But don't we forget
As a training project for my department I have been researching LODD and applying the lessons learned to a presentation for all my firefighters to learn from. It seems this type of training grabs their attention.
Many of the LODD reports talk about prevention, and either how a lack of departmental prevention or failure of a prevention element, contributed to the LODD.
As a service we aggressively target and attack the equipment, suppression, strategy, and tactics that cause LODD. But for me it seems the prevention side of "Never Forget" adorned on LODD stickers and banners is in fact forgotten.
Shouldn't the prevention side also be addressed just as aggressively. If the fire was prevented, or the prevention elements functioned properly, then the risk would never have come about.
It seems we still are very one sided as a service.
""""Shouldn't the prevention side also be addressed just as aggressively. If the fire was prevented, or the prevention elements functioned properly, then the risk would never have come about. """"
BUT, which office/section do you see less personnel in ,,, less funds devoted to,,, less emphasis ????
Yes prevention should be pushed and does work where it is FIRST in importance
I cannot agree with you more. It's a systemic problem that is at the core of our service and it's time we address it.
I think part of the problem is that nobody really believes they'll have a fire in their home. We can only do so much. Battery powered smoke detectors can be had cheaply, yet so many homes have none. If I had a nickel for every fire I went to that had no smoke detector or an inoperable smoke detector, well let's just say I'd have a whole lot of nickels.
Where do smaller volunteer departments, or even larger paid departments come up with the time and manpower to educate an often disinterested public?
You have to start somewhere
Even if you do one block at a time
Here is the problem. Our own firefighters are uneducated. While it is great to have the manpower and budget to have people dedicated to fire prevention, fact is you don't need a formal programs to educate the public.
Some of your best education takes place during one on one conversations at public events, emergency calls, station visits. But what happens when Mrs. Smith walks into a fire station. The rookie is sent out to give the tour and he/she wows them with friction loss and fire truck speeds. He gives the kiddos a plastic had and coloring book and we call that education.
How many firefighters will go on medical runs and enter into homes that will be a future structure fire and caused by the very overloaded outlet (just one example) they walked by while treating Mrs. Smith for her respiratory distress. They were never educated or trained on how to identify the hazard or how to educate Mrs. Smith on that hazard. Even worse this could be the same home as your next LODD.
The public is disinterested largely because we have failed to generate their interest. Every firefighter movie and TV show glorifies the firefighter and fire in general. How do we get the public to fear and respect what we ourselves glorify?
Can we educate and prevent 100% of all fires? No way! But if our firefighters were educated and responded to 100 homes this year for whatever reason and identified hazards in every one and educated all the owners, and even if just ONE or TWO of the Mrs Smiths made the correction that prevented the fire that exposed our Brothers to risk then isn't that worth it? We dedicate 85% of our training to rescuing ourselves from something that occurs less than 1% of the time in our profession. So why do we not take that same approach and attitude towards prevention?
Simply why do we become defeatists when doing prevention?
And YES fire49! You have to start somewhere.
Carry a few smoke detectors in the truck, and on a slow house run, if you do not see any installed
Install them, of check the ones that are installed
Fire49, This is a good idea you have here. One problem with you installing a smoke detector. I can tell you i know of a department that use to install smoke detectors in homes. They installed one; one day that night the house burnt down. The home owner sued the department and won because they forgot to remove a plastic tab from the detector and it failed to go off. So i would not tell a department not to hand out detectors but i would take caution with installing them. My wife has had fits before because i will be in someones home. See they don't have any and will go buy enough for them to make their home safe. She says its rude. I say its doing the right thing.
What department did this occur I am interested in researching that for my own benefit. While I appreciate your views I like how you ended it and think that's what we should focus on - doing the right thing. We can't hide from fear. We don't fear flames or hazardous materials - we shouldn't fear doing the right thing.
Please let me know what department that was it's very important, as I teach prevention, and the particulars are important on this. Thanks. Please feel free to email it at firstname.lastname@example.org if you don't want to publish it publicly.
Originally Posted by D.sinesi
Get a good waiver signed
Originally Posted by fire49
We routinely install smoke detectors while we're on EMS runs. We install it, test it, and then have a waiver (which was approved by the county attorney) signed and keep it on file.
This happened to the Village of Hamilton.
Village of Hamilton New York?
The overall issue is difficult as we cannot prove something that did not happen would have. We can point to a sprinkler limiting or extinguishing a fire as minimizing damage, but it's rarely possible to prove it saved lives. While we know that in the grand scheme fire prevention obviously saves lives, there's no way to quantify this with data. With the proliferation of data via, reporting and computers, our modern society requires hard numbers, something we cannot provide for things that haven't happened. We need to build the public trust (even further) so that they understand that when we say these efforts save lives and property they can bank on it.
Of course smaller measures such as installing smoke detectors when we see places without them is a great way to start, we also need to be advocates for future safety by supporting residential sprinklers, something we have a hard time convincing our own members of.
If we don't put sprinklers in our fire stations, then why should the residents think they need them in their homes?
Originally Posted by RFDACM02