Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 59
  1. #21
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Silver City, Oklahoma USA
    Posts
    985

    Default

    ALS and Lewiston (and anyone else),

    Is there no circumstance that you think using an acquired structure is appropriate for? How about teaching the basic firefighting skills in burn buildings and using acquired structures as advanced training?

    The live burn exercises I have been involved in were overseen by experienced officers and state instructors. Safety was paramount. In fact, I thought we went overboard on safey at the time, but I was REAL green (not that I've got that much time in now LOL). Looking back, I understand the decisions that were made, and if my current department were to do a live burn, I'd have the same concerns.

    Give appropriate safety measures, what's wrong with live burns?
    Bryan Beall
    Silver City, Oklahoma USA


  2. #22
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    buffalo ny
    Posts
    4

    Default LIVE FIRE TRAINING

    ALMOST 40 BURNS
    IN OVER 4 YEARS
    NO ACCELERANTS
    NO LIVE VICTIMS
    ------------------
    = NO INJURIES........

  3. #23
    MembersZone Subscriber gfdtrk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The southern shore of beautiful Lake Michigan
    Posts
    250

    Thumbs up Live Fire Training

    I'm with my fellow ghettotruckster

    10 years
    Approx. 100 burns (in acquired structures)
    No accelerants (ever!)
    No live victims (ever!)
    1 injury (However this "victim" learned (actually "re-enforced") a valuable lesson..... Never, ever put a VERY, VERY hot glove into the fire stream.....just take it off....outside!)....Small burn on hand, due to steam.

    Everyone that has attended this training has called it the "Best training" they have ever had.

    Just like the Porsche ad says

    "Acquired structures.......There is NO substitute!"
    FTM-PTB
    trk4

  4. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Westchester Co., NY USA
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Ok, I'll try this one more time, thanks to this forum system, I lost the first one I typed due to it said I wasn't "logged on."
    Anyway, yes Silver, I believe they can be used for exactly what Lewiston put in his post. They are valuable for Vertical ventilation on a real roof, forcible entry, overhaul, and Search & Rescue. I've also been involved in numerous acquired structure burns when I was an instructor in Virginia, and never had any problems other then routine bumps, scrapes, and a few minor steam burns. However, that still doesn't account for the numerous other fatalities and injuries we have had nationwide over the past 2 decades alone. I still believe that you can have effective live burns in burn buildings. What effect do you get in a acquired structure vs. burn building. We still get rollovers, have "windows" that need to be taken out, and can build up higher temperatures in a controlled environment. Class A materials are class A materials. I don't think many of us can even find a couch that is pure class A. We have panels on our building that simulate wallboard. Our building is also a replica of a residential house, and we have the ability to get high rise live fire training also. Myself, and the guys I work with are products of burn building trained firefighters, and even our probies do just fine on their first actual structure fires. I just still find it ironic that many depts/agencies evaluate themselves and/or their tactics when a fatality occurs and NIOSH issues the report and/or deficiencies, but when they occur in a training burn we hear quotes of "we don't do it that way, we are safe, we follow this, they're just stupid." We can have standards/laws whatever you want, but that won't ensure 100% compliance, banning acquired live fire training will. This isn't just limited to NY either, AZ, MI, and NJ have had incidents with non-burn building live fires that have led to death or injury. The aftermath of NJ's accident led to the ban on using any transportation vehicle for live fire training. Why not add acquired structure to that list and leave it to burn buildings.
    On a lighter note, I just wanted to say this is a good forum, honest opinions, questions and answers with bashing, or beligerent tones. This is the way it should be and is a compliment to those of us who attempt to maintain professionalism even during times of disagreement and humor.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    The above is my opinion only and doesn't reflect that of any dept/agency I work for, deal with, or am a member of.

  5. #25
    MembersZone Subscriber truck6alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Hilton Head Island, SC
    Posts
    405

    Default

    The standards developed by NFPA Committees are consensus standards- everyone is given a chance to comment on them when they are developed and it always amazes me at the people who complain yet have never bothered to contribute to fixing the problem. Thus the comments I hear about standards being "unrealistic" tend to rub me the wrong way.

    There is a standard for live fire burns and I have no idea if it was adhered to in this last case or not, but where I come from, if someone screws up, they should take responsibility for the outcome. I don't care if you're volunteer or career, standards are there to protect us (from ourselves, sometimes it seems) and it amazes me when I hear someone say, "Well, these standards are just too hard to live up to". Well, if that's your philospophy, my suggestion is to get out of the business and leave it those of us that follow the rules and can do the job, especially since these are MINIMUM standards. That goes for fitness standards; otherwise, the heart attack parade is just going to keep on coming. It goes for professional standards; if volunteers are going to keep throwing out the old "we're professionals too", then they should back it up by supporting professional standards across the board. And it goes for safety standards.

    I wholeheartedly believe that those of you out there who are volunteers and meeting the standards are truly professionals. And likewise, if you are career and not meeting standards, you are unprofessional. Fire doesn't differentiate between volunteer or career, so therefore the requirements should be similar.

    My prayers are with the firefighters that got hurt last week. I don't, however, believe that banning live burns will solve the problem. Getting rid of the leaders who fail to protect their crews and getting rid of people taking shortcuts WILL solve the problem.

    Well, let the screaming begin...
    Michael "Mick" Mayers
    Acting Director, Urban Search and Rescue
    South Carolina Emergency Response Task Force
    www.sctf1.sc.gov

  6. #26
    JTL
    JTL is offline
    Senior Member JTL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    I don't know...
    Posts
    272

    Default

    everyone is given a chance to comment on them when they are developed and it always amazes me at the people who complain yet have never bothered to contribute to fixing the problem. Thus the comments I hear about standards being "unrealistic" tend to rub me the wrong way.
    Good point Mick. As someone who has been involved in the process I believe in what you are saying. Given the opportunity we should all be involved or at least members of every department. The one problem, and others know this as well, is that on some standard committee's, the fire service is not welcomed. That should be a target of the fire service. However, doing nothing but complaining is no excuse. Action is the order of the day. Be a part of what has an effect on the job.

    Holding those accountable through the law is also the best way to reinforce the fact that leadership is not a title, but a responsibility.
    Last edited by JTL; 04-29-2002 at 09:47 PM.

  7. #27
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,143

    Default

    JTL, could you expand on that? I'm curious as to which committees the fire service is not welcome on, I mean it's not like we don't have a vested interest in just about every standard the National FIRE Protection Association is developing or enhancing.

  8. #28
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Silver City, Oklahoma USA
    Posts
    985

    Default

    Alright ALS, we may just may to agree to disagree on this one.

    I think burn buildings are great. You can light 'em over and over, the degree of safety is there, and you can train for one story single family dwellings to high rise tactics.

    BUT (there's always a "but") what I'm getting from your last post is that we shouldn't allow burns in acquired structures because of injuries and fatalities in them versus burn buildings?

    Here's what I'm thinking, and I don't have research to back me up. Burn buildings are generally located in larger municipalities with full time instructors or at state training facilities. Many smaller departments (paid and volunteer) don't have the easy access to them. Therefore, they fall back on acquired structures. Thus, these smaller departments may not have the same level of training or experience that departments with burn buildings have. That, I figure, is where the injuries and fatalities come into play.

    Now, I'm not offering up excuses. But I don't think we should ban training in acquired structures just because some people are reckless. I think it does a disservice to those of us that use acquired structures responsibly.

    What I think should happen is that stronger penalities should exist for those that wantonly dismiss accepted standards on live fire exercises.

    An example: many, many people are killed every year by drunk drivers. Many, many, many more people drink responsibly and DON'T kill anyone. I don't think we should outlaw alcohol just because a few ignore the law. I think we should severely punish those that violate the law as an incentive not to. I know we're talking breaking a law versus not following a standard, but I hope you see my point.

    BTW, I have the same problem with the board saying I'm not logged on--copy the text before you hit that "submit" button.
    Bryan Beall
    Silver City, Oklahoma USA

  9. #29
    MembersZone Subscriber F52Westside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    268

    Cool Ignitable Liquids...... Why ????

    We do quite a few training burns, and we DO NOT USE gas, diesal or the like to get the fire going. We use pallets, straw and flares and the fires will get ripping without the use of accelerants, so why use them. There is an arson crew - that sets and monitors the fire's progress, an attack crew - that does the obvious and a backup crew that is in place if an additional line is needed.
    Live fire trainings is how I learned to fight fire and I am thankful I had the chance to learn it in a semi-controlled setting and not O.T.J. so to speak.
    Stay Safe & Bring 'em Home!
    Eddie C.
    I.A.F.F. Local 3008

    "Doin' it for lives n' property"

    ** "The comments made here are this person's views and not that of the organizations to which I am affiliated" **

  10. #30
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Eddie, it might be a good idea to refer to them as the "ignition team" in your operational plan and not "arson crew".

  11. #31
    District Chief distchief60b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,413

    Default NO

    It is not time to stop training burns. Burns in an acquired structure are very beneficial.

    It is time to act mature, use common sense, practice safety, exercise good judgement and use recognized training standards.
    Oh yea...I left out one thing....

    BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF YOU ARE IN CHARGE AND DONT FOLLOW ACCEPTED NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STANDARDS!
    09-11 .. 343 "All Gave Some..Some Gave ALL" God Bless..R.I.P.
    ------------------------------
    IACOJ Minister of Southern Comfort
    "Purple Hydrant" Recipient (3 Times)
    BMI Investigator
    ------------------------------
    The comments, opinions, and positions expressed here are mine. They are expressed respectfully, in the spirit of safety and progress. They do not reflect the opinions or positions of my employer or my department.

  12. #32
    JTL
    JTL is offline
    Senior Member JTL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    I don't know...
    Posts
    272

    Default

    Lady Cappy
    JTL, could you expand on that?
    Sure! For example, firefighters who serve on certain committees, are not welcomed because the industry wants their people on them. Business does not like the firefighter participating because we may ask for more stringent standards. This occurs throughout the standards world, not in every standard, but as a general practice. A group of us were told once that you "fire marshals" are a pain in the rear. Perhaps we were but we were advocating safety. So it does occur.

    If you need more elaboration I will email you some more specifics.

  13. #33
    MembersZone Subscriber ChiefReason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
    Posts
    5,636

    Default

    "From the naturalistic point of view, all men are equal. There are only two exceptions to this rule of naturalistic equality: geniuses and idiots".
    Mikhail Bakunin

    Clearly knowing which category that I fall in to, I believe that banning live burns for the reason stated would be like banning driving for everyone because some idiot can't obey the traffic laws!
    Establish the rules; then follow the rules(geniuses). If you break the rules; then expect to be held accountable(idiots).
    Someone please tell me: what is the difference between an arsonist who sets a fire and as a result, a firefighter dies while attempting to suppress it or a firefighter who sets a fire and as a result, a firefighter dies? Without bringing in the other issues involved with arson as a crime, the bottom line is that, in both examples, a fire was intentionally set and a firefighter died as a result. The arsonist will be charged with aggravated circumstances because of the firefighter death, but for some reason, the firefighter who set the fire believes that accidents happen; that our profession is dangerous, even when we train. Forget the fact that he used a high octane cocktail to start it and then fed it with furniture with a petroleum base and all the while, proclaiming that he didn't know what he was doing. All he knows is that he was following orders and someone else should pay for his stupidity. What a load of crap!
    Many think that national standards for live burn training isn't possible. Maybe we aren't looking at it from the right direction. Maybe we should be looking at it from the direction of the insurance companies. Perhaps they could offer help in getting everyone in this country on the same training page. Just a thought.
    The bottom line is that I am tired of feeling SAD AND ANGRY.
    We have to find a way to turn the idiots into geniuses. AND FAST.
    Just my opinion; I could be wrong.
    Please find a way to be safe!

  14. #34
    JTL
    JTL is offline
    Senior Member JTL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    I don't know...
    Posts
    272

    Default

    Reason: Where have you been?



    Someone please tell me: what is the difference between an arsonist who sets a fire and as a result, a firefighter dies while attempting to suppress it or a firefighter who sets a fire and as a result, a firefighter dies?
    Actually we are getting into the philosophical realm here. The arsonist is getting some sort of gratification from his handiwork, be it power, sex, etc. While certainly some firefighters could be included here, I don't believe that Bobby Joe, the training officer, is necessarily benfitting from the act of setting the fire.

    George where are you??? Give us some guidance here.




    Perhaps they could offer help in getting everyone in this country on the same training page.
    Perhaps so Chief. Money hurts and that is a fact. However ignorance surpasses all fines.



    The bottom line is that I am tired of feeling SAD AND ANGRY.
    Same here brother!

  15. #35
    Senior Member FireFighterMO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Catatonic State
    Posts
    112

    Default

    If live burns stop because of this, then the Army's Basic Training should stop too. I hear a few trainees have died in the past. (nevermind the fact that they're training for WAR)
    Maybe they should stop the driving part of the Driver's License Test?
    What about all of those cops who practice shooting guns? I know that's dangerous.
    I guess Lifeguards could stop swimming too.

    Chief Reason, I have to agree with you on this one.

  16. #36
    Senior Member Temptaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    942

    Default

    Before you read this please understand I am not trying to start a discussion about vol vs paid FF. It is just what is done here, and it seems to work.

    Several years ago the Justice Institute of BC (JI) implemented standards for vol depts. The JI is one of a hand full of fire academies that are recognised by our province for FF training. The training itself is not conducted at the academy, it is done within the jurisdiction of the Vol dept, by a group of experienced FF's (10+ yrs) from Loc 18. They go out, spend the day with these guys, make sure beyond any reasonable doubt that they know what they should be doing, and what they should do incase there is a problem. Then they do the burn. The FF's that go out are the ones that are in command of the scene. To my knowledge there has only been one serious injury that has happened at one of these training exercises, and it was because of a refusal to follow orders. The guy ended up having a small tree fall on him, and came out of it with a broken collar bone.

    I'm not saying its perfect, but is it possible?

  17. #37
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    George where are you??? Give us some guidance here.
    Oh sure, somebody asks the tough arson question and all of a sudden everybody looks to the bullpen for the big righty from Jersey.

    Someone please tell me: what is the difference between an arsonist who sets a fire and as a result, a firefighter dies while attempting to suppress it or a firefighter who sets a fire and as a result, a firefighter dies?
    I can only speak for Jersey law. In NJ, it is necessary to have a purposely set fire to get an arson charge. After that, the motivation of the firesetter actually determines the degree of the charge. If the fire is not purposely set, it is still possible to charge someone with criminal mischief if the fire purposely or knowingly damages tangible property of another and it was recklessly or negligently set.

    The death actually has little or nothing to do with it. There is a seperate charge of Felony Murder when a death occurs as a result of the commission of another crime. For example, I investigated a case where a moron set an old bus on fire. A Security Guard attempted to put out the fire and had an MI and died. The homeless maggot who set the fire was also charged with Felony Murder.

    I know that in many states, a death will be a factor which elevates the degree of the arson charge. However, in states like Jersey, where the statutes are based on Common Law, that is not the case.

    That being said, one of the problems I had in the Parsippany case was getting the fire to fit into one of the statutes. Yeah, I had an intentionally set fire, but I had no intent to harm anyone or destroy any property. Yeah, fire was used in a reckless or negligent manner, but it would be kind of hard to argue that the FD purposely or knowingly damaged the property. Besides, the property belonged to them.

    From a practical standpoint, they are vastly different. From an emotional standpoint, the fire fighter who sets this type of fire is far worse, because he SHOULD have known better and SHOULD be held to a higher standard.

    Please note, that laws in other states are probably different and there may be another side to this. I am speaking only of New Jersey law.

  18. #38
    JTL
    JTL is offline
    Senior Member JTL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    I don't know...
    Posts
    272

    Default

    Thanks George. that helps me in my understanding and I agree with:
    From an emotional standpoint, the fire fighter who sets this type of fire is far worse, because he SHOULD have known better and SHOULD be held to a higher standard.
    Thanks for the response.

  19. #39
    MembersZone Subscriber ChiefReason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
    Posts
    5,636

    Default

    JTL:
    Been pretty busy as of late. I have only had time to read the threads; haven't had the time until now to respond.
    In my mind, a fire that is intentionally set, regardless of the motive, that injures or kills a public safety official should carry a serious penalty; period!
    George:
    I have a good working knowledge of the basis for a charge of arson. If there needs to be other factors in order to charge a person for setting a fire for the purpose of training that results in the death of the firefighter, how about "impersonating a training officer" or even "impersonating a fire officer". I think that that is a crime!
    All too often, you have people involved with acquired structure burns who don't have a basic knowledge of fire behavior setting fires for practice. Add to that a certain desire on the parts of some to give the newbies the impression that they have set huge fires a million times and you get firefighters dying in practice burns. There seems to be the end goal of misleading the newbies into believing that they will only be fighting the more glamorous, large structural fires, so setting the big fires is necessary. Smoke machines or small fires in half-barrels using proper fuels will not yield the desired results, which is to daze and amaze the newbies. It is that mentality that is killing firefighters and along with it, the practice of live burn training.
    I truly believe that if firefighters aren't allowed to hold practice burns that follow the same principles of the nation's fire colleges, more firefighters will be injured or killed. Not everyone can take off of work to go to fire college. Consequently, we have to simulate that type of training during evening hours during the week or on weekends. IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY! We have to remember that it is a crime in this country to knowingly allow a hazard to exist that causes the injury or death of a person. I think in the most recent training deaths, hazards were present that were not addressed. Care was not taken to minimize the safety risks. As a result, someone died, while others were seriously injured. The person responsible for insuring safety must be held accountable. That is a fact.
    Why is it that the only thing we learn from a firefighters' death is how to throw a better funeral? We are constantly reminding ourselves, that with each new firefighter death, we are smarter than that. And yet, the body count continues to rise.
    Apparently, we are giving ourselves too much credit.
    Just my opinion; I could be wrong.
    Stay safe.

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Oneida county
    Posts
    117

    Thumbs down

    I myself dont believe taht stopping live burn training in aquired houses should be stopped. I do believe that, that is one real good way to get realistic training. I also know that currently in Oneida county we are not even allowed to burn anything in the training towers either. Thanks to the recent accidents.

    I feel taht if you dont get a little live fire training that when you get put in a real fire you will panic. Not saying all will, but training is the only way to know for sure.
    Everything that I post is my opinion only, none of this should be taken as fact.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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