1. #1
    B Shifter
    rjtoc2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth
    Posts
    209

    Default Wake me up or not? Part II

    The original thread was locked so I've created "Part II" to continue this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I have been on 9 departments during my career. Not on of them had a different SOP for responding to a reported structure fire with no entrapment indicated in the dispatch v. a structure fire with entrapment information in the dispatch. Our procedures for both situations were identical because we were dealing with an identical situation- a structure fire.
    Do you honestly believe that a report of a rescue or life safety hazard is NOT relevant information? If this is the case, what are the incident priorities for your FD? Back on topic - what are the incident priorities for the DeKalb County FD? Those are the standards they'd be measured by.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Not one of them told me it's OK not to locate and extinguish structure fires if nobody is reported trapped.
    You've missed the point. Life safety, in conjuction with responder safety, IS our number 1 priority. Any report of a life safety hazard takes priority over all other fireground operations. Said another way, all of your fireground operations will be conducted to mitigate the life safety hazard.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Maybe I live a sheltered life, but to give these guys a pass on not locating the structure and not doing, at a minimum, a comprehensive exterior physical investigation of a reported structure fire because they didn't see flames or smoke and/or dispatch didn't tell them there may be an entrapment, well, makes no sense to me.
    Several later-published reports seem to suggest they did exit their vehicles and survey the scene based on the information that was conveyed to them via the dispatchers. The fact that the additional information later provided that the dispatchers allegedly did NOT provide the responders makes the DeKalb County FD's investigation and subsequent punitive actions highly suspect, if not inappropriate this early stage of the investigation.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    They were dispatched to a structure fire. They failed to get out of their apparatus to locate the structure fire. In fact, they drove past the address because it didn't have numbers at the road.
    Subsequent information published after the initial investigation contradicts your allegation.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The fact that there may have been entrapment is completely irrelevant to this situation. It has no effect on their responsibility to locate the address and investigate the reported structure fire.
    Have you ever heard of the acronym "RECEO"? What does the "R" stand for? How is a potential life safety hazard "irrelevant to this situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Are you honestly saying that their actions were OK because the dispatcher didn't tell them about the entrapment? Last I knew just plain ole' reported structure fires were pretty damn important too, and generally required being required being located, investigated and extinguished as well. I guess that in and of itself isn't reason to let firefighters go for not doing their jobs huh?
    You've missed the point. Your speculation, conjecture, and subsequent damning of these firefighters is based on an "initial" investigation that revealed, at best, rumor and speculation that has yet to be confirmed via a thorough analysis of ALL of the facts regarding this incident.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The dispatcher passed the information along to the BC. The BC decided it wasn't relevant. And honestly, it shouldn't be. Locating the address and investigating should have nothing to do with entrapment. Just the fact that's it was a reported structure fire was reason enough. And they failed to do their jobs.
    How did they fail to do their jobs? Have you read and/or listened to their statements about their actions at this incident? The bits and pieces I've seen and read suggest that they did, in fact, search the residence and the neighborhood while waiting for dispatch to comfirm the incident information and/or get additional information.

    Was there a failure here? Yes. The problem is that an organization cannot fix the problem if it has not accurately identified it. How can you tell if a piece of the puzzle is a symptom or a cause if you have not identified all of the issues and discrepancies?
    rjtoc2

    career Fire Captain
    IAFF member
    Native Texan (by way of New Orleans)


    ***The above post (s) is/are MY opinion and do/does not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or opinions of neither my employer nor my IAFF Local.***

    Admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof, and make counter accusations.

    A lack of planning on your behalf does NOT create an emergency on my behalf.

    When all is said and done, alot more is said than done

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    Brave soul.

    Do you honestly believe that a report of a rescue or life safety hazard is NOT relevant information? If this is the case, what are the incident priorities for your FD? Back on topic - what are the incident priorities for the DeKalb County FD? Those are the standards they'd be measured by.

    Obviously it is.

    My point was that the possible entrapment is being used by a couple of posters to blame the dispatchers. The simple fact is the crews never dismounted thier trucks to locate a structure fire. The primary initial responsibility for any responding crews is to locate the incident, especially a reported structure fire. They failed to do that.

    And to say that they somehow would have tried harder if they knew that there was possible entrapment makes the whole situation sound even worse. It alsmost seems like posters are saying "well, since they thought that it was just a structure fire the failure to walk up that driveway and locate the address is OK, but if they knew there was entrapment, they're wrong".

    Do you see where I am going with this?

    You've missed the point. Life safety, in conjuction with responder safety, IS our number 1 priority. Any report of a life safety hazard takes priority over all other fireground operations. Said another way, all of your fireground operations will be conducted to mitigate the life safety hazard.

    Exactly.

    Most departments, if not all, priorities will be search operations when they respond to a residential structure, especially at night, irregardless of reports of entrapment. While the dispatcher info of possible entrapment is helpful, it should not affect fireground ops as you will still vent and attempt to contain the fire to support search operations in all cases where entry is possible and reasonable.

    Have you ever heard of the acronym "RECEO"? What does the "R" stand for? How is a potential life safety hazard "irrelevant to this situation?


    Irrelevant in that there was a reported structure fire at that location.

    How did they fail to do their jobs? Have you read and/or listened to their statements about their actions at this incident? The bits and pieces I've seen and read suggest that they did, in fact, search the residence and the neighborhood while waiting for dispatch to comfirm the incident information and/or get additional information.

    Was there a failure here? Yes. The problem is that an organization cannot fix the problem if it has not accurately identified it. How can you tell if a piece of the puzzle is a symptom or a cause if you have not identified all of the issues and discrepancies?


    Interesting that there now seems to be two different stories. I guess that there is a possibility that they noticed their career dissipation lights were going off in the mirror.

    Fact is, we are getting a different version now than we did originally. Obviously DeKalb beleives that these firefighters did not perform as expected and took the action they did. At this point, I have no reason to beleive that the actions taken by DeKalb are based on bad information and support the decision they have made. I'm sure they listened to the tapes and felt that transcripts were not needed as more than likely, they viewed this as a primarily internal report.

    You disagree. We'll see what happens.

    In before the lock.

  3. #3
    B Shifter
    rjtoc2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    In before the lock.
    What does that mean? Who is locking down the threads?
    rjtoc2

    career Fire Captain
    IAFF member
    Native Texan (by way of New Orleans)


    ***The above post (s) is/are MY opinion and do/does not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or opinions of neither my employer nor my IAFF Local.***

    Admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof, and make counter accusations.

    A lack of planning on your behalf does NOT create an emergency on my behalf.

    When all is said and done, alot more is said than done

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    Webteam closed down the original thread.

    Probably same thing gonna happen here, though the last thread, by and large seemed like a pretty civil discussion, though heated at a couple of points.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    Jonnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,256

    Lightbulb

    It would appear that the Web Team had a reason for locking the other thread, so be ready for this one to get locked as well!

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ffbam24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,482

    Default

    Previous thread; twenty pages of bickering and tactics and second guessing about a department that no one is part of.
    Two pages on NFPA regs for helmet flashlights.

    In before the lock!
    And I'm out!
    Thank you very much. Try the fish and tip your servers generously!

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    Bushwhacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Northern Rockies Region
    Posts
    638

    Default

    For the Love of God you bickering old women, get over it.
    Courage, Being Scared to Death and Saddling Up anyways.

  8. #8
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Perhaps you two ladies should take your personal quarrel offline.

  9. #9
    B Shifter
    rjtoc2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushwhacker View Post
    For the Love of God you bickering old women, get over it.
    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Perhaps you two ladies should take your personal quarrel offline.
    ...and the name-calling begins.
    Last edited by rjtoc2; 02-15-2010 at 08:20 PM.
    rjtoc2

    career Fire Captain
    IAFF member
    Native Texan (by way of New Orleans)


    ***The above post (s) is/are MY opinion and do/does not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or opinions of neither my employer nor my IAFF Local.***

    Admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof, and make counter accusations.

    A lack of planning on your behalf does NOT create an emergency on my behalf.

    When all is said and done, alot more is said than done

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    EastKyFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    3,095

    Default

    To sum up prior & future posts in this thread...
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    --General James Mattis, USMC


  11. #11
    B Shifter
    rjtoc2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF View Post
    To sum up prior & future posts in this thread...
    That is an easy position to take when you are not the one on the "hot seat".

    This exact situation could have happened in LA, Chicago, FDNY, Hot Springs, AR., or Glenmora, LA. I guarantee the investigations would have been handled in manners ranging from sloppy to thorough and the outcomes would have ranged from "hope it doesn't happen again" to "fire everyone".

    The fire service must use this situation and its tragic outcome as a lesson to every responder on what to do and what NOT to do. We must also strive, collectively, to ensure that incidents such as this are thoroughly investigated, i.e. no stone unturned, to ensure whatever improvements, changes, modifications, and etc. are implemented.
    rjtoc2

    career Fire Captain
    IAFF member
    Native Texan (by way of New Orleans)


    ***The above post (s) is/are MY opinion and do/does not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or opinions of neither my employer nor my IAFF Local.***

    Admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof, and make counter accusations.

    A lack of planning on your behalf does NOT create an emergency on my behalf.

    When all is said and done, alot more is said than done

  12. #12
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF View Post
    To sum up prior & future posts in this thread...
    GREAT !!!! Ginger ale all over the screen.....

  13. #13
    Early Adopter
    cozmosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rjtoc2 View Post
    This exact situation could have happened in LA, Chicago, FDNY, Hot Springs, AR., or Glenmora, LA.
    Now that is a diverse sampling.

  14. #14
    B Shifter
    rjtoc2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cozmosis View Post
    Now that is a diverse sampling.
    Thats just how I roll.
    rjtoc2

    career Fire Captain
    IAFF member
    Native Texan (by way of New Orleans)


    ***The above post (s) is/are MY opinion and do/does not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or opinions of neither my employer nor my IAFF Local.***

    Admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof, and make counter accusations.

    A lack of planning on your behalf does NOT create an emergency on my behalf.

    When all is said and done, alot more is said than done

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    EastKyFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    3,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rjtoc2 View Post
    That is an easy position to take when you are not the one on the "hot seat".

    This exact situation could have happened in LA, Chicago, FDNY, Hot Springs, AR., or Glenmora, LA. I guarantee the investigations would have been handled in manners ranging from sloppy to thorough and the outcomes would have ranged from "hope it doesn't happen again" to "fire everyone".

    The fire service must use this situation and its tragic outcome as a lesson to every responder on what to do and what NOT to do. We must also strive, collectively, to ensure that incidents such as this are thoroughly investigated, i.e. no stone unturned, to ensure whatever improvements, changes, modifications, and etc. are implemented.
    You're 100% right. If the discussion would stay civil and on-topic, it would be critically important and a very helpful lesson to all readers (whether they'd admit it or not). I'm just afraid this thing will derail the way the other one did.

    The photo of the postmortem equine abuse refers to the petty bickering and grandstanding that overtook the other thread. Or, graphically:
    Last edited by EastKyFF; 02-16-2010 at 08:46 AM.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    --General James Mattis, USMC


  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    By LA Fire in the other thread:

    Maybe I live a sheltered life, but to give these guys a pass on not locating the structure and not doing, at a minimum, a comprehensive exterior physical investigation of a reported structure fire because they didn't see flames or smoke and/or dispatch didn't tell them there may be an entrapment, well, makes no sense to me.
    Who said anything about giving these guys a pass? I think pretty much everybody commenting has acknowledged that mistakes did happen and many have acknowledged that some form of disciplinary action should take place. With the new information coming out, it makes their actions/inactions more "understandable", but neither right nor wrong since the full picture is still not available to us here.

    You think they should've been fired immediately. I and several others on here think that should not have happened so quickly and largely did so because they were playing to the public's demand for somebody's head on a platter. So the County appears to have served them up without conducting a complete investigation and following proper disciplinary process.

    Thinking that a person's right to "due process" is giving them a pass is ignorant.


    It's starting to appear that these guys thought it was more of a "fire in the area of" type call and arriving in that area to find no fire, they acted as they did regardless of whether we think it was right or wrong. You're a moron if you think that having information that the caller was from that specific address, was reporting her house on fire and presumed trapped since contact was lost, would not make a difference in how this was handled.
    Last edited by FireMedic049; 02-16-2010 at 11:14 AM.

  17. #17
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    By LA Fire in the other thread:

    So you have a call .. fire , wreck, whatever .... where you don't find the incident when you arrive on location.

    Without a designated IC who decides what companies are going to investigate where? Who communicates with dispatch? Who decides when you are going to call it unfounded?

    Every incident needs an IC.
    As I've already stated, it is possible for somebody to be acting as the IC, without formally declaring that they are.

    Basic logic says that the officer or senior FF (if no officer on board) of the first unit arriving on scene (or in the area) is in charge of the incident at that point. Unless somebody else formally declares something different, that person continues acting as the IC.

    Why is this so hard for you to grasp?



    Is a formal declaration truly necessary if everyone involved in the incident already knows exactly who is in charge?

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    332

    Default

    amazed they locked that thread.
    It seemed pretty tame compared to the typical threads here.

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Who said anything about giving these guys a pass? I think pretty much everybody commenting has acknowledged that mistakes did happen and many have acknowledged that some form of disciplinary action should take place. With the new information coming out, it makes their actions/inactions more "understandable", but neither right nor wrong since the full picture is still not available to us here.

    You think they should've been fired immediately. I and several others on here think that should not have happened so quickly and largely did so because they were playing to the public's demand for somebody's head on a platter. So the County appears to have served them up without conducting a complete investigation and following proper disciplinary process.

    Thinking that a person's right to "due process" is giving them a pass is ignorant.


    It's starting to appear that these guys thought it was more of a "fire in the area of" type call and arriving in that area to find no fire, they acted as they did regardless of whether we think it was right or wrong. You're a moron if you think that having information that the caller was from that specific address, was reporting her house on fire and presumed trapped since contact was lost, would not make a difference in how this was handled.
    Well said. It's not so much that he guys got disciplined or fired, it's the circumstances in which it happened.

    As has been beat in the ground, a thorough investigation including all factors and all players (911 and the FD) have to take place. It's not apparent that happened, as there's no citing of specific radio traffic in the report, rather references to parts of the traffic. Now that's being disputed by the persons involved.

    When I looked again at the report, I noticed it doesn't even cite or reference to the information given to the firefighters that were involved. The report only consisted of information that went directly to the incident command protocols and whether anyone got out of the truck. The latter is a major factor and should be included, but that's not why they were fired. They were fired for not officially establishing command at an incident that wasn't found.

    The fact that the report was first issued to the family members of the deceased seems to point that it was nothing than a PR stunt to try to calm the waters instead of doing what an investigation is supposed to do, which is find what problems occurred and determine what needs to be done to correct those problems. As it is, the "problem" identified is that no one officially established command. That didn't cause the the fire not to be found, that's just a convenient excuse to fire someone.

  20. #20
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    It's starting to appear that these guys thought it was more of a "fire in the area of" type call and arriving in that area to find no fire, they acted as they did regardless of whether we think it was right or wrong. You're a moron if you think that having information that the caller was from that specific address, was reporting her house on fire and presumed trapped since contact was lost, would not make a difference in how this was handled.

    We disagree. That's cool.

    When I looked again at the report, I noticed it doesn't even cite or reference to the information given to the firefighters that were involved. The report only consisted of information that went directly to the incident command protocols and whether anyone got out of the truck. The latter is a major factor and should be included, but that's not why they were fired. They were fired for not officially establishing command at an incident that wasn't found

    We disagree. In my book it was an incident and requires an IC. It's an investigation, no different than say an alarm or smell of gas investigation. Intially the investigation covered a structure, then was expanded to a geographical area. IMO, every investigation is an incident and requires an IC.

    Who said anything about giving these guys a pass? I think pretty much everybody commenting has acknowledged that mistakes did happen and many have acknowledged that some form of disciplinary action should take place. With the new information coming out, it makes their actions/inactions more "understandable", but neither right nor wrong since the full picture is still not available to us here.

    Maybve you find them understandable, but I don't. Fact is they were dispatched to a specific address and seemingly failed to perform a complete physical investigation at that address. If they had questions, they contact dispatch and I am sure that she would have relayed that information. Fact is thier department made a decision to terminate them and right now I see no reason, looking in from the outside, why that wasn't a valid decision.

    As I've already stated, it is possible for somebody to be acting as the IC, without formally declaring that they are.


    NIMS states otherwise. Our dispatch will ask for an IC on every incident if it is not announced over the radio on arrival. Maybe that is just how we do it.

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post

    When I looked again at the report, I noticed it doesn't even cite or reference to the information given to the firefighters that were involved. The report only consisted of information that went directly to the incident command protocols and whether anyone got out of the truck. The latter is a major factor and should be included, but that's not why they were fired. They were fired for not officially establishing command at an incident that wasn't found
    Yeah, that's what I said several days ago, the report makes it appear that they where fired for that reason. Maybe it's just me, but that seems like excessive discipline for the given infraction.

    We disagree. In my book it was an incident and requires an IC. It's an investigation, no different than say an alarm or smell of gas investigation. Intially the investigation covered a structure, then was expanded to a geographical area. IMO, every investigation is an incident and requires an IC.
    Try reading more clearly, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm making the point that there is a difference between not having anyone functioning as the IC and not formally declaring who the IC is.

    Who said anything about giving these guys a pass? I think pretty much everybody commenting has acknowledged that mistakes did happen and many have acknowledged that some form of disciplinary action should take place. With the new information coming out, it makes their actions/inactions more "understandable", but neither right nor wrong since the full picture is still not available to us here.

    Maybve you find them understandable, but I don't. Fact is they were dispatched to a specific address and seemingly failed to perform a complete physical investigation at that address. If they had questions, they contact dispatch and I am sure that she would have relayed that information.
    Really? Because they did ask if there was any other info when they were looking for the house and that additional information that we know existed at the time was not provided.

    Fact is thier department made a decision to terminate them and right now I see no reason, looking in from the outside, why that wasn't a valid decision.
    Not surprising that you feel that way.


    As I've already stated, it is possible for somebody to be acting as the IC, without formally declaring that they are.


    NIMS states otherwise.
    Does it? Does it really state that the incident is to have an IC and that they must formally declare that on the radio?

    Our dispatch will ask for an IC on every incident if it is not announced over the radio on arrival. Maybe that is just how we do it.
    Maybe it is.

  22. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    We disagree. In my book it was an incident and requires an IC. It's an investigation, no different than say an alarm or smell of gas investigation. Intially the investigation covered a structure, then was expanded to a geographical area. IMO, every investigation is an incident and requires an IC.
    Have you ever seen or heard of ANY fire department that terminated employment because a crew didn't formally establish command? Care to bet that this isn't the first time that command hasn't been formally established in DeKalb county? Care to bet no one's been fired for it before?

    The command thing is an excuse to fire those involved to appease the family, that's all it is. It's something that's in black-and-white that the powers-that-be think is going to stick.

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Lot of unanswered questions. Lot of similarities with other threads like probies tellin' how it ought to be done. I have questions on this incident just as I've had questions on Charleston and every other tragedy we've had. I have NO interest in seeing a Brother(s)dismissed from the job. I DO want to know WHY it happened. So MAYBE I can keep it from happening to MY Dept. I don't know how Dekalb does things,they are a whole lot bigger than we are. But I can still LEARN from this as can some others if they would take the time. A bunch of people on here have been crucifying Charleston for their operations. NOT me but I DO want to know why 9 very experienced and trained men got caught in a building(type)that they had operated in many times where conditions changed SO RAPIDLY they were unable to find an escape. I cannot imagine HOW this could happen regardless of whether they were OLD or NEW school. And we will NEVER know EXACTLY what happened. But we ALL had better learn from it. Un thinkable! T.C.

  24. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    Lot of unanswered questions. Lot of similarities with other threads like probies tellin' how it ought to be done. I have questions on this incident just as I've had questions on Charleston and every other tragedy we've had. I have NO interest in seeing a Brother(s)dismissed from the job. I DO want to know WHY it happened. So MAYBE I can keep it from happening to MY Dept. I don't know how Dekalb does things,they are a whole lot bigger than we are. But I can still LEARN from this as can some others if they would take the time. A bunch of people on here have been crucifying Charleston for their operations. NOT me but I DO want to know why 9 very experienced and trained men got caught in a building(type)that they had operated in many times where conditions changed SO RAPIDLY they were unable to find an escape. I cannot imagine HOW this could happen regardless of whether they were OLD or NEW school. And we will NEVER know EXACTLY what happened. But we ALL had better learn from it. Un thinkable! T.C.
    This is likely going to be like any tragedy or incident you cite, in that there is a chain of things that went wrong. Once that first thing went wrong, it impacted the next thing and so on.

    An error chain is an interesting thing to study in an incident that goes wrong. It usually starts with something simple and then compounds. I'm sure this incident is no different. The trick is to find where the error chain started, how it progressed, and how to keep it from happening again. If you don't do that, you've done nothing but killed a person and fired 5 others. If you do get it done, you've improved your service.

    I do not believe for a minute failure to establish command started, or ended that chain of errors. Failure to establish command is but a small part of that chain of errors.

  25. #25
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    I agree! I don't care to make ALL the mistakes myself(although I made my share)so I'm VERY happy to learn from others and apply the lessons learned. Usually costs less(from my backside).The "chains"can be a bit more problematic as it was usually MORE than one or two links that caused the ultimate failure. Unraveling it all is usually QUITE educational and well worth the time. T.C.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Roseville Part Timers
    By acwmn3 in forum Minnesota
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-29-2007, 09:53 AM
  2. Best Part of Firefighting
    By laddercompany in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-22-2006, 12:59 PM
  3. Best Part of Firefighting
    By laddercompany in forum Meet and Greet
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-19-2006, 01:50 PM
  4. Look The Part!
    By BCLepore in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-02-2006, 09:34 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