+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 9 First 12345 ... Last
  1. #26
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Pretty much my last point:

    Using live victims: With the advent of tons of lifelike mannequins this should not be necessary, but it can be done safely (though not NFPA compliant)
    Many trainers did this for years. Live "vicitm" in full PPE and SCBA coverd by the crew that backs up the igniter and with a readily accesible exit that does not interfere with the attack advance.

    With the amount of posters crying foul hear it is no wonder we're losing the ability to use acquired structures all over the country. There is a difference between reckless and quality live fire training. We will have lost a huge asset when all live fire training is in concrete buildings, and the fire service and our future brothers will pay for it with a lack of real world knowledge ahead of time. Few of us have enough fires to put all newbies with a seaoned vet until they've gain a basic knowledge.

    So be careful what you wish for. We will have become so safe that we are more dangerous.

  2. #27
    MembersZone Subscriber
    mcaldwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Panorama, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    3,022

    Default

    I think there are also unforeseen side affects from the "rookie roast" type of fires. Both of these are from past experience with departments and burns in our area.

    1. If you honestly stay in as long as possible, your gear will inevitably begin to fail. The reflective striping will usually go first, followed by the vapour barrier, and then the shell will begin to break down. You will usually have lost your visor, and most of your helmet by this point too. Some of the damage is obvious, but much of it is not.

    Unless you properly examine your gear after every burn, how do you know that it is still safe for front line use afterwards.

    2. And on the same note, do the taxpayers know that you are wasting thousands of dollars worth of gear (or more) every year on a "biggest balls" competition?

    We stopped doing these kinds of burns over ten years ago, after both receiving the proper education and training on the topic, and ruining thousands of dollars worth of new gear on some of these exact scenarios.

    Good controlled training is a useful way to build firefighter confidence and experience. ****ing away money, and exposing inexperienced members to unecessary risk is not.

    And I personally don't like using live victims in even controlled smoke/hay fires. Every member on the inside should be part of a team. Stage smoke works perfectly well when teaching SAR and victim removal, and poses no risk to the "Victim" in the event of an SCBA failure.


    Rescue Randy and Hose Dummies were invented for a reason.
    Never argue with an Idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience!

    IACOJ

  3. #28
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    I agree the burn until you break is not smart, but there is validity in having students stop and feel the increase in heat and note the points on their body where they feel the hot spots (ie shoulders and places where the gear pulls tight. This also exposes any spots where a hood may have been haphazardly strected over the facepeice. Again, done with proper instruction and low student ratios and a decent egress path. Staying in until your Bourkes are folded down is pure "Wannabe BS"! But you can lose valuable lessons by making blanket safety rules that force common sense on everyone. The Rookie Roast may be no more than a poorly chosen term for showing the students about watching how fire develops and spreads in a room while also experiencing heat that allows them to better understand their PPE.

  4. #29
    Forum Member
    THEFIRENUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    This also exposes any spots where a hood may have been haphazardly strected over the facepeice. .

    Isn't this suppost to be accomplished by a "buddy-check"??????
    Just someone trying to help! (And by the way....Thanks for YOUR help!)

    Aggressive does not have to equal stupid.

    ** "The comments made here are this person's views and possibly that of the organizations to which I am affiliated" **

  5. #30
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,274

    Default

    RFDACM02...

    I don't hear anyone here advocating ending acquired structure live fire training. As for NFPA 1403 the tech school I have been teaching for has folllowed this standard for years and we still get good fires, great training and no one hurt. Seems like a win win to me.

    Flammable liquids: Totally unnecessary IF you prepare adequately. We haven't used flammable liqquids since the standard changed. We use hay, newspaper, cardboard, and pallets and honestly we have great fires. It takes a litttle more time to build good fire sets but I think it is well worth the safety of no flammable liquids.

    Live victims: Why? There simply is no need to place someone in that position. The mannequins of today are realistic enough and finally heavy enough that they cause us the same grief as a live victim does.

    Rookie roast: This just seems to me to be the way to hurt or kill someone. Look when I take people in we have each crew member be checked over by his partner to make sure all the PPE is being worn properly, so, no bare skin. I do have students put their hands up over them as we crawl in to check for heat buildup and occasionally we may watch the fire grow but I am always checking to make sure everyone is okay.

    FyredUp

  6. #31
    Forum Member
    fireman4949's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tallahassee, Florida
    Posts
    2,323

    Default

    I am among the first group of State Certified Live Fire Instructors in my dept.

    We strictly follow NFPA 1403, and exceed the standard in several areas.

    Here is our SOP on live fire training at our Class-A fixed burn facility.




    NUMBER

    607.00 SUBJECT

    Live Fire Training
    EFF. DATE

    01/23/07


    TOPIC

    Fixed Burn Facility - Live Fire Training Evolutions AUTHORIZATION

    ___________________________
    Cindy Dick

    PURPOSE: To provide a process for conducting safe and effective live fire training evolutions in a fixed burn facility.

    SET UP PROCEDURE: An inspection of the entire fixed burn facility shall be conducted to ensure that no unauthorized personnel or materials are in the structure immediately prior to ignition of the fire load.

    Orange marker cones will be placed in a ten-foot radius around the fixed burn facility identifying the hot zone during a live fire training evolution. No personnel shall enter the hot zone during a live fire training evolution without proper PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural Firefighting.

    PARTICIPANT REQUIREMENTS: Prior to being permitted to participate in live fire training evolutions, the student must have received training that meets the job performance requirements for Firefighter I in NFPA 1001, Standard for Firefighter Professional Qualifications.

    Participants not employed with the TFD will not be permitted to participate in any live fire training evolution without presenting written evidence of having successfully completed the prescribed minimum training levels specified in NFPA 1001, and the consent of the TFD Fire Chief.

    Each participant shall be equipped with full PPE suitable for structure fires, SCBA and PASS device meeting criteria identified by NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective for Structural Fire Fighting, Ensemble NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire Service and NFPA 1982, Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS).

    All participants shall be inspected by the Safety Officer prior to entry into a live fire training evolution. This is to ensure that the protective clothing, SCBA and PASS are being worn properly and are in serviceable condition. Prior to the ignition of any fire, instructors shall do a second check of their student’s protective equipment.

    Pre-entry vitals are required from each participant involved with the training and are to be recorded on the TFD Live Fire Training Medical Form. This form shall accompany all other forms documenting the live fire evolution and filed at the Tallahassee Fire Department Training Division. NFPA 471 Standard for Recommended Practice Responding to Hazardous Materials Incidents. States that any diastolic blood pressure that exceeds 105 and / or a core temperature above 100.5 F degrees excludes a participant from hazardous training activity. Post- Evolution vitals are also required at the completion of the training. If a participant is not employed with TFD they are required to complete a TFD Agreement and Release of Liability Form prior to ANY training event.

    WATER SUPPLY: Water will be supplied by at least one class “A” pumping apparatus. A five-inch supply line connected to a charged hydrant shall supply the pumper. Criteria for NFPA 1142 Standard for Water Supplied for Suburban and Rural Firefighting shall be met. It is mandatory that pump operations are assigned and maintained during all live fire evolutions in their entirety. A minimum of two charged 1 ¾ inch hose lines of adequate length for the evolution shall be deployed and made ready. Each hose line shall be capable of delivering a minimum of 95 GPM. The suppression team upon initial attack shall use the first line. The second line shall be committed to a back up position. In addition to the above mentioned hose lines, The RIT team shall charge and make ready one 1 ¾ inch hose line for their possible entry.

    PROPS: Vehicle(s) used as props for Live Fire Training Evolutions in the fixed burn facility shall be inspected and stripped of any combustibles that are not class “A” materials. Class “A” materials maybe placed in the vehicle(s) to stimulate vehicle fire conditions but shall not exceed a four wood pallet fire load during a single burn.

    Manikins may be used in a live fire evolution. The manikins shall not be dressed in bunker gear as not to be confused with actual participants. Participants shall be briefed on simulated victim props prior to entry.

    At no time shall a participant be used as a victim in a live fire evolution.

    PRE-BURN PROCEDURES: Prior to conducting a Live Fire Training Evolution a pre-burn briefing shall be conducted for all participants involved. The pre-burn procedures section of the TFD Live Fire Training Check List shall be checked off at this time. Assignments shall be given by the IIC (Instructor-In-Charge). The following is a list of assignments to be filled by a LFI (Live Fire Instructor): Safety Officer, Fire Attack Instructor, Search Team Instructor, Ignition Officer, RIT (Rapid Intervention Team) Instructor and a Temperature Monitor Officer. In addition to these Instructor Positions, a Pump Operator(s), an assistant to the Ignition Officer and an EMS Officer/Rehab position must be established. These assignments shall be recorded on the TFD Live Fire Training Assignments Sheet.

    All interior LFI ‘s shall donn a flashing indicator light, signifying their roll in the operation.

    Students involved in the evolution shall be formed into three crews not to exceed a instructor/student ratio of 5:1. The crews will be accompanied by a LFI and assigned to one of the following teams: Fire Attack, Search, or RIT. These assignments shall be recorded on the TFD Assignments Sheet. The developing scenario shall be discussed including but not limited to possible simulated victims (manikins) or special obstacles.

    MAYDAY: Procedures shall be reviewed in compliance with TFD Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). SOP#605.00

    EMERGENCY EVACUATION: Procedures shall be reviewed in compliance with TFD/SOP#909.00

    INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM (ICS): shall be in operation during the entire live fire training evolution.

    POST-BURN PROCEDURES: Immediately following the live fire training evolution a post-burn briefing shall be conducted for all participants involved. The post- burn procedures section of the TFD Live Fire Training Check List shall be checked off at this time.

    FIRE LOAD: Defined as the “Physical Make-up” and quantity of class “A” material used in a Live Fire Evolution. During a Live fire training evolution NO MORE THAN TWO fire racks shall be ignited. The fire racks shall be loaded with NO MORE THAN FOUR wood pallets and 1 bale of hay each. Smoke barrels may be loaded with dampened hay and ignited to produce a desired smoke - rich environment but must not be used as a fire load device.

    IGNITION TORCH: The torch will be used by the Ignition Officer and removed immediately upon ignition of the racks. The Ignition Officer shall communicate to the IC that “The torch is out of the structure”.

    TRAINING TEMPERATURE: 1,100 degrees F is the safe/optimum training temperature to achieve for a live fire evolution although temperatures may fluctuate slightly.

    VENTILATION TEMPERATURE: At 1,250 degrees F ventilation procedures should be considered by the IIC. Utilization of pre-staged positive pressure fans at doorways and opening window shutters of the fire rooms.

    EMERGENCY EVACUATION TEMPERATURE: In the event that temperatures increase to 1,400 degrees F, emergency evacuation procedures should be activated in compliance with TFD SOP #909.00, Emergency Evacuation Policy.

    TEMPERATURE MONITORING: Prior to the ignition of the fire load, the Temperature Monitor Officer (TMO) will be in place in the Fixed Burn Facility Monitoring Room. He or she shall maintain visual contact with the temperature monitors until the completion of the live fire evolution. The (TMO) will record pertinent information prompted on the “TFD Temperature Monitoring Work Sheet”. The TMO must maintain radio communications with the IC and the IIC at all times during the evolution. If the temperature monitors indicate temperatures exceeding the prior set safe/optimum training temperature standard in any room, the TMO shall report the documented information immediately. The IIC will make the determination on the actions to be implemented.

    In addition to the fixed temperature monitoring devices throughout the structure, a handheld temperature-monitoring device should be properly utilized and protected by one LFI making entry during each evolution. Temperatures taken by this device should be recorded on the TFD Temperature Monitoring Work Sheet. This will provide a comparison of ceiling temperatures and working level temperatures throughout the structure.

    At this time NFPA does not set a standard for safe operating temperatures and does not require any temperature monitoring devices. It is the intention of the Tallahassee Fire Department to use and maintain these devices for the purpose of recording and documenting temperatures during a live fire evolution to ensure a safe and effective operating environment for all participants.

    COMMUNICATIONS: Will be conducted on a predetermined radio channel using a TFD portable radio. A full radio check shall be conducted prior to each Live Fire Evolution. Tallahassee Dispatch will be notified and a Training Incident Number shall be opened.




    DOCUMENTATION: The following records and reports shall be completed, filed and maintained on all live fire training evolutions:

    1. TFD Live Fire Training Check List
    2. TFD Live Fire Training Instructor/Crew Assignment Sheet
    3. TFD Live Fire Training Medical Form
    4. TFD Temperature Monitoring Work sheet
    5. TFD Agreement and Release of Liability (If Applicable)
    6. TFD Training Facility/Drill Field Report
    7. TFD First Report of Injury or Illness Form (If Applicable)
    8. TFD Report of Stolen, Lost, Missing or Damaged Property Form (If Applicable)

    A copy of all records and reports will be dated and assigned an incident number and will remain on file at the Tallahassee Fire Department Training Division.


















    Please note that NO LIVE PERSON SHALL EVER assume the role of a victim!!!!! Nor will the "dummy" victim EVER be placed in bunker gear!!!!!
    If there is a body wearing bunker gear on the floor, it is a real person, and therefore it is immediately known to be an actual emergency!

    Flammable liquids are absolutely forbidden. They are not needed, and add nothing to the training, except the potential for disaster.

    We do everything we possibly can to prevent injuries, while still making the scenarios as true-to-life as possible.
    We are training firefighters, not testing the extreme limits of their endurance and their pain thresholds.




    Kevin
    Fire Lieutenant/E.M.T.
    IAFF Local 2339
    K of C 4th Degree
    "LEATHER FOREVER"
    Member I.A.C.O.J.
    http://www.tfdfire.com/
    "Fir na tine"

  7. #32
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Again, my point is that this scenario may not be as bad as everyone seems to make it out to be. Sure there should be no reason to use flammable liquids any longer, but how can one determine from this story the level of culpability? Same with live victims: no longer a necessity but it could be donely safely, and maybe it was. The Rookie Roast could be a poor name for some of the same practices most of us use to have students learn fire behavior and PPE encapsulation.

    THEFIRENUT: yeah, the Buddy check is a good thing, in training. How about teaching students that they cannot count on anyone else to check them just in case at 3 in the morning their buddy doesn't check their hood? We (most of us) do not train like we fight anymore. I think the buddy system is great when it happens, but to often staffing does not allow perfect teams of two to operate at all times.

    As for acquired structure burns, they are being taken away every day and if we keep laying down whenever some one throws out a safety arguement sooner or later we'll train firefighters over the web and hope they can take the heat later.

  8. #33
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Default

    I work part time at the Massachusetts Fire Academy in the support services division.

    The burn days at te Academy are done in a concrete buidling built into a small hillside that looks like a 2.5 story residential home on one side, the other side looks like a 4 story apartments over commercial structure.

    The walls and ceilings of all of the rooms and corridors are covered in hgh temperature fire resistive tiles.

    Fuels used in burns are straw and palllets on metal frames. On burn days, supoort personnel drive the trucks and set up the fires.

    Students get to see their first fire during the nature of fire demonstration. Instructors perform the firefighitng ops for that. The recruits also learn the reason why you do not put a hose line into a ventilation hole, ie,. the reverse vent evolution.

    They get to put their first "wet stuff on red stuff" when they are taught indirect fire attack.They also get to put the wet stuff on red stuff during hose evolution 2. These fires are small, used to build confidence and to teach prioper technique. They have to overhaul the area and power vent after each evolution.

    Strutural burns are done in 4 phases. Phase 1 is room and contents with minor extension, phases 2 through 4 build on that. Phase 3 and 4 fires, the students respond from the firehouse, fires are on mutiple floors in multiple rooms.

    Other burn training is done using class A materials and propane fired props.

    Live fire training can be done with realistic conditons and done safely if the 1403 guidelines are followed.

    As far as the statement about losing the opportunity to do fire training in acquired structures... a lot of that has to do with timeframes, EPA regulations, etc.
    Last edited by CaptainGonzo; 02-03-2007 at 10:10 AM.
    ‎"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

  9. #34
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Please let me reitnerate that I do beleive in utilizing 1403. We do it anytime we burn and do not do some of the things being discussed here. But that does not mean no one will get hurt for certain, nor does it mean that you cannot conduct safe training that does not meet 1403.

  10. #35
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    nor does it mean that you cannot conduct safe training that does not meet 1403.

    How would one conduct safe, live fire training in an acquired structure that doesn't meet the provisions of 1403? Which items can be left out of the training plan?

  11. #36
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Please let me reitnerate that I do beleive in utilizing 1403. We do it anytime we burn and do not do some of the things being discussed here. But that does not mean no one will get hurt for certain, nor does it mean that you cannot conduct safe training that does not meet 1403.
    There's a difference between being safe and getting lucky.

  12. #37
    Forum Member
    DonSmithnotTMD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Fayetteville, N.C.
    Posts
    407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MalahatTwo7 View Post
    Our gear consisted of what the Navy calls "B" gear. It has NO thermal protection, and almost no water repellancy. We wore no helmets, and over hands and heads, cotton gloves that go to the elbows, and flash hoods. Our "BAs" were CHEMOX units.
    We have a Navy vet in our house and she says thats what they still use.

    I do have a flammable liquid comment. we used some in a recent burn and I didn't get in on that side, apparently it was background to where we were supposed to enter. It made me plan, though. there was fire on the ceiling and patches on the floor. It made me think about how to actually enter, rather than just charging in the door and hitting the seat.
    Last edited by DonSmithnotTMD; 02-03-2007 at 05:49 PM.
    I am a highly trained professional and can find my :: expletive deleted:: with either hand in various light conditions.

  13. #38
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    nor does it mean that you cannot conduct safe training that does not meet 1403.

    How would one conduct safe, live fire training in an acquired structure that doesn't meet the provisions of 1403? Which items can be left out of the training plan?
    So because its in NFPA 1403 it's safe? Experienced trainers cannot used live victims safely? Again while I don't see any reason to, the point is that it can be done. You can with proper instructors and numbers have two separate fires given proper precautions. You can conduct a safe training burn and not be 1403 compliant. It obviously is not advisable from a liability standpoint, but that is not the point here.

    Conversly, you can meet 1403 and still be dangerous by using morons who have no business teaching, I'm sure many of you have seen it as well as I. We as a Fire Service cannot afford to keep allowing NFPA to become the gospel for all that we do, unless we start getting more involved. This goes well beyond 1403 but that's another thread altogether.
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 02-03-2007 at 11:09 PM.

  14. #39
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by Firetacoma1 View Post
    There's a difference between being safe and getting lucky.
    Yeah, and NIMS is the only way anyone can safely command an emergency incident too right?

    And if your apparatus does not meet NFPA 1901 its not safe to use?

    And Ladies and Gentleman my personal favorite: You don't go to fires with less staff than NFPA 1710 or 1720 says do you?

    How can anything else be done, NFPA dictates what is safe and what is not, right? Or do we pick and choose. how easy it is to cast stones at this dept. in FL for not meeting the letter of 1403 when 99% of us can't even come close to meeting minumum staffing standards. But I'm sure that isn't a safety issue!?!?!

  15. #40
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firenresq77 View Post

    That story remined me of the youtube video I saw once of a firefighter on a boat who was igniting it for training purposes....they had a pile of wood pallets on the boat and he was dowsing it in a flammable liquid. He was in full PPE thankfully; as it expolded in his face when it put a flame to the pile of pallets...not a little explosion either. His only escape was to throw himself in the lake.

    As for training fires...we have enough unknowns to worry about in a real fire. Why do we have to put each other at risk unnecessarily during training?
    Warm Regards,
    Shawn Stoner
    EMT-B

  16. #41
    Forum Member
    fireman4949's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tallahassee, Florida
    Posts
    2,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    So because its in NFPA 1403 it's safe? Experienced trainers cannot used live victims safely? Again while I don't see any reason to, the point is that it can be done.
    Okay, tell me this;

    During the course of a live fire evolution, you encounter a body, wearing bunker gear and an SCBA, lying motionless on the floor.
    Is it a firefighter acting in the role of a victim, or is it a firefighter that has gone down during the course of the evolution due to a medical emergency?

    How, in zero visibility, can you determine who it is, and what their condition is? Are they acting, or are they actually unconscious?

    Why run the risk of making a terrible mistake that could potentially cost someone their life, when a manequin (not clothed in bunker gear) would provide the same rescue training, without the added possibility of confusing it with someone in actual distress.

    This is just like the arguement about using flammable liquids.
    They are not necessary. A class-A fire can be ignited, burn at high temperatures and emit copious amounts of smoke without the use of an accellerant. Flammable liguids should NEVER be used in a LFT scenario. There is no added benefit and the risk of an accident just isn't worth it.

    As much as we may wish it to be so, training burns will never completely mimic real world fires. If they do, that means safety has more than likely been thrown out the window!

    I am no "Safety Sally"! Not by any stretch of the imagination! I believe in being very agressive on real world fire attack and searches, but I take my responsibility as an instructor and as a fellow firefighter very seriously. I won't risk injuring, or killing someone just for the sake of a training evolution.




    Kevin
    Fire Lieutenant/E.M.T.
    IAFF Local 2339
    K of C 4th Degree
    "LEATHER FOREVER"
    Member I.A.C.O.J.
    http://www.tfdfire.com/
    "Fir na tine"

  17. #42
    Forum Member
    fireman4949's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tallahassee, Florida
    Posts
    2,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post

    How can anything else be done, NFPA dictates what is safe and what is not, right? Or do we pick and choose. how easy it is to cast stones at this dept. in FL for not meeting the letter of 1403 when 99% of us can't even come close to meeting minumum staffing standards. But I'm sure that isn't a safety issue!?!?!
    There are some things that we have immediate and complete control over, and there are some that we don't.
    I totally agree that minimum staffing is essential. I don't however, have control over the city's budget for my fire dept., and therefore I must work with whatever staffing levels currently I have. I can try to convince the city that we need more personnel to provide greater safety for the public and for each other. However, the final decision is not mine to make.

    Following 1403's safety guidelines for a training scenario is something I do have control over. There are no budgetary concerns with regard to conducting a live fire training exercise in as safe a manner as is possible.

    Picking and choosing what NFPA guidelins to follow is not what this is really about. If it were up to most local governments, I'm sure they would wish the NFPA never existed. It has already cost them a lot of money to try to comply with their standards.
    What this is about is following ALL of the safety guidelines that WE possibly can, without having to take a single cent from the already thin budgets we have to work under.

    Using our common sense, and learning from the tragic mistakes that have been made by others is free.




    Kevin





    Kevin
    Fire Lieutenant/E.M.T.
    IAFF Local 2339
    K of C 4th Degree
    "LEATHER FOREVER"
    Member I.A.C.O.J.
    http://www.tfdfire.com/
    "Fir na tine"

  18. #43
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    So because its in NFPA 1403 it's safe? Experienced trainers cannot used live victims safely? Again while I don't see any reason to, the point is that it can be done. You can with proper instructors and numbers have two separate fires given proper precautions. You can conduct a safe training burn and not be 1403 compliant. It obviously is not advisable from a liability standpoint, but that is not the point here.

    Conversly, you can meet 1403 and still be dangerous by using morons who have no business teaching, I'm sure many of you have seen it as well as I. We as a Fire Service cannot afford to keep allowing NFPA to become the gospel for all that we do, unless we start getting more involved. This goes well beyond 1403 but that's another thread altogether.
    Experienced trainers cannot used live victims safely?
    Sure they can. Just as long as it is not live fire training.

    You can with proper instructors and numbers have two separate fires given proper precautions. As someone pointed out, you aren't being safe, you have been lucky.


    You can conduct a safe training burn and not be 1403 compliant. How? Cite specific examples.

    Conversly, you can meet 1403 and still be dangerous by using morons who have no business teaching, Then you are not following NFPA 1403.

    We as a Fire Service cannot afford to keep allowing NFPA to become the gospel for all that we do, unless we start getting more involved. My questions would be: "Have you ever read even one page of NFPA 1403"? "Do you realize that you have every right to participate in the development of, not only NFPA1403, but every NFPA document"?

    If we do not want to follow NFPA 1403 as a standard for live fire training, what should we follow? Every FD having their own standard? In case you haven't been paying attention, that didn't work in Milford, Boulder, Greystone, Lairdsville, (a FD in DE that I cannot remember the ID of) and a few more places.

    You are woefully misinformed on this subject.

  19. #44
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Yeah, and NIMS is the only way anyone can safely command an emergency incident too right?

    And if your apparatus does not meet NFPA 1901 its not safe to use?

    And Ladies and Gentleman my personal favorite: You don't go to fires with less staff than NFPA 1710 or 1720 says do you?

    How can anything else be done, NFPA dictates what is safe and what is not, right? Or do we pick and choose. how easy it is to cast stones at this dept. in FL for not meeting the letter of 1403 when 99% of us can't even come close to meeting minumum staffing standards. But I'm sure that isn't a safety issue!?!?!
    I agree. People love to pick and choose which NFPA requirement to bring up in an argument, knowing full well that NO ONE is nfpa compliant. Just like the ever escalating gear requirements, we will see how long people continue their love affair with this group of outsiders, suburbanites and salesmen. Their requirements are getting downright silly (rescue strap in coats, hud and amps in scba) and instead of anger and frustration from the cash-strapped small guys and the big guys who know better, there is nothing but meek acceptance of this farce. If they want to be a non-profit concerned with safe, basic, reliable gear and practices then I suppose they would be harmless enough and might be very helpful for the smaller, less experienced departments out there. But I really don't need to hear from a for profit group of manufacturers, suburban firefan chiefs and pencil pushing geeks who have never been in a fire but swear by their burn tower as "just like the real world". It's not. I really don't need their advice on leading out, when to go in, what to wear when I do, and what kind of tank to wear - or not wear when I do go in.
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  20. #45
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fireman4949 View Post
    Picking and choosing what NFPA guidelins to follow is not what this is really about. If it were up to most local governments, I'm sure they would wish the NFPA never existed. It has already cost them a lot of money to try to comply with their standards.
    It hasn't cost the "local governments" a thing. Governments don't have any money. All they have is MY MONEY, and that is another reason why this for profit, manufacturer influenced pack of clowns should really be looked at closely. It's MY money they are spending. Every grant for some backwater fire department to get this new gear which they do not need and will only use once or twice a year comes out of MY pocket, so yeah, it bothers me that this un-regulated group is being given any say in what goes on on my, or any other, department. It should bother everyone. The only mystery to me is why it doesn't.
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  21. #46
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Again in your fervor to bash other brothers many of you have missed my point. My point all along has been to point out that some of you are too quick to bash others. Some brotherhood who can sit behind their computers and pick apart other firefigters on trivial safety items while ignoring staffing issues. Oh boo hoo, it might take a spine to stand up to the city council or time to educate the public. BS!!!

    You have chosen to banish the Fire dept. and Instructors of this FL dept. based on an article with a few non-1403 compliant issues. I pretty sure I could, as misinformed as I am on the subject, walk into any one of your live fire training sessions and point out mistakes and dangerous issues.

    GEORGEWENDTCFI: "Conversly, you can meet 1403 and still be dangerous by using morons who have no business teaching," Then you are not following NFPA 1403."

    So you do believe that Standards and certificates make safety automatic? Just becuase someone has an instructors certificate does not mean they are safe, sober, paying attention, or have the experience to teach any part of a live fire evolution. NFPA 1403 (I am quite familiar) does not tell you how to gauge the instructors credibility. Sure they have to be approved instructors but that does not make them safe. Hell by that token I've had so much NIMS crap I should be the director of FEMA! I know many firefighters who do not have instructors certificates that could school most state fire academy instructors on safety. It's called experience, command presence and situational awareness.

    I'll say it again. I have conducted and participated in lots of live fire training, mostly in acquired structures. Most of these were 100% 1403 compliant and Ithat was just great. A few were not 100% compliant (back before we were as smart or liability wise as today). Yep, we used live victims, and there was never an issue with telling if it was a true victim or the "dummy". I agree that using the live person or a dummy in PPE could create confusion. It didn't but of course that practice stopped many years ago anyway. Having a trained, qualified and experienced instructor with each crew and the back up team who was overseeing the "victim" ensured the safety of all participants.

    And again for those of you who start reading my posts and see so much red you miss many sentences: I agree that there is little/no reason to use combustible liquids (I never have or would advocate in any way flammables) or live victims anymore. We now run fully 1403 complaint burns and usually wish that we could be only 95% compliant for the sake of better fires. And no I don't mean using any ignitable liquids at all!

    But just because it's in 1403 doesn't make the drill safe. Instructors show up hung over, are inexpeirienced, or are otherwise not paying attention enough. Students can wig out, enter without their air turned on, any number of things. 1403 does not dictate the size of a hallway, if the truck co. goes in for search before the line or after, at what point search above the fire is allowed, all things that can have a huge difference in the outcome of your hay and pallet fire.

  22. #47
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    George: You missed my point again in your ire. I know we all have the right to participate in NFPA standard development. How many of us do? We're all to busy, but the manufactureers have people whose job it is to sit on these committees. To make it better for us? Yeah right!

    So on 1403: tell me this, How could you teach VES if you followed 1403 to the letter? Could you teach it so that a firefigter faced with this situation could effect a VES assignment at 3 in the morning? Or is this tactic only going to be used in City's where staffing allows for enough experince that the junior FF never gets this job?

    And George since you're a CFI tell us what 1403 allows you to burn in an acquired structure. You probably know the burn characteristics of more class A materials that many others. If I know the characterisitcs of foam rubber can I burn a couch?

    This is how NFPA with some help from a huge bunch of us who do nothing will make it so acquired strucutres cannot be used. The prep work that must go into making structure ready to burn only to allow hay and pallets will lose out to the concrete burn towers.

  23. #48
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Last thing for this morning:

    Do most of you have any clue about Lairdsville? How can you compare (from the original article) this dept. in FL who have an organized fire training program to the depts in NY who participated in a live fire class in an acquired strucutre run by an kid A/C who had no instructor certification, put a new firefighter with zero experience in a room above the fire with only one stairway (read chimney) and lit a fire. Of course there were other older more senior chief officers on scene but hell they weren't in charge, and the safety officer? No check of the building, no requirement to ensure he was happy with the fire set scenario? Some of you ought to read the endless info on this tragedy then decide if you'd cast these FL firefighters in the same light.

  24. #49
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,700

    Default

    and lit a fire.
    can I burn a couch
    Baird thought it was ok to burn a couch.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  25. #50
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Last thing for this morning:

    Do most of you have any clue about Lairdsville? How can you compare (from the original article) this dept. in FL who have an organized fire training program to the depts in NY who participated in a live fire class in an acquired strucutre run by an kid A/C who had no instructor certification, put a new firefighter with zero experience in a room above the fire with only one stairway (read chimney) and lit a fire. Of course there were other older more senior chief officers on scene but hell they weren't in charge, and the safety officer? No check of the building, no requirement to ensure he was happy with the fire set scenario? Some of you ought to read the endless info on this tragedy then decide if you'd cast these FL firefighters in the same light.

    Yes, I have a clue about Lairdsville. And after that fiasco, a career FD in Florida ( I belive it was Orange County FD) managed to kill a probie by not heeding the lessons learned.. They also had a "organized training program".

    If the staff involved in crap like the "rookie roast" didn't follow 1403, then yers, they are cast in the same light...
    ‎"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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 9 First 12345 ... Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Should Officers be charged in LODD's?
    By KEEPBACK200FEET in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 03-30-2006, 12:21 AM
  2. LODD: Lairdsville, New York
    By kfd232 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-01-2001, 03:04 PM
  3. EMERGENCY RESPONSE - LESSONS LEARNED
    By jerryfire in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-22-1999, 01:32 PM

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