1. #501
    Forum Member
    jlcooke3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Let me put it to you this way. I want to know that my IC is out there managing the incident and only managing the incident. When I pack up and go inside I trust that he is getting the proper resources in place and will assure that I have water. Nothing like running to the top of the stairs opening the nozzle and hearing the sound of air. Or being at the point where you are making progress and suddenly having the hose go soft. I want my IC doing the job of an IC. There are others out there to do the grunt work. The farther up the command structure you are the farther you are from the grunt work.
    Just a couple of points here. You stated you want your IC managing the incident and only managing the incident, but what about your officer? Don't you want your officer managing his portion of the incident? Officers are supervisors and should be supervising, not do the job of the subordinates. As a fireman I don't want an Officer doing grunt work, I want him monitoring conditions and generally looking out for my safety (as that is his PRIMARY job, not pulling slack). Another point, it's not the IC's job to make sure you get water, that is a pump operator/ECC/Engineer's job. The other's you refer to doing the grunt work should be officers not firefighters, if officer's are going to do the same job I'm doing then we should all be paid the same (some of you are).
    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Heck you didn't see Patten out on the battlefield, Patten observed and directed from a command post.
    It's P-A-T-T-O-N genius not patten. And you are wrong again. Patton routinely went to the front to assess the situation and provide leadership to the troops. Maybe you should have picked a frenchman.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    You state exactly the point as to why we need a culture change. Thank You.

    And I agree, these initial recommendations don't go far enough. But 20% of the recommendations will solve 80% of the problems.
    Are you serious? You don't even know what the problems are let alone what is needed to solve them.

  2. #502
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED View Post
    You completely missed my point. FFFred I fear I did and I may be doing so again! (me not you)! The point is that these initial recommendations certainly don't go far enough if they intend on really creating a safer work environment and saving firemen's lives. I see these initial recommendations as a primer for what may still be to come. As the 'command' aspects were written I fail to see how you can disagree with them. These are 'basic' fundamentals which any fire department should be adhering to. They presumably made these recommendations because CFD did not have a viable command system/SOP to work from. I have not entered the debate concerning the different approaches made to initial ICS across the US. Do you want me to? I think it is not wholly relevant to the CFD rec's as they are written

    My (second) point is all this talking on the radio to hear ourselves is nothing more than superfluous micro management and procedures for the sake of procedure....in short it really isn't needed and it isn't going to do as much for safety as some think. Some of it is and some of it isn't. Communicating instructions and information accurately is an essential part of the ICS and in some cases, it has not been done well, leading to life losses. However, in general, I agree with you.

    (Point 3) No one works their system like we do. Pick any dept at random that is a self-proclaimed practitioner and huge advocate for ICS and compare systems...they are nothing alike and you know it. FDNY run a task-based pre-assigned response to fires whilst other FD's may implement a reactive approach to task allocation, assigning specific tasks and roles en-route or on arrival. How are the command objectives and solutions different? The root of ICS is to provide effective control; coordination; organization; safety; and effective communication channels and to prevent wasted resources, conflicts and unsafe working practices. Your system may go about it in a different way but the objectives and outcomes should be the same.

    My (fourth) point has been and continues to be that much of what some have advocated based on what they heard on the tapes and what the "experts" recommended after 5 days isn't necessary and likely will do little to nothing to prevent these deaths in the future and in reality aren't needed as much as thorough and established procedures that as of yet not one person anywhere has cared to cite.

    I haven't seen many facts...just assumptions and presumptions. I have agreed in part with you on this. However, there are clear facts that demonstrate they were unable to meet flow-rate demands at this fire. The IC was deploying attack hose-lines into the building but had not assured a continuous supply to those lines. This is clear and is a major failing in even the most basic of firefighting strategies!

    FTM-PTB
    Batt18 ....

  3. #503
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    I see these initial recommendations as a primer for what may still be to come. As the 'command' aspects were written I fail to see how you can disagree with them. These are 'basic' fundamentals which any fire department should be adhering to. They presumably made these recommendations because CFD did not have a viable command system/SOP to work from. I have not entered the debate concerning the different approaches made to initial ICS across the US. Do you want me to? I think it is not wholly relevant to the CFD rec's as they are written
    Well I see a jump to conclusions based not only on the comments from here regarding the recomendations...but also in the hastily organized list itself from so called "experts". You find any recognized expert who could argue on the record that 4-7 days (I believe it is closer to 4 (work days) than a full 7 day week) is sufficent to analize all that they had to absorb and build recomendations(initial or otherwise) that don't conflict with any local conditions, financial limitations or infrastructure issues and I'll give you the Key to NYC!

    Furthermore I've yet anyone actually cite or reference offical dept procedures or policies. Did problems occur?...yes it is apparent that a number of issues didn't go as intended at this fire...however until someone posts their prior policy I don't see how anyone could level the judgements that have come from certain people on these threads.

    Some of it is and some of it isn't. Communicating instructions and information accurately is an essential part of the ICS and in some cases, it has not been done well, leading to life losses. However, in general, I agree with you.
    Communicating information accurately has been a staple of basic Firefighing practice and principles since the advent of professional firefighting. Hense back-ups for back-ups. Bells circuts, redunant response and staffing..etc. This was in reference to suggestions by some that since they didn't hear certain transmissions that things were overlooked and not done...etc.

    FDNY run a task-based pre-assigned response to fires whilst other FD's may implement a reactive approach to task allocation, assigning specific tasks and roles en-route or on arrival. How are the command objectives and solutions different?
    The objectives are or should be the same however by injecting the human element and varriety into what should be a well established play book to work off of the solutions and results can be drasticly different. That can be seen in many LODDs where duties and responsiblites were overlooked or not assigned because the one guy writting the book on how to fight a fire that day didn't think of it.

    The root of ICS is to provide effective control; coordination; organization; safety; and effective communication channels and to prevent wasted resources, conflicts and unsafe working practices. Your system may go about it in a different way but the objectives and outcomes should be the same.
    They aren't I assure you...I've worked in both systems and I like your description of task based pre-assigned response to one that is reactive. (how can one work on a reactive system and be "progressive"?)

    One removes variables, as much human error as possible and the randomness of each individuals particular likes and dislikes about assigning companies to tasks at a fire...the other leaves almost everthing to chance. Under a reactive system that I worked in for years...searches would or wouldn't get done...tools were or weren't brought to the locations needed. hoselines were or weren't stretched appropriately...people live and sometimes people died

    One distinctly outlines roles, responsibilties, considerations and duties in such detail that little is left to chance and accountablity and consistancy in response and results are almost ensured while still allowing for slight changed due to the grossly unexpected and unusual.

    We are talking about a modern firefighting concept that has been around for decades now and is well proven..yet so many are still beholden to and would rather regress or at least maintain the system of showing up and then making up a plan of attack based on loosely structured policies and the whim of whatever officer happens to show up first and begin to handout assignments. This idea that every fire is different and must be approached differently is at least 100 years old and one would think these "progressive" departments would have learned this is the most archaic notion in todays fire service.

    Everyone knows what basic building types they will encounter fires in and a professional dept knows what their companies and staffing are and thus should have procedures thought out prior to responding to fires in them. If your town has 1000s of Semi-attached PDs (aka-duplexes) one shouldn't wait until 0300 in the middle of December to decide how a fire anywhere in this structure or how it should be basicly approached and dealt with. Same with high-rises, appartments, strip stores..etc. That is how a professional deals with this senario..everything else is an amature hour waiting to happen.

    My point again is that many have said CFD had no plan. Not one person or reporter has citied verbatim any relevant CFD policy...many have claimed to know what happened because certain things weren't said on the radio...I say much of that isn't neccessary anyhow and doesn't demonstrate a failure at this fire.

    Both systems might have the same well intentioned objectives...but in practice, one outcome is relatively assured by procedure and a firm but flexible system...the other is akin to a "pick-up football game between friends with no playbook and extreeme time limits on what can be communicated and is hampered by whatever plays the Quarterback (your 1st arriving officer or IC) can think of at whatever hour of the day.

    I'm not saying things didn't go wrong...I'm first waiting for a full report and some facts before we can discuss what they should or shouldn't be doing in Charleston. What I am sure of there are some excellent ideas methods out there to prevent deaths on the fireground...I just not sure we are going to see any from this pannel of experts considering what we've seen so far.

    FTM-PTB

  4. #504
    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
    Let me put it to you this way. I want to know that my IC is out there managing the incident and only managing the incident.
    The older I get (and i'm still young, dammit) I see that there is very little black and white in the world. There are very few things that are absolute, especially when we deal with people.

    Yes, the IC should be at the command post with an overall strategic view of the incident. The more complicated the incident, the more critical this is.

    However, when we are talking about a single family dwelling, it becomes less critical to limit the OIC to the strategic and nail him in place. The OIC can be more involved in the tactics.

    Yes, I trust my company officers and my assistant chiefs, but sometimes it is hard to relay over the radio a status report that fully explains the situation. Not to mention that if the incident is small enough, I may not have the levels of management and will need to rely on my own assessment of an ongoing incident.

    That said, you will rarely see me leave the command post, but I won't say never.

    Should I don a pack and rush in to see how the fire attack is going? No, I can't think of an instance I would ever do that.

    Do I take a quick hike to the rear of the building to check on progress? yea, I might do that, it depends...

    Be careful when using absolutes...
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  5. #505
    Forum Member
    dchomen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Eagle Mountain Utah IAFF L-1696
    Posts
    121

    Default Just a Thought

    We do not know the methodology that was used in the 4 day review of the department. Without this we are left to make general pro or con statements. I think the lack of how and what the cursory review entailed makes it hard to place a value on their recomendations. jack
    Godspeed-Stay Safe.jack

    25 Year Career Union Firefighter
    Local 1696
    ME115 - IACOJ

  6. #506
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default

    Knight I have a different impression when I read Charleston.net. I see a department that has good people that have no rights and a management philosophy that is intent on keeping it that way.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  7. #507
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEYLIKESIT View Post
    Knight I have a different impression when I read Charleston.net. I see a department that has good people that have no rights and a management philosophy that is intent on keeping it that way.
    Any chance we'll see suggestions for labor/management committies with equal say for safety or health concerns?
    ...Or civil service standards for merit based hiring and promotions?

    You are bringing up points that the city certainly doesn't want addressed. Which relates to my question of who is paying these "experts"?

    FTM-PTB

  8. #508
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Let me put it to you this way. I want to know that my IC is out there managing the incident and only managing the incident. When I pack up and go inside I trust that he is getting the proper resources in place and will assure that I have water. Nothing like running to the top of the stairs opening the nozzle and hearing the sound of air. Or being at the point where you are making progress and suddenly having the hose go soft. I want my IC doing the job of an IC. There are others out there to do the grunt work.
    Just to echo many others - what the hell are you talking about??? You say the chief shouldn't micro manage or do grunt work, and then you go on to say you want him micromanaging the engineer? Engines get their own water here. If the engineer is having trouble, that is for him and his hydrant man to solve, not the chief. It's almost as if you have never really worked in a fire department before, or maybe one that has absolutely no structure, experience, or plan for going to work. You say some things that are really wrong at the most basic level of firefighting. You want to preach about high level management and strategies, but seem to have zero knowledge about many of the most basic tactics, proceedures, and fireground operations.
    Last edited by ChicagoFF; 09-12-2007 at 12:13 PM.
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  9. #509
    Banned

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoFF View Post
    Just to echo many others - what the hell are you talking about??? You say the chief shouldn't micro manage or do grunt work, and then you go on to say you want him micromanaging the engineer? Engines get their own water here. If the engineer is having trouble, that is for him and his hydrant man to solve, not the chief. It's almost as if you have never really worked in a fire department before, or maybe one that has absolutely no structure, experience, or plan for going to work. You say some things that are really wrong at the most basic level of firefighting. You want to preach about high level management and strategies, but seem to have zero knowledge about many of the most basic tactics, proceedures, and fireground operations.
    Suppose my fire need 5000 GPM. My engineer will give me what he can, say 1500 GPM. Who coordinates the rest of the water supply. OR Are you telling me that you extinguish all of your fires using 1 engine and 1 hydrant? Sounds like you have never been to a big fire........

  10. #510
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Suppose my fire need 5000 GPM. My engineer will give me what he can, say 1500 GPM. Who coordinates the rest of the water supply. OR Are you telling me that you extinguish all of your fires using 1 engine and 1 hydrant? Sounds like you have never been to a big fire........
    You are so silly and amateurish and childlike in your arguments that it is really hard to even communicate with you...
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  11. #511
    Banned

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED View Post
    ...Furthermore I've yet anyone actually cite or reference offical dept procedures or policies. Did problems occur?...yes it is apparent that a number of issues didn't go as intended at this fire...however until someone posts their prior policy I don't see how anyone could level the judgements that have come from certain people on these threads.
    ...

    FTM-PTB
    I would like to comment on this one paragraph. Below I have copied some of the recommendations.

    Establish Deputy Chief/Assistant to the Chief position -- Fill with qualified officer on 6 month temporary assignment

    Establish Fire Department Safety Officer position -- Fill with qualified officer on 6 month temporary assignment
    It looks like they are addresing the need to assist the chief. They have also found a big whole in deparptment procedure.

    COMMAMD

    Apply incident command procedures on all incidents (ICS -- NIMS procedures)

    First arriving officer assumes command, performs size-up and provides direction for all others

    First arriving chief establishes exterior Command Post and remains at Command Post

    Subsequent arriving higher ranking officer may assume command after command transfer process

    Safety Officer assigned for working fires and hazardous incidents

    Rapidly implement personnel accountability system with passports and PAR
    The obviously saw these deficiencies, they wouldn't make them up. Obviously, they were lacking policies and procedures.

    SAFETY

    Reinforce appropriate use of personal protective clothing and SCBA

    Reinforce the use of seat belts and standard emergency response vehicular operations

    OSHA 2-in/2-out to be followed at all times

    Reinforce management procedure for off-duty firefighter response to emergencies
    There were obviously problems with safety. NO Safety Officer, people not wearing proper PPE. Again, they must have seen evidence of these things

    TRAINING

    Initiate and complete Incident Command and tactical operations training for all officers

    Provide training for all Fire Department members in firefighter safety and survival, risk management, air management, standardized actions for lost/disoriented firefighters, rapid intervention operations, objective-based tactical operations, and other critical firefighter safety procedures
    Provide incident safety officer training for all command officers and health and safety officer training to selected personnel

    Assure that all new firefighters are trained and certified in accordance with South Carolina State standards/NFPA Firefighter II before assignment to emergency duty
    Obviously, they found that not all of the FF and officers had the appropriate training. You can find that out by reviewing the training records, and you don't need to review each and every one.

    Obviously, the panel did "actually cite or reference offical dept procedures or policies" or the lack thereof. You seem to think that this department had all of the policies and procedures in place. Looking at the list of recommendations it looks like there weren't any.

    As for the LDH issue, that is just a no-brainer. Why a modern day professional city department wasn't already there boggles my mind. And when the full reports come out there will be a whole bunch more recommendations. This guys made these basic recommendations just to give the department a head start. The final report will be overwhelming.

  12. #512
    Banned

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

    Default

    Question for FFFred. Have you ever done a building inspection? How long did it take? Do you really think it was complete and thorough? Were you able to find problems in a short period of time and report on them?

  13. #513
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Suppose my fire need 5000 GPM. My engineer will give me what he can, say 1500 GPM. Who coordinates the rest of the water supply. OR Are you telling me that you extinguish all of your fires using 1 engine and 1 hydrant? Sounds like you have never been to a big fire........
    If a company is ordered to stretch a line and they approach lets say Engine Co. 71(who has two lines off already) and ask the MPO...We are going to stretch another line can you do it?...and if the MPO says no; we find another Engine on another hyrant that has the ability to supply our line. It isn't rocket science although you apparently can't figure out a simple operation like this either.

    FTM-PTB

  14. #514
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Question for FFFred. Have you ever done a building inspection? How long did it take? Do you really think it was complete and thorough? Were you able to find problems in a short period of time and report on them?
    There is no relevance in your comparision and I am not a building inspector so I've never done a comprehensive building examination for lets say and occupancy permit which is perhaps the closest parallel one could make on this subject.

    Codes are also more or less cut and dried...recomendations for overhaul of an entire Fire departments operations isn't so black and white.

    But keep bringing up nonsensical, nonrelevant issues and avoiding any actual thought provoking dialouge.

    FTM-PTB

  15. #515
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    I would like to comment on this one paragraph. Below I have copied some of the recommendations.

    It looks like they are addresing the need to assist the chief. They have also found a big whole in deparptment procedure.

    The obviously saw these deficiencies, they wouldn't make them up. Obviously, they were lacking policies and procedures.

    There were obviously problems with safety. NO Safety Officer, people not wearing proper PPE. Again, they must have seen evidence of these things

    Obviously, they found that not all of the FF and officers had the appropriate training. You can find that out by reviewing the training records, and you don't need to review each and every one.

    Obviously, the panel did "actually cite or reference offical dept procedures or policies" or the lack thereof. You seem to think that this department had all of the policies and procedures in place. Looking at the list of recommendations it looks like there weren't any.
    I didn't say I think they have these things in place...I said no one has bothered to show what they did have in place and what their procedures said. There is nothing Obvious about anything...only assumptions made by you and a few other ignorant fools.

    As for the LDH issue, that is just a no-brainer. Why a modern day professional city department wasn't already there boggles my mind. And when the full reports come out there will be a whole bunch more recommendations. This guys made these basic recommendations just to give the department a head start. The final report will be overwhelming.
    The largest FD in this country doesn't use it (except on our 6 Satellite units which only get used at the largest of fires which you certainly have no expereince with)

    And as I've said no one has cited their current Engine procedures and if their MPO training is sufficent. Large hose does nothing for them but ensure that is will be pumped incorectly if the problem really rests in training and application in the field.

    You are a fool if one thinks that it takes less than a week to properly analize a dept such as this and offer recomendations that one can say will positively not have any adverse affect on other aspects of their operations or budget.

    Funny how a guy who clearly doesn't even possess a grasp of basic firefighting knows so much without knowing any factual information other than some high-lights from this pannel of "experts".

    FTM-PTB
    Last edited by FFFRED; 09-12-2007 at 01:44 PM.

  16. #516
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Suppose my fire need 5000 GPM. My engineer will give me what he can, say 1500 GPM. Who coordinates the rest of the water supply. OR Are you telling me that you extinguish all of your fires using 1 engine and 1 hydrant? Sounds like you have never been to a big fire........
    Anything more than 2 candles on a birthday cake is a conflagration to Trots. who, once again, has proven that he is a little league player trying to hit one out of the infield at Fenway Park.

    PS" ChicagoFF probably sees more fire in a week than you do in 5 years...
    ‎"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

  17. #517
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    Trotter, just an honest question....have you ever been the IC at a structure fire?


    As for the recommendations,

    YOU assume the experts checked thoroughly and found there were no SOP's/SOG's and made their recommendations based on that.

    WE assume the experts did not review SOP's/SOG's and made recommendations based on what their own departments (After all, 2 of the 6 experts are from the same department) do.


    All we want are some facts.
    "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?

  18. #518
    Banned

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED View Post
    If a company is ordered to stretch a line and they approach lets say Engine Co. 71(who has two lines off already) and ask the MPO...We are going to stretch another line can you do it?...and if the MPO says no; we find another Engine on another hyrant that has the ability to supply our line. It isn't rocket science although you apparently can't figure out a simple operation like this either.

    FTM-PTB
    Shouldn't somebody be in charge to make sure it is done? If no one is in charge then you have chaos.

  19. #519
    Banned

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED View Post
    There is no relevance in your comparision and I am not a building inspector so I've never done a comprehensive building examination for lets say and occupancy permit which is perhaps the closest parallel one could make on this subject.

    Codes are also more or less cut and dried...recomendations for overhaul of an entire Fire departments operations isn't so black and white.

    But keep bringing up nonsensical, nonrelevant issues and avoiding any actual thought provoking dialouge.

    FTM-PTB
    Sorry, I know in many areas the Fire Department does inspections and provides or code enforcement. I thought the same was true in NYC since there was an issue about the lack of inspections in the Deutsch Bank Building. Again, you can address 80% of a problem with 20% of the effort. This is what the panel of experts hired by the city of Charleston did.

  20. #520
    Banned

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Trotter, just an honest question....have you ever been the IC at a structure fire?


    As for the recommendations,

    YOU assume the experts checked thoroughly and found there were no SOP's/SOG's and made their recommendations based on that.

    WE assume the experts did not review SOP's/SOG's and made recommendations based on what their own departments (After all, 2 of the 6 experts are from the same department) do.


    All we want are some facts.
    I don't assume they checked thoroughly, what I have said is you can walk in and address 80% of the problem with 20% of the effort, that is what is known as Pareto principle in professional circles. And if you look around you will find that to be true of most things. Look at most fires. Guys come in with the attack line and knock the fire down or contain in 30 minutes, you spend the next 4 to 5 hours putting out the hot spots and cleaning up.

    I would tend to agree with the panel of six, they were actually there and looked at how CFD did things. They then made recommendations on fixes.

    CFD had no safety officer. How many departments can make this claim? How crazy is that?

  21. #521
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    CFD had no safety officer. How many departments can make this claim? How crazy is that?
    Honestly, I don't think that's crazy at all. I have never, in 25 years, had a Safety Officer take any action at any of our fire scenes. Much rather they put on a SCBA and get to work.

    Maybe because we've all been trained to look at what's going on and not need someone standing around watching out for us. It's not a position I consider important and needed. I guess you could call all of our officers "safety officers" as they all watch out for their crew.
    "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?

  22. #522
    Banned

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Honestly, I don't think that's crazy at all. I have never, in 25 years, had a Safety Officer take any action at any of our fire scenes. Much rather they put on a SCBA and get to work.

    Maybe because we've all been trained to look at what's going on and not need someone standing around watching out for us. It's not a position I consider important and needed. I guess you could call all of our officers "safety officers" as they all watch out for their crew.
    So who takes care of the on scene accountability?

  23. #523
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Sorry, I know in many areas the Fire Department does inspections and provides or code enforcement. I thought the same was true in NYC since there was an issue about the lack of inspections in the Deutsch Bank Building. Again, you can address 80% of a problem with 20% of the effort. This is what the panel of experts hired by the city of Charleston did.
    The comparision isn't even close to relevant. Our AFID of one building isn't comparable to a comprehensive review of an entire city fire department the size of Charleston.

    The true codes enforcement and inspections you speak of are done by buildings dept personel in most cities, even in NYC. And the fire on 130 Liberty has no bearing on this conversation whatsoever.

    You keep bringing up this 80/20 thing that you read in a pamplet somewhere as if it is relevant or supports any of your wandering and confounding points.

    FTM-PTB

  24. #524
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    So who takes care of the on scene accountability?
    What do you mean by this? You need a safety officer to maintain accounability?

    I am a fireman in a company. I am accountable to the men in my company and my officer.

    My officer in turn is accountable to a Battalion Chief.

    The Battalion Chief is Accountable to a Deputy Chief...

    and so and and so forth.

    So where does this safety Chief need to be to ensure accountability?

    FTM-PTB

  25. #525
    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
    Honestly, I don't think that's crazy at all. I have never, in 25 years, had a Safety Officer take any action at any of our fire scenes. Much rather they put on a SCBA and get to work.

    Maybe because we've all been trained to look at what's going on and not need someone standing around watching out for us. It's not a position I consider important and needed. I guess you could call all of our officers "safety officers" as they all watch out for their crew.
    If you live in New Jersey (I know you do, Bones), better make sure you understand this rule proposal. Especially, once it is enacted.

    http://www.nj.gov/dca/dfs/firefightersafety.pdf

    5:75-2.5 Safety Officer
    (a) An incident commander shall appoint a safety officer at every significant emergency event.
    1. "Significant emergency event" means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the incident commander, mutual aid assistance is needed to supplement local efforts and capabilities.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

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, 08:44 PM
  2. F-16 crashes in Charleston, SC **pics**
    By sconfire in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-22-2005, 08:47 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, 10:07 PM
  4. RFP's
    By D Littrell in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-08-2000, 06:36 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-06-1999, 10:13 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