1. #26
    makes good girls go bad
    BLSboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    On the beach, Fla/OCNJ
    Posts
    2,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firemedic 61 View Post
    No sweat AJ, we actually do administer to suspected exposures as well, I see I left that out. Also add dilated pupils to the list.
    Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.

    Does every ALS unit carry them, Rescues only, or just selected units?
    AJ, MICP, FireMedic
    Member, IACOJ.
    FTM-PTB-EGH-DTRT-RFB-KTF
    This message has been made longer, in part from a grant from the You Are a Freaking Moron Foundation.

  2. #27
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    The cost is a major factor here - some ten times the cost for the same exact item in Europe, which is one reason they are using it as much as they are, and we aren't. This can probably be fixed with a few well-placed kicks in the pants.
    I can only tell you the experience of my former department. Our union pushed for a WeFit program against all the bureaucratic opposition our chief and his risk managers could put in the way. It was finally instituted and within three years the department's workers comp costs had dropped by 50%. There were several co-workers who were in such bad shape physically they made the decision to retire after getting the results of their baseline physicals.

    The physicals were comprised of blood work, vision, hearing, eyesight, cardio capacity and strength measurement.

    They are performed annually. When our chief retired he touted the success of the program as though he had been instrumental in its adoption. When the opposite was just the case.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #28
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnyv View Post
    "What we need to push for are complete NFPA physicals and mandatory physical fitness standards and mandatory rehab as laid out by the NFPA and IAFF."

    I'm all for higher fitness and health standards. But what it boils down to is this-how many of the guys that we work with are we willing to put out of work to get to 0 LODDs?
    And how many small, rural VFDs running on 15 or 20K are year are we willing to bankrupt and force to shutdown due to either/or a lack of funding remaining for operations or lack of remaining manpower?

    I'm all for physicals and standards. The problem is paying for it and dealing with the manpower issues.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  4. #29
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And how many small, rural VFDs running on 15 or 20K are year are we willing to bankrupt and force to shutdown due to either/or a lack of funding remaining for operations or lack of remaining manpower?

    I'm all for physicals and standards. The problem is paying for it and dealing with the manpower issues.
    I'm willing to bankrupt all of them if it means that I as a taxpayer depending on those services can be assured those responding won't become an incident while responding to an incident.

    Thank you for asking.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #30
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    There seems to be a growing sentiment that the cause of at least some of our "after the fact" deaths (returns to station, doesn't feel well, collapses, cannot be revived despite efforts of rescuers on scene at the time) may be due to cyanide poisoning, as opposed to "poor lifestyle choices."

    Studies I've heard of (third hand, unfortunately) have shown that even fire personnel working outside the fire building show increased levels of cyanide after an incident.

    In Europe it is now apparently standard practice to give smoke inhalation victims a "Cyanokit" - the antidote for cyanide. Recovery rates have markedly improved, from what I hear.

    While we often do need to improve our lifestyles, we also need to be looking for other reasons for some of these otherwise unexplained deaths.

    There's a lot of crap in that smoke we breathe (and even more of it after the fire is "out").
    It's certainly true that cyanide poisoning may be contributing to some LODDs and that a thorough investigation into the cause of death should be performed on any LODD in which a seemingly healthy person dies.

    However, this doesn't detract from my point regarding the original point of discussion. The bigger issue regarding LODDs annually is not our on scene tactics, it's various medical related circumstances and how we operate our apparatus.

    If we can get a hold of these issues, we should see a much greater drop in LODDs annually than we would see switching to a defensive mindset.

  6. #31
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I'm willing to bankrupt all of them if it means that I as a taxpayer depending on those services can be assured those responding won't become an incident while responding to an incident.

    Thank you for asking.
    WSo just out of curiousity, what do you plan on replacing them with? I mean .... Do you really beleive that no fire protection is better than some fire protection?

    Just asking.

    And by the way, what about all the career and combo departments that have had full-time firefighters go down causing an incident within an incident? Do you plan on shutting them down as well?
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  7. #32
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And by the way, what about all the career and combo departments that have had full-time firefighters go down causing an incident within an incident? Do you plan on shutting them down as well?
    Are you really this obtuse?

    Right or wrong, in doing what is being advocated the small, poor, rural volunteer department that you are worried about would "shut down" because they lack sufficient manpower to continue being a fire department.

    If held to the same standard, the career/combo departments would not need to be shut down, they would simply hire more firefighters - whether it be for replacement of career firefighters who no longer meet the fitness standard or additional career firefighters to make up for any volunteers lost.

  8. #33
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Are you really this obtuse?

    Right or wrong, in doing what is being advocated the small, poor, rural volunteer department that you are worried about would "shut down" because they lack sufficient manpower to continue being a fire department.

    If held to the same standard, the career/combo departments would not need to be shut down, they would simply hire more firefighters - whether it be for replacement of career firefighters who no longer meet the fitness standard or additional career firefighters to make up for any volunteers lost.
    I'm very well aware of that. The manpower issue is not an issue in career departments as it's a simple fix when they lose bodies that may not past muster .. simply hire new personnel.

    My point ot SC was simple. When volunteer departments lose manpower it's not as simple as going out and hiring replacements. It's more than likely that they would be down the number of members they have lost. There are many rural departments in this area that right now are running with fewer than 15 members, and if NFPA criteria was used for the physicals, would likely lose 3-5personnel, which would make emergency response a very dufficult situation, even if they implemented an automatic mutual aid system (primarily due to distance between departments and the size of the districts).

    On the career side, the question does have to be asked again ..... SC how many career personnel are you willing to see dismissed from thier positions to achieve full complaince with the NFPA standard?
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  9. #34
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I'm very well aware of that. The manpower issue is not an issue in career departments as it's a simple fix when they lose bodies that may not past muster .. simply hire new personnel.

    My point ot SC was simple. When volunteer departments lose manpower it's not as simple as going out and hiring replacements. It's more than likely that they would be down the number of members they have lost. There are many rural departments in this area that right now are running with fewer than 15 members, and if NFPA criteria was used for the physicals, would likely lose 3-5personnel, which would make emergency response a very dufficult situation, even if they implemented an automatic mutual aid system (primarily due to distance between departments and the size of the districts).
    If that was your point, then like usual, you did a really poor job of making it.

    On the career side, the question does have to be asked again ..... SC how many career personnel are you willing to see dismissed from thier positions to achieve full complaince with the NFPA standard?
    Actually, this would be the first time for this question. The question in your previous post, at least as written, was about shutting down departments, not dismissing career personnel.

  10. #35
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    If that was your point, then like usual, you did a really poor job of making it.

    At least I'm consistent.

    Actually, this would be the first time for this question. The question in your previous post, at least as written, was about shutting down departments, not dismissing career personnel.
    That question was actually asked by another poster a few posts up, however, SC hasn't answered it as of yet. I was simply reminding him that the question is still pending
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  11. #36
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    If we can get a hold of these issues, we should see a much greater drop in LODDs annually than we would see switching to a defensive mindset.
    Agreed.

    I would opine that aside from the specific example of going defensive (and despite not saying so specifically, I do think he was referring to lightweight construction), the overall message is that we need to think "outside the box."

    If we continue to do things because we've always done them that way, the outcome isn't going to change.
    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

  12. #37
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    That question was actually asked by another poster a few posts up, however, SC hasn't answered it as of yet. I was simply reminding him that the question is still pending
    I just looked back thru this thread and I don't see any poster other than you discussing the dismissal of career firefighters in regards to NFPA standard compliance. Maybe you can show me that post?

  13. #38
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    Agreed.

    I would opine that aside from the specific example of going defensive (and despite not saying so specifically, I do think he was referring to lightweight construction), the overall message is that we need to think "outside the box."

    If we continue to do things because we've always done them that way, the outcome isn't going to change.
    I would agree with that message, however I take issue with trying to sell that message as a fix for a problem that doesn't necessarily exist on the level being implied. Tactics do need to change when dealing with lightweight construction, however we aren't exactly dying in droves due to recent tactics in these buildings and saying or implying otherwise is clearly inaccurate.

  14. #39
    Forum Member
    gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I just looked back thru this thread and I don't see any poster other than you discussing the dismissal of career firefighters in regards to NFPA standard compliance. Maybe you can show me that post?
    God (and all real firemen) forgive me for actually helping LaF make a point, but FireMedic61 responded to my point about this in post #16:

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gunnyv
    I'm all for higher fitness and health standards. But what it boils down to is this-how many of the guys that we work with are we willing to put out of work to get to 0 LODDs?

    FireMedic 61
    "I don't want to see anyone let go but on the flip side, are you willing to bite it because these guys would rather eat crap and sit in the Lazy-Boy all day? I'm all for helping these guys out, thats part of the brotherhood."

  15. #40
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnyv View Post
    God (and all real firemen) forgive me for actually helping LaF make a point, but FireMedic61 responded to my point about this in post #16:

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gunnyv
    I'm all for higher fitness and health standards. But what it boils down to is this-how many of the guys that we work with are we willing to put out of work to get to 0 LODDs?

    FireMedic 61
    "I don't want to see anyone let go but on the flip side, are you willing to bite it because these guys would rather eat crap and sit in the Lazy-Boy all day? I'm all for helping these guys out, thats part of the brotherhood."
    Yeah, I saw those posts, but LA appears to be implying that the question was directed to scfire86 however he hadn't even posted in the thread at that point. So IMO these posts can't be what he was referring to.

  16. #41
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,087

    Default

    LA - yes , I do believe there are times when no fire protection is better than some fire protection. If the "some" fire protection gives the public a false sense of security.
    ?

  17. #42
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Yeah, I saw those posts, but LA appears to be implying that the question was directed to scfire86 however he hadn't even posted in the thread at that point. So IMO these posts can't be what he was referring to.

    I'm willing to bankrupt all of them if it means that I as a taxpayer depending on those services can be assured those responding won't become an incident while responding to an incident.


    SCs post:

    SCs post implied that he had no issue with shutting down VFDs if they did not meet increased standards regarding physical fitness or if they had to shut down because they couldn;t pay the bills and pay for physicals. My question was directed at him regarding that fact, and did he have any problems letting career firefifghters go, who also may not acheive the physical fitness standards, as he seemingly would letting go volunteers.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 11-14-2011 at 04:40 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  18. #43
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    LA - yes , I do believe there are times when no fire protection is better than some fire protection. If the "some" fire protection gives the public a false sense of security.
    In many rural places, the citizens are very well aware of what the local VFD is capable and not capable of doing, and the majority of the long-term population knows that the VFDs have limited structural firefighting capbility. They understand that this is the trade-off for living in a rural envoroment with a limited number of neighbors (manpower pool to pull from) and very low taxes (funding for the department).

    There are departments here that the citizens know have limited manpower and limited training regarding structure fires. They understand that they are primarily brush and exposure protection outfits, but they also understand the reasons why that is the case.

    And most of them have no issue with the local VFD.

    There is a department in a neighboring parish that has a VERY limited response night and often NO response during the day. During one of our frequent and many mutual aid responses, one of the citizens asked where we were from, and we told them "Bossier Parish over on Highway 80". The response was "that's a long way. Thanks for coming. It's too bad our boys can't respond to all the calls or do more but they try, and we appreciatte that they make the effort."

    Most of the citizens of the district understand the situation and feel that way as there has been no grassroots effort or demands to change leadership or the operation.

    In a perfect world, that wouldn't be the case. However, the world ain't perfect.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 11-14-2011 at 04:48 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  19. #44
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    OK, I see we've moved on to the backtracking portion of the debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post

    I'm willing to bankrupt all of them if it means that I as a taxpayer depending on those services can be assured those responding won't become an incident while responding to an incident.


    SCs post:

    SCs post implied that he had no issue with shutting down VFDs if they did not meet increased standards regarding physical fitness or if they had to shut down because they couldn;t pay the bills and pay for physicals.
    Yes, I would agree that he implied that.
    My question was directed at him regarding that fact, and did he have any problems letting career firefifghters go, who also may not acheive the physical fitness standards, as he seemingly would letting go volunteers.
    As I already pointed out, your question to him was not about "letting career firefighters go". It may have been your intention, but the actual question asked was about career/combo departments being shut down.

    I then called you out on this misguided question. Your response was a restatement of your position along with asking SC about letting career firefighters go due to fitness standards.

    At this point, I commented on your poor attempt at making your point and pointed out that your first question was about departments and not individual firefighters. Then you stated that somebody else had asked him the question regarding individual firefighters first and that you were only reminding him that he hadn't answered.

    Now, you don't seem to be able to answer my question as to the existence of this other poster who supposedly asked the question of SC before you.

    So, like usual, you appear to be separated from reality and full of $h!t!

  20. #45
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    In many rural places, the citizens are very well aware of what the local VFD is capable and not capable of doing, and the majority of the long-term population knows that the VFDs have limited structural firefighting capbility. They understand that this is the trade-off for living in a rural envoroment with a limited number of neighbors (manpower pool to pull from) and very low taxes (funding for the department).

    There are departments here that the citizens know have limited manpower and limited training regarding structure fires. They understand that they are primarily brush and exposure protection outfits, but they also understand the reasons why that is the case.

    And most of them have no issue with the local VFD...............

    In a perfect world, that wouldn't be the case. However, the world ain't perfect.
    And there are suburban areas, like in my region, in which the local VFD really doesn't have the capabilities that the community probably expects from them and I'm sure if they actually knew, most would have an issue with the local VFD.

  21. #46
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Whenever I hear these safety freaks try to push all defensive tactics I think of this famous speech......

    "There is however, something wrong with today's leadership and the message they are spreading. The path they have chosen to follow is paved with yellow safety bricks. If you follow this road it could cause the fire service to suffer it's greatest collective loss...THE LOSS OF PUBLIC TRUST.

    Think about it for a second. All the good will we have accumulated, the faith, the support, gone. Why? Because we have changed the pecking order. The firefighter is now number one, and the public is now number two. I always thought that the customer was number one.

    I believe that the constant barrage of safety messages is undermining our sworn duty. A fire department that writes off civilians faster that an express line of six reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, BECAUSE IT IS RUN BY FEAR. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them."

  22. #47
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    WSo just out of curiousity, what do you plan on replacing them with? I mean .... Do you really beleive that no fire protection is better than some fire protection?
    That's a question with a false premise. It makes the assumption there are no alternatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Just asking.
    Badly.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And by the way, what about all the career and combo departments that have had full-time firefighters go down causing an incident within an incident? Do you plan on shutting them down as well?
    What about them? I'd be willing to shut them down as well if their personnel are evaluated and found to be lacking for the physical requirements of the job.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #48
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    LA - yes , I do believe there are times when no fire protection is better than some fire protection. If the "some" fire protection gives the public a false sense of security.
    Agreed....
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  24. #49
    Forum Member
    RyanK63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fleetville, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffhh74 View Post
    Whenever I hear these safety freaks try to push all defensive tactics I think of this famous speech......

    "There is however, something wrong with today's leadership and the message they are spreading. The path they have chosen to follow is paved with yellow safety bricks. If you follow this road it could cause the fire service to suffer it's greatest collective loss...THE LOSS OF PUBLIC TRUST.

    Think about it for a second. All the good will we have accumulated, the faith, the support, gone. Why? Because we have changed the pecking order. The firefighter is now number one, and the public is now number two. I always thought that the customer was number one.

    I believe that the constant barrage of safety messages is undermining our sworn duty. A fire department that writes off civilians faster that an express line of six reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, BECAUSE IT IS RUN BY FEAR. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them."

    Great speech. Lt. McCormack knows what he is talking about.
    "If it was easy, someone else would of done it already." - Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    - Firefighter 1 / HAZMAT Ops / EMT-B

  25. #50
    makes good girls go bad
    BLSboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    On the beach, Fla/OCNJ
    Posts
    2,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffhh74 View Post
    Whenever I hear these safety freaks try to push all defensive tactics I think of this famous speech......

    "There is however, something wrong with today's leadership and the message they are spreading. The path they have chosen to follow is paved with yellow safety bricks. If you follow this road it could cause the fire service to suffer it's greatest collective loss...THE LOSS OF PUBLIC TRUST.

    Think about it for a second. All the good will we have accumulated, the faith, the support, gone. Why? Because we have changed the pecking order. The firefighter is now number one, and the public is now number two. I always thought that the customer was number one.

    I believe that the constant barrage of safety messages is undermining our sworn duty. A fire department that writes off civilians faster that an express line of six reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, BECAUSE IT IS RUN BY FEAR. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them."
    But that blows holes clear through the "EGH" mindset. You mean we can't all go home, even if we do our jobs right?!

    Whats next, you tell me we have to get up and run calls at night?

    Excellent point Sir. FTM-PTB.
    AJ, MICP, FireMedic
    Member, IACOJ.
    FTM-PTB-EGH-DTRT-RFB-KTF
    This message has been made longer, in part from a grant from the You Are a Freaking Moron Foundation.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. World Of Fire Report: 11-23-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-24-2005, 09:04 AM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 11-17-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-18-2005, 07:57 PM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 09-07-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-08-2005, 08:23 PM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 04-03-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-04-2004, 01:58 PM
  5. World Of Fire Report: 12-16-03
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-17-2003, 08:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register