Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 21 of 53 FirstFirst ... 111819202122232431 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 1056
  1. #401
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,645

    Default

    Batt18, I don't really care who asked you to come back to the forums. There was no demand from the forum members for you to rush back, so that may be a little telling.

    I do enjoy most of your comments and yes, they are sometimes opposite. I may not always agree with them, and that's fine as well.

    It's the "we're more intelligent" attitude of some members that make me laugh. There's complete idiots on here talking about systems not being used when they don't know what systems were being used, other than what they have read in news articles and other forums. And it's funny, how when you question these people for facts to back it up, they claim pathetic national standards (that don't apply) and no knowledge of the affected departments SOP's/SOG's.

    You weren't in Charleston for this fire. You are listening to radio tapes. What are the CFD's SOP's/SOG's? Do they have the "Holy ICS" system in place? Do they have their own system in place? Do you have a clue as to what their system is and WHY their system is the way it is?

    People here have blasted them for not doing things. How is it known they did not do them? "It wasn't heard on the tape." And yet, myself, FFFred, Chicago and others have all stated you will not hear such things on our tapes either since there is no need for that IN OUR SYSTEMS. Is that the case in CFD? Does anyone have a friggin clue?

    Before YOU or anyone else says CFD is not doing things, maybe you should spend some time (more than a pathetic 4 days) and learn their policies/procedures and why they use those policies/procedures before you tell them their system is bad.

    I don't know Englands policies/procedures (other than what I have read from you) so I would never begin to tell you they are wrong. That is simple common sense. Something that is lost in many of these posts on this thread.


    How honestly can you debate recommendations without knowing the "ground level" the recommendations were based on?

    Honestly, if I took these "recommendations" and applied them to my department, they'd be thrown out as not being valid at all.



    and that's what people are waiting for. Facts behind these "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?


  2. #402
    EuroFirefighter Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Batt18, I don't really care who asked you to come back to the forums. There was no demand from the forum members for you to rush back, so that may be a little telling. People were asking me why ... I answered them!

    I do enjoy most of your comments and yes, they are sometimes opposite. I may not always agree with them, and that's fine as well.

    It's the "we're more intelligent" attitude of some members that make me laugh. There's complete idiots on here talking about systems not being used when they don't know what systems were being used, other than what they have read in news articles and other forums. And it's funny, how when you question these people for facts to back it up, they claim pathetic national standards (that don't apply) and no knowledge of the affected departments SOP's/SOG's.

    You weren't in Charleston for this fire. You are listening to radio tapes. What are the CFD's SOP's/SOG's? Do they have the "Holy ICS" system in place? Do they have their own system in place? Do you have a clue as to what their system is and WHY their system is the way it is? Yes but I am not going to discuss it on a public forum. Just as with Chicago recently, he called me on myin-depth knowledge of a fire in his city ... we PM'd and he realized I was not BS .. I cannot possibly discuss such matters here so don't push me on that

    People here have blasted them for not doing things. How is it known they did not do them? "It wasn't heard on the tape." And yet, myself, FFFred, Chicago and others have all stated you will not hear such things on our tapes either since there is no need for that IN OUR SYSTEMS. Is that the case in CFD? Does anyone have a friggin clue?

    Any comments I have made are based on facts. You don't need to see an official report to know they had water supply problems! Our discussions of this have caused some members to seriously look at their own SOPs and if that means they will approach a similar situation with all bases covered, that is great!

    Before YOU or anyone else says CFD is not doing things, maybe you should spend some time (more than a pathetic 4 days) and learn their policies/procedures and why they use those policies/procedures before you tell them their system is bad. What the hell are you talking about?

    I don't know Englands policies/procedures (other than what I have read from you) so I would never begin to tell you they are wrong. That is simple common sense. Something that is lost in many of these posts on this thread.

    I agree!

    How honestly can you debate recommendations without knowing the "ground level" the recommendations were based on? There are pages and pages here debating those recommendations. The rec's were reportedly nothing to do with the sofa store fire!

    Honestly, if I took these "recommendations" and applied them to my department, they'd be thrown out as not being valid at all. Thats your opinion

    and that's what people are waiting for. Facts behind these "recommendations".
    Many facts are already out there in the public domain!

  3. #403
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,645

    Default

    Yes, they had water problems. Recommendation was to use LDH. Ok, based on what? There's much discussion here on LDH use and smaller hose use. What is CFD's situation that makes LDH a better choice? Do they only and always forward lay? Do they reverse lay? Has that been considered? Is going to all LDH feasible? Have they tried the other hose lay methods? Has that even been considered? Or is there simply a quick judgement to say bigger hose is better?

    I know LDH works better in my department. I know (from others, not personally) that smaller supply hose works better in FDNY.

    And with questions like above unanswered, how seriously can those recommendations be taken?
    "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?

  4. #404
    EuroFirefighter Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Yes, they had water problems. Recommendation was to use LDH. Ok, based on what? There's much discussion here on LDH use and smaller hose use. What is CFD's situation that makes LDH a better choice? Do they only and always forward lay? Do they reverse lay? Has that been considered? Is going to all LDH feasible? Have they tried the other hose lay methods? Has that even been considered? Or is there simply a quick judgement to say bigger hose is better?

    I know LDH works better in my department. I know (from others, not personally) that smaller supply hose works better in FDNY.

    And with questions like above unanswered, how seriously can those recommendations be taken?
    Bones ...stop directing your criticisms at me ... I suggest you take that question up with the members on this thread who originally raised these issues! Stop trying to use me as a scapegoat.

  5. #405
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Yes, they had water problems. Recommendation was to use LDH. Ok, based on what? There's much discussion here on LDH use and smaller hose use. What is CFD's situation that makes LDH a better choice? Do they only and always forward lay? Do they reverse lay? Has that been considered? Is going to all LDH feasible? Have they tried the other hose lay methods? Has that even been considered? Or is there simply a quick judgement to say bigger hose is better?

    I know LDH works better in my department. I know (from others, not personally) that smaller supply hose works better in FDNY.

    And with questions like above unanswered, how seriously can those recommendations be taken?
    How do you know that the panel of experts didn't ask those questions. I have to believe there was some basis for their recommendations, they didn't just make things up.
    The panel is looking at the department's operations and guidelines that were in place prior to the deadly blaze.
    It appears that based on the departments SOGs/SOPs this panel came up with these preliminary recommendations. We have a panel of experts who have done exactly what some here are saying they need to do.

  6. #406
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Hey Batt18, isn't interesting how some people just don't deal well with people who have more intelligence and knowledge? Getting them to see the light is the real challenge.

    I certainly hope you are not putting yourself into that category!
    ‎"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

  7. #407
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    434

    Default

    Catch22: You are so blind that you cannot see the forest thru the tress. You want to post something and then say "they had an ICS system in place". Well let me break the news to you, I already posted that story in it's entirety here.

    Yes. CFD does have a "command system". When the Chief arrives on scene he assumes command! He stated that in an interview. I posted it. That is not the same thing as having a functional ICS system, Chiefs trained in ICS, using an ICS system, or having an ICS system in the SOP's/SOG's.



    If the CFD ICS system was so good, why are they sending the Chiefs to command school? MAYBE BECAUSE THEY DO IT "THE OLD FASHIONED WAY" WHERE YES, THERE IS A COMMAND SYSTEM, THE CHIEF IS IN COMMAND! THEY DON'T USE MODERN DAY ICS, TERMS OR FUNCTIONAL POSITIONS. THAT'S WHY!

    Chief said "We have an ICS system in place. When the Chief arrives on scene he is in command., That is the way we have always done it here and that is the way we are going to continue to do it". (Paraphrased)


    Additionally, you conveniently "forgot" to highlight the part that is so troubling. The CFD Chief was spinning, doing things that should have been delegated to an operations officer or dispatch. Too bad you couldn't see that. The important part, the one to look at, is highlighted in red.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    you said:

    I took it upon myself to do a little bit of what's called "research." One article, and I came up with all this information. Imagine what would happen if you guys speculating did a bit more...


    Quote:
    As the highest ranking officer on scene, (Assistant Chief)Garvin assumes command

    Quote:
    Thomas barks commands into the radio ??? redeploying trucks, monitoring water supplies, coordinating incoming aid and checking the status of other station houses around the city. Under the city's command system, many of these tasks should be farmed out to other commanders on the scene so the chief can focus on the big picture. But Thomas is all over the radio, juggling fire commands and myriad other tasks at once. Dispatch should have been redeploying trucks from cover assignments to the fire. Dispatch should have been moving engines from one station to another. I listened to the tapes and never heard him "monitoring water supplies" or "coordinating incoming aid". We will have to wait and see on that.

    What's this tell me? There WAS a command system and there is one in their SOGs. Albeit it may not be the glorious system adopted by the "Great State of California," but there was one.

    Red flags that are more pertinant to discussion:

    Quote:
    Garvin's plan contains little more than a sketch of the building and some contact numbers. It makes no mention of the sofa store's maze-like placement of furniture or the enormous amount of water that would be needed if this forest of combustible couches caught fire.

    The plan also doesn't indicate that a potentially dangerous steel truss system supports the roof over the massive showroom.

    The design creates concealed spaces where fire can grow undetected over the heads of firefighters. Intense heat can cause a steel truss to collapse within 20 minutes. In firefighting circles, they call them 'widow-makers.'

    Quote:
    The department has a thermal imaging camera available that can 'see' heat through walls and ceilings and pinpoint fire inside. But it sits unused in the cab of a fire truck outside.

    Quote:
    Radios hum with firefighters' demands for more water pressure. They can't get enough water on the fire to get it under control. The department uses supply hoses that are smaller than those used by most departments. To make matters worse, cars keep driving over the hoses.

    Quote:
    Inside the store, the fire grows in intensity as it looks for oxygen. Heat builds in the steel truss over the firefighters' heads.

    Quote:
    Splintered transmissions sputter over the radio. Shouts, moans, unintelligible words.

    The sound of muffled, heavy breathing breaks in. Air hisses as a voice shouts from behind a face mask: 'Lost connection with the hose!'

    Firefighters know that's bad news. They train to follow their hoses to safety if they become disoriented in a fire. The hoses snake back toward the trucks ??? the way home.

    Why is it you guys that are so knowledgable about this incident haven't brought up anything about this stuff? There is way more information and things that happened that I'm sure no one outside of the investigating team has a clue about. All the more reason why many of us are waiting for the final report.

    I have brought it up before, posted the Chief's comments. Posted that very article. Posted the link to the story.

  8. #408
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainGonzo View Post
    I certainly hope you are not putting yourself into that category!
    Sometimes, yes, not always though. I actually take the time to go out and read regulations, standards, and research rather than shooting from the hip.

  9. #409
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainGonzo View Post
    I certainly hope you are not putting yourself into that category!
    Oh boy,getting SOME people to see the light is CERTAINLY a challenge.Getting the non hose/pump oriented ones to see it is an even bigger one.And the BIGGEST challenge is to get SOME people to figure out that a zillion new unfunded mandates will do little or nothing to fix the problem.Read all the regulations and standards you want.They, in themselves, won't solve your problems.A better use of your spare time would be to study FF history.The answers are there,the research has ALREADY BEEN DONE.Learn from the past and apply these lessons to your operations.Teach your personnel good habits and reward them richly when they do their jobs efficiently and safely.Spank 'em when they don't. How's that national "standard" working for you now? T.C.

  10. #410
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    Oh boy,getting SOME people to see the light is CERTAINLY a challenge.Getting the non hose/pump oriented ones to see it is an even bigger one.And the BIGGEST challenge is to get SOME people to figure out that a zillion new unfunded mandates will do little or nothing to fix the problem.Read all the regulations and standards you want.They, in themselves, won't solve your problems.A better use of your spare time would be to study FF history.The answers are there,the research has ALREADY BEEN DONE.Learn from the past and apply these lessons to your operations.Teach your personnel good habits and reward them richly when they do their jobs efficiently and safely.Spank 'em when they don't. How's that national "standard" working for you now? T.C.
    History only tells you how they used to fight fires with the equipment and types of fires they had at those times. History is OK, but to do it right you need to look at the current tools, the current building construction, and the current materials found in homes. You can't fight fires like you used too. Todays fires burn hotter, faster, and are more toxic.

  11. #411
    Forum Member FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    History only tells you how they used to fight fires with the equipment and types of fires they had at those times. History is OK, but to do it right you need to look at the current tools, the current building construction, and the current materials found in homes. You can't fight fires like you used too. Todays fires burn hotter, faster, and are more toxic.
    First off genius, yesterday, last week and last year is history.

    You keep stating that fires burn hotter, faster and more toxic is getting a little old. You must really think your talking to a lot of uniformed people who have never fought a fire. The phrase "no ***** sherlock comes to mind".

  12. #412
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devildog4 View Post
    Catch22: You are so blind that you cannot see the forest thru the tress. You want to post something and then say "they had an ICS system in place". Well let me break the news to you, I already posted that story in it's entirety here.
    Please don't flatter yourself to think that you are the only one that post was directed to. My problem is I can see many, many issues that arose at this fire. There are many, many issues that a fancy, modern ICS (actually, I believe IMS is the "modern" terminology) cannot fix.

    I don't care what you do, ICS is NOT going to fix a water problem. It takes a competent person to see that there is a problem and to find a solution.

    It is NOT going to fix poor pre-planning.

    It is NOT going to fix training, recognition of fire conditions, and recognizing building construction.

    It is NOT going to fix thermal imagers sitting in the cab of the truck.

    It is NOT going to fix strategies and tactics.

    It is NOT going to fix errors in judgment or mistakes in the decision-making process.

    I don't care what ICS system you have, the system is not going to prevent firefighters from dying in the future. Niether is LDH. ICS is simply a system that allows coordination and control. If the person on the street fails to recognize a hazard, or fails to do their job (this is a general statement, not an assumption of the Charleston incident), the ICS isn't going to fix it.

    Now, can you understand my point? Once again, until there is a final report of ALL of the findings of the investigation, there is not a one of us that knows what happened that day to cause nine brave men to lose their lives.

  13. #413
    Forum Member FDAIC485's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southeast aka Dixie
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Basically, this thread is why Firehouse forums is a fine example of why the FH Forums is losing its credibility. Case in point, you have individuals who show absolutely no respect to a world renowned expert in the fire service such as Paul Grimwood. He, above all, can have an attitude. Mr. Grimwood is a published author. Various instructors in the US refer to him as a fire behaviorist. Love him or hate him, Paul Grimwood could probably have the “down and dirty” of any incident in the US in about 3 phone calls. One or two of them would be to get him in the right direction. The last one would be to a reliable source. What the heck would you say if Harry Carter posted in here? “Booster Lines, Bullies and Buffoons” was a classic and hit the target in the bull’s eye. If you haven’t read it yet, just put it in the search bar on the main page. It’s a good read that will give you some insight into the whole situation. I’m sorry, just because you have a few thousand post doesn’t put you into some holy-than-though category. To me, it says that you must have a lot of time on your hands.

    Alot of people from several hundred miles away talk like they know what happened in Charleston and bashing people such as Mr. Grimwood for commenting. I would advise you to STFU for you are going to eat a lot of crow. You know why? Because, you don’t know. You have no idea of the fire department culture in Charleston or South Carolina in general. I will say this, it is getting better. However, we have a long way to go. Some people might look as this as a lame example but it may open your eyes to the attitude towards the fire service. South Carolina doesn’t even have a state law about ticketing drivers that park in fire lanes. It is a situation that is addressed after-the-fact. Do you know who gets in trouble if someone was parked in a fire lane during a fire? The answer would be the building owner. Because, he did not tell the person that he/she could not park there. Pretty pathetic, huh? I’m not even going to get into the two-in/ one-out state law. I just have to say that I’m very luck to work in a Department that allows me to operate to the fullest capacity and follows NFPA standards and Federal guidelines.

    Agree with me. Hate me. I could give a crap. The one thing that I can say with certainty is that “Fire burns the same throughout the world. However, fire departments do not deploy in the same fashion.” Think about it.

    Special shout out: KnightnPBIArmor, How ‘bout those Gamecocks? I guess the Bulldogs should have coughed up some money and stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.
    I believe them bones are me. Some say we are born into the grave. I feel so alone, gonna end up a big ol' pile a them bones

    -J. Cantrell

  14. #414
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,154

    Default

    What the heck would you say if Harry Carter posted in here?

    No need to speculate. Just need a longer memory

    To those kind people who devote a great deal of time to sharing their opinions on the forums, thank you. It is indeed an honor to be so thoroughly bashed, roasted, and reviled by the readers of the Firehouse Forums. It is nice to know that people are comfortable enough with me to tell me what they think in an anonymous venue. Well, I am Harry Carter, and here is my reply.

    http://forums.firehouse.com/showthre...t=35352&page=3

    That's one of several kerfapples over his credentials.

  15. #415
    EuroFirefighter Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post

    I don't care what ICS system you have, the system is not going to prevent firefighters from dying in the future. Niether is LDH. ICS is simply a system that allows coordination and control. If the person on the street fails to recognize a hazard, or fails to do their job (this is a general statement, not an assumption of the Charleston incident), the ICS isn't going to fix it.

    Now, can you understand my point
    Catch I agree with many of the points you listed but the above statement clearly undermines the purpose and objectives of ICS. An effective IC system will most certainly serve to prevent firefighters from dying in future.

    ICS will avoid:
    •Freelancing
    •Confusion and chaos
    •Wasted resources
    •Uncoordinated incident attack
    •Unsafe work practices
    •Conflicting orders

    ICS will promote:
    •Accountability
    •Personnel safety
    •Coordinated approach to the incident
    •Efficient use of resources
    •Confidence from crews
    •Public image

  16. #416
    Forum Member dchomen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Eagle Mountain Utah IAFF L-1696
    Posts
    121

    Default Disappointment

    We are missing the point, nine of our brothers perished in this tradegy. Yet we wallow in petty arguements that dishonor their memory, because rather then enter into honest open discourse, we resort to comments that slight and scar our very brothers!
    This forum has the ability to inform, educate and cause an awakening within our intellect if we allow a sense of decorum and tolerence. Instead many fall prey to act as though they were back in grade school acting the fool by teasing and bullying. How does this behavior honor the memory and sacrifice of the Charleston Nine?
    We have the collective power to change this forum for the better by putting aside our petty differences by opening our minds to a different idea. It is up to us to make a difference in our careers and in our lives outside of the fire service. I believe we all have the same goal to return home whole every shift.
    The question becomes do we have the will to exercise self restraint when we feel challenged on an issue. Only you can make that determination as members of this forum.
    Godspeed and Stay Safe.
    Jack
    25 year Career Union Firefighter
    Local 1696
    Unified Fire Authority
    ME115 Copperton Utah
    Member of the IACOJ

  17. #417
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dchomen View Post
    We are missing the point, nine of our brothers perished in this tradegy. Yet we wallow in petty arguements that dishonor their memory, because rather then enter into honest open discourse, we resort to comments that slight and scar our very brothers!
    This forum has the ability to inform, educate and cause an awakening within our intellect if we allow a sense of decorum and tolerence. Instead many fall prey to act as though they were back in grade school acting the fool by teasing and bullying. How does this behavior honor the memory and sacrifice of the Charleston Nine?
    We have the collective power to change this forum for the better by putting aside our petty differences by opening our minds to a different idea. It is up to us to make a difference in our careers and in our lives outside of the fire service. I believe we all have the same goal to return home whole every shift.
    The question becomes do we have the will to exercise self restraint when we feel challenged on an issue. Only you can make that determination as members of this forum.
    Godspeed and Stay Safe.
    Jack
    25 year Career Union Firefighter
    Local 1696
    Unified Fire Authority
    ME115 Copperton Utah
    Member of the IACOJ
    I don't believe anyone has dishonored the memory of those nine fire fighters. They worked with the system they were given. Many have stated that CFD was a bit behind the times in their methods. The preliminary recommendations support that analysis. There should have been changes long before the tragedy, those changes needed to come from the administration and leaders of the department. ICS, water supply problems, Lack of a safety officer, poor communication procedures are all things that should have been addressed prior to hitting the fire ground. Those poor men were let down by their leadership, specifically Chief Rusty Thomas. Perhaps the final report will say otherwise, but I highly doubt it. Sad part is, I can go look at past NIOSH reports, I will see very similar incidents, with similar actions, and similar recommendations. Do you think it is a coincidence that the NIOSH recommendations are almost always the same? Nope, it is because some don't read this stuff and stay current.

    Of interest and on a side note, because of this I have done a little research into these steel trusses. I knew that the engineered wood products which includes trusses, would fail quickly in a fire. Part of that is because of the materials and glues used as well as the failure points where they are tied together. I thought steel trusses wouldn't have these problems. WRONG!!!! they will fail almost as quickly as their wood counter parts. One report says they begin to fail at 800 F . The trusses are often up behind a dropped ceiling which will trap the heat, getting enough heat to make steel trusses fail can happen in 5 minutes or less. Being this was a sofa store with highly combustible products the heat needed was probably there in less than 5 minutes. I just hope that there will be others who become educated about the dangers of steel trusses. I'm sure there are many who thought just like I did, steel trusses will last longer than their wood counter parts. Such is not the case.

  18. #418
    Forum Member KnightnPBIArmor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Beautiful downtown Hortense, GA
    Posts
    745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDAIC485 View Post
    Special shout out: KnightnPBIArmor, How ‘bout those Gamecocks? I guess the Bulldogs should have coughed up some money and stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.
    Yeah, first time since 2001, so don't get too excited there Skippy Plus even though Georgia lost at least I have the comfort of knowing I don't have to go around rooting for a team by saying "I love the Cocks" or "I'm a **** Fan",

  19. #419
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    Catch I agree with many of the points you listed but the above statement clearly undermines the purpose and objectives of ICS. An effective IC system will most certainly serve to prevent firefighters from dying in future.

    ICS will avoid:
    •Freelancing
    •Confusion and chaos
    •Wasted resources
    •Uncoordinated incident attack
    •Unsafe work practices
    •Conflicting orders

    ICS will promote:
    •Accountability
    •Personnel safety
    •Coordinated approach to the incident
    •Efficient use of resources
    •Confidence from crews
    •Public image
    Here is where you and I disagree for the most part (I believe at least). ICS is a system. The system is dependant on the people in it. Everything you listed under "ICS will avoid" is all based upon who is involved in the ICS and where.

    As far as what "ICS will promote," I can agree with your top four. The last two also depend on the people involved.

    I've personally seen and been involved with IC in disasters and what happens when the "human element" is presented. Well trained and disciplined responders can overcome a complete lack of ICS to achieve completion of the initial goals. At the same time, incompetent people can take an ICS and screw it up royally.

    If you would rephrase "An effective IC system will most certainly serve to prevent firefighters from dying in future" to "An effective IC system will most certianly help..." I could agree with you. However, to blanketly say ICS will prevent firefigher deaths is obsurd to me. There are too many human factors that are involved.

    There are two NIOSH LODD reports of men I knew. Niether died because of a failure in the ICS.

  20. #420
    Forum Member dchomen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Eagle Mountain Utah IAFF L-1696
    Posts
    121

    Default Bad Attitudes

    What I am talking about is the way in which some "firefighters" have conducted themselves on this forum. In place of sound reasoning they substitute name calling, debasing statements that actually diminish their point of view.
    I am simply remind all of us that we a priviledged to work as firefighters. This is an honor not a given! The behavior on this thread and many others sadden me and others. We all can rise above this if choose.
    The behavior of many on this thread does dishonor the Charleston Nine because they would want us to discuss what happened in a civil manner that avoids any further repeating of this incident.
    In any event it is up to us to decide if we want to honor the tradition set before us in this honored profession.
    Godspeed and Stay Safe, jack
    Local 1696 UFA
    ME115

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