1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    735

    Default Am I missing something here?

    Specifically, the violation is for "employees that were exposed to fire hazards while engaged in search, rescue and interior structural firefighting activities at a single family residence."


    Do they not realize that the whole point in searching, performing rescues and interior stuctural firefighting activities is because we are firefighters. Being "exposed to fire hazards" is part of the damn job.

    Atleast for some of us...
    Just another one of the 99%ers looking up.

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    University Park, MD
    Posts
    235

    Default

    Maybe you are referring to this, Virginia Department Cited in Blaze That Injured 7 Firefighters?

    "Specifically, the violation is for "employees that were exposed to fire hazards while engaged in search, rescue and interior structural firefighting activities at a single family residence.""

    2 Firefighters Still Hospitalized after Virginia Blaze, and related coverage.
    "If you put the fire out right in the first place, you won't have to jump out the window."
    Andy Fredericks,
    FDNY E.48, SQ.18
    Alexandria, VA F.D.

    Rest in Peace

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PFDTruck18 View Post
    Specifically, the violation is for "employees that were exposed to fire hazards while engaged in search, rescue and interior structural firefighting activities at a single family residence."


    Do they not realize that the whole point in searching, performing rescues and interior stuctural firefighting activities is because we are firefighters. Being "exposed to fire hazards" is part of the damn job.

    Atleast for some of us...
    What are you trying to say?
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  4. #4
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PFDTruck18 View Post
    Specifically, the violation is for "employees that were exposed to fire hazards while engaged in search, rescue and interior structural firefighting activities at a single family residence."


    Do they not realize that the whole point in searching, performing rescues and interior stuctural firefighting activities is because we are firefighters. Being "exposed to fire hazards" is part of the damn job.

    Atleast for some of us...
    YES!!! You are missing something here. Like just what are you talking about???

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,694

    Default

    No, your not missing anything...just need to read the details/explination line further down.

    The document states that there was insufficient staffing on site at the time that fire-rescue crews entered the burning home...
    Basically, VOSH thinks they violated the 2in/2out rule. It will all hinge on that gray area of "known" life hazard.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    53

    Default

    If any of the VSOH personnel read the report or listened to it for that matter they would have heard the Initial apparatus officer give his report that per his sizeup he found no one to be in the "street" and that they would have to initiate a search. He made an assumption based on that fact and that from the radio reports that the caller was not from the address. I get this from the dispatch audio and report that gives "in the area" for the location. I believe the members were justified in violating 2 In/2 Out based on observations that there could be victims in the structure. As an officer I would have made the same decision. Were there operational issues that I would have done differently , yes but I am not here to Monday morning quarterback the entire call just the what I consider unjustified violations for the job they were supposed to do.
    Feel free to blast me if you must but I feel this violation is unjustified and I think VSOH is looking for something to report on and they have no concept of firefighting. I read the entire report and feel as though Loudon Fire did a great job of getting the info collected and changes implemented .

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    I read the report over the past couple of days and watched the video again yesterday and I'm not so sure that they actually violated the 2in/2out in the first place.

    According to what I saw in the report, Reserve Engine 6 and Tower 6, both with 3 FFs, are listed as arriving on scene about 1 minute apart. The report made it seem that when the Engine crew made entry, the Tower was on scene and 1 FF from the Tower entered with the Engine crew.

    I have pretty good math skills and by my calculations, that equals 3in and 3 out and became 4in and 2 out when the Tower officer entered the building.

    Maybe their calculator needs a new battery or their beef is that they think nobody should have gone in until more FFs were on scene?

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    56

    Default

    I just re-read the report, and I suspect that the citation was not for failing to comply with "two-in, two-out," but because (and I quote), "Loudoun County has no policies or procedures that require a unit officer to verbalize compliance with the Two-In/Two-Out requirement," and didn't, "Require the “Two-Out” crew to accept that assignment over the tactical radio channel or face-to-face."

    In other words, they had two in and two out, but didn't have the "right" policy on paper.

    Also this: "Neither the Department nor the System has formally adopted any policies, procedures, or guidelines regarding the emergency evacuation or withdrawal of firefighting personnel from structures during incident operations. Further, none of the NOVA operations manuals contain specific procedures in the event of an emergency evacuation or withdrawal."

    The whole "exposed to fire hazards" deal could also be related to this finding from the report:

    "There is no System-wide standard for PPE. LCFR and each of the County’s 17
    volunteer corporations purchase PPE according to their own specifications and replacement cycles. There are no policies or procedures prohibiting System members from purchasing and wearing different types of protective equipment, such as firefighting gloves and hoods. As a result, it is possible that personnel could be wearing PPE that does not comply with industry standards...Three personnel were wearing Department-issued firefighting gloves; one employee was wearing gloves that were not issued by the Department. Two personnel were wearing Department-issued protective hoods; the other two were wearing different styles of hoods, which were not issued by the Department. Only two of the firefighters had their collars up and properly fastened prior to entering the structure for interior firefighting operations. All four personnel had engaged the chinstrap on their helmet. Only one of the firefighters had the earflaps down prior to entering the structure for firefighting operations."

    So... I think that's what you were missing.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Am I missing something
    By Catch22 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-30-2007, 10:53 PM
  2. Missing Archives
    By savgafiremedic in forum Hazardous Materials General Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-09-2006, 11:09 PM
  3. Am I missing something?
    By akagrsfs in forum Firehouse.Com Site Comments
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-18-2005, 08:52 PM
  4. Missing friend
    By wjnwjn3 in forum Meet and Greet
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-28-2001, 09:20 PM

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