1. #226
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    I have tried to be polite and reasonable with you.

    OK answer some questions yourself about this fire ... or are you just a fifteen year old kid with a new laptop, pretending to be a big city firefighter like his dad?!

    Which authority submitted the gasoline samples?
    Give me the names of the first five officers in command?
    Who was the Plans Chief at this incident and what is his assignment now?
    Yet you have answered no questions.

    Heres a news flash for you - If you think I'm going to get into some duel with you and your search engine, you are sadly mistaken. Whats next? Who was on the pipe on 42 that day? I can tell you if you want. Why don't you just post a link to witt and mikva and be done with it? You are a goof if you think I am going to engage some anonymous jagoff spouting unfounded opinions about people and events he read about on the web. You have just firmly ensconced yourself in the ranks of hottrotter and devildog4. You are a waste of time and effort.

    What department do you work for? Jagoff......
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  2. #227
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoFF View Post
    If you think I'm going to get into some duel with you and your search engine, you are sadly mistaken. Whats next? Who was on the pipe on 42 that day? You have just firmly ensconced yourself in the ranks of hottrotter and devildog4. You are a waste of time and effort.

    What department do you work for? Jagoff......
    Thanks for the continual compliments brother.

    I never intended to become embroiled in a debate with you over the Chicago incident. I was discussing with FFFred how effective ICS (yes thats what they call it in Chicago) plays such a critical role on the fireground and was using FDNY high-rise procedures and your high-rise procedures (and fire) as a clear example. The failings in Incident Command Systems has contributed to several LODD and the loss of life of building occupants in many many fires before. Who knows? Perhaps Charleston is another situation! The immediate recommendations there clearly show there are concerns in how Charleston implement incident command functions.

    You engaged me on my authority to quote the Chicago fire as a viable example. Well I have PM'd you on that matter.

    Stay safe ....

  3. #228
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devildog4 View Post
    deleted by author
    You start this mess then leave with your tail between your legs. I name thee devilmutt4. If you start making comments at least have the guts to stand behind your posts. Don't stir the pot if you can't take the heat. Maybe next time you'll engage your brain before you start typing.

  4. #229
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    Thanks for the continual compliments brother.

    I never intended to become embroiled in a debate with you over the Chicago incident. I was discussing with FFFred how effective ICS (yes thats what they call it in Chicago) plays such a critical role on the fireground and was using FDNY high-rise procedures and your high-rise procedures (and fire) as a clear example. The failings in Incident Command Systems has contributed to several LODD and the loss of life of building occupants in many many fires before. Who knows? Perhaps Charleston is another situation! The immediate recommendations there clearly show there are concerns in how Charleston implement incident command functions.

    You engaged me on my authority to quote the Chicago fire as a viable example. Well I have PM'd you on that matter.

    Stay safe ....
    We may disagree on this matter, but that is no excuse for my "less than cordial" responses earlier. The name calling was inappropriate. My apologies. While you seem to know quite a bit about 69 W. Washington, I still disagree with your assessment that the problem was a failure of the high rise order or the command structure itself.
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  5. #230
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    It's interesting to me that several experts went to CFD and made recommendations for change that would make the department better. Yet some in far off places question those recommendations. They even question if those things would have made a difference in the outcome. I suspect the outcome would have been totally different had these changes been in place prior to the fire. Otherwise, why recommend the change?

  6. #231
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    It's interesting to me that several experts went to CFD and made recommendations for change that would make the department better. Yet some in far off places question those recommendations. They even question if those things would have made a difference in the outcome. I suspect the outcome would have been totally different had these changes been in place prior to the fire. Otherwise, why recommend the change?
    It's interesting to me that your mother didn't smother you when you were an infant thus saving all humanity from your stupidity. Did she drink lots of hard alcohol or smoke when you were in the womb?

    There is no offical report yet and not one of you swinging d*cks has bothered to cite one paragraph of any policy the CFD had or didn't have on the day in question. Unless some context is provided...all of this is for naught.

    FTM-PTB

  7. #232
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoFF View Post
    We may disagree on this matter, but that is no excuse for my "less than cordial" responses earlier. The name calling was inappropriate. My apologies. While you seem to know quite a bit about 69 W. Washington, I still disagree with your assessment that the problem was a failure of the high rise order or the command structure itself.
    Chicago thank you! I respect your approach and listen, I do acknowledge the reasons why you were so defensive so I am sorry also for arousing your suspicions.

    It is your right to disagree and I will only say that these conclusions, that there were ICS and communication failings at that fire, are not mine but made by those who investigated the fire. Both internal and external investigations came to those same conclusions and hence, the SOP was reviewed and updated.

    Quite often there are a number of contributory factors that lead to LODD. The ICS may be inadequate; or the ICS plan is competent but the implementation fails; or the communication channels fail etc. These views I hold are supported by a wealth of reporting from NIOSH and other organizations who have investigated LODD in the past (and I know how highly Fred respects them)!

  8. #233
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Letís see what the final investigation reveals, and hope we all can learn from that

    Quote Originally Posted by devildog
    I started this post to ask people what they thought of the recommendations. You, FFFRED and ChicagoFF turned that into bashing the IAFF, calling Chief Brunacini a plagiarizer and attacking the members of the panel and forum.
    No you started this thread to tell us how perfect the land of fruits and nuts was and how if they had not been using 10-codes, using LDH, assigned stagging, used task specific radio call signs..etc. those 9 men would be alive today.

    This is all without seeing a full offical report, ever looking at one page of their operational manual, understanding that

    I on the other hand pointed out after some members insinuated that our procedures were based on these ICS principles, that in fact our procedures and evolutions pre-dated this ICS concept (which ironicly enough was partially developed to control poorly disiplined and inexpereinced fire departments in the Golden State, your state of perfection mind you) The fact is that I was making a point that we don't follow ICS as you know it and you didn't care to answer whether we are acting recklessly by not blindly following your "hand holding" rules developed by suburban chiefs in the desert southwest.

    The plagarism comments stem from the fact that the pro-ICS crowd claims our policy fits into their system when in fact their system mirriors ours to some degree and then adds in superfoulous layers of beauracracy that they made up without any substantial prior expereince as the basis for these measures. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

    You claim that you've never heard of pre-assigned duties and it doesn't fit within your ICS world...fact is your concept is about 100 years out of date and you are more than welcome to join us in the present if you choose to.

    Why ďChanges in water supply standard operating proceduresĒ? As I indicated earlier, a single 2 1/2" supply line is not sufficient for a truck operation. In fact I donít think I heard anyone say anything about catching a hydrant or that they laid out their own supply line until maybe 5 or 6 engines/trucks were on scene.
    You won't hear such transmissions on our dept radio either...In fact if you can find one transmission of a company during the 7th alarm at the Deuche Bank notifying the Chief on their own that they have a hydrant and are performing inline pumping I'll turn my pension over to you.

    MY point being until an offical report is issued which factually states what lines were laid where and by whom and for what purpose your entire position is without merit.

    You and a few others have stated that according to you a few of the first alarm Engine companies failed to secure a positive water supply. And this fact is justification for the need for LDH.

    Well I would say that should that be the case (which we don't know until a report comes out) it would seem to me that emphasizing the policy of who is to hook to a hydrant...when and using what hose would be a much more sensible and well thought out policy than some knee jerk reaction by bying bigger hose that presumably under the same circumstances wouldn't get laid in either.

    But as I and others said before until a full offical report is issued...your entire position is based on conjecture and nothing more.

    FTM-PTB
    Last edited by FFFRED; 08-29-2007 at 02:08 PM.

  9. #234
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    These views I hold are supported by a wealth of reporting from NIOSH and other organizations who have investigated LODD in the past (and I know how highly Fred respects them)!
    You got that right!

    Lets hope someone other than the clueless and inexpereinced bookworms over at NIOSH offer a report on this fire. Outside of the factual diagrams and estabilishment the time line...the rest is good kindling for a camp fire.

    FTM-PTB

  10. #235
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED View Post

    You and a few others have stated that according to you a few of the first alarm Engine companies failed to secure a positive water supply. And this fact is justification for the need for LDH.

    Well I would say that should that be the case (which we don't know until a report comes out) it would seem to me that emphasizing the policy of who is to hook to a hydrant...when and using what hose would be a much more sensible and well thought out policy than some knee jerk reaction by bying bigger hose that presumably under the same circumstances wouldn't get laid in either.

    But as I and others said before until a full offical report is issued...your entire position is based on conjecture and nothing more.

    FTM-PTB
    Simple facts though FFFred are this ...
    • They were flowing more water on the attack line/s than they were receiving
    • CFD pumpers are only configured to lay a single line of 2.5 inch
    • The water supply for such a large fire was always going to be hydraulically challenged
    • The aerials suffered the same lack of water until St Andrews supported them with LDH

  11. #236
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    Simple facts though FFFred are this ...
    • They were flowing more water on the attack line/s than they were receiving
    • CFD pumpers are only configured to lay a single line of 2.5 inch
    • The water supply for such a large fire was always going to be hydraulically challenged
    • The aerials suffered the same lack of water until St Andrews supported them with LDH
    Are you one of the "experts" hired by the mayor to tell him what the CFD needs?

    Fact is....none of these facts have been listed here by anyone credible or listed in a publicly available report on the fire. (as far as I know none has been issued) We've neither seen policy or a description of their Engines hosebeds. And as I've said in the past...I find anyone who claims to be a fire service expert, immediately suspect when the only recomendation is for LDH, for a reported problem that is more procedural than equipment based. The cost to purchase and refit the hose beds would be much quite a bit more than just suggesting that they do what a number of other departments do on a regular basis and that is perform the reverse stretch.

    Who knows perhaps the CFD is more accustomed to reverse stretches in the older downtown part and LDH would greatly change their existing operations for the fires they most often face.

    Perhaps MPO re-education would be in order and focusing on hydraulics and hose lays would be a better solution. You can give them 3000gpm pumps and 8inch hose and none of it will matter if they don't understand hydraulics.

    None of this known because we haven't seen any concrete report or citations of established and published CFD procedures.

    When coupled with recomendations like PIO and seatbelts (I understand they are to look at all facets of the CFD) it would seem that perhaps these guys came in with the solutions already in mind before even examining all facts and potential solutions. Considering the swiftness of these recomendations only after a week on the job...I would say these guys aren't really doing the job they were hired for...merely dictating what they beleive to be the best course of action based on what their departments have done...not what will work best for the CFD. I know it would take me much more than a week to come up with comprehensive reform for any department large or small.

    Remember at least one of these "experts" quailifications must be questioned when his own dept citing safety concerns demands the use of fog tips off standpipes in highrises. What other obvious mistakes will this man potentially impose on the citizens and firemen of Charleston?

    Sounds like you Batt18 might have some insight but these are the most specifc claims we've seen to date. How is it you know for fact that this is how their Engines are set up? Do you work for the CFD?

    As you can see from above...without knowing all the facts, I can make endless presumtions and assumptions that might or might not be on the money...but until we see a final report and accounting of what actions did or didn't take place...everything here is conjecture.

    FTM-PTB

  12. #237
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED View Post

    Fact is....none of these facts have been listed here by anyone credible or listed in a publicly available report on the fire.

    None of this known because we haven't seen any concrete report or citations of established and published CFD procedures.

    As you can see from above...without knowing all the facts, I can make endless presumtions and assumptions that might or might not be on the money...but until we see a final report and accounting of what actions did or didn't take place...everything here is conjecture.

    FTM-PTB
    I agree FFFred that we must not jump to conclusions. Things are not always as they seem, even in videos and on audio tapes, there is always another side. No I don't work for CFD but I talk with people who do or did.

    Much of the information is already made public and there are some conclusions that we might reliably draw ourselves. Going over these things in our own minds is a good exercise because it makes us take a closer look at our own operations, to see if such system failures might occur and if so, how we might deal with them. Just as a pilot repeatedly goes through the simulator and is given catastrophic system failures to deal with.

    It is known within Charleston that their pumper configurations cannot be set up to effectively pump to capacity. In this fire, for whatever reason to be determined, one system failure that apparently had a major influence on the fire developing as it did was, the water supply wasn't able to meet demands of an interior fire attack.

    There are clear calls on the tape, from various IC's, for additional apparatus to urgently respond. There were clear calls to bring in a 1 1/2" hand-line followed shortly by a 2 1/2" hand-line. There was clear information from Engine 11 who was supplying water to the interior crews that he was very quickly running out of water ... 19.22 hrs half way empty; 19.24 hrs 1/4 tank left; E11 appears to be flowing between 60-90gpm on the fire at that rate. There were repeated calls for water (supply) from both Engines supplying attack lines. Then there were repeated requests by the Chief to start increasing pressure on the supply lines. There was a request from the engineer on E11 to his captain 'do you want the 2 1/2" charged' ... the answer 'not until you got that supply line in' .... seconds later there are several transmissions apparently coming from the interior that sound like they are saying 'we need to back out' ...
    • How should we be set up to prevent this happening in our own situation?
    • What can an IC immediately do, as he arrives on-scene, to counter a rapidly developing situation such as this?

    Those are two relevant tactical approaches that we might 'simulate' in our own minds .... or in the training environment ....

  13. #238
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    * How should we be set up to prevent this happening in our own situation?
    * What can an IC immediately do, as he arrives on-scene, to counter a rapidly developing situation such as this?
    12 pages and 237 posts, something finally distiled in a manor in can be looked at objectively in our setting.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  14. #239
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Upstate, SC
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED View Post
    You won't hear such transmissions on our dept radio either...
    Nor on ours. I'd also like to point out that mutual aid departments around here often use their own channel to communicate. So it's possible that another arriving fd laid a line and you might never heard it on CFD's tapes.

  15. #240
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nuthead View Post
    Nor on ours. I'd also like to point out that mutual aid departments around here often use their own channel to communicate. So it's possible that another arriving fd laid a line and you might never heard it on CFD's tapes.
    That did happen but much later. The fact is that the two engines supplying interior attack lines were forced to conserve their water and flow less than thirty percent of the amounts being requested by those inside crewing the hand-lines. The first arriving mutual aid engine only brought tank water to the scene but did rescue the trapped occupant and then made a very brave effort to rescue firefighters trapped within.

    No criticisms being directed at the handling of this incident. There are more twists than turns still to come. However, this is a big box structure housing a major fire load and a rapidly escalating fire. You have around a dozen firefighters inside on hand-lines that are either not flowing or under-flowing. Then come the reports of a trapped occupant to the rear.

    Just play out that table-top exercise in your minds, in your firehouse.

  16. #241
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    434

    Default

    Bones42:

    I said:
    "Can YOU state with 100% certainty that a hydrant WAS caught before 5 or 6engines/trucks arrived? Which unit laid the first supply line and what was their order of arrival? Nope, didn't think so. I canít. I wasnít there. I donít know."

    You said "and yet you are more than happy to claim this was a problem there."

    It's not a matter of being "more than happy". It's more than obvious or evident to me. I could be wrong. That's my opinion. However, I might be right.

    I said:
    "I started the thread to comment on the preliminary investigation, because I thought the results (after what, 4 days?) spoke for themselves."

    You said "and that's the problem. In only 4 days, what could they have actually learned of policies/procedures/SOP's and actual operations. And they come up with "seat belt usage", "PIO", "no 10 codes".

    The preliminary report also came up with command issues, water supply issues, accountability issues, safety issues and training issues. I don't know what they actually could have learned in such a short time, but something must have been so apparant to them that these points became glaringly obvious to the team after less than a week.Your point?

    Knight Dude:
    To answer your questions/comments:
    1. Like it or not, you still are Dude. Could call you a mutt, but that would be rude.
    2. I just pointed out from a safety standpoint something that should not have happened. As far as the toilet plungers, thank you for the clarification.
    3. It wasn't you that slammed the IAFF or Chief Brunacini. I apologize.
    4. Nothing. I never said they did.
    5. You are correct. I don't know when supply lines were laid by whom. After listening to the tape, it was my conclusion that only one 2 1/2" line was laid for all engines/trucks on scene prior to St. Andrews arriving. I could be wrong. I could be right. It is only my opinion.
    6. I am trying to keep my posts related to this incedent. As far as the "incompetent" and "chaos" tag, that remark was insensitive and I mispoke, but that was my first immpression after hearing the tape. Other departments that have suffered losses? We are talking about CFD.
    7. It is "the Great State of California".


    lexfd5:
    You said
    "You start this mess then leave with your tail between your legs. I name thee devilmutt4. If you start making comments at least have the guts to stand behind your posts. Don't stir the pot if you can't take the heat. Maybe next time you'll engage your brain before you start typing."

    I started this post after reading the recomendations of the panel. I wanted the opinion of others on it. After reading replies to some of my posts it became clear to me that I was insensitive and offending others. For that I apologize. Several times. Rather than post their own thoughts on what may or may not have happened, I got slammed by a few individuals here. That clearly was not my intent. Except what was in poor taste, I do stand behind my posts. I don't need to wait for the final report or read CFD SOP's to form an opinion.

    ChicagoFF:
    I don't expect an excuse for your "less than cordial" responses or inappropriate name calling. Keep on being passionate, but I want to hear your opinion on the recomendations.

    HotTrotter: I guess that you, me and Batt18 are in the minority here? Thanks for the support! Sometimes you say it clearer than I can.

    FFFRED:
    I said
    "I started this post to ask people what they thought of the recommendations. You, FFFRED and ChicagoFF turned that into bashing the IAFF, calling Chief Brunacini a plagiarizer and attacking the members of the panel and forum."

    You said "No you started this thread to tell us how perfect the land of fruits and nuts was and how if they had not been using 10-codes, using LDH, assigned stagging, used task specific radio call signs..etc. those 9 men would be alive today."

    I never said such a thing. These are all issues that I previously have mentioned and commented on.

    I said ďChanges in water supply standard operating proceduresĒ? As I indicated earlier, a single 2 1/2" supply line is not sufficient for a truck operation. In fact I donít think I heard anyone say anything about catching a hydrant or that they laid out their own supply line until maybe 5 or 6 engines/trucks were on scene.

    You said "You won't hear such transmissions on our dept radio either...In fact if you can find one transmission of a company during the 7th alarm at the Deuche Bank notifying the Chief on their own that they have a hydrant and are performing inline pumping I'll turn my pension over to you. "talking about super sofa fire only"

    MY point being until an offical report is issued which factually states what lines were laid where and by whom and for what purpose your entire position is without merit. "it is my opinion. I could be right I could be wrong"

    You and a few others have stated that according to you a few of the first alarm Engine companies failed to secure a positive water supply. And this fact is justification for the need for LDH. "I never said that. Yes, it APPEARS that the first 4 or 5 (or whatever) trucks had one single 2 1/2" supply line for all of them and that yes, first incoming units did not get their own water supply. I also said not using LDH may or may not have been a problem."

    Well I would say that should that be the case (which we don't know until a report comes out) it would seem to me that emphasizing the policy of who is to hook to a hydrant...when and using what hose would be a much more sensible and well thought out policy than some knee jerk reaction by bying bigger hose that presumably under the same circumstances wouldn't get laid in either.

    But as I and others said before until a full offical report is issued...your entire position is based on conjecture and nothing more. "You are absolutely right. Conjecture can also be intermingled with assumption, speculation or guess.
    I never have said I know what happened. What I have posted is my opinion based on what I have read and heard. I could be wrong or I could be right."


    Looking at other posts you have made on the various forums, it seems you enjoy nothing better but to make offensive remarks to people. Without blasting me or my opinion, I want to hear what you have to say about the panel recommendations, or are you going to bash the members of the panel?

    Batt18:
    You have a way with words to clearly explain what it is I am trying to convey here. Keep up the good work.

  17. #242
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devildog4 View Post
    ChicagoFF:
    I don't expect an excuse for your "less than cordial" responses or inappropriate name calling. Keep on being passionate, but I want to hear your opinion on the recomendations.
    It wasn't an excuse, it was an apology directed at batt18. He has shown to me a firm understanding of the SC incident and the Chicago incident that was brought up. I know who he is, his department, and his experience. While I don't 100% agree with his assesment, he is welcome to his opinion - his knowledgable, reasoned, INFORMED opinion. You come on here blabbing away and still refuse to answer any of the questions about your department, your still district, and your experience with interior operations of this, or any, type. Why would anyone here take anything you say seriously, particularly after your "thank god I work in the great state of california" attitude.

    FFFRED:
    I said
    "I started this post to ask people what they thought of the recommendations. You, FFFRED and ChicagoFF turned that into bashing the IAFF, calling Chief Brunacini a plagiarizer and attacking the members of the panel and forum."
    Please show me where I ever "bashed" the IAFF. As to the suburban "genius" from the desert - many don't like him or agree with him. Why should you care?
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  18. #243
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,703

    Default

    Your point?
    Much like FFFred said, these "experts" showed up and have thrown out possibly useless, possibly pointless, possibly inefficient recommendations without putting the proper effort into finding true solutions/recommendations.
    "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?

  19. #244
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Much like FFFred said, these "experts" showed up and have thrown out possibly useless, possibly pointless, possibly inefficient recommendations without putting the proper effort into finding true solutions/recommendations.
    Possibly, possibly not.... Yes, maybe no.... Up, maybe down....

    Coming, or going....

    Uhh...okay.

    I would recommend reading the entire report. In fact, I would beg you to read the full report.

    http://www.iaff.org/07News/PDF/Charl...mendations.pdf

    A lot has been made of the seatbelt recommendation. I happen to agree with that sentiment for everyone riding in a motor vehicle.

    There were other recommendations and to ignore all of them because a few seem minor or insignificant seems foolish (I think they still have merit and should be given a thorough review).

    One of the BEST (IMO) is to increase staffing levels to FOUR firefighters on all companies.

  20. #245
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Upstate, SC
    Posts
    83

    Default

    After my initial attempt to try to cool things down failed rather dramatically, I've been holding my tongue on this particular issue. But, as it seems to have escalated and some points were made that I feel a need to address. This topic got started because someone read a preliminary report and thought to discuss the points made and possibly help everyone be a little safer and not make the same mistakes. A noble gesture, indeed. However, comments like the "Great State of California" DO tend to show a "holier-than-thou" attitude. I am from South Carolina and we too are proud of our state, but I would NEVER attempt to imply that we are better than anybody else. I've actually fought fire in California, as part of my state's "Western Fire Team", which responds yearly to the continued brush fires that plague the Southwest. I have no regrets having done so, in fact I'd go through the gates of hell to help ANY brother with ANY type fire and I am positive that that same sentiment is echoed by most people here. I also understand that I may well be the recipient of such help at some time in the future and certainly wouldn't denigrate those states that might come and assist me.

    Much has been made of the tapes and the preliminary recommendations. I've not listened to the tapes and have no desire to do so in the near future. I think everyone here would agree that things go wrong at every fire. I myself keep a notebook of every fire I respond to and I highlight the things that went wrong so that i may learn from them. Things went wrong in Charleston, however, I didn't hear or read any reports of firemen being thrown into the fire because they didn't have a seatbelt on. It's an excellent practice to wear seatbelts, but not germane to what happened to our fallen brothers there. Ditto the PIO issue. Discussing other issues, ie: radio traffic not showing unit assignments is also moot UNTIL a more thorough report is released - maybe they have pre-assigned duties, maybe not. Either way, one fact remains very clear - 9 firemen are dead. Kicking their department while it's down by speculation does NOTHING to alleviate that.

  21. #246
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Possibly, possibly not.... Yes, maybe no.... Up, maybe down....

    Coming, or going....

    Uhh...okay.

    I would recommend reading the entire report. In fact, I would beg you to read the full report.

    http://www.iaff.org/07News/PDF/Charl...mendations.pdf

    A lot has been made of the seatbelt recommendation. I happen to agree with that sentiment for everyone riding in a motor vehicle.

    There were other recommendations and to ignore all of them because a few seem minor or insignificant seems foolish (I think they still have merit and should be given a thorough review).

    One of the BEST (IMO) is to increase staffing levels to FOUR firefighters on all companies.
    That link simply gave the list of recommendations. I expected a more thorough report with problems found and the reasoning for the recommendations.

  22. #247
    Forum Member
    KnightnPBIArmor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Beautiful downtown Hortense, GA
    Posts
    745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nuthead View Post
    After my initial attempt to try to cool things down failed rather dramatically, I've been holding my tongue on this particular issue. But, as it seems to have escalated and some points were made that I feel a need to address. This topic got started because someone read a preliminary report and thought to discuss the points made and possibly help everyone be a little safer and not make the same mistakes. A noble gesture, indeed. However, comments like the "Great State of California" DO tend to show a "holier-than-thou" attitude. I am from South Carolina and we too are proud of our state, but I would NEVER attempt to imply that we are better than anybody else. I've actually fought fire in California, as part of my state's "Western Fire Team", which responds yearly to the continued brush fires that plague the Southwest. I have no regrets having done so, in fact I'd go through the gates of hell to help ANY brother with ANY type fire and I am positive that that same sentiment is echoed by most people here. I also understand that I may well be the recipient of such help at some time in the future and certainly wouldn't denigrate those states that might come and assist me.

    Much has been made of the tapes and the preliminary recommendations. I've not listened to the tapes and have no desire to do so in the near future. I think everyone here would agree that things go wrong at every fire. I myself keep a notebook of every fire I respond to and I highlight the things that went wrong so that i may learn from them. Things went wrong in Charleston, however, I didn't hear or read any reports of firemen being thrown into the fire because they didn't have a seatbelt on. It's an excellent practice to wear seatbelts, but not germane to what happened to our fallen brothers there. Ditto the PIO issue. Discussing other issues, ie: radio traffic not showing unit assignments is also moot UNTIL a more thorough report is released - maybe they have pre-assigned duties, maybe not. Either way, one fact remains very clear - 9 firemen are dead. Kicking their department while it's down by speculation does NOTHING to alleviate that.
    VERY well said, nuthead, thank you.

  23. #248
    Forum Member
    KnightnPBIArmor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Beautiful downtown Hortense, GA
    Posts
    745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devildog4 View Post
    Knight Dude:
    To answer your questions/comments:
    1. Like it or not, you still are Dude. Could call you a mutt, but that would be rude.
    2. I just pointed out from a safety standpoint something that should not have happened. As far as the toilet plungers, thank you for the clarification.
    3. It wasn't you that slammed the IAFF or Chief Brunacini. I apologize.
    4. Nothing. I never said they did.
    5. You are correct. I don't know when supply lines were laid by whom. After listening to the tape, it was my conclusion that only one 2 1/2" line was laid for all engines/trucks on scene prior to St. Andrews arriving. I could be wrong. I could be right. It is only my opinion.
    6. I am trying to keep my posts related to this incedent. As far as the "incompetent" and "chaos" tag, that remark was insensitive and I mispoke, but that was my first immpression after hearing the tape. Other departments that have suffered losses? We are talking about CFD.
    7. It is "the Great State of California".

    1. If you want to sound like a "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" stoner that's your business, but my wife and I are horse people and a "dude" is a wannabe cowboy, so I don't think you understand the gravity of the insult, but that's neither here nor there, just so you'll know.

    2. Of course from a safety standpoint it shouldn't happen, but it's also easy to second guess such actions if you weren't there and have no way to know the mental burden driving the decision to perform that act or any other that is later deemed unsafe or irrational when viewed with the benefit of 20/20hindsight. Oftentimes the final outcome is the only deciding factor on whether an act is deemed foolhardy or heroic.

    3. Apology accepted. Why would someone who was a shop steward as a firefighter slam the IAFF, and as far as Brunacinni goes his book was used as the text in my Fire Science IC classes...he has some good ideas, and some that suck, just like any other so-called expert.

    4. But you insist we're only talking about the Sofa Super Store...why hash out a report that obviously goes beyond that then?

    5. I know I'm correct on this one. And yes it's your opinion,and you know what they say about those.

    6. Ok, so why the focused attention on them? Why no criticism of the others? I'm not saying anything negative about it, but I figured you would have given YOUR "expert" analysis of the Deutshe Building fire by now

    7. See the last sentence of #5.

    Oh, and regarding this:

    "HotTrotter: I guess that you, me and Batt18 are in the minority here? Thanks for the support! Sometimes you say it clearer than I can."

    You just made Trotters day, because now he can say he has at least one person who likes him and agrees with him. Of course you just flushed your own credibility down the can...

  24. #249
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    That link simply gave the list of recommendations. I expected a more thorough report with problems found and the reasoning for the recommendations.
    I believe that this was simply a quick review of general operating procedures, not a LODD report.

  25. #250
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    434

    Default

    Getting back to the panel's preliminary sugggestions...


    First change the Chief made was going to 1 3/4" hose instead of continuing to use 1 1/2" hose:

    City Goes To Larger Attack Lines But Keeps Same Size Supply Lines:

    The stupidity of the decision is profound. Instead of ordering larger supply lines the City of Charleston is apparently replacing their 1 1/2" attack lines with 1 3/4 ", yet they are still retaining the same supply lines!

    Now further demands will be placed on the same supply line(s) that had a direct impact on the departments inability to provide enough water during the Sofa Super Store fire. The logical sequence would have been to order larger supply lines first then add the 1 3/4" line.

    Now, at a fire, firefighters will pull one or two preconnects that flow more water. However if you can't SUPPLY more water then the new lines are no better than the old. This boggles the mind. (Retrieved from www.firefighterhourly.com)



    2nd change the Chief made was going away from polyester uniforms.



    Safety question about polyester prompts decision


    The city of Charleston will move immediately to replace the polyester uniforms worn by city firefighters, Mayor Joe Riley announced Friday.

    The Post and Courier reported Wednesday that the uniforms offer inadequate protection to firefighters because they can melt in high heat and do not meet national safety standards. The newspaper's report also cited a state workplace safety official who said the city's uniforms are not in compliance with state regulations because the uniforms don't meet standards prescribed by the National Fire Protection Association.

    Dottie Ison, administrator for the state Occupational Safety and Health Administration, said on Friday that her agency uses the national standards to determine whether fire departments are in compliance with state workplace safety regulations. She said that the national standard on fire department uniforms requires that they meet heat-resistance guidelines. "We look to NFPA and that will determine compliance with OSHA," she said.

    The polyester uniforms used by the city do not meet heat-resistance guidelines or the national standard, according to the uniform's manufacturer, Elbeco.

    The Post and Courier
    Saturday, September 1, 2007



    Firefighters Union says proposals for safety were ignored

    Five years ago, members of Charleston's firefighters union warned city leaders about their department's safety practices, including a lack of manpower at fire scenes and unsafe uniforms, and offered a detailed list of recommendations to bring the department in line with national standards. None of the major safety proposals were adopted by Chief Rusty Thomas, Mayor Joe Riley or City Council, the firefighters said.

    Among other changes called for in the 2002 proposal were for the department to get rid of its potentially dangerous polyester uniforms and to fully adopt national standards designed to protect firefighters.

    Roger Yow, president of the local firefighters union, which represents about half of the city's firefighters, was a captain with the Charleston Fire Department in 2002. He attended the meeting with Thomas and recalled that Thomas promised to look into the group's concerns.

    "This was in 2002, and it was ignored by all," Yow said. "Chief Thomas had his chance to change before nine good men died, and he refused to."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. New Nest for the Eagles & Condors !
    By RetJaxFF in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-29-2007, 09:44 PM
  2. F-16 crashes in Charleston, SC **pics**
    By sconfire in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-22-2005, 09:47 AM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 03-07-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-08-2005, 11:07 PM
  4. RFP's
    By D Littrell in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-08-2000, 07:36 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-06-1999, 11:13 AM

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