View Poll Results: Is it worth agressive interior attack on known vacant buildings?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, it is worth the risk

    20 55.56%
  • No, it is not worth the risk

    16 44.44%
Like Tree136Likes

Thread: Risk/Reward Interior attack vacant buildings presentation

  1. #276
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Posted by LaFireEducator
    There is no meaningful gain in operating interior in those situations yet there is significant risk. Far too much risk for my volunteer crew, whose family is expecting him/her to be healthy enough to go to work the next day and earn a paycheck.

    Posted by Fryed
    If they are so worried about being injured or killed, to the point of being unable to act to save the citizens they supposedly protect, then they should quit and stop pretending to be firefighters.



    I doubt they are as worried about being killed or injured as I am about thier safety, but, that's my job as the senior man or the officer. It's my job to be the adult in the room and stop them when the situation, in my estimation, presents significant hazard or risk beyond the potential benefit.

    God you are such an arrogant *** that I want to hurl everytime I read your scatological rantings.

    It seems in your estimation that smoke, heat, and fire are reasons not to enter. Remind me again other than your paycheck why you are a paid employee of a fire department?


    There have been times when they have been damn pi**ed that I had them backoff from a fire. There have been times that they have been pi**ed that I told them to slow down, or come to a complete stop at that red light because they felt they needed to get there NOW. But that's my responsbility. To see the big picture that they may not see and yes, keep them from getting hurt even though they may want to make entry or be more aggressive.

    Blah, blah, blah...At some point someone is going to tell you to shut the hell up...then what will you do? Hold your breath?

    Yes, I am the adult in the room. And it really doesn't matter what they want to do.

    No, it seems in most cases you are the overzealous "Don't go in there it is on fire" personification of all that is wrong with the fire service today. The job is dangerous, we can do our best to be safe, but in order to do the job we have to go in where the smoke, heat and fire are at in order to save lives and extiguish the fire. Those that find more excuses to not to the job than reasons to do it need to get out of the way of the real firefighters.
    Just shaking my head at you...
    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

  2. #277
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    God you are such an arrogant *** that I want to hurl everytime I read your scatological rantings.

    It seems in your estimation that smoke, heat, and fire are reasons not to enter. Remind me again other than your paycheck why you are a paid employee of a fire department?

    Funny .. Smoke, heat and fire when combined with likely no occupants and unknown structural conditions, due to the fact that the building has been abandoned, by it's owner sure seem like perfectly viable reasons not to enter and risk the lives of my primarily volunteer firefighters. Same situation when I am looking at a lightweight truss structure with likely heat in the overhead space and older mobile homes that can burn from end to end in less than 3 minutes. Certainly ano-go without occupancy, and yes, a no-go even in situations where there may be victims, depending upon response times.

    Again, my job as a senior man or officer is simple. keep my folks from being hurt or killed. If I can do that, and still save property and lives, that's great, but saving lives and property will never come ahead of the lives and health of my crew. Ever.


    There have been times when they have been damn pi**ed that I had them backoff from a fire. There have been times that they have been pi**ed that I told them to slow down, or come to a complete stop at that red light because they felt they needed to get there NOW. But that's my responsbility. To see the big picture that they may not see and yes, keep them from getting hurt even though they may want to make entry or be more aggressive.

    Blah, blah, blah...At some point someone is going to tell you to shut the hell up...then what will you do? Hold your breath?

    I'm sure that I will be supported fully by the Chief on the volunteer side and likely by the Chief on my combo department. They both believe that us going home unharmed is the end goal.

    When that is not the case, I will be more than happy to leave.



    No, it seems in most cases you are the overzealous "Don't go in there it is on fire" personification of all that is wrong with the fire service today. The job is dangerous, we can do our best to be safe, but in order to do the job we have to go in where the smoke, heat and fire are at in order to save lives and extiguish the fire. Those that find more excuses to not to the job than reasons to do it need to get out of the way of the real firefighters.

    Yup .. real firefighters.

    Wrong. The problem with the fire service today is that we are still operating like every building is a legacy building and fire loads are like they were in the 80's. Buildings are built to collapse. Fires are burning hot and faster. And many of the ole timers simply don't get it.

    People are always going to die in fires and in my part of the world there is little if anything that the fire department can do about it through response and suppression. We can do quite a bit through prevention, and funneling some of the money away from suppression to prevention, but that's another discussion for another day.

    We are the priority. Period.

    I refuse to accept an injury to anyone of my volunteers and i damn sure refuse to accept that an LODD is simply "a part of the job". if that's your attitude I'm damn glad that you are not a ranking officer in one of my organizations.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  3. #278
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    Whatever.....
    So you don't talk about a run when you get back to the station?
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  4. #279
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    How long will it be before yu stop anyone from ever going interior? There are alreadt TGI's. trusses with gang nails, trusses that are glued, and now the I-Stair. At what point will any fire in a structure be a reason for your justification of the complete pussification of the fire service?

    All this talk about pussification...... Professions change, evolve based on changes in the environment.

    Change to primarily hydrocarbon based fire loads with hotter burning temps, increased heat release rates and dramatic changes in the nature of the smoke. Increase in the number and violence of flashovers. reduced career and volunteer staffing. Closed firehouses with increased response times. Less experience at both the firefighter and officer level..... All good reasons in addition to the ones that you have mentioned to rethink offensive interior operations in many situations.

    You call it pussification. I call it evolving to the changing economic, environmental and social conditions influencing the fire service.

    Again, I have one job as an officer, training staff member and senior man ..... keep my volunteers unhurt and going to work the next day. Everything else falls behind that. And that does include abandoned building operations.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  5. #280
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I call it evolving to the changing economic, environmental and social conditions influencing the fire service.
    You spelled "I call it making better and fancier excuses to disguise my cowardice" wrong.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  6. #281
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    That last line .. Hahahahahaaaaaaaaa... Such a funny guy.

    An abandoned building has been unmaintained by it's owner for an idefinate amount of time. Sorry, but that screams "unknown structural stability" even before the fire has had an affect on it's ability to defy gravity.

    Sorry, but unless I know there is somebody in there, it's ano-go, not unlike lightweight truss commercial buildings and older mobile homes. Any kind of involvement in those buildings, even in many cases, if there is life involved, is also a no-go.

    Simply not worth the potential cost.
    Just walk away, YOU are not by any stretch of the imagination, or any legitimate definition, a firefighter.
    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. #282
    Forum Member
    conrad427's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Just south of Canada
    Posts
    581

    Default

    " Any kind of involvement in those buildings, even in many cases, if there is a life involved, is also a No-Go." Really? You have to just be baiting us at this point right? Jeez, even a cop with no PPE and against better judgment will go into a building to save a life. As you guys have figured out I don't know how to work the cut and paste deal with the quotes.

  8. #283
    MembersZone Subscriber
    JohnVBFD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Norfolk, Va
    Posts
    1,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snowball View Post
    Yeah, no kidding. I'd better demand my entry fees back for the next three BITD races, sell my bike, and ask to be transferred to a slow house.
    I've actually come around to his way of thinking. He's right. There is too much risk out there for too little reward. I think we should all collectively put on our white over coats, tin foil hats and every one should drink that special tonic. I mean, everyday you wake up you can get hurt or killed doing something. Hell you can not even breath without the possibility of your lung collapsing or heart stopping! As human beings we should stop life immediately and rethink our priorities. Until we can have immortality and no death, life has too little reward and way too much risk. It's just not worth it.

    One a serious note, ANYONE, who needs a black and white blanket policy to function in life is a person who has neither been given the training, sought out the training, or lacks the ability to think and reason to function. They are the sheep of humanity. They need someone who has a mind to reason, evaluate and decide to follow.
    conrad427 likes this.
    Co 11
    Virginia Beach FD

    Amateurs practice until they get it right; professionals practice until they cannot get it wrong. Which one are you?

    'The fire went out and nobody got hurt' is a poor excuse for a fireground critique.

  9. #284
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So you don't talk about a run when you get back to the station?
    I talk about it if I were on it and took command and saw that something needed to be addressed or to commend the troops for a job well done. The difference is that I do not micromanage the personnel under my command, they know their job and what is expected.
    ‎"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

  10. #285
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    225

    Default

    LAFireEducator:

    Do the citizens of Bossier Parrish, LA realize they basically have no fire department?

    If you're going to remain in a rank or managerial capacity, have the human decency to do a mass mailing and let residents know that if they are ever trapped in a burning building they are gonna die. Hey, screw 'em its their fault for being in a burning structure; right?

    Sir if you were one of us, no explanation would be necessary. Since you're not one of us, no explanation is even possible. I'm glad there are still MEN out there willing to lay it all on the line for their fellow man. This board is full of such men, and so is the fire service. You wouldn't know a flipping thing about it.

  11. #286
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Wrong. The problem with the fire service today is that we are still operating like every building is a legacy building and fire loads are like they were in the 80's. Buildings are built to collapse. Fires are burning hot and faster. And many of the ole timers simply don't get it.
    That is a bull$#!t statement and you know damn well it is. We all know what the difference is between the legacy buildings and modern lightweight wood construction, many of us here have posted the links to videos and news stories about it and share it with our personnel. How do you think the "old timers" got to be "old timers"? They got to be old timers through training, situational awareness and experience. I have never seen you post any of this information, as you prefer to be a storyteller and not a player.

    All this talk about pussification...... Professions change, evolve based on changes in the environment.

    Change to primarily hydrocarbon based fire loads with hotter burning temps, increased heat release rates and dramatic changes in the nature of the smoke. Increase in the number and violence of flashovers. reduced career and volunteer staffing. Closed firehouses with increased response times. Less experience at both the firefighter and officer level..... All good reasons in addition to the ones that you have mentioned to rethink offensive interior operations in many situations.

    You call it pussification. I call it evolving to the changing economic, environmental and social conditions influencing the fire service.

    Come on, Bobby... where did you lift that information from? We all know you do not have the intelligence to put something like that together; and the grammar and syntax are correct, unlike most of your posts that have glaring errors.

    Again, I have one job as an officer, training staff member and senior man ..... keep my volunteers unhurt and going to work the next day. Everything else falls behind that. And that does include abandoned building operations.
    If this is the case, then why do you insist on training your people to some half @$$ed self perceived version of the basics known as Firefighter 1-2? If you really want to keep them safe, train them properly. All they are now are mushrooms, for you keep them in the dark and feed them nothing but bull$#!t.
    ‎"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

  12. #287
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    God you are such an arrogant *** that I want to hurl everytime I read your scatological rantings.

    It seems in your estimation that smoke, heat, and fire are reasons not to enter. Remind me again other than your paycheck why you are a paid employee of a fire department?

    Funny .. Smoke, heat and fire when combined with likely no occupants and unknown structural conditions, due to the fact that the building has been abandoned, by it's owner sure seem like perfectly viable reasons not to enter and risk the lives of my primarily volunteer firefighters. Same situation when I am looking at a lightweight truss structure with likely heat in the overhead space and older mobile homes that can burn from end to end in less than 3 minutes. Certainly ano-go without occupancy, and yes, a no-go even in situations where there may be victims, depending upon response times.

    Yet not 3 or 4 posts ago you said quite clearly the following:

    Maybe the collective "we" wouldn't but I sure as hell would. I understand how older mobile homes burn, in terms of speed and intensity, and anything greater than a partially involved room will likely get a no-go. Not worth it. In a truss building any kind of significant fire that has the possibly of transmitting heat to the unprotected overhead space will get an immediatte no-go. Again, not worth it.

    I have no issues writing off buildings based on construction type.

    Some buildings are built to burn. Some buildings are built to collpase. And some buildings exist to hurt firefighters. I will not commit my personnel into any of those 3 without a damn good reason and plenty of personnel.
    NOW this is an entirely different scenario you are painting here. First it was only ABANDONED buildings. NOW it is any building that you don't like the construction method EVEN IF LIVES OF THE OCCUPANTS ARE AT RISK. So which is it? Only abandoned buildings or in reality any building you feel like and the occupants you write off?

    Again, my job as a senior man or officer is simple. keep my folks from being hurt or killed. If I can do that, and still save property and lives, that's great, but saving lives and property will never come ahead of the lives and health of my crew. Ever.

    Then quit and walk away. Because if you aren't willing to risk anything why even bother to show up at all?

    There have been times when they have been damn pi**ed that I had them backoff from a fire. There have been times that they have been pi**ed that I told them to slow down, or come to a complete stop at that red light because they felt they needed to get there NOW. But that's my responsbility. To see the big picture that they may not see and yes, keep them from getting hurt even though they may want to make entry or be more aggressive.

    Your comparison is ludicrous and they truly having nothing in common. With you having no aggressive tendencies and a strong drive to find reasons not to act I can imagine that you are not popular with people that actually want to do the job of being a firefighter. You know, when conditions allow, going inside to rescue people and put out the fire.


    Blah, blah, blah...At some point someone is going to tell you to shut the hell up...then what will you do? Hold your breath?

    I'm sure that I will be supported fully by the Chief on the volunteer side and likely by the Chief on my combo department. They both believe that us going home unharmed is the end goal.

    When that is not the case, I will be more than happy to leave.


    Okay enough of your implied BULL SCHITT that anyone else is saying something different than the goal is going home safely. Don't you have one shred of human decency? For the love of God man when you have to lie and make up absolute CRAP to try and prove your inconsequential points.

    No, it seems in most cases you are the overzealous "Don't go in there it is on fire" personification of all that is wrong with the fire service today. The job is dangerous, we can do our best to be safe, but in order to do the job we have to go in where the smoke, heat and fire are at in order to save lives and extiguish the fire. Those that find more excuses to not to the job than reasons to do it need to get out of the way of the real firefighters.

    Yup .. real firefighters.

    Wrong. The problem with the fire service today is that we are still operating like every building is a legacy building and fire loads are like they were in the 80's. Buildings are built to collapse. Fires are burning hot and faster. And many of the ole timers simply don't get it.


    Show me where anyone said any of this load of crap you posted. Quote someone, otherwise STOP LYING.

    People are always going to die in fires and in my part of the world there is little if anything that the fire department can do about it through response and suppression. We can do quite a bit through prevention, and funneling some of the money away from suppression to prevention, but that's another discussion for another day.

    We are the priority. Period.


    Nothing but excuses, and the enabling of fire departments in your area to never see an emergent need to get better, improve training, speed up response times, or either add members or make an attempt to ensure more members are available. It is so much easier to develop a culture of not going in, of not risking anything, of writing people and property off than it is to actually try to solve the problems that in your mind justify your ideas.

    I refuse to accept an injury to anyone of my volunteers and i damn sure refuse to accept that an LODD is simply "a part of the job". if that's your attitude I'm damn glad that you are not a ranking officer in one of my organizations.

    NO ONE HERE IS SAYING THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE and frankly your assinine comments show what a pathetic piece of crap you are. You don't know me and frankly I am damn tired of you and your idiotic, moronic, lying BS accusations.


    Enough, show us you really aren't this ridiculous...
    Last edited by FyredUp; 04-04-2013 at 05:23 PM. Reason: spelling
    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

  13. #288
    Forum Member
    snowball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Just North of South Central
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So you don't talk about a run when you get back to the station?
    Please allow me to answer this for the DC from MA. Yes. Even before that, if you must know. While rolling hose, re-loading the crosslays, putting the lights, fan, saws, hooks, and ladders back on the trucks. We are talking about how the incident could have gone better. Before the SCBA bottles are replaced, fuel is topped off, drops are hosed and hung from the nearest hook, hoping that you don't get banged out for another call because nobody wants to put on a pair of sweat soaked wet pants. Before you can drag your cold tired frame to the shower in hopes of warming up enough so that you can make it to your rack and grab enough sleep before the medical aid call comes in. And you know it's coming. You've been pouring over every detail of what you did on that call, and what more you could've done do make it better. So to answer your question, yes.
    NY3244MI likes this.
    IAFF

  14. #289
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    I talk about it if I were on it and took command and saw that something needed to be addressed or to commend the troops for a job well done. The difference is that I do not micromanage the personnel under my command, they know their job and what is expected.
    We discussed it as it was a unique situation.

    There was no micromanaging, but just a discussion about the incident.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  15. #290
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FF-Andy View Post
    LAFireEducator:

    Do the citizens of Bossier Parrish, LA realize they basically have no fire department?

    Actually, they do. And it's one of the most respected in the area
    .

    If you're going to remain in a rank or managerial capacity, have the human decency to do a mass mailing and let residents know that if they are ever trapped in a burning building they are gonna die. Hey, screw 'em its their fault for being in a burning structure; right?

    Again, it's amazing how little you know about us.


    Sir if you were one of us, no explanation would be necessary. Since you're not one of us, no explanation is even possible. I'm glad there are still MEN out there willing to lay it all on the line for their fellow man. This board is full of such men, and so is the fire service. You wouldn't know a flipping thing about it.
    That's right. I wouldn't.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  16. #291
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    That is a bull$#!t statement and you know damn well it is. We all know what the difference is between the legacy buildings and modern lightweight wood construction, many of us here have posted the links to videos and news stories about it and share it with our personnel. How do you think the "old timers" got to be "old timers"? They got to be old timers through training, situational awareness and experience. I have never seen you post any of this information, as you prefer to be a storyteller and not a player.

    Then why do we find firefighters dying in structural collapses in lightweight truss buildings?


    Come on, Bobby... where did you lift that information from? We all know you do not have the intelligence to put something like that together; and the grammar and syntax are correct, unlike most of your posts that have glaring errors.

    Actually I did write it. I must have stayed at at a Holiday Inn Express last night.



    If this is the case, then why do you insist on training your people to some half @$$ed self perceived version of the basics known as Firefighter 1-2? If you really want to keep them safe, train them properly. All they are now are mushrooms, for you keep them in the dark and feed them nothing but bull$#!t.
    Funny thing is that after they complete the rookie program at both my combo and volunteer departments we encourage them to take FFI and FFII. We teach it or pay for them to take it. And at my combo department, we reward them with points. Amazing, huh?
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  17. #292
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    It seems in your estimation that smoke, heat, and fire are reasons not to enter. Remind me again other than your paycheck why you are a paid employee of a fire department?

    Yes, heat, smoke and fire can be reasons in certain buildings at certain times not to make entry.

    The reason I'm a fireman is simple .. It sounds really cool when I tell the women at parties what I do.



    NOW this is an entirely different scenario you are painting here. First it was only ABANDONED buildings. NOW it is any building that you don't like the construction method EVEN IF LIVES OF THE OCCUPANTS ARE AT RISK. So which is it? Only abandoned buildings or in reality any building you feel like and the occupants you write off?

    The tread was about abandoned buildings. And yes, there are other buildings that I will likely not enter under most fire conditions as the intial IC due to the fact that they are designed to injure and kill firefighters, but that was not the discussion related to this thread. I did mention it when it was brought up by another poster.



    Then quit and walk away. Because if you aren't willing to risk anything wht even bother to show up at all?

    Risk is approiatte when there is likely benefit, and the risk to my personnel can be reduced and managed. In those situations I will take risk. In situations where there is no likely benefit and/or the risk cannot be reduced or managed, not taking those actions is the best way to keep my personnel safe.

    What is so complicated about that?




    Your comparison is ludicrous and they truly having nthing in common. With you having no aggressive tendencies and a strong drive to find reasons not to act I can imagine that you are not popular with people that actually want to do the job of being a firefighter. You know, when conditions allow, going inside to rescue people and ut out the fire.

    Life is not about being popular.




    Okay enough of your implied BULL SCHITT that anyone else is saying something different than the goal is going home safely. Don't you have one shred of human decency? For the love of God man when you have to lie and make up absolute CRAP to try and prove your inconsequential points.

    I'm not the one saying that injuries and LODDs are part of the job. I don't accept either and will not take actions, especially with my volunteer crews, that will lead to either unless there is significant potential benefit.



    Wrong. The problem with the fire service today is that we are still operating like every building is a legacy building and fire loads are like they were in the 80's. Buildings are built to collapse. Fires are burning hot and faster. And many of the ole timers simply don't get it.[/COLOR]

    Show me where anyone said any of this load of crap you posted. Quote someone, otherwise STOP LYING.


    Nothing but excuses, and the enabling of fire departments in your area to never see an emergent need to get better, improve training, speed up response times, or either add members or make an attempt to ensure more members are available. It is so much easier to develop a culture of not going in, of not risking anything, of writing people and property off than it is to actually try to solve the problems that in your mind justify your ideas.

    Funny ,,,, Hahahaaaa.

    I have already discussed my involvement with training, including teaching in-house rookie and FFI/II classes, as well as scheduled drill nights with both departments, plus teaching 2-3 days per month with other area departments.

    Won't even comment on the new SOPs and operations I spearheaded at my VFD.

    Just recruited 2 more members for my VFD.

    So what else do you have?

    As far as other departments, I have no control on how they operate and it's not my place to comment on how they should or should not operate.I also fully undertsand the limitations they operate under in terms of funding, demographics, training issues and training access as well as other local factors that affect thier situations. They should be fully able to determine what type of fire department they choose to operate without being judged by outsiders.



    NO ONE HERE IS SAYING THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE and frankly your assinine comments show what a pathetic piece of crap you are. You don't know me and frankly I am damn tired of you and your idiotic, moronic, lying BS accusations. [/COLOR]

    But you are saying they are part of the job. So which is it?

    Enough, show us you really aren't this ridiculous...[/QUOTE]

    Ag

    My firefighters, in my crews, will not be injured in a fire. And i will not put them in a position where they possibly could be injured.

    Again, there are viable lives to save or there is property of value to save, and the the resources are at hand to make that happen, I will take risk in structures where the building construction itself does not pose an undue risk such as rapid collpase or rapid fire spread.. Otherwise, the crew is the the priority.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 04-04-2013 at 01:44 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  18. #293
    Forum Member
    snowball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Just North of South Central
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by conrad427 View Post
    As you guys have figured out I don't know how to work the cut and paste deal with the quotes.
    Down at the lower right corner of each post there is a bar that says "Reply With Quote". Click on that and it will copy that persons entire post and send it to a reply screen. From there you can edit it down to which ever paragraph or sentence you would like to leave in. Just make sure that "{/QUOTE]" command is left in there.

    LA only figured out how to use that option last week, so you're cool.
    IAFF

  19. #294
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    That is a bull$#!t statement and you know damn well it is. We all know what the difference is between the legacy buildings and modern lightweight wood construction, many of us here have posted the links to videos and news stories about it and share it with our personnel. How do you think the "old timers" got to be "old timers"? They got to be old timers through training, situational awareness and experience. I have never seen you post any of this information, as you prefer to be a storyteller and not a player.

    Then why do we find firefighters dying in structural collapses in lightweight truss buildings?
    First, let's be clear about 3 things:
    1) The number of firefighters dying annually in lightweight structural collapses from a purely statistical standpoint (since you like statistics so much) is "statistical insignificant".
    2) The actual deaths are absolutely significant on many levels, but when you compare the number of deaths and number of fires in these structures, there is clearly not the epidemic you seem to think there is.
    3) The number of deaths from apparatus/POV accidents and health related issues is a far more significant issue than the number of deaths that occur while actively engaged in offensive firefighting operations.

    There are a few (and by no means are these the only) reasons why we are still seeing LODDs in lightweight construction:
    1) The firefighter(s) was actually doing his/her job and attempting to rescue a victim.
    2) Some segments of the fire service may not have the training/experience to fully recognize and account for this type of construction and are making "bad" strategic/tactical choices at the command and individual levels.
    3) Sometimes excrement happens!

  20. #295
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I refuse to accept an injury to anyone of my volunteers and i damn sure refuse to accept that an LODD is simply "a part of the job". if that's your attitude I'm damn glad that you are not a ranking officer in one of my organizations.

    NO ONE HERE IS SAYING THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE and frankly your assinine comments show what a pathetic piece of crap you are. You don't know me and frankly I am damn tired of you and your idiotic, moronic, lying BS accusations.

    But you are saying they are part of the job. So which is it?
    I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand, then again, maybe I do.

    Firefighters die in the line of duty, it's a known fact and it comes with the job. Nobody is saying that we are expected to be suicidal in the performance of our duties and kill ourselves anytime the opportunity presents. Nobody is saying that we should just accept LODDs as a "cost of doing business". We should be working tirelessly to prevent them and learning from each and every one that does occur. Firefighters actually doing the job will sometimes die as a result of that because firefighting is an ultra-hazardous activity! That comes with the job, just like sometimes civilians being killed in fires comes with the job.

  21. #296
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Another impressive display of your communication skills.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by FF-Andy View Post
    LAFireEducator:

    Do the citizens of Bossier Parrish, LA realize they basically have no fire department?

    Actually, they do. That's good that they know "they basically have no fire department"

    And it's one of the most respected in the area. Wow, that doesn't say much for the rest of your area.
    ROTFLMOA

    Do you realize that he asked you a question and you responded as if he made a statement?

  22. #297
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    First, let's be clear about 3 things:
    1) The number of firefighters dying annually in lightweight structural collapses from a purely statistical standpoint (since you like statistics so much) is "statistical insignificant".
    2) The actual deaths are absolutely significant on many levels, but when you compare the number of deaths and number of fires in these structures, there is clearly not the epidemic you seem to think there is.

    Agreed, but they are still entering buildings often knowing that they are lightweight construction.

    3) The number of deaths from apparatus/POV accidents and health related issues is a far more significant issue than the number of deaths that occur while actively engaged in offensive firefighting operations.

    100% agreement on that.


    There are a few (and by no means are these the only) reasons why we are still seeing LODDs in lightweight construction:
    1) The firefighter(s) was actually doing his/her job and attempting to rescue a victim.

    Very few of the firefighter deaths occur while performing rescue operations. The majority occur during fire attack in confirmed unoccipieds and overhaul.
    2) Some segments of the fire service may not have the training/experience to fully recognize and account for this type of construction and are making "bad" strategic/tactical choices at the command and individual levels.

    Agreed.

    3) Sometimes excrement happens!
    Agreed, but if you look at the incidents they are often in places that they should know they should not be.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  23. #298
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand, then again, maybe I do.

    Firefighters die in the line of duty, it's a known fact and it comes with the job. Nobody is saying that we are expected to be suicidal in the performance of our duties and kill ourselves anytime the opportunity presents. Nobody is saying that we should just accept LODDs as a "cost of doing business". We should be working tirelessly to prevent them and learning from each and every one that does occur. Firefighters actually doing the job will sometimes die as a result of that because firefighting is an ultra-hazardous activity! That comes with the job, just like sometimes civilians being killed in fires comes with the job.
    And my point is that we can still do the job without taking the risks.

    Abandoned buildings, which is theme of this thread in my area, and many other areas in this country is an example.

    There is NO need in my areas to enter abandoned buildings to seacrgh for occupants. There is no need to enter and perform offensive operations as exposures are rarely an issue. I contend that not performing these actions is still doing the job as we have responded and determined that the risk v. benefit says that it is perfectly OK not to enter. You, and many of the other posters disagree.

    I see no issues with not engaging in operations with minimal benefit and yes, we are still "doing the job".
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 04-04-2013 at 04:41 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  24. #299
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Another impressive display of your communication skills.



    ROTFLMOA

    Do you realize that he asked you a question and you responded as if he made a statement?
    Ya, t5he answer should have been, "yes they do have a fire department" .. which I will add .. "is, as a whole , far more aggressive than I would like".
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  25. #300
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    First, let's be clear about 3 things:
    1) The number of firefighters dying annually in lightweight structural collapses from a purely statistical standpoint (since you like statistics so much) is "statistical insignificant".
    2) The actual deaths are absolutely significant on many levels, but when you compare the number of deaths and number of fires in these structures, there is clearly not the epidemic you seem to think there is.

    Agreed, but they are still entering buildings often knowing that they are lightweight construction.
    Yeah, they're entering because the building is on fire and that is what actual firefighters do. Lightweight construction in and of itself is not sufficient reason to just stand around outside lobbing water at the building.

    There are a few (and by no means are these the only) reasons why we are still seeing LODDs in lightweight construction:
    1) The firefighter(s) was actually doing his/her job and attempting to rescue a victim.

    Very few of the firefighter deaths occur while performing rescue operations. The majority occur during fire attack in confirmed unoccipieds and overhaul.
    Please provide some proof to back up that statement, 5 years worth will be sufficient.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. interior attack
    By whitefishfire in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 07-28-2009, 02:55 PM
  2. Is the risk worth the reward??
    By Rivwarrior in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-30-2005, 06:59 AM
  3. first interior attack
    By smfd232 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-29-2002, 03:43 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-13-2002, 02:09 PM
  5. interior attack communications
    By mtperry in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-02-2002, 04:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

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