1. #26
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    He does. He is one of the minions.
    You know that is a bare faced lie Fyredup and I'm calling you on it to show me where I have ever out and out supported LA. Otherwise apologise and go back to playing checkers

  2. #27
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    292

    Default

    We're still rolling a '91 e-one canopy cab 3rd due
    Last edited by k1500chevy97; 01-03-2010 at 05:09 PM.

  3. #28
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    You know that is a bare faced lie Fyredup and I'm calling you on it to show me where I have ever out and out supported LA. Otherwise apologise and go back to playing checkers
    On enough occasions, in enough topics, you have supported his view. Maybe minion was too strong. So I apologize for calling you a minion.

    Perhaps lackey is a better descriptive word for you.

    Go back to playing checkers? Oh my God for a self proclaimed worldly individual that was the best you had? Dude you suck at insults.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  4. #29
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    On my volly FD our second due engine is a 1974 Mack Cf with a canopy cab.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  5. #30
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    You know that is a bare faced lie Fyredup and I'm calling you on it to show me where I have ever out and out supported LA. Otherwise apologise and go back to playing checkers
    So much for being kinder and gentler.....
    ‎"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

  6. #31
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    36

    Default

    [QUOTE=112977 ope probably not. I spent career [/QUOTE]
    These posts are not coming out right, in reviewing them, they're still quoting screwy. I went back again and updated the web team today...almost a year later LOL
    Last edited by qwerty11; 02-07-2011 at 07:57 PM.

  7. #32
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    36

    Default

    [quote=;11276]
    Last edited by qwerty11; 02-17-2010 at 08:57 PM.

  8. #33
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Progressive departments? Funny how those departments are the ones that follow YOUR model of what the fire service should be and not the mainstream. You harp on and on about firefighter safety like it is one or the other, agressive firefighting or safety. The real world firefighters, the ones that actually see fire and fight fire, know for a fact that the 2 can and do co-exist everyday. You will only be happy when there is a fire service with no danger to responders and that is IMPOSSIBLE. The very nature of the job is dangerous and firefighter injuries and deaths will always occur because we have to go inside, when possible, to do our jobs. Can we reduce them? Of course. Eliminate them? I can't see how. Well, unless we are NEVER, under any circumstances, going to get close enough to the fire building to even feel the heat.

    I agree that the 2 can coexist.

    Problem is that there are still many departments that fight fire aggressivly no matter the situation.

    There are buildings that are gone when we arrive, yet we as a service have a hard time accepting that and feel that we still need to be aggressive to save nothing.

    I'll use one example from my past on a previous department. Fully involved barn. No exposures yet the IC felt that he had to continue to throw as much water as possible on it despite the fact that it simply was not going to affect the outcome. Result was an active tanker shuttle where we had a truck go off the road injuring the driver and an injury at the dump site. So we injured 2 members for a barn that was 70% on the ground when we arrived.

    I'll give you another example from the community I went to college in and ran mutual aid with when i was with the college FD. About 10 years after I left, they had a fire in a 100 plus year old mill; structure. Fire had travel led the length of the structure and there was nothing left to save. A member of a mutual aid company decided to move into the collapse zone, open a side door and put water into a section of structure already lost with a handline. Wall collapsed and he was killed.

    Both situations being aggressive gained nothing yet we had injuries and an LODD. What did they achieve?

    Bottom line is there are times to be aggressive.

    When lives are at stake and you have the resources and the realistic possibility of saving them.

    This does not include the remote possibility that someone may be in an abandoned structure, which is our situation.

    When there is significant savable property with value.

    When there are exposures with value threatened though the primary fire structure may be lost.

    I never denied there are these types of situations.

    But stand-alone abondoneds? No. brush? No. Vehicle fires? No. Dumpster fires? No. Structures where resources are inadequate? No.

    There is simply no point in taking risks with firefighters lives where the situation is lost prior to arrival, or we don't have the training or resources to change the situation.

  9. #34
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    On enough occasions, in enough topics, you have supported his view. Maybe minion was too strong. So I apologize for calling you a minion.

    Perhaps lackey is a better descriptive word for you.

    Go back to playing checkers? Oh my God for a self proclaimed worldly individual that was the best you had? Dude you suck at insults.
    Nope I can throw insults with the best, but your comment wasn't that serious. I don't get wrapped up in these hate a thons you and a few others seem to enjoy. LA does things differently on his dept than you do. Thats actually his business and probably doesn't affect too much in Wisconsin. You seem to feel because they do things their way, its totally wrong and threatens the very fabric of fire fighting. Let me ask you this, how many on your dept have the skills and do the training for wild well control, accessing and operating BOPs in a level 3 loss of containment on a 14% HP/HT well? If not, why do you not practice and maintain this level of training?

  10. #35
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    36

    Default

    [quote=4466
    Last edited by qwerty11; 02-17-2010 at 08:56 PM.

  11. #36
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    the two firemen hurt during the tanker shuttle was not a result of aggression. your IC did the right thing at the barn fire, there's nothing aggressive about a defensive attack. the apparatus accident is unfortunate but does not magically deem this aggressive. would you rather do nothing? that would only hurt the dept., you'd look like a bunch of lazy skells to the taxpayers. it does not hurt you to throw water. this does not qualify as an example or anything other than useless spin.

    Interesting.

    So a barn, with no exposures, mostly on the ground when we arrive, justifies an active tanker shuttle with the risks associated with it?

    Maybe you are not a rural firefighter, but a tanker shuttle is a very dangerous operation. Drivers have been killed and fill and dump site personnel have been run over, lost legs and in some instances, have been killed.

    So running an operation with those risks in your mind was justified for a structure lost before we were even dispatched?

    And allowing it to burn would have hurt who?

    I simply do not agree with your train of thought.

  12. #37
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    36

    Default

    [quote0][quote]
    Last edited by qwerty11; 02-17-2010 at 08:49 PM.

  13. #38
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    back on topic, my understanding is that the open top was popular because in the days of the corner pull box visibility was critical to finding the fire. Since the boxes weren't on every telephone pole and people would go to the closest one they knew about, when you went to an alarm you only knew the area of the fire. To locate it you had to look for the smoke or hope the person was waiting at the box to direct you. So the open top helped the officer and driver find and follow the smoke.

    I don't get why people think the enclosed cab is so much safer than a canopy cab. If you wear your seatbelt the canopy cab should be just as safe. Not that it would be the most fun to ride in during the winter, the canopy cabs aren't some dangerous dinosaur some make them out to be. I imagine they only kept making them because they were easier to make and the FD's weren't begging for an enclosed cab.

  14. #39
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qwerty11 View Post
    there he goes with some more of his resume. suddle.
    Please answer my question and if you cannot, tell me why your dept doesn't deserve the same type of scorn you seem to relish dishing out to others?

  15. #40
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    36

    Default

    qwscrpts/quote]
    Last edited by qwerty11; 02-17-2010 at 08:48 PM.

  16. #41
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    there he goes with some more of his resume. suddle.

    qwerty ..

    If you look up a few posts. you will see I was asked a question regarding my instructional experience by another poster.

  17. #42
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    36

    Default

    [quote=9817]
    Last edited by qwerty11; 02-17-2010 at 08:54 PM.

  18. #43
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Progressive departments? Funny how those departments are the ones that follow YOUR model of what the fire service should be and not the mainstream. You harp on and on about firefighter safety like it is one or the other, agressive firefighting or safety. The real world firefighters, the ones that actually see fire and fight fire, know for a fact that the 2 can and do co-exist everyday. You will only be happy when there is a fire service with no danger to responders and that is IMPOSSIBLE. The very nature of the job is dangerous and firefighter injuries and deaths will always occur because we have to go inside, when possible, to do our jobs. Can we reduce them? Of course. Eliminate them? I can't see how. Well, unless we are NEVER, under any circumstances, going to get close enough to the fire building to even feel the heat.

    I agree that the 2 can coexist.

    Problem is that there are still many departments that fight fire aggressivly no matter the situation.

    And there are others that if there is actual fire showing won't go interior. Even if it is a simple room and contents fire.

    There are buildings that are gone when we arrive, yet we as a service have a hard time accepting that and feel that we still need to be aggressive to save nothing.

    Sorry, not in my area. But sometimes, stopping fire spread to other buildings means fighting the original fire. From a safe distance of course if the building is lost. But you can't just let it free burn and pretend there are no consequences of that.

    I'll use one example from my past on a previous department. Fully involved barn. No exposures yet the IC felt that he had to continue to throw as much water as possible on it despite the fact that it simply was not going to affect the outcome. Result was an active tanker shuttle where we had a truck go off the road injuring the driver and an injury at the dump site. So we injured 2 members for a barn that was 70% on the ground when we arrived.

    Irrelevant since we only have your side of this story. I have no idea what was in the IC's head.

    Why did the truck go off the road? Did the IC order the driver to operate at an unsafe speed?


    I'll give you another example from the community I went to college in and ran mutual aid with when i was with the college FD. About 10 years after I left, they had a fire in a 100 plus year old mill; structure. Fire had travel led the length of the structure and there was nothing left to save. A member of a mutual aid company decided to move into the collapse zone, open a side door and put water into a section of structure already lost with a handline. Wall collapsed and he was killed.

    Ever hear of FREELANCING? If the IC had ordered everyone out of the collapse zone and that firefighter entered the collapse zone that is an indication of nothing other than HIS actions.

    Both situations being aggressive gained nothing yet we had injuries and an LODD. What did they achieve?

    I believe I answered this above.

    Bottom line is there are times to be aggressive.

    Most often.

    When lives are at stake and you have the resources and the realistic possibility of saving them.

    This does not include the remote possibility that someone may be in an abandoned structure, which is our situation.

    When there is significant savable property with value.

    When there are exposures with value threatened though the primary fire structure may be lost.

    I never denied there are these types of situations.

    But stand-alone abondoneds? No. brush? No. Vehicle fires? No. What if the vehicle is occupied? Dumpster fires? No. Structures where resources are inadequate? No.

    There is simply no point in taking risks with firefighters lives where the situation is lost prior to arrival, or we don't have the training or resources to change the situation.

    I agree not risking firefighters if the situation is lost. I also agree that if you have hazards you aren't trained to handle you better have someone on your mutual aid card that can and an agreement with them that they will respond.
    Safety yes, but not at the expense of standardized, mainstream, firefighting and rescue practices that other prudent firefighters would have used.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  19. #44
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    35

    Default

    My old volly department still runs a 1984 Ford/FMC rig with the open rear. When I started there it was our volly rig, and 2nd due. Lot of good times on the back of that truck. Just as all older trucks, it's had it's fair share of problems.

  20. #45
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    Nope I can throw insults with the best, but your comment wasn't that serious. I don't get wrapped up in these hate a thons you and a few others seem to enjoy. LA does things differently on his dept than you do. Thats actually his business and probably doesn't affect too much in Wisconsin. You seem to feel because they do things their way, its totally wrong and threatens the very fabric of fire fighting. Let me ask you this, how many on your dept have the skills and do the training for wild well control, accessing and operating BOPs in a level 3 loss of containment on a 14% HP/HT well? If not, why do you not practice and maintain this level of training?
    Seriously, this post by you shows how completely out of touch with reality you are. Comparing knowing how to handle an oil well incident with basic structural firefighting skills is simply ludicrous. We have no oil wells in my county. On the other hand I am sure LA has buildings in his community.

    Now you have proven I was right...you are LA's minion.

    By the way super fireman...in at least 2 posts in the last few days I have said I don't care what LA does in Bossier Parish. I do care when he comes on here and tries to spread his dangerous cancer to the rest of the fire service like it is gospel. Got it now?
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  21. #46
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nameless View Post

    I don't get why people think the enclosed cab is so much safer than a canopy cab. If you wear your seatbelt the canopy cab should be just as safe. Not that it would be the most fun to ride in during the winter, the canopy cabs aren't some dangerous dinosaur some make them out to be.
    .
    Its actually not that bad, at least in the Mack we have. You've got the doghouse right there, so the heat off the engine plus being in your gear doesn't make for a terrible ride in the cold at all.

  22. #47
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    35

    Default

    True. We never rolled engine 2, our canopy cab unless it was a fire call for a while, then we started using it to run medical calls instead of our brush truck. Of course living in TX, winters usually don't drop too low but running MVA after MVA on a 20 degree night, you learn how important thermals can be.

  23. #48
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default


    And there are others that if there is actual fire showing won't go interior. Even if it is a simple room and contents fire.


    And that is a department-level choice that as someone not in their department I have absolutely no right to question. They very well may have legitimate reasons.

    Sorry, not in my area. But sometimes, stopping fire spread to other buildings means fighting the original fire. From a safe distance of course if the building is lost. But you can't just let it free burn and pretend there are no consequences of that.

    Agreed. I call that aggressive-defensive operations. Have participated in many such operations especially at barn and other agricultural structure fires.

    I do disagree there are not times where simply allowing a free burn is unacceptable. A structure already on the ground where a tanker shuttle over icy or twisty roads may be required for water supply. A brush fire on a very hot day with no structural issues that can be surrounded by a plow. A dumpster fire. A backyard shed in an open rural area with unknown hazmats such as pool chemicals.

    In many cases, simply talking to the owner will take care of any difficulties. At least in my experience it has.

    Why did the truck go off the road? Did the IC order the driver to operate at an unsafe speed?

    Actually he was below the speed limit. Ice.

    But simply operating the shuttle when 70% of the barn was on the ground and the other 30% was burning heavily was setting his personnel up for a possible situation in a scenerio in which there was nothing to gain.


    But stand-alone abandons? No. brush? No. Vehicle fires? No. What if the vehicle is occupied?

    Obviously if we see a victim or told there is a victim either by dispatch or folks on the scene, it becomes a different scenario requiring an aggressive approach, though almost always, you are "saving" a body.

    That being said, in my 30 years I have never responded to a vehicle fire where the victim was still in the vehicle when we are arrived and survived, and I can think of at least 10 of those situations. If the victim survived, it was because he was removed by civilians or cops prior to our arrival.

    Safety yes, but not at the expense of standardized, mainstream, firefighting and rescue practices that other prudent firefighters would have used.

    Fact is, about the only mainstream standardized approach that our department doesn't follow is operating in abandoned structures, and even that is becoming more prevalent.

    We risk very little in vacants, and yes, in our area, a closed store with no cars in the parking lot is empty. A house for sale with no furniture is empty. There is no need to enter and search unless the odds are very heavily in our favor because there are no life issues here.

    And in residences, we operate interior when prudent and reasonable in the opinion of the IC.

    My personal feelings differ in regards to operations in some of these areas, and yes, they are reflected in my decisions when I am assigned a crew or operate as initial IC.

    Other than that, I have no idea what other normal operations we don't practice.

  24. #49
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    35

    Default

    I believe not working in a vacant will suffice in a small area, or a large area that doesn't have much of a homeless population. However take a larger city, like Dallas, because it's 15 minutes away from my city. There have been many many times when an old abandoned warehouse has caught fire, and some homeless families have been pulled out by DFD. You know your district, and know the population and characteristics of the people, and if the homeless population exists or not. I think in larger cities, it's almost always a factor that there's a good chance that there's someone inside an abandoned structure.

  25. #50
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    .
    Its actually not that bad, at least in the Mack we have. You've got the doghouse right there, so the heat off the engine plus being in your gear doesn't make for a terrible ride in the cold at all.
    For the short runs we do in the village it is fine. Take about a 10 mile ride in sub zero back there. First dry and fairly warm responding to the call, and then ride back, sweaty and wet from hose work and it's not all that much fun.

    Beats riding the tailboard but not by a whole lot.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Rural Fire Apparatus Discussion
    By SamsonFCDES in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 09-20-2005, 08:06 PM
  2. Thermal Imaging SOG's
    By wtfd92 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-27-2001, 09:41 PM
  3. RFP's
    By D Littrell in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-08-2000, 07:36 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-20-1999, 04:35 PM
  5. Thermal Cameras and the like
    By Diane in forum Meet and Greet
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-30-1999, 10:13 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