Like Tree130Likes

Thread: The danger of LAFE's way of thinking

  1. #1
    Forum Member
    IronsMan53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    656

    Default The danger of LAFE's way of thinking

    The following link is a story of the mall collapse in Canada.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06...ch-was-halted/

    Apparently there was some evidence of live victims left in the rubble. The USAR team cited instability and lack of progress for calling off the search. They didn't pause the search to consider another approach... They called it off.

    The public response indicated that they felt USAR held their lives in higher regard than the possible victims. In fact, this is the exact sentiment that LAFE and many other "progressive" members of the fire service extoll.

    Lt. MacCormack pointed out the fallacy of placing ourselves on a pedestal over the public's lives in his FDIC speech several years ago. He warned that such thinking would cause us to lose the support of the people we serve. The public's response in this case proved him right.

    So whether these guys actually felt that way or not, the mere appearance of such thoughts has definitely done some damage in the public's eye.
    I can't believe they actually pay me to do this!!!

    One friend noted yesterday that a fire officer only carries a flashlight, sometimes prompting grumbling from firefighters who have to lug tools and hoses.
    "The old saying is you never know how heavy that flashlight can become," the friend said.
    -from a tragic story posted on firefighterclosecalls.com

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    I wish I could take credit for "this line of thinking", but I can't.

    There has been this train of thought among a much bigger segment of the fire service then you would like to beleive for many years now that says that our lives are as important as the victims, and when the risk is higher than the reasonable benefit, we, the responders, win.

    Sorry you disagree with it, but there are situations where the risk is too great for too little benefit.

    This may have been one of them.

    I would bet that the majority of the public didn't see it as a problem. Sure the friends and families of the victims did, as would be expected given their attachment, however that is where we need to be able to attached at ourselves from any emotional tie to the situation, and think without the emotional commitment that we may attach to the situation "if the victims were our friends and loved ones".

    We are professionals and need to purely make decisions with the, what some would say cold and unfeeling, risk v. benefit model.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 06-26-2012 at 09:20 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    FiremanLyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    948

    Default

    And if everyone stops quoting LAFE, it helps because those of us smart enough to use the "ignore list" option have stopped reading what he says anyhow.

    Worked wonders last year with that NY volly that used crowbars... Scarecrow was it?
    ~Drew
    Firefighter/EMT/Technical Rescue
    USAR TF Rescue Specialist

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    So you would choose public perception over a life risk?

    I'm willing to bet the USAR on scene had reasons to feel differently than you and made the choice they had to make.
    "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?

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,303

    Default

    Risk a lot to save a lot. Risk little to save little.

    I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm faced with the choice of certain death or serious injury to attempt a rescue that in all likelihood will not be successful, I'm going to opt to see my grandson next weekend.
    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I wish I could take credit for "this line of thinking", but I can't.

    I wish it was only you too. But unfortunately there are more who believe in this nonsense.

    There has been this train of thought among a much bigger segment of the fire service then you would like to beleive for many years now that says that our lives are as important as the victims, and when the risk is higher than the reasonable benefit, we, the responders, win.

    So as individual firefighhters we now get to decide what we will and won't do on the fire scene? Really? I will not apologize for my thought process that says if there is any chance to make a rescue I will try to affect that rescue.

    Sorry you disagree with it, but there are situations where the risk is too great for too little benefit.

    Sorry, you are WRONG, the public expects us to save lives or at least make an attempt. Not just to quit and leave.

    This may have been one of them.

    Of course you agree with the decision, you'd write off your own family.

    I would bet that the majority of the public didn't see it as a problem. Sure the friends and families of the victims did, as would be expected given their attachment, however that is where we need to be able to attached at ourselves from any emotional tie to the situation, and think without the emotional commitment that we may attach to the situation "if the victims were our friends and loved ones".

    You really are a cold blooded son of a bitch...writing people off like the days trash...

    We are professionals and need to purely make decisions with the, what some would say cold and unfeeling, risk v. benefit model.

    I hope I am NEVER as cold blooded as you are. If I am I hope I am smart enough to get out of the fire service.
    Every time you post I am glad almost half a continent seperates us.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Well, to be fair, this USAR team was run by cops. I'm not a big fan of the PD doing FD work.

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I wish I could take credit for "this line of thinking", but I can't.

    There has been this train of thought among a much bigger segment of the fire service then you would like to beleive for many years now that says that our lives are as important as the victims, and when the risk is higher than the reasonable benefit, we, the responders, win.

    Sorry you disagree with it, but there are situations where the risk is too great for too little benefit.
    No surprise, you just don't get it.

    Nobody is suggesting engaging in kamikaze missions. I doubt anybody truly believes that our lives are not just as important as those we serve. Yes, there are times when the risk is far too great and as hard as it may be, we need to not do something. The Worcester 6 and the cold storage fire comes to mind.

    Yes, we need to be smart about how we are operating and not do careless, reckless and/or foolish things that have a high likelihood for injury/death and little to no reward. Operating inside unstable vacant/derilict/abandoned structures heavily engulfed in fire comes to mind.

    The problem is not valuing our lives too little, the problem is valuing our lives to the point where inaction is the rule of the day because "it looks dangerous" or "we might get hurt".
    Weruj1 likes this.

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

    Default

    While our lives are just as important as the victims, it is understood that you make the victim's life a priority. That doesn't mean kill yourself to grab a dead body but to make every decision based upon that victims survival. If faced with pulling out a victim or a brother I'd choose a brother, they both now victims and only one has a higher chance of survival. I don't think lafe's problem is 100% cowardice but his acceptance of **** poor training and firefighter standards. Would I partake in "riskier" fireground actions than him? From his POV of view it's an absolute yes but from mine, not really. Difference is that the when faced with VES or nothing, I feel confident in my ability exhaust I've done it before. LAFE is content with training less which makes capable of less. This is why searching seemingly vacant houses seems so foreign and dangerous to him. On my side, I've don't it, I've pulled people out, I've put the fire out. It's routine. And I think that's what ray is talking about. He's not saying "Be a hero, do it no matter what", rather, he's saying "focus on what it is that we do, which is extinguishment. Not being in a cocoon of safety". If you're more effective as a department, you are safer by proxy.

    LODDs aren't suppose to be viewed as fodder for arm chair quarterbacks and that's what EGH has become. People like bobby take one millionth of a situation and compare it to their department worlds apart. Our job is dangerous, it will always be dangerous. The problem is wen LAFE advocates inaction as a remedy instead of making firefighters, smarter, fitter, and more capable of combatting today's fire conditions.

    Food for thought: No firefighter had died in a vacant building with a victim. When there's a victim, it is no longer vacant. My department lacks psychic powers so, when possible, we search it.

    Stop the knee jerk reactions to safety, stop covering up inadequicies with safety vest. Take an honest assessment of your men and your district and operations and fill in the gaps. You'll save more lives (especially our own) being better firemen than this so-called "safe" firemen.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    IronsMan53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    So you would choose public perception over a life risk?

    I'm willing to bet the USAR on scene had reasons to feel differently than you and made the choice they had to make.
    No, not saying that at all. I am not calling into question the actual decision to stop the rescue attempt.

    I am pointing out the public's reaction to the decision to stop and their perception of the rescuers.

    The fire service has been extolling MA#1 (My @ss #1) for several years now. Now, I am sure that most guys properly weigh risk vs benefit in their decision making and make a good hard push if there is a victim. I also think that there are some that use MA#1 to place themselves in very little risk regardless of the benefit.

    I feel that the public thinks that they are still #1. Any perceived change of this could cause a backlash such as the case I pointed out. I'm not saying that we need to be stupid or reckless in our jobs. But I feel that we need to weigh how our actions are perceived by the public.

    Why do you think we put on a show for the public at large mill fires that we have no hope of overwhelming the fire? So they could say the fire department did everything they could and so that the Mayor won't be knocking on the Chief's door the next morning wondering why more wasn't done.

    Incidentally, Firegeezer.com is reporting this morning that the decision to stop was made above the level of the USAR team. The search is back on.
    I can't believe they actually pay me to do this!!!

    One friend noted yesterday that a fire officer only carries a flashlight, sometimes prompting grumbling from firefighters who have to lug tools and hoses.
    "The old saying is you never know how heavy that flashlight can become," the friend said.
    -from a tragic story posted on firefighterclosecalls.com

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    IronsMan53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    While our lives are just as important as the victims, it is understood that you make the victim's life a priority. That doesn't mean kill yourself to grab a dead body but to make every decision based upon that victims survival. If faced with pulling out a victim or a brother I'd choose a brother, they both now victims and only one has a higher chance of survival. I don't think lafe's problem is 100% cowardice but his acceptance of **** poor training and firefighter standards. Would I partake in "riskier" fireground actions than him? From his POV of view it's an absolute yes but from mine, not really. Difference is that the when faced with VES or nothing, I feel confident in my ability exhaust I've done it before. LAFE is content with training less which makes capable of less. This is why searching seemingly vacant houses seems so foreign and dangerous to him. On my side, I've don't it, I've pulled people out, I've put the fire out. It's routine. And I think that's what ray is talking about. He's not saying "Be a hero, do it no matter what", rather, he's saying "focus on what it is that we do, which is extinguishment. Not being in a cocoon of safety". If you're more effective as a department, you are safer by proxy.

    LODDs aren't suppose to be viewed as fodder for arm chair quarterbacks and that's what EGH has become. People like bobby take one millionth of a situation and compare it to their department worlds apart. Our job is dangerous, it will always be dangerous. The problem is wen LAFE advocates inaction as a remedy instead of making firefighters, smarter, fitter, and more capable of combatting today's fire conditions.

    Food for thought: No firefighter had died in a vacant building with a victim. When there's a victim, it is no longer vacant. My department lacks psychic powers so, when possible, we search it.

    Stop the knee jerk reactions to safety, stop covering up inadequicies with safety vest. Take an honest assessment of your men and your district and operations and fill in the gaps. You'll save more lives (especially our own) being better firemen than this so-called "safe" firemen.
    Great post! I share the same sentiment.
    I can't believe they actually pay me to do this!!!

    One friend noted yesterday that a fire officer only carries a flashlight, sometimes prompting grumbling from firefighters who have to lug tools and hoses.
    "The old saying is you never know how heavy that flashlight can become," the friend said.
    -from a tragic story posted on firefighterclosecalls.com

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    While our lives are just as important as the victims, it is understood that you make the victim's life a priority.

    When you have the training, experience, manpower, resources and water supply to do so without an unreasonable risk of signiciant injury to the members. To say anything else or make that a blanket expectation of every fire department irregardless of resources, mapower, proper training and experience is reckless, irresponsible and very dangerous. There will always be departments incapable of doing that and we as a service to to acknowledge that, and accept that as the reality.

    That doesn't mean kill yourself to grab a dead body but to make every decision based upon that victims survival. If faced with pulling out a victim or a brother I'd choose a brother, they both now victims and only one has a higher chance of survival. I don't think lafe's problem is 100% cowardice but his acceptance of **** poor training and firefighter standards.

    Actually I have been very well trained over the years, both within my departments and by several state training agencies. In fact, my training, especially my early training, encouraged the type of aggressiveness that you talk about today. It has been my personal conclusion over the last 15 years that the level of aggressiveness that I was trained with is no longer valid given todays's fires and today's realities in terms of overall fire department manpower and experience levels. While at one time, at the begginning of my career, fire conditions allowed us to be far more aggressive, today's fire loads and fires, as well as modern building construction, do not give us that opportunity except in limited situations.

    I have recognized that the world has changed and have accepted that we can no longer, and should no longer, be nearly as aggressive as when I started in this business 30 plus years ago.


    Would I partake in "riskier" fireground actions than him? From his POV of view it's an absolute yes but from mine, not really. Difference is that the when faced with VES or nothing, I feel confident in my ability exhaust I've done it before.

    And I feel confident my abilities as well. While I no longer activly fight fire as much as I used to on my combo department, as there is no need given the volunteer staffing, I still am quite active on my VFD. In terms of taking risks, no I would no longer likely take the risks that you do for as number of reasons. Those reasons do not include a lack of skill or confidence, but include the reality of my age, an acknowledgement of the fire conditions we encounter today, and yes, and acknowledgement of my responsibilities to my wife and family off the fireground. Given the realistic possibility of a rescue of a viable victim, I likely would take actions that would surprise you.

    LAFE is content with training less which makes capable of less.

    No, but I fully underatnd the time restraints that volunteers work with in terms of training, and know that for the majority of the population, the time to train is not as large as it once was. If to you that means accepting less, I guess that is your perception. To me it's again, acknowledging that the volunteer fire service needs to adapt in order to maintain volunteer staffing, which is many places, is the only option for fire protection.



    This is why searching seemingly vacant houses seems so foreign and dangerous to him. On my side, I've don't it, I've pulled people out, I've put the fire out. It's routine.

    And in my earlier years, so have I. Over time though I realized that the risk involved in these actions in abandoned buildings are not worth the benefits unless there are credible reports of victims. Sorry, but the whole "building is occupied until we say otherwise" line just doesn't hold water with me given the risks involved with abondoned structures.And again, I have no issues operating vacants if the resources, mapower and command structure are on scene to handle the incident safely.

    And I think that's what ray is talking about. He's not saying "Be a hero, do it no matter what", rather, he's saying "focus on what it is that we do, which is extinguishment. Not being in a cocoon of safety". If you're more effective as a department, you are safer by proxy.

    Yes, we need to train for extinguishment, but making every sure member returns home without significant injury needs to be the priority and needs to drive every decsion that we make with the exceoption of very rare situations, especially in the rural enviroment with delayed notifications and extended response times, where we have viable victims and a rescue is a realsitic possibility.

    That needs to be the priority, not the aggressive extinguishment of the fire.


    LODDs aren't suppose to be viewed as fodder for arm chair quarterbacks and that's what EGH has become. People like bobby take one millionth of a situation and compare it to their department worlds apart.

    No, I take LODD situations and apply them to my world. I compare resources, training and experience and determine "what would likely happen here?". I learn from every LODD and look at how it compares to our operations.

    Our job is dangerous, it will always be dangerous.

    And we control how dangerous it is by the choices that we make. . We control how fast the apparatus travels, and what we do at intersections and if we demand that every member buckles up every time. We control how we wear our PPE. And when we arrive on scene, we control what actions we will take and buildings we enter and what buildings we don't, and that shouldn't be determined in whole or in any part by how we want the public to percieve us. That should be based simply on can we realistically change the outcome at that incident, and is that change worth the risk to our personnel. That should be the one and only basis for how we arrive at our plan of action.

    Sorry to say there is an element of the fire service that still feeds off that danger, and feeds off the need to take those risks, even if they are unjustified by the benefit, so they can be percieved as "heroes".


    The problem is wen LAFE advocates inaction as a remedy instead of making firefighters, smarter, fitter, and more capable of combatting today's fire conditions.

    I advocate inaction when inaction is the safest course and that action will likely not change the outcome of the incident. I also have stated that risk is appropriatte when there are viable lives to be saved and the department has the training to do so, and you know that as well.

    As far as your charge that I don't advocate making firefighters smarter and better trained, that's a bunch of crap and you know it. My deeication to delivering training (without pay) at both of my departments as well as at other departments in the region demonstrates otherwise.

    Food for thought: No firefighter had died in a vacant building with a victim. When there's a victim, it is no longer vacant. My department lacks psychic powers so, when possible, we search it.

    And how many firefighters have been burn, injured or killed in vacant structures that were be found to be vacant? Sorry, in my area, as well as previous areas in which I have served, the liklihood of finding a victim does not justify the risk.

    Stop the knee jerk reactions to safety, stop covering up inadequicies with safety vest. Take an honest assessment of your men and your district and operations and fill in the gaps. You'll save more lives (especially our own) being better firemen than this so-called "safe" firemen.
    I strongly believe in honestly assessing your resources. And that in part, is why have come to the conclusions that I have. Training does need to fill in the gaps, you are right about that, but likely in most VFDs, the time does not exist to fill in all the gaps, and we as officers in our own departments need to acknowledge that, and acknowledge those limitations those gaps cause.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    I'll leave the smaller pieces of crap for everyone else to laugh at.

    Quick question(s).

    You said we control the amount of danger by the choices we make.

    What choice have you taken in terms of promoting physical fitness and not just accepting below grade standards?

    What choice did you make in allowing barely trained men to operate on the fire ground?

    What choice did you make on how you approach training? Are you basing it off of past fires that are finished or on fires that may happen and you should be ready for?

    Are you more concerned with filling a scene with bodies, basically anyone who can do anything no matter how small, or do you want quality, trained and skilled men who can do almost all of their job description?

    Your choices are negatively impacting the men you are suppose to protect while you hide behind a false flag of safety.





    How many have we lost searching in vacant buildings? Do you want me to answer that?

    0, for the past two years. It's not a "problem" or epidemic, it's non existent. How many are losing, each year, to poor fitness? Exactly. Ignore the real problem and cry about the made up one.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I strongly believe in honestly assessing your resources. And that in part, is why have come to the conclusions that I have. Training does need to fill in the gaps, you are right about that, but likely in most VFDs, the time does not exist to fill in all the gaps, and we as officers in our own departments need to acknowledge that, and acknowledge those limitations those gaps cause.
    Why should I as an officer have to accept that people "don't have time" to train? Would they tell their full time job they don't have to train? Would they tell them they don't have time to work? And I can already read your reply, "The fact of the matter is that a volunteer fire department doesn't put food on the table blah blah blah."

    To me, as far as fire training is concerned, "I don't have time" is unacceptable. If you don't have time for training, make time. You knew when you filled out the application and got your pager that there were going to be commitments that had to be made, INCLUDING training. If you don't want to give anything else up, give up the fire department. Because to be perfectly honest with you, I would rather have 6 guys who are hungry for knowledge, experience, and training exceeding what they have now, than a full roster of people who don't want to train, and may or may not show up to a call, depending on "how good it sounds."

    We live in two completely different worlds as far as our thought processes go on the fire service. And quite honestly, I'd be ashamed of myself if my mind worked like yours.

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    I agree, if you can't find time to train which is a plannable event then you dont have time to respond and are of little use.

    I work with departments with a roster 40 people long and I always see the same 5-10. I see other departments with 10 guys, and they have the exact same response. Your roster doesnt mean ****. 5 capable guys are still more valuable than 10 who can only do 1 or 2 things. While support functions are wonderful and I'm grateful to have them, I can't understand how you ignore the very definition of the "support". You can't make a core group out of support. Stop being such a dip****.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Why should I as an officer have to accept that people "don't have time" to train? Would they tell their full time job they don't have to train? Would they tell them they don't have time to work? And I can already read your reply, "The fact of the matter is that a volunteer fire department doesn't put food on the table blah blah blah."

    To me, as far as fire training is concerned, "I don't have time" is unacceptable. If you don't have time for training, make time. You knew when you filled out the application and got your pager that there were going to be commitments that had to be made, INCLUDING training. If you don't want to give anything else up, give up the fire department. Because to be perfectly honest with you, I would rather have 6 guys who are hungry for knowledge, experience, and training exceeding what they have now, than a full roster of people who don't want to train, and may or may not show up to a call, depending on "how good it sounds."

    I have no issue with reasonable training - once a week for 2-3 hours as the requirement with a minimum 75% attendance. In fact, I would support that on my combo department and it is considered the minimum requirement on my volunteer department. IMO if somebody is unable to commit to that, they should not be on the line, even as a volunteer.

    We live in two completely different worlds as far as our thought processes go on the fire service. And quite honestly, I'd be ashamed of myself if my mind worked like yours.
    And maybe we are. training needs to take place. But to expect a typical married volunteer with children to commit more 2-4 hours a week to training is simply unreasonable, and will do nothing but render the department cronically short of manpower.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    No, it'll weed out those taking up gear for no purpose, and make those who are dedicated much better. You can double your resources without adding a single person. But, **** it, you have no use for logic.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    I'll leave the smaller pieces of crap for everyone else to laugh at.

    Quick question(s).

    You said we control the amount of danger by the choices we make.

    What choice have you taken in terms of promoting physical fitness and not just accepting below grade standards?

    I encourage physical fitness. That being said, in my position I can't enforce physical fitness. As a department, we could, if we choose to, but what would the cost be in terms of manpower? For some departments, it would be significant.

    Can we as instructors design drills that test fitness v. continious classroom training? Sure, and the Captain who manages training and myself on my VFD, with the approval of our Chief, has done just that. Our training has got much more physical over the past several months, and will continue that way. Because of that change at least 2 of our volunteers are working out now on a regular basis because the physical training has identified thier physical condition as a weakness.


    What choice did you make in allowing barely trained men to operate on the fire ground?


    We don't have anyone, except probationary members who are in the training process and are limited to what task they can perform, on either department that would fall into that catagory. Our training, on both departmnents, is designed to teach members the skills they will perform operating in those departments on a daily basis.

    Both departments use a training plan that works for us.



    What choice did you make on how you approach training? Are you basing it off of past fires that are finished or on fires that may happen and you should be ready for?

    Training is based on the identified training needs and weaknesses of the members and the training needs posed by the occupancies of the district.


    Are you more concerned with filling a scene with bodies, basically anyone who can do anything no matter how small, or do you want quality, trained and skilled men who can do almost all of their job description?

    I have no issues with putting support bodies on-scene with a very limited scope of responsibilities as it costs us little or nothing to do so supporting a core group of exterior and interior firefighters trained to perform fire supppression, rescue and EMS.

    Your choices are negatively impacting the men you are suppose to protect while you hide behind a false flag of safety.

    I guess that's your opinion. I do what I can to influence them to make better choices in terms of fitness and optional training, which in great part are personal choices. I do what I can to to require a reasonable amount of required training, as well as plan and deliver effective training that addresses the needs of the district, not the needs of a generic cirriculum that does not address many of our real world needs. And I share my experience and knowledge with outside departments.

    How many have we lost searching in vacant buildings? Do you want me to answer that?

    0, for the past two years. It's not a "problem" or epidemic, it's non existent. How many are losing, each year, to poor fitness? Exactly. Ignore the real problem and cry about the made up one.
    Never said I wanted to ignore fitness, but that is in great part a personal choice. As stated above, we can encourage it. We can promote it. And we can design the need for it into drills and training.

    If your department wishes to mandate it for volunteers, have at it, but it comes with a cost, and that cost may very well be driving away volunteers and reducing fire department manpower.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    No, it'll weed out those taking up gear for no purpose, and make those who are dedicated much better. You can double your resources without adding a single person. But, **** it, you have no use for logic.
    No, it will in many departments limit manpower and greatly reduce effectiveness.

    Sorry, you are wrong.

    Just out of curiousity, what would you consider a reasonable number of hours per week that we should demand from volunteers for training? Just give me a number.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  20. #20
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    Risk a lot to save a lot. Risk little to save little.

    I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm faced with the choice of certain death or serious injury to attempt a rescue that in all likelihood will not be successful, I'm going to opt to see my grandson next weekend.

    That's quite the hyperbole you have there. I don't think I've ever seen an incident that ensured certain death, that people wanted to risk lives for, and I doubt you have. The problem is people are putting that "certain death" label on situations that aren't even close to that, and as the building is being demo'd and/or the coroner is picking up dead civilians, alleged firefighters are high fiving themselves because "everyone goes home." Safety is being used as a veil for cowardice, for pretenders that just want a t-shirt or to tell people that they are "firemen."
    ffhh74 likes this.

  21. #21
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    Physical fitness isn't a personal choice, it's a requirement. I run nearly everyday, do my Crossfit type workouts, and eat well to increase my chances of survival. Should I go down, I should receive nearly the same chances of survival as you would. If its not a choice (everywhere but in bobby world) on what you need to know, why should it be a choice on what you can actually do?
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    Physical fitness isn't a personal choice, it's a requirement. I run nearly everyday, do my Crossfit type workouts, and eat well to increase my chances of survival. Should I go down, I should receive nearly the same chances of survival as you would. If its not a choice (everywhere but in bobby world) on what you need to know, why should it be a choice on what you can actually do?
    Unless you want to mandate gym time, or have annual physical performance requirements, it actually is the choice of each member as to how little or how much attention they want to pay to physical fitness.

    So I asked a question a couple of posts back ... How much time do think a volunteer should be required to commit to training per week?
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And maybe we are. training needs to take place. But to expect a typical married volunteer with children to commit more 2-4 hours a week to training is simply unreasonable, and will do nothing but render the department cronically short of manpower.
    Tell that to his widow and children when he is faced with something that he has little or no knowledge about...
    ‎"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

  24. #24
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Unless you want to mandate gym time, or have annual physical performance requirements, it actually is the choice of each member as to how little or how much attention they want to pay to physical fitness.

    So I asked a question a couple of posts back ... How much time do think a volunteer should be required to commit to training per week?
    You dont have to go to a gym to stay in shape, just have some want to. And I will answer your question --- weekly is a **** poor way of tracking a vollys training. yearly is better, and I require first year guys to train a minimun of 100 hours the first year and then a MINIMUN of 60 hours.
    ?

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,048

    Default

    guess I cant say p1ss ----minimum?
    Last edited by slackjawedyokel; 06-27-2012 at 04:53 PM. Reason: spelling
    ?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Danger
    By fender in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-21-2009, 02:43 PM
  2. Danger Will Robinson. Danger!
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-20-2009, 12:47 PM
  3. Danger Zone
    By maverick1862 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-11-2003, 02:12 PM
  4. WARNING WARNING.. DANGER STAYBACK500 DANGER
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 10-21-2003, 07:56 PM
  5. California Fire Danger
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Wildland Firefighting
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-19-2003, 12:31 AM

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register