1. #51
    Banned

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KnightnPBIArmor View Post
    BRAVO-UNIFORM-LIMA-LIMA-SIERRA-HOTEL-INDIA-TANGO!!! You mean to tell me that a captain with 32 years of experience is going to be cowed and blindly follow the orders of a chief, even the chief of department, if it is something that he knows through those same years of experience is a deady situation waiting to happen??? You mean to tell me that a captain with that many years of experience isn't going to recognize the weakness in the system and devise tactics to work around them: ...
    That was funny, the Bravo thing that is, I will keep that one filed away.

    However, A captain of 32 years or 100 years, you follow the directions of the chief, it's called the chain of command and discipline. I do believe you aren't truly understanding what I am saying. You fight fires based on your training and SOPs. Included in training are your years of experience.

    Now just because you have always done something wrong and gotten away with it doesn't make it right. For instance, the guy who drinks and drives for 50 years but never gets caught. He gets away with it, but it isn't right. And that is what I ma saying here, the SOP and the training were flawed. Those are things you fix before the fire. At the scene, they did exactly what their department said they should do, which, doesn't make it right. How about the simple fact they don't follow the OSHA mandated 2 in/ 2 out rule? I suspect there will be fines as a result of that finding.

    I hope you can see that there is a difference between what happened the day of the incident vs the training, planning, and preparation for incidents. The latter is where the issue is.

  2. #52
    Banned

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swarmy View Post
    FFFRED-

    I have your answer....it has nothing to do with the death of the 9 firefighters.

    HOWEVER...the mayor tasked this panel with making overall safety and policy recommendations. According to a press release, this is the format the panel is using:

    "The first phase, an analysis of procedure and practices, including media relations, should take about a month, and any recommendations for change could be implemented in the short term.

    Later, the review team will assemble reports from the various federal, state and local investigations being conducted and compile that information into one report from which the city can work. This could take four months or longer.

    Finally, the review team will draft a long-range strategic plan that will possibly chart a future course for the City of Charleston Fire Department. No time estimate was given for this phase of the review."

    The panel hasn't even started on the LODD fire yet. They are waiting for the official investigation to be completed. (Altough there has been quite a bit of confusion based on the way the Preliminary Recommendations were written.
    And if I understand correctly, this is separate from any NFPA, NIOSH, OSHA, law enforcement investigation. I wonder how many lawyers are following this and reading these reports.

    As for the LDH question, I don't know for sure, but I think that is in direct response to the water problem that existed. Lacking enough water to fight the fire the poor guys inside didn't have enough fire power to fight the fight.

  3. #53
    MembersZone Subscriber
    mcaldwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Panorama, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    3,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    Mutual aid departments have been taking LDH into Charleston for sometime. They did it later in the fire and it gave effective water supply to aerial ladders. The Charleston grid is ISO 1 in many parts of the city areas! Stand alongside and support your brothers may they RIP.

    That's good to know, but I was trying to answer a generic question, outside the CH9 debate.

    The process for change has to be methodical and logical, not just a "do this because it works for someone else". I suspect LDH will come, but is has to come specifically because it will work for Charleston. When I first saw the ISO 1 comment, I immediately thought the same. "If they got the rating, they have the system." I can't comment from my little one horse town 5000 kms away though.


    As a related note, I think it is important to make sure these task forces focus on the real needs here. There have been comments made about the fluff or filler in the report (seatbelts/PIO's/Etc). While all have value there is a distinct process to be followed with these reccommendations.

    1. Compile the study/report/reccomendations.
    2. PRIORITIZE the needs.
    3. Formulate and action plan.
    4. Execute the plan.


    It is critical that the "general" stuff not take away from the message of the report. If SOG's/Tactics, and Training are the real problems, make sure that the powers that be don't get away with training a PIO, drafting a seatbelt plan, and buying a pretty command post kit and saying they completed 90% of the reccomendations.

    The staffing, LDH, or Handlines may be only 2-3 items, but the cost (and impact) is likely the greatest. The report, or follow-up plan must place the priority on the most IMPORTANT items, not the easiest to acheive. Too many items on the list make it easier for the important things to slip through the cracks.

    If Charleston is serious about undertaking any amount of operational reform, they have to make the plan realistic and acheivable. Too many items will only muddy the water, and overwhelm the planners.
    Last edited by mcaldwell; 08-20-2007 at 05:16 PM.
    Never argue with an Idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience!

    IACOJ

  4. #54
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    However, A captain of 32 years or 100 years, you follow the directions of the chief, it's called the chain of command and discipline. I do believe you aren't truly understanding what I am saying. You fight fires based on your training and SOPs. Included in training are your years of experience.
    You are in the wrong here. Chain of command and discipline does not mean blindly following orders. There's a right and wrong way to do it, but you have a duty to question orders that have the potential to get someone killed or negatively effect the outcome of an incident. See also "Crew Resource Management." Sometimes, Trotter, it's painfully obvious that you're an amateur, and I wish you weren't on my side. You do more harm than good.

  5. #55
    Forum Member
    KnightnPBIArmor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Beautiful downtown Hortense, GA
    Posts
    745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devildog4 View Post
    Maybe I should add this? Might open your eyes some Knight Dude
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Do you see the word "Dude" anywhere in my screen name???

  6. #56
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    However, A captain of 32 years or 100 years, you follow the directions of the chief, it's called the chain of command and discipline.

    You really need to stop posting; every time you post you reveal just how much you don't know, or understand-about everything.

  7. #57
    Forum Member
    station75's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Apple Valley, CA
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    However, A captain of 32 years or 100 years, you follow the directions of the chief, it's called the chain of command and discipline. I do believe you aren't truly understanding what I am saying. You fight fires based on your training and SOPs. Included in training are your years of experience.
    As a CO, you are expected to follow the directions of a Senior Officer. However, blindly following an order you know to be flawed is not only foolish, but can be deadly. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, you probably just phrased it wrong.

    After reading through this thread, I think that what you were trying to get at is the fact that given the way the fire was directed by the Fire Chief, you can assume that to the personnel of the Charleston FD, that would be the norm or SOP for the Dept. The CO's on the Company's that responded would, more than likely follow the Chief's lead and do what he normally does. I listened to a good part of the recordings and it seemed chaotic to say the least.

    In my Department, we regularly train on ICS, RIC/RIT operations, S&R, Division/Group Supervisor operations, etc. It is practiced at every incident that requires it. If you don't, you will get a talking to by your supervisor. We drum it in to all new personnel so it becomes second nature to them.

    After reading the recommendations made, it looks to me like they either had never implemented some of the recommendations, or never trained on them or used them.

  8. #58
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedAS View Post
    You are in the wrong here. Chain of command and discipline does not mean blindly following orders. There's a right and wrong way to do it, but you have a duty to question orders that have the potential to get someone killed or negatively effect the outcome of an incident. See also "Crew Resource Management." Sometimes, Trotter, it's painfully obvious that you're an amateur, and I wish you weren't on my side. You do more harm than good.
    Not to stick up for HT, but you speak too generically. Perhaps to you, me, and many others this is the way of the world, but do not be mistaken that chain of command and discipline do mean just that on some departments.

    At the same time, it doesn't take long for operations to go so wrong that someone ends up perishing. I believe there's a video that shows a living room fire starting with a Christmas tree. In about one minute it goes from an incipient fire to flashover. This was a sofa warehouse, full of fuel. No reason to believe it'd take more than a few seconds from the time you think "Oh *****" to get to the point that it's too late.

  9. #59
    Forum Member
    BKDRAFT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BFDNJFF View Post
    I will repeat what I said. What works for your town or city may not work in someone else's city or town. I used to live there and know that they are a ISO Class 1 rated and quality FD. LDH will not work for them.
    ISO takes into consideration the citys water supply system and as far as I know takes up a majority of there grading scale yet you state there system cannot handle LDH?

  10. #60
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BKDRAFT View Post
    ISO takes into consideration the citys water supply system and as far as I know takes up a majority of there grading scale yet you state there system cannot handle LDH?
    I"ll give you one good reason why the probably did not have it...BENJAMINS. It costs money to change to a new line. It is easy to say it does not cost that much, but it does when you are changing over a dozen trucks. Then you still have to convince the council that the new hose is better than the old. Remember fire departments do not live in a vacuum all by themselves with unlimited funding. We have to fight for money versus the police, sanitation, parks, streets, corrections, etc...

    Also Charleston being an older city the hydrants may not be able to handle LDH. How you ask? Maybe some only have two 2 1/2" discharges because at the time that was the standard. Maybe their water department has told them that using LDH would damage the system. We don't know.

  11. #61
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    434

    Default

    deleted by author
    Last edited by devildog4; 08-29-2007 at 12:20 AM.

  12. #62
    Forum Member
    BKDRAFT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lexfd5 View Post
    I"ll give you one good reason why the probably did not have it...BENJAMINS. It costs money to change to a new line. It is easy to say it does not cost that much, but it does when you are changing over a dozen trucks. Then you still have to convince the council that the new hose is better than the old. Remember fire departments do not live in a vacuum all by themselves with unlimited funding. We have to fight for money versus the police, sanitation, parks, streets, corrections, etc...

    Also Charleston being an older city the hydrants may not be able to handle LDH. How you ask? Maybe some only have two 2 1/2" discharges because at the time that was the standard. Maybe their water department has told them that using LDH would damage the system. We don't know.
    I understand the financial struggles fire departments go through because the department I work for has the same problems. However, I cannot imagine a Class 1 department without LDH capabilities and hydrants with only two
    2 1/2" spuds?

  13. #63
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lexfd5 View Post
    I"ll give you one good reason why the probably did not have it...BENJAMINS. It costs money to change to a new line. It is easy to say it does not cost that much, but it does when you are changing over a dozen trucks. Then you still have to convince the council that the new hose is better than the old. Remember fire departments do not live in a vacuum all by themselves with unlimited funding. We have to fight for money versus the police, sanitation, parks, streets, corrections, etc...

    Also Charleston being an older city the hydrants may not be able to handle LDH. How you ask? Maybe some only have two 2 1/2" discharges because at the time that was the standard. Maybe their water department has told them that using LDH would damage the system. We don't know.
    I will believe the money issue. A city with an ISO Class 1 rating should have a good enough system to handle LDH without a problem. Personally, I think the whole "this water system can't handle LDH" is bogus anyway. You're not going to get any more water than the hydrant will provide. If the hydrant will only flow 500 gpm, you're only going to get 500 gpm out of the end of the hose. You are not going to collapse a main with LDH any more than you will with 3" or any other size hose. The LDH will collapse well before the mains. Most departments use LDH to get the most out of their water source, especially on long lays.

    When it comes to the ISO rating, 40% of the grade is on water system. Not only do they figure the supply (towers, resevoirs, etc), but they take into account the mains (must be 6" or larger for full credit) and the hydrants (must have a steamer port for full credit). If they've got very many two-titters, I doubt they would have a class 1 water system.

  14. #64
    Banned

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedAS View Post
    You are in the wrong here. Chain of command and discipline does not mean blindly following orders. There's a right and wrong way to do it, but you have a duty to question orders that have the potential to get someone killed or negatively effect the outcome of an incident. See also "Crew Resource Management." Sometimes, Trotter, it's painfully obvious that you're an amateur, and I wish you weren't on my side. You do more harm than good.
    If you go back and read, I do not say they should follow blindly. I probably left out the part about using discretion. But it is also the duty of that captain to try to improve operations and procedures. As I have said in the past, just because it works and you are getting away with it doesn't make it right or safe.

    Risk management, quality management, continuity planning, and training methods are circular in nature. These things are continuous processes that never end. As a minimum you should be evaluating all of these things on an annual basis.

    Based on some of the recommendations it would appear that Charleston had slipped a bit behind the times. The most glaring and amazing things in my mind were the lack of a safety officer, no accountability system, failure to observe the 2 in/ out rule, failure to use the ICS, the water supply and hand lines, and finally the training issue. Now I know these things cost money, and creating a plan and direction is what management of a fire department is all about. Making the switch to LDH is really very easy to do and it can be done over time, but it requires a plan. I look at the list of action items and notice that these are things we have done in our little 40 person volunteer department. It would be interesting to see what kind of recommendations they would come up with for us.

    The truly sad part is that someone had to die before any action is taken, then again, that is true of our society in general. Just look at the bridge collapse in Minneapolis and the subsequent bridge inspections around the country.

  15. #65
    Banned

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    I will believe the money issue. A city with an ISO Class 1 rating should have a good enough system to handle LDH without a problem. Personally, I think the whole "this water system can't handle LDH" is bogus anyway. You're not going to get any more water than the hydrant will provide. If the hydrant will only flow 500 gpm, you're only going to get 500 gpm out of the end of the hose. You are not going to collapse a main with LDH any more than you will with 3" or any other size hose. The LDH will collapse well before the mains. Most departments use LDH to get the most out of their water source, especially on long lays.

    When it comes to the ISO rating, 40% of the grade is on water system. Not only do they figure the supply (towers, resevoirs, etc), but they take into account the mains (must be 6" or larger for full credit) and the hydrants (must have a steamer port for full credit). If they've got very many two-titters, I doubt they would have a class 1 water system.
    I also believe the rating takes into account the types of structures and has minimum flow requirements. For a regular two family structure I believe you need at least 1000 gpm. You can also get a high rating if you can show that you can get the proper amount of water using a tanker shuttle. A lot of the ISO rating is also based on documentation.

  16. #66
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED View Post
    Just so it isn't lost in the prior discussion...I'll repeat my original questions...

    Can anyone tell me what the hell "seatbelts" have to do with these mens deaths?

    Also since everyone is up in arms about the LDH...what is their current Engine operations policy(actual wording would be nice)

    How is it ineffective and how did the lack of LDH play a role in these men's deaths?

    Is this the only possible option or are their other hose lays considered? (or are these "experts" inexpereinced with anything other than forward lays of LDH?)

    FTM-PTB
    These items had very little (if any) effect on the outcome. What did effect the outcome was the lack of sprinklers in an occupancy that should have had them. I find it odd that no one is even talking about that. Although Im sure an attorney somewhere is...
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  17. #67
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devildog4 View Post
    FFFRED, it was all cut & paste, except for a few words. No opinions or thoughts from me, other than it was very tragic and after reading the findings and recommendations of the panel I STILL cannot understand why the mistakes that were made happened and why they did the things the way they were done.

    Reread post number 32...you offered plenty of opinions and statements of your own. Are you not interested in answering any questions in regards to your statements?

    FTM-PTB

  18. #68
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swarmy View Post
    FFFRED-

    I have your answer....it has nothing to do with the death of the 9 firefighters.

    HOWEVER...the mayor tasked this panel with making overall safety and policy recommendations. According to a press release, this is the format the panel is using:

    "The first phase, an analysis of procedure and practices, including media relations, should take about a month, and any recommendations for change could be implemented in the short term.

    Later, the review team will assemble reports from the various federal, state and local investigations being conducted and compile that information into one report from which the city can work. This could take four months or longer.

    Finally, the review team will draft a long-range strategic plan that will possibly chart a future course for the City of Charleston Fire Department. No time estimate was given for this phase of the review."

    The panel hasn't even started on the LODD fire yet. They are waiting for the official investigation to be completed. (Altough there has been quite a bit of confusion based on the way the Preliminary Recommendations were written.
    Thanks for the explanation...I was thinking there had to be something else to this.

    Will there be a more thorough explanation of their recomendations because no one has of yet been able to produce or even explain the procedures for their Engines in general or specifically obtaining a posititve water supply

    Yet LDH is given as the answer for a "problem" in their department and the only justification printed so far is...there are many other depts that use it. I hope their was more thought put into this report than what have the SFD and PFD been doing lately and lets recomend what we are only familiar with.

    Thanks for the insight as I overlooked the greater purpose in this committee of experts.

    FTM-PTB

  19. #69
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED View Post
    Will there be a more thorough explanation of their recomendations because no one has of yet been able to produce or even explain the procedures for their Engines in general or specifically obtaining a posititve water supply

    Yet LDH is given as the answer for a "problem" in their department and the only justification printed so far is...there are many other depts that use it. I hope their was more thought put into this report than what have the SFD and PFD been doing lately and lets recomend what we are only familiar with.
    FTM-PTB
    LDH is only a small part of the overall solution to CFD's problems. They need to address issues of response and deployment .... box alarms .... pre-assigned deployments of apparatus .... incident command .... we have heard all this before. The way the fire itself and related apparatus movements was micro-managed from the scene is totally archaic. This has nothing to do with what might suit one city won't suit another.

    The most basic fundamentals of fire department response, command & control and tactical deployments were flawed at this fire because their system is fifty years out of date.

  20. #70
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    434

    Default

    deleted by author
    Last edited by devildog4; 08-29-2007 at 12:21 AM.

  21. #71
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    LDH is only a small part of the overall solution to CFD's problems. They need to address issues of response and deployment .... box alarms .... pre-assigned deployments of apparatus .... incident command .... we have heard all this before. The way the fire itself and related apparatus movements was micro-managed from the scene is totally archaic. This has nothing to do with what might suit one city won't suit another.

    The most basic fundamentals of fire department response, command & control and tactical deployments were flawed at this fire because their system is fifty years out of date.
    I agree what you mention is all good stuff to have...however I've been asking for and have yet to see printed what policies they have in place today or those in place on the day of the Sofa store fire.

    If we don't know what they are doing now...how can we even begin to have a discussion on what the proposed changes are if we don't even know what they stared with?

    FTM-PTB

  22. #72
    MembersZone Subscriber

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devildog4 View Post
    FFFRED:

    I told you it was all cut & paste. Post #32 was taken from the newspaper. Here is the link. Look for yourself.

    http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/...t_change13370/

    Batt18 said "The most basic fundamentals of fire department response, command & control and tactical deployments were flawed at this fire because their system is fifty years out of date." Again, I couldn't have said it any better...

    Is this your writting...because I don't see it written anywhere in the referenced articles...

    Quote Originally Posted by From post 32
    A safety chief arriving on scene, properly trained, could have called for an immediate withdrawal of firefighters. In fact, the safety chief would have prevented the deployment of small handlines for safety reasons.
    This is a no-brainer. Incident command wasn't in place at the Sofa Super Store fire. Had it been there would have been significant alterations to early fire actions. A proper size-up would have been conducted and transmitted. More importantly firefighters would have been accounted for allowing for a rapid assessment of who was missing.
    This directly related to the June 18 fire. Incident Command and tactics didn't come into existence in the last week. These are basic items in use nationwide. Had they been used on the Sofa Super Store it's likely a different outcome would have resulted.
    These need no comments. Think about the volume of water being brought to bear early in the fire. Consider the poor communications during the entire fire where a mixture of 10 codes and using one channel taxed the entire operation.
    So you didn't write the above? Maybe someone else from San Diego did?

    FTM-PTB

  23. #73
    MembersZone Subscriber
    swarmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devildog4 View Post
    Batt18 said "The most basic fundamentals of fire department response, command & control and tactical deployments were flawed at this fire because their system is fifty years out of date." Again, I couldn't have said it any better...
    DevilDog- I agree with you 100%... YOU couldn't have said it better. Your method of saying things comes across as a giant stream of urine ****ing on the graves of our fallen brothers. There are better, more respectful, ways of making a point even if you are from the state of Californication.
    Last edited by swarmy; 08-21-2007 at 03:59 PM.
    "...there isn't a firefighter in the free world who is forced to join this profession." -John Norman

  24. #74
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    434

    Default

    deleted by author
    Last edited by devildog4; 08-29-2007 at 12:23 AM.

  25. #75
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED View Post
    Reread post number 32...you offered plenty of opinions and statements of your own. Are you not interested in answering any questions in regards to your statements?

    FTM-PTB
    I love the nitwits that come on here, throw out a bunch of bs and then can't respond when confronted with it. San Diego... whatever.
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register