Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 23 of 32 FirstFirst ... 1320212223242526 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 460 of 622
Like Tree379Likes

Thread: Lt. Ray hits another home run!

  1. #441
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    Are you, a career fire Captain, actually endorsing the takeover of firefighting function by law enforcement or public works personnel?

    That is SO CLEARLY not the answer.

    Please tell us you were just trying to make a point.
    In some places a public service department with primarily law enforce duties has worked very well.

    Would have some merit in our area except there are no saleries to put towards that as every department is volunteer.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.


  2. #442
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Part of the problem is that we aren't necessarily talking the same language. Case in point, your statement quoted above:

    You are absolutely correct that less resources means that you can't do as much, or at least not as efficiently, as if you had more resources. What constitutes a "resource"? From a fire service perspective, resources would typically be apparatus, equipment and personnel. Let's look at what you typically describe when you talk about not having "adequate resources" for interior operations from that perspective. You have the apparatus, I assume it has the equipment on it and you have personnel (3-4 of what you call firefighters). So, you essentially have adequate "resources" to conduct a fire attack since 3-4 FFs engine companies successfully initiate fire attack on a daily basis across this nation. The obvious problem to most people would be that in your situation, you don't have the "right" "resources".



    No disagreement.

    Though I will debate that even 4 fully trained members - 3 when you remove the pump operator - is adequate for safe interior attack in many situations.




    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.

    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.




    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.

    Accepting defeat is certainly a part of our job.




    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.



    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.



    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.
    Which is why your community would be better off with a six year old boy or an Australian dog. Neither of those individuals made excuses. They just up and did the job required.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #443
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Which is why your community would be better off with a six year old boy or an Australian dog. Neither of those individuals made excuses. They just up and did the job required.
    And you continue to be an idiot.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  4. #444
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And you continue to be an idiot.
    Wasn't it you who stated that resorting to insults was the last bastion of someone trying to win an argument?
    Chenzo 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

  5. #445
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And you continue to be an idiot.
    And you continue to be a delusional part of a coverup that refuses to tell the board and the citizens that your vfd is a sham and that if the AMA FD doesn't show up at the very least more damage to their property will occur, and at the worst lives will be lost and their home destroyed.

    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.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 07-07-2013 at 11:48 AM.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  6. #446
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    Wasn't it you who stated that resorting to insults was the last bastion of someone trying to win an argument?
    What does he have left? His azz has been handed to him so many times that the load of carrying it must be almost unbearable.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  7. #447
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,556

    Default

    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...
    Last edited by DeputyChiefGonzo; 07-06-2013 at 10:59 PM.
    ‎"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

  8. #448
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,664

    Default

    Stroking his ego? You have to explain that one because he has done nothing except make it look pretty pathetic.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  9. #449
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Stroking his ego? You have to explain that one because he has done nothing except make it look pretty pathetic.
    In his own mind, he thinks he is God's gift to the fire service. We know his ramblings are pathetic...
    ‎"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. #450
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    In his own mind, he thinks he is God's gift to the fire service. We know his ramblings are pathetic...
    Gotcha. That's why you are a Chief, your brilliant insight.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  11. #451
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Part of the problem is that we aren't necessarily talking the same language. Case in point, your statement quoted above:

    You are absolutely correct that less resources means that you can't do as much, or at least not as efficiently, as if you had more resources. What constitutes a "resource"? From a fire service perspective, resources would typically be apparatus, equipment and personnel. Let's look at what you typically describe when you talk about not having "adequate resources" for interior operations from that perspective. You have the apparatus, I assume it has the equipment on it and you have personnel (3-4 of what you call firefighters). So, you essentially have adequate "resources" to conduct a fire attack since 3-4 FFs engine companies successfully initiate fire attack on a daily basis across this nation. The obvious problem to most people would be that in your situation, you don't have the "right" "resources".

    No disagreement.

    Though I will debate that even 4 fully trained members - 3 when you remove the pump operator - is adequate for safe interior attack in many situations.
    Yes, there will be situations in which initiating an interior attack may not be prudent with that number of Firefighters. However, that's no reason to not initiate the attack on the many other situations in which the fire attack can be made in a reasonably safe fashion with that staffing.

    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.


    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.
    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.

    Accepting defeat is certainly a part of our job.
    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.

    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.


    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 you also like to use the shortcomings of your resources to assert that the rest of us are acting improperly.


    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.
    Yes, but that's only part of the issue.


    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.
    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.

  12. #452
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And you continue to be an idiot.
    Ha ha ha. That means so much to me coming from you.

    Mere words are not adequate to describe it.

    Given you are a pitiful excuse for anyone claiming to be a firefighter, I take your comment as a compliment. You are everything I strove to avoid becoming.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #453
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Yes, there will be situations in which initiating an interior attack may not be prudent with that number of Firefighters. However, that's no reason to not initiate the attack on the many other situations in which the fire attack can be made in a reasonably safe fashion with that staffing.

    And those situations depend on the experience and training of the members as well as the abilities of the IC.

    By and large, our interior members are inexperienced, which greatly limits those situations.

    And I have no issues admitting it.


    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.

    You see more grey than I do.

    I much prefer a very black and white "shall" and "shall not" world.


    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.

    Yes, it's an issue, but it's a long-term issue.

    The fact is our manpower issue is not going to be solved tomorrow, so for at least the next year, these are the conditions we will be operating under, and like it or not, my tactics for the short-term at least will be driven by the resources at hand.


    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.

    It isn't even an issue.



    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.

    [COLOR="#FF0000"]And so do we...... Except those situations are very, very few and very, very far between for us.

    As I have stated if I ever encounter a (statistically unlikely) rescue situation as IC, I will take far greater risks.However, even in that situation the risks will still have to be supported by reasonable levels of training and experience.


    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.

    And in a similar situation we would do what resources, training and experience allow.

    Yes, but you also like to use the shortcomings of your resources to assert that the rest of us are acting improperly.

    Yes, I feel the fire service as a whole needs to reassess risk v. benefit.


    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.
    It's the core function as defined by you.

    Core functions are defined at the department level by the department.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  14. #454
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    It's the core function as defined by you.

    Core functions are defined at the department level by the department.
    Ha ha ha. That is why a six year old boy and an Australian dog would be better for your citizens than you.

    They do the job. Unlike you who finds ways to avoid it.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #455
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    It's the core function as defined by you.

    Core functions are defined at the department level by the department.
    This is the most meaningless, idiotic, without any support statement you have ever made here, and believe me you have made so many it is impossible to count them all.

    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.
    FireMedic049 likes this.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  16. #456
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    614

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by captnjak; 07-07-2013 at 12:06 PM.

  17. #457
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    This is the most meaningless, idiotic, without any support statement you have ever made here, and believe me you have made so many it is impossible to count them all.

    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.
    Reminds me of my 2-1/2 year old grand son when we play shoot em up games. When he is not getting the best of it, he changes the rules. Fine for kids games, not so good for public safety.
    ?

  18. #458
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    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?
    Awesome. One of the many reasons I live in a place that has professionals.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  19. #459
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Awesome. One of the many reasons I live in a place that has professionals.
    I live in a place that has professionals too. They just don't get paid.

    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.
    conrad427 likes this.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  20. #460
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    614

    Default

    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. The Quint hits the UK
    By SteveDude in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-13-2005, 04:37 PM
  2. I know this isn't a firefighter but it still hits home
    By Itsmy6 in forum Line of Duty: In Memory Of
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-06-2005, 01:02 AM
  3. LODD Hits Home
    By scfirewife41 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-01-2005, 09:20 AM
  4. Lutan1 hits the big 30!
    By NJFFSA16 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-12-2002, 02:34 PM
  5. When fire hits home
    By ADSNWFLD in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-30-2001, 10:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts