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...
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Thread: Am I missing something here?
12-15-2008, 03:56 PM #1
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
Am I missing something here?Just another one of the 99%ers looking up.
12-16-2008, 06:35 AM #2
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- University Park, MD
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."
FDNY E.48, SQ.18
Alexandria, VA F.D.
Rest in Peace
12-16-2008, 07:23 AM #3
12-16-2008, 10:59 AM #4
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
12-16-2008, 11:52 AM #5
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..."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?
12-16-2008, 02:14 PM #6
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
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 .
12-16-2008, 09:56 PM #7
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
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?
12-17-2008, 12:38 AM #8
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
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.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Catch22 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & FundingReplies: 2Last Post: 04-30-2007, 09:53 PM
By savgafiremedic in forum Hazardous Materials General ForumReplies: 0Last Post: 05-09-2006, 10:09 PM
By akagrsfs in forum Firehouse.Com Site CommentsReplies: 2Last Post: 10-18-2005, 07:52 PM
By wjnwjn3 in forum Meet and GreetReplies: 1Last Post: 09-28-2001, 08:20 PM