+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1234 ... Last
  1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber
    dmleblanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Not the end of the earth but I can see it from here...
    Posts
    2,318

    Thumbs down "Unplanned" live fire training?

    http://cms.firehouse.com/content/art...e.jsp?id=37946

    WARNING: RANT IMMINENT!!!

    Is it just me, or does anyone else see a problem with this "training session"? How many tenets of NFPA 1403 do you suppose were violated by this drill? I see huge problems here. In my opinion, a live fire drill should not be a "surprise". We take enough risks responding to actual fires...our training should not be this dangerous. And before anyone even starts with the "This is more realistic" line, screw that. Firefighters have been KILLED in better planned training than this (Lairdsville ring a bell?)

    If you want to have them respond from the station to a working fire in an acquired structure, fine. I can see that being a realistic drill. But do it right! There should have been some kind of safety briefing, a review of the objectives of the training, and for sure a visit to the site for all participants prior the the drill and a walk through.

    Yeah, I know we don't get the luxury of all that when a real fire comes in. But remember, in a real fire we risk a lot to save a lot, risk a little to save a little, and risk nothing to save what is of no value or already lost. What are we saving here? Risks should be minimized as much as possible. I don't think that is the case here.

    Even putting aside the safety considerations, how effective a drill do you suppose this was for the participants? Other than getting to take some heat and get your gear dirty, what is learned? No objectives identified, no specific skills practiced, just a lot of huffin' and puffin' and chaos. Besides, how much more training could have been accomplished before torching the thing? (think forcible entry, search & rescue, ventilation, ladder drills, RIT procedures, and on and on...)

    They're lucky no one got hurt...Remember, the chief from Lairdsville went to PRISON for his actions in a drill that probably wasn't as out of hand as this one. I wouldn't go bragging about how great a drill this was...I'd thank my lucky stars that we didn't get anybody killed and then send someone from that department to some instructor training, pronto. This is a perfect example of how NOT to train....



    RANT OFF

    It was designed to use our less experienced firemen in this scenario. The plan was to subject them to a hot call and have them work under stress and pressure, They were not aware of the situation.
    Yeah, let's take the rookies and throw this inferno at 'em, see how they respond. Man, I just can't express how angry this makes me! If you have a group of very experienced, well trained firefighters, maybe you can throw this kind of drill. But new guys? They should be concentrating on honing their basic skills, not see how they work under "stress and pressure" at a "hot call"!

    The newbies probably loved it, I'm sure. But in a few years, with some real experience under their belts (assuming they live that long)they'll look back at this drill and think, Man, that was stupid......
    Last edited by dmleblanc; 01-01-2005 at 12:35 PM.
    Chief Dwayne LeBlanc
    Paincourtville Volunteer Fire Department
    Paincourtville, LA

    "I have a dream. It's not a big dream, it's just a little dream. My dream — and I hope you don't find this too crazy — is that I would like the people of this community to feel that if, God forbid, there were a fire, calling the fire department would actually be a wise thing to do. You can't have people, if their houses are burning down, saying, 'Whatever you do, don't call the fire department!' That would be bad."
    — C.D. Bales, "Roxanne"

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    I read that, too. I just needed to calm down before I posted.

    They broke a whole lot of sections of NFPA 1403. They are damned lucky they didn't kill somebody. But that is not what galled me most about this story.

    What a wasted opportunity! They had a whole house. They could have performed every single evolution known to the fire service on this building and truly taught their "younger members" something about fire fighting. What can you possibly learn about fire fighting from going to a fully involved structure? Sure, you can do relays and master streams, but you don't need a fire to do that!

    Of course, there is the possibility that every one of their fires ends up looking like the picture....

    Pathetic.

    BTW, in NJ, we call an unplanned drill in an acquired structure, ARSON!

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    4caster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Loraine, Illinois
    Posts
    259

    Default

    OK, I know that I am setting myself up for a lot of flak for replying to this, so I am preparing my ego for such attacks. With that said...

    Coming from a volunteer department that has had very little experience with anything BIG, I was interested in this little drill. Over all, I see it as an opportunity to see what a fully involved fire looks like without the imminent concern of victims or actually saving the structure. How many times have the new guys shown up at something daunting and froze up? Maybe not many, but some do. But I look at it as a chance to go through the size up, walk around, and initial attack. I will admit that I have never been at a fully involved in my 10 years. I have been through trainings, seen what to do, but to actually be there and make the decisions has never been executed.
    You mention some codes, and I will again admit no idea on that, which makes my position a little uninformed. So, a little background on that, please.
    You career guys, please feel free to state your position. Information is the best defense.

    BAClair

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Borderstate
    Posts
    900

    Default

    BAClair

    The problem word is "unplanned" training.Live burn training can be deadly.
    NFPA 1403 is a national standard to live by when burning structures for training.
    It appears to me from the story that the main goals were, I hope water supply and command issues.
    The structurce may have in too poor of condition to enter for any other training.
    The EPA would also have something to say about unplanned training.

    I have address you question with a understanding tone.

    Good Luck with the rest of the forum users.I suggest you may need to wear your seat belt.
    Last edited by coldfront; 01-01-2005 at 04:02 PM.

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber
    dmleblanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Not the end of the earth but I can see it from here...
    Posts
    2,318

    Default

    Thanks for your interest, 4caster. And no, you won't get any flak from me...you raise some interesting points.

    First off, NFPA 1403 is the standard (adopted by the National Fire Protection Association) that describes the recommended procedures for conducting live structure fire training, whether in acquired structures, permanent burn buildings, or other enclosed structures. It lays out what sort of preparations should be made prior to conducting a live burn drill, i.e., addressing any physical or structural hazards in the building, assigning a safety officer, what minimum knowledge students should have prior to being allowed to participate, having water supply and backup hoselines in place, etc. There's a ton of other stuff. It's all designed to ensure that live fire training is conducted SAFELY.

    Now, NFPA is not a LAW, it's only a guideline. It's the recommended STANDARD. (OSHA is the LAW and has penalties and fines to enforce it). Therefore, you don't, technically, HAVE to follow NFPA. But let someone get hurt, and in court (and you WILL go to court), they'll want to know why you didn't follow the nationally recognized STANDARD, NFPA.

    A little history: I referred to Lairdsville. In 2001 the Lairdsville fire department (NY state) conducted a live fire drill in an acquired structure. Many precautions recommended by NFPA 1403 were not followed. A rookie firefighter (with only a few weeks experience) was killed and another firefighter severely injured (do a search on FH.com if you want the details). Long story short, the chief of the Lairdsville fire department was held CRIMINALLY liable for the death...he was convicted of negligent manslaughter (I think...help me out George)....for not following nationally recognized guidelines for live fire training, and therefore contributing to the death of the trainee.

    I, as a fire chief, do NOT want the same to happen to any of my firefighters, nor do I ever want to be responsible for any such incident. That is why NFPA guidelines should be followed, law or not. It appears to me that in the NC "drill" I referred to, these guidelines were not followed.

    You mentioned that you have 10 years in the fire service, but you are not familiar with the NFPA codes. Do yourself a favor, get familiar (I don't mean know them backwards and forwards, but at least be aware that they exist and what they are for, and know that every aspect of our job, from safety features on SCBA's to the non-slip handrails on your fire truck, are a result of an NFPA guideline...and probably resulted from some brother's injury or death in the past).

    By the way, my department is also an all-volunteer department, from the chief on down. But we are expected to follow the same standards (or at least attempt to) as our career brothers.

    Granted, if you have not been to a fully involved structure fire in your 10 years, you either come from a REALLY small community, or you guys have a GREAT fire prevention program...

    Over all, I see it as an opportunity to see what a fully involved fire looks like without the imminent concern of victims or actually saving the structure.
    I agree...the concept was fine, but the execution sucked. They could have still done the burn-down, but my point is DON'T spring it as a "surprise"! That's just asking for someone to get hurt. My point was, they should have let the rookies know what was going to happen, brought them to the site, let them walk around the building a bit and get familiar with the layout, and tell them what to expect, go over some safety rules and boundaries. THEN, if you want to let it rip, go for it. (but I first would have done several weeks of hands-on forcible entry, ventilation, laddering, etc. practice...what a wasted opportunity!)

    Try to learn what you can about NFPA standards...there's some good info available on the internet...and if you don't think your department is doing what it should, ask why not? For your own safety, and that of your brothers....
    Chief Dwayne LeBlanc
    Paincourtville Volunteer Fire Department
    Paincourtville, LA

    "I have a dream. It's not a big dream, it's just a little dream. My dream — and I hope you don't find this too crazy — is that I would like the people of this community to feel that if, God forbid, there were a fire, calling the fire department would actually be a wise thing to do. You can't have people, if their houses are burning down, saying, 'Whatever you do, don't call the fire department!' That would be bad."
    — C.D. Bales, "Roxanne"

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by 4caster
    OK, I know that I am setting myself up for a lot of flak for replying to this, so I am preparing my ego for such attacks. With that said...

    Coming from a volunteer department that has had very little experience with anything BIG, I was interested in this little drill. Over all, I see it as an opportunity to see what a fully involved fire looks like without the imminent concern of victims or actually saving the structure. How many times have the new guys shown up at something daunting and froze up? Maybe not many, but some do. But I look at it as a chance to go through the size up, walk around, and initial attack. I will admit that I have never been at a fully involved in my 10 years. I have been through trainings, seen what to do, but to actually be there and make the decisions has never been executed.
    You mention some codes, and I will again admit no idea on that, which makes my position a little uninformed. So, a little background on that, please.
    You career guys, please feel free to state your position. Information is the best defense.

    BAClair
    Look at it this way. You don't start off on the Expert Slope. You start off on the Bunny Slope. The only sucesful way to train new FF in live fire is to start positive and start small. That includes a strict adherence to NFPA 1403. There should be no surprises. There must be a walk through before the exercise. There must be safety briefings. There must be an operational plan. There must be strict safety guidelines and sufficient safety personnel. There must be a strict 5:1 student to instructor ratio, etc.

    You will learn nothing as a new FF by simply showing up at a fully involved structure and being told to put it out. You have to start small and develop fundamental skills.

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Default My 3 cents worth (captains have to pay a little more!)

    This was a total waste of an acquired structure! As Chief Leblanc and George stated earlier, this was an excellent opportunity to drill in everything from basic hose handling to RIT training, ventilation over, under, sideways and down, building construction, arson investigation, etc. etc. etc.

    They could have done the "pulling up on the fully involved structure" after everything else was covered...but instead of putting it out, let it go ans learn something else.... the collapse of burning buildings!
    Last edited by CaptainGonzo; 01-01-2005 at 04:21 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. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Homer, IL
    Posts
    6

    Angry

    As you can see by my number of post, I do not usually respond to the forums, however I was so outraged after reading this article that I had to respond.

    This is not directed solely at the Maiden Fire Department for I am sure there are many such burns being conducted throughout the US, but does anyone read the OSHA or NFA Reports concerning training related fire deaths? How many firefighters have to needlessly perish in “training fires” before we get the message?

    I suppose no one thought to read over NFPA 1403 prior to conducting the training. Never mind silly me this is probably another one of those “We are not an NFPA compliant state!” Tell that to the attorney when she flashes the document in front of your face in the courtroom. Ask the Chief from Lairdsville about that statement.

    1. “We had the fire chief pre-stage and ignite the house
    a. We are to assume by “surprise” they mean no apparatus on the scene with the “Chief”
    b. No Safety Line
    c. No backup line to protect exposures
    d. No EMS on the scene in case of accident

    2. “They had no idea that they were going to be dispatched to a working structure fire.
    a. No safety plan
    b. No pre-brief
    c. No walk-through of the acquired structure in case of emergency egress
    d. No walk-through to point out hazardous areas such as non-support floors
    e. No pre-designed ventilation system to control fire behavior

    3. “It was designed to use our less experienced firemen in this scenario”, “They were not aware of the situation.
    a. So were there any objectives for this training or was it just to see if they could “burn up the rookies”?
    b. No objectives ahead of time because it was a surprise!
    c. If Chaos is the objective I am sure they accomplished it
    d. How do you incorporate a safety objective into a cluster like this?
    e. If it was to test the less experienced firemen are we to assume they were in charge
    f. Did anyone check to insure the less experienced firemen could properly don their PPE, SCBA’s and perform emergency procedures if the need arose?
    g. Learn from your mistakes training = crisis management = ff deaths!

    4. Was there a check for compliant vs. non-compliant fuels inside the structure prior to the burn?
    a. Paneling
    b. Furniture cushions
    c. Carpeting
    d. Asbestos
    e. Hazardous Materials

    5. What no live victims (fire fighters) inside the burn building?
    a. Ok so that was catty, but we have to stop hurting and God forbid killing fire fighters.

    So now we have a whole new batch of young people who are going to spread throughout the fire food chain with this as their initial training scenario. Some of them will grow up to be training officers, and some of them will grow up to be the Chief of the department. All of that time having a base knowledge that it is ok to burn their fellow brothers and sisters to train them to tame the beast, to feel the real heat of a structure fire.

    HEADLINES CHRISTMAS 2013

    N.C. Fire Chief kills 4 in
    “SURPRISE” Training Fire!


    The cycle continues.

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ROOKIELZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    You will learn nothing as a new FF by simply showing up at a fully involved structure and being told to put it out. You have to start small and develop fundamental skills.
    Truer words were never spoken George. With out instruction and eexplanation I still don't quite get why we do it this way for this fire and that way for that fire. I am left to quietly question the old dogs (experienced FF's) when "no one" can see or hear.

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    Ok ,,,, I guess I'm gonna take flak for my response to this but here goes. Without commenting specifically on this particuliar burn, I have been envolved with 2 similiar training operations in the past, and quite honestly, I feel if they are done correctly, they can be conducted in a safe and productive manner.
    In both of the operations that I have been envolved with the buildings were in fact checked carefully by chief officers before the training and hazards were removed. One of the chiefs envolved was appointed as a safety officer prior to the operation and made himself known to the incident commander, which was the first arriving non-chief officer immediatly after thier arrival. Only qualified indivuals were allowed to sit in the SCBA seats as everyone (other than the chief officers planning the drill) thought it was a fire call. All apparatus were downgraded to code 2 as soon as they signed on and both drills were conducted at 4am on a weekend to greatly reduce the number of civilian vehicles that would be encountered on the roadways by responding personnal. In one case there was an engine on scene to cover the lighting crew, and was "out of service" for the drill.
    As far as objectives, quite honestly, they are straightforward. Both operations were conducted as an actual fire with the emphasis on following SOPs and problem solving where needed. A post-fire critique was held and written summaries were developed for each officer. In one of the drills, the safety officer did in fact stop certain parts of the operation due to structural concerns.
    I realize that training deaths have occured but there has to be some level of realism and spontanaety to it or else we will not be prepared for the real un-scripted event.

    Just my thoughts.

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator
    Ok ,,,, I guess I'm gonna take flak for my response to this but here goes. Without commenting specifically on this particuliar burn, I have been envolved with 2 similiar training operations in the past, and quite honestly, I feel if they are done correctly, they can be conducted in a safe and productive manner.
    In both of the operations that I have been envolved with the buildings were in fact checked carefully by chief officers before the training and hazards were removed. One of the chiefs envolved was appointed as a safety officer prior to the operation and made himself known to the incident commander, which was the first arriving non-chief officer immediatly after thier arrival. Only qualified indivuals were allowed to sit in the SCBA seats as everyone (other than the chief officers planning the drill) thought it was a fire call. All apparatus were downgraded to code 2 as soon as they signed on and both drills were conducted at 4am on a weekend to greatly reduce the number of civilian vehicles that would be encountered on the roadways by responding personnal. In one case there was an engine on scene to cover the lighting crew, and was "out of service" for the drill.
    As far as objectives, quite honestly, they are straightforward. Both operations were conducted as an actual fire with the emphasis on following SOPs and problem solving where needed. A post-fire critique was held and written summaries were developed for each officer. In one of the drills, the safety officer did in fact stop certain parts of the operation due to structural concerns.
    I realize that training deaths have occured but there has to be some level of realism and spontanaety to it or else we will not be prepared for the real un-scripted event.

    Just my thoughts.
    The only flak you willtake from me is that, apparently you are an experienced fire service instructor and you conducted live fire training exercises that were not in compliance with NFPA 1403. So, from my chair, you are part of the problem and you are not part of the solution.

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    George, while I respect your opinion and thank you for your comments,I feel that neither of "live-response" drills mentioned in my previous post (only one of which I was enevolved in planning) created any safety problems, and in most aspects were compliant with NFPA standards. The structures were inspected for thier integretity by experienced personnel well before the drill, problems were corrected, safety and entry officers were present, and the burns were conducted in a planned manner and the fireground operations followed all department SOPs and conducted by or supervised by qualified personnal. Backup hose teams were established soon after initial attack, as per SOPs, and water supply was quickly established, as well as the fact that EMS jump teams were on both scenes. Objectives were consistant with a standard fire scene response and a critique was held after the event as well as a second critique after furthur discussion.
    I am the last one to put firefighters in the way of unessecary hazards as you know by my posts on code responses, culture changing and risk-management, but I honestly beleive that training needs to be a mix of carefully scripted and planned "skills training" and unscripted "response training" where firefighters problem solving skills under pressure need to be tested under carefully supervised conditions. As I said, I won't comment on this drill as I was not there, but I do beleive that this type of training can be run in a relativly safe manner if done correctly.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    LACAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    LA Can.
    Posts
    350

    Default

    Not much training value in surround and drown operations in my opinion, we can do that anytime. Other than rural hitch senario practice and a little hose work this operation was a waste of good time and opertunities. I totaly agree with you on this one Gonzo, how to ****** up good practice building.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber
    fyrmnk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    519

    Thumbs down Training???

    I was coming over to the forums to post my disgust with this "training" and see many others can see the idiocy in this scenario and beat me to it.

    For those that agree with this training (especially you LaFireEduactor), that just totally boggles my mind. One of the most dangerous things we do is respond hot, and obviously these morons were risking their firefighters and civilians from the start with that brilliant move.

    Then how about the skills. Oh yeah, you learn a lot about how to fight a fire by rolling up to a fully involved house. Probably taught those new guys all kinds of skills there. Why not just build a bon fire and give them a hose and say spray it. They could get just as much out of that.

    I don't buy the IC or water supply knowledge gained either, you don't need a fire going to practice those.

    One of the things that bothers me is that FH.com posted this article from this jack*****. I just wonder how many other morons will do something just as stupid now because they "read about this great training on Firehouse, if it's posted there, it must be a great drill."

    I am a little passionate about this because our dept. burned a few guys several years ago on a live fire drill by "being mostly compliant with NFPA 1403."

    Even "mostly done right" isn't near enough and these goobers appear to have done it completely wrong.

    Relief valve closed.

    Kevin
    FTM-PTB-RFB
    IACOJ

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    They had the right idea, they just went about it all wrong. At least they didnt try and send anyone inside

    And I agree, what a waste. We would kill (pardon the pun) to have a house like that to work with

    Dave

  16. #16
    Sr. Information Officer
    NJFFSA16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    25 NW of the GW
    Posts
    8,434

    Default


    I am hoping that since someone took the time to submit this story to Firehouse.Com...quite possibly, they are a member of these forums. I am hopeful they are reading this thread.

    If so...would they PLEASE address the questions that many of us have regarding the compliance with NFPA 1403. What purpose did this surprise drill serve? Why wasn't the building used for other training evolutions before it was ignited? Were any interior operations conducted? Were primary and secondary searches done? Was Rapid Intervention in place? Was a walkthrough done? Were safety officers on scene, and involved in any planning for this so called training? Water supply? Hoselines? EMS?

    What was learned here? What was taught here? Is anything learned by putting agent on a totally involved structure? Did you consider weekly sessions on power saw operations? Venting operations? Ladder evolutions? Search? SCBA drills? Hoesline evolutions?

    Good God...what a wasted opportunity.

    I've got a billion questions...as do many other members of the Forums.

    Randy Frye...are you reading this? Anyone from Maiden reading this?

    (By the way...if you look closely at one of the photos...you can see an image of Alan Baird III among the flames. )
    Proudly serving as the IACOJ Minister of Information & Propoganda!
    Be Safe! Lookouts-Awareness-Communications-Escape Routes-Safety Zones

    *Gathering Crust Since 1968*
    On the web at www.section2wildfire.com

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,983

    Default just a thought from an ordinary person

    Try to learn what you can about NFPA standards...there's some good info available on the internet...and if you don't think your department is doing what it should, ask why not? For your own safety, and that of your brothers

    You will learn nothing as a new FF by simply showing up at a fully involved structure and being told to put it out. You have to start small and develop fundamental skills.
    Chief LeBlanc and George,

    Your comments above say it all. I simply do not understand why any chief would put his firefighters at risk in training. The information and training are available for free. To the chief who thinks his training was great, I direct him to the NIOSH site. He can read about the many "great trainings" that did not turn out so great



    Over all, I see it as an opportunity to see what a fully involved fire looks like without the imminent concern of victims
    And his rookie firefighters would be what? He had no concern for their saftey? At least we will not be reading any NIOSH reports on this department this time. I guess he did not consider the fact that HIS firefighters life safety should be his first priority. I am just shaking my head here as I simply do not understand how some chiefs think it is all about putting out the big one without any regard to safety.

    Now, I'll go back to my kitchen and be quiet.

  18. #18
    55 Years & Still Rolling
    hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,740

    Post And....................................

    Something that has only gotten very slight notice so far, but a MAJOR cause for concern for me, the potential liability of "Responding" down the road from the station to the drill. In my part of the world, we simply do not allow that type of scenario. We also file a written plan ahead of time, and ensure that all NFPA standards have been addressed, well ahead of time.
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    326

    Default

    What part of the training is dangerous? While I agree that responding to the scene with lights and sirens is, what else about the training is dangerous? Do you have evidence that they operated inside the collapse zone, or put any of the fire fighters in danger? How is establishing a water supply, pumping and working with master streams too dangerous for training? I'll also agree that it was a waste of a training building.

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    RyanEMVFD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Why? It's not like you're going to visit me! But I'm near Waco, Texas
    Posts
    2,386

    Default

    "The Maiden Fire Department conducted a live burn on 12/28/04 where as we had the fire chief to prestage at the burn site and ignite the house.

    I had staged our fire department members at the station under a different planning session. They had no idea that they were going to be dispatched to a working structure fire.

    It was designed to use our less experienced firemen in this scenario. The plan was to subject them to a hot call and have them work under stress and pressure, They were not aware of the situation.

    Things went great, and this is what they had to contend with upon their arrival. The training involved tanker operations, pump operations, hose and nozzle appliances, and master streams"



    I would like to know more then what is provided. For all we know the dept might have used it prior for other training. From what info is provided, I agree with everyone else, it was a wasted chance for further training.
    NREMT-P\ Reserve Volunteer Firefighter\Reserve Police Officer
    IACOJ Attack

    Experts built the Titanic, amateurs built the Ark.

  21. #21
    MembersZone Subscriber
    dmleblanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Not the end of the earth but I can see it from here...
    Posts
    2,318

    Default

    Something that has only gotten very slight notice so far, but a MAJOR cause for concern for me, the potential liability of "Responding" down the road from the station to the drill.
    hwoods...good point...that thought had also occurred to me, though I failed to mention it. I would hope at least that they simply "drove" over there rather than responding with lights and all the works.

    For all we know the dept might have used it prior for other training.
    True enough, Ryan....they may have been already using it for weeks prior to this evolution. Still doesn't change my feelings about that last one, though....
    Chief Dwayne LeBlanc
    Paincourtville Volunteer Fire Department
    Paincourtville, LA

    "I have a dream. It's not a big dream, it's just a little dream. My dream — and I hope you don't find this too crazy — is that I would like the people of this community to feel that if, God forbid, there were a fire, calling the fire department would actually be a wise thing to do. You can't have people, if their houses are burning down, saying, 'Whatever you do, don't call the fire department!' That would be bad."
    — C.D. Bales, "Roxanne"

  22. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    216

    Default Bad

    I agree with you all about the surprise drill. And that is doesn't flow with NFPA 1403. But I have spoken to some people around here and heard a story about using a house, doing all the preplanning and walk throughs. But called the fire in to dispatch for one reason. The state that they are in, is having a hard time providing instructors for the live burns. In the state I am talking about live Fire burns can only be put on by the State Fire Training and not the local cheif even if they have 1403 training. It requires a level 2 or state level instructor.

    So alot of the places I heard doing this was bringing out the Fftrs and doing a walk through. But becuase of the state regs they were making it look like a real fire. Not saying I agree with it. But some where having all the safety requirements in action at the time of the fire.

    DM

  23. #23
    MembersZone Subscriber
    dmleblanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Not the end of the earth but I can see it from here...
    Posts
    2,318

    Default

    MacInnis....so let me get this straight....Live burn training, in that scenario, is specifically prohibited...So the fire chief a) lights fire to a building he is not authorized to burn, and b) has the call dispatched under false pretenses. So we have ARSON and a malicious false alarm. And some departments still wonder why we have to have NFPA standards? i thought we were the good guys.....
    Chief Dwayne LeBlanc
    Paincourtville Volunteer Fire Department
    Paincourtville, LA

    "I have a dream. It's not a big dream, it's just a little dream. My dream — and I hope you don't find this too crazy — is that I would like the people of this community to feel that if, God forbid, there were a fire, calling the fire department would actually be a wise thing to do. You can't have people, if their houses are burning down, saying, 'Whatever you do, don't call the fire department!' That would be bad."
    — C.D. Bales, "Roxanne"

  24. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    216

    Default

    In a sense yes. I didn't say I agreed with it, just thought I would provide another reason. Now when you say not authorized to burn you are talking about through the state. In all of these cases the building was giving to them and would be used if the state had the man power.

    From what I was told, the fire department would already be there at the scene not using any lights or sirens. Since this was a preplanned thing and that the chief is calling it in and not having it toned out. Just merely advising the dispatch that a fire is happening and has the manpower on the way.

    As in regard to the NFPA codes, you are looking at a place were you still get the I don't have to follow OSHA because we are Volunteer. But the state requires every Vol. Department to carry worker comp. Things are changing in that regards to codes, the more people with different fire experience move into the area.

    But then again the State does allow larger sities with a training center and training division to do their own live burns. Its just the smaller Volunteer departments that are restricted. I know of several people that are trianed in NFPA 1403 but becuase of the lack of the second level of state training they are not allowed to do it.

    DM

  25. #25
    Forum Member
    SpartanGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Allow me to preface this first by saying:

    I'm 100% for firefighting safety and following all of 1403 in regards to live structural burn training when you're doing interior ops.

    Now that I've said that:

    Move over LaFireEducator, I'm comin out on the limb with ya.


    I don't agree with their apparent live response to a structure fire. Bad thing. But other than that, I don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be.

    The boys pulled up to a fully involved structure. The article goes on to state that that they were mainly concerned with pump operations(relay, tanker shuttle, master stream, and hose/nozzle operations). I saw NO MENTION OF INTERIOR OPERATIONS. It was basically pump class with a big bonfire to spray your water at instead of out into the field.

    Would you guys be as mad if they had set off a big *** pile of pallets? There were OBVIOUSLY no interior operations if it was fully involved upon arrival. Come on, you know as well as when you look at those pictures that no one was goin in there to fight fire. So you sit back, direct your deck gun at it and give your guys practice setting up a command structure and implimenting a rural water movement system.

    No one was inside. I don't see why we need to call in all the cavalry and have walk throughs when you're just gonna stand and watch it burn and not be inside.

    But hey, maybe I'm wrong.
    "Captain 1 to control, retone this as a structure and notify the fire chief...."

    Safety is no accident.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1234 ... Last

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register