3rd Engine vs 95ft Quint by E-ONE

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

Oper77... allow me to apologize for chatising Bobby on your thread....

Back on the track.... I would go for the quint.

[FWDbuff]

So please explain to me how we somehow assume responsibility for the survival of the occupants or the well-being of their property when they control the conditions that lead to the fire, the conditions that influenced the behavior and the spread of the fire and the conditions that hindered or helped their escape such as smoke detectors and EDITH?

Ummmm, maybe because it's our JOB?? If you dont want to accept the responsibilities set in the job description, why dont you become a plumber? Or is it their fault when the pipes leak? How about becoming a mechanic? Or is it their fault when their brakes and tires suffer from normal wear-and-tear??? Become a cook!!!! Or is it their fault that they are hungry? You are such an A S S HOLE!



Blame your buddy FWD for dragging this personal crap into it .. Again.[/QUOTE] Nothing personal about you being a cancer to the entire fire service.

[LaFireEducator]

We assume responsibility the moment they call us. Even a green behind he ears probie can understand that little gem...

Maybe you assume responsibility for the outcome. I don't. The simple fact is that the decisions they have made regarding far personal choices such as alcohol and drug use, and the precautions they have taken regarding fire safety means that the responsibility for the outcome of the incident is more often in not in their hands, not ours, as it will have a direct impact on what we face when we arrive.


One can live right across the stret from a firehouse and still have a major fire, or one can live at the edge of a response district and never have one.

And response time will have a positive or negative impact on the event.



Really, Bobby? Cut the crap and admit that you know nothing, naught, nada, zero, zip, zilch, zippo, the big goose egg about the job and what it means. You claim to have 30+ years of experience, one would think that it wouldn't be your first year repeated 30+ years in a row.

Even a small budget rural FD can have a great impact on the outcome of a fire. It takes guts, determination and courage... things that you lack.

It also takes a reasonable response time, which like it or not, handicaps many rural VFDs. It's not uncommon in this area for a single district to cover 300 plus miles from 6-7 stations. In many cases the bulk of the district's manpower can easily be 15-20 miles away from the more rural fringes with far less manpower available. Even in a couple of the rural districts in the northeast where I volunteered a 15 minute plus response time simply due to distance was the norm.

Delayed notification, which is more common in the rural areas due to the distance between homes or the commonality of rarely traveled roads also plays into the handicaps as well.

It also takes funding which many rural districts lack. Again, many it's not the case where you are but here, with the 75K Homestead Exemption, funding for many rural districts is a tremendous isssue and many, if not most of them, are under-equipped.

[RFD21C]

BOTH OF YOU SHUT THE F*** UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you to are fighting about the same crap you always do. Keep you alls crap in the general forum. This is the apparatus innovation forum. This thread is about quints and engines. Not the merit of the rural FD, or how is responsible for the fire, Interior or exterior attacks.

You two's little game is getting old real quick. Both of you supposed "old" guys need to grow up. Both of you know each others position, but continue to argue about it. Not one of you are going to change each others mind.

[auxman]

Ditto. I swear the exact same stuff is being said by and about the exact same people as was being said two years ago when I first joined. Check out for six months and you see the same crap again. I just can't believe that they don't get tired of it.

[RFDACM02]

You guys, especially FWD, need to put LA on your ignore list. I've done it for nearly a year and other than other people reposting his nonsense, the time I've spent on FH.com is shorter and more productive.

That being said, I must tell you LA and others of the same ilk, when you are so adamant about self-preservation/firefighters first, I wonder if you actually believe in RIT or two in /two out (beyond an excuse to stay out)? In the end, you're promoting no increased risk to those outside the emergency for those already in danger. So do you leave trapped firefighters? If not, how do you leave trapped civilians who don'r have the protection we bring to the fight? I know I'd have zero faith in those who think like you being my back-up or rescue personnel.

[LaFireEducator]

BOTH OF YOU SHUT THE F*** UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you to are fighting about the same crap you always do. Keep you alls crap in the general forum. This is the apparatus innovation forum. This thread is about quints and engines. Not the merit of the rural FD, or how is responsible for the fire, Interior or exterior attacks.

You two's little game is getting old real quick. Both of you supposed "old" guys need to grow up. Both of you know each others position, but continue to argue about it. Not one of you are going to change each others mind.

I have no issues with that.

As I have said before, don't bait me and I won't comment beyond the thread topic, if I even comment at all. decide you want to stir up things up .....

It's really is that simple.

[LaFireEducator]

You guys, especially FWD, need to put LA on your ignore list. I've done it for nearly a year and other than other people reposting his nonsense, the time I've spent on FH.com is shorter and more productive.

That being said, I must tell you LA and others of the same ilk, when you are so adamant about self-preservation/firefighters first, I wonder if you actually believe in RIT or two in /two out (beyond an excuse to stay out)? In the end, you're promoting no increased risk to those outside the emergency for those already in danger. So do you leave trapped firefighters? If not, how do you leave trapped civilians who don'r have the protection we bring to the fight? I know I'd have zero faith in those who think like you being my back-up or rescue personnel.

To answer your question, no, I don't leave trapped firefighters.

First of all, they are my fellow firefighters, and as such, they are the priority.

Secondly, and probably more important, they have a far better chance of survival than civilians as they may still have air, they have PPE, they have communications to guide us to their location and they should have tools which they can use to begin self-rescue. They also have training and fire experience, so they should be able to survive a hostile ebviroment fire longer than untrained and unprotected civilians. For that reason, they are viable far longer than civilian victims.

The hard cold facts is that in a rural or light surburban enviroment, such as ours, as well as my VFD, most civilian victims are dead long before our arrival, and often dead even before we are toned. In other words, we rarely run on viable victims.

[Rescue101]

My previous department had a tower and then a quint for the last 12 years I was there, and I was one of the certified operators.

If you re-read my post you will see that nowhere did I advise him if he should have an aerial or not, but I did discuss the downside of running with 2 engines if they did purchase an aerial instead of the third engine.

I did say that my combo department, even though we on paper have some commercial structures and are starting to see some newer homes that could justify an aerial, and are only true current access to an aerial is the city, we could not justify the purchase of an aerial at this time as the run volume where it would be used is simply not there.

NO downside to running a QUINT with TWO Engines available.We do it all the Time.Get out of your abandoned playpen, and realize that a QUINT,PROPERLY USED, is a TACTICAL weapon.IF you READ the OP's information,he is SURROUNDED with Multi Engine companies,readily available. Ladder/Truck/Aerials,whatever you care to call them,NOT so much.WHICH makes it a prime application for a Truck or a Quint. Guess that lesson didn't take either. T.C.

[tajm611]

The hard cold facts is that in a rural or light surburban enviroment, such as ours, as well as my VFD, most civilian victims are dead long before our arrival, and often dead even before we are toned. In other words, we rarely run on viable victims.

First off, it's not a rural or suburban problem. It's a bossier parish problem, as that's the first time I've had a member of a department say that.

Two questions:

Why do you think you rarely run on viable victims?

Does this influence your training and/or skill set.

[Rescue101]

First off, it's not a rural or suburban problem. It's a bossier parish problem, as that's the first time I've had a member of a department say that.

Two questions:

Why do you think you rarely run on viable victims?

Does this influence your training and/or skill set.

This ought to be GOOD. Stand by while I stock up on some essentials like popcorn. T.C.

[LaFireEducator]

NO downside to running a QUINT with TWO Engines available.We do it all the Time.Get out of your abandoned playpen, and realize that a QUINT,PROPERLY USED, is a TACTICAL weapon.IF you READ the OP's information,he is SURROUNDED with Multi Engine companies,readily available. Ladder/Truck/Aerials,whatever you care to call them,NOT so much.WHICH makes it a prime application for a Truck or a Quint. Guess that lesson didn't take either. T.C.

I fully understand the value of a quint, and I would love to have one here as it would have some very valuable applications.

I did discuss in my situation how a quint could be a valuable tool but right now, given the volume of fires or technical rescues where it would be, or could be, ulilized is simply not there and does not justify the investment.

Again, I didn't recommend to the OP that he should or should not purchase a quint as I know nothing about his department or his operations. I did discuss, the drawback, IMO of having 2 v. 3 engines.

[LaFireEducator]

First off, it's not a rural or suburban problem. It's a bossier parish problem, as that's the first time I've had a member of a department say that.

Two questions:

Why do you think you rarely run on viable victims?

Does this influence your training and/or skill set.

Question 1: In the 9 years I have been here, we have had one rescue opportunity, and the rescue was successful. So victims still in the home on arrival is a VERY rare event for us. In addition, we have not had a structural fire fatality in the 9 years that I have been here.

To the best of my knowledge, we have never had a structural fire fatality.

The fact is in the area outside of our core if we respond to a working fire, 75%of the time the structure is well or heavily involved, and if there were victims inside, due to the level of fire, they would not be viable. The reason is simple -time and distance, as well as in some cases, a delayed notification.

One of our neighboring departments with similiar rural demographics have experienced 2 fatal fires in the last year. Both structures were fully involved on arrival with no chance of victim viability and in both cases a delayed notification (passerbys), heavy fire at the time it was reported and extended response times were all major players.

As far as my other previous VFDs, again, distance and response times has been the major factor in the 3 fatal fires which I have worked.

Question 2: I don't think it has an influence on our training or skill set. I don't see why it would or should.

[tajm611]

Question 1: In the 9 years I have been here, we have had one rescue opportunity, and the rescue was successful. So victims still in the home on arrival is a VERY rare event for us. In addition, we have not had a structural fire fatality in the 9 years that I have been here.

To the best of my knowledge, we have never had a structural fire fatality.

The fact is in the area outside of our core if we respond to a working fire, 75%of the time the structure is well or heavily involved, and if there were victims inside, due to the level of fire, they would not be viable. The reason is simple -time and distance, as well as in some cases, a delayed notification.

One of our neighboring departments with similiar rural demographics have experienced 2 fatal fires in the last year. Both structures were fully involved on arrival with no chance of victim viability and in both cases a delayed notification (passerbys), heavy fire at the time it was reported and extended response times were all major players.

As far as my other previous VFDs, again, distance and response times has been the major factor in the 3 fatal fires which I have worked.

Question 2: I don't think it has an influence on our training or skill set. I don't see why it would or should.

1: What would you say is the reason behind this? House proximity? Station proximity? Slow turn out? What are you doing to change that?

2: Judging by your mindset for other training systems, if you're likely to not face rescue situations, why are you (if you are) still training for them?

[oper77]

Um, WOW.

This place obviously has issues. There is so much crap here, I think I wont waist time getting involved.

I appreciate all the people who were testing me, or trying me, to help me open my eyes.

I think I have the answer to my questions.

I am in an engine rich community and a truck/quint poor community, and the people who have them, arent fully experienced in their response, application, and full potential. That is where my experience comes in.

I have been called to appear before the chiefs to make my debate, pending my debate gets the approval of the chiefs, I will be asked to meet with the committee, and from there I will have to put on a presentation to the company as a entity.

If anyone has Valuable, experienced input they care to offer, please feel free to private message me.

Thank you to all who have constructively commented and offered input to this topic.

[LaFireEducator]

1: What would you say is the reason behind this? House proximity? Station proximity? Slow turn out? What are you doing to change that?

2: Judging by your mindset for other training systems, if you're likely to not face rescue situations, why are you (if you are) still training for them?

Basic fire behavior and human anatomy should tell you that the longer a fire department response time, the less likely a victim is to survive. And yes, in the rural enviroment, the chances of a victim being viable on arrival is slim to none. Even if they have not been overrun by fire, the extended exposure to smoke id likely to kill them before we arrive. Those are the cold hard facts and we need to base our decsions on those facts.

As far as your questions ......

1. The rural areas of our district are very sparesly populated. Because of that, very few of our responders live in those areas. The majority of our volunteeers live where the bulk of our population lives, in the core area of the district, which is located along the southern border of our response area.

And yes, it takes time for the rural responders to drive to the closest station, and then back to the scene, which may total 8-10 miles. When they arrive they are limited in what they can do due to the limited number of volunteers on-scene.

It takes anywhere from 8-14 minutes for resources from our 3 southern stations, including our staffed station, to reach the rural areas of the district.

And by the way, all of our district meets the rating requirements for station distribution with the exception of one, which is primarily trees, oilfield pumps and a few oilfield offices and sheds.

We have decreased the response times in the rural areas over the last 5 years by installing a mobile home at 4 of our 5 volunteer stations, and allowing up to 2 members to live there for free in exchange for a 45-hour duty week. It has made a difference in response when they are there at a minimum investment to us.

Our rural response time is as good, if not better than most rural areas. The simple fact is that you can't slow down the clock and you can't produce a ton of volunteers in sparsley popluated areas. Living in a rural area will always have it's drawback, and often delayed fire, EMS and LE response is on of them. And any long time resident of those areas understand, and generally accept, that reality.

2. So what exactly do we not train for? And ten bucks says you will bring up 2nd story winndow rescues, which is certainly not the same situation as bread and butter structural fire rescues.

Are there other areas that get equal priority? Yes. And yes, the liklihood of using a particuliar skill, such as extrication, brush fire operations or EMS, does factor into how it gets mixed into the training schedule.

We do search and rescue training on a regular basis. In fact, we just replaced our small burn building with 3 attached Conex's, which will give the members a much larger area to train on search operations.

[tajm611]

I'm just bringing up your point of "training to your area". You've stated that there are many things you do not find worth your time to train on as they are not situations you'd likely face, given they either do not exist or they happen so rarely. Given such stated low chances of viable victim rescues, how do you rationalize continued training on rescue and place others on a "we don't face that kind of problem here"?

[LaFireEducator]

I'm just bringing up your point of "training to your area". You've stated that there are many things you do not find worth your time to train on as they are not situations you'd likely face, given they either do not exist or they happen so rarely. Given such stated low chances of viable victim rescues, how do you rationalize continued training on rescue and place others on a "we don't face that kind of problem here"?

Yes, there are things that we either do not exist in our response area, or could face but are unlikely to, that we do not train on because of time limitations, especially with the volunteer members.

However, because structural fire rescue is a basic fire department function that can happen in any building within our area, as compared to say, 2nd floor rescues, which can only happen in an extremly limited number of occupancies in our area, it's a skill that we do train on often even though it's a very rare response function for us.

Training time with volunteers is limited so therefore, we must train on the most likely scenarios first.

[RFD21C]

LA thank you for ruining another thread on this site. I have an idea lets start an LAfire thread on the main forum if you want to bash LA you post it in there. You all can argue with him all you want.

[tajm611]

Yes, there are things that we either do not exist in our response area, or could face but are unlikely to, that we do not train on because of time limitations, especially with the volunteer members.

However, because structural fire rescue is a basic fire department function that can happen in any building within our area, as compared to say, 2nd floor rescues, which can only happen in an extremly limited number of occupancies in our area, it's a skill that we do train on often even though it's a very rare response function for us.

Training time with volunteers is limited so therefore, we must train on the most likely scenarios first.

Just so I know I'm fully understanding you:

You're fully suggesting that fires in your area are prediomently routine in nature. A least routine enough that you are able to nearly predict both conditions on arrival and/or predict both skills and resources needed to get it under control.

Though the basic fire ground operation of rescue is used in all but the most limited of circumstances, it's operation is both trained on and utilized, yet, many other basic fire ground operations, also rare and chances of utilization are low, are completely logical to both omit and ignore.

In a nut shell, this is what you're saying?