Not everybody learned from Lairdsville.....

[firenresq77]

From www.firefighterclosecalls.com :

PLANNING DEATH AT FIREFIGHTER TRAINING: THE ROOKIE ROAST


Monday, January 29, 2007
HIGH SPRINGS, FL. A fire raged Sunday at a High Springs home, but this blaze had no ties to tragedy, heartache or even significant danger.

High Springs firefighters burned the home, located on Northwest First Avenue between 12th and 13th Streets, as a way to train new firefighters.

The group of 16 firefighters, two of whom were from a Bell fire unit, and the rest from High Springs began training with smoke exercises at the home at 7:30 a.m. and continued well into the afternoon until actually lighting the home and burning the structure.

High Springs Fire Chief Terry Jewell helped oversee the training, in which new firefighters were paired up with those who had more experience and were put to the test in numerous ways. These rookies had to undergo a "rookie roast" in which they stayed in a room with their partner until they couldn’t take the heat any longer.

The smoke training, Jewell said, helps get new firefighters acclimated to working in completely dark rooms while wearing their heavy gear.
We smoke the house up to a black state where you cant see anything, and we do rescue operations with either a live person on air or a child simulator, he said. Its a good tool for us to learn ...where we need to go with them.

Dwayne King, a firefighter/emergency medical technician of 17 years, said that rescues take time to get used to because a room full of smoke will be completely black and will have a layout that is unfamiliar to the rescuer. To add to the difficulty, a firefighter will be wearing abut 75 pounds of equipment and crawling on the floor to avoid the high temperatures on the ceiling, which can reach 1,100 degrees, King said.

After smoke training, Jewell said, the firefighters concentrated on simulating a real fire situation in a single room of the home.

Each firefighter got one or two chances to extinguish the fire in the room, Jewell said. Then, in what is known as a rookie roast, the firefighters were tested to see how long they could safely withstand the heat of an intense blaze.

We stay in there until the last possible moment to see who buckles. Jewell said. It’s not dangerous, just makes you feel like you want to leave. The idea is, you stay with your partner no matter what and its hot and dark.

A fire fighter holds a glass of flammable liquid as he prepares to ignite other areas of the home as part of the practice burn Sunday.
Lt. Bruce Gillingham, who has been a firefighter for 11 years, said that safety is the main issue when preparing for a burn.

A home that will be burned undergoes safety checks and procedures in about a month-long process that involves constant work by the firefighters themselves.

During the fire, several people keep count of everyone on scene at all times, to make sure everyone is accounted for.

Also, at least five backup people will be on a fire scene, checking to make sure that anyone inside is safe.

Even after the fire is extinguished, he said, firefighters will continue to monitor the home for at least several days to make sure that everything is put out.

Every aspect of the fire is controlled, he said, but the situation still is a great one for new firefighters to learn from and more experienced firefighters to continue their training.

Andy Pearce, who has been a firefighter/EMT for three years, said practicing in such situations gives firefighters a better idea of how they will react in an emergency.

Its a totally different world, he said of learning to work in darkness. You have to use your other senses.

[KenNFD1219]

Unbelievable-the complete ignorance of standards combined with with an attitude of "who's got a bigger pair" in a so called training fire with brand new fire fighters. They only need to look across their state to see fire training deaths.

[CaptainGonzo]

Mutts in the guise of "brotherhood..."

[Firetacoma1]

Some scary words in there:
Live victim
Flammable liquid
Rookie

:eek:

They talk the talk, but they sure ain't walking the walk!

[MalahatTwo7]

WTF???

These rookies had to undergo a "rookie roast" in which they stayed in a room with their partner until they couldn’t take the heat any longer.

A fire fighter holds a glass of flammable liquid as he prepares to ignite other areas of the home as part of the practice burn Sunday.

We stay in there until the last possible moment to see who buckles.

:eek:

Hey Stan, What say you on this?

[Firetacoma1]

Malahat, it's ok see: :rolleyes:


Then, in what is known as a rookie roast, the firefighters were tested to see how long they could safely withstand the heat of an intense blaze.

It’s not dangerous, just makes you feel like you want to leave.

Lt. Bruce Gillingham, who has been a firefighter for 11 years, said that safety is the main issue when preparing for a burn.


If you say it enough it makes it so? :confused:

[MalahatTwo7]

Malahat, it's ok see: :rolleyes:









If you say it enough it makes it so? :confused:

"There's no place like Home. There's no place like Home. There's no place like Home." Oh.. I'm sorry. Was I supposed to be wearing the ruby slippers or were you? LOL :rolleyes: :p But who gets to wear the tu-tu?

[mtnfireguy]

Note: This was one of the fires that resulted in the NFPA 1403 – Live Fire Training Standard being developed.


1982, Bill Duran and Scott Smith died when an explosion ripped through an abandoned garage where the exercise was being held.

"Sometimes, you know, it comes and goes," said Dan Cutler, a survivor of the explosion. "The building blew up in flames, floor to ceiling."

The force of the explosion sent Cutler through the wall leaving burns over 60 percent of his body. Even injured, Cutler said he still tried to go back in to find his colleagues.


http://cbs4denver.com/local/local_story_024180931.html

[KenNFD1219]

If you say it enough it makes it so? :confused:
That, plus they have never killed a trainee before, so it must be safe.

[Firetacoma1]

Note: This was one of the fires that resulted in the NFPA 1403 – Live Fire Training Standard being developed.


1982, Bill Duran and Scott Smith died when an explosion ripped through an abandoned garage where the exercise was being held.

"Sometimes, you know, it comes and goes," said Dan Cutler, a survivor of the explosion. "The building blew up in flames, floor to ceiling."

The force of the explosion sent Cutler through the wall leaving burns over 60 percent of his body. Even injured, Cutler said he still tried to go back in to find his colleagues.


http://cbs4denver.com/local/local_story_024180931.html

I've been trying to post that story for days (unable to start a new post for some reason :rolleyes: )... our fire training center (county regional) was built as a direct result of that incident. The tower is dedicated in their memory.

Here is the story from the local paper (if it will let me post it).

n the line of fire: In 1982, Boulder was site of nation's worst training accident

By Christine Reid (Contact)
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Photo Gallery
25th anniversary of Boulder's deadly fire training exercise

25th anniversary of Boulder's worst firefighter training accident, which killed firefighters William J. Duran and Scott L. Smith and injured two others, spurred changes in fire training across the nation. One survivor and family members of the fallen visit the site of the accident.

Firefighter Dan Cutler, center, Nita Razo, right, and Whitey Smith return to the site of a fire-training accident 25 years ago in Boulder, which left Cutler with severe burns and killed Razo's brother and Smith's son.

Enlarge photos | View thumbnails

Dan Cutler looks at the cold, snowpacked ground, remembering.

It has been 25 years since he survived the nation's deadliest firefighting-training exercise at this nondescript spot in the middle of Boulder.

That was before the condominiums and houses, when there was just a small garage that once housed chickens. Cutler clutches arms with the father and sister of firefighters who died in the botched exercise.

"This is a place I really don't want to be," he says. "I don't feel anything here."

A service commemorating Boulder Fire Rescue Engineer William J. Duran, 30, and firefighter Scott L. Smith, 21, is planned for today.

But for their families, and Cutler, every day since the Jan. 26, 1982, accident has served as a day to remember.

A dad, a pro

Bill Duran would canvass his family members' homes during get-togethers and point out where there were too many plugs in an outlet or other fire hazards. It was a big job — he had six siblings.

It was clear to his family that he loved his job, and he prepared them for the worst it could bring.

"We'd always be at family gatherings and he'd say, 'If something happens to me, don't blame the fire department,'" his sister, Nita Razo, said. She said the family would joke about it or try to change the subject because nobody wanted to dwell on it, but he would go on.

"I chose this profession, and I love it. I know what the risks are," she recalled him saying. "If something happens, don't be angry. Be happy.

"I don't think he had some premonition; he just wanted us to know this was his choice — serving the community, serving his fellow man. It was so important to him."

He grew up in Louisville and went into the Air Force at 19. He worked as a firefighter at the Strategic Air Command at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas. Four years later, he returned home and joined Boulder's department.

Duran was quick to get the title of engineer, which put him in the driver's seat of Engine 11 — his favorite yellow truck.

His first son and namesake, who was 12 when the accident occurred, recalled a dad who was involved in his three children's lives — from working the chains at football games to yelling until he was hoarse at wrestling matches. When his daughter Dedra was born in 1979, dad was "wrapped around her fingers," Bill Jr. wrote in a tribute.

"The best part was that my father taught us to give of yourself and ask nothing in return, for your work and help was reward enough," he wrote.
Memorial service

Members of Boulder Fire Rescue will gather with the families of William J. Duran and Scott L. Smith at a ceremony at 10 a.m. today at Boulder Fire Station 3, 1585 30th St., to commemorate the 25th anniversary of their deaths. The public is welcome, and parking is available at Scott Carpenter Park.

Returning to the spot this week where the accident took place so long ago makes Nita Razo numb.

"There is a great sense of sadness, and the only really warm feeling I have right now is this guy right here," she says, clutching Cutler's arm tighter.

"We just wish him peace."

A driven rookie

Scott Smith had a tough life, said his oldest brother, Phil Smith. Born with a hare lip and a cleft palate, by age 10 he had undergone three major operations.

He aspired to become a travel agent. After graduating in Niwot High School's first class and then agent school, he was promised job after job that never panned out.

Smith asked a girl to marry him and bought a trailer so they could start a life together. But she broke his heart before the wedding.

Phil Smith, who was living out of the state, visited shortly after that and anticipated a gloomy stay with his brother. But Scott was as optimistic as ever. Phil said his brother actually cheered him up during the visit.

"He wouldn't let life beat him down," Phil Smith said. "I just think he's a guy who overcame everything life threw at him."

Some good finally came Smith's way in 1981 when a neighbor suggested he try out for the Boulder fire department, and he was thrilled when he landed the job.

He was dating a nice woman, and things were looking up, Phil Smith said.

"He was well on his way to having a great life."

And then the job he had for a brief 31/2 months took his life.

"If he were here today, he'd still be with the department," Phil Smith said. "He would have moved up the ranks. He would be having a great life.

"He's been dead longer than he had been alive."

His dad, Whitey Smith, said his youngest of three sons was a good athlete and never gave him and his wife, Lee, any trouble.

"He wasn't a smoker, wasn't a drinker, never missed school," Whitey Smith said.

Whitey and Lee Smith divorced for the second time after Scott's death, and Lee died in 2005.

"It hurt Mother real bad," Whitey said, but she turned to her faith for strength.

He didn't, he said.

"I don't talk much about it," Whitey said. "Maybe there's people who know me who don't even know."

Whitey, 84 and typically quick with a grin and funny story, falls unusually quiet as he surveys the spot where his youngest son died a few months before turning 22.

He shakes his head.

"I just can't imagine."

A humbled survivor

Cutler doesn't share his story much. As he told it this week, members of his crew at Station No. 6 peeked in and listened.

It was just supposed to be a smoke training session, in which smoke fills up a building and firefighters use their sense of touch to try to find hidden items, then follow the water hose back to the exit. They were anxious to get it over with so they could eat the homemade burritos Duran had promised for lunch.

The men suited up and headed inside the garage, even though smoke was billowing out of the building, Cutler said, an ominous sign that routinely means a fire should be fought from the outside.

But it was a training exercise, and that meant trusting the people who'd set it up, Cutler said.

The men crawled along the floor and retrieved the three items. Cutler could only recall one — a box.

Cutler's knees were hot, another bad firefighter omen. Duran said it was getting too hot, so the men turned around to head out. That's when fire filled the garage.

Heating the rickety structure to up to 2,000 degrees, flames filled every space from the floor to the ceiling. Cutler called it a "gauntlet of orange."

He remembers hearing a scream before diving out of where he thought the door was. He crashed to the ground through a false wall and was lit on fire. A nearby construction worker rushed to Cutler's aid and helped extinguish the flames on his body.

None of the men but Lt. Cyrus Pinkerton, who was running the training session, knew the layout of the partitioned garage before the exercise.

Pinkerton, who suffered minor burns, was on the fire engine trying to get water onto the blaze. Cutler tried to rush to help him but then realized his body felt "crinkley" and "stiff."

Cutler spent three months in a burn unit, suffering second- and third-degree burns on up to 60 percent of his body. He endured nine surgeries and two years in a tight nylon body suit to help his skin heal.

Cutler never thought about giving up the job. Nine months after the accident, he was back on the line. And he still is.

"No. 1, I'm not a quitter," Cutler said.

And second, he said, why would he leave the department that, each day, had driven his newly pregnant wife to Denver to see him in the hospital?

"I love what I do, and the support is here," Cutler said. "You leave the job, and what do you have? The horrible memories — I don't want to deal with them myself."

Cutler didn't set out to become a firefighter until he was 30. He had earned a bachelor's and master's degree in economics and was working on a doctorate when a friend mentioned a job opening at a squad. Since nearly losing a brother in a fire as a teen, he said he had always been interested in firefighting, so he tried out and got the job.

Cutler, 61, plans to retire next year. His second daughter, who was born around the time he got out of the hospital, is getting married this year.

He will talk publicly about the accident this anniversary to help people understand, he said, and to help with healing. And whenever the families ask questions, he tells them all he can.

"It's all a matter of helping everyone get through it," Cutler said.

Wearing his blue firefighter uniform, Cutler kicks at the ground and keeps his hands in his pockets while at the accident site. He says in a choked-up voice that he can see the fire unfold as clearly as if it happened yesterday.

But he doesn't need to come here to remember.

"I have my burns to look at," he says.

[NYSmokey]

If you said "Lairdsville? Where is that?"

READ THIS!

http://server.firehouse.com/training/news/2002/1106_FHniosh.html

[dday05]

In regards to the first post, why would you do stupid stuff like this? When dumbass people do stuff like this,and a fellow firefighter gets injured ,that just makes it more and more harder to actually do live burns.It's going to get to the point where we wont even be allowed to do burns someday I think. They're going to get someone seriously hurt down there. I take it this was in a local paper probably?

[bcarey]

"In regards to the first post, why would you do stupid stuff like this? "

Because its cool, don't you know? Everyone has to be "salty" and look "experienced". Take a look at the photographs. How many melted Bourke's do you see nowadays? Actions don't stand for anything; you need to melt that Garrity light on your lid "real good". Those are the "good shots" the "money shots" for your magazines and websites.

"Each firefighter got one or two chances to extinguish the fire in the room, Jewell said. Then, in what is known as a rookie roast, the firefighters were tested to see how long they could safely withstand the heat of an intense blaze."

So the group of 16, maybe everyone got at least one shot on the nob? Could have taken that "roast time" and given more instruction.

"We stay in there until the last possible moment to see who buckles. Jewell said. It’s not dangerous, just makes you feel like you want to leave. The idea is, you stay with your partner no matter what and its hot and dark."

Yeah. Why not teach them about the mayday and LUNAR and PASS devices.

"It's going to get to the point where we wont even be allowed to do burns someday I think."

Going to? I bet we're a lot closer than you think.

William Carey

[Catch22]

Makes me think of a quote I hear frequently on my career department and totally despise. "The fire went out and no one got hurt, so we must have done it right." Apparently these guys have the same mentality. When will they ever learn? :confused:

[ChiefReason]

You know; it's strange, but I could have sworn NFPA and NIOSH outlawed the use of flammable liquids and live victims for training exercises.
Where could I have possibly read that?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I remember; it was right here at Firehouse.com.
So, these jamokes who want to roast rookies do it in the safest possible way?
They have total control over the fire behavior? The rookies are with "experienced" firefighters; the ones without brains?
I'll bet they had a news team there so they could show their community how sharp they are! Any takers?
Pukers in turnout gear.
CR

[DrParasite]

I know people will say I am wrong, and that I'm an idiot, but in a real fire, do you ever have flammable liquids? or situation that are way too hot? or the walls burning? or furniture? or (gasp!!) live victims?

training is a great tool, but shouldn't we want to train in a real world scenario? if a firefighter has been in a burn tower, does that adequately prepare him for a fully involved SFD? I mean, our burn tower has cement floors, so I really don't have to worry about the truss floor giving out while you are performing suppression operations right? or, as I'm putting the fire out as the first in nozzle, having the glass cabinet finally burn through and have all the shelves collapse on my backup man?

Please don't misunderstand me, I don't want to get anyone hurt in a training drill, but we train in a semi-controlled environment. which is great for safety, however a real fire isn't controlled at all. are we doing our rookies a disservice by training for in controlled environment for an environment that isn't such?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Some scary words in there:
Live victim
Flammable liquid
Rookie

:eek:

They talk the talk, but they sure ain't walking the walk!


WRONG! They are not anywhere near as scary as: "It’s not dangerous"

[MalahatTwo7]

DrP. I sort of almost agree with you. However here are my thoughts. Giving a Rookie a controlled environment to begin training is about the best way to initiate a person. My first ever fires were done at CFB Esquimalt Damage Control School for the Navy. The trainer we had was a huge 3/4" steel contruction. The entrance was about 15 feet long, on a slight down slope, with a left turn at the bottom. About 6 or 8 feet past the turn were two huge double doors with a drop latch on the approach side. Purpose was to teach door/hatch procedures. Past the doors, another 6 feet or so the corridor opened up into a T room. The room was about 10x10, with a ceiling height of about 8 feet. The floor was expanded steel mesh, with a floor gap of about 6 or 8 inches. This well was where the fires came from, in the form of oil/diesel mix. Across from the T entrance was an exit door to outside.

During my class, we had 22 students. It was July and very hot - around 80F. 18 of us did our runs through before noon hour. I and 3 others had to wait until after lunch to do our run-throughs. As luck has it, I was #4 in line, with the rest of the class behind me, doing hosehandling.

When the Instructor lit the fire, we were about 15 or 20 feet back from the entrance - good thing in this case. There was a BIG BANG, and a fireball that shot through the hallway and out the main entrance. The firefighter/instructor beside me, who was to lead us in, looked at me and said "Gee. I've never seen it do that before." Umm, ya, thats a great confidence booster for a rookie.

So eventually we start our attack. Before we got to the left turn, we had rotated the Guy on the Nob twice. Which now placed me in the #2 slot. By the time we hit the doors, I got slid to the lead, and I finished the job. Which was no fun, because every time I'd chase the fire to a corner and almost have it totally overhauled, it would roll under our feet, through the fuel well, and re-light in another corner. It took the better part of (I think) 15 minutes from the time we cleared the doors until I finally got it cool enough to knock the flames out.

I can remember entering through the doors and seeing fire rolling over my head, and water filling my boots from the spray. Oh.... I forgot to mention:

Our gear consisted of what the Navy calls "B" gear. It has NO thermal protection, and almost no water repellancy. We wore no helmets, and over hands and heads, cotton gloves that go to the elbows, and flash hoods. Our "BAs" were CHEMOX units.

That was in 1992. I joined my first civilian fire department (and learned better habits) in summer 2000. I am sad to report that the Canadian Navy still has these units in service as primary firefighting equipment. :(

So having a controlled environment to start with, I think is a better way to train a new recruit. True it does not give a full range of how it "looks for real" but it gives enough of a taste that you can teach the Rookie what he needs to know as far as drills and good habits, and give him the confidence to do the job. For the "Real World" experiences, thats what us Old Guys are for, in the field, when we take him in for his "first fire".

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I know people will say I am wrong, and that I'm an idiot, but in a real fire, do you ever have flammable liquids? or situation that are way too hot? or the walls burning? or furniture? or (gasp!!) live victims?

training is a great tool, but shouldn't we want to train in a real world scenario? if a firefighter has been in a burn tower, does that adequately prepare him for a fully involved SFD? I mean, our burn tower has cement floors, so I really don't have to worry about the truss floor giving out while you are performing suppression operations right? or, as I'm putting the fire out as the first in nozzle, having the glass cabinet finally burn through and have all the shelves collapse on my backup man?

Please don't misunderstand me, I don't want to get anyone hurt in a training drill, but we train in a semi-controlled environment. which is great for safety, however a real fire isn't controlled at all. are we doing our rookies a disservice by training for in controlled environment for an environment that isn't such?

OK, you're wrong.

Training in a "semi-controlled" environment is not to allow the trainee to experience every situation he may encounter in the field. If that were the case, training would include alot of things that would simulate the real world.

The "semi-controlled" environment allows the trainee to experience and observe situations in a fashion where he can learn something and then apply those experiences to the real world when he has to. You make the trainee see the phenomanon of fire up close and personal, see the things it will do and maybe even see the things it will not do.

Remember, at least in my world, training includes time in the field, experiencing the "real world" under the tutelage of an FTO or a senior member. The trainee then applies the lessons he learned in the training exercises to those real world situations.

Using your logic, we should have trainees fall off roofs or slice their hands on glass or experience frostbite or have kids run out in front of them as they are driving the apparatus or have the ceiling collapse on their heads so they can experience the "real world".

This training exercise was irresponsible, at best and is probably a good reflection of this FD"s overall approach to professionalism and training.

Didn't they just issue a scathing report in FL regarding killing a rookie in a training fire a couple of years ago?

[FyredUp]

Let's address a few of the issues raised...

Live Victim: In smoke made by a smoke machine? Sure. In smoke made from hay smoldering in a barrel that is monitored constantly with a control hose line ready? Sure. In smoke made from room fires in an acguired structure? Sorry, NO! It is dangerous and has already proven to be fatal in enough situations that we should NEVER do this anymore. AND...it is an NFPA violation.

Flammable Liquids: Why? If you can't ignite a training fire using hay and papper and cardboard to get pallets burning I would be happy to come to your department and train you in basic fire starting. There is no need for flammable liquids in live fire structural fire training. AND...it is an NFPA violation.

Rookies: The object of training is to prepare people to begin to do the job. Hurting them during training does NOT acomplish that goal. The first taste of live fire whether in a tower or an acquired structure is very critical to the successful training of a firefighter. They have to learn to crawl before they can walk, and walk before they can run. Start small fires to teach them fire growth and proper methods of extinguishment and venting. Work your way up to larger fires and this will build confidence and ability.

Training is not about who has bigger balls or who can take it or who can go the longest. Itis about Safety first and preparing people to do the job.

The rookie roast is the quite frankly one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard of. What is the point? To teach people to stay after the point of serious pain beginning? I just don't get it. Of course we want people to get a taste of heat but aren't we doing that as we advance in to attack the fire?

I have been an instructor for 27 years and at this point i have had no serious injuries to a student, ever. And believe me I like a big fire as much as the next but we do it right and we do it safely.

FyredUp

[doughesson]

That, plus they have never killed a trainee before, so it must be safe.

But that's going to leave them hanging when they DO.Then they'll have to figure out who's going to explain it to the downed FFs family and what they're going to say.
That's one job I'll never beg off my Chief.
For a war story,not long into my volunteer department,I was told about a training exercise run by the local city FD where they had a burn house going.There was no engine on scene and the only line was supplied by hydrant pressure.I heard that story about three different times and none of the folks I got it from had anything good to say for that practice.
Having trainees stay til they can't take it anymore is going to lead to trouble.Here in Memphis,they're still working out a settlement for a FF who passed out during the Memphis Mile,with all his turnout gear on and no way to ring the bell,as the SEALs say for when they've had enough.

Every training evolution I've had was simulated in some way and the only time we had actual fire involved,personnel from other departments were on scene or the state fire commission was running the show.
I'd never follow an officer putting anyone into danger for training like described above.

[RFDACM02]

I gotta say that I don't see this as big a deal as its being portrayed here. Maybe it was and maybe not, there's not enough info. But clearly it loks lke the majority of posters will guide NFPA's decision to ban live fire training in acquired structures.

[CaptainGonzo]

I gotta say that I don't see this as big a deal as its being portrayed here. Maybe it was and maybe not, there's not enough info. But clearly it loks lke the majority of posters will guide NFPA's decision to ban live fire training in acquired structures.


1403 does not ban live fire training in acquired structures.. it just sets up a standard to use so nobody gets hurt or killled. Everybody goes home!

[RFDACM02]

1403 does not ban live fire training in acquired structures.. it just sets up a standard to use so nobody gets hurt or killled. Everybody goes home!

I agree wholeheartedly, but I don't see this article as portraying anything nearly close to the Lairdsville incident. I'll try to spell out my thinking, but the WT seems to be limiting the length of my(others?) posts.

First, the Rookie Roast: sure it looks like some false bravado and someone might stay too long due to peer pressure. But, assembling students with a readily accesible exit to endure some of the heat shows them the limitations of their gear, why it is important that you wear it properly and keep it in good condition. They also feel the ways you can sense the heat in the fully encapsualted suit given the use of hoods and such. this can be and may have been done safely.

Let see if this one is short enogh, more to come.

[RFDACM02]

That worked, so next point:

The cup of flammable liquid. Sure this is clearly against 1403 and for good reason, because the accpetable level to one may differ from another. But I can attest from first hand experience with both, that I'd much rather be ina fire room fueled by damp hay with diesel on it than one couch that was torn open. Again, while I would agree that the use of ignitable fuels is not the way to go, to call these guys crazy or reckless without knowing the amount, the use or whether it was a flammable or combustible liquid is a little premature. Again, no I don't advocate the use but lets be realistic before we toss our brothers to the wolves.

Another one coming.

[RFDACM02]

Pretty much my last point:

Using live victims: With the advent of tons of lifelike mannequins this should not be necessary, but it can be done safely (though not NFPA compliant)
Many trainers did this for years. Live "vicitm" in full PPE and SCBA coverd by the crew that backs up the igniter and with a readily accesible exit that does not interfere with the attack advance.

With the amount of posters crying foul hear it is no wonder we're losing the ability to use acquired structures all over the country. There is a difference between reckless and quality live fire training. We will have lost a huge asset when all live fire training is in concrete buildings, and the fire service and our future brothers will pay for it with a lack of real world knowledge ahead of time. Few of us have enough fires to put all newbies with a seaoned vet until they've gain a basic knowledge.

So be careful what you wish for. We will have become so safe that we are more dangerous.

[mcaldwell]

I think there are also unforeseen side affects from the "rookie roast" type of fires. Both of these are from past experience with departments and burns in our area.

1. If you honestly stay in as long as possible, your gear will inevitably begin to fail. The reflective striping will usually go first, followed by the vapour barrier, and then the shell will begin to break down. You will usually have lost your visor, and most of your helmet by this point too. Some of the damage is obvious, but much of it is not.

Unless you properly examine your gear after every burn, how do you know that it is still safe for front line use afterwards.

2. And on the same note, do the taxpayers know that you are wasting thousands of dollars worth of gear (or more) every year on a "biggest balls" competition?

We stopped doing these kinds of burns over ten years ago, after both receiving the proper education and training on the topic, and ruining thousands of dollars worth of new gear on some of these exact scenarios.

Good controlled training is a useful way to build firefighter confidence and experience. Pissing away money, and exposing inexperienced members to unecessary risk is not.

And I personally don't like using live victims in even controlled smoke/hay fires. Every member on the inside should be part of a team. Stage smoke works perfectly well when teaching SAR and victim removal, and poses no risk to the "Victim" in the event of an SCBA failure.


Rescue Randy and Hose Dummies were invented for a reason.

[RFDACM02]

I agree the burn until you break is not smart, but there is validity in having students stop and feel the increase in heat and note the points on their body where they feel the hot spots (ie shoulders and places where the gear pulls tight. This also exposes any spots where a hood may have been haphazardly strected over the facepeice. Again, done with proper instruction and low student ratios and a decent egress path. Staying in until your Bourkes are folded down is pure "Wannabe BS"! But you can lose valuable lessons by making blanket safety rules that force common sense on everyone. The Rookie Roast may be no more than a poorly chosen term for showing the students about watching how fire develops and spreads in a room while also experiencing heat that allows them to better understand their PPE.

[THEFIRENUT]

This also exposes any spots where a hood may have been haphazardly strected over the facepeice. .


Isn't this suppost to be accomplished by a "buddy-check"??????

[FyredUp]

RFDACM02...

I don't hear anyone here advocating ending acquired structure live fire training. As for NFPA 1403 the tech school I have been teaching for has folllowed this standard for years and we still get good fires, great training and no one hurt. Seems like a win win to me.

Flammable liquids: Totally unnecessary IF you prepare adequately. We haven't used flammable liqquids since the standard changed. We use hay, newspaper, cardboard, and pallets and honestly we have great fires. It takes a litttle more time to build good fire sets but I think it is well worth the safety of no flammable liquids.

Live victims: Why? There simply is no need to place someone in that position. The mannequins of today are realistic enough and finally heavy enough that they cause us the same grief as a live victim does.

Rookie roast: This just seems to me to be the way to hurt or kill someone. Look when I take people in we have each crew member be checked over by his partner to make sure all the PPE is being worn properly, so, no bare skin. I do have students put their hands up over them as we crawl in to check for heat buildup and occasionally we may watch the fire grow but I am always checking to make sure everyone is okay.

FyredUp

[fireman4949]

I am among the first group of State Certified Live Fire Instructors in my dept.

We strictly follow NFPA 1403, and exceed the standard in several areas.

Here is our SOP on live fire training at our Class-A fixed burn facility.




NUMBER

607.00 SUBJECT

Live Fire Training
EFF. DATE

01/23/07


TOPIC

Fixed Burn Facility - Live Fire Training Evolutions AUTHORIZATION

___________________________
Cindy Dick

PURPOSE: To provide a process for conducting safe and effective live fire training evolutions in a fixed burn facility.

SET UP PROCEDURE: An inspection of the entire fixed burn facility shall be conducted to ensure that no unauthorized personnel or materials are in the structure immediately prior to ignition of the fire load.

Orange marker cones will be placed in a ten-foot radius around the fixed burn facility identifying the hot zone during a live fire training evolution. No personnel shall enter the hot zone during a live fire training evolution without proper PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural Firefighting.

PARTICIPANT REQUIREMENTS: Prior to being permitted to participate in live fire training evolutions, the student must have received training that meets the job performance requirements for Firefighter I in NFPA 1001, Standard for Firefighter Professional Qualifications.

Participants not employed with the TFD will not be permitted to participate in any live fire training evolution without presenting written evidence of having successfully completed the prescribed minimum training levels specified in NFPA 1001, and the consent of the TFD Fire Chief.

Each participant shall be equipped with full PPE suitable for structure fires, SCBA and PASS device meeting criteria identified by NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective for Structural Fire Fighting, Ensemble NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire Service and NFPA 1982, Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS).

All participants shall be inspected by the Safety Officer prior to entry into a live fire training evolution. This is to ensure that the protective clothing, SCBA and PASS are being worn properly and are in serviceable condition. Prior to the ignition of any fire, instructors shall do a second check of their student’s protective equipment.

Pre-entry vitals are required from each participant involved with the training and are to be recorded on the TFD Live Fire Training Medical Form. This form shall accompany all other forms documenting the live fire evolution and filed at the Tallahassee Fire Department Training Division. NFPA 471 Standard for Recommended Practice Responding to Hazardous Materials Incidents. States that any diastolic blood pressure that exceeds 105 and / or a core temperature above 100.5 F degrees excludes a participant from hazardous training activity. Post- Evolution vitals are also required at the completion of the training. If a participant is not employed with TFD they are required to complete a TFD Agreement and Release of Liability Form prior to ANY training event.

WATER SUPPLY: Water will be supplied by at least one class “A” pumping apparatus. A five-inch supply line connected to a charged hydrant shall supply the pumper. Criteria for NFPA 1142 Standard for Water Supplied for Suburban and Rural Firefighting shall be met. It is mandatory that pump operations are assigned and maintained during all live fire evolutions in their entirety. A minimum of two charged 1 ¾ inch hose lines of adequate length for the evolution shall be deployed and made ready. Each hose line shall be capable of delivering a minimum of 95 GPM. The suppression team upon initial attack shall use the first line. The second line shall be committed to a back up position. In addition to the above mentioned hose lines, The RIT team shall charge and make ready one 1 ¾ inch hose line for their possible entry.

PROPS: Vehicle(s) used as props for Live Fire Training Evolutions in the fixed burn facility shall be inspected and stripped of any combustibles that are not class “A” materials. Class “A” materials maybe placed in the vehicle(s) to stimulate vehicle fire conditions but shall not exceed a four wood pallet fire load during a single burn.

Manikins may be used in a live fire evolution. The manikins shall not be dressed in bunker gear as not to be confused with actual participants. Participants shall be briefed on simulated victim props prior to entry.

At no time shall a participant be used as a victim in a live fire evolution.

PRE-BURN PROCEDURES: Prior to conducting a Live Fire Training Evolution a pre-burn briefing shall be conducted for all participants involved. The pre-burn procedures section of the TFD Live Fire Training Check List shall be checked off at this time. Assignments shall be given by the IIC (Instructor-In-Charge). The following is a list of assignments to be filled by a LFI (Live Fire Instructor): Safety Officer, Fire Attack Instructor, Search Team Instructor, Ignition Officer, RIT (Rapid Intervention Team) Instructor and a Temperature Monitor Officer. In addition to these Instructor Positions, a Pump Operator(s), an assistant to the Ignition Officer and an EMS Officer/Rehab position must be established. These assignments shall be recorded on the TFD Live Fire Training Assignments Sheet.

All interior LFI ‘s shall donn a flashing indicator light, signifying their roll in the operation.

Students involved in the evolution shall be formed into three crews not to exceed a instructor/student ratio of 5:1. The crews will be accompanied by a LFI and assigned to one of the following teams: Fire Attack, Search, or RIT. These assignments shall be recorded on the TFD Assignments Sheet. The developing scenario shall be discussed including but not limited to possible simulated victims (manikins) or special obstacles.

MAYDAY: Procedures shall be reviewed in compliance with TFD Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). SOP#605.00

EMERGENCY EVACUATION: Procedures shall be reviewed in compliance with TFD/SOP#909.00

INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM (ICS): shall be in operation during the entire live fire training evolution.

POST-BURN PROCEDURES: Immediately following the live fire training evolution a post-burn briefing shall be conducted for all participants involved. The post- burn procedures section of the TFD Live Fire Training Check List shall be checked off at this time.

FIRE LOAD: Defined as the “Physical Make-up” and quantity of class “A” material used in a Live Fire Evolution. During a Live fire training evolution NO MORE THAN TWO fire racks shall be ignited. The fire racks shall be loaded with NO MORE THAN FOUR wood pallets and 1 bale of hay each. Smoke barrels may be loaded with dampened hay and ignited to produce a desired smoke - rich environment but must not be used as a fire load device.

IGNITION TORCH: The torch will be used by the Ignition Officer and removed immediately upon ignition of the racks. The Ignition Officer shall communicate to the IC that “The torch is out of the structure”.

TRAINING TEMPERATURE: 1,100 degrees F is the safe/optimum training temperature to achieve for a live fire evolution although temperatures may fluctuate slightly.

VENTILATION TEMPERATURE: At 1,250 degrees F ventilation procedures should be considered by the IIC. Utilization of pre-staged positive pressure fans at doorways and opening window shutters of the fire rooms.

EMERGENCY EVACUATION TEMPERATURE: In the event that temperatures increase to 1,400 degrees F, emergency evacuation procedures should be activated in compliance with TFD SOP #909.00, Emergency Evacuation Policy.

TEMPERATURE MONITORING: Prior to the ignition of the fire load, the Temperature Monitor Officer (TMO) will be in place in the Fixed Burn Facility Monitoring Room. He or she shall maintain visual contact with the temperature monitors until the completion of the live fire evolution. The (TMO) will record pertinent information prompted on the “TFD Temperature Monitoring Work Sheet”. The TMO must maintain radio communications with the IC and the IIC at all times during the evolution. If the temperature monitors indicate temperatures exceeding the prior set safe/optimum training temperature standard in any room, the TMO shall report the documented information immediately. The IIC will make the determination on the actions to be implemented.

In addition to the fixed temperature monitoring devices throughout the structure, a handheld temperature-monitoring device should be properly utilized and protected by one LFI making entry during each evolution. Temperatures taken by this device should be recorded on the TFD Temperature Monitoring Work Sheet. This will provide a comparison of ceiling temperatures and working level temperatures throughout the structure.

At this time NFPA does not set a standard for safe operating temperatures and does not require any temperature monitoring devices. It is the intention of the Tallahassee Fire Department to use and maintain these devices for the purpose of recording and documenting temperatures during a live fire evolution to ensure a safe and effective operating environment for all participants.

COMMUNICATIONS: Will be conducted on a predetermined radio channel using a TFD portable radio. A full radio check shall be conducted prior to each Live Fire Evolution. Tallahassee Dispatch will be notified and a Training Incident Number shall be opened.




DOCUMENTATION: The following records and reports shall be completed, filed and maintained on all live fire training evolutions:

1. TFD Live Fire Training Check List
2. TFD Live Fire Training Instructor/Crew Assignment Sheet
3. TFD Live Fire Training Medical Form
4. TFD Temperature Monitoring Work sheet
5. TFD Agreement and Release of Liability (If Applicable)
6. TFD Training Facility/Drill Field Report
7. TFD First Report of Injury or Illness Form (If Applicable)
8. TFD Report of Stolen, Lost, Missing or Damaged Property Form (If Applicable)

A copy of all records and reports will be dated and assigned an incident number and will remain on file at the Tallahassee Fire Department Training Division.


















Please note that NO LIVE PERSON SHALL EVER assume the role of a victim!!!!! Nor will the "dummy" victim EVER be placed in bunker gear!!!!!
If there is a body wearing bunker gear on the floor, it is a real person, and therefore it is immediately known to be an actual emergency!

Flammable liquids are absolutely forbidden. They are not needed, and add nothing to the training, except the potential for disaster.

We do everything we possibly can to prevent injuries, while still making the scenarios as true-to-life as possible.
We are training firefighters, not testing the extreme limits of their endurance and their pain thresholds.;)




Kevin:D

[RFDACM02]

Again, my point is that this scenario may not be as bad as everyone seems to make it out to be. Sure there should be no reason to use flammable liquids any longer, but how can one determine from this story the level of culpability? Same with live victims: no longer a necessity but it could be donely safely, and maybe it was. The Rookie Roast could be a poor name for some of the same practices most of us use to have students learn fire behavior and PPE encapsulation.

THEFIRENUT: yeah, the Buddy check is a good thing, in training. How about teaching students that they cannot count on anyone else to check them just in case at 3 in the morning their buddy doesn't check their hood? We (most of us) do not train like we fight anymore. I think the buddy system is great when it happens, but to often staffing does not allow perfect teams of two to operate at all times.

As for acquired structure burns, they are being taken away every day and if we keep laying down whenever some one throws out a safety arguement sooner or later we'll train firefighters over the web and hope they can take the heat later.

[CaptainGonzo]

I work part time at the Massachusetts Fire Academy in the support services division.

The burn days at te Academy are done in a concrete buidling built into a small hillside that looks like a 2.5 story residential home on one side, the other side looks like a 4 story apartments over commercial structure.

The walls and ceilings of all of the rooms and corridors are covered in hgh temperature fire resistive tiles.

Fuels used in burns are straw and palllets on metal frames. On burn days, supoort personnel drive the trucks and set up the fires.

Students get to see their first fire during the nature of fire demonstration. Instructors perform the firefighitng ops for that. The recruits also learn the reason why you do not put a hose line into a ventilation hole, ie,. the reverse vent evolution.

They get to put their first "wet stuff on red stuff" when they are taught indirect fire attack.They also get to put the wet stuff on red stuff during hose evolution 2. These fires are small, used to build confidence and to teach prioper technique. They have to overhaul the area and power vent after each evolution.

Strutural burns are done in 4 phases. Phase 1 is room and contents with minor extension, phases 2 through 4 build on that. Phase 3 and 4 fires, the students respond from the firehouse, fires are on mutiple floors in multiple rooms.

Other burn training is done using class A materials and propane fired props.

Live fire training can be done with realistic conditons and done safely if the 1403 guidelines are followed.

As far as the statement about losing the opportunity to do fire training in acquired structures... a lot of that has to do with timeframes, EPA regulations, etc.

[RFDACM02]

Please let me reitnerate that I do beleive in utilizing 1403. We do it anytime we burn and do not do some of the things being discussed here. But that does not mean no one will get hurt for certain, nor does it mean that you cannot conduct safe training that does not meet 1403.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

nor does it mean that you cannot conduct safe training that does not meet 1403.

How would one conduct safe, live fire training in an acquired structure that doesn't meet the provisions of 1403? Which items can be left out of the training plan?

[Firetacoma1]

Please let me reitnerate that I do beleive in utilizing 1403. We do it anytime we burn and do not do some of the things being discussed here. But that does not mean no one will get hurt for certain, nor does it mean that you cannot conduct safe training that does not meet 1403.

There's a difference between being safe and getting lucky.

[DonSmithnotTMD]

Our gear consisted of what the Navy calls "B" gear. It has NO thermal protection, and almost no water repellancy. We wore no helmets, and over hands and heads, cotton gloves that go to the elbows, and flash hoods. Our "BAs" were CHEMOX units.

We have a Navy vet in our house and she says thats what they still use.

I do have a flammable liquid comment. we used some in a recent burn and I didn't get in on that side, apparently it was background to where we were supposed to enter. It made me plan, though. there was fire on the ceiling and patches on the floor. It made me think about how to actually enter, rather than just charging in the door and hitting the seat.

[RFDACM02]

nor does it mean that you cannot conduct safe training that does not meet 1403.

How would one conduct safe, live fire training in an acquired structure that doesn't meet the provisions of 1403? Which items can be left out of the training plan?

So because its in NFPA 1403 it's safe? Experienced trainers cannot used live victims safely? Again while I don't see any reason to, the point is that it can be done. You can with proper instructors and numbers have two separate fires given proper precautions. You can conduct a safe training burn and not be 1403 compliant. It obviously is not advisable from a liability standpoint, but that is not the point here.

Conversly, you can meet 1403 and still be dangerous by using morons who have no business teaching, I'm sure many of you have seen it as well as I. We as a Fire Service cannot afford to keep allowing NFPA to become the gospel for all that we do, unless we start getting more involved. This goes well beyond 1403 but that's another thread altogether.

[RFDACM02]

There's a difference between being safe and getting lucky.

Yeah, and NIMS is the only way anyone can safely command an emergency incident too right?

And if your apparatus does not meet NFPA 1901 its not safe to use?

And Ladies and Gentleman my personal favorite: You don't go to fires with less staff than NFPA 1710 or 1720 says do you?

How can anything else be done, NFPA dictates what is safe and what is not, right? Or do we pick and choose. how easy it is to cast stones at this dept. in FL for not meeting the letter of 1403 when 99% of us can't even come close to meeting minumum staffing standards. But I'm sure that isn't a safety issue!?!?!

[SSTONER]

From www.firefighterclosecalls.com :


That story remined me of the youtube video I saw once of a firefighter on a boat who was igniting it for training purposes....they had a pile of wood pallets on the boat and he was dowsing it in a flammable liquid. He was in full PPE thankfully; as it expolded in his face when it put a flame to the pile of pallets...not a little explosion either. His only escape was to throw himself in the lake.

As for training fires...we have enough unknowns to worry about in a real fire. Why do we have to put each other at risk unnecessarily during training?

[fireman4949]

So because its in NFPA 1403 it's safe? Experienced trainers cannot used live victims safely? Again while I don't see any reason to, the point is that it can be done.

Okay, tell me this;

During the course of a live fire evolution, you encounter a body, wearing bunker gear and an SCBA, lying motionless on the floor.
Is it a firefighter acting in the role of a victim, or is it a firefighter that has gone down during the course of the evolution due to a medical emergency?

How, in zero visibility, can you determine who it is, and what their condition is? Are they acting, or are they actually unconscious?

Why run the risk of making a terrible mistake that could potentially cost someone their life, when a manequin (not clothed in bunker gear) would provide the same rescue training, without the added possibility of confusing it with someone in actual distress.

This is just like the arguement about using flammable liquids.
They are not necessary. A class-A fire can be ignited, burn at high temperatures and emit copious amounts of smoke without the use of an accellerant. Flammable liguids should NEVER be used in a LFT scenario. There is no added benefit and the risk of an accident just isn't worth it.

As much as we may wish it to be so, training burns will never completely mimic real world fires. If they do, that means safety has more than likely been thrown out the window!

I am no "Safety Sally"! Not by any stretch of the imagination! I believe in being very agressive on real world fire attack and searches, but I take my responsibility as an instructor and as a fellow firefighter very seriously. I won't risk injuring, or killing someone just for the sake of a training evolution. ;)




Kevin:D

[fireman4949]

How can anything else be done, NFPA dictates what is safe and what is not, right? Or do we pick and choose. how easy it is to cast stones at this dept. in FL for not meeting the letter of 1403 when 99% of us can't even come close to meeting minumum staffing standards. But I'm sure that isn't a safety issue!?!?!

There are some things that we have immediate and complete control over, and there are some that we don't.
I totally agree that minimum staffing is essential. I don't however, have control over the city's budget for my fire dept., and therefore I must work with whatever staffing levels currently I have. I can try to convince the city that we need more personnel to provide greater safety for the public and for each other. However, the final decision is not mine to make.

Following 1403's safety guidelines for a training scenario is something I do have control over. There are no budgetary concerns with regard to conducting a live fire training exercise in as safe a manner as is possible.

Picking and choosing what NFPA guidelins to follow is not what this is really about. If it were up to most local governments, I'm sure they would wish the NFPA never existed. It has already cost them a lot of money to try to comply with their standards.
What this is about is following ALL of the safety guidelines that WE possibly can, without having to take a single cent from the already thin budgets we have to work under.

Using our common sense, and learning from the tragic mistakes that have been made by others is free. ;)




Kevin:D





Kevin:D

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

So because its in NFPA 1403 it's safe? Experienced trainers cannot used live victims safely? Again while I don't see any reason to, the point is that it can be done. You can with proper instructors and numbers have two separate fires given proper precautions. You can conduct a safe training burn and not be 1403 compliant. It obviously is not advisable from a liability standpoint, but that is not the point here.

Conversly, you can meet 1403 and still be dangerous by using morons who have no business teaching, I'm sure many of you have seen it as well as I. We as a Fire Service cannot afford to keep allowing NFPA to become the gospel for all that we do, unless we start getting more involved. This goes well beyond 1403 but that's another thread altogether.
Experienced trainers cannot used live victims safely?
Sure they can. Just as long as it is not live fire training.

You can with proper instructors and numbers have two separate fires given proper precautions. As someone pointed out, you aren't being safe, you have been lucky.


You can conduct a safe training burn and not be 1403 compliant. How? Cite specific examples.

Conversly, you can meet 1403 and still be dangerous by using morons who have no business teaching, Then you are not following NFPA 1403.

We as a Fire Service cannot afford to keep allowing NFPA to become the gospel for all that we do, unless we start getting more involved. My questions would be: "Have you ever read even one page of NFPA 1403"? "Do you realize that you have every right to participate in the development of, not only NFPA1403, but every NFPA document"?

If we do not want to follow NFPA 1403 as a standard for live fire training, what should we follow? Every FD having their own standard? In case you haven't been paying attention, that didn't work in Milford, Boulder, Greystone, Lairdsville, (a FD in DE that I cannot remember the ID of) and a few more places.

You are woefully misinformed on this subject.

[ChicagoFF]

Yeah, and NIMS is the only way anyone can safely command an emergency incident too right?

And if your apparatus does not meet NFPA 1901 its not safe to use?

And Ladies and Gentleman my personal favorite: You don't go to fires with less staff than NFPA 1710 or 1720 says do you?

How can anything else be done, NFPA dictates what is safe and what is not, right? Or do we pick and choose. how easy it is to cast stones at this dept. in FL for not meeting the letter of 1403 when 99% of us can't even come close to meeting minumum staffing standards. But I'm sure that isn't a safety issue!?!?!I agree. People love to pick and choose which NFPA requirement to bring up in an argument, knowing full well that NO ONE is nfpa compliant. Just like the ever escalating gear requirements, we will see how long people continue their love affair with this group of outsiders, suburbanites and salesmen. Their requirements are getting downright silly (rescue strap in coats, hud and amps in scba) and instead of anger and frustration from the cash-strapped small guys and the big guys who know better, there is nothing but meek acceptance of this farce. If they want to be a non-profit concerned with safe, basic, reliable gear and practices then I suppose they would be harmless enough and might be very helpful for the smaller, less experienced departments out there. But I really don't need to hear from a for profit group of manufacturers, suburban firefan chiefs and pencil pushing geeks who have never been in a fire but swear by their burn tower as "just like the real world". It's not. I really don't need their advice on leading out, when to go in, what to wear when I do, and what kind of tank to wear - or not wear when I do go in.

[ChicagoFF]

Picking and choosing what NFPA guidelins to follow is not what this is really about. If it were up to most local governments, I'm sure they would wish the NFPA never existed. It has already cost them a lot of money to try to comply with their standards.


It hasn't cost the "local governments" a thing. Governments don't have any money. All they have is MY MONEY, and that is another reason why this for profit, manufacturer influenced pack of clowns should really be looked at closely. It's MY money they are spending. Every grant for some backwater fire department to get this new gear which they do not need and will only use once or twice a year comes out of MY pocket, so yeah, it bothers me that this un-regulated group is being given any say in what goes on on my, or any other, department. It should bother everyone. The only mystery to me is why it doesn't.

[RFDACM02]

Again in your fervor to bash other brothers many of you have missed my point. My point all along has been to point out that some of you are too quick to bash others. Some brotherhood who can sit behind their computers and pick apart other firefigters on trivial safety items while ignoring staffing issues. Oh boo hoo, it might take a spine to stand up to the city council or time to educate the public. BS!!!

You have chosen to banish the Fire dept. and Instructors of this FL dept. based on an article with a few non-1403 compliant issues. I pretty sure I could, as misinformed as I am on the subject, walk into any one of your live fire training sessions and point out mistakes and dangerous issues.

GEORGEWENDTCFI: "Conversly, you can meet 1403 and still be dangerous by using morons who have no business teaching," Then you are not following NFPA 1403."

So you do believe that Standards and certificates make safety automatic? Just becuase someone has an instructors certificate does not mean they are safe, sober, paying attention, or have the experience to teach any part of a live fire evolution. NFPA 1403 (I am quite familiar) does not tell you how to gauge the instructors credibility. Sure they have to be approved instructors but that does not make them safe. Hell by that token I've had so much NIMS crap I should be the director of FEMA! I know many firefighters who do not have instructors certificates that could school most state fire academy instructors on safety. It's called experience, command presence and situational awareness.

I'll say it again. I have conducted and participated in lots of live fire training, mostly in acquired structures. Most of these were 100% 1403 compliant and Ithat was just great. A few were not 100% compliant (back before we were as smart or liability wise as today). Yep, we used live victims, and there was never an issue with telling if it was a true victim or the "dummy". I agree that using the live person or a dummy in PPE could create confusion. It didn't but of course that practice stopped many years ago anyway. Having a trained, qualified and experienced instructor with each crew and the back up team who was overseeing the "victim" ensured the safety of all participants.

And again for those of you who start reading my posts and see so much red you miss many sentences: I agree that there is little/no reason to use combustible liquids (I never have or would advocate in any way flammables) or live victims anymore. We now run fully 1403 complaint burns and usually wish that we could be only 95% compliant for the sake of better fires. And no I don't mean using any ignitable liquids at all!

But just because it's in 1403 doesn't make the drill safe. Instructors show up hung over, are inexpeirienced, or are otherwise not paying attention enough. Students can wig out, enter without their air turned on, any number of things. 1403 does not dictate the size of a hallway, if the truck co. goes in for search before the line or after, at what point search above the fire is allowed, all things that can have a huge difference in the outcome of your hay and pallet fire.

[RFDACM02]

George: You missed my point again in your ire. I know we all have the right to participate in NFPA standard development. How many of us do? We're all to busy, but the manufactureers have people whose job it is to sit on these committees. To make it better for us? Yeah right!

So on 1403: tell me this, How could you teach VES if you followed 1403 to the letter? Could you teach it so that a firefigter faced with this situation could effect a VES assignment at 3 in the morning? Or is this tactic only going to be used in City's where staffing allows for enough experince that the junior FF never gets this job?

And George since you're a CFI tell us what 1403 allows you to burn in an acquired structure. You probably know the burn characteristics of more class A materials that many others. If I know the characterisitcs of foam rubber can I burn a couch?

This is how NFPA with some help from a huge bunch of us who do nothing will make it so acquired strucutres cannot be used. The prep work that must go into making structure ready to burn only to allow hay and pallets will lose out to the concrete burn towers.

[RFDACM02]

Last thing for this morning:

Do most of you have any clue about Lairdsville? How can you compare (from the original article) this dept. in FL who have an organized fire training program to the depts in NY who participated in a live fire class in an acquired strucutre run by an kid A/C who had no instructor certification, put a new firefighter with zero experience in a room above the fire with only one stairway (read chimney) and lit a fire. Of course there were other older more senior chief officers on scene but hell they weren't in charge, and the safety officer? No check of the building, no requirement to ensure he was happy with the fire set scenario? Some of you ought to read the endless info on this tragedy then decide if you'd cast these FL firefighters in the same light.

[Bones42]

and lit a fire.
can I burn a couch
Baird thought it was ok to burn a couch.

[CaptainGonzo]

Last thing for this morning:

Do most of you have any clue about Lairdsville? How can you compare (from the original article) this dept. in FL who have an organized fire training program to the depts in NY who participated in a live fire class in an acquired strucutre run by an kid A/C who had no instructor certification, put a new firefighter with zero experience in a room above the fire with only one stairway (read chimney) and lit a fire. Of course there were other older more senior chief officers on scene but hell they weren't in charge, and the safety officer? No check of the building, no requirement to ensure he was happy with the fire set scenario? Some of you ought to read the endless info on this tragedy then decide if you'd cast these FL firefighters in the same light.


Yes, I have a clue about Lairdsville. And after that fiasco, a career FD in Florida ( I belive it was Orange County FD) managed to kill a probie by not heeding the lessons learned.. They also had a "organized training program".

If the staff involved in crap like the "rookie roast" didn't follow 1403, then yers, they are cast in the same light...

[fireman4949]

If the staff involved in crap like the "rookie roast" didn't follow 1403, then yes, they are cast in the same light...

I totally agree.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

George: You missed my point again in your ire. I know we all have the right to participate in NFPA standard development. How many of us do? We're all to busy, but the manufactureers have people whose job it is to sit on these committees. To make it better for us? Yeah right!

So on 1403: tell me this, How could you teach VES if you followed 1403 to the letter? Could you teach it so that a firefigter faced with this situation could effect a VES assignment at 3 in the morning? Or is this tactic only going to be used in City's where staffing allows for enough experince that the junior FF never gets this job?

And George since you're a CFI tell us what 1403 allows you to burn in an acquired structure. You probably know the burn characteristics of more class A materials that many others. If I know the characterisitcs of foam rubber can I burn a couch?

This is how NFPA with some help from a huge bunch of us who do nothing will make it so acquired strucutres cannot be used. The prep work that must go into making structure ready to burn only to allow hay and pallets will lose out to the concrete burn towers.

I am not going to play your tit-for-tat game. You have already stated that your current training evolutions are 1403 compliant. So, it would seem that you or someone above you recognized the value of conducting safe training by the book.

My intimate knowledge of this subject comes from a perspective about 150 miles south of Lairdsville. In December of 1992, three recruit fire fighters were seriously disfigured and injured in a live fire training accident in Parsippany, NJ. I was the investigator on that case and worked on a Grand Jury presentation that changed the very face of the manner in which fire training is conducted in NJ today. I lived, breathed and worked with 1403 every day for over a year. I worked in collaboration with some of this country's foremost fire training experts. I know eveyr inch of that document and I have experienced with my five senses the consequences of conducting live fire training that is NOT conducted in accordance with 1403. Have you ever seen a young man, whose dream was to be a fire fighter, with no eyelids and no ears? I have.

You did not conduct live fire training exercises with live victims safely. You conducted an unsafe training exercise and you got incredibly lucky.

Want to know about qualified instructors? So did I. That is why I helped to push for a very strict standard in NJ for instructors to be qualified to teach live burn. And a "hungover" instructor is not physically qualified to be participating in a live burn.

You teach VES the same way you should teach EVERY evolution. You go over it a hundred times in a controlled safe environment. Then you do it under safe, monitored simulated conditions. Then you watch it about a hundred times on the job. Then you do it. You know as well as I do that there is no way that a recruit can learn anything in a training exercise and then be qualified to do it in the real world. That is why a progressive FD with a true training program puts their recruits through a field training program.

Want to know about couches? So did I, since that is what was used in Parsippany. In fact, I wanted to know about so bad, that I brought the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building and Fire Research Lab into my investigation. I learned alot about the HRR of an uplholstered, polyurethane couch. And, NO, you can't burn them and be in compliance with NFPA 1403.


Your comments about NFPA and losing the ability to use acquired structures shows your ignorance. The Standard is in place solely to allow this very valuable training tool to be used, and used safely. There is also a blatant ignorance about recruit training, which, ironically, is why we're here in the first place. Recruit training should be a methodical process that is gradual in exposing the recruit to dangerous circumstances. There is little difference in the "rookie roast" and the littany of fire training accidents that have occured in the last 30 years, except that no one, thank the good Lord, died.

You should probably give up, now. It does not seem as though you have much back-up here. That is, except for one, notoriously anti-NFPA FF.

[ChicagoFF]

You should probably give up, now. It does not seem as though you have much back-up here. That is, except for one, notoriously anti-NFPA FF.

Welcome back George! ;) I still stand by my posts, but will start a new thread on the topic and stop corrupting this one. :p

[johnny46]

How, in zero visibility, can you determine who it is, and what their condition is? Are they acting, or are they actually unconscious?



A flashlight?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Welcome back George! ;) I still stand by my posts, but will start a new thread on the topic and stop corrupting this one. :p

Not an insult, just an observation.

[RFDACM02]

I You have already stated that your current training evolutions are 1403 compliant. So, it would seem that you or someone above you recognized the value of conducting safe training by the book.


First off: Of course following the 1403 guideline is valuable, I never argued against that. but to say that you or NFPA or anyone else has figured out the ONLY way to do something safely is preposterous and shows your true colors.

Hungover instructor example: Exactly, this guy may not be safe. how do you know this? Do you know if your instructor's wife left him last night? My point was that as with anything there are unforseen variable that can make your 1403 compliant session dangerous, I guess you'll argue that this makes it non-compliant. (which section deals with interviewing each instructor each day?)

[RFDACM02]

IYou teach VES the same way you should teach EVERY evolution. You go over it a hundred times in a controlled safe environment. Then you do it under safe, monitored simulated conditions. Then you watch it about a hundred times on the job. Then you do it. You know as well as I do that there is no way that a recruit can learn anything in a training exercise and then be qualified to do it in the real world. That is why a progressive FD with a true training program puts their recruits through a field training program.


What a joke, can I have some of what you're smoking?

It must be nice to teach fire recruits the same evolution hundreds of times before they do it. How many dept's can say they do this? I'll bet less than 10 FD's nationwide can show that a recruit has practiced VES over 100 times before being assigned. How about those dept's who cannot "mentor" their recruits with seasoned vets? I suppose thousands of smaller career, combo an volunteer depts cannot be safe either? Of course none could hope to live up to your high standards as a "progressive department".

[RFDACM02]

You should probably give up, now. It does not seem as though you have much back-up here. That is, except for one, notoriously anti-NFPA FF.
Oh, I'm so not worthy!
And give up now while I have you on a rant? Hell no, I don't need help. I feel your passion for safety as you've seen the outcome of poor training instruction. Have you also seen fires where civilians died because of poor incident command, bad decisions, lack of skilled firefighters? How about dead firefighters who were not prepared for the job? I suppose none of the firefighters who died were trained in compliance with 1403?

And for the record, I do not believe all NFPA standards are bad, but I disagree with many that are influenced in by the manufacturers in the name of our safety. Hell I don't dislike 1403, except that I question if you can have fires that truly prepare firefighters for their jobs without pushing the 1403 envelope.

[RFDACM02]

There is little difference in the "rookie roast" and the littany of fire training accidents that have occured in the last 30 years, except that no one, thank the good Lord, died.

We'll have to agree to disagree. While the name implies some ridiculous "who's got the bigger d*** contest", as I said before a controlled scenario where the students are allowed to feel the building heat and watch the effects of smoke and flame in a room/doorway could be misconstrued as a "Rookie Roast" hardly the same thing as the littany of training accidents over the last 30 years.

[DocVBFDE14]

We'll have to agree to disagree. While the name implies some ridiculous "who's got the bigger d*** contest", as I said before a controlled scenario where the students are allowed to feel the building heat and watch the effects of smoke and flame in a room/doorway could be misconstrued as a "Rookie Roast" hardly the same thing as the littany of training accidents over the last 30 years.

Personally, I think the flashover trainers are just as effective as a house built in 1950 that the owner barely maintained. I know here in Va Beach, we do acquire structures. Maybe they are "too" safe by only using Roscoe smoke, but it still allows us to actually throw ladders, move hose, find Randy and ventilate through many means. Recently we were allowed to do this in the former Lord and Taylors chain at Lynnhaven Mall. Is it perfect? No. Oh, we also place wax paper inside our face peices.

Is it perfect, of course not. Is it a whole lot safer than a potential termite infested/damaged old house. I think recruits can get just as good if not better and safer view of fire growing inside the flashover trainer.

[FlyingKiwi]

What a bunch of Safety Sallies.

Get a bunch of couches piled up.

Use Av Gas and Diesel.

Have a bloody big Recruit Roast.

Let em learn the hard way.

Then get your hands of it and wake up from your wet dream to the real world.

[RFDACM02]

Personally, I think the flashover trainers are just as effective as a house built in 1950 that the owner barely maintained. I know here in Va Beach, we do acquire structures. Maybe they are "too" safe by only using Roscoe smoke, but it still allows us to actually throw ladders, move hose, find Randy and ventilate through many means. Recently we were allowed to do this in the former Lord and Taylors chain at Lynnhaven Mall. Is it perfect? No. Oh, we also place wax paper inside our face peices.

Is it perfect, of course not. Is it a whole lot safer than a potential termite infested/damaged old house. I think recruits can get just as good if not better and safer view of fire growing inside the flashover trainer.

Sounds like an excellant drill. Trust me I'd love to have a large area structure to train in safely with no fire and fake smoke. Using what's available is a hallmark of the fire service. I'm not convinced of the flashover simulators after having some discussions with many nationally recognized instructors who always tell you to ask the student what they actaully learned?

We also turn away 10 times more structures for live fire training than we accept, as they are not structurally sound, are animal infested, or need too much work to make safe.

[Rescue101]

Animal infested? They won't be after you light 'em up.Even the belfry bats don't hang around.We use aquired structures.We don't "rookie roast",in fact we double the instructors with them.1403? ABSOLUTELY! You can still get good fires,not incinerate your crews,there still might be some extension but everything you see/do should mirror real world events but in a controlled overseen event with all the proper safeties in place.1403 reminds you to cover all these bases.Does it ensure that an aquired structure is still there after the first burn? Nope,but it DOES insure that all the "players"can be safely gotten outside when it goes.And that the proper amount of equipment is in place to control the results.They closest we come to the "roast"is during TI camera training where we put the instructor and the students in the burn room with a small fire in the burn pot .A slow steady fire is maintained while the students "sit around the campfire".In a while the heat stratifications start becoming quite evident.At that point the students extinquish the fire,vent the room and the process starts over.No burned equipment,no burned students,just a good exercise in fire behavior.Oh,and there is a charged line in the room,but you could put the fire out with a "can".George and I have had disagreements in the past but this is one NFPA requirement I can live with.And believe in. T.C.

[FlyingRon]

Osceola County, FL (not Orange County) and the one George couldn't remember was Greenwood, DE.

[CaptainGonzo]

Osceola County, FL (not Orange County) and the one George couldn't remember was Greenwood, DE.

Thanks for the correction. At least I got the first letter and state right.... ;)

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Oh, I'm so not worthy!
And give up now while I have you on a rant? Hell no, I don't need help. I feel your passion for safety as you've seen the outcome of poor training instruction. Have you also seen fires where civilians died because of poor incident command, bad decisions, lack of skilled firefighters? How about dead firefighters who were not prepared for the job? I suppose none of the firefighters who died were trained in compliance with 1403?

And for the record, I do not believe all NFPA standards are bad, but I disagree with many that are influenced in by the manufacturers in the name of our safety. Hell I don't dislike 1403, except that I question if you can have fires that truly prepare firefighters for their jobs without pushing the 1403 envelope.

If this discussion is going to now become "I have seen more and done more that you have", it is over. You win. You're better than me.

Your attitude about live fire training is dangerous and archaic.

[CaptainGonzo]

Originally Posted by RFDACM02
Oh, I'm so not worthy!
And give up now while I have you on a rant? Hell no, I don't need help. I feel your passion for safety as you've seen the outcome of poor training instruction. Have you also seen fires where civilians died because of poor incident command, bad decisions, lack of skilled firefighters? How about dead firefighters who were not prepared for the job? I suppose none of the firefighters who died were trained in compliance with 1403?

Brother.. you crossed the line with this post.

Civilians have died in fires that had excellent command, good decisions and extremely skilled firefighters.

Extremely skilled firefighters who were very well prepared physically and mentally for the job have died in the line of duty.

As far as 1403 compliance in training.. it depends on whether they were trained pre 1403 or post 1403.

[RFDACM02]

Originally Posted by RFDACM02


Brother.. you crossed the line with this post.

Civilians have died in fires that had excellent command, good decisions and extremely skilled firefighters.

Extremely skilled firefighters who were very well prepared physically and mentally for the job have died in the line of duty.

As far as 1403 compliance in training.. it depends on whether they were trained pre 1403 or post 1403.
Capt. Sorry I had no intention to offend (not even George) my point was that saying that firefighters have been killed becuase of non-compliant training dismisses any other causes. George alluded to investigating firefighter deaths from a failed training incident. My assumption is that he's particpated in other investigations where fatalities occured and the cause was not non-1403 comliance. It's a sad fact that both civilians and brothers are killed regardless of the training when poor decisions, tactics, or otherwise have been employed. To ignore this fact would be to not learn from others mistakes. I pointed no fingers and had no particular incidents in mind, just that it happens.

Of course tragedies happen when all the best forces come together. I'm not sure how you took my post but I certainly wasn't intending to slight anyone, merely point out that 1403 is no gaurantee of a successful outcome. A good start to a training program? Of course, but not the only factor.

Note: Having re-read my post I can see how you might have taken my comments. Again, I am sorry that it was taken this way, I certainly didn't mean to imply in the incident George mentioned the fallen brothers were not properly trained. I have no knowledge of that incident and would not even speculate as to the cuase of such a tragedy. That is how I got started in this thread in the first place, with firefighters jumping on the bandwagon to trash others with very little information.

[255nozzle]

I have read the article put out about this departments tatics for training.I think in this day and age this is totaly unacceptable; however I can see both sides of the problem. There has become a fine line between training and much needed safety. The only problem is nobody is there to enforce it. This department said they take fireman inside until it is so hot they don't want to be there. Then in another statement they claim to be training them to be safe and build thier confidance level in a hot and smoky enviroment with the extra wieght of gear and zero visability. I think this department like so many other small departments had good intensions for what they are doing. If the firefighters on the department were trained this way and have not furthered thier education then when they become officers and train new firefighters these same tatics will be employed. I came from a larger county to a small south georgia city that used these tatics. ( I no longer work there) The chief had stated" if you wanted it easy go to work at the bank". That you should be able to put out every fire and if a single wall was all that was standing when you arrived it better be standing when you left. They used to train in two old school busses put together with all the windows tinned up tight, seats still inside and put 10 to 15 pallets inside and you could only use a booster hose on 12 gpm. If you could not handle the heat they would not let you be on the fire department. I was trained to this set of standards when I came to work for them. I knew it was not right but enjoyed getting paid to fight fire.
Till I finally decided I would not be able to change this way of thinking and quit working for them.
However I see firefighters showing up for training at state live burn centers saying they have 5 years of experience and are good firefighters. Then you get them in a Class A burn building with only 3 or 4 pallets in a large burn room and they complain about the heat. Its too hot they need to leave. These fires would not have rated a good kitchen fire. They have been taught that if you pull up and have moderate smoke or fire you should let the structure go to the ground. What if these firefighters were made to decide about a rescue of a civilian or brother firefighter in trouble. Fires are hot, the job is sometimes dangerous. Thats what you get paid for. Would they make entrance or let you die because they have only seen pallets and have never been in a real fire. Today firefighters are recieving less call volume due to good safety educators, however this has caused a less experienced work force. They have strong book knowledge with no street time to back it up. I am not saying burn the rookie but you need to let the fires get bigger as they become more confident to build knowledge so they make good decisions when they are on scene. These same rookies might be in command initially on a volunteer department. They need to know what can be extinguished vs what can not. But where do you draw they line between training and stupidity. I think there are more departments training this same way then following NFPA. How as a profession do we solve this problem? Because talking is not getting it done.

[RFDACM02]

If this discussion is going to now become "I have seen more and done more that you have", it is over. You win. You're better than me.


You lost me there. Done more? Seen more? Where does this come from? Becuase I asked if you seen other tragedies that were not caused by non-compliant training? I merely was making a point that one cannot make a blanket statement about all training, all accidents, all tragedies.

[RFDACM02]

Your attitude about live fire training is dangerous and archaic.

How is my attitude dangerous? Becuase I don't beleive that 1403 is a silver bullet that automatically makes for successful live fire training. The fact that 1403 only requires that instructors be qualified by the AHJ is one of the reasons you can have dangerous 1403 compliant drills.I told you time and again, that any burns I've been involved in in recent years are 1403 compliant. The reason that we have such rules as 1403 is because often our view of common sense is too greatly varied. Given the number of live fire training sessions conducted 20 years ago compared to today, it is easy to see a reduction in injuries and worse. So is 1403 the reason for less injuries and deaths, sure. But safer is not the only reason. More liablility, more training requirements, more time, more prep = less actual live fire training. The outcome is good right? No one wants to see injured brothers or sisters. Or are we setting ourselves up for more OTJ injuries?

[FlyingKiwi]

Your paradoxes are overwhelming.


A STANDARD is something that should, indeed MUST, evolve to remain a standard.

How the standard comes about is irrelevant to the core issue of WHY it was bought about in the first place.

It MUST be an evolving thing that has a peer revue over time to keep up with knowledge and learning.

Maybe the old expression "when the bell rings, be there." applies.

If you have serious concerns over the standard. Get involved, suggest your "improvements", let them the committee revue them and if accepted by the majority accepted as the new standard.

Until then....

Keep doing it into a head wind.

[CaptainGonzo]

How is my attitude dangerous? Becuase I don't beleive that 1403 is a silver bullet that automatically makes for successful live fire training. The fact that 1403 only requires that instructors be qualified by the AHJ is one of the reasons you can have dangerous 1403 compliant drills.I told you time and again, that any burns I've been involved in in recent years are 1403 compliant. The reason that we have such rules as 1403 is because often our view of common sense is too greatly varied. Given the number of live fire training sessions conducted 20 years ago compared to today, it is easy to see a reduction in injuries and worse. So is 1403 the reason for less injuries and deaths, sure. But safer is not the only reason. More liablility, more training requirements, more time, more prep = less actual live fire training. The outcome is good right? No one wants to see injured brothers or sisters. Or are we setting ourselves up for more OTJ injuries?

Contact the family of Brad Golden in Lairdsville, NY and see if they agree with your point of view....

[fireman4949]

They used to train in two old school busses put together with all the windows tinned up tight, seats still inside and put 10 to 15 pallets inside and you could only use a booster hose on 12 gpm. If you could not handle the heat they would not let you be on the fire department. I was trained to this set of standards when I came to work for them. I knew it was not right but enjoyed getting paid to fight fire.
Till I finally decided I would not be able to change this way of thinking and quit working for them.



Does Parsippany, N.J. ring a bell to anyone here? They thought a school bus was a good training prop too.:mad: Ask them what they think now.:rolleyes:

This is precisely the reason why we have 1403. To save the ignorant and the stupid from killing themselves...And, in turn, from killing us!

255nozzle, I'm in no way aiming this at you. Just to the reference you made to your previous department and its chief.




Kevin:D

[RFDACM02]

Contact the family of Brad Golden in Lairdsville, NY and see if they agree with your point of view....

Capt. I'm sure you know as well as I that the Lairdsville fatality was so far from remotely safe that to use that in comparision is not even reality. The issue was more than one department and many Chief Officers with complete ignorance to safety at any level. But to one end, the lead instructor was 1403 compliant to be an instructor because his Chief, the AHJ, said it was OK! The levels of incompetence in that tragedy run deeper than the criminal charges that were brought. Again, we're way past anything positive here, so I'll leave it alone.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

They used to train in two old school busses put together with all the windows tinned up tight, seats still inside and put 10 to 15 pallets inside and you could only use a booster hose on 12 gpm. If you could not handle the heat they would not let you be on the fire department. I was trained to this set of standards when I came to work for them. I knew it was not right but enjoyed getting paid to fight fire.


(Post edited with a sincere apology to 25Snozzle).

[ChicagoFF]

They used to train in two old school busses put together with all the windows tinned up tight, seats still inside and put 10 to 15 pallets inside and you could only use a booster hose on 12 gpm. If you could not handle the heat they would not let you be on the fire department. I was trained to this set of standards when I came to work for them. I knew it was not right but enjoyed getting paid to fight fire.


So, essentially you're not only a fool, you are a whore, too. What else would you do that was wrong in order to "get paid to fight fire"?

The incident that I spoke about before occurred in a school bus. I arrived on scene while it was still smoldering. Trust me, 10-15 pallets in the school bus is more than enough fuel to create flashover conditions. A 12 gpm booster line is a glorified garden hose and has no place in today's fire service.

But you proved you had a bid d+9k and you are a man. Are you proud of yourself? You really showed all of us what kind of "man" you really are.Oh come on. The guy clearly stated that he thought this was not right and that it was just how he was trained and that he left the department because he disagreed with these practices. And now you want to bust his balls because of something he had no control over??? In your rabid devotion to safety you are now turning a blind eye to people who agree with you? And as for rfdacm02 - he's agreeing with you too! All he's saying is that just because you conform to the letter of the law does not insure a safe training session. Are you totally discounting the fact that a dept. can comply with 1403 and still not be safe due to inexperienced personnel and that a dept. may not meet every single point in 1403 and yet could still be conducting safe training? Thats just naive and small minded. I agree with arguing your point, but this is taking it beyond the pale.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Oh come on. The guy clearly stated that he thought this was not right and that it was just how he was trained and that he left the department because he disagreed with these practices. And now you want to bust his balls because of something he had no control over??? In your rabid devotion to safety you are now turning a blind eye to people who agree with you? And as for rfdacm02 - he's agreeing with you too! All he's saying is that just because you conform to the letter of the law does not insure a safe training session. Are you totally discounting the fact that a dept. can comply with 1403 and still not be safe due to inexperienced personnel and that a dept. may not meet very single point in 1403 and yet could still be conducting safe training? Thats just naive and small minded. I agree with arguing your point, but this is taking it beyond the pale.
Based on this post, I reread the post I was commenting on. I completely misread it. I was wrong. I apologize to 25Snozzle and I will edit the post.

Thank you for bringing this gross error to my attention.

[HotTrotter]

This is precisely the reason why we have 1403. To save the ignorant and the stupid from killing themselves...And, in turn, from killing us!
Kevin:D

Don't take this the wrong way. I was talking to an equipment manufacturer one time and I made the comment about how they had idioy proofed the piece of equipment. He laughed and told me they stopped trying to idiot proof their stuff. Everytime they thought they had it idiot proofed someone went and invented a better idiot.

Which then begs the question: What makes you so sure that having a regulation will save us from the ignorant and stupid. After all, if they are ignorant and stupid will they know how to read the regulation and use it. Then again, they are ignorant to it's very existance.

[ChiefReason]

RFDACM02:
You cannot possibly discuss safety in live fire training without discussing Lairdsville or Osceola County for that matter. There are those that rail on the NIOSH report, but the local jurisdictions have no interest in providing us with details of their investigations, so we are stuck with reviewing NIOSH fatality reports.
I did alot of research on Lairdsville and in another venue, I would be more than glad to share it with you. I tried to copy and paste it here, but with all of the problems this website is having, it wouldn't let me do it.
But here is a fresh training death right from the front page. Read it and come back for more discussion.
http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=39&id=53403
CR

[RFDACM02]

ChiefReason: I agree that Lairdsville is an important lesson that many can learn from. My issue with is with the name of this thread and the little information provided. I cannot accept that enyone who does not follow 1403 to the letter is automatically unsafe or will I accept that all 1403 complaint sessions are automatically safe. I think it was unfair, given the information provided, to charactize the FL FD in the article as on the same level as the group from the Lairdsville incident.

Given the tragedy that has just occured in Baltimore I suggest we let this topic rest while our thoughts and prayers are with FF Wilson's family and brother and sister firefighters.

[bcarey]

Photo Spurs Investigation into Florida Department's Training Burns

Fla. Department's Training Burns Investigated
A Firehouse.com forum discussion scrutinzed department training practices.

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?id=53481&sectionId=46

[ChiefReason]

Photo Spurs Investigation into Florida Department's Training Burns

Fla. Department's Training Burns Investigated
A Firehouse.com forum discussion scrutinzed department training practices.

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?id=53481&sectionId=46

And this is EXACTLY the reason why FH.com should consider closing these forums to other segments of society. "Firehouse.com" should speak to the firefighting segment and not wannabees, buffs, imposters or singles looking to hook up.
This is serious business and if seeing our discussion about the safety of a training exercise piqued the curiousity of a state fire marshal's office, then good.
If you don't want agencies involved in your business, then maybe you shouldn't come here to brag.
And after the whole Alex Yates fiasco, maybe members of the forums should have to provide proof that they were, are or in the process of becoming a firefighter in order to participate in the discussions. Everybody can read them, but only members can post. It has been mentioned before. Maybe the time has come.
CR

[Pizan1]

BLAH BLAH. Where any of you there? Have any of you ever dealt with the press? What you say is not what they print. Quit playing armchair quarterback unless you were there. Ever see the cover of Firehouse or Fire Engineering magazines? I see a HUNDREDS of UNSAFE things in these pictures. This is part of the problem in society everyone has a comment, but they were not there, they did not participate, you are making comments about the department based solely on what the PRESS chose to print and publish. Why is this department unprofessional? As one of you posted. Because of the story, the PRESS CHOSE to publish. YOU ARE UNPROFESSIOANL AND IGNORANT TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS! Because you were there right? GET A LIFE!

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

BLAH BLAH. Where any of you there? Have any of you ever dealt with the press? What you say is not what they print. Quit playing armchair quarterback unless you were there. Ever see the cover of Firehouse or Fire Engineering magazines? I see a HUNDREDS of UNSAFE things in these pictures. This is part of the problem in society everyone has a comment, but they were not there, they did not participate, you are making comments about the department based solely on what the PRESS chose to print and publish. Why is this department unprofessional? As one of you posted. Because of the story, the PRESS CHOSE to publish. YOU ARE UNPROFESSIOANL AND IGNORANT TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS! Because you were there right? GET A LIFE!

Hold on there, cowboy.l

What the hell are you talking about? Lairdsville? Florida? Something else?

Let us know so we can be factual when we tell you you're wrong.

[VinnieB]

CR...I think that for a reporter to use an open forum whos members really cant prove thier credibility, is a poor mark of a journalist. And for anyone to take an article seriously based on what was written on an internet blog....well thats just a wash women to me.

[Pizan1]

I am talking about the High Springs Florida story. How can anyone sit here and throw stone at this department if they do not have ALL the facts. You people are just as bad as the public sit around and talk smack and from what I can tell, not one of the people who posted on this topic where there, yet they make comments like that just shows how unprofessional the department is, etc., etc.: mad:
If you look at my posts, I do not post often, but I read alot and this bantering chaps my ass especially when fellow brothers do not have the facts, but yet they like to attack other departments based on a stupid reporters and editors picking and chosing of what to print!

[ChiefReason]

BLAH BLAH. Where any of you there? Have any of you ever dealt with the press? What you say is not what they print. Quit playing armchair quarterback unless you were there. Ever see the cover of Firehouse or Fire Engineering magazines? I see a HUNDREDS of UNSAFE things in these pictures. This is part of the problem in society everyone has a comment, but they were not there, they did not participate, you are making comments about the department based solely on what the PRESS chose to print and publish. Why is this department unprofessional? As one of you posted. Because of the story, the PRESS CHOSE to publish. YOU ARE UNPROFESSIOANL AND IGNORANT TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS! Because you were there right? GET A LIFE!

Excuse me while I scrape you off the bottom of my shoe.
Yes; I have been there! Not THERE, but there. I am in front of the press frequently; often quoted. They print what I say. I'm not playing armchair quarterback. But since I have been there, I can offer my perspective and opinion. Yes; I subscribe to both. You just look at the covers; I read the articles. In this society that is free, we have the right to comment. Commenting on what HE said to the press. Read the damned article. It's very enlightening. I never said anywhere that the department was unprofessional. Unsafe is not unprofessional. There's a difference. Look it up. You don't know me. I am neither unprofessional or ignorant.
And I have a fabulous life.
Tell you what; go to the Illinois threads. We'll have a chat there.
Unless, of course, you weren't talking to me.
CR

[ChiefReason]

CR...I think that for a reporter to use an open forum whos members really cant prove thier credibility, is a poor mark of a journalist. And for anyone to take an article seriously based on what was written on an internet blog....well thats just a wash women to me.

Vinnie:
Where would we be without journalism? Newspapers? Newsmagazine shows?
They provide us with issues to discuss. That's what we are doing. If that is not what we should be doing, then Firehouse.com shouldn't post the articles, I guess. What are we suppose to do; read them and then just go "hmmmmmm; that was certainly interesting"?
No; articles are here so that there can be pro and cons, agree and disagree, truth and lies, ying and yang.
NO ONE will convince me that they read the articles here and don't form an opinion. You may not post it here, but you have already formed an opinion.
Sorry if I have the nuts to want to discuss it. I am what I am. And like it or not, we have to discuss these training "issues" so we aren't reading someone's obituary and telling ourselves "we have seen this before".
No thanks.
CR

[Pizan1]

If you wrote it I am talking to you!

[VinnieB]

Vinnie:
Where would we be without journalism? Newspapers? Newsmagazine shows?
They provide us with issues to discuss. That's what we are doing. If that is not what we should be doing, then Firehouse.com shouldn't post the articles, I guess. What are we suppose to do; read them and then just go "hm............................ .cuss these training "issues" so we aren't reading someone's obituary and telling ourselves "we have seen this before".
No thanks.
CR

Easy there CR....I'm not picking a fight with you and I am not saying that Journalism is Evil and needs to go. I was just saying that for a Journalist to use an Internet blog for Information where there is no credibility, that a poor journalist. I read over the post in question....there were maybe 2 or 3 quality posts that were quality.

Here's my point, I was contacted by a TIMES reporter about 2 years ago, the guy has been hounding me since. It was inreference to a post I made on a Military site with regards to a contrivercial weapons system that I did some testing with. The item is a HOT topic in the Military and Washington. The guy read all 100 pages on the topic....and contacted the posters for interviews. But Alias....no interviews.....no article. That to me is a good Journalist. He is checking his facts before he puts anything on paper and signs his name to it. But that's just my opinion.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Vinnie:
Where would we be without journalism? Newspapers? Newsmagazine shows?
They provide us with issues to discuss. That's what we are doing. If that is not what we should be doing, then Firehouse.com shouldn't post the articles, I guess. What are we suppose to do; read them and then just go "hmmmmmm; that was certainly interesting"?
No; articles are here so that there can be pro and cons, agree and disagree, truth and lies, ying and yang.
NO ONE will convince me that they read the articles here and don't form an opinion. You may not post it here, but you have already formed an opinion.
Sorry if I have the nuts to want to discuss it. I am what I am. And like it or not, we have to discuss these training "issues" so we aren't reading someone's obituary and telling ourselves "we have seen this before".
No thanks.
CR


I think you probably missed Vinnie's point. And I agree with him.

If a journalist gets an idea for a story from this forum, does his research and wrt