Can you read? I mean read AND comprehend what you have read? I seriously doubt that you can because you answered my post ranting and raving about abandoned structures when I NEVER one time mentioned abandoned structures. I talked about using training, education, experience and instinct to know when making an entry for search and rescue or fire attack was approrpiate.Quote:
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.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.
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.
As I said, I accept risk when there is reason to accept as such.Quote:
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!
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.
You seem to be unable to answer what I posted so you just drifted off into another one of your pontifications. Nice try, no points awarded. How about actually answering what I posted next time?