from small towns to big cities. Now you could argue tactics all day as both your dept and Jerry's are about the smae size.....I believe. But still, where did it say they deployed lines from various rigs. The point is, they ran out of water as a result of having too many lines out with no secured water source. If you go that route you are better off shooting from the grass. Don't put guys at risk because you think you can get it done on one tank. Secure your water source before you deploy additional lines. Last, when you notice your tank level is low, pull out your men. One house isn''t worth a life.

[columbusfire]

What i meant by the Big City is the amount of guys that are on scene in a matter of minutes. I know there where differant lines coming off differant trucks ..i'm not on that unit, but i talked with an officer that was there that night. As for getting water according to are sop's it's the 2nd engine to get the plug and relay pump so that if one engine breaks down the other can still pump. Jerry what city do you work for??? I was not tring to insult anyone for the BIg City line

[jerrygarcia]

I work for Kansas City, MO. KCFD My first in district is approx. 4 square miles. We usually have 20-25 firefighters on scene within 4 minutes in our area of town. I understand SOP's are different for every community and department. Our department has minimum 4 staffing on pumpers and first due to a 'working fire' brings water with them. Sure it might be passed on to the next incoming pumper on a 'nothing showing' initial report.

:cool:

[firepics]

Originally posted by columbusfire
he probally was an outside ladderman i'm guessing probally the driver not the tillerman. As long as he was not entering the house i see nothing wrong with it. If it's o.k with him why not. It may not follow the sop's but those are just guide lines "in some people's eyes"....well that's how most people veiw them. Air tank?? I think there is no need for a bottle he's only on the front porch not the roof and it looks like the fire in knocked down at thiis point.


This guy was on "the outside of the building" too... :rolleyes:

[ChicagoFF]

Here engines get their own hydrants. You want water? Get your own.

[SeavilleFire]

5 engine companies on scene and no one thinks to establish a water supply? hmm...

[jerrygarcia]

Here engines get their own hydrants. You want water? Get your own.

My point exactly.

:cool:

[Rescue101]

JG,Good point but on the "big"vs "little"city,Yeah there IS a difference.Here in the "little city"the smallest first due water is 1000 gallons.So you could run more than one line.Second due supplies the primary from source,either hydrant,dry hydrant,folda tank or nurse tanker depending on nature of call.We've probably killed more fires with the first tank of water than you've killed threads.But guys bailing from structures have always indicated a problem in tactics to me.But then again,I'm not "big"city although I have had my share of fires there.If you're first due is a 2500 gallon PT you'd probably approach things a bit differently than if you're working off a 300 gallon Quint.Or at least I'd hope you would. T.C.

[CJMinick390]

We have a problem here where certain companies won't lay in even with smoke showing. They attack off tank water and expect the second in engine to bring them a line. Now the second due can't pump the hydrant unless they reverse lay. That may not be easy on a narrow street if the truck is in front of the building like they should be. That may not seem like a big deal, but the operation goes so much better if the first engine lays in so the second engine can stay at the hydrant away from the front of the building.

Even if you think you can handle the fire on tank water, it's my opinion that laying in a dry line is still justified. The second due engine can pick up your hydrant and send you water if you need it. If it turns out you don't need the water, all you have to do is rack up the dry hose from the street.

[PFDTruck18]

So if you bail, the fireground tactics were bad? Thats just more BS. Ive had to bail (thank God for rear porch roofs) and it had nothing to do with bad tactics. No one ever has to bail if you never go in. Well guess what, we are aggressive. Sometimes that puts you in a bad position. My case was searching the 2nd and 3rd flrs of a dwelling that had a well involved basement. Sh1t happens and thats our job. Here in Philly youre expected to bring your own water. You wanna play, thats the rules. Sure sometimes there are problems and the 2nd in company needs to back up the 1st. But teamwork is all part of the game. What you dont think is safe, others find no problem with. You chose to wear a pack on the roof, I wont do it. You chose to wear a pack on an auto fire, I dont do it. You chose to wear a pack during overhaul, I dont do it. Very rarely have I not had a pack when I needed one. I watch all these departments that cry safety all the time. It continues to amaze me that everybody has all the newest gear and the biggest trucks with all the bells and whistles yet they fail in their main objective, to put the fire out. Dont worry about my pants or my pack when you have improper tactics and no ballz to perform the proper ones. You dont like the guys not wearing pants, then wear yours. You dont like the guy not wearing a pack, then wear yours. Quit commenting on how somebody else does their job and worry about doing yours better.

[ChicagoFF]

So if you bail, the fireground tactics were bad? Thats just more BS. Ive had to bail (thank God for rear porch roofs) and it had nothing to do with bad tactics. No one ever has to bail if you never go in. Well guess what, we are aggressive. Sometimes that puts you in a bad position. My case was searching the 2nd and 3rd flrs of a dwelling that had a well involved basement. Sh1t happens and thats our job. Here in Philly youre expected to bring your own water. You wanna play, thats the rules. Sure sometimes there are problems and the 2nd in company needs to back up the 1st. But teamwork is all part of the game. What you dont think is safe, others find no problem with. You chose to wear a pack on the roof, I wont do it. You chose to wear a pack on an auto fire, I dont do it. You chose to wear a pack during overhaul, I dont do it. Very rarely have I not had a pack when I needed one. I watch all these departments that cry safety all the time. It continues to amaze me that everybody has all the newest gear and the biggest trucks with all the bells and whistles yet they fail in their main objective, to put the fire out. Dont worry about my pants or my pack when you have improper tactics and no ballz to perform the proper ones. You dont like the guys not wearing pants, then wear yours. You dont like the guy not wearing a pack, then wear yours. Quit commenting on how somebody else does their job and worry about doing yours better.
I could not have said it better myself!!!!!!!!

[ChicagoFF]

I find iot odd that anyone would go on the roof without a pack. Especially if you are venting the roof. Once you open the hole you will be expose to a bunch of smoke, hot gases, and possibly flame. And if the roof collapses, you are now in really big trouble. The prime objective at any incident is to bring everyone home in one piece.

It boggles my mind that with all of this equipment we buy that firefighters are still getting treated for smoke inhalation. That is absolutely senseless.
Roofmen don't wear packs here, either.

[CJMinick390]

I don't think anyone (at least I'm not) is saying that bad tactics are the only reason one has to bail out. I've been around long enough that you can do everything nearly perfectly (there are no "perfect" firegrounds ;) ) and the stuff can still hit the fan. However, in this particular case from what we know (and since we weren't there our knowledge is limited) it appears that the failure to establish a water supply and operating multiple lines without that water supply resulted in a loss of water. That in turn appears to have put the attack crews in jeapordy and may have been why the member had to bail.

I believe that is the point Jerry is trying to make. As to gear and operational issues, that is up to the individual department to decide. It's not my place to tell them how to do their job any more than it is their place to tell me how to do mine.

[columbusfire]

the firefighter that bailed was not part of the attack team....this house was close to campus so search and rescue is very important with many drunk, passed out students. We lost a few students a few yeas ago.

[Bones42]

Roofmen don't wear packs here, either. Ditto.

PS - Once you open the roof - get off. Your job is done, why are you still up there?

[jerrygarcia]

So if you bail, the fireground tactics were bad? Thats just more BS. Ive had to bail (thank God for rear porch roofs) and it had nothing to do with bad tactics. No one ever has to bail if you never go in. Well guess what, we are aggressive. Sometimes that puts you in a bad position. My case was searching the 2nd and 3rd flrs of a dwelling that had a well involved basement. Sh1t happens and thats our job. Here in Philly youre expected to bring your own water. You wanna play, thats the rules. Sure sometimes there are problems and the 2nd in company needs to back up the 1st. But teamwork is all part of the game. What you dont think is safe, others find no problem with. You chose to wear a pack on the roof, I wont do it. You chose to wear a pack on an auto fire, I dont do it. You chose to wear a pack during overhaul, I dont do it. Very rarely have I not had a pack when I needed one. I watch all these departments that cry safety all the time. It continues to amaze me that everybody has all the newest gear and the biggest trucks with all the bells and whistles yet they fail in their main objective, to put the fire out. Dont worry about my pants or my pack when you have improper tactics and no ballz to perform the proper ones. You dont like the guys not wearing pants, then wear yours. You dont like the guy not wearing a pack, then wear yours. Quit commenting on how somebody else does their job and worry about doing yours better.


Ditto. A lot of armchair quarterbacks here.



:cool:

[firepics]

If you are wearing the appropriate level of protection that your dept. requires, then good for you. Each dept. operates the best way for them.

MY question is more on a personal level. Why breathe this sh*t in if you don't have to? Before you jump down my throat, I am just as guilty of not wearing my stuff "all" the time, and have hacked up a lunch or two after taking in too much smoke. And don't give me the nonsense that you can just "move out of the way" of the smoke at a car fire,dumpster, etc. We all know you still breathe some of it in.

But, nowadays, I have slowly come to the realization that I don't HAVE to breathe in the nasty crap. I don't know if it's me getting older, having kids, or just remembering the way my father suffered with lung cancer for years, I truly don't like to suck in anymore than I really need to at a fire.

We still have guys that love to have snot running down their face and love getting debris in their eyes and having headaches for two days.

Why do guys still like to do this?

[PFDTruck18]

From Rescue101
"But guys bailing from structures have always indicated a problem in tactics to me"...

It was said, dont defend him. Think before you say such things. It shows your inexperience and lack of training.


Why dont we use packs on the roof? Well, if youre working the roof more than likely youre bent over cutting holes and opening up natural openings. The extra weight of the pack tends to through you off balance. You tend not to fall thru roofs that you properly sounded and continued to keep tabs on.


As to how fast you can drop line after taking a wrap, I dont know. Its rare that we need to stretch for such a distance that speed matters. Maybe on a multiple alarm job where we are stretching from a hydrant that is quite some distance. But at that point its no longer emergent. Its quite rare for us to be more than 3 or 4 lengths of 3" away. My suggestion is no faster than absolutely necessary ;)