"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 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?
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".
"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.
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.
"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?
You have a way with words to clearly explain what it is I am trying to convey here. Keep up the good work.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 241 to 260 of 1056
08-30-2007, 03:27 PM #241
- Join Date
- Apr 2001
08-30-2007, 04:08 PM #242
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
"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."I am a complacent liability to the fire service
08-30-2007, 11:43 PM #243Your point?"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?
08-30-2007, 11:56 PM #244
Coming, or going....
I would recommend reading the entire report. In fact, I would beg you to read the full report.
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.
08-31-2007, 12:58 AM #245
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Upstate, SC
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.
08-31-2007, 09:05 AM #246
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- In my house
08-31-2007, 10:26 AM #247
08-31-2007, 11:09 AM #248
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...
08-31-2007, 01:08 PM #249
09-03-2007, 02:33 PM #250
- Join Date
- Apr 2001
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."
09-03-2007, 02:37 PM #251
- Join Date
- Apr 2001
Charleston Fire: 35 Years Later-Nothing Changes
Some things change but in Charleston it's still 1969.There was an old Mack Pumper that was in service in Charleston at old number 9 and later when 9 was on Heriot Street.It carried 30 sections of 2.5 inch supply hose, 10 sections of 1.5 hose placed on either side of the 2.5 and two booster hoses.
Now fast forward to 2007
Now at the new number 9, a Sutphen pumper. It carries 30 sections of 2.5 inch supply hose, 10 sections of 1.5 hose placed on either side of the 2.5 and two booster hoses.
The new pumper was expensive yet carries the same equipment from 35 years ago!
09-03-2007, 03:05 PM #252
Here we go again.Now would you be suggesting one can NO LONGER supply a fire pump with duece and a half? Because if that is what you are suggesting you would be WRONG again.Many fires,even in big boxes,have been extinguished with 2.5 supply line.Am I suggesting it's superior to LDH? Nope.But depending on your hydrants,grids,and equipment it certainly IS possible to obtain respectable flows with MODERN 2.5. Is this the case in Charleston? Have no idea,I'm not familiar with their system.But you could do a respectable job here with it as we did for years before upgrading the grids and the hose.I know that a double lay of duece and a half from a good hydrant or pumped source can easily supply several 1.75's AND a 2.5. So depending on how many lines you put down and the length of the lay,you could get an adequate supply for even a ladder pipe op.One of our neighbors recently finished the change to 4" from 3". And they had few fires that the 3" didn't adequately supply their needs. But what do I know? I KNOW what I knew in my last couple posts.That there will be a report,hopefully we can benefit from the report,and I'm reasonably certain that Charleston will make some changes.Whether or not that satisfies some of you remains to be seen. T.C.
09-03-2007, 06:32 PM #253
- Join Date
- May 2000
- SW MO
Get the hint genius. No one, especially some blogger with a mailing list, knows what the cause of this issue was until after the investigation is complete and the report is out.
The preliminary list of improvements are general improvements for the department, and do not particularly address issues with the fatality fire. Last but not least, have you priced LDH? If so, how can you expect CFD to budget at the drop of a hat to spend that kind of money? Replace 10 sections per truck of 1 1/2" with 1 3/4", that's about $1000/rig. Place 1000' of LDH on a truck, that's at least $4,500 per rig.
09-03-2007, 07:30 PM #254
- Join Date
- Apr 2001
Catch22, that is the link to the photos of the Mack and Sutphen rigs. The info about the uniform change came from the newspaper. Here is the link:
Last edited by devildog4; 09-03-2007 at 08:08 PM.
09-03-2007, 08:31 PM #255
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
Plus the cost of hydrant adapters, 4"/2.5" reducers and intake relief valves for each rig .. that's probably another $3,000 - 3,500 per truck. Making those kind of purchases will take a few years.
This thread has seen a lot of speculation. Some of that speculation has been grounded in facts. Some in obsevations. Some in what we see in pictures. And some in rumor.
The fact is, CFD demonstrated that it has some problems. The fact is, most departments have some operational issues. The question is are we as a fire service going to be open and honest enough to admit that possibly, just possibly, some of the issues in Charleston were local and some are issues permeate down to the firefighting culture of the US as a whole.
The report will give us some of the answers. Others, we will have to look deep within ourselves, within the fire service as a whole, and within the culture of our own fire department, to see if the same thing could happen to you, and your department tommarrow.
09-03-2007, 09:10 PM #256
- Join Date
- Apr 2001
As far as the LDH issue, they could have easily provided enough water had every engine laid dual 2 1/2" supply lines to the fire. It has been mentioned that CFD Engines are not set-up to lay dual lines. I don't know.
I do know that laying a single 2 1/2" supply line is not sufficient for any working fire, in my humble opinion.
09-03-2007, 10:30 PM #257
If you spend as much energy looking for things that are wrong with your department as you do with Charleston, you might not like what you find.I can't believe they actually pay me to do this!!!
One friend noted yesterday that a fire officer only carries a flashlight, sometimes prompting grumbling from firefighters who have to lug tools and hoses.
"The old saying is you never know how heavy that flashlight can become," the friend said.
-from a tragic story posted on firefighterclosecalls.com
09-04-2007, 08:49 AM #258
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- In my house
The question should be How many 1 3/4" lines can I supply wit hone 2 1/2"? Running dual supply lines is a nice option, but it takes time to run a second line. And when the fire is in the incipient stage we don't have a lot of time. Instead of having two guys packed up and running an attack line we have two guys running a second supply line. Cost is one issue. The real issue is resource management.
I would venture a guess that no one has seen this or even heard of it; NFPA 1250: Recommended Practice in Emergency Service Organization Risk Management. It should be a mandatory read for all chiefs and optional for captains. After all, isn't running an organization like this all about risk management and providing a safe work place? Based on Chief Thomas's remarks I believe he was to nonchalant and to ingrained in tradition. However, his tune has changed. He went from he wouldn't change a thing to accepting a bunch of change. It might be a case of too little too late.
It will be interesting to see if some of those things the Union asked for will be found to be contributing factors. For if they are, you certainly have the case for gross negligence.
09-04-2007, 08:56 AM #259
09-04-2007, 09:34 AM #260
just saying .........
The question should be How many 1 3/4" lines can I supply wit hone 2 1/2"? Running dual supply lines is a nice option, but it takes time to run a second line. And when the fire is in the incipient stage we don't have a lot of time. Instead of having two guys packed up and running an attack line we have two guys running a second supply line. Cost is one issue. The real issue is resource management.[QUOTE]
Silly man .........if you split the hose bed you CAN lay dual 2 1/2's. Ever see Emergency ? and it will not do anything to increase time.IACOJ both divisions and PROUD OF IT !
Pardon me sir.. .....but I believe we are all over here !
ATTENTION ALL SHOPPERS: Will the dead horse please report to the forums.(thanks Motown)
RAY WAS HERE 08/28/05
LETHA' FOREVA' ! 010607
I'm sorry, I haven't been paying much attention for the last 3 hours.....what were we discussing?
"but I guarentee you I will FF your arse off" from>
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By RetJaxFF in forum Apparatus InnovationReplies: 16Last Post: 01-29-2007, 08:44 PM
By sconfire in forum Firefighters ForumReplies: 6Last Post: 04-22-2005, 08:47 AM
By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily ReportReplies: 0Last Post: 03-08-2005, 10:07 PM
By D Littrell in forum Apparatus InnovationReplies: 1Last Post: 09-08-2000, 06:36 PM
By webteam in forum Fire WireReplies: 0Last Post: 08-06-1999, 10:13 AM