Leader

Collapse

2 in 2 out.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • DeputyMarshal
    Forum Member
    • Apr 2005
    • 2635

    #46
    Originally posted by FireMedic049
    I would tend to disagree with that.

    On December 22, 1999, 3 career firefighters were killed in Keokuk, IA in a residential structure fire. Although not the only factor, being short staffed WAS a very significant factor contributing to their deaths.
    The Keokuk fire was a train wreck at best. Suffice it say I disagree that short staffing was as significant factor as poor incident management.
    Last edited by DeputyMarshal; 05-05-2011, 07:27 PM.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
    sigpic
    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

    Comment

    • LaFireEducator
      Forum Member
      • Apr 2004
      • 11316

      #47
      Deputy and I actually agree on something.

      Damn. Will miracles ever cease! It's a good thing he has me on ignore or else he may actually see this and die of fright.

      Bottom line is we should not be expected to take unreasonable risks if the staffing on scene does not support the operation. And no, that doesn't mean that we are shirking our duty. It means that we understand that taking those risks will likely only result in a worse outcome.

      As a rukle, my combo department through our volunteer response (not our career staffing) will put enough personnel on-scene with the first alarm to support, at a minimum, a rapid search operation. More than likely, it will also support an interior attadck when warrented.

      The same cannot be said with my volunteer department as response can be quite diceyDoes that mesn that if I have 4 firefighters on scene I should be obligated to begin an interior operation without adequate personnel to continue the operation? IMO no, as the obligation rto those 3 other firefighter supercedes my obligation tot he public.

      Recognizing that, we are currently working on an enhanced first alarm assignment with a minimum of 2 other departments responding to any reported structure fire. We will also be covering the station for all incidents developing response protocols through the 4th alarm.

      In a career setting, yes, we do have an obligation to fight for additional staffing when it is needed, and cannot be provided through other means such as auxilairy members, a volunteer component or automatic mutual aid. However, that doesn't mean we are obligated to take extraordinary risks if the powers that be decide to ignore our requests.
      Train to fight the fires you fight.

      Comment

      • RFDACM02
        MembersZone Subscriber
        • Sep 2006
        • 4304

        #48
        Originally posted by DeputyMarshal
        The Keokuk fire was a traini wreck at best. Suffice it say I disagree that short staffing was as significant factor as poor incident management.
        Please enlighten us surely misinformed firefighters who have been whistling past the graveyard for decades. You've only served to prove my previous "childish comment".

        I guess the only way is to what as property burns and people die until they understand and respect NFPA 1710? Your inference that we can do some things without committing to the interior suggests you fail to understand basic tactics and actually a reasonable risk/benefit analysis. Every minute an inside fire is unchallenged, the structure is threatened further, the survivability profile for civilians is reduced and the go/no go balance shifts to the negative further. While you may not be suggesting inaction, less than appropriate action is marginally better at best, and allows conditions to further deteriorate in more cases.

        Comment

        • FireMedic049
          Forum Member
          • Aug 2007
          • 2971

          #49
          Originally posted by DeputyMarshal
          The Keokuk fire was a train wreck at best. Suffice it say I disagree that short staffing was as significant factor as poor incident management.
          I think you're kind of "missing the forest for the trees" on this.

          I don't debate that there were some decisions made during the early stages of that incident that could be argued as "poor incident management". Specifically the decision to not initiate some form of fire attack to support/protect the rescue effort and the IC leaving the scene for a couple of minutes to get the child he was doing CPR on to the hospital in the absence of any EMS units.

          However, both of these decisions were clearly impacted by their "short staffing". If they had not been short staffed, then there would not have been the need to choose between rescue or suppression, creating what could be viewed as "poor incident management".

          If they had not been short staffed, then the IC would not have been in the position to have to make the decision he did. A decision that could be viewed as "poor incident management".

          If they had not been short staffed, there's a strong likelihood that there wouldn't have been 3 LODDs that day since what are arguably the 2 biggest "human factors" (delayed suppression and no IC) contributing to the outcome wouldn't have happened.

          So I think it's pretty naive to believe that these LODDs were not the result of short staffing.

          Comment

          • tajm611
            MembersZone Subscriber
            • May 2009
            • 2061

            #50
            Originally posted by DeputyMarshal
            The fact remains, nobody ever died because their fire department was short staffed.
            Except many civilians, all the time and across the country.
            ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

            Comment

            • firefightinirish217
              Forum Member
              • Nov 2009
              • 1064

              #51
              Originally posted by DeputyMarshal
              The fact remains, nobody ever died because their fire department was short staffed.
              Only the folks that pay your pay check if you're one of those short staffed departments.

              That leads in to exactly what I'm referring to by "failure of command responsibility." If you don't have the resources to support an operation, you don't do it.
              Which leads into exactly what I referred to above. I wouldn't blame command for short staffing, i'd blame crappy governing. The ones who ultimately suffer are the ones that depend on us to uphold our oath to them each and every day.

              Comment

              • ffnj40
                Forum Member
                • Jul 2009
                • 28

                #52
                This tread could go on for days! All make valid points. I would just like to make a correction to something I know to be fact. We or I should say cities, towns, or where ever it is that you work can be held liable(think I miss spelled that!) for short staffing apparaus. So firefighters do die because of lack of manpower. Quick story. I live next to a firefighter from a bigger city. I work for a smaller suburban dept. We were talking about our depts one day and after I explained to him how we operate in terms of our staffing, he looked at me and said you can't do that. It's illegal. I thought he was crazy . He goes on to tell me the story of his friend who passed a few years ago at a fire. He was on the truck which on that shift was understaffed for some reason it slips my mind why now. Anyway, the brave firefighter loses his life in a fire and his family sues the city for understaffing. The case went to court and a settlement was awarded to his family. The city will not ride without proper staffing anymore. If a truck is short personnel it is put out of service and those assigned are reasigned to other apparatus. I thought he was telling me a story. But it's true got the 411 on the whole story from a good source after. So we do die from being understaffed in the eyes of the courts

                Comment

                • hwoods
                  63 Years & Still Rolling
                  • Jun 2002
                  • 10703

                  #53
                  Well...............

                  Originally posted by FireMedic049
                  We're already fighting to keep what little staffing we have now, what would happen after several lawsuits with a "gross negligence" finding using a key piece of evidence like a NIOSH report citing inadequate staffing caused the death or injury?

                  If Local government was told by a Court of competent jurisdiction that the local Government was at fault for failure to provide adequate staffing they would have to do something. And the something would be to provide additional staffing. The only other option would be to close the Fire Department and do without, which would bring another lawsuit very quickly. So, my money is on the court system.......
                  Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
                  In memory of
                  Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
                  Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

                  IACOJ Budget Analyst

                  I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

                  www.gdvfd18.com

                  Comment

                  • FireMedic049
                    Forum Member
                    • Aug 2007
                    • 2971

                    #54
                    Originally posted by hwoods
                    If Local government was told by a Court of competent jurisdiction that the local Government was at fault for failure to provide adequate staffing they would have to do something. And the something would be to provide additional staffing. The only other option would be to close the Fire Department and do without, which would bring another lawsuit very quickly. So, my money is on the court system.......
                    I was not aware of the court finding that was presented here, however my comment was more of a hypothesis on why NIOSH may not be more definitively pointing the finger at inadequate staffing as a direct contributory factor in their LODD investigations.

                    Generally, their investigations cite contributory factors that could easily be viewed as "mistakes", "lapses in judgement", "inexperience", etc rather than what could be viewed as "willful misconduct". Additionally, they typically cite what could be viewed as "areas for improvement", but are not necessarily contributory factors for the LODD.

                    I believe, and apparently a court has ruled, that "short staffing" falls into the category of a "willful" action and thus creating a liability that isn't typically there for actions considered to be a "mistake" or "accidental" in nature. So, I could see how a finding of "short staffing" as a factor in an official report could harm a department or municipality in a court proceeding. If this were to regularly happen, I could see where some departments and municipalities might become a lot less cooperative with a NIOSH investigation if they are fearful of a similar finding.

                    So maybe that's why?

                    Comment

                    • RFDACM02
                      MembersZone Subscriber
                      • Sep 2006
                      • 4304

                      #55
                      Originally posted by hwoods
                      If Local government was told by a Court of competent jurisdiction that the local Government was at fault for failure to provide adequate staffing they would have to do something. And the something would be to provide additional staffing. The only other option would be to close the Fire Department and do without, which would bring another lawsuit very quickly. So, my money is on the court system.......
                      Exactly. Of course your points on the use of auto aid and mutual aid, do ring true and clearly the taxpayers and local politicians will want to exhaust all of the "cheaper alternatives first". But short of a single larger regional organization with taxing ability across individual municipal lines, we'd just be adding burden to each others FD's. It takes money to staff even one truck.

                      Comment

                      • BlitzfireSolo
                        MembersZone Subscriber
                        • May 2003
                        • 390

                        #56
                        Originally posted by DeputyMarshal
                        "Once we have committed to an interior attack" you may have already overextended yourself. Do you have the resources to make and support an internal attack? If not, why would you start one?
                        Aha, I understand now: we're not going inside unless we have 16 firefighters on scene already. Well, I guess we'll be closing our doors, because otherwise there's not much of a point for us to exist.

                        Originally posted by DeputyMarshal
                        The Keokuk fire was a train wreck at best. Suffice it say I disagree that short staffing was as significant factor as poor incident management.
                        I would have loved to see you carry out your superior incident management at that hellish incident. You would have done an excellent job at setting up master streams while the children were trapped inside.

                        Comment

                        • BlitzfireSolo
                          MembersZone Subscriber
                          • May 2003
                          • 390

                          #57
                          Originally posted by FireMedic049
                          I would tend to agree that there is a reluctance to point the finger directly at inadequate staffing as a contributing factor. Probably in part because in some cases it may be impossible to "prove" direct causation and in part because of the impact it could have on the departments and municipalities.
                          I guess I don't really see why having Inadequate Staffing as a contributing cause in a report creates more liability than any other recommendation they issue.

                          Comment

                          • tajm611
                            MembersZone Subscriber
                            • May 2009
                            • 2061

                            #58
                            Originally posted by BlitzfireSolo
                            Aha, I understand now: we're not going inside unless we have 16 firefighters on scene already. Well, I guess we'll be closing our doors, because otherwise there's not much of a point for us to exist.



                            I would have loved to see you carry out your superior incident management at that hellish incident. You would have done an excellent job at setting up master streams while the children were trapped inside.
                            we currently live in an age where everyone will critique a given incident and point fingers all while regurgitating the same things over and over.

                            Instead of comparing operations to their department, they feel it necessary to bash them and inflate their own ego even more. It is so easy to look at a video of one side (literally) of an incident and cherry pick the smallest details. Most of the time, those people have never given any input into tactics because their knowledge is very very low in those regards. I have no doubt he is a cut of the same cloth.
                            ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

                            Comment

                            • FireMedic049
                              Forum Member
                              • Aug 2007
                              • 2971

                              #59
                              Originally posted by BlitzfireSolo
                              I guess I don't really see why having Inadequate Staffing as a contributing cause in a report creates more liability than any other recommendation they issue.
                              It could create "more liability" because citing it as a contributing cause of a LODD means that the act of understaffing units and/or the overall response played a direct role in the LODD happening.

                              A recommendation is basically a suggestion for improvement, but the "need" for improvement may not have contributed to the LODD itself. For example using the Keokuk incident, the report could recommend having a Safety Officer at working fires, but the lack of an assigned Safety Officer at this particular incident realistically didn't contribute to the LODDs.

                              So, stating that inadequate staffing contributed to a LODD is potentially more harmful (liability/litigation wise) than a recommendation that something such as NFPA 1710 staffing be followed.

                              Comment

                              • RFDACM02
                                MembersZone Subscriber
                                • Sep 2006
                                • 4304

                                #60
                                Originally posted by FireMedic049
                                So, stating that inadequate staffing contributed to a LODD is potentially more harmful (liability/litigation wise) than a recommendation that something such as NFPA 1710 staffing be followed.
                                I don't see it being more harmful in liability/litigation as any contributing factor that infers the FD should have/could have done things better opens that door. What it does is show a deficiency that is more expensive to correct than modifying your SCBA plan, providing a RIT, or ensuring personnel have radios, etc.

                                Again, I'd say that in many/most cases better staffing would make the response (driving issues), and the fireground safer. If all that can be done, has not been done, and someone is injured or killed, staffing very well may have been a contributing factor in their incident.

                                When we argue that we cannot afford personnel the luxury of rehab after one or two bottles, are we not saying we have a staffing issue? Can't the amount of physical exertion these firefighters undertake have a negative effect on their cardio-vascular system?

                                When we send 14 vehicles over the roads to get the balance of a first alarm assignment, aren't we saying the apparatus responding isn't full enough? Doesn't more vehicles on the road over time increase our risk of accident?

                                When we cannot do both fire attack, ventilation and primary search simultaneously aren't we increasing the risk to ourselves, the occupant and the property?

                                Why aren't we saying that poor staffing is killing people and destroying more property?

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...