And yes, my wife knows how I feel about risking firefighter's lives.
The reality is that there are many places that fire departments will never have the funding to purcahse apparatus, tools, equipment, SCBA and PPE to do this, have access to training to do this, have enough manpower physically capable of doing this or have response times that make this possible.
You can say should ... should .. should ... all day long but it's not going to change the reality.
By the way, do you have any name suggestions?
If you think that we should be entering buildings with near heavily to fully involved, near backdraft conditions and/or obviously imminent or ongoing structural collapse, you, my friend ar a complete idiot and hope that you never get anywhere near anywhere of my men.
People die in fires. Always have. Always will. And many times we in the fire service cannot change that.
And that could include my family, my parents and my friends.
The fact is expect firefighters to perform rescue operations up to the point where they become injured. At that point, the obligation to those in the home end and the obligation to their families, especially volunteers without significant financial protection for their families, begins.
Also, if the primary risk is fire in a structure, haven't you already identified the risk? How would you ever correct that risk? Run away or perhaps stretch a line and put the danged fire out? Gee, if you put the fire out, have you not then taken action to mitigate the risk to the citizens and firefighters? You said shut down the hiway, easier said than done, thus mitigating the risk. Would not removing victims from a fire also be mitigating the risk to them? You can take steps to mitigate on a hiway and you can take steps to mitigate at a structure fire.
I can close the road and block it, and eliminate the entire risk package posed by traffic hazard.
Can't do that with rapid fire spread, structural collapse or any other identifiable hazard at a structure fire.
his kind of absolute, nonsensical, made up from the depths of your delusional mind, is exactly why I will NEVER, and I mean NEVER, stop countering the barrage of horse schitt that you spread here.
I take that statement back, I misread the posters statement.
Tell me where anyone here said we would enter under those conditions? Find one quote, find one, from anyone and repost it here.
See above, I misread the posters statement.
And yes, I do attempt to completely disassociate myself from the victims at a fire, and the patients at EMS calls.
They are not people. They are victims and patients, and I am there to treat them and make decisions regarding them as such.
Cold? Probably. But it keeps the emotion out of the decision making process.
You are either a liar or so pathetically devoid of human emotion that you are beyond all hope. Will yu not lose one moment of sleep that hypothetical night?
Never did I state that losing my wife or kids would not tear me up. But that does not mean that I allow my needs to save my family to rise above the needs of my firefighters to take care of their families.
That being said, I have a responsibility to my brother firefighters families to not put my needs ahead of theirs. They do not, and never should, have an obligation to put take extraordinary risks to save MY family ahead of their ability to provide for their families.
Blah blah blah...The odds are higher that they will when before you have even arrived on scene you have already written the structure and its contents off.
In my volunteer district, if I am the command officer, the structure has already written itself off simply based on my extended response time, unless the occupant's have extinguished the fire prior to our arrival. It's really that simple.
You see this is where you and I are cut from different cloth. Those on scene would have to kick my ***, or kill me, to stop me from trying to enter to save my family. You may not like that but that is how I roll. I am not going to stand by and just go "Oh well, just another fire death. No matter, I won't lose any sleep tonight over it."
There is a difference between me taking risks and expecting my firefighters who are responsible for their families taking extraordinary risks.
Nonsense...When we enter we enter using all of our skills, experience, and training. And we recognize when a department or the response at that incident does not possess the skills, experience and training to safely perform at that incident. You use nonsense, inability, and fear, to find excuses not to enter. No, I use identified shortcomings in training, experience and resources to identify situations where making entry, or performing actions at non-fire incidents, becomes dangerous and not supported by training, experience and resources. Risk versus reward must be our guide. And acceptable risk varies from department to department and response to response based on training, experiences, resources and command structure. If you are not willing to risk anything you are a joke, and a poison to the fire service. Could be. AND being willing to take risks does not mean you are looking to be injured or killed.
Never said that it did.
But I refuse to take risks "just because we are the fire department" unless they can be fully supported by training, experience, command structure and resources even if that means (in your opinion) "unacceptable" injury, death or property damage to the citizens..