I'm getting a Pager?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BULL321

Unless they just don't feel like is safe for them to participate. :eek: Of course how dangerous can it be practice being a yard breather? :D

---

Yup. Bunch of yardbreathers.

And if they don't feel that it's safe for them to perform a task, or they are uncomfortable in performing an assigned task, yes, we give them the option to say no and simply reassign the task to somebody else.

Both departments do allow the volunteers to perform tasks that are within their comfort range and decline tasks and assignments that are not. I see no issues with that.

That being said, if it does become obvious over a period of time that they do not seem to be able to function physically as a firefighter, in both of my departments they likely will be reassigned to support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

... But that being said, I understand if a volunteer simply does not have the time to make that happen...

---

I don't. And have been volunteer for ~30 years now. Being in decent physical shape is a life choice, not a FD choice.

PS - we don't have a gym at our firehouse. We have no exercise equipment at all. And yet, guys manage to stay in decent shape. No we are not a bunch of bodybuilders...but we are fairly fit. Exercise is easy....sit ups, push ups, walking, climbing stairs, etc. No equipment needed.....just some effort and a conscience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

And if they don't feel that it's safe for them to perform a task, or they are uncomfortable in performing an assigned task, yes, we give them the option to say no and simply reassign the task to somebody else.

---

What do you do when all of them say they are uncomfortable performing an assigned task during an incident?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

Both departments do allow the volunteers to perform tasks that are within their comfort range and decline tasks and assignments that are not. I see no issues with that.

---

Thanks for continuing to let us know you're department and its personnel are jokes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

That being said, if it does become obvious over a period of time that they do not seem to be able to function physically as a firefighter, in both of my departments they likely will be reassigned to support.

---

This just gets better and better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

Yup. Bunch of yardbreathers.
And if they don't feel that it's safe for them to perform a task, or they are uncomfortable in performing an assigned task, yes, we give them the option to say no and simply reassign the task to somebody else.
Both departments do allow the volunteers to perform tasks that are within their comfort range and decline tasks and assignments that are not. I see no issues with that.

---

What will you do when the majority of the FFs on the scene don't feel comfortable in performing an assigned task, due to the fact that they are out of shape, and or under trained? Who do you reassign the task to?

Decline a tasks? Oh, you mean refuse to follow an order. That sounds like a great way to do business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

That being said, if it does become obvious over a period of time that they do not seem to be able to function physically as a firefighter, in both of my departments they likely will be reassigned to support.

---

And what is the "sign post" that you use to judge their inability to function physically as a FF? A heart attack? A stroke? Their inability to act that causes them to injure or kill another? What?

I've been trolling this post for quite a while since I originally posted a few weeks ago..

but..

I think that both sides need to step back and look at this argument from the outside in, instead of the inside out..

for those of us who prefer to do aggressive interior work regardless of the situation..I,myself, pride myself on doing a quick initial size up of my own, and immediately going on an interior assault..weather it be to search or on the nozzle..some surrounding fire depts prefer to "save the foundation" so to speak and don't do a lot of offensive operations. I don't agree with that, I believe that if there is something to be saved, weather it be life, or even property then we should do everything possible to save it, that includes risking health and well being to go interior and put the fire out. If my home was on fire I would want firefighters to save as much as possible, especially since I have 2 dogs who are like my kids, and I do have some heirlooms(spelling?) that I wouldn't appreciate being destroyed. I am very confident in myself and the few brothers who I operate on the fire ground with, not everyone, just the few, because we train, we train on different techniques, I go out of district to learn new things in different areas, I read a lot, I even take things from videos on youtube. I don't feel comfortable with ladders, but if I am assigned to go vent a roof, or inspect a chimney for signs of fire I'll do my absolute best to accomplish what needs to be done..may not be done as fast as spiderman, but I'll get it done safely and correctly.

And, on another note, with the economy in the state that it is today, we should assume that every vacant property is inhabited by squatters or whatever, esp. in the extreme summer or winter months, it just makes sense, and that has nothing to do with anything other then trying to save someone in the event of a fire, and if that means putting my life in danger then so be it..I volunteered to go to the call, no one put a gun to my head.

On the topic of physicals, while I do have to agree that most volunteer departments have a hard time paying for basic necessities like apparatus repair, PPE, and equipment that it would be a strain to ask them to pay for a physical as well. However, if when I joined they told me to get a check up I would go to an urgent care type facility and get it done, because I want to do it, and be a firefighter. If you want it bad enough you will get it done.

On the topic of physical fitness, while like I posted before, It would be unrealistic for some fire depts to go out and buy gym equipment as it is expensive, even the basics..there are things that can be done. We have an agreement that we are allowed to use the gym on the army depot that is in our community, while I am the only 1 that I know of that uses it, the resource is there for our members, and if there is a gym in your first due, or even in a neighboring community maybe you could work out a discounted deal with the owners? something to think about. and if all else fails..doing a couple pushups or situps along with your daily routine will also help.

As far as LA goes, you guys have to respect him if for nothing else then he stands his ground, right or wrong. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the stuff he says, some of it makes sense, since I too come from a rural/semi-rural area with little to no public support or funding and we have to pinch pennies also. I'm not taking anyone's side, but maybe something happened to him during his career that made him think the way he does and have the opinions that he does..maybe he knew someone who got hurt? something might have struck a chord to make his thought process be the way it is.

in closing, I would just like to say that, I'm not trying to take sides, or tick anyone off, but, this went from a kid who wants a pager to 400 pound firefighters and everything in between. I just felt like this needed a breath of fresh air. I really respect what all you guys have done in your respective careers and look forward to being where you guys are at when I'm at my peak.

take care

If this is what the fire service is becoming then god help us.

From LA "The fact is a fire in abandoned structure does not need to be attacked from the interior. A brush fire does not need to be aggressivly attacked and can be allowed to burn to a defensive perimter. A vehicle fire that is heavily involved on arrival can be put out with a deck gun."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BULL321

What will you do when the majority of the FFs on the scene don't feel comfortable in performing an assigned task, due to the fact that they are out of shape, and or under trained? Who do you reassign the task to?

I don't know as in 33 years with 8 different departments it has never happened. there have been incident where a couple of members who didn't like heights asked not be assigned to the roof, and other incidents where 1 or 2 firefighters asked not to be assigned to a certain task. It's really not a big deal. They are volunteers, not paid staff, and certainly, IMO, have the right to ask not to be assigned to a task that they are uncomfortable with.

Decline a tasks? Oh, you mean refuse to follow an order. That sounds like a great way to do business.

None of those 8 departments had an issue with a member saying after he was assigned a task that he was uncomfortable. In some cases it was a training issue. In other cases he was a little beat up and simply didn't feel physically up to it. And in other cases he simply did not feel comfortable with the level of risk or possibility of injury. Again, IMO, and obviously in the opinion of the command staff of all 8 departments, it wasn't a problem and wasn't viewed as refusing an order. I guess I feel that in a VFD you simply have to give members that leeway as they are not being paid. Being flexible is not a bad thing.




And what is the "sign post" that you use to judge their inability to function physically as a FF? A heart attack? A stroke? Their inability to act that causes them to injure or kill another? What?

---

No. Simple observations. How quickly do they use a bottle of air during training? Do they struggle with simple fireground tasks during training? Do they need a blow sooner that what would be expected? Are they able to keep up with the rest of the crew when performing team tasks? What do their vitals look like on the nights that we perform random medical monitoring?

Our new members do a lot of little stuff on the fireground until we see how they perform. All of this stuff would come up during training or during the initial phases of being on the fireground, and it would be addressed quickly. Or should I say in past cases, it has been addressed quickly in the past.

As I said, there are some obvious situations in terms of size and simple body movements where the red flag would come up as soon as they apply and they very well may be asked to produce a physician's note that states they can perform the tasks. That has been requested in the past. In the case of my VFD it would be obvious during the agility test.

You can tell fairly quickly if there are issues with a members ability to perform the functions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rm1524

If this is what the fire service is becoming then god help us.

From LA "The fact is a fire in abandoned structure does not need to be attacked from the interior. A brush fire does not need to be aggressivly attacked and can be allowed to burn to a defensive perimter. A vehicle fire that is heavily involved on arrival can be put out with a deck gun."

---

And why is the above bad thing?

Abandoned structures are almost always ... abandoned, or at least that's the case in the vast majority of the country. To enter a structure based on the random chance of finding a victim in areas where there is no or a very limited history of such makes no sense and puts members at unreasonable risk. Sorry but until you can show me that you will find victims in a abandoned structure in either my combo or volunteer district, IMO, it's a wanton disregard for member safety to send them in unless there is some credible information indicating that the structure IS occupied.

The old line "the building is empty until we say so" is a line of crap that in many places is putting members at unnecessary and unreasonable risk, and getting them hurt for no valid reason.

Are there places where vagrants are common? yes. But they are the exception and not the rule, and they need to play by a difference set of rules when compared to the rest of the country where that is not the case.

As far as not aggressively attacking a brush fire and simply setting up a defensive perimeter, unless structures are threatened, where 's the problem. Please tell me why we should risk anything for brush?

And how are we going to change the event on a heavily or fully involved vehicle fire by pulling a line and attacking the fire as compared to simply utilizing a heavy stream from a safe distance? Please tell me why we need to put members at risk for a totalled vehicle?

Firefighting today needs to be about reducing risk and stress for the members. If we can simply set up defensive perimeter at a point where he have the advantage why not do it. if we have a vehicle burning heavily why not greatly reduce the risk and exertion to the members and knock it down with a master stream then just mop it up with a booster line? Why not simply use a master stream on a well involved structure that likely has been compromised rather than put members in harm's way by operating interior? Please tell me what we gain by being aggressive in these situations.

The fires are hotter, including vehicles. Wildland fires are more volatile, And structures burn hotter and fail sooner. We owe it to our members to back down what we do a notch or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

And why is the above bad thing?

---

Because unlike you he chose to be a firefighter. If all he wanted to do was wear the uniform, he could have gotten one at Galls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Because unlike you he chose to be a firefighter. If all he wanted to do was wear the uniform, he could have gotten one at Galls.

---

BOO YAH!!

Nice, very nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Because unlike you he chose to be a firefighter. If all he wanted to do was wear the uniform, he could have gotten one at Galls.

---

So in other words, to be a firefighter, you always have to take risks, even when there is no gain in doing so?

What is the benefit in being aggressive on a brush fire when there are no structures threatened? What is the gain on a heavily or fully involved vehicle fire? What is taking risks going to affect regarding the outcome?

I will acknowledge that the abandoned house situation does have some variables, such as the frequency of occupancy in each area. But as has been discussed, there is very high unlikelihood that there will be anyone in an abandoned structure in this area, while at the same time abandoned structures offer a much higher likelihood of firefighter injury. The very low likelihood of gain simply does not match the high likelihood of injury. I simply find it impossible to justify the risk in my area unless there is some specific outward evidence or information indicating occupancy.

Your logic that because you are firefighter you should pull and handline rather than a master stream or fight a fire aggressive rather than letting it burn out to a defensive perimeter simply makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

BOO YAH!!

Nice, very nice.

---

Again, justify the risk with no gain.

And because you are a firefighter does not justify it.

There comes a time when every profession needs to look in the mirror and ask if it's operations are doing everything it can to minimize employee injuries.

Saying we have to do something "because we are firefighters" does not make any sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

So in other words, to be a firefighter, you always have to take risks, even when there is no gain in doing so?

What is the benefit in being aggressive on a brush fire when there are no structures threatened? What is the gain on a heavily or fully involved vehicle fire? What is taking risks going to affect regarding the outcome?

I will acknowledge that the abandoned house situation does have some variables, such as the frequency of occupancy in each area. But as has been discussed, there is very high unlikelihood that there will be anyone in an abandoned structure in this area, while at the same time abandoned structures offer a much higher likelihood of firefighter injury. The very low likelihood of gain simply does not match the high likelihood of injury. I simply find it impossible to justify the risk in my area unless there is some specific outward evidence or information indicating occupancy.

Your logic that because you are firefighter you should pull and handline rather than a master stream or fight a fire aggressive rather than letting it burn out to a defensive perimeter simply makes no sense.

---

Blah blah blah. All your bellyaching does is prove you have no interest in doing this job other than trying to claim you are something you aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

Again, justify the risk with no gain.

Who said anything about risk with no gain? I am not going to charge into a structure that is fully involved or suffering partial collapse. Why? Because those odds of victim survival are very low. You want any sign of involvement as an excuse not to enter at all. Sorry, we aren't even in the same universe on this topic. You keep repeating the same nonsense that those of us that aren't in your camp are suicidal maniacs that charge in blindly to every situation. Not a chance, we use all of of training, education, experience and instincts to know when we belieive it is viable or not. That is what truly galls you, the fact that your blanket statements are a bunch of BS and in your heart of hearts even you know it.

And because you are a firefighter does not justify it.

And because you have done everything you can to decimate the honor and traditions of the fire service with your idiotic rantings that you simply can't defend, it doesn't justify your calling yourself a firefighter.

There comes a time when every profession needs to look in the mirror and ask if it's operations are doing everything it can to minimize employee injuries.

And WE do. The fact that we refuse to stand on the curb and lob water into anything more than a trash can fire doesn't mean we don't strive to reduce firefighter injuries and deaths. We spend time training, and reviewing incidents elsewhere, to make us better at decision making and tactics and strategies. We don't make every fire or every scene too dangerous to enter. That seems to be your agenda.

Saying we have to do something "because we are firefighters" does not make any sense.

Neither does justifying doing the barest of minimums because you might get injured. You just can't see the difference between inaction and smart decision making based action. My job is to protect life and property, the citizens, my Brother firefighters, and my own. My job is not to do nothing because I might get a boo boo.

---

I am sick to death of people trying to make firefighting 100% as safe as laying in your bed at home. It is IMPOSSIBLE. I am not saying accept injuries and deaths. But I am saying the odds of them occurring increase when you actually go inside buildings on fire to search for victims and to put out the fire.

I am sick to death of safety sallies, nancy boys, arm chair warriors, and pussies, that pontificate about the fire service when they don't know their a s s from a hole in the ground. The job is saving lives and property WHENEVER WE CAN. That entails risk. if you aren't willing to put forward ANY RISK AT ALL to your safety to do this job then please be quiet and go lay down by your water dish. It has nothing to do with a death wish, it has to do with DOING THE JOB!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Blah blah blah. All your bellyaching does is prove you have no interest in doing this job other than trying to claim you are something you aren't.

---

So "doing the job" means you always should take risks even when there is nothing to save and there is a far less risky way to accomplish the same goals?


That is simply asinine.

LA, I don't understand how you are involved in the fire service. It makes no sense to me at all. Take 20 minutes of your time and watch these 2 videos. If you have already watched them....watch them again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSRwtwoYIvE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNkht...feature=relmfu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

I am sick to death of people trying to make firefighting 100% as safe as laying in your bed at home. It is IMPOSSIBLE. I am not saying accept injuries and deaths. But I am saying the odds of them occurring increase when youa ctually go inside buildings on fire to search for victims and to put out the fire.

And depending on the resources, experience and training of the fire department, the odds may even go up more. The fact is the fire service is seeing less fire, which means less experience at both the firefighter and command levels, and seeing less in the way of funding for training. In many places budget cuts or flat revenues have increased the age not only of apparatus but also PPE, SCBA and basic equipment.

While that is happening fires are burning hotter and faster, and buildings are being built so they collapse faster.

Yes, there are times when we have a chance to save life and property, and those chances when they come along involves risk that I can accept, as it's reasonable and has a purpose. Those opportunties increase with response times and resources, which unfortunately, does not happen much in rural departments with extended travel times. Even in places with a shorter response time and adequate resources however, the sad fact is those chances are becoming fewer due to faster, hotter fires. As a service we need to recognize that there will be fewer chances to affect the outcome and that we need to change our perspective as to what fires are acceptable to make entry, especially less experienced volunteer and particularly rural volunteer departments. The odds are probably less in favor of us walking away from every incident, which needs to be our primary objective at every single incident, now than at any other time in recent history.

If you want to call that pussification, fine. I call it recognizing that the balance of power between us and fire has changed, and now more than ever, we are at a significant disadvantage when we respond.

That means accepting fire loss when it is evident that we will not change the outcome, such as heavily involved vehicles as an example, which dispute the fact that they pose significant hazards to us, we still attack, including without SCBA in some large urban departments, with handlines even though there is nothing left to salvage.

And in some cases that means accepting the loss of life if the resources, training and experience are not on hand and will likely result in injuries to the members. That is honor. That is doing the right thing for our members, but more importantly it's doing the right thing for the member's families.

As far as abandoned buildings, when you can give me a percentage of those that you find occupied, we can talk. Right now in my 33 years of firefighting in several different communities, that percentage is 0. None. Nada. I have yet to find a victim, live or dead, in an abandoned structure, which tells me, at least in the areas I have served in and currently serve in, occupants in those structures are not an issue, and as such, do not require that our personnel make entry unless we have a damn good reason. If the building is abandoned, there is no property to save except a standing abandoned lumberyard as the owner has obviously determined it has no value to him/her.

Why are we risking our lives in a building that has no value to the owner? Is that honestly a wise use of the lives of our members? Does the tradition of fighting every fire that we can really mean that much to you? Do you interpret the concept of honor as having to fight every fire even though the property has zero value to the owner?

If the answer is yes, you need to reexamine your priorities.

I am sick to death of safety sallies, nancy boys, arm chair warriors, and pussies, that pontificate about the fire service when they don't know their a s s from a hole in the ground. The job is saving lives and property WHENEVER WE CAN. That entails risk. if you aren't willing to put forward ANY RISK AT ALL to your safety to do this job then please be quiet and go lay down by your water dish. It has nothing to do with a death wish, it has to do with DOING THE JOB!

---

As I said, I accept risk when there is reason to accept as such.

An abandoned structure in most communities, a fully involved vehicle and a brush fire with no threatened structures are examples of situations where firefighter risk is unjustified as either the property has no value or the property has already been destroyed prior to arrival. We need to be smarter about risk and not fight fire just because it was done 20 years ago, or we do it "because we are fireman".

There is zero honor when we are hurt working a fire where we are not going to change the outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

So in other words, to be a firefighter, you always have to take risks, even when there is no gain in doing so?

---

Not what people are preaching. The more accurate statement would be; "When conditions are attainable, a primary search should be performed to verify the structure is clear." If you want to twist "attainable" to suit your agenda of not performing interior operations, then fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

What is the benefit in being aggressive on a brush fire when there are no structures threatened? What is the gain on a heavily or fully involved vehicle fire? What is taking risks going to affect regarding the outcome?

---

Again, if you are able to make an aggressive attack on a wildland fire to prevent it from gaining in size and then threatening structures, then we do it... because it is our job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

Your logic that because you are firefighter you should pull and handline rather than a master stream or fight a fire aggressive rather than letting it burn out to a defensive perimeter simply makes no sense.

---

And if the fire in an unoccupied structure is small enough to make an attack on, why wait till the fire vents out the roof/windows/doors until you make a hit on it. That is lunacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyanK63

LA, I don't understand how you are involved in the fire service. It makes no sense to me at all. Take 20 minutes of your time and watch these 2 videos. If you have already watched them....watch them again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSRwtwoYIvE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNkht...feature=relmfu

---

I have no use for Ray McCormack. I have watched this video several times to see if I was missing his message. He wasn't. He was saying exactly what I thought he was saying after watching it the first time. And he is wrong.

I even took a class presented by the LT at FDIC this year to see if watching him in person would change my opinion of him. It didn't.

I'm sorry if that offends you.

What the fire service needs is a culture of risk management. That means that we accept the fact that there are situations where our intervention will have zero outcome on the incident, and we simply operate defensively to protect our personnel to fight another day. Some may call that a culture of safety. I disagree.

We take to many risks in situations where risk is not warranted. It's really that simple. In the small community department, the window where we can take risks is even narrower than the window in NYC, where resources are plentiful, experience is deep, and training is comprehensive. His message applies even less to rural departments than it does to departments such as his.

His message is downright dangerous for the rural fire service. It opens up the possibility that some folks, in order to meet the traditions of the fire service that he espouses, will attempt a culture of extiinguishment in a department where the funding, apparatus, training, manpower and experiences will not support that culture.

That is what scares me about his message.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FiremanLyman

Not what people are preaching. The more accurate statement would be; "When conditions are attainable, a primary search should be performed to verify the structure is clear." If you want to twist "attainable" to suit your agenda of not performing interior operations, then fine.

Again, if there are no indicators that the structure is occupied, why do we need to make entry? The fact is that abandoned structures pose significant structural hazards where fire conditions, and structural stability as the building has not been maintained, can change in a very short period of time.

Just because we have the resources, there are times that the potential outcome does not justify the risk. If there turns out to be nobody inside, and firefighters are injured, was it worth the risk? Even if you save the structure, what have you accomplished?


Again, if you are able to make an aggressive attack on a wildland fire to prevent it from gaining in size and then threatening structures, then we do it... because it is our job.

Yes, there are those situations, and I'm not going to say that there are not, but they are extremly rare in my area. But most of time, that is not the case, and we can allow the fire to burn to a defensive point where it can be cutoff with far less risk to personnel than attacking it offensively.

My combo department is aggressive with wildland firefighting. My VFD is far less likely to make an aggressive attack and will generally allow the fire to burn to us, or simply wait for Forestry to come in and put a plow line around the fire.


And if the fire in an unoccupied structure is small enough to make an attack on, why wait till the fire vents out the roof/windows/doors until you make a hit on it. That is lunacy.

---

And here where terminology makes a difference.

I said abandoned structures, which are buildings that have not been maintained, and are in a state of disrepair. In other words, they have no value to the owner as it is not important to him to maintain them.

Unoccupied buildings are buildings that are still being maintained, and are habitable, but currently are not occupied. Those buildings do have value, and as such, would be candidates for a cautious offensive interior attack as long as the manpower, resources and training are on-scene and available for safe interior operations.