Double post. But worth saying twice.
Double post. But worth saying twice.
Look in the mirror, Bozo Bobby... you are the biggest clown on the forum. Every fire officer's job is to make sure that they start and end each duty tour and call with the same people hey started with. Sometimes that does not happen, it is part of the job.Quote:
If you clowns want to discuss that further, fine, but my primary job is to finish out the call with my troops alive and unhurt, in every circumstance
While people do die in fires, the rest of the normal firefighting world would move heaven and earth to try and save them. In your bizzaro world, people die in fires because of cowards like you who refuse to do their job... it is that simple.Quote:
People die in fires. They always have and always will. Call that cold. Fine. But unless there is adamn good reason for the members under my chagre to enter an abandoned structure, they will not. It's that simple.
Where does the mindset of doing nothing come from? When did it become acceptable for us to do nothing?
The house across the road from me is abandoned. The owner packed up, shot the bird to the bank, and moved. The owner abandoned the home; the bank is now in court doing the foreclosure thing. I’m pretty positive that there is no one living in the house, but should there be a fire, I’m know the bank would be highly upset with us if we rolled up, circled the house and said too bad so sad it’s abandoned. They would want us to fight the fire to the best of our ability to either save the house or to preserve evidence so that maybe the person that started the fire can be punished in a court of law.
For the millionth time, what is it about "IF STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS AND EXTENT OF THE FIRE ALLOW, A SEARCH AND POSSIBLE INTERIOR FIRE ATTACK WILL BE DONE" that you simply can't comprehend? No one is saying don't do a size-up, no one is saying don't do a risk versus reward profile, no one is saying close your eyes, pull up your collar and do a suicidal Banzai charge into ANY building. So how about you stop posting nonsense and LIES, for one topic here? How about just once you give up being the narcissitic troll that you always are?
Most folks that die in fires are dead long bfore we arrive, and that is especially true in the rural world. The fact is we as as ervice have a very difficult time accepting that and often make attempts to rescue folks tha likely have already died, and we get hurt or in some cases killed when there is simply no need.
I have no issue with "writing off" a victim, as some of you like to call it, that my size-up indicates is likely dead to prevent injuries to my crew. Injuries are not part of the job. And that that is espcially true in situations that likely we have arrived to late to change the outcome.
Bobby... did you ever read the warning labels inside of a fire helmet? I am looking at the Cairns N6A that I passed onto my son when he graduated from the Massachusetts Fire Academy Call/Volunteer Class #34. Inside the helmet, on the impact cap is he following statement:Quote:
Wrong. The fact is that we do have a resposnibility to make decisions that do not endanger our personnel. Injuries are not part of the job, and certainly the death of a firefighter is not part of the job. I guess that is where we have a fundamental disagreement.
The only way to guarantee that anyone will not be injured or killed in the performance of firefighting duties is to not be a firefighter.Quote:
Do not use this helmet until you read and understand the the information booklet,
FIREFIGHTING IS A DANGEROUS ACTIVITY.
YOU MAY BE KILLED OR INJURED WHILE USING THIS PRODUCT
Again, if you consider putting members into situations where there is risk but no significant benefit, such as "saving" an abandoned structure, or even searching an abandoned structure when there is absolutly no history of occupancy issues in that area, have at it, but I for one, will have no part of putting my members, especially volunteer members, into that situation.
And yes, I do everything I can to garantee that my members will not be hurt, which at times, means being extremly conservative in how I operate.
The bottom line to me is that there are structural issues that may not be visible during the size-up from the exterior. There are structural issues that may not be visible in the smoke. And there are structural issues that may not be apparent until the members step on that weak floor or apply water to that weak ceiling.
Again, to many unknowns for too little potential benefit in my area. If you want to risk a firefighter injury for a standing dumpster, have at it.
I have already done my risk assessment. It's simply not worth making entry unless there is a current, credible and relaible report of or indicators of occupany. Without that, there is simply no reason for me to order crews interior.
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.
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.
Yes, I am the adult in the room. And it really doesn't matter what they want to do.
Posed by Bobby
I think I will place a call to the Air Force and see if I can borrow the use of a B1B Lancer and a MOAB bunker buster bomb to try and get something through your thick skull...Quote:
Again, if you consider putting members into situations where there is risk but no significant benefit, such as "saving" an abandoned structure, or even searching an abandoned structure when there is absolutly no history of occupancy issues in that area, have at it, but I for one, will have no part of putting my members, especially volunteer members, into that situation
NOBODY IS ADVOCATING GOING ON A SUICIDE MISSION. IF A STRUCTURE IS FULLY INVOLVED OR HAS ALREADY COLLAPSED WE WILL NOT ENTER.
I've been involved in agriculture my whole life. I've known a few farmers, and heard stories from many others, who were killed or seriously injured farming. It is an occupational hazard. Farmers do the best they can to avoid it, but in the end that is a risk they shoulder to provide for their families.
So do truck drivers, house painters, electricians, coal miners, TV reporters, and even actors. They all accept the potential to be killed on the job in order to earn a living. In some of those jobs, that risk is high, in others not so much.
But they don't take the job (and the paycheck) and then let the fields go un-plowed, the load un-hauled, the house un-painted, the building un-wired, the coal un-mined, the news un-reported, or the role un-played. They do their level best, in most cases, to avoid injuries and death, but it's not always possible.
How is the fire service any different?
BTW, Kudos for the guys there for saving the occupied structure. They went (gasp!) interior and saved it.
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.