1. #51
    Forum Member
    fireman4949's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tallahassee, Florida
    Posts
    2,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainGonzo View Post
    If the staff involved in crap like the "rookie roast" didn't follow 1403, then yes, they are cast in the same light...
    I totally agree.
    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"

  2. #52
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    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.
    I am not going to play your tit-for-tat game. You have already stated that your current training evolutions are 1403 compliant. So, it would seem that you or someone above you recognized the value of conducting safe training by the book.

    My intimate knowledge of this subject comes from a perspective about 150 miles south of Lairdsville. In December of 1992, three recruit fire fighters were seriously disfigured and injured in a live fire training accident in Parsippany, NJ. I was the investigator on that case and worked on a Grand Jury presentation that changed the very face of the manner in which fire training is conducted in NJ today. I lived, breathed and worked with 1403 every day for over a year. I worked in collaboration with some of this country's foremost fire training experts. I know eveyr inch of that document and I have experienced with my five senses the consequences of conducting live fire training that is NOT conducted in accordance with 1403. Have you ever seen a young man, whose dream was to be a fire fighter, with no eyelids and no ears? I have.

    You did not conduct live fire training exercises with live victims safely. You conducted an unsafe training exercise and you got incredibly lucky.

    Want to know about qualified instructors? So did I. That is why I helped to push for a very strict standard in NJ for instructors to be qualified to teach live burn. And a "hungover" instructor is not physically qualified to be participating in a live burn.

    You teach VES the same way you should teach EVERY evolution. You go over it a hundred times in a controlled safe environment. Then you do it under safe, monitored simulated conditions. Then you watch it about a hundred times on the job. Then you do it. You know as well as I do that there is no way that a recruit can learn anything in a training exercise and then be qualified to do it in the real world. That is why a progressive FD with a true training program puts their recruits through a field training program.

    Want to know about couches? So did I, since that is what was used in Parsippany. In fact, I wanted to know about so bad, that I brought the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building and Fire Research Lab into my investigation. I learned alot about the HRR of an uplholstered, polyurethane couch. And, NO, you can't burn them and be in compliance with NFPA 1403.


    Your comments about NFPA and losing the ability to use acquired structures shows your ignorance. The Standard is in place solely to allow this very valuable training tool to be used, and used safely. There is also a blatant ignorance about recruit training, which, ironically, is why we're here in the first place. Recruit training should be a methodical process that is gradual in exposing the recruit to dangerous circumstances. There is little difference in the "rookie roast" and the littany of fire training accidents that have occured in the last 30 years, except that no one, thank the good Lord, died.

    You should probably give up, now. It does not seem as though you have much back-up here. That is, except for one, notoriously anti-NFPA FF.

  3. #53
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    You should probably give up, now. It does not seem as though you have much back-up here. That is, except for one, notoriously anti-NFPA FF.
    Welcome back George! I still stand by my posts, but will start a new thread on the topic and stop corrupting this one.
    Last edited by ChicagoFF; 02-05-2007 at 07:35 PM.
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  4. #54
    Forum Member
    johnny46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fireman4949 View Post

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

  5. #55
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoFF View Post
    Welcome back George! I still stand by my posts, but will start a new thread on the topic and stop corrupting this one.
    Not an insult, just an observation.

  6. #56
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    I You have already stated that your current training evolutions are 1403 compliant. So, it would seem that you or someone above you recognized the value of conducting safe training by the book.
    First off: Of course following the 1403 guideline is valuable, I never argued against that. but to say that you or NFPA or anyone else has figured out the ONLY way to do something safely is preposterous and shows your true colors.

    Hungover instructor example: Exactly, this guy may not be safe. how do you know this? Do you know if your instructor's wife left him last night? My point was that as with anything there are unforseen variable that can make your 1403 compliant session dangerous, I guess you'll argue that this makes it non-compliant. (which section deals with interviewing each instructor each day?)

  7. #57
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    IYou teach VES the same way you should teach EVERY evolution. You go over it a hundred times in a controlled safe environment. Then you do it under safe, monitored simulated conditions. Then you watch it about a hundred times on the job. Then you do it. You know as well as I do that there is no way that a recruit can learn anything in a training exercise and then be qualified to do it in the real world. That is why a progressive FD with a true training program puts their recruits through a field training program.
    What a joke, can I have some of what you're smoking?

    It must be nice to teach fire recruits the same evolution hundreds of times before they do it. How many dept's can say they do this? I'll bet less than 10 FD's nationwide can show that a recruit has practiced VES over 100 times before being assigned. How about those dept's who cannot "mentor" their recruits with seasoned vets? I suppose thousands of smaller career, combo an volunteer depts cannot be safe either? Of course none could hope to live up to your high standards as a "progressive department".

  8. #58
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    You should probably give up, now. It does not seem as though you have much back-up here. That is, except for one, notoriously anti-NFPA FF.
    Oh, I'm so not worthy!
    And give up now while I have you on a rant? Hell no, I don't need help. I feel your passion for safety as you've seen the outcome of poor training instruction. Have you also seen fires where civilians died because of poor incident command, bad decisions, lack of skilled firefighters? How about dead firefighters who were not prepared for the job? I suppose none of the firefighters who died were trained in compliance with 1403?

    And for the record, I do not believe all NFPA standards are bad, but I disagree with many that are influenced in by the manufacturers in the name of our safety. Hell I don't dislike 1403, except that I question if you can have fires that truly prepare firefighters for their jobs without pushing the 1403 envelope.

  9. #59
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    There is little difference in the "rookie roast" and the littany of fire training accidents that have occured in the last 30 years, except that no one, thank the good Lord, died.
    We'll have to agree to disagree. While the name implies some ridiculous "who's got the bigger d*** contest", as I said before a controlled scenario where the students are allowed to feel the building heat and watch the effects of smoke and flame in a room/doorway could be misconstrued as a "Rookie Roast" hardly the same thing as the littany of training accidents over the last 30 years.

  10. #60
    MembersZone Subscriber
    JohnVBFD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Norfolk, Va
    Posts
    1,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    We'll have to agree to disagree. While the name implies some ridiculous "who's got the bigger d*** contest", as I said before a controlled scenario where the students are allowed to feel the building heat and watch the effects of smoke and flame in a room/doorway could be misconstrued as a "Rookie Roast" hardly the same thing as the littany of training accidents over the last 30 years.
    Personally, I think the flashover trainers are just as effective as a house built in 1950 that the owner barely maintained. I know here in Va Beach, we do acquire structures. Maybe they are "too" safe by only using Roscoe smoke, but it still allows us to actually throw ladders, move hose, find Randy and ventilate through many means. Recently we were allowed to do this in the former Lord and Taylors chain at Lynnhaven Mall. Is it perfect? No. Oh, we also place wax paper inside our face peices.

    Is it perfect, of course not. Is it a whole lot safer than a potential termite infested/damaged old house. I think recruits can get just as good if not better and safer view of fire growing inside the flashover trainer.

  11. #61
    IACOJ BOD
    FlyingKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,757

    Default

    What a bunch of Safety Sallies.

    Get a bunch of couches piled up.

    Use Av Gas and Diesel.

    Have a bloody big Recruit Roast.

    Let em learn the hard way.

    Then get your hands of it and wake up from your wet dream to the real world.
    Psychiatrists state 1 in 4 people has a mental illness.
    Look at three of your friends, if they are ok, your it.

  12. #62
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DocVBFDE14 View Post
    Personally, I think the flashover trainers are just as effective as a house built in 1950 that the owner barely maintained. I know here in Va Beach, we do acquire structures. Maybe they are "too" safe by only using Roscoe smoke, but it still allows us to actually throw ladders, move hose, find Randy and ventilate through many means. Recently we were allowed to do this in the former Lord and Taylors chain at Lynnhaven Mall. Is it perfect? No. Oh, we also place wax paper inside our face peices.

    Is it perfect, of course not. Is it a whole lot safer than a potential termite infested/damaged old house. I think recruits can get just as good if not better and safer view of fire growing inside the flashover trainer.
    Sounds like an excellant drill. Trust me I'd love to have a large area structure to train in safely with no fire and fake smoke. Using what's available is a hallmark of the fire service. I'm not convinced of the flashover simulators after having some discussions with many nationally recognized instructors who always tell you to ask the student what they actaully learned?

    We also turn away 10 times more structures for live fire training than we accept, as they are not structurally sound, are animal infested, or need too much work to make safe.

  13. #63
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Animal infested? They won't be after you light 'em up.Even the belfry bats don't hang around.We use aquired structures.We don't "rookie roast",in fact we double the instructors with them.1403? ABSOLUTELY! You can still get good fires,not incinerate your crews,there still might be some extension but everything you see/do should mirror real world events but in a controlled overseen event with all the proper safeties in place.1403 reminds you to cover all these bases.Does it ensure that an aquired structure is still there after the first burn? Nope,but it DOES insure that all the "players"can be safely gotten outside when it goes.And that the proper amount of equipment is in place to control the results.They closest we come to the "roast"is during TI camera training where we put the instructor and the students in the burn room with a small fire in the burn pot .A slow steady fire is maintained while the students "sit around the campfire".In a while the heat stratifications start becoming quite evident.At that point the students extinquish the fire,vent the room and the process starts over.No burned equipment,no burned students,just a good exercise in fire behavior.Oh,and there is a charged line in the room,but you could put the fire out with a "can".George and I have had disagreements in the past but this is one NFPA requirement I can live with.And believe in. T.C.

  14. #64
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    225

    Default

    Osceola County, FL (not Orange County) and the one George couldn't remember was Greenwood, DE.

  15. #65
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingRon View Post
    Osceola County, FL (not Orange County) and the one George couldn't remember was Greenwood, DE.
    Thanks for the correction. At least I got the first letter and state right....
    ‎"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

  16. #66
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Oh, I'm so not worthy!
    And give up now while I have you on a rant? Hell no, I don't need help. I feel your passion for safety as you've seen the outcome of poor training instruction. Have you also seen fires where civilians died because of poor incident command, bad decisions, lack of skilled firefighters? How about dead firefighters who were not prepared for the job? I suppose none of the firefighters who died were trained in compliance with 1403?

    And for the record, I do not believe all NFPA standards are bad, but I disagree with many that are influenced in by the manufacturers in the name of our safety. Hell I don't dislike 1403, except that I question if you can have fires that truly prepare firefighters for their jobs without pushing the 1403 envelope.
    If this discussion is going to now become "I have seen more and done more that you have", it is over. You win. You're better than me.

    Your attitude about live fire training is dangerous and archaic.

  17. #67
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Default

    Originally Posted by RFDACM02
    Oh, I'm so not worthy!
    And give up now while I have you on a rant? Hell no, I don't need help. I feel your passion for safety as you've seen the outcome of poor training instruction. Have you also seen fires where civilians died because of poor incident command, bad decisions, lack of skilled firefighters? How about dead firefighters who were not prepared for the job? I suppose none of the firefighters who died were trained in compliance with 1403?
    Brother.. you crossed the line with this post.

    Civilians have died in fires that had excellent command, good decisions and extremely skilled firefighters.

    Extremely skilled firefighters who were very well prepared physically and mentally for the job have died in the line of duty.

    As far as 1403 compliance in training.. it depends on whether they were trained pre 1403 or post 1403.
    ‎"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

  18. #68
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainGonzo View Post
    Originally Posted by RFDACM02


    Brother.. you crossed the line with this post.

    Civilians have died in fires that had excellent command, good decisions and extremely skilled firefighters.

    Extremely skilled firefighters who were very well prepared physically and mentally for the job have died in the line of duty.

    As far as 1403 compliance in training.. it depends on whether they were trained pre 1403 or post 1403.
    Capt. Sorry I had no intention to offend (not even George) my point was that saying that firefighters have been killed becuase of non-compliant training dismisses any other causes. George alluded to investigating firefighter deaths from a failed training incident. My assumption is that he's particpated in other investigations where fatalities occured and the cause was not non-1403 comliance. It's a sad fact that both civilians and brothers are killed regardless of the training when poor decisions, tactics, or otherwise have been employed. To ignore this fact would be to not learn from others mistakes. I pointed no fingers and had no particular incidents in mind, just that it happens.

    Of course tragedies happen when all the best forces come together. I'm not sure how you took my post but I certainly wasn't intending to slight anyone, merely point out that 1403 is no gaurantee of a successful outcome. A good start to a training program? Of course, but not the only factor.

    Note: Having re-read my post I can see how you might have taken my comments. Again, I am sorry that it was taken this way, I certainly didn't mean to imply in the incident George mentioned the fallen brothers were not properly trained. I have no knowledge of that incident and would not even speculate as to the cuase of such a tragedy. That is how I got started in this thread in the first place, with firefighters jumping on the bandwagon to trash others with very little information.
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 02-08-2007 at 05:14 PM.

  19. #69
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    6

    Default Rookie Roast vs NFPA 1403

    I have read the article put out about this departments tatics for training.I think in this day and age this is totaly unacceptable; however I can see both sides of the problem. There has become a fine line between training and much needed safety. The only problem is nobody is there to enforce it. This department said they take fireman inside until it is so hot they don't want to be there. Then in another statement they claim to be training them to be safe and build thier confidance level in a hot and smoky enviroment with the extra wieght of gear and zero visability. I think this department like so many other small departments had good intensions for what they are doing. If the firefighters on the department were trained this way and have not furthered thier education then when they become officers and train new firefighters these same tatics will be employed. I came from a larger county to a small south georgia city that used these tatics. ( I no longer work there) The chief had stated" if you wanted it easy go to work at the bank". That you should be able to put out every fire and if a single wall was all that was standing when you arrived it better be standing when you left. They used to train in two old school busses put together with all the windows tinned up tight, seats still inside and put 10 to 15 pallets inside and you could only use a booster hose on 12 gpm. If you could not handle the heat they would not let you be on the fire department. I was trained to this set of standards when I came to work for them. I knew it was not right but enjoyed getting paid to fight fire.
    Till I finally decided I would not be able to change this way of thinking and quit working for them.
    However I see firefighters showing up for training at state live burn centers saying they have 5 years of experience and are good firefighters. Then you get them in a Class A burn building with only 3 or 4 pallets in a large burn room and they complain about the heat. Its too hot they need to leave. These fires would not have rated a good kitchen fire. They have been taught that if you pull up and have moderate smoke or fire you should let the structure go to the ground. What if these firefighters were made to decide about a rescue of a civilian or brother firefighter in trouble. Fires are hot, the job is sometimes dangerous. Thats what you get paid for. Would they make entrance or let you die because they have only seen pallets and have never been in a real fire. Today firefighters are recieving less call volume due to good safety educators, however this has caused a less experienced work force. They have strong book knowledge with no street time to back it up. I am not saying burn the rookie but you need to let the fires get bigger as they become more confident to build knowledge so they make good decisions when they are on scene. These same rookies might be in command initially on a volunteer department. They need to know what can be extinguished vs what can not. But where do you draw they line between training and stupidity. I think there are more departments training this same way then following NFPA. How as a profession do we solve this problem? Because talking is not getting it done.

  20. #70
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    If this discussion is going to now become "I have seen more and done more that you have", it is over. You win. You're better than me.
    You lost me there. Done more? Seen more? Where does this come from? Becuase I asked if you seen other tragedies that were not caused by non-compliant training? I merely was making a point that one cannot make a blanket statement about all training, all accidents, all tragedies.

  21. #71
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Your attitude about live fire training is dangerous and archaic.
    How is my attitude dangerous? Becuase I don't beleive that 1403 is a silver bullet that automatically makes for successful live fire training. The fact that 1403 only requires that instructors be qualified by the AHJ is one of the reasons you can have dangerous 1403 compliant drills.I told you time and again, that any burns I've been involved in in recent years are 1403 compliant. The reason that we have such rules as 1403 is because often our view of common sense is too greatly varied. Given the number of live fire training sessions conducted 20 years ago compared to today, it is easy to see a reduction in injuries and worse. So is 1403 the reason for less injuries and deaths, sure. But safer is not the only reason. More liablility, more training requirements, more time, more prep = less actual live fire training. The outcome is good right? No one wants to see injured brothers or sisters. Or are we setting ourselves up for more OTJ injuries?
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 02-10-2007 at 12:01 AM.

  22. #72
    IACOJ BOD
    FlyingKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,757

    Default

    Your paradoxes are overwhelming.


    A STANDARD is something that should, indeed MUST, evolve to remain a standard.

    How the standard comes about is irrelevant to the core issue of WHY it was bought about in the first place.

    It MUST be an evolving thing that has a peer revue over time to keep up with knowledge and learning.

    Maybe the old expression "when the bell rings, be there." applies.

    If you have serious concerns over the standard. Get involved, suggest your "improvements", let them the committee revue them and if accepted by the majority accepted as the new standard.

    Until then....

    Keep doing it into a head wind.
    Psychiatrists state 1 in 4 people has a mental illness.
    Look at three of your friends, if they are ok, your it.

  23. #73
    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
    How is my attitude dangerous? Becuase I don't beleive that 1403 is a silver bullet that automatically makes for successful live fire training. The fact that 1403 only requires that instructors be qualified by the AHJ is one of the reasons you can have dangerous 1403 compliant drills.I told you time and again, that any burns I've been involved in in recent years are 1403 compliant. The reason that we have such rules as 1403 is because often our view of common sense is too greatly varied. Given the number of live fire training sessions conducted 20 years ago compared to today, it is easy to see a reduction in injuries and worse. So is 1403 the reason for less injuries and deaths, sure. But safer is not the only reason. More liablility, more training requirements, more time, more prep = less actual live fire training. The outcome is good right? No one wants to see injured brothers or sisters. Or are we setting ourselves up for more OTJ injuries?
    Contact the family of Brad Golden in Lairdsville, NY and see if they agree with your point of view....
    ‎"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

  24. #74
    Forum Member
    fireman4949's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tallahassee, Florida
    Posts
    2,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 255nozzle View Post
    They used to train in two old school busses put together with all the windows tinned up tight, seats still inside and put 10 to 15 pallets inside and you could only use a booster hose on 12 gpm. If you could not handle the heat they would not let you be on the fire department. I was trained to this set of standards when I came to work for them. I knew it was not right but enjoyed getting paid to fight fire.
    Till I finally decided I would not be able to change this way of thinking and quit working for them.


    Does Parsippany, N.J. ring a bell to anyone here? They thought a school bus was a good training prop too. Ask them what they think now.

    This is precisely the reason why we have 1403. To save the ignorant and the stupid from killing themselves...And, in turn, from killing us!

    255nozzle, I'm in no way aiming this at you. Just to the reference you made to your previous department and its chief.




    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"

  25. #75
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainGonzo View Post
    Contact the family of Brad Golden in Lairdsville, NY and see if they agree with your point of view....
    Capt. I'm sure you know as well as I that the Lairdsville fatality was so far from remotely safe that to use that in comparision is not even reality. The issue was more than one department and many Chief Officers with complete ignorance to safety at any level. But to one end, the lead instructor was 1403 compliant to be an instructor because his Chief, the AHJ, said it was OK! The levels of incompetence in that tragedy run deeper than the criminal charges that were brought. Again, we're way past anything positive here, so I'll leave it alone.

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