Closed Thread
Page 5 of 6 First ... 23456 Last
  1. #101
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,596

    Default

    Yes, SCBA is required for roof operations.

    If crews are protecting a structure at a wildland incident and working in a "fixed" position, we require SCBA use. It's simply not practical for units in the "field".

  2. #102
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,862

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    If crews are protecting a structure at a wildland incident and working in a "fixed" position, we require SCBA use. It's simply not practical for units in the "field".
    So pardoning the extrapolation of some other arguments, are you not sacrificing safety for the protection of property? Maybe not even tangible items, but trees and grass?

    To me this is like the argument against 2.5" hose on standpipes. "Not practical in our situation", but sacrificing FFer's safety is? Why? We can't say, "No we need to protect ourselves against proven hazards by taking the time to bring the right hoseline to the fire floor?"

    I'm not advocating SCBA use on outside fires, merely trying to sift through the BS policies and figure out why we make hard fast rules for one type of job that contradict other similar operations.

  3. #103
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    Riding Lawn mower fire?

    Deuce and a half with a smooth bore... a 3 second burst should put it out.

    Dumpsters? Hit it with the deck gun, fill the dumpster with H2O then go home.

    Car fire: put on the airpack and mask up. Put out the fire and overhaul it to check for victims (it does happen). Call for your fire investigator if it seems suspicious... he needs the OT to pay for his kid's braces!
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  4. #104
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    That's the reason not to micromanage your sogs to that level.Can you tell where the smoke is? Is it moving all around or blowing one direction?Outside or inside fire? If you can answer these questions,you probably can figure the rest of the stuff out. Dumpster fire make you nervous? Gun it with foam.Problem goes away and you're not in the smoke.Most fires don't burn well under water.I really dislike places that think you have to make a written policy for EVERY single thing they do.What ever happened to competent company officers and company training? Yeah I know,it went the way of the thinking firefighter and getting the job done.Vests please! T.C.
    Last edited by Rescue101; 06-11-2009 at 10:19 AM.

  5. #105
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    I'm not advocating SCBA use on outside fires, merely trying to sift through the BS policies and figure out why we make hard fast rules for one type of job that contradict other similar operations.
    Something tells me you will never figure this out.

    Nor will you get straight answers to legitimate questions from those that try to criticize everything that everyone else does all the while refusing to intelligently defend their own practices.

    I for one could care less what someone who admittedly works for an "EMS service that occasionally goes to fires" thinks about SCBA use as he is certainly not a professional peer of mine.

  6. #106
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,596

    Default

    Maybe not even tangible items, but trees and grass?

    Brush fires here, especially under very dry late fall/winter conditions, represent a significant threat to property. They can run very fast and very hot - not as fast as CA but certainly must faster and hotter than what I dealt with in NY or VT. It's simply not feasible most of the to allow the "trees and grass" to burn in many as they will almost always run into property. Sometimes it's much easier to get up close and personal than it is to let it get to the size where you have to deal with a large or multiple fire fronts and multiple exposure protection operations.

    In addition, much of the "trees" here are grown for timber harvest, so thier destruction is a financial issue as well. It's very common that the next harvest is someone's retirement or thier kids college education.

    SCBA is simply not an option for aggressive brush fire operations. We do carry filters for the SCBA masks if members choose to use them. Some do. Some don't.

    If the state has a dozer crew available, and the fire is burning slow enough and structures are not an issue, we often do simply allow it to burn until the state shows up and cuts a line. This is probably the rule not the exception. Often we allow it to burn to a power line cut or a road and work it there with minimal risk.

  7. #107
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Brush fires here, especially under very dry late fall/winter conditions, represent a significant threat to property. They can run very fast and very hot - not as fast as CA but certainly must faster and hotter than what I dealt with in NY or VT. It's simply not feasible most of the to allow the "trees and grass" to burn in many as they will almost always run into property. Sometimes it's much easier to get up close and personal than it is to let it get to the size where you have to deal with a large or multiple fire fronts and multiple exposure protection operations.

    So you put your firefighters in danger to save PROPERTY?

    But you are not willing to put firefighters at risk to search a building for PEOPLE?

    You get "up close and personal" to fast-moving wildland fires but are unwilling to make an aggressive interior attack on a bedroom fire?

    You are a contradictory fool and a danger to those around you and I am thoroughly convicned that you post only to see yourself in print.

  8. #108
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,596

    Default

    You get "up close and personal" to fast-moving wildland fires but are unwilling to make an aggressive interior attack on a bedroom fire?

    Show me where I said I would not fight a bedroom fire?

    But you are not willing to put firefighters at risk to search a building for PEOPLE?

    And show me where I said I would not search if you gave me a reason to search.

    There are not reasons to search abandons and vacants here. They do not contain PEOPLE.

    You are still hung up on that, huh? Ya just don't get it that those structures do not pose civilian life safety issues for us.

    So you put your firefighters in danger to save PROPERTY?


    I have stated all along I see no issues with taking low to moderate risk to save property if there is enough salvage to make it worth the risk and the resources and water supply are on hand to make it happen.

    75% of the house is not a salvageable structure, but 25% is.

    A timber stand worth 100K is worth the risk if it can be done with minimal risk and the resources are here to make it happen.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 06-11-2009 at 01:45 PM.

  9. #109
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jakesdad View Post
    So you put your firefighters in danger to save PROPERTY?
    Didn't you read?

    He said that some of the trees were valuable!

    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

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

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

  10. #110
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,050

    Default

    Seriously LA,

    This time you proved what a complete loon you are. I have done my best not to argue with you these past few days but i simply can't let your idiotic logic go here.

    Moderate risk to save TREES? Really? Trees? Yet you rant on and on about how you would not enter a structure if the risk was too great and it might endanger your firefighters. You simply can't have it both ways, you can't have moderate danger to save TREES and not enter a structure because you deem it too dangerous to save PEOPLE.

    My God man you seriously need to revisit every damn thing you have said on these forums because most of the time given enough rope, you not only hang yourself, you use multiple ropes.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 06-11-2009 at 04:47 PM.

  11. #111
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,596

    Default

    Moderate risk to save TREES? Really? Trees? Yet you raqnt on and on about how you would not enter a structure if the risk was too great and it might endanger your firefighters. You simply can't have it both ways, you can't have moderate danger to save TREES and not enter a structure because you deem it too dangerous to save PEOPLE

    Point 1 .. Trees with a value. Trees that folks are counting on harvesting for timber to pay bills, retire or whatever. Tress that are worth money .. same as thier stuff. Except that most of these stands are not insured so unlike their homes or vehicles, if the stand burns, they lose the harvest value. Timber is a big gig around here.

    Same rules apply for brush and timber stand operations that apply for structure operatins. Risk v. benefit. If the fire is too intense or moving too fast, no, we don't make a stand and try to save it. If the winds are too heavy or shifting, we don't make a direct attack, we do allow it burn. If we don't have the resources - manpower, brush/off-road apparatus or water supply, we allow it to burn.

    If it is simply brush, without timber involvement, and the fire is not threatening structures, we generally do not make a direct attack unless the resources are there. If they aren't, we simply allow it to burn, call forestry for a plow crew or two, depending on the fire size, and let them simply cut a line around the fire. If we can cut it off safely at roads or power line/pipeline right of ways we'll do that.

    No double standard. Every fire gets a risk v. benefit. What's left to save? What is the value of what is left to save? What will it require, in terms of resources to save it? Do we have the resources on hand? Can we get the resources?

    We probably back off friom more brush fires than structure fires, so, one could say we actually risk less there than at structure ops.

  12. #112
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    You get "up close and personal" to fast-moving wildland fires but are unwilling to make an aggressive interior attack on a bedroom fire?

    Show me where I said I would not fight a bedroom fire?

    But you are not willing to put firefighters at risk to search a building for PEOPLE?

    And show me where I said I would not search if you gave me a reason to search.

    There are not reasons to search abandons and vacants here. They do not contain PEOPLE.

    You are still hung up on that, huh? Ya just don't get it that those structures do not pose civilian life safety issues for us.

    So you put your firefighters in danger to save PROPERTY?


    I have stated all along I see no issues with taking low to moderate risk to save property if there is enough salvage to make it worth the risk and the resources and water supply are on hand to make it happen.

    75% of the house is not a salvageable structure, but 25% is.

    A timber stand worth 100K is worth the risk if it can be done with minimal risk and the resources are here to make it happen.
    You have said REPEATEDLY that you use the presence of vehilces in a driveway as searfch criteria.

    You have said REPEATEDLY that a house lacking smoke detectors would probably not get searched because the fire would be too advanced.

    You have said REPEATEDLY that you use ridiculous tabletop percentages of involvement to determine whetehr or not a structure should be searched or not.

    You have said REPEATEDLY that the risk of INJURY to your firefightes is worth exponentialy more than the LIVES of any civilians including children.

    None of this has a thing to do with searching vacant buildings. You have made these claims regarding OCCUPIED buildings.

    So I am asking you to show me where you said you WOULD search a building or that you WOULD risk some personal harm to do your job and help someone who was completely defenseless. I have yet to see it.

    You have NEVER stated it was even acceptable to take a MODERATE risk to save a human life. In fact, you called everyone on here that said they would take a moderte risk a "cowboy" and a "dinosaur" on some sort of a "macho" death wish. But now you are trying to say you would take a MODERATE risk to save PROPERTY? You can't be serious.

    You just said that you would risk personnel to save $100,000 worth of trees.

    I guess the value you place on a human life is far less than $100,000.

    Unless you are talking about your own life...that clearly has no price since that is all you ever seem to be concerned with.

  13. #113
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Point 1 .. Trees with a value. Trees that folks are counting on harvesting for timber to pay bills, retire or whatever. Tress that are worth money .. same as thier stuff. Except that most of these stands are not insured so unlike their homes or vehicles, if the stand burns, they lose the harvest value. Timber is a big gig around here.
    Shame on them for not insuring their trees.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

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

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

  14. #114
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,596

    Default

    Jakes ....

    You have said REPEATEDLY that you use the presence of vehilces in a driveway as searfch criteria.

    Yes, they are part of the go/no go equation. What does that have to do with not searching?

    You have said REPEATEDLY that a house lacking smoke detectors would probably not get searched because the fire would be too advanced.

    Ok ... No detectors, especially at night, means the residents are alerted to a fire later than they are with smoke detectors, meaning a a more advanced fire when it's reported to the fire department. Primarily rural area with extended response times for apparatus. That means even more fire development as a 8-10 minute response time is not unusual in our rural areas (3-5 minutes in our core). Heavy stock of mobile and manufactured homes, which burn more rapidly than site built homes. Building Construction 101 and Fire Behavior 101 tells us that the delay in the residents being aware of a fire in a home with smoke detectors as compared to a home without smoke detectors, will mean, when combined with the other factors listed, a situation which often will be beyond the parameters of entry upon our arrival.

    That is just basic FF1 stuff.

    In addition, our data backs up the fact that homes without reported detectors suffer more serious damage than homes with detectors.

    You have said REPEATEDLY that you use ridiculous tabletop percentages of involvement to determine whetehr or not a structure should be searched or not.

    Call it whatever you want. I call it risk v. benefit.

    You have said REPEATEDLY that the risk of INJURY to your firefightes is worth exponentialy more than the LIVES of any civilians including children.

    I have said that in some situations you simply have to accept the fact that you can't save everyone, and when your risk analysis tells you that rescue is unlikely, you need to accept the fact that the victims are dead or will die even with our intervention, and that the intervention, that will likely not be successful, will put firefighters at great risk of injury or death.

    That applies to children, elderly, adults .... everyone. Sometimes you simply need to accept that the gain is extremly minimal and the risk is too great.

    You have NEVER stated it was even acceptable to take a MODERATE risk to save a human life. In fact, you called everyone on here that said they would take a moderte risk a "cowboy" and a "dinosaur" on some sort of a "macho" death wish.

    I have said many times that I would take great risks to save a life that has a reasonable chance of being saved. I will not risk a firefighters life to save a life that has a small chance of being saved.

    The key word is savable.

    I was referring to operating without a hoseline. I find that practice completely unacceptable.

    But now you are trying to say you would take a MODERATE risk to save PROPERTY?

    I have always said moderate risk is acceptable to save property if there is a significant amount left to save and resources are on hand to operate safely.

    A structure 75% burned does not have enough value left to take any risks. 25% burned has enough value left to take moderate risks. 50% could go either way depending on the overall value of the structure. A tree stand worth 100K has enough value to take moderate risks with enough resources on scene to operate safely and weather on our side. Nothing different than what I have said about risk/benefit on structures

  15. #115
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,596

    Default

    Shame on them for not insuring their trees.

    Some of the larger stand owners do, but as I understand it, it's fairly pricey so most of the owners stands are not worth the investment.

  16. #116
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,050

    Default

    LA,

    I have known guys to talk out of both sides of their face before but you may be the first person I have ever seen have 4, or maybe 5 or 6, sides of your face. You simply bend and twist and make up nonsense to meet your asinine definition of what firefighting is. Once again, I thank God you are states away from me because frankly you would be run out of any real Fire Department I am familiar with in this area.

    I tried not to answer your crap but damn it, I just can't let your crap go unchallenged. Moderate risk for trees, no cars in the drive means no search. Yep, statistical analysis shows that eventually YOU will kill someone with your false logic.

  17. #117
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    I would like to know when the "Great Educator" will get a clue about this forum and learn to use the quote feature.

    I've given up on him getting a clue as to what the job is about.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  18. #118
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,596

    Default

    So someone tells you "I have $50,000 in a box in my room".

    And you can retrieve it with a moderate amount of risk.

    You are telling me you wouldn't?

    That timber is worth money. It was planted to be harvested 20 years from now and in many cases, there have been financial plans made on based on that harvest.

    You think an abandoned house is worth at least moderate risk, yet that timber is something salvageable and you don't think that is worth risk?

    Moderate risk for trees, no cars in the drive means no search

    No cars in the driveway is a factor in deciding if a search is warrented.

    As far as what the job is about -

    1. Everyone of us goes home everyday.

    2. We save who we can save without killing us.

    3. We accept there may civilians who will die that the risk
    to us was to extreme to attempt to rescue

    4. We accept that there are civilians that we cannot save.

    5. We accept that property .. and trees .. are not worth our lives.

    6. We accept that civilians will lose property so we may live.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 06-11-2009 at 07:06 PM.

  19. #119
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Timber is a big gig around here.
    Well with you idiots burning everything to the foundation, no wonder timber is a big gig!
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  20. #120
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So someone tells you "I have $50,000 in a box in my room".

    And you can retrieve it with a moderate amount of risk.

    You are telling me you wouldn't?

    IF that had been what you had been preaching instead of your risk nothing because it ain't mine and they aren't my family or my firefighters. You are so full of crap you can't remember from post to post what you say.

    That timber is worth money. It was planted to be harvested 20 years from now and in many cases, there have been financial plans made on based on that harvest.

    And you know what? I will do my job ALL the time not just when finanacial concerns are in the forefront. To me that whole damn forest can burn to the ground as long as no lives of civilians were lost. Whether you realize it or not you have placed more value on this timber than you have on human life in previous topics. BRILLIANT. "Now recruits, this lumber has monetary value so we will take a higher level risk to save it than say the risk we might encounter searching a house with no car in the driveway."

    You think an abandoned house is worth at least moderate risk, yet that timber is something salvageable and you don't think that is worth risk?

    I didn't say I wouldn't do my job and attempt to put the fire out and try to save the timber. YOU on the other hand have said anything over a minimal risk to your firefighters would syop you from searching. YOU put the timber at a higher risk to benefit than human lives...BRILLIANT!

    Moderate risk for trees, no cars in the drive means no search

    No cars in the driveway is a factor in deciding if a search is warrented.

    Um, the word is warranted. And eventually that undefensible logic is going to get someone killed in your fire district. It may be tonight or 10 years from now but you will kill someone thinking that way.

    As far as what the job is about -

    1. Everyone of us goes home everyday.

    Golly and the rest of us everyday are looking for new ways to die. You are an ***, someone who defiles the Brave Borthers who die in the line of duty. You are such a vulture you can't even wait for preliminaryr reports before you pass judgement.

    2. We save who we can save without killing us.

    See my post above.

    3. We accept there may civilians who will die that the risk
    to us was to extreme to attempt to rescue.

    The second to in your sentence should be too. Are you sure you are an educator? Look, the problem here is your too extreme isn't anywhere near anyone else's too extreme. To me, if we can get in we go in, yours is if the fire is more than a campfire you aren't going in. Huge difference. We WILL risk a lot to save a life.

    4. We accept that there are civilians that we cannot save.

    Again, a completely ignorant shot fired at those of us that will push past the door frame in an attempt to save lives. None of us are advocating a search in a fully involved home. You are advocating not searching at all if there isn't a car in the driveway. You take your extremist view and push the extreme opposite onto everyone else. Nice try at distorting what others are saying.

    5. We accept that property .. and trees .. are not worth our lives.

    But you will also take a higher risk to save trees than you would to search a home for victims if there is no car in the driveway. You can duck, dodge, fabricate, dance, sing, waffle, commiserate, cry, call your mom and say I was mean to you, or any other thing to try and say you didn't advocate what I said...BUT IT IS ALL THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE WHAT YOU POSTED. By the way how is the bullet wound in your foot? Because frankly you shot yourself good with this one.

    6. We accept that civilians will lose property so we may live.

    Of course they will. It is impossible for the fire department to put back what is burned before we arrive. BUT, if we are not going to have any positive effect on the emergency why show up at all? You guys could sell your fire trucks and buy back hoes and dump trucks and just show up the next day to clean up the debris.
    You just keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole every time you post. Dude, you must be a masochist.

  21. #121
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    As far as what the job is about -
    I will stop you right there.

    You have NO IDEA what this job is about.

    YOUR job is not MY job.

    Please stop thinking that it is.

  22. #122
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,596

    Default

    You guys really have to get past tghis car in the driveway thing.

    And you really have to get past this "not searching " thing too.

    I have absolutely no idea why not searching abandoned structures here is such a massive problem.

    Somehow because we don't search them means that we don't value life? Who's life don't we value.... The people who are not in the structures?

    The fact is abandoned structures here are empty. We are not disregarding their lives because their are no lives to disregard. It's really that damn simple.

    You take a risk to save something of value. Abandoned structures have no value and no life safety. No risk.

    Vacants have some structural value but no or minimal content value and very little chance of occupancy so you take very little risk.

    Buildings in use but have been evacauted and you have reliable information from occupants, supervisors or neighbors have no life safety issues but have more value as they have contents so you take moderate risks. Same applies to timberland.

    Buildings that are have a reasonable liklihood of occupancy but no confirmation of occupancy requires the a little more risk, but since there is no confirmation of occupants, the risks still need to be extremly measured.

    Only in the cases where the life hazard is confirmed is there justification to take the highest risk. And the victim must be viable. If conditions tell you that it not likley, than those extreme risks cannot be justified.

    No changing of story. That is what I have been saying all along.

  23. #123
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    You guys really have to get past tghis car in the driveway thing.

    No, I don't. No car in the driveway at my house in indicative of one thing and one thing only. Both cars are gone. Is my girlfriend at work or did she drop her car off at the shop and get a ride home? I might be at work or ran to the store leaving perhaps just my tennaged son at home. You see why this false sense of security is a sad damn joke? No cars means nothing other than the cars aren't there.

    And you really have to get past this "not searching " thing too.

    No, I don't. If it is a structure that may be inhabited, whether by normal residents or squatters we search. You look for excuses not to search, no cars, no smoke detectors, bigger than a trash can fire, and no vests on the command staff. You said there are times you don't search, we don't have to make it up, you said it.

    I have absolutely no idea why not searching abandoned structures here is such a massive problem.

    Frankly, I don't give damn if you phone in your response. Just stop telling everyone they are wrong and they are dinosaurs. Especially the ones who have actually done the things you wet yourself having nightmares about.

    Somehow because we don't search them means that we don't value life? Who's life don't we value.... The people who are not in the structures?

    You don't value your citizens lives. If you did you never would have made that assinine smoke detector comment.

    The fact is abandoned structures here are empty. We are not disregarding their lives because their are no lives to disregard. It's really that damn simple.

    So far. Wait til a couple of kids start a fire and die in an "Abandoned" structure. Then explain your strategy to grieving parents and their lawyers.

    You take a risk to save something of value. Abandoned structures have no value and no life safety. No risk.

    No value to you. So you are the decider of property and its value to the owner? Noce job, where do I apply?

    Vacants have some structural value but no or minimal content value and very little chance of occupancy so you take very little risk.

    So of the building is insured for $100K like the value of the trees would you try harder since it now has monetary value?

    Buildings in use but have been evacauted and you have reliable information from occupants, supervisors or neighbors have no life safety issues but have more value as they have contents so you take moderate risks. Same applies to timberland.

    Again, you compare timberland to occupied structures. I have on several occasions searched office buildings,after being toldeveryone is out, only to be met by occupants on upper floors saying "WE thought it was another drill." Yep, reliable information, golly it is never wrong in Louisiana I bet.

    Buildings that are have a reasonable liklihood of occupancy but no confirmation of occupancy requires the a little more risk, but since there is no confirmation of occupants, the risks still need to be extremly measured.

    Yep, because you might get your gear dirty or actually have to do something instead of pretending to be firefighters. God you are pathetic.

    Only in the cases where the life hazard is confirmed is there justification to take the highest risk. And the victim must be viable. If conditions tell you that it not likley, than those extreme risks cannot be justified.

    Because like Superman you can use your x-ray vision and super hearing and know the condition of the area where the victim is as well as their condition to allow you NOT to enter. Another sad joke.

    No changing of story. That is what I have been saying all along.

    True, trees are worth more risk than people in a structure. No lives are worth risking more than a minimal risk. Don't search if there are no cars in the driveway or if they don't have smoke detectors. True you haven't changed what ytou have said all along.
    What a sad bunch of crap you spew.

  24. #124
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    So far. Wait til a couple of kids start a fire and die in an "Abandoned" structure. Then explain your strategy to grieving parents and their lawyers.
    Here's the reality...

    If that happened (god forbid), then noone would challenge it, no lawsuit, no explaining.

    Why????

    Because people trust firefighters to do the "right" thing. To be brave and to take *calculated* risks. They would never suspect that we wouldn't search an "abandoned" building simply because we *thought* it was vacant.

    That's why firefighters are always one and two with Nurses on the "what professions have the most respect from the public" surveys.

    That is why it rubs most of us the wrong way. Because we believe in that part of firefighting. That it IS noble in some way.

    Look, we aren't saints, but even those of us that are a bit "unsaint-like" can still be damn good firefighters.

    .
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

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

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

  25. #125
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    You guys really have to get past tghis car in the driveway thing.

    And you really have to get past this "not searching " thing too.
    These are your issues, not mine.

    Perhaps you should get past it.
    Last edited by jakesdad; 06-12-2009 at 06:02 AM.

Closed Thread
Page 5 of 6 First ... 23456 Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What SCBA To Buy?
    By captainwest04 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 02-18-2010, 11:33 AM
  2. SCBA Cheater for SCOTT SCBA
    By laddercompany20 in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 09-21-2008, 01:24 PM
  3. SCBA help
    By fire41108 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-14-2007, 11:31 PM
  4. SCBA use
    By Lt Big 29er in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-20-2000, 12:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register