Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
Closed Thread
Page 15 of 24 FirstFirst ... 512131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 477
Like Tree123Likes

Thread: I'm getting a Pager?

  1. #281
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,647

    Default

    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.
    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.

    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?
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...


  2. #282
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,647

    Default

    By the way LA...Explain to me the exhorbitant cost of training. This is always one of your excuses. I am the training officer for 2 POC FDs and the only costs we have had so far this year have been for fuel for the rigs, and on one FD sending 2 firefighters to an extrication school. YES, we do extensive training using OUR equipment. So where are these costs you always whine about?
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  3. #283
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    1,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    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.
    I have faith in my Captain and our command staff to not do something dumb and send us into something that is about to fall in on us. I do expect to get sent inside any structure that they deem safe to enter and put the fire out.

    Why do we put vacant and abandoned structures out you ask, we put them out to save whatever is left of the property and to preserve the scene so it can be investigated. Hard to prove arson when nothing is left but ashes.

    Why do we hike into the timber and put out a two acre brush fire instead of letting burn and becoming 15 acres because we are using natural breaks? Because in 30 minutes we are clear instead of babysitting for 2 hours and we have the fire out instead of risking the fire to get away from us when the wind speed increases a hour and half into the waiting on it to burn to us.

    Why do we pull a 1 ½ and fight a car fire because it uses less water than a deck gun and we don’t have to have a tanker bring us more water because we shot our wad like a freshman on prom night.

    While nothing I say will change your mind. To me you’re sitting and waiting on something to burn down instead of doing the job you are paid to do is a bigger waste of money and time in terms of fuel and equipment use. In 2 of 3 items you threw out here if something goes wrong there will have to be more equipment and man power sent to help you thus putting more equipment on the road which is something else you frown upon.

    I’m not sure where your thoughts come from, but I still say that if this is what the fire service is becoming then god help us.

  4. #284
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    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?
    Don't worry. No one is ever going to accuse you of taking risks or achieving goals.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    That is simply asinine.
    See above response.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #285
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    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.

    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?
    And my point was there is rarely any reason to enter an abandoned structure, which is the example we were discussing. Unless there is a reason to believe that there are occupants in an abandoned structure, I feel there is absolutely no reason to make entry even if your training, experiences and resources allow. The risk to the personnel, even if well trained, from unforeseen events caused by the condition of the structure, is not justified by the value of the structure. There is, IMO, simply no reason to commit resources into a building that the owner has determined has no value as he has made the decision not to maintain it.

    The only exception to that would be in areas where there are occupied structures in close proximity where no suppressing the fire in the abandoned would cause damage to those occupied structures. Even in that case, if it can be done with primarily heavy streams from the exterior, that should be the course of action selected.

    As far as other structures, yes, the decision to make entry should be based on training, experience and resources. Of course, that will vary greatly from department to department.

    That being said, a department with limited manpower, resources, training and experience may choose to make a blanket statement prohibiting entry of any kind, or limited entry under specific circumstances, for any fire into a specific structure or set of structures if they feel that doing so poses an unreasonable risk to their personnel. They have in fact, used their experience and training to determine the hazard and develop a blanket policy to deal with it, which is, IMO. perfectly acceptable.

    I feel that in many departments, there is a place for blanket go/no go policies as a way to protect personnel.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  6. #286
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1524 View Post
    I have faith in my Captain and our command staff to not do something dumb and send us into something that is about to fall in on us. I do expect to get sent inside any structure that they deem safe to enter and put the fire out.

    Why do we put vacant and abandoned structures out you ask, we put them out to save whatever is left of the property and to preserve the scene so it can be investigated. Hard to prove arson when nothing is left but ashes.

    Is that potentially worth the life of a firefighter? I guess that is a department by department judgement call.

    Why do we hike into the timber and put out a two acre brush fire instead of letting burn and becoming 15 acres because we are using natural breaks? Because in 30 minutes we are clear instead of babysitting for 2 hours and we have the fire out instead of risking the fire to get away from us when the wind speed increases a hour and half into the waiting on it to burn to us.

    As I said, my combo department would likely do that to hold the fire until Forestry arrives with a plow. Most of time, not doing anything would cause no problems. Are there circumstances where the fire could flare? Sure. But again, is it potentially worth the life of a firefighter? Again, a judgement call. IMO, no.

    Why do we pull a 1 ½ and fight a car fire because it uses less water than a deck gun and we don’t have to have a tanker bring us more water because we shot our wad like a freshman on prom night.

    How much water would it take from a deck gun to suppress a car fire to the point where you could overhaul the fire with a booster line? 200 gallons? 300 gallons? How big is your booster tank? How much water does it take to overhaul a vehicle fire? Do you use Class A foam?

    Lots of questions. I'm betting you could if you have a 500g tank. Definatly could if you have a 750g tank. But that's just my opinion.


    While nothing I say will change your mind. To me you’re sitting and waiting on something to burn down instead of doing the job you are paid to do is a bigger waste of money and time in terms of fuel and equipment use. In 2 of 3 items you threw out here if something goes wrong there will have to be more equipment and man power sent to help you thus putting more equipment on the road which is something else you frown upon.

    I’m not sure where your thoughts come from, but I still say that if this is what the fire service is becoming then god help us.
    My thoughts come from watching my guys on several departments beat themselves silly fighting fires where a lot less effort could have been used to accomplish essentially the same results. Same with injuries that cost my volunteers time from work.

    No, you are not going to change my mind, much like I'm not going to change yours.

    There is a time an a place for aggressiveness and limited risk taking. There are also times when we need to control that urge to plunge in and work smarter, not harder, and protect out boys from exhaustion and injuries.

    The fact is most of the time being aggressive accomplishes nothing except increases the chance for injuries. And as much as some people think that is part of the tradition and honor that is the fire service, it's not. It's just plain dumb to wear out and injure our personnel for no real gain.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  7. #287
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And my point was there is rarely any reason to enter an abandoned structure, which is the example we were discussing. Unless there is a reason to believe that there are occupants in an abandoned structure, I feel there is absolutely no reason to make entry even if your training, experiences and resources allow. The risk to the personnel, even if well trained, from unforeseen events caused by the condition of the structure, is not justified by the value of the structure. There is, IMO, simply no reason to commit resources into a building that the owner has determined has no value as he has made the decision not to maintain it.

    Again with the abandoned building ranting...I guess you can't comprehend written American English. Since I clearly stated I did NOT mention abandoned buildings anywhere in my original post.

    The only exception to that would be in areas where there are occupied structures in close proximity where no suppressing the fire in the abandoned would cause damage to those occupied structures. Even in that case, if it can be done with primarily heavy streams from the exterior, that should be the course of action selected.

    More excuses and BS that has NOTHING to do with what I posted.

    As far as other structures, yes, the decision to make entry should be based on training, experience and resources. Of course, that will vary greatly from department to department.

    Especially if a local FIRE EDUCATOR tells them over and over and over that they will NEVER be anything more than they already are.

    That being said, a department with limited manpower, resources, training and experience may choose to make a blanket statement prohibiting entry of any kind, or limited entry under specific circumstances, for any fire into a specific structure or set of structures if they feel that doing so poses an unreasonable risk to their personnel. They have in fact, used their experience and training to determine the hazard and develop a blanket policy to deal with it, which is, IMO. perfectly acceptable.

    Then in fact they have no real fire department. They have foundation washers that will do nothing to save trapped victims.

    I feel that in many departments, there is a place for blanket go/no go policies as a way to protect personnel.

    Of course you do...
    I just shake my head at your ability to make nonsensical post after nonsensical post. When you can't answer the posts directed at you you dance and sing and use smoke and mirrors to misdirect. Enough Sir, enough of your pretending. You care about nothing but making yourself into something here you are not.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  8. #288
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    By the way LA...Explain to me the exhorbitant cost of training. This is always one of your excuses. I am the training officer for 2 POC FDs and the only costs we have had so far this year have been for fuel for the rigs, and on one FD sending 2 firefighters to an extrication school. YES, we do extensive training using OUR equipment. So where are these costs you always whine about?
    The cost of facilities.

    My combo department just replaced a burn building with 4 shipping containers. Total cost was about 18K. Manageable for my combo department but unrealistic for my VFD and most VFDs in this part of the state. Even if we cut the project in half my VFD would likely not be able to afford it.

    And no, there are no parish funded training facilities.

    LSU FETI has one burn site for the northern half of the state. One.

    We just built 3 propane fired props. Total cost about 21K. Again, not realistic for any of the VFDs that I know of.

    Cost to burn a prop one time for 5-8 minutes - about $100. My VFDs total training budget for the year is $1500 so 3 burns in one training night would use 1/3 of my budget. My combo department is likely going to give my VFD a break and charge them $150-200 for several burns one training night this summer. Likely it will not cover the cost, but they understand and are cutting us a break.

    LSU vehicle extrication class - $450.00

    Officer/Instructor, etc - $200.00

    Any type of certification testing - $35 per head.

    Yes. much of that my combo department can do in-house as we have the training center and several Instructor I/IIs. Very few VFDs have the facilities and very few have the certified instructors. So yes, if you have both, you can do a lot in-house.

    Action training FFI/FFII series - 1K

    So training does cost money.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  9. #289
    Forum Member RyanK63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fleetville, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    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.


    I am in a rural fire department, 25 square miles, consisting of most farm lands. There is nothing wrong with being aggressive if you're doing it safe. Going defensive on brush fires? Why? Brush fires in rural areas take place in areas that people depend on to make a living. If we are aggressive and save their land, we have done our job. Letting it burn because it's too "dangerous" if just the chicken **** excuse to not do your job. Don't enter vacant structures? Odds are that if it's been vacant that long, there is no utilities hooked up, so how'd the fire start? Mice with matches? Get the hell in there do a primary and get the hell out. You are a **** poor excuse of a firefighter and anyone that looks up to you needs a smack in the head just as hard as you do.
    "If it was easy, someone else would of done it already." - Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    - Firefighter 1 / HAZMAT Ops / EMT-B

  10. #290
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    I just shake my head at your ability to make nonsensical post after nonsensical post. When you can't answer the posts directed at you you dance and sing and use smoke and mirrors to misdirect. Enough Sir, enough of your pretending. You care about nothing but making yourself into something here you are not.
    The discussion was about abandoned buildings as that was the example I gave. To make you happy, I will cease and desist talking about them.

    You are the ones keep insisting that "even though you don't accept injuries" you still seem to find it perfectly acceptable to make entry into the majority of your structure fires, including buildings with no value on the off-chance that they will be occupied.

    And that to me, is two completely incompatible positions.

    If you are concerned about deaths and injuries to firefighters, you should be using a fairly rigid risk assessment model to determine exactly what structures justify the risk to personnel. Yet on the other hand you seem to say that most structure fires should be attacked interior, which to me indicates an "offensive first" policy. That is, IMO, incompatible with your desire to reduce firefighter deaths and injuries.

    The fact is firefighter injuries have not significantly decreased while structure fires have. that indicates that as a service, we have not adopted risk/benefit analysis to reduce the number of offensive structural operations. You seem to continue to support this "offensive first" mentality despite the data that clearly shows that it is injuring firefighters at higher rate per structure fire than in the past.

    Buildings have changed. Fires have changed. resources have changed. Our training and experience should recognize that but clearly it has not given the injury data.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  11. #291
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The cost of facilities.

    My combo department just replaced a burn building with 4 shipping containers. Total cost was about 18K. Manageable for my combo department but unrealistic for my VFD and most VFDs in this part of the state. Even if we cut the project in half my VFD would likely not be able to afford it.

    And no, there are no parish funded training facilities.

    LSU FETI has one burn site for the northern half of the state. One.

    We just built 3 propane fired props. Total cost about 21K. Again, not realistic for any of the VFDs that I know of.

    Cost to burn a prop one time for 5-8 minutes - about $100. My VFDs total training budget for the year is $1500 so 3 burns in one training night would use 1/3 of my budget. My combo department is likely going to give my VFD a break and charge them $150-200 for several burns one training night this summer. Likely it will not cover the cost, but they understand and are cutting us a break.

    LSU vehicle extrication class - $450.00

    Officer/Instructor, etc - $200.00

    Any type of certification testing - $35 per head.

    Yes. much of that my combo department can do in-house as we have the training center and several Instructor I/IIs. Very few VFDs have the facilities and very few have the certified instructors. So yes, if you have both, you can do a lot in-house.

    Action training FFI/FFII series - 1K

    So training does cost money.
    Not every training requires a burn facility. Not every training requires a technical college instructor. Both of my POC FDs do extrication training multiple times a year. You know how? We go to the local junk yard and ask them if they will allow us to come in and use some cars for training. I run the training because I am a certified instructor. Cost? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. We do all sorts of training locally, pump operation, hose and nozzle training, forcible entry training, (did you build that low dollar prop I posted pictures of?), ladders, RIT, SCBA, scenarios of rural water movement and fire attack, scenarios of in town water movement and fire attack, search and rescue...ALL AT NO COST. We do go to the tech college at least once a year to burn in the tower. We try to take advantage of every opportunity to use acquired structures for training. You see we don't make excuses, we make things happen. You could learn from us and how we do this...But that would take actual work and less whining about how you CAN't do anything to change it.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  12. #292
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RyanK63 View Post
    I am in a rural fire department, 25 square miles, consisting of most farm lands. There is nothing wrong with being aggressive if you're doing it safe. Going defensive on brush fires? Why? Brush fires in rural areas take place in areas that people depend on to make a living. If we are aggressive and save their land, we have done our job. johnathanalexander@aol.com Don't enter vacant structures? Odds are that if it's been vacant that long, there is no utilities hooked up, so how'd the fire start? Mice with matches? Get the hell in there do a primary and get the hell out. You are a **** poor excuse of a firefighter and anyone that looks up to you needs a smack in the head just as hard as you do.
    My combo department is primarily rural area with 180 square miles of district. My VFD covers about 100 square miles of rural district.

    Yes, when there is value, such as a timber stand, which we have a lot of in our district, or producing fields, a more aggressive stance, to a point, is justified. I don't disagree. But when the property involved is simply grass or woods that are non-productive, the risk is often not justified. I have no idea where you live but depending on the year, we can have some pretty severe fire conditions, and even under those circumstances, protecting structures should not be an issue.

    Justify to me the loss of a firefighter or significant injuries to a firefighter for grass and trees.

    As far as abandoned structures, it is likely that the fire started as a result of juvenile firesetting or arson. No disagreement there. the truth is though that the folks responsible for the fire are rarely in the structure when we arrive. As a juvenile firesetting intervention specialist, I have responded to hundreds of juvenilly set fires in abandoned buildings, and not once did the kids remain in the building after the fire was set. Not once.
    Could the kids or the arsonist still be in there? Sure, it's a possibility but it's a very unlikely possibility. Is it worth the risk to a firefighter to find out? IMO, given the unlikelihood, no.

    Our job should be about taking reasonable risks when there is a gain to be had. our job should not be about taking risks just because "we're firefighters" or "it's the job" if there is no likely gain, and that means reducing risk when applicable.

    Your chicken**** comment just shows that my concept has somehow offended your status as a firefighter and hero. Too bad. Grow up.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  13. #293
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The discussion was about abandoned buildings as that was the example I gave. To make you happy, I will cease and desist talking about them.

    You are the ones keep insisting that "even though you don't accept injuries" you still seem to find it perfectly acceptable to make entry into the majority of your structure fires, including buildings with no value on the off-chance that they will be occupied.

    And that to me, is two completely incompatible positions.

    If you are concerned about deaths and injuries to firefighters, you should be using a fairly rigid risk assessment model to determine exactly what structures justify the risk to personnel. Yet on the other hand you seem to say that most structure fires should be attacked interior, which to me indicates an "offensive first" policy. That is, IMO, incompatible with your desire to reduce firefighter deaths and injuries.

    The fact is firefighter injuries have not significantly decreased while structure fires have. that indicates that as a service, we have not adopted risk/benefit analysis to reduce the number of offensive structural operations. You seem to continue to support this "offensive first" mentality despite the data that clearly shows that it is injuring firefighters at higher rate per structure fire than in the past.

    Buildings have changed. Fires have changed. resources have changed. Our training and experience should recognize that but clearly it has not given the injury data.
    You clearly don't read what I post. So stop posting responses to me if you aren't going to actually read what I said.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  14. #294
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Not every training requires a burn facility. Not every training requires a technical college instructor.

    Absolutely agree. In fact, only a small percentage of training should involve live fire. ladders, SCBA drills, forcible entry and eater supply are all essential areas that do not need live fire. Sure live fire is the most fun for the members, and needs to be done periodcally, especially for new members, but it's a small piece of the training pie. As far as training, it should be done, or at least directly supervised by an Instructor I. If training is being developed in should be developed by an Instructor II.

    Both of my POC FDs do extrication training multiple times a year. You know how? We go to the local junk yard and ask them if they will allow us to come in and use some cars for training.

    We'll have the cars brought in for free by a local wrecker service. if he does not have any, we will pay to have them trucked in from an out-of-district junkyard. the cost is not an issue. We'll also use them for live fire training.

    I run the training because I am a certified instructor.

    By the book, that is how it should be on every department. problem is most rural VFDs in this area do not have such animals due to the fact that the class is $200-250, and it's just run M-F during the day by LSU FETI when most volunteers are unavailable. By the way, the cost of that class is likely to rise after July 1 as LSU FETI took a major budget hit.

    My combo department has several I's and II's and my VFD has 2, but that is the exception and not the rule.


    Cost? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    See above.

    We do all sorts of training locally, pump operation, hose and nozzle training, forcible entry training, (did you build that low dollar prop I posted pictures of?), ladders, RIT, SCBA, scenarios of rural water movement and fire attack, scenarios of in town water movement and fire attack, search and rescue...ALL AT NO COST.

    Both my combo and VFD does that as well. In fact, we plan on having my VFD do physical non-classroom training for the rest of the summer.


    We do go to the tech college at least once a year to burn in the tower.

    No such tech colleges here. There is one state college that offers fire science in the extreme southern part of the state but it's all classroom - no burn facilities.

    LSU FETI has 2 facilites for the entire state. A couple of parishes have facilities, afew off the cities have burn facilites and a few well off combo departments have facilities, so the number is pretty limited given the size of the state.


    We try to take advantage of every opportunity to use acquired structures for training. You see we don't make excuses, we make things happen. You could learn from us and how we do this...But that would take actual work and less whining about how you CAN't do anything to change it.
    My combo department uses acquired structures now and then but most that we are given are too structurally unsound for interior operations. We often will use them for some exterior training then burn them down, but as we have our own burn facility, we are not dependent on acquired structures for interior training. We make things happen too as we spent close to 40K on new training facilities in the last 12 months and planning on spending another 5K-6K by the end of the year for additional propane props.

    VFD would love to have some facilities but the money simply isn't there. We will use acquired structures when available but that's not very often.

    We have plans for a training facility but that's at least 2 years away due to other needs.

    There unfortunately is no chance of a regional facility in my volunteer parish, which would be the best solution.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  15. #295
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The cost of facilities.

    My combo department just replaced a burn building with 4 shipping containers. Total cost was about 18K. Manageable for my combo department but unrealistic for my VFD and most VFDs in this part of the state. Even if we cut the project in half my VFD would likely not be able to afford it.

    And no, there are no parish funded training facilities.

    LSU FETI has one burn site for the northern half of the state. One.

    We just built 3 propane fired props. Total cost about 21K. Again, not realistic for any of the VFDs that I know of.

    Cost to burn a prop one time for 5-8 minutes - about $100. My VFDs total training budget for the year is $1500 so 3 burns in one training night would use 1/3 of my budget. My combo department is likely going to give my VFD a break and charge them $150-200 for several burns one training night this summer. Likely it will not cover the cost, but they understand and are cutting us a break.

    LSU vehicle extrication class - $450.00

    Officer/Instructor, etc - $200.00

    Any type of certification testing - $35 per head.

    Yes. much of that my combo department can do in-house as we have the training center and several Instructor I/IIs. Very few VFDs have the facilities and very few have the certified instructors. So yes, if you have both, you can do a lot in-house.

    Action training FFI/FFII series - 1K

    So training does cost money.
    If you think training is expensive, figure out the cost of ignorance...
    slackjawedyokel and RyanK63 like this.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  16. #296
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    If you think training is expensive, figure out the cost of ignorance...
    Very difficult for one to do at his level of ignorance.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #297
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Your chicken**** comment just shows that my concept has somehow offended your status as a firefighter and hero. Too bad. Grow up.
    What it means is that he understands the job he took an oath to do. As opposed to you who wants to be thought a hero and looks for any possible excuse to avoid doing it.
    slackjawedyokel and RyanK63 like this.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #298
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,570

    Default

    Apparently, in LA, empty buildings self combust. There is never anyone inside that caused the fire to start.
    "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?

  19. #299
    Forum Member FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Apparently, in LA, empty buildings self combust. There is never anyone inside that caused the fire to start.
    They are acts of God.

    What I can't figure out is- if he is really as passionate as he says he is about protecting the volunteers from injury due to the fact that they have no workmans comp coverage- why does he not either stop them from volunteering alltogether (god forbid they break a fingernail) or use his energy to fight for laws to mandate workmans comp coverage in the state for the volunteers......oh, wait....god forbid they poor, defenseless volunteer departments have to put money out of their pockets for workmans comp insurance instead of the municipality........ as it is right now, anyone who volunteers in the state of La. without workmans comp coverage is certifiably insane....
    BULL321 likes this.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  20. #300
    MembersZone Subscriber BULL321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western, NC
    Posts
    3,404

    Default

    We've kind of got off topic a bit. I've enjoyed the crap out of it but we still went slightly off into left field. That being said, and in keep with the theme of this thread, how can you justified allowing a 14 year old child to have a pager, when he can't respond? Allowing a child under 18 to ride a the rig code 3, as you stated you do? Would not these actions possible get the child needlessly hurt for little or no gain? As you clearly believe that we are needlessly injuring our men, why are willing to put a child in harms way?



    By the way happy Father's Day to you and rest of the guys. I might not like what you say. I might not hardly ever agree with you, but this is the "Fire House" and we can still be somewhat civil to each other when we not kicking the poop out of one another!
    Last edited by BULL321; 06-17-2012 at 05:58 PM.
    Stay Safe
    Bull


    “Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
    - Capt. Marc Cox CFD

    Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
    -WINSTON CHURCHILL
    http://sylvafiredeptnc.tripod.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Pager Help
    By Junior22 in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-04-2013, 06:54 PM
  2. i'm looking for a pager
    By HFDEXP777 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-08-2004, 08:16 PM
  3. I need I pager.
    By Explorer12 in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-01-2001, 09:17 AM
  4. Need a pager?
    By matthewmints in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-23-2001, 12:23 PM
  5. Need a pager??
    By matthewmints in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-21-2001, 12:45 PM

Posting Permissions

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