Closed Thread
Page 2 of 21 First 1234512 ... Last
  1. #26
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    Google:
    http://www.westamptonfire.org/filelo...d/file_id/4323


    Theres plenty of other sources to read up on.

    Some call it simply VES, some call it aggressive searching.
    OK, now it's a bit clearer.

    I'm familiar with VES, but have never heard it referred to anything other than that.

  2. #27
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    OK, now it's a bit clearer.

    I'm familiar with VES, but have never heard it referred to anything other than that.
    Just speaking of only my experience in discussing the difference:

    When teaching or speaking with departments around the state, if I asked their thoughts on VES, I could get a million different perspectives. When talking about aggressive searches, I use to get 50% for and 50% either against or clueless on the subject.

    By the time we left, very few were still against it. Our job is dangerous and searches are one of the most dangerous parts of what we do. You're taking on the risk of being alone/ without back up but you're also minimizing the amount of time you're in there and giving victims the highest chance of survival.

    Searches are normally (only speaking of this area) taught using the mother duck and her ducklings approach. This is something I always found to be ineffective. The yoga-pilates version of everyone stretching out and holding on to a foot or tool is even worse.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  3. #28
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Alexandria, LA
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The fact is we do not hold the responsibility for victim survival in our hands.
    .....you're kidding...right???
    "you know what the best part is? It's not knowing that your friends have got your back--it's knowing that YOU'VE got your FRIENDS' backs."

    -Green Street Hooligans

  4. #29
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil321 View Post
    .....you're kidding...right???
    No, I'm not.

    There are far too many factors that have shaped the incident for us to hold any responsibility for the fate of civilaians still in the structure.

    Some of those may lay with the building owner. many of them lay with the victim themselves in terms of fire prevention and safety, preparation for an emergency, drug and/or alcohol use and the behaviors that caused the fire. Some lay with others in the building that may have started the fire. And some lay with simple timing and fate. These variables come together in varying ways depending on the incident, but one thing is always there - The fact that we have little responsibility for the incident and even less, if any, responsibility for the fate of the victims.

    Bottom line is that we often arrive very late into the incident, where in many cases, the course of the incident has long since been determined, and the unfortunate fact is that we can do nothing to reverse the outcome.

    Many times our actions will change nothing but only endanger us with no possible change in the outcome. These are the times that as professionals we need to recognize that fact and understand that our actions can only have negative effects on us, with no possible positive changes in the outcome for the victim.

    As this relates to the discussion about abandoned operations, the rural and suburban volunteer world the response time often brings us to the scene very close, at, or beyond the point where our actions can change the outcome. That is simple time and fire behavior, and we need to recognize that as a fact that we can alter. In the urban environment, that may not be the case, but for us, out here, time is often an enemy that defeats us, and if we try to fight back when there is no chance, we will be hurt or killed without any possibility of reward.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  5. #30
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    Just speaking of only my experience in discussing the difference:

    When teaching or speaking with departments around the state, if I asked their thoughts on VES, I could get a million different perspectives. When talking about aggressive searches, I use to get 50% for and 50% either against or clueless on the subject.

    By the time we left, very few were still against it. Our job is dangerous and searches are one of the most dangerous parts of what we do. You're taking on the risk of being alone/ without back up but you're also minimizing the amount of time you're in there and giving victims the highest chance of survival.

    Searches are normally (only speaking of this area) taught using the mother duck and her ducklings approach. This is something I always found to be ineffective. The yoga-pilates version of everyone stretching out and holding on to a foot or tool is even worse.
    Yeah, that's pretty much the same way search is taught here too.

    I think I get what you were trying to say now that I understand you were referring to VES. I think using the word "circumvent" may not have been the best choice for your point and the root of the confusion.

  6. #31
    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 LaFireEducator View Post
    There are far too many factors that have shaped the incident for us to hold any responsibility for the fate of civilaians still in the structure.

    Some of those may lay with the building owner. many of them lay with the victim themselves in terms of fire prevention and safety, preparation for an emergency, drug and/or alcohol use and the behaviors that caused the fire. Some lay with others in the building that may have started the fire. And some lay with simple timing and fate. These variables come together in varying ways depending on the incident, but one thing is always there - The fact that we have little responsibility for the incident and even less, if any, responsibility for the fate of the victims.
    I hate feeding into your narcism and responding... but this is such rubbish.

    A Fire Department can have a profound effect on the fate of the victims.
    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."

  7. #32
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    No, I'm not.

    There are far too many factors that have shaped the incident for us to hold any responsibility for the fate of civilaians still in the structure.

    There may be times in which this is true, however what about those times in which we arrive and there ARE viable lives to be saved. You're an ignorant fool if you think that we hold no responsibility for the fate of those civilians.

    Some of those may lay with the building owner. many of them lay with the victim themselves in terms of fire prevention and safety, preparation for an emergency, drug and/or alcohol use and the behaviors that caused the fire. Some lay with others in the building that may have started the fire. And some lay with simple timing and fate. These variables come together in varying ways depending on the incident, but one thing is always there - The fact that we have little responsibility for the incident and even less, if any, responsibility for the fate of the victims.

    Bottom line is that we often arrive very late into the incident, where in many cases, the course of the incident has long since been determined, and the unfortunate fact is that we can do nothing to reverse the outcome.

    Many times our actions will change nothing but only endanger us with no possible change in the outcome. These are the times that as professionals we need to recognize that fact and understand that our actions can only have negative effects on us, with no possible positive changes in the outcome for the victim.

    As this relates to the discussion about abandoned operations, the rural and suburban volunteer world the response time often brings us to the scene very close, at, or beyond the point where our actions can change the outcome. That is simple time and fire behavior, and we need to recognize that as a fact that we can alter. In the urban environment, that may not be the case, but for us, out here, time is often an enemy that defeats us, and if we try to fight back when there is no chance, we will be hurt or killed without any possibility of reward.
    I think most of us would be willing to stipulate that there are some settings (specifically rural areas) in which the normal situation is to arrive to find a building far too involved to reasonably conduct interior operations or expect any victim survival. However, there are a lot of places (specifically urban areas served by staffed FDs) in which that isn't the case - something that you don't seem to get.

    So maybe to spare everyone some time in the future, maybe you could preface all your comments to indicate that you are only talking about rural and rural suburban areas and refrain from commenting on urban firefighting situations and tactics.

  8. #33
    Forum Member
    PaladinKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    OK... I'm back again on this...

    I have worked in Rural Areas and most of what LA is trying to say is very true in those settings. But that has nothing to do with my point. But if his or any department feels the need to have a policy to protect the firefighters from themselves... then I guess I don't support it.

    The rare chance, or even the once in a lifetime chance to save a kid out in the boonies is still a life saved.... perhaps. All I am saying is we guarantee he will not survive if we let a policy prevent our trying. I do not leave some of my tools at home when I go to work, nor do I want you too.

    We have all seen bad commanders... at every level... Hopefully, they don't last long if they stack up a history of bad calls. One mistake can be costly, agreed.

    But

    if we don't let our young officers learn from their mistakes...

    if we don't let them explore their talents...

    if we don't let them spread their wings....

    and we solve every issue for them with a damn policy...

    we're going to end up with some very bad Leaders in the future.

    Hell, we already have that... in some areas.... I have been picking up the little scraps that a few have left behind. (Another subject for later perhaps...)

    As I said in the beginning, it appears we are returning to the same ground as we once stood on. May God help us all if we must have a document to protect us from ourselves. I guess that is what OSHA and NFPA is all about, but I don't see this as the same thing.


    I don't care if I change one single opinion with what I state... so the outcome of the debate on this really does not concern me.

    My concern is whether we try or not try to save lives. I will trust the guys in the field with making those decisions... not a policy that says "you better not, ever, ever ,ever..."







    Damn, I broke my box...
    HAVE PLAN.............WILL TRAVEL

  9. #34
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaladinKnight View Post
    OK... I'm back again on this...

    I have worked in Rural Areas and most of what LA is trying to say is very true in those settings. But that has nothing to do with my point. But if his or any department feels the need to have a policy to protect the firefighters from themselves... then I guess I don't support it.

    The rare chance, or even the once in a lifetime chance to save a kid out in the boonies is still a life saved.... perhaps. All I am saying is we guarantee he will not survive if we let a policy prevent our trying. I do not leave some of my tools at home when I go to work, nor do I want you too.

    We have all seen bad commanders... at every level... Hopefully, they don't last long if they stack up a history of bad calls. One mistake can be costly, agreed.

    But

    if we don't let our young officers learn from their mistakes...

    if we don't let them explore their talents...

    if we don't let them spread their wings....

    and we solve every issue for them with a damn policy...

    we're going to end up with some very bad Leaders in the future.

    Hell, we already have that... in some areas.... I have been picking up the little scraps that a few have left behind. (Another subject for later perhaps...)

    As I said in the beginning, it appears we are returning to the same ground as we once stood on. May God help us all if we must have a document to protect us from ourselves. I guess that is what OSHA and NFPA is all about, but I don't see this as the same thing.


    I don't care if I change one single opinion with what I state... so the outcome of the debate on this really does not concern me.

    My concern is whether we try or not try to save lives. I will trust the guys in the field with making those decisions... not a policy that says "you better not, ever, ever ,ever..."







    Damn, I broke my box...
    Paladin... excellent post.
    ‎"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

  10. #35
    Forum Member
    IronValor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Richmond, Kentucky
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Mr. Murphy's Law will bite you right in the rear if you are not a Vigilant one.

    If a structure appears to be abandoned and unoccupied then its probably occupied. As Gonzo said pigeons, rats, and squirrels do not smoke and do not combust on their own.

    I say that there is always something that can be done, Even if conditions are not ideal.
    Do not let the ghosts of our fallen brothers gaze upon you and ask " What have you done to my profession?" FTB DTRT EGH

  11. #36
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    It's assumptions in this service that bother me. Not seeing bikes in the yard so assuming kids aren't in there. Not seeing electrical service on the side of a building so assuming no one is in there, not that its possible they simply couldn't afford to pay for it (I've personally seen that plenty of times). Assuming that if we search a house you wouldn't then we must search EVERY house.

    We're lucky that 99% of the time we pull up early enough to make an attack. 1% of the time we aren't; if conditions do not allow even us, in full PPE, to enter than its highly doubtful any one has survived. No one here has advocated for the searching of every single house every single fire. The moniker "search every time" is misconstrued to "search every time no matter the conditions of the fire and/or house".

    The facts have been provided, searching vacant buildings is dangerous but its not the serial killer some make it out to be. We are dying in occupied structures just as readily and just as quickly. To survey a scene and determine if there are viable chances of survival based on the monetary status of the occupant goes against everything I stand for, not just as a firefighter but as a human being.

    Forget any foul jokes about assumptions. Assumptions kill citizens and firefighters alike. Fighting to get us out of vacant structures doesn't stop us from dying of heart disease/ problems (48%), traffic accidents (31%), or a lack of situational awareness (21%) (which can occur in occupied structures just as readily). Give me a vacant 80 year old building over an occupied, brand new, "disposable building" any day.

    To stand your ground that "everyone must go home" yet not fight for physical fitness standards or testing nor train your guys to the utmost degree....you're feeding them to the wolves for over half of the reasons we're dying.

    Life is not a guarantee. We exist solely to give other a greater chance to survive, everything else is extra. You may never fall victim to a collapse, an apparatus accident, nor poor health but can lose your life in an infinite number of ways. To take an inherently dangerous job and assume you can make it 100% safe is dangerous to our citizens and to the very fabric of this fire service. You train, learn, and keep your self hard to kill.

    Everything else is complacency, and complacency kills.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  12. #37
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    We have beaten this debate into the ground time and again....

    If a department feels that it can only assure safety by dictating tactics on a fire unseen, they don't understand this business.

    Does that mean no SOP's? Of course not, but SOP's with absolutes will be problematic.

    If your folks aren't prepared enough to make tactical decisions, then get them trained or close shop.
    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."

  13. #38
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    No, I'm not.

    There are far too many factors that have shaped the incident for us to hold any responsibility for the fate of civilaians still in the structure.

    Some of those may lay with the building owner. many of them lay with the victim themselves in terms of fire prevention and safety, preparation for an emergency, drug and/or alcohol use and the behaviors that caused the fire. Some lay with others in the building that may have started the fire. And some lay with simple timing and fate. These variables come together in varying ways depending on the incident, but one thing is always there - The fact that we have little responsibility for the incident and even less, if any, responsibility for the fate of the victims.

    Bottom line is that we often arrive very late into the incident, where in many cases, the course of the incident has long since been determined, and the unfortunate fact is that we can do nothing to reverse the outcome.

    Many times our actions will change nothing but only endanger us with no possible change in the outcome. These are the times that as professionals we need to recognize that fact and understand that our actions can only have negative effects on us, with no possible positive changes in the outcome for the victim.

    As this relates to the discussion about abandoned operations, the rural and suburban volunteer world the response time often brings us to the scene very close, at, or beyond the point where our actions can change the outcome. That is simple time and fire behavior, and we need to recognize that as a fact that we can alter. In the urban environment, that may not be the case, but for us, out here, time is often an enemy that defeats us, and if we try to fight back when there is no chance, we will be hurt or killed without any possibility of reward.
    If this is your attitude about the fire service.. why even bother responding at all?
    ‎"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

  14. #39
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    If this is your attitude about the fire service.. why even bother responding at all?
    Because it's the only place in his life that anyone pays attention to him.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #40
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    I hate feeding into your narcism and responding... but this is such rubbish.

    A Fire Department can have a profound effect on the fate of the victims.
    Depending on the community, I agree. However, as you get farther out into the more rural areas, resources, especially manpower decrease and notification and response times generally increase, so as a result, the fire department's ability to affect the outcome will decrease as well.

    I don't think that should be a debate.

    My point was that some posters keep talking about the responsibility we have regarding the outcome. The simple fact is we have very little impact on the pre-incident factors that affect the speed of the fire or the fire ignition, and we have very little impact on how citizens prepare for and respond to that fire. We as have very little if any impact on the behaviors that may have started the fire or other factors such as alcohol or drug use which affect tier ability to respond.

    Given the fact that we control very few of the factors that create and drive the incident, how can anyone say that we have a responsibility fort the incident?

    My point is that if we start attaching a responsibility for the outcome of an incident that we have very little control over, we are likely to start making decisions on emotions rather than cold, hard facts.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 07-31-2011 at 02:07 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  16. #41
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Depending on the community, I agree. However, as you get farther out into the more rural areas, resources, especially manpower decrease and notification and response times generally increase, so as a result, the fire department's ability to affect the outcome will decrease as well.

    I don't think that should be a debate.

    My point was that some posters keep talking about the responsibility we have regarding the outcome. The simple fact is we have very little impact on the pre-incident factors that affect the speed of the fire or the fire ignition, and we have very little impact on how citizens prepare for and respond to that fire. We as have very little if any impact on the behaviors that may have started the fire or other factors such as alcohol or drug use which affect tier ability to respond.

    Given the fact that we control very few of the factors that create and drive the incident, how can anyone say that we have a responsibility fort the incident?

    It's not our responsibility that we have to save everything and everyone every time but as a fire service we have a responsibility to do all we can and not sit back and dismiss a situation because it's deemed "too hard" or "too dangerous".

    If it were easy, some one else would have done it by then but of course that in itself poses its own threat to your mantra.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  17. #42
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    If this is your attitude about the fire service.. why even bother responding at all?
    There are some incidents where our response will not change the outcome. Structure fires in some suburban and most rural areas are some of those incidents. These types of incidents involving life safety have bee extremly rare during my time in the service. Structural incidents `involving property damage only due to extended fire conditions on arrival where we can have no impact on the outcome have been more numerous, but still fairly infrequent.

    Most incidents we can have an impact on. That is why we respond.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 07-31-2011 at 10:58 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  18. #43
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    It's not our responsibility that we have to save everything and everyone every time but as a fire service we have a responsibility to do all we can and not sit back and dismiss a situation because it's deemed "too hard" or "too dangerous".

    If it were easy, some one else would have done it by then but of course that in itself poses its own threat to your mantra.
    I fully agree that we have a responsibility to act to the level that our training, resources and experience allows.

    We do not have a responsibility to act beyond those levels because there are victims. We bear no responsibility for the situation they are in, and because of that, we have no responsibility to expose ourselves beyond the levels we are trained or equipped to operate in.

    I disagree that we cannot sit back and not perform offensive operations because the situation is too dangerous. We have the right to walk away from that incident even though that may mean the death of the civilian(s), especially if the training and resources are not adequate to attempt the rescue.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  19. #44
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I fully agree that we have a responsibility to act to the level that our training, resources and experience allows.

    We do not have a responsibility to act beyond those levels because there are victims. We bear no responsibility for the situation they are in, and because of that, we have no responsibility to expose ourselves beyond the levels we are trained or equipped to operate in.

    I disagree that we cannot sit back and not perform offensive operations because the situation is too dangerous. We have the right to walk away from that incident even though that may mean the death of the civilian(s), especially if the training and resources are not adequate to attempt the rescue.
    I now realize that your problem surpasses mere fireground understanding but your poor grasp of reading comprehension as well.

    Your embellishment and false additions of everyone's statements to fulfill your close-mindedness is the main reason you will never have the integrity and courage to admit that your mantra is disregarded by everyone but yourself.

    You are not an innovator, you are not a pioneer, and you will never be respected by your peers simply for the fact you are a very selfish person, in thoughts and in actions.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  20. #45
    Forum Member
    PaladinKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    Gonz: Thanks, Sorry that I get animated about what should be 2nd nature to us.

    ChiefKN: Well stated. If someone reads my words and decides to use them in their toolbox, then I hope it saves life. If someone chooses to not use my words, then I have no effect, but that isn't my fault.

    Tajm: Your signature says it all... complacency kills. But this issue is not complacency, it is way past that and a condition that is void of reason.

    --------

    I understand how the 'policy writers' can decide that officers are just a bunch of dum3@$$es. They study charts and data to arrive at this assumption based on past failures. What they absolutely forget to consider is the number of times we get it right.

    As I stated, there is no such thing as exceptable losses.... So if you agree with this statement, why are we excepting the loss of people that otherwise might have a chance, if we do not trust our commanders? "No exceptable losses" includes the public as well, not just us. Everyone goes home... what about the citizens we serve?

    I am sorry for those that do not get this... For me this right up there with "if all else fails, use whatever Plan you have left..."


    Quote Originally Posted by LA
    Given the fact that we control very few of the factors that create and drive the incident, how can anyone say that we have a responsibility fort the incident?
    I don't think anyone really said this. The truth is we don't have any responsibility for the cause of the event. But we do have a responsibility to the citizens we protect. If we adopt a one-size-fits-all policy as to how we will respond, then we must share responsiblity for the outcome, good or bad. When we respond, we accept the mission. It is too easy to say, we will go, but we take no responsibility for what happens. So why are we going in the first place? I can build a bonfire in my backyard any day I wish if I just want to watch a fire. I can unroll my garden hose if I want to just spray some water. What we do should not be defined so.... impersonal.


    While I do not agree with personal or directed attacks on anyone in this debate, this and many other issues must be debated. If we reduce ourselves to attacking each other, we lose the debate, the message and purpose is lost. It becomes recess in the schoolyard. I have never gained trust or help someone reach their goals by attacking or beating them. I respect one's right to an opinion, without sending them to the gallows. I expect the same from others, even if I am wrong. It is my wrong, not theirs. But this does not prevent me from trying to change their mind, or the minds of those watching.

    Quote Originally Posted by LA
    Most incidents we can have an impact on. That is why we respond.
    It warms my old heart when I seem to make progress. When we began, you had not yet arrived here... Let me add... When we respond, use your best judgement as to what you can do. If you can get someone out safely... then why should a policy prevent you from this action. We are not that far apart are we?

    Does anyone remember the lawsuit years ago when a family sued a department for failing to rescue a child? Does anyone not think that every firefighter felt they had failed and this issue shamed them? Of course, the dept was not held responsible... then, under exisiting statutes. Will we be able to prevail in the future if we adopt these kind of policies? Can we justify our policy if we just standby and do nothing? What if Joe Citizen makes a good grab while we stand around?

    Imagine what you do to your firefighters... all they can do is stand there and do... nothing. I guarantee you that those individuals will carry that pain forever. Could suicides increase? I think they will. We're human. We feel the same crap, but we get it in full doses everyday; and it loads up on us. The fact is we do a poor job of dealing with our guys mental health, so why add another burden to that load. CISD or whatever you wish to call it is not going to help everyone. Some of us refuse to accept it, because we must not let anyone see our weakness. Being human has nothing to do with being weak. And as I said, these kinds of policies only dehumanize us for the moment.

    It was correctly stated that we had no responsibility for causing a fire or event. But this does not remove the burden of what we do. Many of us swore an oath to protect and serve. Some of you didn't take an oath, but carry it inside just the same. For whatever reason, you became a firefighter. It wasn't for the money, it wasn't for the pain you would endure, it wasn't because of the @$$-kicking you would get many days...

    You became a firefighter because you felt the calling to help others. Someone has to do it... and you stepped up. If you save just one person in your life, then you have already fulfilled your destiny of what you decided to be. So why should I or anyone tell you that you cannot give that life back?

    And please, do not confuse what I say with subscribing to suicidal missions that have no chance of success. I don't want to see any firefighter hurt or killed when it is not necessary. All I am trying to convey is we must conduct our missions based on what we have been dealt. No policy will cover every mission.

    If we focus only on protecting you, then prepare to not fulfill your purpose. Be prepared to feel pain that you cannot imagine. Simply pushing off the burden of responsibility by saying "the policy says I cannot risk myself", will not ease the pain you will feel, unless you have already lost your soul. I have known guys that lost their soul, but it wasn't because they didn't act... but because of the reverse. Nothing they did could prevent the outcome.

    And before someone starts the hero crap... remember what is expected of us. Doing a job you knew going in was dangerous which could kill you has nothing to do with any hero I have known. I have not seen one single person in the FH Forums proclaim "I am a hero". IF anyone thinks they are a hero... please resign your job and crawl into a hole. You are dangerous to the rest of us. Doing this job does not make you a hero. The two have nothing to do with each other.

    If one's only purpose in life is to wear our shirt, our maltese and emblems or the word firefighter, so others will think they're special, then they are not a firefighter. That is nothing more than an empty vessel, breathing air and taking up valuable space. I urge that empty vessel to do something positive and get a real life.

    Ok, that was a bit harsh... but it is the truth and sometimes it just has to hurt.

    As ChiefKN stated so eloquently, we have beaten this poor old horse to death... it is really beginning to stink... Should we not bury it yet?

    PK



    After the fact comment since the debate has continued while I have been gathering my thoughts...

    LA: I agree with your last post 100%, except the walk away part. No one is saying if you're outgunned you kill yourself trying anyway. But you know you are not going to walk away from an event... you might not carry out some operational function due to the event.

    The debate is about a blanket policy that states you are prevented from making the decision as to what your course of action will be. Can we really know everything about every event? Of course not. But a policy defines your limits and does not take things into consideration that may be operationally feasible.

    I give my guys the right to walk away from any mission if they do not believe they can pull it off. If they don't think they can do it, why should I question this? If this means we might not accomplish the mission goals, then perhaps the mission objective was not obtainable. I'm not going to make them sacrifice their life just because of my ego. This has yet to happen... no one has ever told me they could not do the job. I have had a few that told me it scared the hell out of them before the fact. But it is not the same thing.

    I have had guys get hurt, but never during a rescue... it has always been some 'dumb thing' that has occurred; step into a hole, fall off a ladder or roof, run into a ladder on a truck when the skull-saver was removed, wrench a shoulder or knee when trying to avoid injury, etc...

    So it seems we do in fact see this eye to eye. The only unresolved issue is you still think we need to protect some officers and crews with a policy who might otherwise make a mistake.

    Come on sir... do you really think we can cut their legs off and say that is a good thing? I don't want a rule to tell me what to think, what to eat and when to take a crap. So why would I want a policy to tell me something is dangerous when I have been trained to understand it?
    HAVE PLAN.............WILL TRAVEL

  21. #46
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    PK, welcome and your posts have been very enlightening and well written. With a vast majority of us here, we get what you are saying, but. Unfortunately, your well though out and elegant posts are failing hard in try to convince LA of anything other than doing nothing.
    He talks a big game, and the moment you call him out, or try to pin him down, he soon reverts back to "well in my area....".
    He has yet to add anything constructive or worthwhile to any post or topic that actually discusses what real firefighters do and are tasked to do by their community. He is, in my opinion, a self-centered coward more worried about covering his *** than making a difference.
    But I applaud your efforts and I enjoyed reading your thoughts and the intelligent posts by others that get it.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  22. #47
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,675

    Default

    PaldinKnight ....

    Just a couple of things before i respond that may put this debate, at least from my side, into perspective.

    On my combo side, we average an abandoned structure fire probably once a year. Most of the time these are old and decaying backyard sheds or outbuildings that they owner tells us are empty. One very rare occasions - probably once every 5 years - we experience a fire in an abandoned home or small commercial property.

    The point is this is a very rare event for us. We have experienced officers who have the ability to make the call to go interior if they feel there is a valid life safety reason to do so. The primary purpose of the no entry order is to cover the inexperienced first responders who may arrive via POV or with the satellite engine from the closest volunteer house before the more experienced officers from the paid staff or the bulk of the district arrive.

    I guess I disagree that on some levels, we do need to protect our people from themselves. Unfortunately as a service, we have not demonstrated the ability to control our own people in many areas, and I feel this is an areas which begs for hard and firm SOPs. There is room for decision making when the senior officers arrive.

    The second point is that in almost all cases, when we do get these rare events, the building is almost or is fully involved on arrival. In almost all cases, there are no decisions to be made regarding entry as it's simply not an option.

    On my volunteer department, we have no policy regrading this situation. That being said, abandoned building fires are even more rare there, and even more so heavily or fully involved on arrival.

    Again we agree on most things, but I see our policy as protecting the troops, and you see as handcuffing the troops. I guess it's simply going to end up being and agree to disagree stalemate brother.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  23. #48
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    PK, welcome and your posts have been very enlightening and well written. With a vast majority of us here, we get what you are saying, but. Unfortunately, your well though out and elegant posts are failing hard in try to convince LA of anything other than doing nothing.
    He talks a big game, and the moment you call him out, or try to pin him down, he soon reverts back to "well in my area....".
    He has yet to add anything constructive or worthwhile to any post or topic that actually discusses what real firefighters do and are tasked to do by their community. He is, in my opinion, a self-centered coward more worried about covering his *** than making a difference.
    But I applaud your efforts and I enjoyed reading your thoughts and the intelligent posts by others that get it.
    I have no problem in saying that in a rescue situation, I will give it my best shot, but I am walking out of the station after the call and going home to my wife and will continue to provide for my children.

    And I will make sure that any firefighter I am responsible for, either as an IC or as a company/crew-level officer, will do the exact same thing.

    If that's not getting it, so be it.
    If that's selfish, so be it.
    And if that's being a coward, so be it.

    We are in this job to help people in their emergency.
    That does not include dying during their emergency.

    Call that whatever you wish.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  24. #49
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    PaldinKnight ....

    Just a couple of things before i respond that may put this debate, at least from my side, into perspective.

    On my combo side, we average an abandoned structure fire probably once a year. Most of the time these are old and decaying backyard sheds or outbuildings that they owner tells us are empty. One very rare occasions - probably once every 5 years - we experience a fire in an abandoned home or small commercial property.

    The point is this is a very rare event for us. We have experienced officers who have the ability to make the call to go interior if they feel there is a valid life safety reason to do so. The primary purpose of the no entry order is to cover the inexperienced first responders who may arrive via POV or with the satellite engine from the closest volunteer house before the more experienced officers from the paid staff or the bulk of the district arrive.

    I guess I disagree that on some levels, we do need to protect our people from themselves. Unfortunately as a service, we have not demonstrated the ability to control our own people in many areas, and I feel this is an areas which begs for hard and firm SOPs. There is room for decision making when the senior officers arrive.

    The second point is that in almost all cases, when we do get these rare events, the building is almost or is fully involved on arrival. In almost all cases, there are no decisions to be made regarding entry as it's simply not an option.

    On my volunteer department, we have no policy regrading this situation. That being said, abandoned building fires are even more rare there, and even more so heavily or fully involved on arrival.

    Again we agree on most things, but I see our policy as protecting the troops, and you see as handcuffing the troops. I guess it's simply going to end up being and agree to disagree stalemate brother.

    For rarely facing an abandoned or vacant building fire you seem to exude superiority on the subject. How can you tell anyone they're incorrect when you obviously have no place in the conversation?
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  25. #50
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I have no problem in saying that in a rescue situation, I will give it my best shot, but I am walking out of the station after the call and going home to my wife and will continue to provide for my children.

    And I will make sure that any firefighter I am responsible for, either as an IC or as a company/crew-level officer, will do the exact same thing.

    If that's not getting it, so be it.
    If that's selfish, so be it.
    And if that's being a coward, so be it.

    We are in this job to help people in their emergency.
    That does not include dying during their emergency.

    Call that whatever you wish.
    Do you honestly believe any firefighter has walked into a building knowing without a doubt they would not walk back out?
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 21 First 1234512 ... Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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