Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 35 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 683
  1. #41
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,928

    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.
    ?


  2. #42
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,527

    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 03:40 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  3. #43
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,527

    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 03:48 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  4. #44
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,947

    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!

  5. #45
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,947

    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.

  6. #46
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    109

    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."

  7. #47
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    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."

  8. #48
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    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."

  9. #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

  10. #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.

  11. #51
    MembersZone Subscriber tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,264

    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.

  12. #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

  13. #53
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,527

    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.

  14. #54
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,527

    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.

  15. #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.

  16. #56
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,947

    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.

  17. #57
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,947

    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.

  18. #58
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    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."

  19. #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

  20. #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

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