+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... Last
  1. #1
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default Culture of extinguishment not safety?

    Too much safety? Or too much focus on exinguishment?

    My view:

    We tend to be reactionary, making policies, rules, and procedures based on prior bad outcomes. However, this practice often fails to address the root cause of the problem. I believe that the concept of two-in/two-out is sound and providing a RIT when firefighters are in a hazardous environment is a solid idea. However, it does not address the root causes of firefighters becoming lost or trapped inside burning buildings.

    Your thoughts?

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    TNFF319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    628

    Default

    While 2 in 2 out sounds good on paper, it is not proving so in the real world. A company is better off attacking the fire as soon as they make scene. They don't need to wait for conditions to get worse while the other "2" get there. A RIT comprised of 2 is not enough to perform a rescue. A FF in trouble is probably going to be in big trouble. 2 people are not going to be able to solve the problem. Proper RIT staffing is key.

    Many FDs are doing plenty of unsafe things. Crazy driving, unhealthy members, lack of training, improper fire attack.......
    FF/Paramedic

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber
    BULL321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western, NC
    Posts
    3,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    Too much safety? Or too much focus on exinguishment?

    My view:

    We tend to be reactionary, making policies, rules, and procedures based on prior bad outcomes. However, this practice often fails to address the root cause of the problem. I believe that the concept of two-in/two-out is sound and providing a RIT when firefighters are in a hazardous environment is a solid idea. However, it does not address the root causes of firefighters becoming lost or trapped inside burning buildings.

    Your thoughts?
    When you put the fire out good things happen. If you spend too much time, farting around waiting for Tom, Dick and Hary to show up, then you wasted time that could have been spent putting the fire fire out. Now the fire is larger and is going to be that much more dangerous to extinguish. I think that we have to find "that happy middle ground" and be as safe and aggressive as we can be and still get the job done.
    Stay Safe
    Bull


    “Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
    - Capt. Marc Cox CFD

    Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
    -WINSTON CHURCHILL

  4. #4
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    I think its en vogue to be different, call it progressive and change proven tactics because you want to appear advanced.

    I think that 2 in/2 out has been good for us. However, no fire department worth a hill of beans is sitting on the porch waiting for the next crew so they can satisfy the requirement.

    It has been helpful because it forces the officer to consider resources dedicated to our own.

    As has been said, put the fire out and good things happen.

    It is really interesting to ask a lay person about firefighting. They think that the smallest application of water will put out a fire. We know that you have to get that water in sufficient volumes on the correct spot or the fire will not go out. We also know that you have to "open up" and overhaul.

    The departments that do not get much fire have to be very very careful. They are losing the art of applying water where it needs to go and opening up.

    All the inovations are great. But something like CAFS will not eliminate the need for overhaul... Innovations are great, in the wrong hands they will cause more harm.

    Bit of a rambling post, oh well!
    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."

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    A couple of points to go along with the points that have already been made:

    --Effective risk management results in saving savable lives while not compromising the safety of our firefighters.

    --Search supported by effective fire control and ventilation is more likely to succeed than search that is not supported by effective fire control and ventilation.

    --By controlling the fire will eliminate the threat to both firefighters and occupants. In some cases firefighters should take the fire first, rather than focusing on a primary search.

    Good discussion so far!

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    EastKyFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    3,095

    Default

    ChiefKN is on it, as usual. The real value of 2 in/2 out is when it is made a high priority as soon as resources are available, not when a proper attack is delayed to dot i's and cross t's. And as noted earlier, 2 out ain't hardly enough if it hits the fan, neighbors.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
    --General James Mattis, USMC


  7. #7
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    I think its en vogue to be different, call it progressive and change proven tactics because you want to appear advanced.
    I dunno..I agree, to a point.

    But, I also think that we should recognize that the enemy has changed. We are getting three or four times more BTUs on fires today versus the 70s or
    80s. Building construction has changed dramatically as well..

    With that being said, should our tactics change or be modified to meet todays conditions?

  8. #8
    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 J.Beck View Post
    I dunno..I agree, to a point.

    But, I also think that we should recognize that the enemy has changed. We are getting three or four times more BTUs on fires today versus the 70s or
    80s. Building construction has changed dramatically as well..

    With that being said, should our tactics change or be modified to meet todays conditions?
    There is no doubt that the technology and science is developing in ways that will help us.

    CAFS comes to mind as a fairly well proven weapon in our arsenal. However, it's not the be-all, end-all.

    As for tactics being changed, I think you are alluding to PPA, based on other threads. I don't know. I can't claim to have enough information to form an opinion. I seriously wonder if the old way would be as effective or is this new method simply mathmatically better? Does it put out more fire in real world applications or simply on the slide rule?

    I've found that a good 1 3/4 with a nozzle of your choice flows a lot of water and makes a heck of a fire attack. Combine that with CAFS and you are really cooking.

    When you say should we change our tactics, well.. we have. My dad fought fires with 3/4" booster on a 2 man mini-pumper with 300 gal of water, wearing a demand scba (later in his career), red-ball gloves, rubber coat, 3/4 length boots... no hood, no ics, no rit, no 2 in/2 out, then they came out the garden apartment that was burning (where I have subsequently fought a few fires) and lit up a some camel cigarettes and drank some brandy (both supplied via the glove box on that same mini-pumper). I realize those aren't really tactics, but it was "they way it was done." By the way, this was the 1970's.

    So, yes, we have adapted.

    Last edited by ChiefKN; 01-02-2011 at 01:39 AM.
    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."

  9. #9
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    I dunno..I agree, to a point.

    But, I also think that we should recognize that the enemy has changed. We are getting three or four times more BTUs on fires today versus the 70s or
    80s. Building construction has changed dramatically as well..

    With that being said, should our tactics change or be modified to meet todays conditions?
    Yes.

    The risk v. benefit formula needs to be changed so more emphasis is put on the risk, and less on the benefit.

    The reality is that 20 years ago, most buildings were built to survive a fire. Much of today's construction, especially when we start talking about commercial and even lightweight truss residential simply is not, and we need to recognize that when we make go/no go decisions regarding initial offensive/defensive operations.

    This is especially true on departments with small crews or limited commercial experience.

    While technology has helped us, especially the TIC and improved PPE, it simply hasn't kept pace with the new hazards that we are faced in terms of both lightweight building construction and the dramatic change in building contents over the past 10-15 years.

    Many departments are using outdated tactics.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    813

    Cool Interesting.....

    We tend to be reactionary, making policies, rules, and procedures based on prior bad outcomes.
    This is the core of how we are though..... We sit in the Fire House and train, clean house and such and then "respond" to a call. L.E. is proactive, out in the Community and patrolling, walking beats and such. So yes, we are very reactionary and it's one of the things that separate us from the "B Band FFs" a.k.a. the Cops. Do I want to see us go to patrols and walking beats? No, but when it is one of the foundations of our job don't be so surprised when you notice that we are reactionary..... That's all I'm saying.....

    However, this practice often fails to address the root cause of the problem.
    The root of the problem is that people will ALWAYS be careless in one way or the other. They will always have to call us out to help them, it's the "nature of the beast." Fire Prevention also helps in this area and research has shown we are going to less fires, but the fires we are going to react very different than in the 60s, 70s and even the early 80s because of what is burning.

    I believe that the concept of two-in/two-out is sound and providing a RIT when firefighters are in a hazardous environment is a solid idea.
    I agree, on having a Team (2 FFs outside of the IDLH) like as described in that SOG I sent ya. Just like in that SOG, a committed RIC (full Company) on anything that is multiple alarms. My dream would be to get everybody on the same sheet of music on RIT/RIC/FAST Operations, but I highly doubt it will happen in my career. I'd be happy if everybody took RIC/FF Rescue serious when they are assigned it; I know my Crew and I do, but not all do.

    I'm a HUGE proponent for the Dynamic RIT/RIC and agree with aggressively attacking a building to make it easy/safe to perform FF Rescue.

    However, it does not address the root causes of firefighters becoming lost or trapped inside burning buildings.
    What do you think is the root cause for FFs becoming lost/trapped? I'm curious that's why I ask.....

    Also, remember you asked for our thoughts... There are a few of mine.
    "Be LOUD, Be PROUD..... It just might save your can someday when goin' through an intersection!!!!!"

    Life on the Truck (Quint) is good.....

    Eat til you're sleepy..... Sleep til you're hungry..... And repeat.....

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    While technology has helped us, especially the TIC and improved PPE, it simply hasn't kept pace with the new hazards that we are faced in terms of both lightweight building construction and the dramatic change in building contents over the past 10-15 years.

    Many departments are using outdated tactics.
    +1

    Completely agree!

    Specifically regarding PPE; improved PPE is actually pushing us deeper and deeper into the fire. I have not been in the fire service that long, but I remember when I first got on the job hoods were optional. I used my ears as a temperature gauge and when it got too hot, I got out.

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    There is no doubt that the technology and science is developing in ways that will help us.

    CAFS comes to mind as a fairly well proven weapon in our arsenal. However, it's not the be-all, end-all.

    As for tactics being changed, I think you are alluding to PPA, based on other threads. I don't know. I can't claim to have enough information to form an opinion. I seriously wonder if the old way would be as effective or is this new method simply mathmatically better? Does it put out more fire in real world applications or simply on the slide rule?

    I've found that a good 1 3/4 with a nozzle of your choice flows a lot of water and makes a heck of a fire attack. Combine that with CAFS and you are really cooking.

    When you say should we change our tactics, well.. we have. My dad fought fires with 3/4" booster on a 2 man mini-pumper with 300 gal of water, wearing a demand scba (later in his career), red-ball gloves, rubber coat, 3/4 length boots... no hood, no ics, no rit, no 2 in/2 out, then they came out the garden apartment that was burning (where I have subsequently fought a few fires) and lit up a some camel cigarettes and drank some brandy (both supplied via the glove box on that same mini-pumper). I realize those aren't really tactics, but it was "they way it was done." By the way, this was the 1970's.

    So, yes, we have adapted.

    Great post!

    I remember hearing similiar stories from family members about the fire attack of old. You're absolutely right.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyboy View Post
    What do you think is the root cause for FFs becoming lost/trapped? I'm curious that's why I ask.....
    Chief Bobby Halton said that “Experience without reflection or evaluation is simply interesting”. Reading the stories of firefighters who have died in the line of duty while fighting fires inside burning buildings, I find that the common denominators are usually the same. In some cases, firefighters die because they have over extended themselves in attempting to rescue an occupant. However, in most cases they died because they did not recognize and control the hazards presented by the situation.

    Fires are less and less common. Most of our "real" experience is retiring. Much more emphasis should be put on fire behavior, building construction and fire control principles.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    len1582's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    N.J.
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    Great post!

    I remember hearing similiar stories from family members about the fire attack of old. You're absolutely right.
    You can learn a lot from those who have been around a long time. If someone depends too much on a TIC to search, they can run into trouble if it craps out and have to revert back to conventional search methods that may not have been learned very well. Tools and tactics may have evolved but you can't ignore the basics.

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    813

    Default

    You can learn a lot from those who have been around a long time. If someone depends too much on a TIC to search, they can run into trouble if it craps out and have to revert back to conventional search methods that may not have been learned very well. Tools and tactics may have evolved but you can't ignore the basics.
    I like my TIC for Interior/Exterior/Roof Ops, but my Guys and I practice and train more on the basics for searches and sounding/inspecting roofs than we do with using the TIC for that exact reason. Technology is good, but don't use it as a crutch or let it distract you from the basics.
    "Be LOUD, Be PROUD..... It just might save your can someday when goin' through an intersection!!!!!"

    Life on the Truck (Quint) is good.....

    Eat til you're sleepy..... Sleep til you're hungry..... And repeat.....

  16. #16
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Disorientation
    Entrapment/Entanglement
    Lack of overall fire experience
    Lack of commercial "big box" experience
    Lack of "big box" training
    Lack of self-rescue/survival training
    Exceeding air supply
    Lack of air management/discipline
    Over-aggressiveness in commercial structures

    These are some of the things I see as factors for the increased number of firefighters seemingly getting into trouble more often.

    Any comments?

    I am impressed how well this thread has progressed. When I say the title i was expected quite a slug fest.

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    nyckftbl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    On a Hill, overlooking George's Kingdom
    Posts
    2,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Disorientation
    Entrapment/Entanglement
    Lack of overall fire experience
    Lack of commercial "big box" experience
    Lack of "big box" training
    Lack of self-rescue/survival training
    Exceeding air supply
    Lack of air management/discipline
    Over-aggressiveness in commercial structures

    These are some of the things I see as factors for the increased number of firefighters seemingly getting into trouble more often.

    Any comments?

    I am impressed how well this thread has progressed. When I say the title i was expected quite a slug fest.

    Link? .
    Proud East Coast Traditionalist.

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber
    JohnVBFD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Norfolk, Va
    Posts
    1,479

    Default

    From 2001 to 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Disorientation
    Answer= 9 for a yearly average of 0.9

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Entrapment/Entanglement
    Answer= 105 for a yearly average of 10

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Lack of overall fire experience
    Lack of commercial "big box" experience
    Lack of "big box" training
    Lack of self-rescue/survival training
    Over-aggressiveness in commercial structures
    As stated competely unanswerable. Common denominator, ALL were trained by someone.


    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Exceeding air supply
    Lack of air management/discipline
    Answer 1 for a yearly average of 0.1

    Total= 115 with a yearly average of 11.5 for your factors that somoene can equate. But then again, we won't go with the training issue because we all know how little you care about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    These are some of the things I see as factors for the increased number of firefighters seemingly getting into trouble more often.

    Any comments?
    Yea you left one out.

    Heart Attack= 443 deaths for a yearly average of 44.3

    I agree. Your stated factors are area's we should be focusing on.
    Co 11
    Virginia Beach FD

    Amateurs practice until they get it right; professionals practice until they cannot get it wrong. Which one are you?

    'The fire went out and nobody got hurt' is a poor excuse for a fireground critique.

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnVBFD View Post
    .....I agree. Your stated factors are area's we should be focusing on.
    Did you miss this part

    "However, it does not address the root causes of firefighters becoming lost or trapped inside burning buildings.

    Your thoughts? "

    of the opening post? or are you just another LaFire attacker?
    "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?

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    Too much safety? Or too much focus on exinguishment?

    My view:

    We tend to be reactionary, making policies, rules, and procedures based on prior bad outcomes. However, this practice often fails to address the root cause of the problem. I believe that the concept of two-in/two-out is sound and providing a RIT when firefighters are in a hazardous environment is a solid idea. However, it does not address the root causes of firefighters becoming lost or trapped inside burning buildings.

    Your thoughts?
    We shall always be reactionary. Simply not possible to plan ahead for everything. Learning from history is a great way to not repeat history. As ChiefKN said, 2in/2out as a priority, but not a show stopper is right on. Training on core basics is getting lost in the shuffle. I look at our own FF1 basic course and see FAST/RIT/RIC operations as part of the course now. Teaching brand new basic FF's these operations? They should be spending time on basics and things to keep them out of needing FAST, not how to perform FAST. Situational awareness, recognizing conditions, basic fire attach/ventilation...those are skills that need to be worked on. Too much time is spent on "worst case" scenarios as opposed to the bread & butter we actually deal with.
    "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?

  21. #21
    MembersZone Subscriber
    dday05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,331

    Default

    [QUOTE=Bones42;1236064] Training on core basics is getting lost in the shuffle. QUOTE]

    100% correct! The lack of basic FF skills is becoming more of an issue. Like I said in another thread it amazes me we have people who can't wear their PPE properly or even conduct a search. Some people can't even function enough to pull a hose of the truck etc. etc... (and these people go interrior to try and extinguish a fire? Reminds me of a quote from Beverly Hils Cop "you got your guns and your badge and you're on the job"...

    To add on to the first post... I will probably get beat up for this on here but we responded a few times last year where we were suppose to function as a RIT/FAST team and once we get on scene due to lack of man power get put into a suppression role. Is it right or wrong? There are a few ways to look at it I say.

  22. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    As a whole, I think you're right, the fire service is too reactionary. I think this is a lot of our problem, as well.

    When I look at the fire service as a whole, I us fighting fires with the same tactics we did 50+ years ago. It's not just the "we've always done it this way" crowd, but the culture as a whole. The problem is that not only has the construction changed, but so has the fuel. We're seeing far more BTU's put out due to the synthetic fabrics in furniture, and that heat is going to lightweight trusses.

    At the same time, we now have gear that is considerably better than what it was even 20 years ago. When we started putting guys in this gear, we had vets going into fires where they used to be able to feel the heat. In some cases, there are guys that went from a nomex pants, 3/4 boots, no SCBA and no hood to a full set of PBI/kevlar/whatever space-age material set of gear with a nomex and SCBA where they're fully encapsulated. While they were able to go deeper, they were also loosing that sense of "it's too hot".

    As far as your culture of safety vs. culture of extinguishement, I ask you why we can't have both? For some reason it has become taboo to apply water from the exterior. Seriously, WTF? You don't have to apply water from only the interior to put a fire out, especially a compartmentalized fire that's confined to a basement, attic, or even a room. Since when is "defensive" not aggressive? Why is attacking from the exterior a "defensive" approach rather than "offensive"?

    There are guys out there that invented things like cellar and piercing nozzles so that we can put water on a fire without entering the compartment. They have PPV fans to assist with ventilation and done correctly, you can ventilate without having to get on the truss roof. Yet you see numerous departments in this country that don't know what the "V" is in VES.

    There's my little bit of a rant.

  23. #23
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    We shall always be reactionary. Simply not possible to plan ahead for everything. Learning from history is a great way to not repeat history. As ChiefKN said, 2in/2out as a priority, but not a show stopper is right on. Training on core basics is getting lost in the shuffle. I look at our own FF1 basic course and see FAST/RIT/RIC operations as part of the course now. Teaching brand new basic FF's these operations? They should be spending time on basics and things to keep them out of needing FAST, not how to perform FAST. Situational awareness, recognizing conditions, basic fire attach/ventilation...those are skills that need to be worked on. Too much time is spent on "worst case" scenarios as opposed to the bread & butter we actually deal with.
    My volunteer department has decided to change gears in terms of training for at least the first half of this year.

    We have recognized that our guys are lacking the "basics". We spent a lot of last year working on RIT, commercial operations and laying the groundwork for the start of an extrication program. It was decided to put much of that on hold and get back to the basics of residental fire operations for at least 5-6 months.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 01-04-2011 at 11:49 AM.

  24. #24
    Forum Member
    nyckftbl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    On a Hill, overlooking George's Kingdom
    Posts
    2,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Did you miss this part

    "However, it does not address the root causes of firefighters becoming lost or trapped inside burning buildings.

    Your thoughts? "

    of the opening post? or are you just another LaFire attacker?
    Did you not read LA's post? Its incorrect and he deserved to get bashed. The fact is over any time period you would like to quote recently, firefighter deaths in burning buildings hasnt increased, like he claimed.
    Proud East Coast Traditionalist.

  25. #25
    Forum Member
    len1582's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    N.J.
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    We shall always be reactionary. Simply not possible to plan ahead for everything. Learning from history is a great way to not repeat history. As ChiefKN said, 2in/2out as a priority, but not a show stopper is right on. Training on core basics is getting lost in the shuffle. I look at our own FF1 basic course and see FAST/RIT/RIC operations as part of the course now. Teaching brand new basic FF's these operations? They should be spending time on basics and things to keep them out of needing FAST, not how to perform FAST. Situational awareness, recognizing conditions, basic fire attach/ventilation...those are skills that need to be worked on. Too much time is spent on "worst case" scenarios as opposed to the bread & butter we actually deal with.
    I agree the basics need to be instilled in new FF's. That's a must. But they also need to be as versatile as possible because they very well could end up being sent as part of a RIT team relatively soon out of the academy. Last few classes we put on each had two days of RIT which also consisted of rescueing trapped FF's from stair carrys(up and down) drags, and ladder carrys. A skill everyone needs. We don't harp on "worse case", but as we all know things happen.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act
    By Tann3100 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-13-2007, 11:26 PM
  2. Mine Safety Chief Questions Rescue Gear!
    By coldfront in forum Specialized Rescue
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-22-2006, 09:10 AM
  3. IAFC Calls "Stand Down" for Safety
    By mcaldwell in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 06-20-2005, 10:34 AM
  4. Ode To Safety
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-11-2005, 10:19 AM
  5. Public safety education videos
    By SwiftH20-News in forum Wildland Firefighting
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-28-2000, 12:40 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