You have to love the inconsitent Moderation of this place...

[FyredUp]

You realize youre doing the EXACT SAME THING, right?

It's okay for him to do that...after all hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[FWDbuff]

Look, dammit.....Cant we all just get along, it's almost Christmas for crissake!! When the hell do I get my spanking from Snowball?

[LaFireEducator]

Look, dammit.....Cant we all just get along, it's almost Christmas for crissake!! When the hell do I get my spanking from Snowball?

I was going to send you one of those hot blond conservative talking heads to give you good-ole fashioned right-wing spanking, but since you want Snowball so badly, so bad I'll just cancel her.

[FWDbuff]

I was going to send you one of those hot blond conservative talking heads to give you good-ole fashioned right-wing spanking, but since you want Snowball so badly, so bad I'll just cancel her.

meh. They're all too maintenance-intensive. I have a feeling Snowball is easy.

[firepundit]

meh. They're all too maintenance-intensive. I have a feeling Snowball is easy.

Two words. Shiny. Objects.

[FireMedic049]

Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
If you are saying "too many" in a utopian "one is too many" sense, then I could agree with you. However, I suspect that you are not talking about that. The fact is for the last 4 years (including 2012), the annual LODD total has been under 100 while the 10 years prior to that were all over 100 annually. Unfortunately the USFA site is down right now so I can't cite more specifically, but the percentage of LODDs from the things you listed is actually pretty small. Medical and Vehicular related events happen far more often than catastrophic events resulting in LODD.

True. medical and MVAs are the biggest killer of firefighters. That being said I still do not accept the number of members that we are killing during fireground operations, especially given the fact that very, very few of those killed during those operations are performing rescue. Almost all, in fact a huge percentage of those are killed for property, and if you look hard at the incidents, most are killed later in the incident after the property has been clearly lost. The simople fact is as a service we need to be honest and recognize that many times we continue the fight when there is nothing of value to save, which is when the building is at it's weakest.

I think it's pretty obvious that we aren't looking at the same data given your conclusions.

As a service, we need to accept defeat much earlier. That will save firefighter lives.

Maybe we do in some cases, but we certainly shouldn't be waving the white flag before we get there.

While you may be able to read about it everyday in some fashion, it is not necessarily occurring everyday. Firefighting is an ultra hazardous job and there's simply no way to do the job properly and entirely avoid all injuries and deaths. Yes, there are portions of the fire service that haven't quite gotten "with the program" yet and are still engaging in behavior that we know to be "too risky" or ill advised. On the other hand, a lot have and nowadays we tend to hear far more about the "bad stuff" that happens rather than about the ones that are "doing it right".


The fact is our decisions and our need to take action in all situations contributes to it being "ultra hazardous". We always have the option to not go onterior, not attempt a rescue and back off from the incident at any time. And, yes, that includes situations where victims may be involved if they are no longer viable, or we simply do not have the tools and the training to safely perform a rescue, especially in technical situations such as water, ice, collapse, confined space and the like.

Maybe you don't realize this, but it is our job to take action in all situations that we are confronted with. In some situations that means great risk to rescue viable or potentially viable victims. In some situations that means direct mitigation like actually fighting fires from the inside. In some situations that means operating from a defensive standpoint. In some situations that may mean avoiding direct mitigation and focusing on evacuation of civilians and minimizing the spread of the situation while awaiting other resources.

Again, not everybody has gotten with the program.

Is that line of thinking cold? is it heartless? Does it fly in the face of the traditions of the fire service? Most would likely answer yes. But to simply keep sacrificing ourselves in situations which many times are hopeless from the outset simply makes no sense. We can't save everybody and there will be times that we need to say "no" even if every cell in our body, and the public expectations, screams "go".

I agree in principal, however I disagree that we are sacrificing ourselves at the volume you seem to think is happening. Anybody who's been doing this job for any length of time knows that we can't save everybody, however that's no excuse for not making the attempt to save the ones that we might be able to. Since you seem to be oblivious to it, we have long been saying "no" despite the overwhelming desire to "go". The Worchester Cold Storage fire comes to mind as just one example. The IC pulled the plug on the rescue effort for his own men because he knew the risk was just too great to send more in looking for them.

The time has come that as a service we need to state that we are the priority. And our actions on the fireground needs to relect that statement.

I agree that our own safety has to be a priority and our actions should reflect that, however that shouldn't mean that the people we have sworn to protect should become less of a priority.

You are correct, the numbers, headlines, magazines and websites don't lie. You on the other hand either do or are simply out of touch with reality.

No, I'm not. Fires are hotter and burning faster. Buildings are weaker. Manpower levesl have decreased. Experience levels have lessened. And in many places, training budgets have been decreased. Everything that we need to be effective in high risk situations has decreased. it's time that we recognize that and adjust our operations to reflect the new reality of the fire service.

You missed the point. I wasn't commenting on the things you just listed. I was commenting on the validity of your data regarding the manor of LODDs.

And I don't believe anybody has said that improvement in these areas isn't needed.

And until we can get meaningful improvement, we need to asjust our tactics and pull back from the way we are accustomed to operating.

Hello, McFly? Many segments of the fire service have been seriously working on it and making progress. Unfortunately, not everybody has jumped on board with this yet. Culture change takes time.

Maybe both of your departments do these things, but not all do.

And it's not the state's job to mandate training levels. That is the responsibility of the fire department. if they want to assume the liability of poor training, it's their call. If they want higher training levels, once again, it's thier call.

It's actually a combined responsibility. Each fire department has the responsibility to ensure their personnel are appropriately trained for the situations they will or potentially will encounter. However, it is absolutely the state's responsibility to ensure a minimum standard for its public safety personnel.

In a perfect world where every department would have equal access to training resources and facilities, I may be closer to agreement, but that's not the case, and to demand the same training levels of members who are paid to train and train while at work v. members who train in addition to fulltime employment, or departments with significant training budgets v. departments working on a shoestring with minimal resources is simply insane.

We've been over this before. We aren't talking about a quantitative training standard and expecting volunteers to match hours with career folks, but rather a minimum competency standard regarding basic firefighter skills and knowledge. Please note the emphasis on the minimum part.

I'm all for training. I am an instructor, but I realize that requiring across the board standards for all members and all departments is simply unrealistic.

It's not unrealistic, you just can't comprehend what we are talking about.

We fully realize this and it makes things challenging, but the reality in all of America is that the citizens expect their Fire Department to be able to perform like one - specifically being able to put their fire out and rescue their loved ones.

And we have discussed this before. Most small communities know that thier fire department is limited in thier abilities.

Some may know, but I know there are plenty of others that aren't aware or aren't aware of just how limited those abilities actually are.

Yes, they have value as part of the "team" and philosophically all parts of the team have "equal value", however the reality is not all of the parts are in fact equally valuable individually.

From a team perspective, every position on a football team is equally valuable because it takes all of them working together to be successful. From an individual perspective all of the players have value, but they are not all equally valuable. Part of that is based off performance, part is based on utility and part is based off the situation. Not all players at a specific position perform equally. Not all players have the ability to play more than one position or role on the team. If you need a quarterback, but all you have available is offensive lineman and a kicker, how "valuable" are they at that moment?

Firefighting is very much a team sport and there may be value to having "position players", but it's hard to argue on an individual basis that a person who can only do one or two roles on the fireground is equally valuable as a person that could fill any role. It's also hard to argue that everyone is equally valuable when you need interior capable firefighters, but only have exterior or driver only personnel available for assignment.

For the most part, we recognize that these individuals have value to the organization, but we also recognize that that value comes with the potential for real world limitations.

Again, we realize this and understand it may not change. However, the issue isn't so much with what we think a "firefighter should be" based on our piece of the pie, but rather what the citizens' expect a firefighter and fire department to actually be. Unfortunately, we know that in too many places, the capability doesn't match that expectation. You can call it a "purist view" if you want, we prefer to think of it as "truth in advertising".

Again, we have had this discussion many times. A volunteer department can only be as good as the community it draws ferom, and the department will reflect that population. Small communities with aging populations will have a limited number of members, that likely will reflect those age demographics. They must work with what they have, not with what they want, and as such, will likely have alimited number of folks capable of interior operations.

There is no way to get beyyond that.

Again, you missed the point.

[LaFireEducator]

I think it's pretty obvious that we aren't looking at the same data given your conclusions.

Or we are looking at the same data in different ways. Fires are decreasing yet the LODDs are injuries, while decreasing, are not decr4easing at the same rate as fires, so we are still behind the curve. If we were not, injuries and LODDs would be decreasing at the same rate as fires.

Maybe we do in some cases, but we certainly shouldn't be waving the white flag before we get there.

Disagreed.

There are certainly situations where we should be thinking defensive before we arrive. Large buildings where pre-plans have indicated a water supply issue. lower than usual response in volunteer responses. Reports of heavy fire from dispatch. Heavy fire on arrival where a realistic size-up would indicate that there is simply no point in going offensive. I could easily think of 100 situations both enroute and immediately after arrival, where yes, we should be waving the white flag and accepting the fact that we have lost the fight before we take any action. call that defeatist. I call it being realistic about either the situation, the fire or the resources, or a combination of those.

Maybe you don't realize this, but it is our job to take action in all situations that we are confronted with. In some situations that means great risk to rescue viable or potentially viable victims. In some situations that means direct mitigation like actually fighting fires from the inside. In some situations that means operating from a defensive standpoint. In some situations that may mean avoiding direct mitigation and focusing on evacuation of civilians and minimizing the spread of the situation while awaiting other resources.

Again, disagreed.

As an example, technical rescue operations such as water, ice, trench, confined space and the like where the initial responding department arrives and has no training, resources or experience. No, we don't improvise. No, we don't wing it. We accept the reality that we simply CAN'T do anything, call for a mutual aid department that may have the training, resources and experience and hope the victim is still viable when they arrive.

Again, cold? Heartless? Not in the traditions of the fire service? Probably, but to throw members into a situation they are not trained or equipped for is equally cold and heartless to their families.


I agree in principal, however I disagree that we are sacrificing ourselves at the volume you seem to think is happening. Anybody who's been doing this job for any length of time knows that we can't save everybody, however that's no excuse for not making the attempt to save the ones that we might be able to. Since you seem to be oblivious to it, we have long been saying "no" despite the overwhelming desire to "go". The Worchester Cold Storage fire comes to mind as just one example. The IC pulled the plug on the rescue effort for his own men because he knew the risk was just too great to send more in looking for them.

One could argue that WFD probably should never had made entry into that structure knowing the safety hazards it posed, especially given that the formation was that a couple of folks "might be in there", though this probably isn't the time for that debate. The fact is there are departments that enter abandoned structures in this country on the possibility that it "might be occupied". To me, that's senseless. I know there are many here who disagree with that but to me that risk is simply unacceptable.

I agree that our own safety has to be a priority and our actions should reflect that, however that shouldn't mean that the people we have sworn to protect should become less of a priority.

We have debated this many, many times and let's call this one a draw.


Hello, McFly? Many segments of the fire service have been seriously working on it and making progress. Unfortunately, not everybody has jumped on board with this yet. Culture change takes time.

I would agree but those segments are not in the majority.

It's actually a combined responsibility. Each fire department has the responsibility to ensure their personnel are appropriately trained for the situations they will or potentially will encounter. However, it is absolutely the state's responsibility to ensure a minimum standard for its public safety personnel.

Disagree, We don't need a damn nanny state. let's call this one a draw too.

We've been over this before. We aren't talking about a quantitative training standard and expecting volunteers to match hours with career folks, but rather a minimum competency standard regarding basic firefighter skills and knowledge. Please note the emphasis on the minimum part.

Some posters here do believe that career and volunteer should be trained to the same level.

Again, define minimum. Just about every state somehow comes up with a different number of hours.

It's not unrealistic, you just can't comprehend what we are talking about.

No, I have talked to a lot of folks in this state, as well as several others and know how tough it can be to access training. It is unrealistic to put everyone, even departments in the same state, on a level playing field.

Some may know, but I know there are plenty of others that aren't aware or aren't aware of just how limited those abilities actually are.

I think most members of a rural community are much more attuned to what they can expect out of fire, EME and LE than you think.

Again, you missed the point.

We have discussed all of this before and neither one of us have budged.

Let's call it a draw and eat some Christmas cookies.

have a great holiday season.

[scfire86]

No, I have talked to a lot of folks in this state, as well as several others and know how tough it can be to access training. It is unrealistic to put everyone, even departments in the same state, on a level playing field.

This is the typical mindset of a p*** poor individual from a p*** poor FD working in a p*** poor community who makes p*** poor excuses as to why he shouldn't act in an emergency situation.

[FyredUp]

GOD DAMN IT! Put it away. ALL of you. I started this topic to talk about the competely ludicrous inconsistent moderation. Start your own topic and get out of this one.

[LVFD301]

20 amps is the usual fuse size for a LED light bar - standard size.

I do so like turtles.

Big Gay Al's highway rest stop is now looking for new franchisees!

Spankings for sale or rent, rooms to let for 50 cents.

This should get the thread locked.....

[FyredUp]

20 amps is the usual fuse size for a LED light bar - standard size.

I do so like turtles.

Big Gay Al's highway rest stop is now looking for new franchisees!

Spankings for sale or rent, rooms to let for 50 cents.

This should get the thread locked.....

There is no reason to lock this thread. Funny how all those who have railed on me in this topic are the very same ones that have dragged this thing so far off topic. Funny how they can't see themselves in the mirror doing exactly what they are ****ing and moaning about.

[LVFD301]

There is no reason to lock this thread. Funny how all those who have railed on me in this topic are the very same ones that have dragged this thing so far off topic. Funny how they can't see themselves in the mirror doing exactly what they are ****ing and moaning about.

I agree - it was an attempt at some humor - seems the web team did not do anything with the other one until spankings were discussed, so I thought I would see if it happened here also.

[LaFireEducator]

I agree - it was an attempt at some humor - seems the web team did not do anything with the other one until spankings were discussed, so I thought I would see if it happened here also.

So you are saying that S P A N K I N G seems to be the magic word .... But, then again not?

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

Depends on what they are "spanking"...

[johnsb]

GOD DAMN IT! Put it away. ALL of you. I started this topic to talk about the competely ludicrous inconsistent moderation. Start your own topic and get out of this one.

Heck, I once tried to get MY OWN thread locked because it had turned into a train wreck, and got NO response from the Mods. You're definitely right about the consistancy.

[snowball]

Heck, I once tried to get MY OWN thread locked because it had turned into a train wreck, and got NO response from the Mods. You're definitely right about the consistancy.

The mods are partying it up in preparation for 12-21-12!

[FireMedic049]

Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
I think it's pretty obvious that we aren't looking at the same data given your conclusions.

Or we are looking at the same data in different ways. Fires are decreasing yet the LODDs are injuries, while decreasing, are not decr4easing at the same rate as fires, so we are still behind the curve. If we were not, injuries and LODDs would be decreasing at the same rate as fires.

It's simply not realistic to expect that LODDs and injuries would decrease at the exact same rate as the reduction of fires. Additionally, while fires overall may have decreased, a lot of us are seeing increased workloads. Many of us have taken on additional duties. Call volume for many of us has increased. For some it's due to an overall increase in calls, for some it's a company level increase due to brownouts and company/station closures. It's very realistic for these things to cause an increase in injuries while injuries at fires decrease.

Maybe we do in some cases, but we certainly shouldn't be waving the white flag before we get there.

Disagreed.

There are certainly situations where we should be thinking defensive before we arrive. Large buildings where pre-plans have indicated a water supply issue. lower than usual response in volunteer responses. Reports of heavy fire from dispatch. Heavy fire on arrival where a realistic size-up would indicate that there is simply no point in going offensive. I could easily think of 100 situations both enroute and immediately after arrival, where yes, we should be waving the white flag and accepting the fact that we have lost the fight before we take any action. call that defeatist. I call it being realistic about either the situation, the fire or the resources, or a combination of those.

I can think of lots of situation too in which defensive operations would be prudent, however there's a distinct difference between sizing up an incident, making the determination that operations should be defensive from the start, then putting that plan into action and deciding operations should be defensive before you even get to the scene based on incomplete information because you don't know what the actual situation is.

Maybe you don't realize this, but it is our job to take action in all situations that we are confronted with. In some situations that means great risk to rescue viable or potentially viable victims. In some situations that means direct mitigation like actually fighting fires from the inside. In some situations that means operating from a defensive standpoint. In some situations that may mean avoiding direct mitigation and focusing on evacuation of civilians and minimizing the spread of the situation while awaiting other resources.

Again, disagreed.

As an example, technical rescue operations such as water, ice, trench, confined space and the like where the initial responding department arrives and has no training, resources or experience. No, we don't improvise. No, we don't wing it. We accept the reality that we simply CAN'T do anything, call for a mutual aid department that may have the training, resources and experience and hope the victim is still viable when they arrive.

Again, cold? Heartless? Not in the traditions of the fire service? Probably, but to throw members into a situation they are not trained or equipped for is equally cold and heartless to their families.

You still need to work on your reading comprehension because I did address the example you cited, but in general terms. I stated "In some situations that may mean avoiding direct mitigation and focusing on evacuation of civilians and minimizing the spread of the situation while awaiting other resources."

Not attempting a rescue in the circumstances you stated and waiting for mutual aid with the proper training/equipment is "avoiding direct mitigation........while awaiting other resources".

[Picc.93Truck]

Hey, Hey... hey... If i was a mod i'd lock this thread... You guys fight like Women...

[slackjawedyokel]

Mod squad ----

[HeavyRescueTech]

hate to bottomline it, but the forums are free, and no one is forcing you be there. If you don't like how the mods do things here, you can always leave. It's their sandbox to rule as they choose.

it does annoy me with the inconstancy, but I'm not going to stress it. and I can always find another forum to frequent if it does bother me that much.