Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who's talking now?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by tree68 View Post
    There's our problem - defining exactly when those conditions exist.

    Really? How hard is it to be able to judge whether you should enter or not? If the fire is still in the compartment (room) of origin, it should be a no brainer. If the fire has spread to multiple compartments but the structure is still sound, it should be a no brainer. If there are survivable victims it should be a no brainer.

    Obviously, if fire is blowing out of every orifice of the building not entering until at least the main body of fire is knocked down and an evaluation of structural stability is done should be a no brainer. Structural instability may keep us out if it is bad enough. We may have to make a judgement call as to risk versus reward if victims are in the building. Where I may go, you might not and vice versa.


    I don't recall anyone ever saying that they wouldn't enter, knock down the fire, etc, when conditions allow.

    It appears to me that some folks don't seem to accept that there are times when the risk outweighs the potential benefit.

    Name one here that you believe is saying that. Because frankly, I am not seeing that. I am seeing people making excuses not to enter with no validity other than it is dangerous, which it ALWAYS is when you fight fire. No one here is saying they run blindly into a building on fire, no one is yelling "Banzai", no one is looking to die at a fire. Yet that seems to be the impression that you and LA are trying to push. You couldn't possibly be more wrong.
    Aggressive firefighting is not synonomous with dangerous firefighting no matter how much some try to paint it that way.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 01-17-2011, 11:13 PM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Catch22 View Post
      And you'll never be able to define them. What I would enter may not be what you'd enter, or vice versa. What I would allow one guy to enter I won't another. Far too many variables to try to define.
      More so on a damned internet forum. Jeesh.

      Originally posted by FyredUp View Post
      Aggressive firefighting is not synonomous with dangerous firefighting no matter how much some try to paint it that way.
      Also true.
      Career Firefighter
      Volunteer Captain

      -Professional in Either Role-

      Originally posted by Rescue101
      I don't mind fire rolling over my head. I just don't like it rolling UNDER my a**.

      Comment


      • #48
        Just got home from a long drill night at LSU. Too tired to comment except to say that dangerous firefighting is relative to the department's training, experience, resources, command structure, etc etc.

        As I have said before what would be dangerous in one department may be a routine operation in another.

        This is a discussion that will never end because some folks here will never concede that it is OK for a department too simply say this fire is beyond our abilities, and even though Department X down the road may fight it, we're not, and if the building burns to the ground so be it.

        Every department not only has the right to draw the line at whatever point they chose to keep their members safe but they also have the obligation to do so. For some departments that may be a single room fire, and if that is their choice, that's perfectly OK with me.

        Goodnight.
        Last edited by LaFireEducator; 01-18-2011, 08:58 AM.
        Train to fight the fires you fight.

        Comment


        • #49
          You would think this discussion would have been exhausted past the point of life. Alas, no...I am wrong.
          "It's a living thing brian..."

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
            Unfortunately McCormack's attitude of aggressiveness and extinguishment before safety seems to be the mantra for this group.
            Perhaps this is your true failing, reading comprehension.

            He is not "agressive", he's mainstream.

            You are "regressive, and not mainstream (no offense).

            I have yet to see anyone on his "side" of the argument advocate operating in an unsafe manner.
            I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

            "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

            "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by truckedup133 View Post
              You would think this discussion would have been exhausted past the point of life. Alas, no...I am wrong.
              I swear. I think that this is just one two-year-long thread with about a hundred different titles.
              Career Fire Captain
              Volunteer Chief Officer


              Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Catch22 View Post
                And you'll never be able to define them. What I would enter may not be what you'd enter, or vice versa. What I would allow one guy to enter I won't another. Far too many variables to try to define.
                We have a winner!
                Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

                Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
                  I swear. I think that this is just one two-year-long thread with about a hundred different titles.
                  This time with a Poodle!
                  So you call this your free country
                  Tell me why it costs so much to live
                  -3dd

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by hwoods View Post
                    Looks like Food on the Stove. Hold 1 and 1...........
                    Hold 1 and NONE,nothing to save here. T.C.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by FyredUp View Post
                      Do tell, or rather show, us where ANYONE here said there are NEVER any circumstances where entry isn't possible. I myself have said repeatedly that you would not enter a building with fire blowing out of every door and window or that was structurally unsound.

                      I have also repeatedly said we MUST enter if conditions allow, knocking down the fire, committing to an interior attack, in an attempt to locate and rescue potential victims. IF CONDITIONS ALLOW. The prime issue is what defines that situation. Mine is so different from LA's as can be possibly believed. That does not make me crazy, stupid or suicidal.
                      I never stated that a fire can't be attacked with a fair to high degree of safety by a well staffed, well trained, experienced department operating with modern PPE, communications, apparatus and equipment with a well established water supply.

                      Urban departments do it everyday. Some surburban departments do it everyday. And yes, some rural departments do it everyday. My combo department does it everyday when we operate at residental structures.

                      At this time, my volunteer department is not one of the above.

                      My combo department has identified shortcomings at commercial fires which limits our interior actions to the incipent stage.

                      The section highlighted in red is where we disagree.

                      The decsion to make entry should not be based soley, or even primarily on the fire conditions. The decision to make entry should be based primarily on the departments ability to do so with a high degree of safety. In other words, the department should be well trained, experienced, operating with safe PPE and SCBA witth modern apparatus and the ability to maintain a water supply to conduct an interior attack. If they are not, and they conduct interior operations, they are playing a game of Russian Roulette with the lives of thier members, and to me, that is simply not acceptable.

                      In other words, the department's capabilities should dicate thier actions, not the fire conditions. There is no obligation to operate interior if the department, in thier opionion, lacks the ability to do so safely.

                      The safety of a departments manpower should be the primary consideration. Not the welfare of the civilians or the welfare of the property, but us, and us alone. If a department has identified any weakness which compromises the safety of thier manpower, they have not only the right, but the obligation to not operate interior and simply perform exterior operations, even in possible rescue situations. This is a decsion that must be made by the department, and outside factors such as community expectations should not play a role in this decision.

                      That being said I agree that every fire department should be able to conduct interior operations, to at least a limited extent. However funding, manpower and training, and in some cases leadership, realalities does in some cases, prevent that from happening. I accept that, and understand that. Some posters don't, and have expecatations that some fire departments will never meet. That is part of our disagreement as well.
                      Last edited by LaFireEducator; 01-18-2011, 09:56 AM.
                      Train to fight the fires you fight.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                        I never stated that a fire can't be attacked with a fair to high degree of safety by a well staffed, well trained, experienced department operating with modern PPE, communications, apparatus and equipment with a well established water supply.

                        Urban departments do it everyday. Some surburban departments do it everyday. And yes, some rural departments do it everyday. My combo department does it everyday when we operate at residental structures.

                        At this time, my volunteer department is not one of the above.
                        YOU are THEIR TRAINER. So WHY aren't they TRAINED to do this?
                        My combo department has identified shortcomings at commercial fires which limits our interior actions to the incipent stage.

                        The section highlighted in red is where we disagree.

                        The decsion to make entry should not be based soley, or even primarily on the fire conditions. The decision to make entry should be based primarily on the departments ability to do so with a high degree of safety. In other words, the department should be well trained, experienced, operating with safe PPE and SCBA witth modern apparatus and the ability to maintain a water supply to conduct an interior attack. If they are not, and they conduct interior operations, they are playing a game of Russian Roulette with the lives of thier members, and to me, that is simply not acceptable.
                        AGAIN,as part of the COMMAND/PLANNING for said Dept WHY hasn't this been ADDRESSED?
                        In other words, the department's capabilities should dicate thier actions, not the fire conditions. There is no obligation to operate interior if the department, in thier opionion, lacks the ability to do so safely.

                        The safety of a departments manpower should be the primary consideration. Not the welfare of the civilians or the welfare of the property, but us, and us alone. If a department has identified any weakness which compromises the safety of thier manpower, they have not only the right, but the obligation to not operate interior and simply perform exterior operations, even in possible rescue situations. This is a decsion that must be made by the department, and outside factors such as community expectations should not play a role in this decision.
                        SAY WHAT? WHO IS paying the bills? The SUPPORTING community has EVERY right to expect a TRAINED, COMPETENT response
                        That being said I agree that every fire department should be able to conduct interior operations, to at least a limited extent. However funding, manpower and training, and in some cases leadership, realalities does in some cases, prevent that from happening. I accept that, and understand that. Some posters don't, and have expecatations that some fire departments will never meet. That is part of our disagreement as well.
                        I inserted commentary here that SHOULD have come out red. It didn't. The NUT of it is a lot of what does/doesn't work is CHANGEABLE by YOU.
                        Not seeing anything here that is terribly hard to accomplish. But it WON'T happen sitting in a chair crying Woe is me.I'm RURAL. T.C.
                        Last edited by Rescue101; 01-18-2011, 10:23 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Rescue101 View Post
                          I inserted commentary here that SHOULD have come out red. It didn't. The NUT of it is a lot of what does/doesn't work is CHANGEABLE by YOU.
                          Not seeing anything here that is terribly hard to accomplish. But it WON'T happen sitting in a chair crying Woe is me.I'm RURAL. T.C.
                          This post was a general reference to some of the issues that other posters have with my concepts. Some of it does apply to my volunteer department as well.

                          Just want to clear one thing up however. I am not the Training Officer at my VFD. There is a Captain that fufills that role. I was asked by the Chief to assist him and help guide him since I have been at this longer than he has.

                          In addition, my combo and volunteer departments train on the same nights, so I am unable to be at my VFD training more than 50% of the time, which lessens my ability to impact the situation. The Chief was aware of this when he asked me to assist with the training program.

                          On comment on the communities expectations of the fire department. If the community has expecatations, they need to be willing to fund the department in a way that they can meet those expecatations. if a community wants an aggressive, well trained VFD, they need to be willing to set up[ to the plate and be willing to pay taxes suffient to meet those expecatations, and not just expect the department to get there via BBQs, baje sales and bingo. Too mnay communties underfund the VFD tthen expect them to perform miracles with the little money they receive.

                          As an example, my combo department is supported by a 19 mil property tax. My volunteer department is supported by a 9 mil property tax. Obviously, that makes a difference.
                          Train to fight the fires you fight.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Rescue101 View Post
                            I inserted commentary here that SHOULD have come out red. It didn't. The NUT of it is a lot of what does/doesn't work is CHANGEABLE by YOU.
                            Not seeing anything here that is terribly hard to accomplish. But it WON'T happen sitting in a chair crying Woe is me.I'm RURAL. T.C.


                            This mirrors my thoughts on this.

                            My (MUCH shorter than my previous post on this subject) comment on LA's 'We have problems that cause us to not go interior...

                            You have obviously identified problems that exist within your department. Seems to me the thing to do would be to take action and fix them.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by photone View Post
                              This mirrors my thoughts on this.

                              My (MUCH shorter than my previous post on this subject) comment on LA's 'We have problems that cause us to not go interior...

                              You have obviously identified problems that exist within your department. Seems to me the thing to do would be to take action and fix them.
                              Again, much of the discussion was in general regarding much of the rural fire service in the areas in which I have volunteered. Some of it applies to my current VFD, and some does not.

                              Bottom line is the rural volunteer service is a different animal where expecations have to be tempered with resources, both manpower and financial. as well as access to training. In many cases, those resources fall far below what is needed to operate an aggressive, well trained well equipped interior firefighting force. There are posters here that simply do not seem to grasp that concept, and continue to beleive that all fire departments should operate interior irregardless of thier manpower, financial and training situations. That is simply unrealistic, and honestly, dangerous.

                              The fact is we do not have the obligation to operate interior unless the manpower, tools, PPE, SCBA and training is up to the task. In many places the money and/or manpower simply isn't there to make that happen.

                              In reference to my own VFD, we are taking steps. The fleet has been upgraded over the past few years so that 3 of our 5 primary engines are modern. We still operate a '75 E-One and a '66 Mack at our 2 slowest stations. A used 97' E-One was purchased from CA a year ago and is completing a refurb this month and is planned on being used as an Interstate and Rescue-Engine. A tanker chassis was replaced 2 years ago. While some SCBA is current, about 40% is over 20 years old and another 20% is between 10 and 20 years old. 3-4 sets of new PPE is purchased every year. Again, on less than 90K a year, apparatus, PPE and SCBA replacement is a difficult proposistion.

                              Since I have been there, which is only 6 months, the training program has been improved, and several members have taken and successfully tested FFI. We have others currently in the process.

                              New training requirements started last month will require higher attendance standards for weekly training. It will require a minimum of NFPA 1403 certification after 1 year. It will require one certification per year for officers and EVOC training for all apparatus drivers.

                              Changes are being made. Several people were discharged for a history of non-participantion. That has made us quite thin, but hopefully, the numbers will improve.
                              Train to fight the fires you fight.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                                I never stated that a fire can't be attacked with a fair to high degree of safety by a well staffed, well trained, experienced department operating with modern PPE, communications, apparatus and equipment with a well established water supply.

                                So tell me how my volunteer department, that I have been a member of since 1977, other than 6 years I lived out of town, changed as dramatically as we did. We operate on a budget of around $40K and that was far less in 1977. I remember our equipment budget in 1978 was $500.

                                Our rolling stock in 1977 was a 1950 Ford/Barton American 500 gpm front mount pumper, a 1937 Ford/Darley 500 ngpm midship pumper and a 1949 Mack Model EFU tanker which was a converted county highway department fuel truck. We purchased over the years used pumpers as stop gaps, all on commercial chassis. Each was a step up from where we were, bu never quite good enough. Here in 2011 we find ourselves with a 2005 HME Ahrens-Fox 2000gpm Rescue Pumper purchased new with a Fire Act Grant, a 1992 1000gpm/1500 tank GMC/Monroe Truck Pumper Tanker purchased new, a 1974 Mack CF 1250gpm purchased used in the late 90's, and a 70 gpm 150 tank 1986 GMC/Rennerts Fire Equipment brush truck (military surplus 5/4 ton diesel pickup we had refurbed and had the brush fire component built for).

                                When I joined the FD, discounting me at 18, the other youngest member was 35, and the rest were from late 40's to over 70. We were lucky to have 12 members, rarely did we have enough people show up to train. Today we have 24 members, most in their 20s to 30s, and 2 more people with membership applications in the process, members asking for more training, members going above and beyond our requirements to get FF1 certification, FF2 certification, Driver/Operator certification, Officer certification, Inspector certification, going to regional fire schools, NFA classes, going to the station to go over the trucks and more on their own time.

                                We have a replacement program for PPE, hose, radios, pagers, and more. We buy a certain amount of each on a schedule so we aren't caught having to buy 24 sets of turn out gear all at once.


                                Urban departments do it everyday. Some surburban departments do it everyday. And yes, some rural departments do it everyday. My combo department does it everyday when we operate at residental structures.

                                At this time, my volunteer department is not one of the above.

                                You stand at a crossroad. You can either help raise your VFD up or you can help keep them down by enabling them never to realise there are ways to improve.

                                My combo department has identified shortcomings at commercial fires which limits our interior actions to the incipent stage.

                                The decsion to make entry should not be based soley, or even primarily on the fire conditions. The decision to make entry should be based primarily on the departments ability to do so with a high degree of safety. In other words, the department should be well trained, experienced, operating with safe PPE and SCBA witth modern apparatus and the ability to maintain a water supply to conduct an interior attack. If they are not, and they conduct interior operations, they are playing a game of Russian Roulette with the lives of thier members, and to me, that is simply not acceptable.

                                In other words, the department's capabilities should dicate thier actions, not the fire conditions. There is no obligation to operate interior if the department, in thier opionion, lacks the ability to do so safely.

                                I don't necessarily disagree with this premise. What I disagree with is YOUR ACCEPTANCE THAT IT IS OKAY. Those departments should be embarassed by there lack of capability and they have an obligation to inform their citizenry that calling the FD does not guarantee interior work of any kind, EVER. Then they need to get off their butts, brainstorm solutions, instead of continuing the status quo and move forward to fulfill the true job of firefighter.

                                The safety of a departments manpower should be the primary consideration. Not the welfare of the civilians or the welfare of the property, but us, and us alone. If a department has identified any weakness which compromises the safety of thier manpower, they have not only the right, but the obligation to not operate interior and simply perform exterior operations, even in possible rescue situations. This is a decsion that must be made by the department, and outside factors such as community expectations should not play a role in this decision.

                                FIX THE PROBLEM. Don't let it remain an issue.

                                That being said I agree that every fire department should be able to conduct interior operations, to at least a limited extent. However funding, manpower and training, and in some cases leadership, realalities does in some cases, prevent that from happening. I accept that, and understand that. Some posters don't, and have expecatations that some fire departments will never meet. That is part of our disagreement as well.

                                Again, either fix the problem, or at least attempt to fix it, or stop pretending to be what you aren't.
                                We will never agree. That is obvious.
                                Crazy, but that's how it goes
                                Millions of people living as foes
                                Maybe it's not too late
                                To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X