Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Culture of extinguishment not safety?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Most recent Firehouse has an article on RIT. As part of the article they have a chart which tells the reader that we are killing 3.86 firefighters per 100,000 incidents. That is the highest since 1999 when we we were killing 4.5 per 100,000 incidents. It was as low as 2.85 per 100,000 in 2005 but has been increasingly steadily since then.

    Per capita we are seeing firefighter deaths rise. That is a pretty scary fact. We are losing more firefighters per 100,000 incidents since the previous highest point in 1999.

    So the problem is not getting better as the raw numbers indicate. The problem is getting worse when it's compared to the number of incidents.

    Why? Lack of experience due to lack of fires. Lack of officer and command experience. Fewer firefighters. Reduced training budgets. Hotter fires and the drastic change in fire behavior due to plastics (note the date is began to rise v. the rise of Walmart and Target). More lightweight construction. Could be a number of other factors as well.

    Bottom line is per capita the numbers are not getting better. They are getting worse.
    As usual, figures always lie and liars always figure. Skewing numbers is a desperate attempt. The yearly per captia total INCLUDES ALL deaths AND HEART RELATED DEATHS UP TO 24 HOURS POST INCIDENT.

    As usual, if you look at 2009 as a sampling, 30 deaths occured ON the fireground. Guess what, 13 or 43% were heart attacks. So once again, as much as you DON"T want to hear it, 3.86 per 100,000 is actually closer to 2.28 per 100,000.

    But you don't like hearing that. Kinda takes the air out of your already deflated balloon.

    As SPFD pointed out, stop making "your" leadership issues into fire service issues.
    Co 11
    Virginia Beach FD

    Amateurs practice until they get it right; professionals practice until they cannot get it wrong. Which one are you?

    'The fire went out and nobody got hurt' is a poor excuse for a fireground critique.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post

      Per capita we are seeing firefighter deaths rise. That is a pretty scary fact. We are losing more firefighters per 100,000 incidents since the previous highest point in 1999.

      So the problem is not getting better as the raw numbers indicate. The problem is getting worse when it's compared to the number of incidents.
      Really that's not what the USFA said.


      USFA: Record low for on-duty firefighter deaths in 2010
      The 85 firefighter fatalities recorded mark the lowest total since the USFA started keeping statistics in 1977

      By FireRescue1 Staff

      EMMITSBURG, Md. — Last year saw the lowest recorded number of on-duty firefighter deaths since the USFA began tracking totals, according to preliminary statistics.

      The administration first started collating the figures in 1977, and 85 firefighter fatalities were recorded in 2010.

      The total marks the second consecutive year of decline for on-duty death totals, as 2009 had experienced the lowest total in 15 years.

      Stress and overexertion was again the cause of most fatalities, accounting for 61.1 percent of fatal injuries.

      Heart attacks continue to be the leading type of fatal injury, claiming 56.4 percent of the deaths.

      Fifteen of the deaths were classified as Hometown Heroes, meaning the firefighters died of heart attacks or strokes within 24 hours after responding or training.

      Volunteers accounted for 55 of the deaths, while 28 were career firefighters, one was a paid full-time wildland firefighter and one was a paid-on-call firefighter.

      Most of the firefighters who died were older than 50 — 20 were between 51 and 60 years old, while 25 were 61 years or more in age.

      Statistics for the type of duty associated with deaths are:

      * 20 On-scene fire
      * 19 Other on-duty
      * 16 Responding
      * 16 After
      * 7 Training
      * 4 On-scene non-fire
      * 1 Returning
      * 1 Other
      * 1 Unknown

      March and July were the deadliest months, with 11 deaths apiece.

      The total of on-duty deaths could be revised in the following months as officials confirm reports from individual states.

      And from 2009

      USFA: 2009 on-duty fatalities total among lowest on record
      The annual USFA firefighter fatalities report listed 90 on-duty deaths; heart attacks remained the leading cause of death

      By FireRescue1 Staff

      EMMITSBURG, Md. — Heart attacks were still the leading cause of fatalities for firefighters on duty in 2009, which had fewer overall on-duty deaths than recent years.

      The annual USFA firefighter fatalities report released Wednesday listed 90 on-duty deaths for the year, which the administration says is "one of the lowest totals in more than 30 years of record."

      Stress/overexertion accounted for 50 of the deaths, including 39 deaths due to heart attacks.

      The remaining on-duty deaths were split among various other causes like vehicle collisions, falls, and fatal injuries of other origins.

      The report also showed:

      * 16 firefighters died in duties associated with wildland fires, compared to 26 such fatalities in 2008
      * 30 firefighters died while engaging in activities at the scene of a fire
      * 15 firefighters died while responding to or returning from 13 emergency incidents in 2009, which compares to 24 responding/returning fatalities in 2008
      * 10 firefighters died while they were engaged in training activities

      The report points out that the death total matches the lowest on record when factoring out the Hometown Heroes Act of 2003, which counts firefighters who die as a result of a heart attack or stroke within 24 hours of duty-related activities.

      "When not including these fatalities in a trend analysis, the 2009 total 77 firefighter fatalities equals the lowest number of firefighter losses on record (77 on-duty firefighter deaths occurring in 1992) over the past 33 years," the report said.

      The USFA sees the low total as part of a greater overall trend in the decline of on-duty deaths.

      "Over the past ten years alone, the trend shows a 14 percent reduction in on-duty firefighter fatalities but we must continue every effort to be sure that when it comes to firefighter health and safety, everyone goes home," Acting United States Fire Administrator Glenn Gaines said.

      Now you going to believe the USFA or LA?
      Stay Safe
      Bull


      “Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
      - Capt. Marc Cox CFD

      Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
      -WINSTON CHURCHILL

      Comment


      • #48
        "Over the past ten years alone, the trend shows a 14 percent reduction in on-duty firefighter fatalities but we must continue every effort to be sure that when it comes to firefighter health and safety, everyone goes home," Acting United States Fire Administrator Glenn Gaines said..

        That's a 14% reduction in deaths using raw numbers. there has also been a significant decrease in fires, so the reduction per capita, if there is one, is much less.


        I never stated that heart attacks and strokes were not the number one cause of death.

        And apparatus accidents are number two.

        So does that means we ignore fireground trauma and deaths caused by firefighter disorientation, entrapment/entanglement and air management/air supply issues because it is below both cardiac event and apparatus accidents?

        Even if we agree the numbers that of fireground fatalities have been reduced at the sane rate that fires have been reduced, is that a success? That means we have simply held steady and treaded water. Do we still accept the current number of fatalities on the fireground as an acceptable cost of us doing our job?

        I guess I don't, which must mean I simply don't accept what others consider "our job". So be it.

        The simple fact is this is a 3-headed monster.

        Apparatus accidents is the area where we can reduce the number of fatalities the quickest at at little if any cost. It will mean accepting slightly longer response times as we will be slowing down, fully stopping at all red lights and stop signs and slowing down even more entering intersections with a green light. It should mean increased driver training, especially on VFDs, and restrictions on who can drive tankers, which have clearly been identified as high-risk vehicles. It may even mean installing "tattle-tale" devices to keep drivers and officers honest. But most of that can be implemented tommarrow.

        Cardiac and fireground reductions require a long-term solution, that yes, some of which can be implemented in a fairly short period of time. The downside is it will cost money and ccept losing members.

        Reduced risk activities on the fireground can reduce the number of fireground injuries and deaths. No go abandoned building policies in departments without a history of occupancy and possibly a more stringent R v. B analysis in departments that do except in high-probability situations. Greater use of defensive operations in rural departments where experience and training levels are less than their busier cousins. Stricter rules regarding collapse zones. All things that can be looked at to resduce fireground deaths.

        Increased training can salso reduce the number of fireground deaths. Increased training on both building construction fire behavior will help decision making. Increased training in basic skills. Icreased training in self rescue and survival. This can likely be easeier accomplished in career departments where on-duty training requirements can be increased. In volunteer departments, where most volunteer plates are already full invreasing training demand s my br the last straw which forces some volunteers to leave, which causes a whole new set of safety issues.

        AS far as cardiac, I never disagreed there is a problem. My contention is that by mandating physicals in departments that simply don't have the funds for them, you will force them to reduce spending in other areas that may have a equal, or possibly greater impact than the safety issue we are attempting to solve. This also includes the issue of taking manpower away from volunteer departments that will not be able to replace it, which unlike career FDs, cannot simply go out and hire another recruit class.

        Is the career service willing to cut members loose before they hit retirement as part of the solution, as likely, given the current budget climate, they will not be able to carry members with identified issues in light-duty assignments? That will need to be part of the solution as well. Is that something the career members on this forum are willing to accept?

        Show me the money for the physicals. Show me the solutions to the manpower issues in the VFDs. Show me a plan to mitigate the issues mandatory physicals will cause and I'll be 100% on board.

        Let's all make an effort to keep this thread going with some solid discussion.
        Last edited by LaFireEducator; 01-06-2011, 10:21 AM.
        Train to fight the fires you fight.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
          Show me the money for the physicals. Show me the solutions to the manpower issues in the VFDs. Show me a plan to mitigate the issues mandatory physicals will cause and I'll be 100% on board.

          Let's all make an effort to keep this thread going with some solid discussion.
          Why does it have to be mandated? There are plenty of VFD's that can afford it. Do you advocate that if they can afford it, they should? Or will you simply create another excuse?
          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


          • #50
            Do you agree that if more ( or any for that matter) departments were to follow your train of thought, the fire service would lose its identity and ultimately its existence?

            Do you agree that all LODD's are a tragedy and if you wouldn't have had the numbers of heart and age related LODDs that we would be down on the total number by 18%? I could be wrong on the number but I know it is close. Why aren't you proactive in both the screening and treatment?

            At what cost to the public do you reason your victim survivability profiling will work?

            In training, are you going beyond the basics and showing your men preplanning skills and how to reason for themselves which buildings are hazards before, during, and after a fire?
            ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

            Comment


            • #51
              It should mean increased driver training, especially on VFDs, and restrictions on who can drive tankers, which have clearly been identified as high-risk vehicles
              So says the man that wont teach basic ladder throwing skills.....
              My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
              "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
              George Mason
              Co-author of the Second Amendment
              during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
              Elevator Rescue Information

              Comment


              • #52
                I have a question. Does anyone know how many fire fighters were killed in abandoned building in the last 10 years?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                  [COLOR="Red"]
                  Show me the money for the physicals. Show me the solutions to the manpower issues in the VFDs. Show me a plan to mitigate the issues mandatory physicals will cause and I'll be 100% on board.

                  Let's all make an effort to keep this thread going with some solid discussion.
                  If nothing else, why not have your members take a "Plain Jane" physical, the type that kids take every year to play high school sports? They don't cost much at all. Parents make do every year so little Billy and Suzy can play sports. If your members can afford to equip their vehicles with red lights and by t-shirts, then they can front the cash for a physical. Hell most insurance company will pay for a physical minus your copay.

                  I'll tell you why, it because for all your saber rattling about safety, about operating by a rigid set of SOG, you really are taking a huge gamble with your members life. You know that if you make your members take a physical most will not pass and therefore be unable to operate on the fire ground and you will lose a lot of your man power. This explains why you are dead set against aggressive fire ground ops. You and your Brass know who is out of shape/ unfit and instead of correcting the problem, you stick your collective heads in sand and claim, What I don't know can't hurt me. If Billy drops dead from a heart attack then you can claim ignorance of his health problems. "Heart attack, that's just too bad, we didn't know he was that bad off." I guess that's why you like to drive so slow, and when you arrive on scene just squirt water through a open window. It's the safest way to operate, other than just not roll a tire in the first place. And you got to keep up that positive public perception. If a citizen is hurt or killed its their fault not yours. You are just looking out for your guys. Yea Right!




                  It has nothing to do with training or money or water supply, It is just the fact that you know that your guys despite all of your attempts to prevent them from doing their job, are going to do just that, "their job"! So you come here and make crap excuses about why you do what you do.
                  Stay Safe
                  Bull


                  “Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
                  - Capt. Marc Cox CFD

                  Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
                  -WINSTON CHURCHILL

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                    Why does it have to be mandated? There are plenty of VFD's that can afford it. Do you advocate that if they can afford it, they should? Or will you simply create another excuse?

                    I have no issue with any department that wants to require it's members to take a yearly physical if they feel that the department can afford it without significantly impacting the ability to purchase needed PPE, communications equipment and send thier memebers to the same level of training they have been sending them to.

                    The department is also making a decision that they will deal with any impacts to manpower.

                    The difference is the department is making a choice, and they are not being mandated to do something they may not be able to afford.
                    Train to fight the fires you fight.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by SPFDRum View Post
                      So says the man that wont teach basic ladder throwing skills.....

                      We teach the basic laddering skills our members need to operate within our district and likely mutual aid districts.

                      I'm still trying to wrap my head around the issue ans how this, in your mind, seems to be such a huge issue in terms of firefighter safety.
                      Train to fight the fires you fight.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by tajm611 View Post
                        Do you agree that if more ( or any for that matter) departments were to follow your train of thought, the fire service would lose its identity and ultimately its existence?

                        Not at all The fire service would still respond and likely still 95% of what it currently does. Most departments operate at thier level of training, and this would not be an issue. The only impact would be in rare cases where conditions are so severe that entry is simply unreasonable.

                        Do you agree that all LODD's are a tragedy and if you wouldn't have had the numbers of heart and age related LODDs that we would be down on the total number by 18%? I could be wrong on the number but I know it is close. Why aren't you proactive in both the screening and treatment?

                        I am. I have pretty much taken myself off the line at my career department and now operate primarily as command, a driver or exterior functions, except in very rare limited manpower situations. I am proactive, but I understand the impacts that mandoatory physicals will have on the volunteer fire service, especially in small rural departments. I understand the funding and manpower issues this will create.

                        At what cost to the public do you reason your victim survivability profiling will work?

                        Honestly, little or none.

                        In training, are you going beyond the basics and showing your men preplanning skills and how to reason for themselves which buildings are hazards before, during, and after a fire?
                        Our basic training covers many areas of FFII, industr4ial fire operations and vehicle extrication. That is going beyond the basics. We do a lot of risk v. management training where either as a group during day training or a s department during weekly training we evaluate building types and discuss thier collapse potential, fire spread issues and overall safety.We want them to be able to identify issues so they will be in a position to halt assigned tasks if they feel there are issues.
                        Train to fight the fires you fight.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          I'll tell you why, it because for all your saber rattling about safety, about operating by a rigid set of SOG, you really are taking a huge gamble with your members life. You know that if you make your members take a physical most will not pass and therefore be unable to operate on the fire ground and you will lose a lot of your man power

                          Actually, we would probably lose less than 10% of our volunteers. I would suspect that some of them could be reassigned to support where there are less physical demands, and likely per NFPA, physicals would not be required.

                          My volunteer department would likely take a little more of a hit.

                          This explains why you are dead set against aggressive fire ground ops

                          Actually, wrong again Skippy.

                          Most of our line personnel, including most of our active interior members are quite young. Most of them have been around for awhile as many started as juniors, so they are fairly experienced for thier age.

                          I am not and never have been dead set against aggressive operations. I am dead set against aggressive operations where either there is little to gain or save due to fire conditions and we are taking aggressive actions either in whole or in part "because we are the fire department", or a department attempts to conduct aggressive operations with out sufficent manpower, apparatus or equipment (specialized or general firefighting), water supply or adequatly trained or experienced manpower.

                          It has nothing to do with training or money or water supply, It is just the fact that you know that your guys despite all of your attempts to prevent them from doing their job, are going to do just that, "their job"!


                          Unfortunatly, they often do.
                          Train to fight the fires you fight.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            If nothing else, why not have your members take a "Plain Jane" physical, the type that kids take every year to play high school sports? They don't cost much at all. Parents make do every year so little Billy and Suzy can play sports. If your members can afford to equip their vehicles with red lights and by t-shirts, then they can front the cash for a physical. Hell most insurance company will pay for a physical minus your copay.

                            Again, my career department could probably afford it.

                            Would there be impacts in other areas? Sure, but they would be managable.

                            My volunteer department, which operates almost the same number of stations, less any payroll, on 1/11th the budget of my career department would take a very hard and would have to make some choices in other safety related areas including PPE and communications.

                            Could we mandate the guys with isrance have a yearly physical and we handle the co-pay. That would ve a viable option.
                            Train to fight the fires you fight.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Acklan View Post
                              I have a question. Does anyone know how many fire fighters were killed in abandoned building in the last 10 years?
                              I'm not finding an exact statistic for a 10-year count, but I did find a USFA report on fires in vacant structures.

                              Also, there's an interesting report I found from NFPA regarding fatalities from 1977-2009. It's on the last few pages of the 2009 fatality report (which cites 4 fatalities in vacant residential structures, for 15% of the total fatalities that year).

                              I hit a google search and came up with any number of articles, many citing Flint, MI and FDNY procedures during vacant structures. Obviously it's an issue for several departments. My career department has a strict procedure regarding these buildings due to the number we have and the frequent incindiery fires we have in them.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                                I have no issue with any department that wants to require it's members to take a yearly physical if they feel that the department can afford it without significantly impacting the ability to purchase needed PPE, communications equipment and send thier memebers to the same level of training they have been sending them to.
                                Why not sacrifice some of that training? After all the statistics show they are more likely to die from a cardiac event.

                                The department is also making a decision that they will deal with any impacts to manpower.
                                Yes, an impact on their members living a longer life and not subjecting people who are not fit to strenous work.

                                The difference is the department is making a choice, and they are not being mandated to do something they may not be able to afford.
                                I agree, no more mandates. No more mandates for ppe, training, etc, because they can't afford it.
                                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

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X