First In...Stay Outside???!!!

[TFW1TFW1]

So my career department Chief is proposing that the first due company on a structure fire: 1. Take Command 2. Pull a hose line to the door and wait for the second due to take it in 3. And become RI Team in the yard when the hose line goes in in the second due's hands.

Until now, we have been a very aggressive interior attack department, so this is major shock. Our Chief says that a neigboring department does it and they have not lost any firefighters in the line of duty. We think they are pu$$!&$ because everything they have burns to the ground.

We have not had a LODD since the 60's and that was from an accident involving two firetrucks going to a call. You have to look well before that to find a LODD in a structure, and we see a lot of fire.

Is this something that is becoming commonplace or do we have the right to be upset?

____________________
MGHjr
www.thefirefighterwithin.com

[FTMPTB15]

It is very unfortunate that many departments are becoming less aggressive with their fire attack. I feel it's just another 'tradition' within the fire service that is going by the way-side. Fortunately, my department remains aggressive with our fire attack. The first in company takes in the first line and usually by the time the first-in is finished stretching their line, the second due is on scene and right behind them with a second line when they enter the structure.

I have heard of departments trying to implement rules like: No life hazard, no one enters. Meaning if the homeowners confirm no one is inside, then no firefighters should enter. That is falling along the 'famous' Bruno saying: "Risk a lot to save a lot, Risk little to save little." Well, last I checked, part of our job is to protect property. Even if there is no 'life' inside of the structure, that is no reason not to enter and quickly extinguish the fire. If I were you, I'd be ****ed too! Good luck fighting that. I know the guys at the department who "supposedly" can't go in the structure say that their Chief better beat them to the scene to keep them from going in.

[TFW1TFW1]

Yeah, I think there is going to be a lot of "life hazard" claims, if you know what I mean. Not to mention that the Chief lives in a very well-to-do part of the jurisdiction and I don't think his neigbors would come close to tolerating us standing there until the second due arrives. The only good thing is that our stations are close (City Department) but I can see now that one of the fall-outs may be no one wanting to get there first.

It's just bad for business. It will interesting to see who they send home first for breaking this one.

[FTMPTB15]

Not that I think this would really happen, but I can understand companies not wanting to be first in. Whereas, normally everyone wants to be first in.. especially in another company's first-due. Now with this new rule that you're explaining, I could see companies trying to time it so that they are second in! It's almost like they'd be laughing at the company that "beat them into their own first due" because since they beat them in... the second due gets to walk right past them into the structure. I'd hope this wouldn't really be the case, but as competitive as some companies are with each other.. I wouldn't be suprised if it happened.

[SPFDRum]

Wow! Any better way to kill the drive and desire of an intelligently agressive fire department? Not to mention the extreme increase of risk if the 2nd due company is delayed. To many chiefs need to just sit in the office and leave the fireground decissions to the street commanders.

I have heard of departments trying to implement rules like: No life hazard, no one enters. Meaning if the homeowners confirm no one is inside, then no firefighters should enter. That is falling along the 'famous' Bruno saying: "Risk a lot to save a lot, Risk little to save little."

Yeah, me too. Another great plan. So when you live in a city with houses only inches apart, at what point do you think it's time to put out the fire, when it consumes the block of origin?

[FFFRED]

So my career department Chief is proposing that the first due company on a structure fire: 1. Take Command 2. Pull a hose line to the door and wait for the second due to take it in 3. And become RI Team in the yard when the hose line goes in in the second due's hands.

Until now, we have been a very aggressive interior attack department, so this is major shock. Our Chief says that a neigboring department does it and they have not lost any firefighters in the line of duty. We think they are pu$$!&$ because everything they have burns to the ground.

We have not had a LODD since the 60's and that was from an accident involving two firetrucks going to a call. You have to look well before that to find a LODD in a structure, and we see a lot of fire.

Is this something that is becoming commonplace or do we have the right to be upset?

Is this for real? Time for that old dope to retire. There is no excuse or rationale that could support this line of thinking...especially since it comes from a fire chief. An absolute disgrace in my opinion.

If he is so sure he has stumbled upon the greatest safety measure as to preventing firemens deaths and injuries...I would love to see an article written by him in the next Fire Engineering. (I doubt it would make it past the editorial board.)



FTM-PTB

[mcfd45]

Just wait till its a councilmembers house and then see how quick you go in. this is rediculous. why even show up just let er burn to the ground? think how ****ed the insurance comps are going to be.

[FTMPTB15]

So when you live in a city with houses only inches apart, at what point do you think it's time to put out the fire, when it consumes the block of origin?

I know at which point I'd go in and put the fire out. Many of the guys that I have heard talking about the "policy" have stated that, A.) They're going to have to be practically 'held back' from entering a structure, and B.) For the most part, it hasn't really been enforced. If they are not going to enforce the policy, then I see no reason for having it "in place." Apparently the 'reasoning' behind the "policy" is to prevent firefighter deaths. Good intent, but not the best way to go about doing that (in my opinion).

[drparasite]

So my career department Chief is proposing that the first due company on a structure fire: 1. Take Command 2. Pull a hose line to the door and wait for the second due to take it in 3. And become RI Team in the yard when the hose line goes in in the second due's hands.

Until now, we have been a very aggressive interior attack department, so this is major shock. Our Chief says that a neigboring department does it and they have not lost any firefighters in the line of duty. We think they are pu$$!&$ because everything they have burns to the ground.

We have not had a LODD since the 60's and that was from an accident involving two firetrucks going to a call. You have to look well before that to find a LODD in a structure, and we see a lot of fire.

Is this something that is becoming commonplace or do we have the right to be upset?

____________________
MGHjr
www.thefirefighterwithin.com

hmmmmm. what an "interesting" concept.....

hey TFW1TFW1, got a couple of questions about your department: how many guys would you find on your first due engines and how long to you think (average time) the first due engine is on scene before the second due piece arrives?

If you have 3 guys, then I can see his point of view. 3 FFs (drivers, officer, FF) can only do so much. driver is pumping, officer is running command (and contrary to some belief, you shouldn't have your IC inside the structure of a working fire), and you have one free FF to stretch the line. and he can't go inside by himself, can he? Plus, if you do run 3 person engine crews, then if that 2nd engine is 30 seconds behind the first one, then when the 2nd engine arrives, their officer and FF can join the first engine FF on the line, and make an entry into the structure. at least I think that is what he is thinking.

Yeah, me too. Another great plan. So when you live in a city with houses only inches apart, at what point do you think it's time to put out the fire, when it consumes the block of origin?

I don't know... how many firefighters lives are equal to one building? if it costs you the lives of two firefighters to save those row houses (no lives at risk, just property), is it worthwhile action? even better, would you like "he died trying to save someone's possessions" on your tombstone? you don't need to answer, it's a rhetorical question.

I know there are people on here that don't agree with Brunocini's views on a lot of things, and I will admit that I don't think he is always right. But I know I would not be happy if one of my brothers died trying to save something that is going to be easily replaced by an insurance company.....

btw, we like to operate on the notion that everything will go exactly as we plan. maybe (and I say maybe) we should consider what would happen if stuff went really bad 30 seconds into our fire supression activities....

[TFW1TFW1]

hmmmmm. what an "interesting" concept.....

hey TFW1TFW1, got a couple of questions about your department: how many guys would you find on your first due engines and how long to you think (average time) the first due engine is on scene before the second due piece arrives?

Usually, we run four. We have about a 3-minute average or less, and depending on where you are in the city, it could take anywhere from 30 seconds to 4 or 5 minutes probably at the most in the perfect scenerio. However, our City is busy and the perfect scenerio usually doesn't exist and it is not uncommon to have companies in succession out-of-service on calls for a particular assignment.

That's what makes it even more sad, though, is to have the second due right on top of you and literally handing the nozzle to them. The two basic scenarios are going to be (1) blasting your first due honor, pride, and enthusiasm but the fire goes out quickly because the true 2nd due got there fast.... or (2) the structure does burn because the "2nd Due" is actually coming from 3 or 4 districts away because of other calls taking companies OoS.

And we understand that losing a building isn't worth dying for, and we do try to avoid that, but a lot of our structures are, as previously stated, very close together, and we don't think it's "worth" standing there watching either. Hell, they can train anyone to do that. That is what is supposed to set firefighters apart from average schmoes. We're the ones who stop this crap from getting bigger.

It's really a tough internal fight. In the long run, I would hate to put my friends and family through the grief of my funeral, but on the other side, we are being asked, or told, more and more to not do all the things I joined the Fire Department for in the first place. It just makes me wonder how much "risk" we will eliminate before we realize we have over done it, and the Fire Service has suffered irreversible effects as a result.

_______________________
MGHjr
www.thefirefighterwithin.com

[FTMPTB15]

I don't know... how many firefighters lives are equal to one building? if it costs you the lives of two firefighters to save those row houses (no lives at risk, just property), is it worthwhile action?

Before I go any further, I just want to confirm something. When you say, "no lives at risk, just property" I assume that you mean it is confirmed by either the homeowner/family and/or a primary and secondary search that the building is (in fact) unoccupied. Clarifying that point will prevent further assumption.

[Frosty42]

My dept has adopted the Two In/Two Out policy. For us, that means five on scene prior to any interior operations. The exception to this rule is when there is a life safety hazard (car in the driveway, reported entrapment etc). I was against it at first, but the last couple of fires where there was no life safety hazard present, this policy actually settled us down during the first couple of minutes and it permitted us to set up and position correctly. It is still relatively new to us, requiring us to provide better size-ups and 360's.

[drparasite]

Before I go any further, I just want to confirm something. When you say, "no lives at risk, just property" I assume that you mean it is confirmed by either the homeowner/family and/or a primary and secondary search that the building is (in fact) unoccupied. Clarifying that point will prevent further assumption.

yes.

TFW1TFW1, that is a sucky policy, maybe someone will be able to show the chief why others ways would be better.