1. #51
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,289

    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."
    And this mindset is why we'll continue killing firefighters on the fireground.

    Just as iconic is this (Risk Benefit?):
    We will risk a lot to save a lot,
    We will risk little to save little,
    We will risk nothing to save nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo
    Just what it says...so everyone goes home at the end of the tour!
    The linked thread is nearly ten years old. Not much has changed.
    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

  2. #52
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    109

    Default

    What mindset? The mindset that we were sworn in to protect lives and property, and that is what I'm going to do? Don't get me wrong...there is aggressive firefighting and just plain dumb firefighting. But if you're telling me that if I have the mindset that I will do what I was sworn in to do is absurd, then I feel bad for the people and property you are sworn to protect.

    FTM-PTB

  3. #53
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,599

    Default

    That's a question with a false premise. It makes the assumption there are no alternatives.

    Problem is, and what you don't seem to get is that in most cases there simply are no alternatives in a "town" of 2,000 people over maybe a district of 100 square miles. There simply isn't the funding for anything but a volunteer department and there are a very limited number of citizens capable of volunteering, either because of physical limitations, workplace demands or family demands.

    There is also no real possibility of consolidation as likely the next fire district over has the exact same demographics.

    So in many cases an primarily exterior department that primarily covers exposures and handles brush and vehicle incidents is the best game... or should I say the only game ... in town.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  4. #54
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    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.
    Not going to argue with that as suburban volunteer departments should be better trained and perform better than their rural counter parts.

    They generally have better funding which leads to better equipment and should lead to better training, and they are busier, which gives them more experience and more hands-on time.

    Again, the expectations will depend on the community.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  5. #55
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    537

    Default

    I will go out on a limb and say that given proper implementation and fair physical standards any career firefighter should be let go. The key points are proper implementation and fair standards. By that I mean first any new members need to meet and maintain the given standard or lose their job. 2nd any current members need to be given the proper tools and time to enact healthy change to meet these standards

    As for fair standard: The standard must change with age. Obviously a 20 year old firefighter should be help to a higher standard then a 50 year old firefighter. I will even go as far as saying male and female should be different. Male and female bodies are built differently. Men have more muscle mass then women and are distributed differently naturally and women have a higher percent of body fat. A perfect example is the marine corps fitness standards.



    Face facts: We in the career fire service are required to maintain a level of fitness. In not doing so it is a dereliction of duty. If I show up to work out of uniform enough times I will get fired. However, if i show up to work fat and out of shape I am ok. Does anyone see a problem with that? What happens to pro-football players if they are not in-shape to do their job?

    I personally feel that any firefighter that wears the uniform that is grossly overweight is not only unfit for duty he is a liablity to himself and his team.

    So yes IMO if a firefighter is out of shape and cannot meet the minimum fitness standards then he should be relieved of duty. Provided that he is given every chance to fix the problem.

  6. #56
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    And this mindset is why we'll continue killing firefighters on the fireground.
    I beg to differ.

    First, firefighters are killed on the fireground in part because firefighting is inherently an ultra hazardous activity (at least that's what the NFPA label on my gear says). Additionally, offensive operations are not the only activity on the fireground in which firefighters are killed.

    According to the USFA, the number of LODDs on the scene of a structural fire over the last 3 years is: 2008 - 21 of 118 (17.8%), 2009 - 19 of 90 (21.1%) & 2010 - 14 of 87 (16.1%). The info on their annual reports is a little difficult to pare down to some specific details, but it appeared that these "on the fireground" fatality figures include all LODDs at a structural fire, not just those "killed in the fire".

    To me, statistically speaking, these numbers are not really a sign of an epidemic showing the clear need for immediate and drastic changes to our on scene operations. Are there things we can and should do to work on reducing those numbers? Absolutely, because I'm sure that at least some were the result of correctable "human error" in some fashion, whether it be a single really bad/careless decision or the culmination of a series of factors leading to the LODD.

    We need to be sure that we are adequately training our firefighters (at all levels) to make good recognition based decisions in the heat of the moment in order to stay out of trouble.

    There is nothing wrong with operating defensively when appropriate, but that should not be our "default" position. Nothing good comes from that mindset when the absolute need to switch to an offensive operation happens.

  7. #57
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Not going to argue with that as suburban volunteer departments should be better trained and perform better than their rural counter parts.

    They generally have better funding which leads to better equipment and should lead to better training, and they are busier, which gives them more experience and more hands-on time.

    The point wasn't that suburban VFDs should be "better" prepared than rural VFDs. The point was that too many of them aren't prepared/able to meet what is likely the expectation of the community - competent, capable and timely performance of duty - yet the community likely isn't aware of this limitation.

    Again, the expectations will depend on the community.
    Right and there are communities in which the expectations of their VFD exceed the VFD's capabilities, but the community doesn't know that. In part, because many VFDs are not willing to be truly honest with the community regarding their limitations. In some cases, the VFD isn't even willing to be honest with itself regarding their limitations.

  8. #58
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Problem is, and what you don't seem to get is that in most cases there simply are no alternatives in a "town" of 2,000 people over maybe a district of 100 square miles. There simply isn't the funding for anything but a volunteer department and there are a very limited number of citizens capable of volunteering, either because of physical limitations, workplace demands or family demands.
    I get the point. You have this belief that a bunch of folks wanting to play fireman is protection. What it really is, is an umbrella that melts in the rain.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    There is also no real possibility of consolidation as likely the next fire district over has the exact same demographics.
    And I still have no problem bankrupting them to avoid knuckleheads in uniform.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So in many cases an primarily exterior department that primarily covers exposures and handles brush and vehicle incidents is the best game... or should I say the only game ... in town.
    Which is worthless.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #59
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    And this mindset is why we'll continue killing firefighters on the fireground.

    Just as iconic is this (Risk Benefit?):
    We will risk a lot to save a lot,
    We will risk little to save little,
    We will risk nothing to save nothing.



    The linked thread is nearly ten years old. Not much has changed.

    No, your mindset is what is wrong. What you define as saving little can mean the difference between a quick hit and overhaul or a 4 alarm for us. If we go in a vacant to prevent a block from burning, we're reckless as dangerous. If we let them burn, we're looking at a whole group of people losing their homes and maybe their live. I would imagine the safest thing to do would be kill the fire before it spreads but that's frowned upon.

    What many consider very dangerous can be your average call for others. This is why the blanket statement is ignorant. I've never found a victim in a vacant, normally when we find them, they become occupied structures. While its entertaining to see rationalization for doing nothing, it doesn't help anything.

    Want to see a major reduction in LODD's? Tighten up on the difference between dying in the line of duty and dying in a close approximation to your last shift. Make it mandatory to shape up or ship out. Make quality education available to all instead of who can pay someone to write the best grants. Learn from NIOSH reports instead of using them as ammo for personal agendas. EGH is great, but it's name is now synonymous for those who use it as a shield to hide their ignorance. It seems if you speak out about an obviously flawed system then you "clearly support firefighter deaths." This can't be any further from the truth.

    There is a major difference between telling a man he is incapable of doing a job and needs to get his **** together and telling him he's fine the way he is but needs a yellow vest. I always find it funny when certain people cry over the loss of manpower. If you lose 5 guys from them failing a physical, you didn't have them o begin with, and now you're not wasting your money on them. Congratulations, logic solved your problem.

    The risk a lot save a lot model was 'created' for PERSONAL size up, not worldwide fireground law. At the end of the day, if you're neglecting your men's health, allowing substandard levels of training and education, and refusing to realize fire is no longer public enemy number one... Then you really have no room to talk.









    Note: 99% of this wasn't directed at you personally tree, while we differ greatly in opinion of where safe and dangerous meet on paper, I don't think we'd make many different decisions on the fire ground.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  10. #60
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    *many of the same decisions*

    Sorry
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  11. #61
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,599

    Default

    I get the point. You have this belief that a bunch of folks wanting to play fireman is protection. What it really is, is an umbrella that melts in the rain.

    The point is the community is usually well aware of that fact, and they are willing to accept it because they know there are really no other options. That's honestly what it boils down to.

    And I still have no problem bankrupting them to avoid knuckleheads in uniform.

    So what's your plan for fire protection?
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  12. #62
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    No, your mindset is what is wrong. What you define as saving little can mean the difference between a quick hit and overhaul or a 4 alarm for us.

    I think everyone here recognizes that a vacant structure fire in the middle of a city block is a very different situation from a vacant in the middle of the stix. Nobody is argueing that. And I think that urban situation demands a level of aggressiveness far beyond what is required in the rural setting, which again, most of us have never disagreed with. The problem comes when those in your situation have the expecatations that those in the rural situation should act with the same level of aggressiveness, and if the rural folks don't, they are somehow not perforing the duties of a fire department or a firefighter.

    If we go in a vacant to prevent a block from burning, we're reckless as dangerous. If we let them burn, we're looking at a whole group of people losing their homes and maybe their live. I would imagine the safest thing to do would be kill the fire before it spreads but that's frowned upon.

    Even you must admit there are situations where that fire in the vacant could be stopped with a defensive operation, however, and offensive operation is still conducted. I think the point here is that we all recognize that there are situations as you just described that require interior ops, but in a vacant, interior ops should only be conducted if a defensive operation won't do the trick.

    What many consider very dangerous can be your average call for others. This is why the blanket statement is ignorant.

    Don't disagree.I have stated many times that a two room job is a fairly routine incident for FDNY, or even Shreveport, but it's a little more serious incident for my combo department and a major incident for a rural VFD, including my volunteer department. It all depends on resources, training and exoperience.

    I've never found a victim in a vacant, normally when we find them, they become occupied structures. While its entertaining to see rationalization for doing nothing, it doesn't help anything.

    Disagree here. A vacant is always a vacant.

    Want to see a major reduction in LODD's? Tighten up on the difference between dying in the line of duty and dying in a close approximation to your last shift.

    So you disagree that there is more often than not a causual link? By changing the rules of the game and denying those famalies benefitswe have somehow reduced the problem? Sorry but that's just playing with the numbers to make the problem look smaller than it is.

    Make it mandatory to shape up or ship out.

    For career members who can workout on duty, no problem with that here. For volunteers juggling work and family as well as training requirements and runs at the department you now want to add another demand. I have a problem with that.

    Make quality education available to all instead of who can pay someone to write the best grants.

    Amen. You have any ideas where LSU can get the additional funding?

    Learn from NIOSH reports instead of using them as ammo for personal agendas.

    Have several on my bookshelf right now. In fact, just reread one yesterday. There are many departments that rarely if ever crack them open, and that is a shame.

    EGH is great, but it's name is now synonymous for those who use it as a shield to hide their ignorance. It seems if you speak out about an obviously flawed system then you "clearly support firefighter deaths." This can't be any further from the truth.

    There is a major difference between telling a man he is incapable of doing a job and needs to get his **** together and telling him he's fine the way he is but needs a yellow vest. I always find it funny when certain people cry over the loss of manpower. If you lose 5 guys from them failing a physical, you didn't have them o begin with, and now you're not wasting your money on them. Congratulations, logic solved your problem.

    That's 5 guys who could drive and pump a truck, set up a pond and dump tankers, fill tankers, set up fans, set up lights, throw ladders and 50 other limited duty functions that they now can't perform on the fireground. To a small rural VFD those 5 guys are a criticial loss and tthat is why I am so passionatte about the manpower affects of physicals on rural departments. Very few folks on a rural VFD is a waste of money.

    The risk a lot save a lot model was 'created' for PERSONAL size up, not worldwide fireground law. At the end of the day, if you're neglecting your men's health, allowing substandard levels of training and education, and refusing to realize fire is no longer public enemy number one... Then you really have no room to talk.


    Note: 99% of this wasn't directed at you personally tree, while we differ greatly in opinion of where safe and dangerous meet on paper, I don't think we'd make many different decisions on the fire ground.
    We take risk far too often and generally for far too little benefit. Yes, there are situations where high risk is warrented, but depending on the world you operate in, those situations range from occasionally to almost never.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 11-15-2011 at 09:23 AM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  13. #63
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I beg to differ.

    First, firefighters are killed on the fireground in part because firefighting is inherently an ultra hazardous activity (at least that's what the NFPA label on my gear says). Additionally, offensive operations are not the only activity on the fireground in which firefighters are killed.

    According to the USFA, the number of LODDs on the scene of a structural fire over the last 3 years is: 2008 - 21 of 118 (17.8%), 2009 - 19 of 90 (21.1%) & 2010 - 14 of 87 (16.1%). The info on their annual reports is a little difficult to pare down to some specific details, but it appeared that these "on the fireground" fatality figures include all LODDs at a structural fire, not just those "killed in the fire".

    To me, statistically speaking, these numbers are not really a sign of an epidemic showing the clear need for immediate and drastic changes to our on scene operations. Are there things we can and should do to work on reducing those numbers? Absolutely, because I'm sure that at least some were the result of correctable "human error" in some fashion, whether it be a single really bad/careless decision or the culmination of a series of factors leading to the LODD.

    We need to be sure that we are adequately training our firefighters (at all levels) to make good recognition based decisions in the heat of the moment in order to stay out of trouble.

    There is nothing wrong with operating defensively when appropriate, but that should not be our "default" position.
    Nothing good comes from that mindset when the absolute need to switch to an offensive operation happens.
    This... well said.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  14. #64
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Want to see a major reduction in LODD's? Tighten up on the difference between dying in the line of duty and dying in a close approximation to your last shift.

    So you disagree that there is more often than not a causual link? By changing the rules of the game and denying those famalies benefits we have somehow reduced the problem? Sorry but that's just playing with the numbers to make the problem look smaller than it is.
    For the purposes of this discussion I think there is merit to distinguishing between fire ground LODD that are caused by operational/tactical factors and those that are not. From a learning and adapting perspective there is a huge difference between a LODD that occurred because of a tactical oversight and one that occurred despite flawless operations. I'm not talking about benefits, or trying to downplay the loss that occurs because of a LODD. I'm simply saying that some point to a need to review, educate, and adapt our operations and others don't.. right now they're all dumped into the same statistical pool.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  15. #65
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,034

    Default

    LA - things must be way different when you cross the border - up here most (not all) of the citizens see a fire station in their area and expect a timely well trained response.
    And I agree with taj - if you lose 5 guys , you only had them on paper.
    Maybe there is some middle ground , but I fear if you count truck drivers and "fan setters" as fireman ---- what are you going to do when thats all that shows up ?
    ?

  16. #66
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9 View Post
    For the purposes of this discussion I think there is merit to distinguishing between fire ground LODD that are caused by operational/tactical factors and those that are not. From a learning and adapting perspective there is a huge difference between a LODD that occurred because of a tactical oversight and one that occurred despite flawless operations. I'm not talking about benefits, or trying to downplay the loss that occurs because of a LODD. I'm simply saying that some point to a need to review, educate, and adapt our operations and others don't.. right now they're all dumped into the same statistical pool.
    Wouild not be opposed to the idea that maybe somehow they should be seperated for the purposes of review, however I think we both agree that changing to catagories should not change the benefits status.

    The only problem I see with that is that some of those non-fireground fatalities may actaully have been caused by a stressor on the fireground, and I could see an issue with some folks now using that to cite that the fireground is a less dangerous place than it actually is due the change in the numbers.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  17. #67
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    Note: 99% of this wasn't directed at you personally tree, while we differ greatly in opinion of where safe and dangerous meet on paper, I don't think we'd make many different decisions on the fire ground.
    Precisely.

    Many have focused on the blanket statement in the original post, saying it's a dereliction of our duty. Taken at face value, I agree.

    However, just as wrong is the "Zomygod, there's a fire! We have to PUT IT OUT AT ALL COSTS!" mindset that some seem to embrace. Ever watch an excited firefighter wet down the eaves because smoke is pushing out of the attic?

    I still believe the intent was to suggest that we need to "think outside the box." To question if "because we've always done it that way" is the right answer. Maybe it is, and if it is, there's no reason to change. But if it turns out that it isn't, we need to accept the change.

    The truth, as you note, is somewhere in the middle ground, a place where most of us operate.

    There are buildings/situations we should never enter. And there are buildings/situations we should have no compunction about entering.

    And yes, there are many other areas we can improve upon. Like wearing seat belts - so simple, yet we read of incident after incident where firefighter were ejected from apparatus or their POV. We should be setting a good example here, not serving as a bad example.

    If seat belts are one of McCormack's "yellow bricks," then we all need to step on it on the way down the road.

    Despite the histrionics, when it comes right down to it, I believe we'd find we're all on the same page here.
    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

  18. #68
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    LA - things must be way different when you cross the border - up here most (not all) of the citizens see a fire station in their area and expect a timely well trained response.
    And I agree with taj - if you lose 5 guys , you only had them on paper.
    Maybe there is some middle ground , but I fear if you count truck drivers and "fan setters" as fireman ---- what are you going to do when thats all that shows up ?
    Disagree with that statement in that I have served in a couple of very rural departments in the northeast, and the community viewed the fire department in the same light some cimmunities view the department down here. They lived in the same community so they fully understood the manpower and funding restrictions thier department operated under, as well as the distance and time factors involved in receieving mutual aid.

    They fully understood that thier department did not have the same capabilities of the department in the nearest "big city" (of 10,000) and understood that unless thier taxes were significantly increased, they never would.

    As far as your point about the drivers and fan setters being "paper members", who is going to replace them if they are not on the department? Interior members? The simple fact is those support and exterior folks on small rural departments that are likely to fail the physical are the folks that allow the limited number of interior personnel on the department to, well, go interior and not have to perform pump operations, tanker operations and other exterior "fan setting" functions. Based on that one could easily argue that those exterior folks amy in fact be more critical than the interior members.

    Bottom line is the loss of what you call paper members will be critical losses for small rural VFDs as they free up the younger and more fit members to go interior.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 11-15-2011 at 10:22 AM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  19. #69
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    "Disagree here. A vacant is always a vacant."
    Reading comprehension must be a real bitch for you.



    Why are you so dense? Reread what I said and try and understand it.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  20. #70
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,034

    Default

    I guess we disagree on the very basic - I dont even use the term "interior" firefighter. I shouldnt have to pick and choose on who cant do what , rather who is best. Maybe starting something like a fire police or a salvage corp type seperate organzition would be an option. I just disagree with lumping all together. And maybe a pr campaign on the deffiencies of some fds would be in order.
    ?

  21. #71
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The point is the community is usually well aware of that fact, and they are willing to accept it because they know there are really no other options. That's honestly what it boils down to.
    Your opinion. I doubt it is anywhere near credible.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So what's your plan for fire protection?
    Nothing. That is currently what is being provided.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  22. #72
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Would not be opposed to the idea that maybe somehow they should be separated for the purposes of review, however I think we both agree that changing to categories should not change the benefits status.

    The only problem I see with that is that some of those non-fireground fatalities may actaully have been caused by a stressor on the fireground, and I could see an issue with some folks now using that to cite that the fireground is a less dangerous place than it actually is due the change in the numbers.
    We should count them as 'fire ground' but be able to differentiate between those primarily due to tactical factors and those due to health/stress factors.

    If there is a close-call, injury, or LODD due to something that occurred operationally, such as the floor collapsing or flash over then there is a lot we can all learn by looking at that event and decisions made. Do our tactics have to adapt so that such an event is less likely to occur again?

    This is different then injury/deaths caused primarily due to stress where it may not have as much to do with the tactics and more to due with the health of the member and any preexisting conditions. Even here there is a gray area when you look at the cyanide poisoning being a contributing factor and any operational changes required to mitigate it.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  23. #73
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Sunny South Florida
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFD21C View Post
    As for fair standard: The standard must change with age. Obviously a 20 year old firefighter should be help to a higher standard then a 50 year old firefighter. I will even go as far as saying male and female should be different. Male and female bodies are built differently. Men have more muscle mass then women and are distributed differently naturally and women have a higher percent of body fat. A perfect example is the marine corps fitness standards.
    Sorry but I have to strongly disagree with that statement. All firefighters need to be held to the SAME standards, regardless of age, gender, race. This is a huge problem with today's fire service. I know plenty of 45-50 that can run circles around guys half their age and vice versa. But saying that a separate set of standards should be implemented based on the factors listed should be accompanied by a statement that only certain firefighters are qualified to respond to certain calls, and if one of them isn't available then too bad, you'll just have to wait until we can find a crew that meets the standard. A 300lb victim (or firefighter in gear)weighs the same regardless of who is responding, same as 10 flights of stairs is still 10 flights of stairs and working in full gear is the same no matter who is wearing it.
    If your going to cry about doing the job you signed up for do us all a favor and quit, there are plenty of dedicated people standing in line for the best job in the world.

    Firefighter/Paramedic

  24. #74
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Disagree with that statement in that I have served in a couple of very rural departments in the northeast, and the community viewed the fire department in the same light some cimmunities view the department down here. They lived in the same community so they fully understood the manpower and funding restrictions thier department operated under, as well as the distance and time factors involved in receieving mutual aid.

    They fully understood that thier department did not have the same capabilities of the department in the nearest "big city" (of 10,000) and understood that unless thier taxes were significantly increased, they never would...
    Just curious....but how do you know what the community viewed the FD as?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  25. #75
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    Precisely.

    Many have focused on the blanket statement in the original post, saying it's a dereliction of our duty. Taken at face value, I agree.

    However, just as wrong is the "Zomygod, there's a fire! We have to PUT IT OUT AT ALL COSTS!" mindset that some seem to embrace. Ever watch an excited firefighter wet down the eaves because smoke is pushing out of the attic?

    I still believe the intent was to suggest that we need to "think outside the box." To question if "because we've always done it that way" is the right answer. Maybe it is, and if it is, there's no reason to change. But if it turns out that it isn't, we need to accept the change.

    The truth, as you note, is somewhere in the middle ground, a place where most of us operate.

    There are buildings/situations we should never enter. And there are buildings/situations we should have no compunction about entering.

    And yes, there are many other areas we can improve upon. Like wearing seat belts - so simple, yet we read of incident after incident where firefighter were ejected from apparatus or their POV. We should be setting a good example here, not serving as a bad example.

    If seat belts are one of McCormack's "yellow bricks," then we all need to step on it on the way down the road.

    Despite the histrionics, when it comes right down to it, I believe we'd find we're all on the same page here.

    It's not a competition of what we focus on. McCormack wasn't saying "lets all take off our sestbelts in protest." Just using this year's numbers, we have lost no one to a vacant building and the ejection was undetermined on if a seatbelt was worn or not. Yet how many health related deaths do we have. Now, knowing that number, look at what we focus on. Look at what SOPs and guidelines are written about. Its not the fact we all have to wear safety vest, it's the fact that people like above who claim we take too many risk for too little benefit (a few thousand saves and 13 fire attack deaths this year prove otherwise.) While 33 died away from the scene. So I respectfully ask, is it wrong to believe you can focus on sestbelts and training but push for departments to quit ignoring the biggest problem. The difficulty is in the fact that it requires people, like above, to admit they are (firefighters themselves who ignore poor health) the problem and not those doing their job.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

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, 08:04 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, 06:57 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, 07:23 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, 12:58 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, 07:35 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