2 in/2 out Question

[mcl312]

3 person engine company arrives at scene of a sfd with smoke showing, 2nd due truck is 8-10 minutes out (semi-rural response area). Crew of 2 forces entry (driver/engineer remains with truck) and uses TIC to conduct primary search, after determining no victims the crew calls for water and begins to extinguish a room/contents fire. Everything ok, right ?

This incident happened to my dept recently and our union officials are saying we violated 2 in/ 2 out, they are ok with the primary search but they then want us to back out and wait for 2nd truck to arrive to begin fighting fire. I understand the argument and it does hurt our fight to get the 4th man on the engine but I am having problems with this.

Thoughts ???

[BKDRAFT]

I agree with your union. I believe your in violation of two in two out even by entering for a primary search. You can only violate two in two out if you have a confirmed people inside which would be people hanging out windows, dispatch notification via reporting party in the house trapped, or people outside saying there family is in there.

[FireMedic049]

Based on what you posted, then yes you violated the 2in/2out "law" as I understand it. I don't recall the exact wording, but you are allowed to operate on the interior with less than 4 FFs on scene if you have a known life safety hazard or reasonable belief that one exists.

Personally, I interpret this to mean that it would be ok to take a hoseline with you when you do your search and extinguish any fire you might happen across while searching for possible victims, but I think you'd be considered in violation if doing what you stated you guys did - completed a search, exited and then returned with a line for supression - since upon completing the search you technically have concluded that no life safety hazard exists.

I can understand and relate to the issues you may be having with this and can't say that I (or my department) wouldn't have done the same thing without knowing more details.

[mcl312]

Crew never left residence, they had taken line in with them. This is my concern: a trained professional fire officer in the course of conducting a primary search determines that he has a fire contained to a single room and in his professional judgement it can be safely extinguished by the crew that is conducting the search (technically the search was completed prior to commencing fire attack). I am afraid we are so concerned with what lawyers will say later that we have taken away the ability of fire officers to use their experience and judegement on the fire ground. I am a firm believer in safety, FAST/RIT teams, accountability systems, etc. but I'm afraid the pendulum is swinging to far to one side...................

[BULL321]

How dare you use your training, experience and initiative. You could have gotton a hang nail. What were you thinking trying to save a possable indangered life. You even went as far as to put the fire out. You are a menace to the fire service. Who do you think that you are? John Wayne. Dont you know that being a ff is a dangerous job You have to follow the "nfpa laws" at all times, no matter what. That is unless you want the lawyers, the arm chair quarterbacks and the safety police to get you. (sarcasim):p

Sounds like you you guys did a great job, with what you had at hand. Put the wet stuff on the hot stuff. Adapt and over come. Way to go.


Stay Safe
Bull

[DFurtman]

I don't understand how you can sit here and try to justify your actions.. You violated 2 in 2 out by having 2 in and 1 out. it's simple black and white.. there is no grey area here. There were no rescue situations. there was a room and contents fire. good job on doing what you could with what you had, but don't attempt to justify breaking 2 in 2 out to do it.

-Damien

[jakebrake]

Is it stated in your SOP's? If one of you were to get hurt could the town use it against you saying that you violated sops's when you cant come to work? Is the union trying to get a 4 th man on the engine and by doing the work of 4 with 3 you are not helping the cause?

And put it this way, if it's only a room and contents then what is in the harm of waiting a few extra minutes to let it really get going? And when the home owner is in your face explain to her/him that the town is screwing you and her/him cause they wont put the 4th man on the engine and she just lost her house cause of it.

[jonnyirons2]

If you pull up to a job and dont know for certain if anyone is inside and you fail to enter because of OSHA, you my friend are a COWARD.

[BULL321]

If you pull up to a job and dont know for certain if anyone is inside and you fail to enter because of OSHA, you my friend are a COWARD.

Not very diplomatic, but the truth never is.

Stay Safe
Bull

[cozmosis]

And put it this way, if it's only a room and contents then what is in the harm of waiting a few extra minutes to let it really get going?

I agree that 2-in/2-out is an important standard. Deviating from the standard can be risky on a couple of levels -- depending on the situation, it can be very dangerous... And depending on the outcome, it can support government mutts' efforts to cut staffing ("if they put out a stove fire with three people, they can fight every fire with three people").

With that said, the original poster wrote that his second-due was 8-10 minutes out. What happens to that room & contents job in 8-10 minutes? If all he has is a room & contents job, he can put that under control with three people. Can you say the same for the fire that they will have on their hands in 8-10 minutes when they only have (assuming) six firefighters on scene?

And when the home owner is in your face explain to her/him that the town is screwing you and her/him cause they wont put the 4th man on the engine and she just lost her house cause of it.

There is a time to fight battles with city hall. Trust me... I've personally fought one or two myself. However, rarely is the time during an emergency incident. Call me old fashioned... but I don't like using the citizens I protect as political pawns while their house burns to the ground.

[Fokker416]

What was your department's view of your actions?

Your Union is playing a dangers game. Actually, they're taking a leak on the graves of every past North American firefighter from Ben Franklin on. "Firefighters refuse to enter burning building" is a headline that is the kiss of death to public support, forever. If your municipality tries to discipline you, you ask for it in writing and give a copy to the local paper and tv.

Tell your community that the combination of rules and manpower are forcing you to either break the rules and risk discipline or stand there while a building burns. If word got out that your Union wants you to pull back you can kiss the "those guys are great, sure you should give them a raise" vote good bye.

[RyanTX]

You violated 2 in 2 out by having 2 in and 1 out. it's simple black and white.. there is no grey area here. There were no rescue situations.

Is that your opinion before or after the initial search?

[mcl312]

Some of the comments here made be go to the OSHA web site and see exactly what the standard says, and I qoute....

"Nothing in this section is meant to preclude firefighters from performing emergency rescue activities before an entire team has assembled."

Is not a primary search part of "emergency rescue activities" no wheres does it say it has to be a confirmed victim. anyway.......

I have told my union brothers I will stand by them 100 % in any battle with city hall over staffing , but I will not stand in the front yard of a burning home, not knowing if anyone is inside, when my experience and judgement tells me my crew can get in and make a search and if we can knock some fire down while we are it we will.

I'm not a "we always go in because thats how we do it" type but lets not forget what the job is. We take calculated risks and I am fully aware that the lives of my crew are MY responsibility, if you can't size up a fire and know when to go and when not to go then get out of the front seat.....

[mcl312]

Forgot to add.....Chief is ok with what was done, SOP states first arriving officer performs size up and makes decision on course of action, the thought be pushed by some is that we always wait for 2 in 2 out on every working fire and some how this will magically make the city put 4 guys on the Engine, I say it is playing with the lives of those we swore to protect.

[DFurtman]

Is that your opinion before or after the initial search?

Tell me what you think...

Roll on scene, 3am Garage is empty.. a few newspapers piled up near the front door.. yard is in disarray, with grass as long as your shins. are you going interior to do a search with 3 people on scene?

now tell me,

4 in the afternoon, no cars in the lot/garage no kids toys in the yard and the yard looks well taken care of. No keyholder available and neighbors report that the husband/wife is away at work and have no kids.

I can understand attempting a grab when there are confirmed reports of persons trapped, but risking your life for something that is unconfirmed is not cowardly, it's foolish. Keep in mind that though NFPA/OSHA is only a guideline, You'll get your *** nailed to a wall if you willingly break it and lives get taken.

In both of the situations i laid out, i'd vent and fight externally until enough people showed up to safely fight internally.

-Damien

[KevinFFVFD]

Well, to some departments that have the pleasure of having a fully staffed crew on a truck and departments whose nearest backup station is just a few miles away really have a say so in this.....

So in my rural area when its a weekday (and we all know the availability of people during workdays on volunteer departments) and its just me and 2 others in the truck and the nearest unit is coming from the district over with only one or two in the truck, I'm not going to stand around on scene with my thumb up my butt because I am little scared to go in with out the properly formed RIT team or whatever.

What happens when you stand around doing nothing...the fire gets bigger.
What happens when you let a structure burn for an extended period of time with no water on it....the structure weakens.
What risk do you run when the structure is weakened and then you go in....structure collapse (you'll really need that RIT team then).
What will you do when the person who owns the house sues you, the department, and the county/city for letting their one room fire go to fully involved and loose everything? Throw you SOP at that and see what the lawyers, and most importantly citizens will say to that.

[RyanTX]

Roll on scene, 3am Garage is empty.. a few newspapers piled up near the front door.. yard is in disarray, with grass as long as your shins. are you going interior to do a search with 3 people on scene?

In my district that is a good indication the structure is not occupied. I also know that my second due will arrive before I even get a line stretched. BUT - There are territories very different than mine. Just because a home is supposed to be unoccupied does not mean it is. There are countless scenarios and each one requires an officer familiar with his first due to make an educated guess.


but risking your life for something that is unconfirmed

I spoke with our LaFrance rep and he stated the crystal balls are still on backorder.

[DFurtman]

alright.. lets start the lawsuit what-ifs...

What if the family of a firefighter sued the officer and the department after their firefighter died after falling through the floor or the roof collapsed on him and no one could attempt a rescue because there weren't enough people on scene to effect a rescue?

There are too many what-if's in this business to try to have an answer for every possible situation.

-Damien

[theflash083]

sounds like you did the best you could with what you had at the time, no need to argue who was right or wrong. Just remember what could have happened. critique it and move on.

[Fokker416]

MCL, I agree with your perspective, I just think your local is losing sight of the big picture.

Honestly, if we're going to look at the letter of the 2 in/2 out rule, how can we look at the two outside people as a RIT on even a 4 man Engine? The RIT can't be committed to critical tasks correct? The two outside are the IC and the pump operator. Both of these are critical tasks. Can you abandon your command element observing outside conditions and directing incoming units? Can you abandon the position that ensures a reliable water source, and alerts Command and Crews if there is a problem with said supply if it cannot be corrected (of course there has to be someone there to correct it)? You basically have to wait for the second due company when you look at it like this. The tactic of having a RIT is an excellent one, but the rule as it exists can restrict departments with manpower restrictions.

A speaker at the Orlando Conference asked the question..... Which is safer? To have a crew of two advance a hose line with two members outside for safety, or advance a hose line with a crew of 4 and no one outside?

[Fokker416]

I spoke with our LaFrance rep and he stated the crystal balls are still on backorder.

Let me know how those work out. We run an all E-one fleet here so we're equipped with aluminum balls... not so great.

[MemphisE34a]

This is my concern: a trained professional fire officer in the course of conducting a primary search determines that he has a fire contained to a single room and in his professional judgement it can be safely extinguished by the crew that is conducting the search (technically the search was completed prior to commencing fire attack). I am afraid we are so concerned with what lawyers will say later that we have taken away the ability of fire officers to use their experience and judegement on the fire ground. I am a firm believer in safety, FAST/RIT teams, accountability systems, etc. but I'm afraid the pendulum is swinging to far to one side...................

2 in / 2 out is nothing more than the first official standard for the pussification of the fire service. It was some fire chief's or union officials bright idea that cities and towns could be forced by some federal mandate requiring 4 people to be on all apparatus in order to meet 2 in / 2 out requirements.

Guess what? It didn't work. Cities and towns pay it absolutely no attention and still employ rigs with 1, 2, or 3 firefighters. The mandate has done nothing but cause debate and bite us in the *** while affording no real benefits in terms of safety or accountability.

It in fact, poses more chances to make things more dangerous as nimrods will allow small, easily extiguishable fires with 3 to progress to a level of considerable challenge once that 4th person shows up to stand by OUTSIDE, which is the whole point - even with 4, there is still only 2 people inside doing the work. Burearats are forcing the fire service to operate like light, gas, and water crews - 2 guys working and 4 or 5 watching.

The rule in a word is STUPID.

[RyanTX]

Cities and towns pay it absolutely no attention and still employ rigs with 1, 2, or 3 firefighters.


YES YES YES

[hfd838]

2 in / 2 out is nothing more than the first official standard for the pussification of the fire service. It was some fire chief's or union officials bright idea that cities and towns could be forced by some federal mandate requiring 4 people to be on all apparatus in order to meet 2 in / 2 out requirements.

The rule in a word is STUPID.


Best thing i have read on here in a long time

[JohnVBFD]

Tell me what you think...

Ok....I doubt you will like it, but you did ask.

Roll on scene, 3am Garage is empty.. a few newspapers piled up near the front door.. yard is in disarray, with grass as long as your shins. are you going interior to do a search with 3 people on scene?

Do you believe in random spontaneous combustion? Did a part of the house suddenly experience uncontrolled thermal runaway that led to the autoignition of something inside and hence, the fire?


4 in the afternoon, no cars in the lot/garage no kids toys in the yard and the yard looks well taken care of. No keyholder available and neighbors report that the husband/wife is away at work and have no kids.

Again, spontaneous combustion again??

I can understand attempting a grab when there are confirmed reports of persons trapped, but risking your life for something that is unconfirmed is not cowardly, it's foolish. Keep in mind that though NFPA/OSHA is only a guideline, You'll get your *** nailed to a wall if you willingly break it and lives get taken.

In both of the situations i laid out, i'd vent and fight externally until enough people showed up to safely fight internally.

-Damien

Why wait on a room and contents fire for a full first alarm assignment? There is a chance that by the time the entire box is filled out and on scene enough for you to operate, your room and contents fire has suddenly grown into a full working fire.

Everyone is worried about this lawsuit or that injury. Injuries will happen if you work. No one is arguing that you should run full tilt into a building for every situation with no thought. We all know our first due districts, I hope. I know in mine, if all indications are that the building is unoccupied...that it is occupied. Seems the Russians and other former "Eastern Bloc" young ladies that come to work in the area are often boarded inside them.

There is no set "always" in this job. I find it hard to believe that here people are upset that they violated 2in/2out, but in another thread people are arguing that it is perfectly acceptable to violate it to handle an EMS call.

We remain our own worst enemy. There are too many of us that sway with the wind. It is perfectly OK to send 2 guys to a structure fire and go to work if the other 2 are on an EMS call, but send two guys out of 3 into a structure fire, holy crap. OSHA will come get you.

It isn't personal DF. Just the mind set of some of our "brothers".

[jakesdad]

Tell me what you think...

Roll on scene, 3am Garage is empty.. a few newspapers piled up near the front door.. yard is in disarray, with grass as long as your shins. are you going interior to do a search with 3 people on scene?

now tell me,

4 in the afternoon, no cars in the lot/garage no kids toys in the yard and the yard looks well taken care of. No keyholder available and neighbors report that the husband/wife is away at work and have no kids.

I can understand attempting a grab when there are confirmed reports of persons trapped, but risking your life for something that is unconfirmed is not cowardly, it's foolish. Keep in mind that though NFPA/OSHA is only a guideline, You'll get your *** nailed to a wall if you willingly break it and lives get taken.

In both of the situations i laid out, i'd vent and fight externally until enough people showed up to safely fight internally.

-Damien


Are you really telling us that you base the need for a primary search on whether or not toys are in the yard? Or whether or not the neighbor thinks someone may or may not be in the building? Have you never seen an elderly bedridden persons home fall into disarray?

In either scenario you have described you can make a valid argument that those structures could in fact be occupied.

The reality is that the VOLUME and LOCATION of fire and the detrimental effects of those two factors on firefighting operations should be the determining factor in whether or not you initiate operations within a structure when less than 2 IN/2 OUT are on the scene. Not this foolish guessing game of whether or not its occupied based on the presence of toys in the yard or a lawn in disarray.

Base your decision to initiate operations on sound firefighting principles and the effectiveness of your operation with limited manpower and not on unreliable indicators of a buildings occupancy.

[fireman4949]

Two in, two out? Uh, uh! It's more like; "Two in, two on the way"!
There is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS the possibility of the structure being occupied. That is why we ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS search. And if we should happen to stumble upon some fire here and there along the way, so be it. ;)

Good job, mcl312. Keep up the good work! :D

[RyanTX]

In my district that is a good indication the structure is not occupied. I also know that my second due will arrive before I even get a line stretched. BUT - There are territories very different than mine. Just because a home is supposed to be unoccupied does not mean it is. There are countless scenarios and each one requires an officer familiar with his first due to make an educated guess.

As I stated above -

Just because a home is supposed to be unoccupied does not mean it is.

Requires an officer familiar with his first due to make an educated guess.

[johnny46]

2in/2out is based upon a single sentence in an OSHA document.

A single sentence.

The state laws individually passed are based upon a flawed understanding of that sentence.

A "confirmed report" is a meaningless buzz phrase.

[Catch22]

Just for conversation's sake, here's the "Two-in, Two-out" rule (I count more than one sentence, though)...

1910.134(g)(4)
Procedures for interior structural firefighting. In addition to the requirements set forth under paragraph (g)(3), in interior structural fires, the employer shall ensure that:

1910.134(g)(4)(i)
At least two employees enter the IDLH atmosphere and remain in visual or voice contact with one another at all times;

1910.134(g)(4)(ii)
At least two employees are located outside the IDLH atmosphere; and

1910.134(g)(4)(iii)
All employees engaged in interior structural firefighting use SCBAs.

Note 1 to paragraph (g): One of the two individuals located outside the IDLH atmosphere may be assigned to an additional role, such as incident commander in charge of the emergency or safety officer, so long as this individual is able to perform assistance or rescue activities without jeopardizing the safety or health of any firefighter working at the incident.

Note 2 to paragraph (g): Nothing in this section is meant to preclude firefighters from performing emergency rescue activities before an entire team has assembled

With that cleared up, per an IAFF document (http://www.iaff.org/hs/PDF/2in2out.pdf) in regards to the "rule"; "OSHA defines interior structural fire fighting 'as the physical activity of fire suppression, rescue or both inside of buildings or enclosed structures which are involved in a fire situation beyond the incipient stage.' OSHA further defines an incipient stage fire in 29 CFR 1910.155(c)(26) as a 'fire which is in the initial or beginning stage and which can be controlled or extinguished by portable fire extinguishers, Class II standpipe or small hose systems without the need for protective clothing or breathing apparatus.' Any structural fire beyond incipient stage is considered to be an IDLH atmosphere by OSHA."

Like it or not, this "standard" or "rule" is a law. You can spout the "We're not an OSHA state" if you'd like, but it makes no difference. Any states that don't comply with OSHA must have their own laws and regulations that meet or exceed OSHA standards. Most states who do this do so because they have occupations that are not covered by OSHA regulations.

Also, in regards to RIT, the "two-out" is considered an IRIT, not a formal RIT. It is only to be used temporarily, until enough personnel can arrive to fully staff a RIT. If I recall correctly, a formal RIT is a minimum of four personnel dedicated only to RIT assignment.

As far as my opinion, it's almost a toss-up based on what you're presenting. If you're basing it on the fact that you don't know if there was anyone trapped, I think you violated it. I don't see how a search is a "rescue operation" as defined in "Note 2" above. You cited nothing that gave the impression there were confirmed, or even reported vicitims.

If you're basing in on the fact that it was in the incipient stage, then you might have a leg to stand on, as far as the law is concerned. That is unless it required respiratory protection and protective gear.

I hope and pray that you or anyone on your department never has to stand in front of a judge, jury, and widow trying to reason why one of your brothers/sisters lost their life because they entered for a primary search and things went bad wrong.

The sad thing is that there have been enough firefighters lost due to the lack of help available that fire service organizations and a gov't agency felt the need to draft a law to make sure that there are enough people available before we enter a dangerous enviroment, yet there are those that thumb their nose at it. I'm curious, though; how many of you guys that are jumping on the anti-"Two-in, Two-out" bandwagon even have to worry about it, as you run 4-man (or more) companies?

[THEFIRENUT]

And one last thing....

Even after your primary search, you should go for extinguishing the fire. What if by some chance (OMG) that you missed someone in your search. You will still have a chance to save them if the fire is out. Life safety all the way baby!!!!!

[jefferson136]

Some may not like this but here it goes. There have been posts in here about injuries will happen, but don't we want to limit the injuries and needless deaths of firefighters just to save a structure. My first chief said we did not start the fire. It all goes back to risk benefit, risk a little (structure) to save alittle, risk alot (life) to save alot. So you gun ho guys that think this is a pussification of the fire service I would not want to serve with you. The laws and concensus standards created for the fire service are here to help us reduce firefighter injuries and death. Yes some might not be practical but we have to live with them.

[THEFIRENUT]

Some may not like this but here it goes. There have been posts in here about injuries will happen, but don't we want to limit the injuries and needless deaths of firefighters just to save a structure. My first chief said we did not start the fire. It all goes back to risk benefit, risk a little (structure) to save alittle, risk alot (life) to save alot. So you gun ho guys that think this is a pussification of the fire service I would not want to serve with you. The laws and concensus standards created for the fire service are here to help us reduce firefighter injuries and death. Yes some might not be practical but we have to live with them.


Come on.....the guy was talking about a room and contents fire!!!

[RFDACM02]

Come on.....the guy was talking about a room and contents fire!!!
This what happens when the majority of FD's out there run 3:1 and greater EMS to fire ratio's. The core instinct of many "newer" firefighters is: Scene Safety and BSI!

Strict adherence to the 2 in/2 out rules will lead to a greater chance of firefighter injury or death as the fire grows in ever increasing numbers of lightweight constructed buildings. I guess maybe that will increase RIT activations and prove OSHA's case in a convoluted manner? And NO shooting water in from outside is not an option at rooms and contents if you have any (and I mean any) chance that someone might be inside! First you don't go in to find them b/c no one told you they were there, then you steam the crap out of them while awaiting proper staffing? Great plan!

[JohnVBFD]

Some may not like this but here it goes. There have been posts in here about injuries will happen, but don't we want to limit the injuries and needless deaths of firefighters just to save a structure. My first chief said we did not start the fire. It all goes back to risk benefit, risk a little (structure) to save alittle, risk alot (life) to save alot. So you gun ho guys that think this is a pussification of the fire service I would not want to serve with you. The laws and concensus standards created for the fire service are here to help us reduce firefighter injuries and death. Yes some might not be practical but we have to live with them.


So let me get this straight, so we can be on the same page......

"just to save a structure" Does this translate to: that because it isn't YOUR house that it is completely ok for that person to loose everything they have worked their lives for? Not sure about you, but I took an oath to save life and property. I was always taught that we should work to save as much as possible.

"My first chief said we did not start the fire" And this means exactly what? That it is perfectly ok to sit back and do nothing? Ya know, I've heard the whole "It isn't your emergency" and I can see applying that to foolish actions or running around like a chicken without your head. Never heard it as an excuse before. That is what it is boiling down to.

Now my favorite:

"It all goes back to risk benefit, risk a little (structure) to save alittle, risk alot (life) to save alot. So you gun ho guys that think this is a pussification of the fire service I would not want to serve with you. The laws and concensus standards created for the fire service are here to help us reduce firefighter injuries and death. Yes some might not be practical but we have to live with them"

So you need some guy in a disgusting Hawaiian shirt to coin a phrase and you make it your mission statement? Wow.

It is the pussification of the fire service. By your risk this to save that theory, you would risk absolutely nothing for a room and contents fire. You would use the condition of the lawn, or the appearance of the structure as your guiding actions once arriving on scene.

You can continue to work off that pathetic "concept". I will continue to use actually fireground experience to make an educated judgement about my actions based on time of day, my response area, conditions on arrival, crew size, time and distance of incoming units after my own, life safety, exposure protection...you know all those things that we as firefighters are supposed to use as a the basis of our actions. You use your risk this to save that concept and just worry about exposures.

You are right. I am glad you don't work with me.

[JohnVBFD]

Strict adherence to the 2 in/2 out rules will lead to a greater chance of firefighter injury or death as the fire grows in ever increasing numbers of lightweight constructed buildings. I guess maybe that will increase RIT activations and prove OSHA's case in a convoluted manner?

Ya know, I have to admitt. I am a rather hard butt when it comes to a FAST Company. I believe that one should be present at all fires. I have debated whether they should do other actions or not before. Honestly, I just care that they are assigned.

However, I have always felt that they are not the replacement for good aggressive fire operations. They are there to help add another level of safety on the fire ground.

Sadly, too many people are forgetting about actually putting the fire out in the first place.

Seems putting the fire out is too dangerous to us to actually :rolleyes:

[fyrmnk]

I don't understand how you can sit here and try to justify your actions.. You violated 2 in 2 out by having 2 in and 1 out. it's simple black and white.. there is no grey area here. There were no rescue situations. there was a room and contents fire. good job on doing what you could with what you had, but don't attempt to justify breaking 2 in 2 out to do it.
-Damien

Your opinion is that he violated it. Mine is that he followed it. There is a HUGE grey area with 2 in/2 out (luckily). They didn't know if anyone was in there. You don't know if there is a rescue situation UNLESS YOU SEARCH. As far as putting the fire out, if they had the line with them, sounds like common sense to me.

That's like saying if you go in and search and find a fire on the stove you shouldn't put a lid on the pan to extinguish it if there aren't 2 people outside.

Tell me what you think...

Roll on scene, 3am Garage is empty.. a few newspapers piled up near the front door.. yard is in disarray, with grass as long as your shins. are you going interior to do a search with 3 people on scene?

now tell me,

4 in the afternoon, no cars in the lot/garage no kids toys in the yard and the yard looks well taken care of. No keyholder available and neighbors report that the husband/wife is away at work and have no kids.

I can understand attempting a grab when there are confirmed reports of persons trapped, but risking your life for something that is unconfirmed is not cowardly, it's foolish. Keep in mind that though NFPA/OSHA is only a guideline, You'll get your *** nailed to a wall if you willingly break it and lives get taken.

In both of the situations i laid out, i'd vent and fight externally until enough people showed up to safely fight internally.

-Damien

Neighbors don't count as reliable information. Do the owners check in with the neighbors on everything they do? I don't. Maybe a car is in the shop and they are home. Maybe they came home sick from work and didn't call the neighbors to "check in" with them. Maybe they have family in from out of town. YOU DON'T KNOW, THAT'S WHY WE SEARCH.

This part is in general and not specific to Damien as I don't know him or his department, but I get so sick of seeing people in today's fire service trying to hide behind safety as an excuse not to do their jobs.

I'm glad I work where I do. Here, I have the discretion to decide whether I believe what neighbors or even occupants say regarding if everyone is out, and it would take an awful lot for me to take anything they say as gospel. Ever heard of fires being set to try to cover up a crime or even to murder someone?

We don't let opinions keep us from protecting our citizens. There are risks in this profession. That's why we train. If people can't handle them, then they should stay out of the fire service. Don't get in it then try to hide behind safety as an excuse to put the citizens at risk.

Seen it where en route dispatch advises that neighbor says everyone's out of town, only to show up and have someone walk out the front door. Seems extended family checking on the home didn't feel the need to inform the neighbors and they started a kitchen fire while cooking a snack.

Great job to the first poster on doing the job.

[jefferson136]

No not just because in is not my house FireNut. I believe in assessing the scene and determining the risk is worth it. I'm not new to the fire service. Some of your justifications would lead me to believe that some would cut corners on Haz-Mat and Tech Rescue calls that there is no room for. I do not want to have to go and tell a mother or wife and kids that because of my decision to go in that I killed there son/husband/father because I thought it was just a room and contents fire and assumed it was safe. As we all know conditions can change in seconds in a fire. Assuming someone is in the structure to justify going in is rediculus, there has to be some indication that someone is in the structure from the scene size-up. Worried about BSI, yes, I have and some fellow career firefighters I know have had communicable dieases. Yes I'am a aggresive firefighter but to a point. But my department might have anywhere from 20-30 firefighters on scene within minutes. Don't shoot water through the window because someone might be in there was stated, do you know how to do a proper size-up, if so uses it.

[fyrmnk]

No not just because in is not my house FireNut. I believe in assessing the scene and determining the risk is worth it. I'm not new to the fire service. Some of your justifications would lead me to believe that some would cut corners on Haz-Mat and Tech Rescue calls that there is no room for. I do not want to have to go and tell a mother or wife and kids that because of my decision to go in that I killed there son/husband/father because I thought it was just a room and contents fire and assumed it was safe. As we all know conditions can change in seconds in a fire. Assuming someone is in the structure to justify going in is rediculus, there has to be some indication that someone is in the structure from the scene size-up. Worried about BSI, yes, I have and some fellow career firefighters I know have had communicable dieases. Yes I'am a aggresive firefighter but to a point. But my department might have anywhere from 20-30 firefighters on scene within minutes. Don't shoot water through the window because someone might be in there was stated, do you know how to do a proper size-up, if so uses it.

How in the world can you determine if someone is in the structure just from a scene size-up? You HAVE TO SEARCH to determine that! Just because there is no car in the driveway; Just because a building looks vacant; Just because a neighbor thinks no one is inside; NONE OF THESE or any other things from the exterior can accurately tell you the house is empty. If your wife, children or other family was in a burning home, would you want your firefighters to just assume no one was inside? What about on vacation somewhere else, should those firefighters also assume no one is inside?

[johnny46]

No not just because in is not my house FireNut. I believe in assessing the scene and determining the risk is worth it. I'm not new to the fire service. Some of your justifications would lead me to believe that some would cut corners on Haz-Mat and Tech Rescue calls that there is no room for. I do not want to have to go and tell a mother or wife and kids that because of my decision to go in that I killed there son/husband/father because I thought it was just a room and contents fire and assumed it was safe. As we all know conditions can change in seconds in a fire. Assuming someone is in the structure to justify going in is rediculus, there has to be some indication that someone is in the structure from the scene size-up. Worried about BSI, yes, I have and some fellow career firefighters I know have had communicable dieases. Yes I'am a aggresive firefighter but to a point. But my department might have anywhere from 20-30 firefighters on scene within minutes. Don't shoot water through the window because someone might be in there was stated, do you know how to do a proper size-up, if so uses it.Can I has cheezeburger?

[rjtoc2]

You can only violate two in two out if you have a confirmed people inside which would be people hanging out windows, dispatch notification via reporting party in the house trapped, or people outside saying there family is in there.

You can violate the 2-in/2-out rule if you believe, based on credible information, that a rescue situation could exist. Once you have made the rescue OR confirmed no one is inside, you must leave the IDLH environment until 2-in/2-out can be established.

Credible information may include the obvious such as dispatch information, info from people on location, etc. It may also be based on your opinion, i.e. cars in the driveway, time of day, etc. In the "Leave it to Beaver" era, much of this info actually meant something. With today's culture, society does not have any set norms so it has become purely a judgment call based on training and experience.

Arriving at the scene of a well-involved, known vacant, and condemned property could cause the someone to question your actions but again, its based on the variables above and a risk vs. benefit analysis. There are always those who argue that homeless folks could be in a vacant building but that must be coupled with your experience and the amount of fire in a building. If the building is well-involved and the part that is not on fire is full of angry, turbulent smoke, one could argue that there is no one left alive in the building.

Part of the 2-in/2-out rule is that a letter be forwarded to the chief of the department ANYTIME this rule is violated to explain the rationale. This is an invaluable resource for training.

It can all be summed up with the cliche' saying: We risk alot to save alot.

[johnny46]

You can violate the 2-in/2-out rule if you believe, based on credible information, that a rescue situation could exist. Once you have made the rescue OR confirmed no one is inside, you must leave the IDLH environment until 2-in/2-out can be established.

Therein lies the godamned idiocy of this stupid mother****ing rule.

[rjtoc2]

Therein lies the godamned idiocy of this stupid mother****ing rule.

I hope we are clear on the "don't shoot the messenger" concept.

[johnny46]

I hope we are clear on the "don't shoot the messenger" concept.

We are, even though you used the huge font.

[RyanTX]

I agree with the RIT concept. RIT being a full crew trained and equiped to handle these emergencies. BUT - Who here has worked a fire with a firefighter truly trapped? (I have not) How many crews were used to get him out? I think the idea of the 4th man outside being some kind of super hero rescue crew is ridiculous. How much safety does one guy being outside add in the event of a mayday situation?

[MemphisE34a]

I agree with the RIT concept. RIT being a full crew trained and equiped to handle these emergencies. BUT - Who here has worked a fire with a firefighter truly trapped? (I have not) How many crews were used to get him out? I think the idea of the 4th man outside being some kind of super hero rescue crew is ridiculous. How much safety does one guy being outside add in the event of a mayday situation?
EXACTLY!! That guy would be in a much better position to save the other two by being in their helping and and therfore preventing them from getting in trouble in the first place.

[fyrmnk]

Just for conversation's sake, here's the "Two-in, Two-out" rule (I count more than one sentence, though)...



With that cleared up, per an IAFF document (http://www.iaff.org/hs/PDF/2in2out.pdf) in regards to the "rule"; "OSHA defines interior structural fire fighting 'as the physical activity of fire suppression, rescue or both inside of buildings or enclosed structures which are involved in a fire situation beyond the incipient stage.' OSHA further defines an incipient stage fire in 29 CFR 1910.155(c)(26) as a 'fire which is in the initial or beginning stage and which can be controlled or extinguished by portable fire extinguishers, Class II standpipe or small hose systems without the need for protective clothing or breathing apparatus.' Any structural fire beyond incipient stage is considered to be an IDLH atmosphere by OSHA."

Like it or not, this "standard" or "rule" is a law. You can spout the "We're not an OSHA state" if you'd like, but it makes no difference. Any states that don't comply with OSHA must have their own laws and regulations that meet or exceed OSHA standards. Most states who do this do so because they have occupations that are not covered by OSHA regulations.

Also, in regards to RIT, the "two-out" is considered an IRIT, not a formal RIT. It is only to be used temporarily, until enough personnel can arrive to fully staff a RIT. If I recall correctly, a formal RIT is a minimum of four personnel dedicated only to RIT assignment.

As far as my opinion, it's almost a toss-up based on what you're presenting. If you're basing it on the fact that you don't know if there was anyone trapped, I think you violated it. I don't see how a search is a "rescue operation" as defined in "Note 2" above. You cited nothing that gave the impression there were confirmed, or even reported vicitims.

If you're basing in on the fact that it was in the incipient stage, then you might have a leg to stand on, as far as the law is concerned. That is unless it required respiratory protection and protective gear.

I hope and pray that you or anyone on your department never has to stand in front of a judge, jury, and widow trying to reason why one of your brothers/sisters lost their life because they entered for a primary search and things went bad wrong.

The sad thing is that there have been enough firefighters lost due to the lack of help available that fire service organizations and a gov't agency felt the need to draft a law to make sure that there are enough people available before we enter a dangerous enviroment, yet there are those that thumb their nose at it. I'm curious, though; how many of you guys that are jumping on the anti-"Two-in, Two-out" bandwagon even have to worry about it, as you run 4-man (or more) companies?

There is a victim unless proven otherwise (i.e. search). Where in the rule does it ever say there has to be confirmed victims and not just suspected victims? I suspect every structure is occupied, how would you not?

[rjtoc2]

EXACTLY!! That guy would be in a much better position to save the other two by being in their helping and and therfore preventing them from getting in trouble in the first place.

If someone ever writes a book on "Firefighting & Common Sense", this line needs to be in the book in a very large font and in bold face type.

The "common sense" part depends on two factors:
1) "Common sense" is VERY uncommon.
2) If "common sense" was common, everyone would have it.

[MemphisE34a]

I hope and pray that you or anyone on your department never has to stand in front of a judge, jury, and widow trying to reason why one of your brothers/sisters lost their life because they entered for a primary search and things went bad wrong.
I would rather explain that than have to live myself or explain why I didn't conduct a search of the apartment or house where mommy locked the kids in the house to go to work and took the car "proving someone was home" with her.

The sad thing is that there have been enough firefighters lost due to the lack of help available that fire service organizations and a gov't agency felt the need to draft a law to make sure that there are enough people available before we enter a dangerous enviroment, yet there are those that thumb their nose at it. I'm curious, though; how many of you guys that are jumping on the anti-"Two-in, Two-out" bandwagon even have to worry about it, as you run 4-man (or more) companies?
The sad thing is that fire service leaders have not allowed common sense to prevail. They will not concede that 2 guys standing by outside will be able to provide no real benefit should something go wrong with the 2 guys inside. They will not concede that the best thing that firefighter currently required by 2 in/ 2 out to stand by outside, would be to go inside to free up the Officer from dragging the line and participating in the firefight so he could actually do his job and pay attention to what is going on around them preventing them all from getting in trouble in the first place.

Lastly, I am one of the guys on the bandwagon that you claim it doesn't affect because I ride on a 4 man company. I am curious how I would not be affected? Although I would not have to wait to initiate an attack, following your ratinale, I am still doing it with one less person until other companies arrive.

[Catch22]

There is a victim unless proven otherwise (i.e. search). Where in the rule does it ever say there has to be confirmed victims and not just suspected victims? I suspect every structure is occupied, how would you not?

I've seen pictures and heard stories of victims of MVC's being under the vehicle, wadded up under the dash, in the trunk, 100'+ away in a field, hell I've even seen a picture of a young woman hid in the dash as part of a smuggling situation. With that in mind, should I tear down every car on every wreck I run on to make sure there's no other victims? Should I do a 300' walk-around of every wreck to make sure no one got tossed?

I saw a story recently where a lady came back to life after rigor had set in. Should I now work every code, not matter how cold and stiff they are?

If you're going to show such dedication because there might be a victim in a house, I'm curious if you use that type of dedication on all your calls.

[Catch22]

I would rather explain that than have to live myself or explain why I didn't conduct a search of the apartment or house where mommy locked the kids in the house to go to work and took the car "proving someone was home" with her.

I'm curious, what percentage of fires did you find someone inside the structure where there was not some kind of indication that they were in there, whether it be the caller, neighbor, person hanging out the window, whatever? Out of those fires, what percentage did you get a save where they lived to tell about it?

The sad thing is that fire service leaders have not allowed common sense to prevail. They will not concede that 2 guys standing by outside will be able to provide no real benefit should something go wrong with the 2 guys inside. They will not concede that the best thing that firefighter currently required by 2 in/ 2 out to stand by outside, would be to go inside to free up the Officer from dragging the line and participating in the firefight so he could actually do his job and pay attention to what is going on around them preventing them all from getting in trouble in the first place.

Common sense is allowed by the exceptions included in the rule. If there's viable information that there is a rescue situation, the rule can be thrown to the wayside. The problem is this sense of bravado and idea that we're supposed to risk our lives and die in the line of duty to make sure everyone's out, not matter whether or not they've taken enough heat and smoke to even survive if we do get them out.

Personnally, I love my wife and kids enough that I really don't care to have them deal with burying dad because he went in to save someone who might be inside. I don't want to have to be the guy that explains to someone that they're now a widow because we "had to make sure, because there's no way to tell unless we check."

I'm all for it if there's a good chance someone's in there, if conditions have not evolved to the point that survivability is not possible for any victims. If that's the case, by all means, go in and get it done. If I don't have any indication of occupants and I don't have four guys on my truck, we're going to do what we can from the exterior until the next-in gets there. That includes putting water through a window, because this whole "what if there's someone in that room" excuse is BS. If they're in a heavily involved room, they're likely gone if there's much fire at all.

Lastly, I am one of the guys on the bandwagon that you claim it doesn't affect because I ride on a 4 man company. I am curious how I would not be affected? Although I would not have to wait to initiate an attack, following your ratinale, I am still doing it with one less person until other companies arrive.

With a four-man company you have your two-in, two-out. You're not like some of the departments/companies out there that run two- or three-man rigs that are supposed to be waiting for a fourth before making an interior attack. You can arrive on scene, send in the crew, and do as you please.

[RFDACM02]

If someone ever writes a book on "Firefighting & Common Sense"...

Somebody did: John Norman. Fire Officers Handbook of Tactics. Chapter 1 alone makes the book the best tool one can have in their library.

Doc: I agree on the RIT concept, my issue is not stretching the first line in to contain the fire and/or not conducting a primar search while the potential victim still has a chance.

I don't get some of you, who further use 2in/2out to stay out when you have 4 members on scene. If there's only one line inside and the crew gets into trouble why can't the IC and MPO become the rescuer's? I know I've been to plenty of fires that would have been much worse if we waited for the next due to be onscene to comply. Left unchecked, room and contents fires quickly become fires where multiple families are displaced.

[RFDACM02]

"OSHA defines interior structural fire fighting 'as the physical activity of fire suppression, rescue or both inside of buildings or enclosed structures which are involved in a fire situation beyond the incipient stage.' OSHA further defines an incipient stage fire in 29 CFR 1910.155(c)(26) as a 'fire which is in the initial or beginning stage and which can be controlled or extinguished by portable fire extinguishers, Class II standpipe or small hose systems without the need for protective clothing or breathing apparatus.' Any structural fire beyond incipient stage is considered to be an IDLH atmosphere by OSHA."

You can "control" quite a bit of fire with a can (portable fire extinguisher) the PPE and an SCBA are already on so no sense to ditch them. Class II hose system fire = 1.5" line. So a fire that can be "controlled by a 100 gpm stream can be considered "incipient"? Looks like a single room fire is well within most of our capabilites.

If you're basing it on the fact that you don't know if there was anyone trapped, I think you violated it. I don't see how a search is a "rescue operation" as defined in "Note 2" above. You cited nothing that gave the impression there were confirmed, or even reported vicitims. This is the letter of the law, right? So if any of us are making entry without 2 out (the 2 in is rarely the issue) based on high probablities or anything but some sort of fact based report of occupants, we're in violation. I'll bet most of us are in violation. What started out as a law to help us has become a a way to hang us.

[JohnVBFD]

With a four-man company you have your two-in, two-out. You're not like some of the departments/companies out there that run two- or three-man rigs that are supposed to be waiting for a fourth before making an interior attack. You can arrive on scene, send in the crew, and do as you please.



Buzzer.

Sorry, thanks for playing though. With 2in/2out only 1 person can assume more than one duties. Edit to add, so there is no question about this, here it is from the OSHA Director of Complience: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table= INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22576

So you have 2 in, and either a company officer/IC standing with this thumb up his butt doing something other than supervising the proper stretch of a hose line, or, a pump panel with no qualified (I hope) operator.

Therefore, you STILL fall short of 2in/2out. To be properly implemented you would require a 5 man company. 2 inside, 1 ECC/LCC, 1 RIT, 1 IC. But why let that get in the way.

We'll just keep operating as we do with three or four, where the crew works together to put the fire out. Solves a whole lot of problems and reduces your need for manpower if you do that.

But many of you will continue to wait for "x" amount of bodies on the fire ground as the fire continues to grow which will only require you to request more limited manpower, than if you just put the fire out in the first place.

The hypocrisy of the fire service knows no limits.

[hfd838]

I'm curious, what percentage of fires did you find someone inside the structure where there was not some kind of indication that they were in there, whether it be the caller, neighbor, person hanging out the window, whatever? Out of those fires, what percentage did you get a save where they lived to tell about it?
.


You would be surprised how much this happens


Personnally, I love my wife and kids enough that I really don't care to have them deal with burying dad because he went in to save someone who might be inside. I don't want to have to be the guy that explains to someone that they're now a widow because we "had to make sure, because there's no way to tell unless we check."




.
So speaking of your wife and kids how would you feel if they died in a house fire and you heard a firefighter say well it's not my house, or my family, I didn't see any lights on so why go in. Or I’m sorry your little girls al burnt up, but I had to wait. But hey don't worry I sprayed water from the out side...

What are most of you doing in this job, I am not preaching a John Wayne freelance approach. I’m saying this is a dangerous job, we do the best we can, we do it as smart as we can and yes we do it as safe as we can, BUT WE STILL DO THE JOB.

[MemphisE34a]

I'm curious, what percentage of fires did you find someone inside the structure where there was not some kind of indication that they were in there, whether it be the caller, neighbor, person hanging out the window, whatever? Out of those fires, what percentage did you get a save where they lived to tell about it?.
I have absolutely no idea, but it does happen. What difference would the percentages make? The fire department is not to supposed to account for percentages. People call we go. Would you support the idea of supposing that many reported house fires are really not so we should have the PD go check it out to save gas money? Whats the difference?



Common sense is allowed by the exceptions included in the rule. If there's viable information that there is a rescue situation, the rule can be thrown to the wayside. The problem is this sense of bravado and idea that we're supposed to risk our lives and die in the line of duty to make sure everyone's out, not matter whether or not they've taken enough heat and smoke to even survive if we do get them out.
Firefighting is dangerous. How is two guys standing outside going to change this?

Personnally, I love my wife and kids enough that I really don't care to have them deal with burying dad because he went in to save someone who might be inside. I don't want to have to be the guy that explains to someone that they're now a widow because we "had to make sure, because there's no way to tell unless we check.".
And because I think 2 in / 2 out is a joke, you contend that I love my wife and kids less?

I'm all for it if there's a good chance someone's in there, if conditions have not evolved to the point that survivability is not possible for any victims. If that's the case, by all means, go in and get it done. If I don't have any indication of occupants and I don't have four guys on my truck, we're going to do what we can from the exterior until the next-in gets there. That includes putting water through a window, because this whole "what if there's someone in that room" excuse is BS. If they're in a heavily involved room, they're likely gone if there's much fire at all.
Hey and maybe after the fire you and the boys can all go and get a "Everyone Goes Home" tattoo.



With a four-man company you have your two-in, two-out. You're not like some of the departments/companies out there that run two- or three-man rigs that are supposed to be waiting for a fourth before making an interior attack. You can arrive on scene, send in the crew, and do as you please.
It is my contention however that 2 in / 2 out is STUPID and accomplishes nothing except cutting your manpower and productivity down by 33% unless you also count satisfying some pencil pushing bureacrat who is trying to justify his job.

You say 2 in / 2 out can be disregarded when you know you have people in the building, correct. Here is my answer: (Johnny, your gonna like this one) You always have confirmation of people in the building. They are the 2 bastards you just sent in there to fight the fire by themselves.

[hfd838]

Based on what you posted, then yes you violated the 2in/2out "law" as I understand it. .

I'm not an OSHA state so I am asking because I truly don’t know. You all keep referring to the 2in/2out is "The LAW” Just wondering what the jail time is for braking said LAW is it a couple years or do you get death row. What if you break the law but save a life, do you get a reduced sentenced??? Is there time off for good behavior? Just wondering?

[MemphisE34a]

So you have 2 in, and either a company officer/IC standing with this thumb up his butt doing something other than supervising the proper stretch of a hose line, or, a pump panel with no qualified (I hope) operator.

Therefore, you STILL fall short of 2in/2out. To be properly implemented you would require a 5 man company. 2 inside, 1 ECC/LCC, 1 RIT, 1 IC. But why let that get in the way.

We are both on the same side of the issue, but just to let you know, Officers here go with the crew. As a first arriving engine company, I establish command and go to work. Later arriving companies will operate off of SOP's or very brief, basic commands. A transfer of Command will occur after the 1st BC gets on the scene.

[JohnVBFD]

Common sense is allowed by the exceptions included in the rule. If there's viable information that there is a rescue situation, the rule can be thrown to the wayside. The problem is this sense of bravado and idea that we're supposed to risk our lives and die in the line of duty to make sure everyone's out, not matter whether or not they've taken enough heat and smoke to even survive if we do get them out.



Missed this before.

Your answers:

http://nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/medal_day/2008/fire/pdf/11.pdf
http://nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/medal_day/2008/fire/pdf/12.pdf
http://nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/medal_day/2008/fire/pdf/15.pdf

Now, that is just the first FEW pages. I counted atleast 4 people saved from certain death, and one two year old boy who died.

Why? Because they did what needed to be done and didn't stop to think about what a lawyer would say.

[jakesdad]

[QUOTE=Catch22;973109]I'm curious, what percentage of fires did you find someone inside the structure where there was not some kind of indication that they were in there, whether it be the caller, neighbor, person hanging out the window, whatever? Out of those fires, what percentage did you get a save where they lived to tell about it?



I am guessing that the percentage of occupants "saved" in your respone area is pretty low if you routinely elect to flow handlines into windows rather than perform aggressive primary searches.

But there are other areas of the country in which fire departments still enter burning buildings and look for people, whether or not a car is in the driveway.

And if I may ask you a question, how do you suppose I tell whether or not a particular apartment is occupied when much of my response area consists of multiple dwellings? There are so many exceptions to your "exterior indicators" that it makes them absolutely unreliable in so many circumstances.

[fyrmnk]

I've seen pictures and heard stories of victims of MVC's being under the vehicle, wadded up under the dash, in the trunk, 100'+ away in a field, hell I've even seen a picture of a young woman hid in the dash as part of a smuggling situation. With that in mind, should I tear down every car on every wreck I run on to make sure there's no other victims? Should I do a 300' walk-around of every wreck to make sure no one got tossed?

I saw a story recently where a lady came back to life after rigor had set in. Should I now work every code, not matter how cold and stiff they are?

If you're going to show such dedication because there might be a victim in a house, I'm curious if you use that type of dedication on all your calls.

Well as one poster stated, common sense isn't all that common. The things you cited are very uncommon. Someone being in their house or a building is VERY COMMON. Wow.

[Dave1983]

Tell the union that the tactic they are trying to use to get more manpower doesn't work. Ive seen the exact same thing with an area department and all they did was make themselves look bad in the publics eye. In fact, they may end up loosing personnel.

As for the question...If your SOG is to take a charged line into a building when conducting searches, go ahead and knock down any visible fire while searching then back out. I think at that point you could claim that your hitting the fire was needed to safely conduct a search.

And as they say, its not clear till we say its clear. At least thats the rational we use when it comes to 2 in-2 out. Of course, there are a couple situations where we wont play that game and we will follow 2 in-2 out. But they are few and far between.

[ChiefKN]

I agree that almost every structure fire has rescue considerations, and I'm proud to say that my department doesn't stand on the front lawn and debate if this fire does or does not meet the criteria.

We are fortunate enough that at every fire in my memory, when the first due rolled up, we were covered with the right number of manpower...however, we have never had two guys standing around outside. They usually go to work, and it's usually interior.

I think as someone else mentioned the standard was designed by some members of our community to increase staffing... I also think, by and large, it has helped some mid-size departments get staff.

However, the idea of mandating a safety team is not a bad idea. But the fire service operates in a unique environment, and using standards that are better off being used for a sewer maintenance team doesn't make sense to me.

[johnny46]

Note 2 to paragraph (g): Nothing in this section is meant to preclude firefighters from performing emergency rescue activities before an entire team has assembled
Locating, confining and extinguishing are often part of the rescue. Anyone who argues otherwise is a moron.

[jefferson136]

Some of you want to play the what if someone is in the structure. So I have a what if, you pull up to a two story structure and it appears to be a room and contents on the second floor bedroom, here it goes it is a balloon frame structure and the basement is rolling, two go in one stays out and the next company is 10 minutes away, they make the second floor and then the first floor collapses and they are trapped on the second floor and conditions are getting worst, the other outside does not see the conitions have worsened, now what. Most of us have read the NIOSH reports and seen firefighterclosecalls.com and the secert list. Most of the prior have in common that the crews thought is was routine or assumed it was a small fire such as room and contents. I'am neutral on two-in two-out, I'am just tring to say be safe as you can. Yes firefighting has inherent dangers and we as professionals need to try to make as safe as possible to reduce injuries. For staffing there have been studies done about the effiecency of 2, 3, 4, 5 man companies and the reduction of injuries with these crews.

[Catch22]

Buzzer.

Sorry, thanks for playing though. With 2in/2out only 1 person can assume more than one duties. Edit to add, so there is no question about this, here it is from the OSHA Director of Complience: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table= INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22576

So you have 2 in, and either a company officer/IC standing with this thumb up his butt doing something other than supervising the proper stretch of a hose line, or, a pump panel with no qualified (I hope) operator.

Therefore, you STILL fall short of 2in/2out. To be properly implemented you would require a 5 man company. 2 inside, 1 ECC/LCC, 1 RIT, 1 IC. But why let that get in the way.

We'll just keep operating as we do with three or four, where the crew works together to put the fire out. Solves a whole lot of problems and reduces your need for manpower if you do that.

But many of you will continue to wait for "x" amount of bodies on the fire ground as the fire continues to grow which will only require you to request more limited manpower, than if you just put the fire out in the first place.

The hypocrisy of the fire service knows no limits.

It's called "Fast Attack." That is where the IC is part of the interior firefighting crew, until the next in officer can establish a formal command. That leaves the qualified Engineer at the panel, assumably finishing donning his gear and SCBA while awaiting the formal RIT after he gets the lines charged and whatever else he needs to get done. The other back-end guy is on a hoseline at the door dedicated to RIT.

[MemphisE34a]

Some of you want to play the what if someone is in the structure. So I have a what if, you pull up to a two story structure and it appears to be a room and contents on the second floor bedroom, here it goes it is a balloon frame structure and the basement is rolling, two go in one stays out and the next company is 10 minutes away, they make the second floor and then the first floor collapses and they are trapped on the second floor and conditions are getting worst, the other outside does not see the conitions have worsened, now what. Most of us have read the NIOSH reports and seen firefighterclosecalls.com and the secert list. Most of the prior have in common that the crews thought is was routine or assumed it was a small fire such as room and contents. I'am neutral on two-in two-out, I'am just tring to say be safe as you can. Yes firefighting has inherent dangers and we as professionals need to try to make as safe as possible to reduce injuries. For staffing there have been studies done about the effiecency of 2, 3, 4, 5 man companies and the reduction of injuries with these crews.

Your rambling is a little hard to follow with the lack of individual paragraphs with the changing of points, but how is the outcome of your scenario different when there are 2 guys outside watching instead of 1?

Additionally, I am not even sure you have created a valid scenario. Every balloon frame building with fire in the basement that I have ever seen results in fire extending up the walls and into the attic when things go bad. Not saying you while first floor collapse thing isn't possible, I j ust think kinda unlikely.

[Catch22]

I have absolutely no idea, but it does happen. What difference would the percentages make? The fire department is not to supposed to account for percentages. People call we go. Would you support the idea of supposing that many reported house fires are really not so we should have the PD go check it out to save gas money? Whats the difference?

Merely a question to determine probability. I've got a good idea what our outcomes are, have no idea about anyone elses.

Firefighting is dangerous. How is two guys standing outside going to change this?

I guess if you ever go down, you'll find out in a hurry. If it happens, you've got two guys that can at least do something other than get on the radio and tell the next-in to hurry up, there's firefighters down.

And because I think 2 in / 2 out is a joke, you contend that I love my wife and kids less?

Never said that, did I. Every day I got to work I wonder if I'll make it home the next morning. I just figure my life is worth more than blindly looking for someone that might be in a house if I don't have anyone to get me out if it hits the fan.

Hey and maybe after the fire you and the boys can all go and get a "Everyone Goes Home" tattoo.

Let me guess, you're one of those "firefighting is dangerous" and "we're paid to risk our lives, and to die trying" kind of guys.

It is my contention however that 2 in / 2 out is STUPID and accomplishes nothing except cutting your manpower and productivity down by 33% unless you also count satisfying some pencil pushing bureacrat who is trying to justify his job.

You say 2 in / 2 out can be disregarded when you know you have people in the building, correct. Here is my answer: (Johnny, your gonna like this one) You always have confirmation of people in the building. They are the 2 bastards you just sent in there to fight the fire by themselves.

How is it two-in, two-out cuts manpower, let alone by 33%? Unless you have 6-man companies, that is. I work for a department with four-man companies, one if which (the one I happen to work on) is allowed to drop to 3. As a matter of fact, I'm working a three-man truck tomorrow, at least until one of my back-end guys gets back from medic class.

What kills me is that we have the "two-in, two-out is BS" guys on our department. They're the same ones who are first to file a grievance anytime their truck is dropped to three guys, no matter how long it may be, citing the same rule. I have a feeling there's many, many more out there that show the same hypocrisy.

I'm curious, if your city decided to drop manpower down to three per company, would you be citing the same rule you think is "satisfying some pencil pushing bureacrat who is trying to justify his job"
alongside your union brothers, or will you say "oh well, we didn't need that many guys anyway."

[THEFIRENUT]

Some of you want to play the what if someone is in the structure. So I have a what if, you pull up to a two story structure and it appears to be a room and contents on the second floor bedroom, here it goes it is a balloon frame structure and the basement is rolling, two go in one stays out and the next company is 10 minutes away, they make the second floor and then the first floor collapses and they are trapped on the second floor and conditions are getting worst, the other outside does not see the conitions have worsened, now what. Most of us have read the NIOSH reports and seen firefighterclosecalls.com and the secert list. Most of the prior have in common that the crews thought is was routine or assumed it was a small fire such as room and contents. I'am neutral on two-in two-out, I'am just tring to say be safe as you can. Yes firefighting has inherent dangers and we as professionals need to try to make as safe as possible to reduce injuries. For staffing there have been studies done about the effiecency of 2, 3, 4, 5 man companies and the reduction of injuries with these crews.

We are not saying that you should send a crew in that don't have a clue about firefighting. Your guys should be somewhat familiar with reading the conditions. Now this isn't going to prevent the structure from collapsing with your guys inside, but it sure gives them a better chance.

I think that you are saying that if you were to pull up to this structure, that you wouldn't even attempt a rescue unless you had a dozen firefighters on scene.

[Catch22]

I am guessing that the percentage of occupants "saved" in your respone area is pretty low if you routinely elect to flow handlines into windows rather than perform aggressive primary searches.

But there are other areas of the country in which fire departments still enter burning buildings and look for people, whether or not a car is in the driveway.

And if I may ask you a question, how do you suppose I tell whether or not a particular apartment is occupied when much of my response area consists of multiple dwellings? There are so many exceptions to your "exterior indicators" that it makes them absolutely unreliable in so many circumstances.

Where did I state we "routinely flow handlines into windows rather than perform aggressive primary searches"? I believe I stated I would do what I could, including suppression through a window if needed.

We run our rigs as four-man companies the majority of the time, so the issue of not complying with this rule is a rarity. If and when it does happen, and that company is first in, I do know they had better have a damn good reason to enter if they violate the rule.

But, just for the sake of playing, I work on what is basically the only company that goes down to a three-man truck (at least the one allowed to do so with any regularity) on our department. We've ran through several scenerios of what our "plan A" would be. In includes our normal procedure (PPA, walk-around, searching for signs of entrapment) along with things like searching through the doorways/windows with the TIC, asking bystanders if there's anyone inside, looking for potential signs of someone being inside, etc. It all depends on the structure and the fire conditions when we arrive.

If there's reason to believe there's entrapments, I will be the first one through the door. However, I'm not going to use the excuse to cowboy-up and bust through the door because their might be someone in that ratty shack that's falling in on itself because "fires don't start themselves."

[MemphisE34a]

How is it two-in, two-out cuts manpower, let alone by 33%?

I'm curious, if your city decided to drop manpower down to three per company, would you be citing the same rule you think is "satisfying some pencil pushing bureacrat who is trying to justify his job"
alongside your union brothers, or will you say "oh well, we didn't need that many guys anyway."
This where we get off track. I do believe that 2 people standing outside provide no real safety or rescue benefit when something goes wrong with the 2 guys inside. I am not however condoning 3 man companies as you elude above because I guess you are saying that in the absence of 2 out, you send 2 in with one outside to pump.

I am saying that a crew minimum of 4 should be maintained to that 3 can go in - 2 to work and one officer to supervise, which is how I came up with the 33% reduction in manpower. Hopefully, one person is going to be outside pumping always reducing the manpower you have avaliable to go inside and perform firefighting duties. A four man company could operate with 3 inside, but if one of those 3 stays outside that leaves only 2 to go in or a 33% reduction.

On a serious note, if you really go to work everyday wondering if you will make it home the next, you may want to consider a different line of work. I respond to literaly dozens of runs every set and see good working fires on a regular basis and have absolutely no doubt that I will be here to aggrevate the Chiefs for years to come. Being aggressive does not mean one has a death wish or runs up in stuff without having sound strategies and tactics in mind. It also does not preclude you from being able to back out and re-evaluate the same if need be.

Aggressive does not have to equal stupid.

[hfd838]

Hey Catch 22 how come after all the rambling you did, you never answered my question?



Originally Posted by Catch22
Personnally, I love my wife and kids enough that I really don't care to have them deal with burying dad because he went in to save someone who might be inside. I don't want to have to be the guy that explains to someone that they're now a widow because we "had to make sure, because there's no way to tell unless we check.".

So speaking of your wife and kids how would you feel if they died in a house fire and you heard a firefighter say well it's not my house, or my family, I didn't see any lights on so why go in. Or I’m sorry your little girls all burnt up, but I had to wait. But hey don't worry I sprayed water from the out side...

I know it's a hard question to ask and answer but i'm am getting sick off you and all the others out there that say it's not my home, hey we didn't start it, i'm not risking my life.....well if something ever happens to your loved one lets see if you say something different then.

[KevinFFVFD]

Well, I am officially confused. I am really not going to comment on what I think is right and what is wrong because I do not fully understand where some people are coming from with their ideas and thoughts on this issue. I grew up watching MEN, true firefighters that I wanted to be like when I grew up. My grandfather fought fires with nothing but a hose line and his balls. I watched my father pull an elderly man out of the front of a house with his family watching with just a helmet, coat and gloves on without hesitating once or worrying if he was violating a silly 2 man in/out rule. I grew up in a firehouse where you were taught to get your *** in the house by going through the front door and coming out the back door and the fire was out. Maybe growing up around all the old tyme firefighters spoiled me or gave me bad habits. But all I know is that when I watched these MEN, these FIREFIGHTERS go to a fire they got the sh** done. There were injuries, but you’re a damn firefighter, the environment you work in is not in your favor. The department my dad was on (before he retired) was considered one of the most aggressive fire departments in the state, and in their entire history as a paid fire department have had only 3 firefighters die, and that was in a butane explosion.
Maybe I am just wasting my time, but these arguments really get to me. When in the fire service did we start thinking it was ok to stand back and watch a family’s home burn because we were the only engine on scene. I can understand if your first on scene and the whole place is going up. But otherwise make some effort to do something, anything. Either I am just too compassionate or to stupid, but I just don’t understand people these days.
I know someone is probably going to blast me for what I have said. Probably going to say “that was the way things were done then, but its different today”. But I will say this, if I pull up on scene with just me another firefighter and a pump operator and I think I can knock the fire down quickly then you can guarantee I’m going in. And by the way, I have been an active firefighter for two years and have had 0 injuries to either me or any other firefighter working with me in a fire.
If what I have said makes 0 sense then I apologize, but I am honestly scared for the future of the “modern” fire service.

[THEFIRENUT]

Aggressive does not have to equal stupid.

I like that. I think that I will put that in my sig.

[fyrmnk]

Well, I am officially confused. I am really not going to comment on what I think is right and what is wrong because I do not fully understand where some people are coming from with their ideas and thoughts on this issue. I grew up watching MEN, true firefighters that I wanted to be like when I grew up. My grandfather fought fires with nothing but a hose line and his balls. I watched my father pull an elderly man out of the front of a house with his family watching with just a helmet, coat and gloves on without hesitating once or worrying if he was violating a silly 2 man in/out rule. I grew up in a firehouse where you were taught to get your *** in the house by going through the front door and coming out the back door and the fire was out. Maybe growing up around all the old tyme firefighters spoiled me or gave me bad habits. But all I know is that when I watched these MEN, these FIREFIGHTERS go to a fire they got the sh** done. There were injuries, but you’re a damn firefighter, the environment you work in is not in your favor. The department my dad was on (before he retired) was considered one of the most aggressive fire departments in the state, and in their entire history as a paid fire department have had only 3 firefighters die, and that was in a butane explosion.
Maybe I am just wasting my time, but these arguments really get to me. When in the fire service did we start thinking it was ok to stand back and watch a family’s home burn because we were the only engine on scene. I can understand if your first on scene and the whole place is going up. But otherwise make some effort to do something, anything. Either I am just too compassionate or to stupid, but I just don’t understand people these days.
I know someone is probably going to blast me for what I have said. Probably going to say “that was the way things were done then, but its different today”. But I will say this, if I pull up on scene with just me another firefighter and a pump operator and I think I can knock the fire down quickly then you can guarantee I’m going in. And by the way, I have been an active firefighter for two years and have had 0 injuries to either me or any other firefighter working with me in a fire.
If what I have said makes 0 sense then I apologize, but I am honestly scared for the future of the “modern” fire service.

Great post.

[fyrmnk]

Where did I state we "routinely flow handlines into windows rather than perform aggressive primary searches"? I believe I stated I would do what I could, including suppression through a window if needed.

We run our rigs as four-man companies the majority of the time, so the issue of not complying with this rule is a rarity. If and when it does happen, and that company is first in, I do know they had better have a damn good reason to enter if they violate the rule.

But, just for the sake of playing, I work on what is basically the only company that goes down to a three-man truck (at least the one allowed to do so with any regularity) on our department. We've ran through several scenerios of what our "plan A" would be. In includes our normal procedure (PPA, walk-around, searching for signs of entrapment) along with things like searching through the doorways/windows with the TIC, asking bystanders if there's anyone inside, looking for potential signs of someone being inside, etc. It all depends on the structure and the fire conditions when we arrive.

If there's reason to believe there's entrapments, I will be the first one through the door. However, I'm not going to use the excuse to cowboy-up and bust through the door because their might be someone in that ratty shack that's falling in on itself because "fires don't start themselves."

As was already mentioned, bystanders and "potential signs" someone is inside are nowhere near accurate, no matter where you live. Does everyone in your community HONESTLY tell every bystander every move they make?

The one thing that really caught me is you say you search through windows with a TIC. So you bust out all the windows to search with a TIC?! I'm sure you know a TIC won't view through glass. Wow, you must burn a lot of buildings down. Talk about a well involved building to deal with if you bust all the windows out then sit and wait for another unit.

I just don't get some people's thinking. I'd like to see the answer to hfd838's question as well.

[SmallBrownBass]

I'm trying to figure out how back in the day they almost always went in with whoever was there with less ppe and no air.

We have full ppe and air now and we are told to stand outside.
I thought we signed up to protect life, property and environment. I'm not saying go into something you know is going to be bad news but just because you roll up and see a little fire, thats not reason to stand outside.

A search is needed to determine if there is anyone in the house. You shouldn't need to wait for 2 people to be outside to do that.
If people are searching it's a good idea to have a hand line in there as well. If you are already inside with a hand line, completed a primary that turns up negative and have located the fire, why the hell should you go out and wait for more people to show up?
What's the point of even sending fire apparatus to calls if we are just going to play grab *** in the front yard until our policies and procedures are met.

[jakesdad]

Where did I state we "routinely flow handlines into windows rather than perform aggressive primary searches"? I believe I stated I would do what I could, including suppression through a window if needed.

We run our rigs as four-man companies the majority of the time, so the issue of not complying with this rule is a rarity. If and when it does happen, and that company is first in, I do know they had better have a damn good reason to enter if they violate the rule.

But, just for the sake of playing, I work on what is basically the only company that goes down to a three-man truck (at least the one allowed to do so with any regularity) on our department. We've ran through several scenerios of what our "plan A" would be. In includes our normal procedure (PPA, walk-around, searching for signs of entrapment) along with things like searching through the doorways/windows with the TIC, asking bystanders if there's anyone inside, looking for potential signs of someone being inside, etc. It all depends on the structure and the fire conditions when we arrive.

If there's reason to believe there's entrapments, I will be the first one through the door. However, I'm not going to use the excuse to cowboy-up and bust through the door because their might be someone in that ratty shack that's falling in on itself because "fires don't start themselves."

Looking through the windows for signs of entrapment????? WTF!!

A fire in a structure is reason alone to believe there could be an entrapment. If the neighbor tells you that no one is home, do you simply skip the primary and secondary searches altogether? I highly doubt it . You just use it as an excuse to wait until it is much less dangerous to go looking for them.

You can do whatever you like in your department. But please spare the rest of us your lecturing if we happen to work for more aggressive departments.

[KevinFFVFD]

Ok everyone, this is firefighting, not rocket science. Plain and simple, you cannot trust the word of someone who does not live in that house to tell you that everyone is out, you just can't. The are to many factors that could exist. It's Sunday and someone stayed home from going to church because they were ill while the rest of the family went. Family or friends may be visiting (which you can count on entrapment in a real fire because that person may not be used to that house and how to get out). I can go on and on, but that house is not for sure 100% cleared unless you go in and make sure its clear.

Look into the windows??? I don't know about how fires work where you are, but here windows blacken out. Plus (more what ifs) what if the person is laying right under the window or in a closet, under the beg, under the covers, in a hallway, many many places you cannot see by just looking through the window.
.
There is only one way the fire is going to go out, and its the same way it has been done for 200 years, you got to get your *** up in there with a line and put water on the fire, plain and simple. Unless you have magical powers and can miracle the fire out then thats how you have to do it. If your to scared to do that then you need to consider a career change.

I agree, I to wonder how the firefighters of the "old world" of firefighting did it too. I wish I had the opportunity to sit and talk with my grandfather about firefighting in his day before he passed away. Those men were better firefighters than I will ever be.

I am all about new firefighting technology. I am excited about new technology (as long as the technology does not try to replace the role of the firefighter). Anything that helps us do our job better and faster is good.

We vow to save first life, then property. And no, I am not going to risk my life to save un-savable property. But until the scene is considered to hazardous for interior operations you bet I'm gonna be up in there getting stuff done.

[RFDACM02]

Buzzer.

Sorry, thanks for playing though. With 2in/2out only 1 person can assume more than one duties. Edit to add, so there is no question about this, here it is from the OSHA Director of Complience: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table= INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22576

So you have 2 in, and either a company officer/IC standing with this thumb up his butt doing something other than supervising the proper stretch of a hose line, or, a pump panel with no qualified (I hope) operator.

Therefore, you STILL fall short of 2in/2out. To be properly implemented you would require a 5 man company. 2 inside, 1 ECC/LCC, 1 RIT, 1 IC. But why let that get in the way.

We'll just keep operating as we do with three or four, where the crew works together to put the fire out. Solves a whole lot of problems and reduces your need for manpower if you do that.

But many of you will continue to wait for "x" amount of bodies on the fire ground as the fire continues to grow which will only require you to request more limited manpower, than if you just put the fire out in the first place.

The hypocrisy of the fire service knows no limits.

I think we're on the same basic page Doc, but I don't read the letter to Chief Varone as definitively saying anything. In fact it's quite "politician" like with the no clear cut answer. Certainly they failed to show specific cases where the 2 out made a rescue of two interior firefighters during the initial operation. I'd loved to heard Varone's remarks when he read that reply!

In my view the IC has one task: control of the firefighting operation, this includes ensuring the safety if personnel on the fireground. This has always been the IC's duty when no S.O. has been assigned. Given this, as long as the IC and MPO are in PPE with SCBA on their backs, and the IC is monitoring the interior crew, they've met the requirement. By far not the optimal scenario, but it allows a 4 person company to comply and begin interior ops. Or you can go the route Memphis noted and out the IC on the stretch in the "fast attack" mode (was that a Phoenix thing?) now you have a dedicated RIT FF and the MPO.

On top of all this, how does one complete the transition from complying with 2 out when another 4 guys arrive? I doubt many FD's immediately make the next 2 FFer's RIT. A lot of other activities need to take place that will reduce the need for a RIT activation. Vent, assisting the initial stretch, a second line, ensuring the water supply is complete, maybe even an actual search crew?

[JohnVBFD]

I think we're on the same basic page Doc, but I don't read the letter to Chief Varone as definitively saying anything. In fact it's quite "politician" like with the no clear cut answer. Certainly they failed to show specific cases where the 2 out made a rescue of two interior firefighters during the initial operation. I'd loved to heard Varone's remarks when he read that reply!


On top of all this, how does one complete the transition from complying with 2 out when another 4 guys arrive? I doubt many FD's immediately make the next 2 FFer's RIT.

This is the section of the rely from Mr Miles, the Director of Compliance Program (IE- not the one you would want to play semantics with :D )

"It also requires that at least two employees be located outside the IDLH atmosphere, thus the term, "two in/two out". This assures that the "two in" can monitor each other and assist with equipment failure or entrapment or other hazards, and the "two out" can monitor those in the building, initiate rescue, or call for back-up. One of the "two out" can be assigned another role such as incident commander. "

As for the other, trying to find the other reply to that issue, you are compliant with 2 in/2 out whether you have 4 guys at 2in/2out or if you 22 in/2 out. It does not escalate. Hence the absurdity of the law.

We are both on the same side of the issue, but just to let you know, Officers here go with the crew. As a first arriving engine company, I establish command and go to work. Later arriving companies will operate off of SOP's or very brief, basic commands. A transfer of Command will occur after the 1st BC gets on the scene.

As the way it should be. But too many people are more worried about that first in company officer taking "incident command" and abandon their crew. You will hear terms like, babysitting them, they know what they are doing, what can I see that the nozzle man can't....all sorts of reasons. But I am with you. A company officer should be with their company supervising them.


As for the what-ifs this what if that posted...

What if that fire has a nuclear bomb in it?
What if there is anthrax?
What if there was a gerbil stuck in a hole?
What if the Holy Hand Grenade of Antichok was in there?
What if ..What if..what if...

Like I said. You what if it. I am sure if you what if it enough and long enough it will eventually go out.

I prefer to use my knowledge of my response area and put water on the fire, extinguish it as quickly as possible, go back and prepare to do it again.

[Bones42]

I'll worry about whether I violated the OSHA (in NJ case - PEOSHA) law when they come to me with the complaint. :cool:

[Catch22]

Hey Catch 22 how come after all the rambling you did, you never answered my question?


So speaking of your wife and kids how would you feel if they died in a house fire and you heard a firefighter say well it's not my house, or my family, I didn't see any lights on so why go in. Or I’m sorry your little girls all burnt up, but I had to wait. But hey don't worry I sprayed water from the out side...

Primarily because it's a dip**** question that takes my comment completely out of context with no intent other than to try to goad me into a reply that you can take even more out of context. I don't believe I ever said anything about standing outside of a house with the attitude of it's not my house, nor my family.

[Catch22]

The one thing that really caught me is you say you search through windows with a TIC. So you bust out all the windows to search with a TIC?! I'm sure you know a TIC won't view through glass. Wow, you must burn a lot of buildings down. Talk about a well involved building to deal with if you bust all the windows out then sit and wait for another unit.

I just don't get some people's thinking. I'd like to see the answer to hfd838's question as well.

I swear, some of you guys really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Did I say I'd bust out all the windows in the house to search them with a TIC? No, I did not. I listed that as one of several tools available to check for possible occupants while performing a walk-around.

And yes, I'm very familiar with the limitations and capabilities of a TIC.

[Catch22]

Looking through the windows for signs of entrapment????? WTF!!

A fire in a structure is reason alone to believe there could be an entrapment. If the neighbor tells you that no one is home, do you simply skip the primary and secondary searches altogether? I highly doubt it . You just use it as an excuse to wait until it is much less dangerous to go looking for them.

You can do whatever you like in your department. But please spare the rest of us your lecturing if we happen to work for more aggressive departments.

Is there more than one or two people that can actually keep up with a discussion and refrain from putting words in someone else's mouth?

Please, tell me where I said that I would skip a primary and/or secondary search. I suppose you could accusee me of advocating delaying a primary search until there was a two-out if there are no indications of entrapments, though.

[jakesdad]

Is there more than one or two people that can actually keep up with a discussion and refrain from putting words in someone else's mouth?

Please, tell me where I said that I would skip a primary and/or secondary search. I suppose you could accusee me of advocating delaying a primary search until there was a two-out if there are no indications of entrapments, though.

If your exterior indicators are so reliable as to whether or not a building is occupied, then why do you perform searches at all?

If you are justifying delaying a search because the neighbor told you that nobody is home, then why are you bothering to search it at all? If the neighbors word was reliable enough to cause you to delay it, then it should be reliable enough to cause you to skip it altogether.

I think I know why. Because there is a chance that it may be occupied. Which is why we search burning buildings for occupants. Unfortunately, time is something that civilians inside a burning building don't have a lot of.

So by delaying your search, just be aware that you could cost someone there life.

[fyrmnk]

I swear, some of you guys really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Did I say I'd bust out all the windows in the house to search them with a TIC? No, I did not. I listed that as one of several tools available to check for possible occupants while performing a walk-around.

And yes, I'm very familiar with the limitations and capabilities of a TIC.

Okay, in the post I quoted, you said you'd use a TIC from the exterior through doors and windows.

How are you looking through the windows with it? It can't see through glass, hence you either don't know the limitations or are busting them out to see through them. That was my question.

[DonSmithnotTMD]

Let me know how those work out. We run an all E-one fleet here so we're equipped with aluminum balls... not so great.

I have some brass ones around here somewhere but check the Darley catalogue

[jlcooke3]

3 person engine company arrives at scene of a sfd with smoke showing, 2nd due truck is 8-10 minutes out (semi-rural response area). Crew of 2 forces entry (driver/engineer remains with truck) and uses TIC to conduct primary search, after determining no victims the crew calls for water and begins to extinguish a room/contents fire. Everything ok, right ?

This incident happened to my dept recently and our union officials are saying we violated 2 in/ 2 out, they are ok with the primary search but they then want us to back out and wait for 2nd truck to arrive to begin fighting fire. I understand the argument and it does hurt our fight to get the 4th man on the engine but I am having problems with this.

Thoughts ???

Using the 2 in/ 2 out OSHA guideline to fight for a 4th man isn't going to work. If you are arguing for more staffing try using NFPA 1710 and staffing studies. There are several staffing studies out there such as Providence, RI; Dallas, TX; and Seattle, WA. These staffing studies show the effectiveness of different size engine companies and how a 4th man not only makes the company more effective it also has shown a remarked decrease in injuries.

As to the actions taken at the fire you described, sounds like a good job done by the first in crew. I can tell you that the way your dept. handled that fire is the exact same way it would be expected to be handled here.

[Dave1983]

This where we get off track. I do believe that 2 people standing outside provide no real safety or rescue benefit when something goes wrong with the 2 guys inside.


Thats the point that everyone, including OSHA, is missing with this standard. 2 in 2 out, in reality, accomplishes nothing as the 2 outside are useless if something happens inside.

A couple months back I took the National Fire Academy incident safety officer class. Right now, I'm in the middle of the NFA class on command and control of target hazards.

In both classes, the subject of rapid intervention has been discussed. It is now considered, by the US Fire Administration at least, that the the number of firefighters required for a useful rapid intervention team is 8-12!

This number is based not only on post incident review of rapid intervention team activation but through training evolutions.

That being the case, just what is the rational behind 2 in 2 out???

[Fokker416]

What if the Holy Hand Grenade of Antichok was in there?


I dunno what I would do Doc, but I sure as heck know I wouldn't count to four!

How about this. You cannot legislate decisive leadership with good tactics. This is true in military conflict, law enforcement, and the fire service among many others I'm sure. The 2 in/2 out rule, although made with the best of intentions, is just that. The idea of having a crew ready to act is not a new one. The phrase "A good chief always keeps a company in reserve" dates to the 1800s, this is not a new idea. It comes down to this. There is a point where there is a burning building, a charged line, and a firefighter (or two hopefully) looking back at a leader. That leader has to make a decision. "Are we going in or what?" is how the firefighter will ask it. That leader will fall back on experience, training, tradition, and other lessons learned and make the call. That one decision is probably one of the most important decisions made in the fire service. If we can improve the wisdom of that one decision we can dramatically improve safety in the fire service. There will be times where we will have to be brave, for lack of a better word (I deplore how cheezy that sounds). There will also be times where we must be reserved. In all times we must be decisive. I genuinely believe that over legislation breeds indecisiveness. "I know we can get this one, but I'll get in trouble if I go now." I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that particular thought process.

The new generation of leaders have not seen the amount of fire you old guys have. We don't run as many as we did in the good old days. These new leaders are much more educated but you can't lead with a book. We've all probably worked with Admiral Booksmart and know exactly what I'm talking about. Ambiguous legislation does not help. Is the 2 in/2 out rule ambiguous? I would say yes after participating in this thread. Unfortunately you cannot legislate mentoring, you can't put positive role models and lessons into law. All I know is this, the good role models I have seen. The ones and I've thought "I hope I'm as good as that guy when I'm there" didn't always use "the rule". They also didn't always send us in. I didn't mind either way, I trusted them and it was their job. No one else's.

What makes me so knowledgeable about this new generation? I'm one of them. I take my first officer test next year. So stop throwing rocks and teach me something you old farts! :)

[hfd838]

I dunno what I would do Doc, but I sure as heck know I wouldn't count to four!

How about this. You cannot legislate decisive leadership with good tactics. This is true in military conflict, law enforcement, and the fire service among many others I'm sure. The 2 in/2 out rule, although made with the best of intentions, is just that. The idea of having a crew ready to act is not a new one. The phrase "A good chief always keeps a company in reserve" dates to the 1800s, this is not a new idea. It comes down to this. There is a point where there is a burning building, a charged line, and a firefighter (or two hopefully) looking back at a leader. That leader has to make a decision. "Are we going in or what?" is how the firefighter will ask it. That leader will fall back on experience, training, tradition, and other lessons learned and make the call. That one decision is probably one of the most important decisions made in the fire service. If we can improve the wisdom of that one decision we can dramatically improve safety in the fire service. There will be times where we will have to be brave, for lack of a better word (I deplore how cheezy that sounds). There will also be times where we must be reserved. In all times we must be decisive. I genuinely believe that over legislation breeds indecisiveness. "I know we can get this one, but I'll get in trouble if I go now." I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that particular thought process.

The new generation of leaders have not seen the amount of fire you old guys have. We don't run as many as we did in the good old days. These new leaders are much more educated but you can't lead with a book. We've all probably worked with Admiral Booksmart and know exactly what I'm talking about. Ambiguous legislation does not help. Is the 2 in/2 out rule ambiguous? I would say yes after participating in this thread. Unfortunately you cannot legislate mentoring, you can't put positive role models and lessons into law. All I know is this, the good role models I have seen. The ones and I've thought "I hope I'm as good as that guy when I'm there" didn't always use "the rule". They also didn't always send us in. I didn't mind either way, I trusted them and it was their job. No one else's.

What makes me so knowledgeable about this new generation? I'm one of them. I take my first officer test next year. So stop throwing rocks and teach me something you old farts! :)

Very well said

[KevinFFVFD]

I dunno what I would do Doc, but I sure as heck know I wouldn't count to four!

How about this. You cannot legislate decisive leadership with good tactics. This is true in military conflict, law enforcement, and the fire service among many others I'm sure. The 2 in/2 out rule, although made with the best of intentions, is just that. The idea of having a crew ready to act is not a new one. The phrase "A good chief always keeps a company in reserve" dates to the 1800s, this is not a new idea. It comes down to this. There is a point where there is a burning building, a charged line, and a firefighter (or two hopefully) looking back at a leader. That leader has to make a decision. "Are we going in or what?" is how the firefighter will ask it. That leader will fall back on experience, training, tradition, and other lessons learned and make the call. That one decision is probably one of the most important decisions made in the fire service. If we can improve the wisdom of that one decision we can dramatically improve safety in the fire service. There will be times where we will have to be brave, for lack of a better word (I deplore how cheezy that sounds). There will also be times where we must be reserved. In all times we must be decisive. I genuinely believe that over legislation breeds indecisiveness. "I know we can get this one, but I'll get in trouble if I go now." I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that particular thought process.

The new generation of leaders have not seen the amount of fire you old guys have. We don't run as many as we did in the good old days. These new leaders are much more educated but you can't lead with a book. We've all probably worked with Admiral Booksmart and know exactly what I'm talking about. Ambiguous legislation does not help. Is the 2 in/2 out rule ambiguous? I would say yes after participating in this thread. Unfortunately you cannot legislate mentoring, you can't put positive role models and lessons into law. All I know is this, the good role models I have seen. The ones and I've thought "I hope I'm as good as that guy when I'm there" didn't always use "the rule". They also didn't always send us in. I didn't mind either way, I trusted them and it was their job. No one else's.

What makes me so knowledgeable about this new generation? I'm one of them. I take my first officer test next year. So stop throwing rocks and teach me something you old farts! :)

I second that, well said.

[mcl312]

Thanks fokker416, my feelings exactly. My intentions when posting this originally was that you cannot legislate knowledge, skills and ability and when you try you just complicate things. A good officer does not need OSHA to tell them how many people are needed to put out a fire, A good experienced officer knows what needs to be done and does more to keep his crew safe than any unflexible law or standard. Maybe the problem is we are not turning out good fire officers anymore................

[johnny46]

You say 2 in / 2 out can be disregarded when you know you have people in the building, correct. Here is my answer: (Johnny, your gonna like this one) You always have confirmation of people in the building. They are the 2 bastards you just sent in there to fight the fire by themselves.
I'd say that seals it.