Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fire Fighter Safety Question

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    No doubt about it, this is the most absurd fireground tactic(forgive for using it this way) I have ever heard of. I can only imagine all the potential implications this stunt may have had. I dont know of a fireground officer who would dream of it,I have a hard time thinking some one actually did,assuming it was ordered.. Too stupidand too dangerous, My dept would have my head if I did that stunt.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Well, it is obvious that the majority is in agreement on this one.

    I can't think of any reason to try a stunt like this when firefighters are working a job. I can't see mis-dropping two loads of water.

    Worst case scenario; the water drops like a ton of bricks falling on the firefighters heads, and causing further weakening of the structure possibly causing collapse entrapping them. Furthermore, there is the possibility of causing massive steam burns to firefighters operating within the structure. I'm not one to use the word "never" especially in the fire service, but the person ordering this action certainly did not give this much thought, if any.

    Good Luck

    [This message has been edited by Truckman (edited 05-17-2001).]

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Oh my god thats intense. Im a junior and i even know thats really idiotic. And as a side note i hate the New Jersey Devils. with a passion now. yes they won that game by domination but how may holding calls can you get away with in one game? God, We're (Pittsburgh) lucky we got Hedberg. Sorry for gettting of subject but im distraught over the shutout. back to subject, im assuming noone was in the house cause the roof was coming in. My logic is, if you did a water drop on a house with an intact roof the waters not actaully gonna hit the fire, so by theory at least no one was inside to get smashed by debri. Still completely idiotic. Its beyond words. Atleast noone got hurt...this time. This is why fireman die (sometimes), stupidity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Would like to meet that guy out near theplug. Things could get ugly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    An unacceptable practice without a doubt.
    A night mare which came damn close to being a reality.
    I question the proximity of the two fires, the intent or ability of the aircrew, the "accountability" system which obviously broke down and the chain of command which oversaw the mistake (obviously two loads of water didn't make it to the brushfire).
    Even if the fire did go out, the weight of the water would've damn near flattened any remaining building I would imagine.
    Incredible.
    At least no one got hurt.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Good post George. I am from a mutual aid town and part of our town was there, Ralston was there but my company, Brookside was not there. I have a question for you, how close was the drop to the brush fire? Do you think they could have been aiming for the brush fire and just missed or was this done intentionally? I was not at the fire, although many of my fellow brothers were, so i have no idea what went on? Please respond back, and if you want, my email address is [email protected] Keep us posted on what goes on, and stay safe out there! Talk to ya soon.

    ------------------
    -JaY-

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    What an idiot! I would demand a full investigation. They could have killed the firefighters on interior attack. And to not communicate with your IC, well that's just plain ignorance and lack of professionalism.
    I have never heard of an air attack on a structure fire, unless the structure is in the middle of a forest fire, an unoccupied.

    Thank God, not a disaster.....this time.
    Karen, Anderson VFD

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    George,

    Remind us to show you a video of a similar event.
    It was cool, but didnt help the fire much, made the streets slick, and was a mess to clean up.

    Ron Smith
    WY State Fire Marshals Office

    [This message has been edited by mtnfireguy (edited 05-17-2001).]

    [This message has been edited by mtnfireguy (edited 05-17-2001).]

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I'm with several other of the guys. Why would you do this period? Now I wonder how the public is gonna react when they never see this again, (how often do these tankers really fly around, and if so when can they afford to drop water on a house instead of the forest) and also, what benefit would it have? Unless there is a massive exposure problem, and the roof is completely off, what further benefit would you even gain? My other thought is what liability would fall in the event that being this is not an common practice, (I try not to use accepted, although that is brought up in court often) that if someone decided to do this, and they could prove the massive amount of falling water could, or did cause more damage then the fire..would you be liable?

    Good post!!! This is one of those things you don't think and obviously hear of!!

    ------------------------------------------
    The above is my opinion only and doesn't reflect that of any dept./agency I work for, deal with, or am a member of.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    There's no question. This is one of the dumbest f*cking things I've ever read about. Whoever ordered it should be stripped of their authority if a vollie, and fired if a paid guy.

    If all it took were an air drop, we'd fight all our structure fires that way, right? There's a freaking reason why we don't do that. Cripes, this wins the prize!

    Keep us updated on where this goes, George.

    ------------------
    J. Black

    The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone and may not reflect those of any organization with which I am associated.

    [This message has been edited by BucksEng91 (edited 05-17-2001).]

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I can't believe that this incident took place. Was a risk assessment undertaken on this practice. No, I don't think so. I can see no reason why I would want to order a fire fighting action such as this. But I can see loads of reasons why I should not consider the plan in the first place.

    Damaged structure, crew on ladders or roof, crews within the structure, crews and equipment outside, bystanders and fellow emergency workers from other services nearby. The list of considerations continue.

    We can not judge this incident without being there and seeing it first hand but I shudder to think of the disasters that could have occurred. Not the way that I would take if I wanted to continue my career in the Fire Service.

    ------------------
    Kindest regards & keep safe,

    Sprinkle (UK)
    http://www.sprinkle2.homestead.com

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Man I am glad I work here and not there. Which idiot called for it should be stripped of all his power.

    ------------------
    When the goin gets hot I go to work !!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I thought it was nuts. Now I'm sure.

    We don't know who ordered it at this time. I think it was a contracted plane, I don't believe it was a government plane.

    As far as the heavy rain thing...eight pounds per gallon falling at close to terminal velocity as well as 80-100 mph laterally has got to hurt. The impact load alone has got to be a problem on an already weakened structure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    NORM!!!!


    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Was the firefighters aware that this was going to happen? I have been on one structure fire where we considered such a drop(we decided not to). This fire was about 40 miles from the closest water supply and was about fully involved at the time we considered it. The reason that we did not use it is because we would have to have picked up all of our toys and moved to a safe distance and that it would of been about 90 min. before the plane could of got there. I do not see where this would of been a good option in a town where you have a water supply. Only in the most extreme rual settings where you options are severly limited would we even consider such an idea and only on a fully involved structure that the roof is already colapsed on.

    BE SAFE

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X