Would have some merit in our area except there are no saleries to put towards that as every department is volunteer.
It is indefensible how you continue to make excuses and justify poor attendance at training, poor turn out for calls, poor excuses for standing on the lawn, poor excuses for why they wouldn't be just as well served by the AMA FD without the $160K annual budget, multiple stations and the purchase of 2 new pieces of apparatus of your vfd.
The funniest part of this whole thing is nothing we have said hasn't come directly from YOUR posts.
I am beginning to think that this VFD that Bobby belongs to exists only in his mind... and he uses it much like DonnaC used the "Bridge Canyon VFD" did to stroke his ego...
Stroking his ego? You have to explain that one because he has done nothing except make it look pretty pathetic.
That's one of your problems on here. You seem to see everything in an all or nothing fashion and the world has a lot of grey in it.
Yes, but you've repeatedly taken the position that this isn't an "issue" of concern for you, yet it appears to be an actual issue for your VFD.Quote:
This is exactly the situation that you've repeatedly chosen to not acknowledge as being an "issue" when discussing the merits of using "exterior" firefighters and drivers.
I have stated many times that we may not have enough interior members.
I don't disagree that their presence has no impact on the number of interior members available, but that's not what I'm discussing. I'm not even saying that they don't have any operational value on the scene or that you shouldn't use them.Quote:
The support and drivers - exterior members - have no affect on the number of interior members available, so they really have zero relevance in this discussion.
Did I say anything about making excuses or not operating "aggressively"? No, I stated that we understand that our staffing level comes with limitations to what we can reasonably accomplish compared to a department with 3-4 times the staffing on the initial response. We still operate "aggressively" when appropriate and take a more cautious approach when warranted.Quote:
I work in a department with an on-duty response of 5-7 FFs and backup in the 10-15 minutes time frame. The large city FD nearby typically has at least 22 FFs on the initial response, depending on the occupancy type. I think we qualify for the "less resources" category.
They don't expect us to be able to accomplish as much as they can initially. We know we can't accomplish as much as they can initially or at least not as "safely", so we don't try to, but we don't use that as an excuse to not do our job.
That's not an excuse. that's understanding that you simply may not be able to operate aggressivly, and yes, accept the loss of lives or the structure because the resources are inadequate.
Yes, sometimes it is necessary to "accept defeat", but that should not be our default mode as we leave the station. "Defeat" should only be accepted after we have assessed the situation at hand and determined that that is the appropriate course.Quote:
Accepting defeat is certainly a part of our job.
My department had a major fire early in the morning in a 3-story, 30 unit building in a public housing complex about 5 years ago. The fire started in an apartment on the second floor at the furthest point from where we have to access it. There was a delay in reporting the fire and when our on-duty crew of 5 arrived, the fire had already extended to the third floor and roof/attic space.
Given the time of day, this building was probably pretty close to full occupancy. The on-duty crew with a little help from some of our police and EMS personnel where able to facilitate the rescue of around 50 people from this building. Some were lead out, some dragged/carried out, some via ladders. In the end, a couple of older people went to the hospital to get checked out after taking some smoke and the most serious injury at the incident was a sprained ankle to a mutual aid firefighter who stepped in a hidden hole in the grass around the building.
Sure, they could've "accepted defeat" given a building full of occupants, a significant amount of fire on two floors and only 5 of them, but that would've surely meant multiple fatalities that morning. Instead, they accepted the challenge presented to them, got to work and had a very, very favorable outcome for the situation.
Yes, but you also like to use the shortcomings of your resources to assert that the rest of us are acting improperly.Quote:
We prioritize the tasks with safety in mind and get to work while additional resources are on the way. We tend to be pretty successful with this approach and have very few injuries of any significance each year.
What does all this mean since we are both responding initially with apparatus, equipment and a small number of people called firefighters, yet experience different results once on scene? As stated above, the obvious problem is that you don't have the "right" resources for the job at hand and that's why they are not "adequate".
Which I have admitted too.
Yes, but that's only part of the issue.Quote:
So, it isn't so much that we need to realize that less resources means less ability and less risk taking as it is the need for you to realize (or at least acknowledge) that the quality of the firefighters on hand has far more of a impact on the overall safety, ability to do "the job" and the outcome of an incident than the quantity of "firefighters" that are on hand.
... And how many times have I stated that part of the issue is training and experience.
As I've said repeatedly, it's not my definition or expectations. It's the core function of a Fire Department and what the public expects if their loved one is trapped in a burning building.Quote:
Right, because expecting an organization calling itself a Fire Department to be able to perform a victim search/rescue supported by interior fire attack is an oh so "high and mighty" standard.
It depends on how you wish to define the expectations of a fire department.
If you ask ANYONE, firefighter, citizen, board member, ANYONE, they will tell you the job of the fire department is to put out fires and save lives. Just because you find yourself in a pathetic situation it doesn't allow you to create a paradigm shift to suit your needs.
A lot of talk here about what the citizens deserve, and what they expect, and what the fire service owes them should their house be on fire. That's all well and good, but what's their role in this? If they are not willing to pay for a career department, and they're not involved enough to elect public officials who will give them what they need, and if they're unwilling to volunteer themselves, then what kind of fire protection can they really expect to get? Not very good, that's what. And isn't that what they then deserve?
Some say that the public needs to be told that their fire protection is insufficient. Can't they figure that out when every structure that has a fire burns to the ground? A huge part of the problem is that most people think they will never have a house fire. That's something that happens to other people. They don't really believe that they'll ever be standing outside watching their house burn, possibly while family members are still inside.
If a department routinely arrives after a house is fully involved, then they need more apparatus in more locations. They will need better staffing so those apparatus can respond. Those who staff them will need to be trained. This all requires funding and people to volunteer as firefighters, or even more funding to pay for career firefighters.
If a guy like LAFE shows up at the scene of a well involved house fire with some real burn time and finds one geriatric driver with an O2 bottle, one 19 year old with a hard-on for hydrant hook-up and one or two interior trained firefighters, what can he really expect to accomplish? I'm not giving a free pass here but the reality is that they will be unable to perform a real agressive interior push. They would have to try a transitional attack and then try a cautious move toward the seat of the fire. Only after knocking down the main body of fire could a search begin. I suppose they could try a one firefighter line advance, but how effective/efficient will that be? This would have to be done not only without a proper RIT in place, but with no capable backup whatsoever. God forbid something goes wrong and they can't self-extricate. They are basically dead at this point. Mutual aid would only show up to recover their bodies. Not to mention the possible structural deficiencies of a building with advanced burn time. You can forget about proper ventilation and VES entirely.
I don't agree with some of the ultra conservative, super safety conscious posts that I've seen from LAFE, but that doesn't make him ENTIRELY wrong concerning his department's operations. The truth is that there are many departments with similar staffing challenges who make agressive decisions on the fireground. Just because it worked out for them last time doesn't mean it will work out the next time. Luck is not a legitimate factor in size-up and SHOULD NOT be relied upon. Things like burn time, victim survivability profiles and available resources ARE legitimate parts of size-up and MUST be relied upon.
We have minimum standards of training and we will boot your worthless azz off the FD if you don't meet them. If you don't ever show up for calls we will get rid of you. We don't care what your skill set is, if you aren't available what good are you?
Please, don't paint all volunteer/POC FDs with the same brush that you paint LA's. Believe me there are several VFDs I have taught in that are every bit as professional as some paid FDs I have been in.
Just to clarify: My post had nothing to do with career vs vollie.
I've worked with so-called professionals who were worse than useless.