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%
+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 19 First ... 234567815 ... Last
Like Tree136Likes

Thread: Risk/Reward Interior attack vacant buildings presentation

  1. #101
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    You have repeatedly said YOUR job was done by you as a volly and that vollies could do it again...so yes, the paycheck matters to you.

    Further, the last paragraph of your post here proves nothing other than you don't care about breaking federal law and that you are a fool. Neither of which seem to phase you in the least.
    Yes, part of my job was done by me as a volly prior to be hired .. the Public Education portion.

    Not the training portion. Not the admin portion. Not the pre-planning portion. They were all done by the Deputy Chief. The reason I was hired, besides the delivery of pubed was to take some of those functions of him, so that he had more time to function as a Chief.

    Sure, I took the job when it was offered. It really was more about the getting away from shift work and back on to a M-F schedule and the benefits than the money, but yes, it was an opportunity to attend more training, have the time to expand our pubed programs and yes, be able to set myself up for retirement.

    And again, my department does not believe we are breaking the law, and you're right, I am a FOOL. I live in the community and responding out off-duty without being paid to me is not a big issue as I live here, and quite frankly, see it as an obligation to the citizens who do pay me.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  2. #102
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    No, the fact of the mater is in your mind, there is absolutely no benefit worth any of your risk.
    You are a poser, and the worst type of poser at that. You come on here pretending to be firefighter and an educator, spouting of your worthless opinion as learned fact. Yet you have yet to produce a single shred of evidence to back up any of your claim of what you perceive most fire departments are doing.
    Sure there are situations where some risk is justified - Viable life and property, but as a whole, we often do not realistically evaluate what we perceive as viable as compared to what is truly realistically viable.

    That is especially true on a department such as my volunteer organization, where resources are limited, and mutual aid is quite limited, when viewed in the time it takes for fire to travel through a building v. travel time to the scene. The simple fact is that for us (VFD) as well as many if not most VFDs`there are very limited situations where life is realistically viable if they are still in the structure upon our arrival or property is realistically viable if the fire has traveled beyond the room of origin, and often we will take what are looking from the outside, unreasonable risks on the hope, not facts, that those lives or property is still viable.

    Basically, IMO, we have to become better at accepting defeat and backing off to reduce risk in those situations. The increase in the number of members hurt in flashovers is an example of that. Yes, it is perfectly acceptable to basically give up at times, to protect our members.

    As far as your other statement, I doubt most folks here would agree with it, and honestly, that's all that matters to me.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-25-2013 at 09:06 AM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  3. #103
    Forum Member
    EastKyFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    3,094

    Default

    It's amazing to me in this age of mp3's and CD's that you can still find a broken record once in a while.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    --General James Mattis, USMC


  4. #104
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Yes, part of my job was done by me as a volly prior to be hired .. the Public Education portion.

    Not the training portion. Not the admin portion. Not the pre-planning portion. They were all done by the Deputy Chief. The reason I was hired, besides the delivery of pubed was to take some of those functions of him, so that he had more time to function as a Chief.

    Sure, I took the job when it was offered. It really was more about the getting away from shift work and back on to a M-F schedule and the benefits than the money, but yes, it was an opportunity to attend more training, have the time to expand our pubed programs and yes, be able to set myself up for retirement.

    And again, my department does not believe we are breaking the law, and you're right, I am a FOOL. I live in the community and responding out off-duty without being paid to me is not a big issue as I live here, and quite frankly, see it as an obligation to the citizens who do pay me.
    I laugh every damn time you post pubed...once again, where did you go to college? The words are Public Education, abbreviated as Pub Ed or Pub-Ed. Your version sounds like a Sci-Fi porn movie.

    Your department can believe all it wants, the case has been tried and proven so many times that eventually one of your paid guys is going to push it and the money it will cost in fines and back pay will ruin not only your FD financially but the Parrish too.


    Ah, and there it is, the martyr I serve my community whine. I serve the community where I get paid to be a firefighter too. But, I will not violate federal law to do it. My career FD does not allow us to volunteer back because they know the law, and frankly, I wouldn't anyways. I do volunteer where I live, for 2 seperate fire departments and guess what? They compensate us for calls, one also compensates for training and work done around the station. Nope, I don't do it for the money there, I appreciate the checks at Christmas time, but it is hardly a motivator.

    It is not an obligation to the citizens, you are a PAID employee, nothing less. The fact that you overtly, and covertly, extort the other PAID employees to volunteer back is despicable and a violation of federal law. You admitted freely here that opportunities for training and promotion might be denied to those who don't volunteer back. Nice place to work, hired as firefighter, turned into a maintenance man, janitor, that doesn't get to respond to all the calls that come in, and yet is expected to come back for free after shift to respond to the same type of calls you would be denied during their shift.
    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

  5. #105
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Sure there are situations where some risk is justified - Viable life and property, but as a whole, we often do not realistically evaluate what we perceive as viable as compared to what is truly realistically viable.
    Who in the eff is we? If you are trying to group my department with that crappy bunch posing as firefighters you run with, that's truly an insult. What you and your rubes from jerk water Louisiana do is definitely not what the rest of the fire fighting community does. No matter how many times you state such. The fact your leadership does nothing to reign in such cowardice and inability to perform only tells me they condone such behavior.

    As far as your other statement, I doubt most folks here would agree with it, and honestly, that's all that matters to me.
    Really? I will wait to hear from you and your list of "most people"....
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  6. #106
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Sure there are situations where some risk is justified - Viable life and property, but as a whole, we often do not realistically evaluate what we perceive as viable as compared to what is truly realistically viable.

    The problem your definition of viable ends when the building is on fire. Your "realistic" evaluation and then writing off of victims would not even be close to the same standard used in the majority of the country. Does either of your departments train on and use VES? That is a fairly common tactic taught nation wide.

    That is especially true on a department such as my volunteer organization, where resources are limited, and mutual aid is quite limited, when viewed in the time it takes for fire to travel through a building v. travel time to the scene. The simple fact is that for us (VFD) as well as many if not most VFDs`there are very limited situations where life is realistically viable if they are still in the structure upon our arrival or property is realistically viable if the fire has traveled beyond the room of origin, and often we will take what are looking from the outside, unreasonable risks on the hope, not facts, that those lives or property is still viable.

    If you are writing off victims in inhabited homes when the fire is in one, or 2, or 3 rooms, why bother showing up at all? It seems at that point you are writing off the building too. Frankly, when DO you make entry? A smoldering ashtray? A burning trash can? A fire in the fireplace? WHEN?

    Serioulsy, if your FD can't handle the type of fire I mentioned above how do you even call yourselves a fire department? Many times a fire of that size can be extinguished with one hoseline flowing 150 to 200 gpm. It doesn't take a deluge gun, it doesn't take 3 or four handlines, it doesn't take hundreds of thousands of gallons of water. It takes a nozzleman and a crew with the intestinal fortitude to go inside and fight the fire. Heck, I'll even give you a transitional attack strategy here, give it a knock from the outside and THEN go inside and finish it off.

    Again, no one is saying make suicidal Banzai charges into buildings that are falling down or fully involved. But now you are reducing the element of when to enter down to 3 rooms or less, to even one room involved. Honestly if your FD can't handle one room of fire in an inhabitated structure they are doing the citizens they are supposed to be protecting a HUGE disservice.


    Basically, IMO, we have to become better at accepting defeat and backing off to reduce risk in those situations. The increase in the number of members hurt in flashovers is an example of that. Yes, it is perfectly acceptable to basically give up at times, to protect our members.

    No one has said there aren't times when entry is not possible. The debate and total disagreement with your viewpoint comes in when you post nonsense like one, or 2, or 3 rooms of fire in an inhabited structure is justification for staying outside, writing off the structure and any victims inside.

    As far as your other statement, I doubt most folks here would agree with it, and honestly, that's all that matters to me.

    You are far more dangerous to the citizens than you can imagine. I would love to be at a community forum where you stood up and spewed the absolute nonsense you say here to the citizens your FD is supposed to protect. You know things like:

    1) The firefighters are more important than you are.
    2) If my judgement says so I can write your life off and not lose any sleep over it.
    3) Fire in your home beyond my perceived expectations of the fire department, down to as little as one room on fire, may mean the loss of your home and everything in it.
    Sleep doesn't only come easy to those with a clear conscience, it also comes easily to the blissfully ignorant of what a precarious position they are in.
    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. #107
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    The problem your definition of viable ends when the building is on fire. Your "realistic" evaluation and then writing off of victims would not even be close to the same standard used in the majority of the country. Does either of your departments train on and use VES? That is a fairly common tactic taught nation wide.

    Not at all, but my defination of risk does vary with the resources training and expereince on hand. What I would view, as an example, in my combo department which is resource, manpower, training and experience heavy as a low-risk fire I would view as a very high risk event in my manpower, training and experience light volunteer department, which may very well preclude entry, especially if there is no life threat.

    The fact is if there is nothing of significance to gain there is simply no need to expose members to risk. A well involved house with reported occupants would be an example where realisitcally, the fire conditions are such that the occupants have, in all liklihood already died, so exposing members to that significant risk for no realistic gain is simply irresponsible.

    I am very realisitic about what we can do v. what we would like to be able to do. I will not expose my personnel to risk unless the goals involved with that risk are realistic and acheivavble and the resources are at hand to make that happen.

    And no, VES is a concept that it not used in much of this area. I did a couple of classess on it for my combo department last year as I have utilized it, and even though we have trained on it, it is not a tactic that is a regularly used.



    If you are writing off victims in inhabited homes when the fire is in one, or 2, or 3 rooms, why bother showing up at all? It seems at that point you are writing off the building too. Frankly, when DO you make entry? A smoldering ashtray? A burning trash can? A fire in the fireplace? WHEN?

    First of all, when I was referring to not making entry into structures with one or two rooms going, I was clearly referring to operations in abandoned structures without any reported life hazard, and you know that. The fact is here abandoned structures are not occupied, and I treat them as such unless there is concrete evidence indicating otherwise.

    As I have stated over and over, my combo department, much to my chagrin, is very aggressive and makes entry on just about every structure. I have had discussions with key people on that regarding what I consider to be some dangerous practices, but likely we will continue to operate in this way. My VFD is, thank goodness, overall less aggressive in part to the mapower situation. What you call writing a structure off I call managing risk, and simply protecting your people when it's unlikely that your intervention will have a significant impact on the outcome of the incident.


    Serioulsy, if your FD can't handle the type of fire I mentioned above how do you even call yourselves a fire department? Many times a fire of that size can be extinguished with one hoseline flowing 150 to 200 gpm. It doesn't take a deluge gun, it doesn't take 3 or four handlines, it doesn't take hundreds of thousands of gallons of water. It takes a nozzleman and a crew with the intestinal fortitude to go inside and fight the fire. Heck, I'll even give you a transitional attack strategy here, give it a knock from the outside and THEN go inside and finish it off.

    Agreed. But again, why enter an abandoned structure (which is what we are discussing)? The concept that because there is a fire, irregardless of the value of the structure to the owner, we, because we are firefighters, must always assume risk and enter that building and extinguish that fire simply boggles my mind. If the building had value, yes, but clearly since the owner has deemed not to maintain it he has determined that it no longer holds value the last thing I am going to ask my personnel is to assume personal risk to enter the building for interior operations.

    Again, where did I state that I would not make entry on 1, 2 or 3 room fires in either of my departments in occupied buildings? Nowhere. As they have value, assuming I have the resources, I have no issues with making entry in those situations, and I never said, assuming the resources and training are in place, that I did.

    Are there departments that may not have the resources, manpower, training or experience to make interior attacks in those situations? Sure there are. In fact, I know of several in this area, and I have no issues with any decsion thay make regarding operations. They have the right to operate in the way they see fit, including primarily exterior operations if the training, experience and resources require.

    And yes, we actually, at my VFD, use a transistional attack with a 2.5" line for any working structural fire to reduce the risk to our members.


    Again, no one is saying make suicidal Banzai charges into buildings that are falling down or fully involved. But now you are reducing the element of when to enter down to 3 rooms or less, to even one room involved. Honestly if your FD can't handle one room of fire in an inhabitated structure they are doing the citizens they are supposed to be protecting a HUGE disservice.

    Again, that statement was in regards to abandoned structures.


    No one has said there aren't times when entry is not possible. The debate and total disagreement with your viewpoint comes in when you post nonsense like one, or 2, or 3 rooms of fire in an inhabited structure is justification for staying outside, writing off the structure and any victims inside.

    In an abandoned structure, yes, I will write off the building on arrival, and likely if there are reported victims, they may be written off as well as conditions in such structures represent significant risk to my personnel. Depending on thier level of training and experience, the risk simply may be to great to send them interior, even when known victims are reported.

    Again, my primary purpose as an officer is to make sure that my volunteers are able to go to work the next day and provide for thier famalies.



    You are far more dangerous to the citizens than you can imagine. I would love to be at a community forum where you stood up and spewed the absolute nonsense you say here to the citizens your FD is supposed to protect. You know things like:

    1) The firefighters are more important than you are.
    2) If my judgement says so I can write your life off and not lose any sleep over it.
    3) Fire in your home beyond my perceived expectations of the fire department, down to as little as one room on fire, may mean the loss of your home and everything in it.

    Again, I would tell them that the personnel responding are the priority. I will do what i can within the limits of our resources, water supply, manpower, training or experience, but i will not subject my personnel to any risk when it exceeds those parameters.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  8. #108
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,170

    Default

    LA,

    Your ridiculous blather is boring and tiresome.

    You have been a member of this so called volly fire department now for what? 2 years? And they still are unable to muster the skill, training, or manpower to do an interior attack? What have they been training on?
    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

  9. #109
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    LA,

    Your ridiculous blather is boring and tiresome.

    You have been a member of this so called volly fire department now for what? 2 years? And they still are unable to muster the skill, training, or manpower to do an interior attack? What have they been training on?
    And where did I say that, under most circumstances, we are not able to perform an interior attack?

    Given manpower, we do quite well. However manapower, especially daytime manpower, is still our primary issue, an yes, there are times when we would simply not have enough to perform interior operations safely. Unfortunatly, the reality seems to be that there simply isn't a lot of interest in the community as a whole in volunteering as firefighters.

    Because of that, we will now be using the neighboring city's department to the east on-duty crew of 5 as AMA for any structure run, and have a policy where we will call my combo department on the west for any reported visible smoke/fire either by initial call or arrival of LE (which usually beats us in).

    As far as what we have been training on, all of our members now with one or more year are operations level and 2 or more years are now FFI. We have been sending members to more outside schools now that our training budget has been doubled, and we have stricter training night requirements.

    Unfortuantly experience comes, with fires, and we can do nothing to increase those.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-25-2013 at 11:29 AM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  10. #110
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And where did I say that, under most circumstances, we are not able to perform an interior attack?

    Given manpower, we do quite well. However manapower, especially daytime manpower, is still our primary issue, an yes, there are times when we would simply not have enough to perform interior operations safely. Unfortunatly, the reality seems to be that there simply isn't a lot of interest in the community as a whole in volunteering as firefighters.

    Because of that, we will now be using the neighboring city's department to the east on-duty crew of 5 as AMA for any structure run, and have a policy where we will call my combo department on the west for any reported visible smoke/fire either by initial call or arrival of LE (which usually beats us in).

    As far as what we have been training on, all of our members now with one or more year are operations level and 2 or more years are now FFI. We have been sending members to more outside schools now that our training budget has been doubled, and we have stricter training night requirements.

    Unfortuantly experience comes, with fires, and we can do nothing to increase those.
    So FF1 is an important training level in your volly FD? Huh? Imagine that...
    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

  11. #111
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    So FF1 is an important training level in your volly FD? Huh? Imagine that...
    I never said that FFI wasn't a good thing. I never said that it wasn't an important thing for firefighters to hve, especially if they are intrested in acheiving advanced skills or leadership positions.

    As far as entry level, baseline training, I still feel that needs to be department and district driven based on the area and department operations, not certification driven.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  12. #112
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I never said that FFI wasn't a good thing. I never said that it wasn't an important thing for firefighters to hve, especially if they are intrested in acheiving advanced skills or leadership positions.

    As far as entry level, baseline training, I still feel that needs to be department and district driven based on the area and department operations, not certification driven.
    You have, in post after post, stated over and over, how useless you believe FF1 is because it isn't custom tuned to your district. Then justified using the training you believe is worthless as a stepping stone to promotion in your paid gig.

    Now you brag that your vollies are FF1 and then go on to point out once again that you think that it isn't that important compared to inhouse training.

    And you wonder why you have been called a hypocrite so many times you have lost count.
    rm1524 likes this.
    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. #113
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    You have, in post after post, stated over and over, how useless you believe FF1 is because it isn't custom tuned to your district. Then justified using the training you believe is worthless as a stepping stone to promotion in your paid gig.

    Now you brag that your vollies are FF1 and then go on to point out once again that you think that it isn't that important compared to inhouse training.

    And you wonder why you have been called a hypocrite so many times you have lost count.
    I have stated that it is useless to limited value as initial training, depending on the district. Training, built around the occupancies, apparatus, tools, SOPs and response policies of that specific department are far more useful, in many cases, than the generalized FFI cirriculum.

    I have also statedin the past, on multiple occasions, that there are places where FFI may be applicable as rookie training. My previous VFD, which had multiple 3-5 story structures including hotels and college dorms, and several large industrial buildings as well as AMA responsbilities into an older city, would be one. My current combo department is getting close, but not to the point yet, and we are still quite happy with our current training format and beleive that it works very well.

    But for most rural, light surburban and small community VFDs, I beleive that FFI as a rookie class represents a waste of the volunteers time, and that effective rookie training in most of these places, when combined with on-going training through department drills can be delivered in 40-60 hours.

    Teaching rookies about tools you may not own, building types they may never see and operations they never will be expected to be carried out as part of a ROOKIE class is a waste of thier time and the departments time, especially given the fact that in most VFDs 2 out of every 3 new member will likely be gone outside of 2 years.

    The intent of rookie training should be single fold - to train new people how to operate in your district, not providing generalized fire service knowledge. That can come in time, after they have mastered how they are going to perform using that specifics department apparatus, equipment and tools in association with the department's SOPs on structures in that specific district.

    And yes, FFI and FFII does have value for folks who aftr completeing department designed and delivered rookie training, may be thinking about advanced/specialized training or promotion, or those who may be tasked with operational supervision or providing crew-level direction on the scene, as well as potentially playing a role in deciding on new operations, procedures, policies and apparatus/tool/equipment purchases. I have stated this many times in the past, and support the rewards that both departments offer for passing FFI.

    As I have said, I strongly encourage every member of both of my departments to take FFI, FFII and any other certification level class that they can after they have completed the department designed rookie class. Generalized knowledge and certification is never a bad thing but it's place is after rookie training has been completed, not as rookie training.

    As far as "braggging", all of those members have completed in-house training. They were only given FFI level training and allowed to test after they completed the in-house rookie/NFPA 1403 program. And yes, I am proud of them that they took the class and tested out beyond the department minimum training standard, which is the 42-hour rookie class. We strongly encourage this with every member.

    We have hashed this out before, and you and I will never agree on this. let's just end the debate on this subject here.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-25-2013 at 02:24 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  14. #114
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF View Post
    It's amazing to me in this age of mp3's and CD's that you can still find a broken record once in a while.
    There's a whole Jukebox up in here..
    It's one big round plane figure whose boundary consists of points equidistant from a fixed center that moves in a quick, sharp, or sudden movement.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  15. #115
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I have stated that it is useless to limited value as initial training, depending on the district. Training, built around the occupancies, apparatus, tools, SOPs and response policies of that specific department are far more useful, in many cases, than the generalized FFI cirriculum.

    I have also stated that there are places where FFI may be applicable as rookie training. My previous VFD, which had multiple 3-5 story structures including hotels and college dorms, and several large industrial buildings as well as AMA responsbilities into an older city, would be one. My current combo department is getting close, but not to the point yet, though we are quite happy with our current training format and beleives that it works very well.

    Teaching rookies about tools you may not own, building types they may never see and operations they never will be expected to be carried out as part of a ROOKIE class is a waste of thier time and the departments time, especially given the fact that in most VFDs 2 out of every 3 new member will likely be gone outside of 2 years.

    The intent of rookie training should be single fold - to train new people how to operate in your district, not providing generalized fire service knowledge. That can come in time, after they have mastered how they are going to perform using that specifics department apparatus, equipment and tools in association with the department's SOPs on structures in that specific district.

    And yes, FFI and FFII does have value for folks who aftr completeing department designed and delivered rookie training, may be thinking about advanced/specialized training or promotion, or those who may be tasked with operational supervision or providing crew-level direction on the scene, as well as potentially playing a role in deciding on new operations, procedures, policies and apparatus/tool/equipment purchases.

    As I have said, i strongly encourage every member of both of my departments to take FFI, FFII and any other certification level class that they can after they have completed the department designed rookie class.

    As far as "braggging", all of those members have completed in-house training. They were only given FFI level training and allowed to test after they completed the in-house rookie/NFPA 1403 program. And yes, I am proud of them that they took the class and tested out beyond the department minimum training standard, which is the 42-hour rookie class.

    We have hashed this out before, and you and I will never agree on this. let's just end the debate on this subject here.
    Of course, let's end it. Just admit you are a hypocrite and move on.
    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

  16. #116
    Forum Member
    FiremanLyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    You have, in post after post, stated over and over, how useless you believe FF1 is because it isn't custom tuned to your district. Then justified using the training you believe is worthless as a stepping stone to promotion in your paid gig.

    Now you brag that your vollies are FF1 and then go on to point out once again that you think that it isn't that important compared to inhouse training.

    And you wonder why you have been called a hypocrite so many times you have lost count.
    I don't wonder. The height of hypocrisy is putting members in danger to save hay, but not search a building for life safety...

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Not a fair comparison. The hay is not "junk" and has considerable value. It is not abandoned property.

    Being a rural firefighter and responding to farms, especially dairy farms, many times in the first 20 years of my career, I have been in this situation many times. As a rule, we would ask the owner if he felt that the hay was salvageable as feed. If he answered yes, we would take an aggressive stance within the structural limitations of the building. if he said no, many times he would ask that we simply let it burn so he would have less to dispose of.

    Our mission statement also says protecting lives, which first and foremost includes ours. If you are one off those that believe that an abandoned, or even vacant structure is worth the risk to our lives and safety have it, but anyone under my command is not going to be put into that position.
    FyredUp likes this.
    ~Drew
    Firefighter/EMT/Technical Rescue
    USAR TF Rescue Specialist

  17. #117
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,170

    Default

    Hay, once exposed to smoke, or run ff water from firefighting, is JUNK. No livestock will eat it.
    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

  18. #118
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FiremanLyman View Post
    I don't wonder. The height of hypocrisy is putting members in danger to save hay, but not search a building for life safety...
    If you notice my post, it clearly stated "within the structural limitations of the building", so while there was some risk, it was always managed with the understanding that we are simply working to save property.

    The fact is to a farmer, hay is an item of significant value. As a Texan, you know that the price of hay skyrocketed 2-3 years ago when they were shipping it from MS and AL to Texas during the drought as fast as they could load it on the 18-wheelers.

    And as I stated, if you feel that you truly have a life hazard in abandoned buildings, and you can justify the loss of a firefighter in those types of operations, enter search and conduct offensive operations. That type of risk simply doesn't exist here, and likely does not exist in most small communities, making that type of risk unjustifable.

    Again, our life safety is the priority.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  19. #119
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Hay, once exposed to smoke, or run ff water from firefighting, is JUNK. No livestock will eat it.
    Which as I stated was ahy we consulted with the property owner and often simply let it burn.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  20. #120
    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
    When a fire truck hits a fire truck at a controlled intersection, and it's not a brake issue, somebody needs to be terminated.

    When a fire truck runs into a building at an intersection, and it's determined to be speed, and not mechanical, somebody needs to lose a job.

    Yes, I have little tolerance for speed and intersection accidents when the red lights and stop signs are being violated, and little tolerance for any organization that does not fire said operators and the officers sitting besides him that let's it happen.

    Just like if one of my members, career or volunteer ran a red light and hit a car. I would be calling for their heads.

    I have little tolerance for members that can't follow rules. I have little tolerance for members that take extreme risks, even to save lives (which often are not viable) and put the brothers at risk that now have to come and get them. And I have even less tolerance for officers and departments that allow this crap to go on.

    And that includes calling my own departments out to the Chiefs, officers and members, which yes, gets me in trouble and often prevents friendships, but honestly, I don't give a damn if it does.

    As far as my comment regarding the kid in the car, no, I have regrets. I would not have made an effort if I was in that situation, without PPE and likely without an extinguisher driving through a neighboring city without wage/benefit medical protection.

    Today, with salary/benefit protection as civil service, it may be a different situation, but honestly, I doubt it. Call me what you will, but yes, my family financial responsibilities does come first.
    When someone does not do the job they were hired to do, to serve and protect life and property, to attempt to save lives as they were sworn to do, and does not train their personnel to meet standards, make excuses, lie about facts and figures and makes their FD look like a bunch of idiots... they need to be fired.

    Look in the mirror.
    FyredUp likes this.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  21. #121
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    When someone does not do the job they were hired to do, to serve and protect life and property, to attempt to save lives as they were sworn to do, and does not train their personnel to meet standards, make excuses, lie about facts and figures and makes their FD look like a bunch of idiots... they need to be fired.

    Look in the mirror.
    Pardon my stealing your catch phrase...


    BING FREAKING O!!
    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

  22. #122
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    When someone does not do the job they were hired to do, to serve and protect life and property, to attempt to save lives as they were sworn to do, and does not train their personnel to meet standards, make excuses, lie about facts and figures and makes their FD look like a bunch of idiots... they need to be fired.

    Look in the mirror.
    Interesting .....

    Since you have made some pretty significant accusations, prove them.

    Name one time where I have not attempted protected life and property within the limits of the qualifications and safety of my personnel.

    Name one time where I have not trained my personnel to the training standards as set and determined by the Command Staff of any fire department I have served on.

    name one time where I have lied about facts and figures.


    C'mon big boy. Prove what you have said.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-25-2013 at 04:43 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  23. #123
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Interesting .....

    Since you have made some pretty significant accusations, prove them.

    Name one time where I have not attempted protected life and property within the limits of the qualifications and safety of my personnel.

    Name one time where I have not trained my personnel to the training standards as set and determined by the Command Staff of any fire department I have served on.

    name one time where I have lied about facts and figures.


    C'mon big boy. Prove what you have said.
    How about this one for you...Name one other person anywhere on this forum that has as cavalierly as you stated that they wrote off a victim in a fire and then bragged about not losing any sleep over it.

    C'mon big boy. Show me one other cold hearted bastard that said anything close to that here. Because it surely is one thing to acknowledge the fact that a victim may not be savable and surely another to brag about the complete lack of conscience you have over it. I still wonder about a fire I was at many years ago that was a double fatal. The first crew had to back out because of an air pack malfunction and we went in instead. They were at the door on the second level outside deck and we were on the ground, they came down and we went up. I have wondered all these years if those moments of delay made the difference. I can logically know they didn't, but that doesn't seem to matter to me, it still eats at me on occasion. So you see Bobby, I find your attitude, your not losing one second of sleep, your lack of human compassion, your complete lack of conscience, your ease of writing people off, disturbing, disgusting and not at all what the fine tradition of service firefighting was built on. No one is saying suicidal charges into abandoned dilapidated buildings...no matter how many times you wish that is what we are saying. Your definition of viable is so far out of wack that it is pathetic.

    So answer my challenge, find another post anywhere on here as cold blooded as yours...I'll wait.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 03-25-2013 at 05:21 PM.
    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

  24. #124
    Forum Member

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    How about this one for you...Name one other person anywhere on this forum that has as cavalierly as you stated that they wrote off a victim in a fire and then bragged about not losing any sleep over it.

    I never bragged about losing a victim, but I'm simply not the type of person to look back and "what if" a situation. I accept the fact the people are going to die in fires, MVAs and other situations, and a majority of the time, we are simply not going to make a difference. No smoke detectors. Delayed alarm. Extended travel response time. Weather. Muddy backroads. Heavy fire or smoke on arrival. Inadequate manpower. Inadeaquate water supply. lack of training in a specialized area. I could go on and on, but no, I don't beat myself up when I am involved with a fatal unless it directly relates to some action that we took or could have taken. In the example that I gave, there was no action that could have changed the outcome, so call my appraoch cold, but people die in fires, will alwways die in fires and usually there is very little from the supression side, especially in the rural enviroment to change that.


    C'mon big boy. Show me one other cold hearted bastard that said anything close to that here. Because it surely is one thing to acknowledge the fact that a victim may not be savable and surely another to brag about the complete lack of conscience you have over it.

    Consience has to do with right or wrong. There was nothing at that fire that we did wrong. We simply didn't get there soon enough and didn't have enough water.

    Stuff happens, and there was nothing that could have been done to change that. We did what we could with what we had. Period.


    I still wonder about a fire I was at many years ago that was a double fatal. The first crew had to back out because of an air pack malfunction and we went in instead. They were at the door on the second level outside deck and we were on the ground, they came down and we went up. I have wondered all these years if those moments of delay made the difference. I can logically know they didn't, but that doesn't seem to matter to me, it still eats at me on occasion. So you see Bobby, I find your attitude, your not losing one second of sleep, your lack of human compassion, your complete lack of conscience, your ease of writing people off, disturbing, disgusting and not at all what the fine tradition of service firefighting was built on.

    So I should beat myself up over everything that's out of my control when we have a fatal or significant incident? The fact that they maybe they didn't have working smoke detectors for early warning? The fact that the fire happened during the day when my rural VFD can only respond 2 or 3 members, or that the house was in a remote area in the district? The simple fact is that most of the contributing factors that lead to a fatal fire, or even a fire that destroys a building are beyond my, is well beyond my, or the department's control. Am I sad when I am involved in any fatality, wether it be a fire, MVC or some type of rescue? Sure. But the simple fact is I didn't control the actions of the person(s) that lead to the incident and I have no control over any of the contributing factors.

    So no ... I don't beat myself up and I do not allow it to affect me emotionally. I'll look at the incident from a distance to see what possibly could have been done better, but as far as allowing it to affect me on an emotional level, No, that's not going to happen as it may affect my response and actions the next time a similiar incident occurs.

    Again, I have accepted that people will die in fires, and there are many departments that through no fault of thier own, can't change that. There are people that will die in water, through ice, in confined spaces and other places where the local volunteer department has niether the training nor the equipment to rescue them, and will never have the funds or the time to change that situation. people die. It sucks. But I simply refuse to tear myself apart over something that I can't change.


    No one is saying suicidal charges into abandoned dilapidated buildings...no matter how many times you wish that is what we are saying.

    Funny thing is, I have never said that.

    What I have questioned is the practice of risking our lives, or even risking a simple injury that may keep a volunteer out of work and his paycheck out of his/her pocket, for a building that the owner has decided is no longer valauble enough to maintain, even in the case of a small fire, given the hazards of an abandoned structure. The fact that I would commit members into a structure that the owner is perfectly happy watch slowly fall apart and fall to the ground simply makes no sense to me, and never will.

    We are not protecting property. We are "protecting" what the owner views as nothing more than a standing dumpster.

    The fact is most communities occupancy in these buildings are not an issue. In the places where occupancy is more common, I have said have at it, as long as you can justify the loss of that firefighter to the spouse and kids.


    Your definition of viable is so far out of wack that it is pathetic.

    Maybe. But I disagree.

    I think you'd be surprised what I consider viable when we arrive in a timely fashion and have the resources on hand, not enroute, for the incident.


    So answer my challenge, find another post anywhere on here as cold blooded as yours...I'll wait.
    I doubt I will.

    When you start your career running EMS in a 400 sqaure mile area, with no ALS capabilites and no helicopter transport available, and you run a lot of trauma due to the nature of the area, a pretty fair number of people die both at the scene and in your bus. I quickly developed the ability to emotionally detach myself from the situation and the patient as a way to cope.

    And it worked.

    While many of the other members of the squad had issues when they lost patients, I didn't, and it has carried me through to this day. Call it cold blooded. Really doesn't matter. It's my way of dealing with the death that we see. And I still do that today.

    Certainly I feel compasion for the victims, but I simply do not let it get inside me or get under my skin. And I never will.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  25. #125
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,170

    Default

    Originally Posted by FyredUp
    How about this one for you...Name one other person anywhere on this forum that has as cavalierly as you stated that they wrote off a victim in a fire and then bragged about not losing any sleep over it.

    I never bragged about losing a victim, but I'm simply not the type of person to look back and "what if" a situation. I accept the fact the people are going to die in fires, MVAs and other situations, and a majority of the time, we are simply not going to make a difference. No smoke detectors. Delayed alarm. Extended travel response time. Weather. Muddy backroads. Heavy fire or smoke on arrival. Inadequate manpower. Inadeaquate water supply. lack of training in a specialized area. I could go on and on, but no, I don't beat myself up when I am involved with a fatal unless it directly relates to some action that we took or could have taken. In the example that I gave, there was no action that could have changed the outcome, so call my appraoch cold, but people die in fires, will alwways die in fires and usually there is very little from the supression side, especially in the rural enviroment to change that.

    Apparently reading comprehension wasn't taught at that college you went to either. I NEVER said you bragged about losing a victim. I said you bragged about not losing one second of sleep over it.

    I want no part of working with someone who is that cold blooded. you decide to write them off and feel nothing. I actually pity you with that attitude.


    C'mon big boy. Show me one other cold hearted bastard that said anything close to that here. Because it surely is one thing to acknowledge the fact that a victim may not be savable and surely another to brag about the complete lack of conscience you have over it.

    Consience has to do with right or wrong. There was nothing at that fire that we did wrong. We simply didn't get there soon enough and didn't have enough water.

    Stuff happens, and there was nothing that could have been done to change that. We did what we could with what we had. Period.


    It doesn't end there, you made a decision to not even try to save another human being. That may or may not have been the right choice. But to feel absolutely nothing about it afterwards is simply inhuman.

    I still wonder about a fire I was at many years ago that was a double fatal. The first crew had to back out because of an air pack malfunction and we went in instead. They were at the door on the second level outside deck and we were on the ground, they came down and we went up. I have wondered all these years if those moments of delay made the difference. I can logically know they didn't, but that doesn't seem to matter to me, it still eats at me on occasion. So you see Bobby, I find your attitude, your not losing one second of sleep, your lack of human compassion, your complete lack of conscience, your ease of writing people off, disturbing, disgusting and not at all what the fine tradition of service firefighting was built on.

    So I should beat myself up over everything that's out of my control when we have a fatal or significant incident? The fact that they maybe they didn't have working smoke detectors for early warning? The fact that the fire happened during the day when my rural VFD can only respond 2 or 3 members, or that the house was in a remote area in the district? The simple fact is that most of the contributing factors that lead to a fatal fire, or even a fire that destroys a building are beyond my, is well beyond my, or the department's control. Am I sad when I am involved in any fatality, wether it be a fire, MVC or some type of rescue? Sure. But the simple fact is I didn't control the actions of the person(s) that lead to the incident and I have no control over any of the contributing factors.

    So no ... I don't beat myself up and I do not allow it to affect me emotionally. I'll look at the incident from a distance to see what possibly could have been done better, but as far as allowing it to affect me on an emotional level, No, that's not going to happen as it may affect my response and actions the next time a similiar incident occurs.

    Again, I have accepted that people will die in fires, and there are many departments that through no fault of thier own, can't change that. There are people that will die in water, through ice, in confined spaces and other places where the local volunteer department has niether the training nor the equipment to rescue them, and will never have the funds or the time to change that situation. people die. It sucks. But I simply refuse to tear myself apart over something that I can't change.


    First of all, I never said I beat myself up over it. I believe it is human nature to look back at events and play them over in your head. It has helped me realize that there was nothing I was going to do to change the outcome for the victims. It certainly did not make me have absoutely no feelings for their death. You seem to think either it doesn't exist at all or it is a boat anchor dragging you down. Sorry for normal people it doesn't work that way. You process and file it. You don't erase the hard drive.

    Further as I have stated repeatedly if all you can get is 2 or 3 people during the day then you simply do NOT have a fire department. You have a sham and the community is being mislead.

    Again drama queen I never said I was torn apart, nice try at diverting and trying to make yourself look superior. In fact you come off cold and reptilian.


    No one is saying suicidal charges into abandoned dilapidated buildings...no matter how many times you wish that is what we are saying.

    Funny thing is, I have never said that.

    What I have questioned is the practice of risking our lives, or even risking a simple injury that may keep a volunteer out of work and his paycheck out of his/her pocket, for a building that the owner has decided is no longer valauble enough to maintain, even in the case of a small fire, given the hazards of an abandoned structure. The fact that I would commit members into a structure that the owner is perfectly happy watch slowly fall apart and fall to the ground simply makes no sense to me, and never will.

    We are not protecting property. We are "protecting" what the owner views as nothing more than a standing dumpster.

    The fact is most communities occupancy in these buildings are not an issue. In the places where occupancy is more common, I have said have at it, as long as you can justify the loss of that firefighter to the spouse and kids.


    You say you aren't saying it, yet you are saying it right here again. The difference is doing a size-up, checking for occupancy, fighting the fire, they all depend on structural stability, not on some pre-ordained "let it burn down and anybody inside die" policy.

    Your definition of viable is so far out of wack that it is pathetic.

    Maybe. But I disagree.

    I think you'd be surprised what I consider viable when we arrive in a timely fashion and have the resources on hand, not enroute, for the incident.


    When you arrive in a timely fashion? Apparently that never happens with your volly FD. So is anything ever viable?

    So answer my challenge, find another post anywhere on here as cold blooded as yours...I'll wait.

    I doubt I will.

    When you start your career running EMS in a 400 sqaure mile area, with no ALS capabilites and no helicopter transport available, and you run a lot of trauma due to the nature of the area, a pretty fair number of people die both at the scene and in your bus. I quickly developed the ability to emotionally detach myself from the situation and the patient as a way to cope.

    And it worked.

    While many of the other members of the squad had issues when they lost patients, I didn't, and it has carried me through to this day. Call it cold blooded. Really doesn't matter. It's my way of dealing with the death that we see. And I still do that today.

    Certainly I feel compasion for the victims, but I simply do not let it get inside me or get under my skin. And I never will.


    Once again, I would bet I have seen as many dead, and deformed bodies as you have, since I have been at this for 37 years. I didn't say they get inside my head or under my skin. I just said I don't cold bloodily look at it as apparently nothing like you do.

    Honestly, I feel sorry for you, you are so delusional about almost everything in the fire service it is pathetic.
    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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 19 First ... 234567815 ... Last

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, 01:55 PM
  2. Is the risk worth the reward??
    By Rivwarrior in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-30-2005, 05:59 AM
  3. first interior attack
    By smfd232 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-29-2002, 02:43 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-13-2002, 01:09 PM
  5. interior attack communications
    By mtperry in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-02-2002, 03:25 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