Charleston Listens to Preliminary Panel Recommendations

deleted by author

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lexfd5

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lexfd5

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FireMedAS

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFFRED

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devildog4

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swarmy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFFRED

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.

deleted by author

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Batt18

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devildog4

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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?:rolleyes:

FTM-PTB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devildog4

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.

deleted by author

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFFRED

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. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Nobody needs to see any printed policy or what they started with.

---

Especially when you are the individual tossing these brother's under the bus-hate to have those silly little things such as facts and documentation to back up your constant drivel.

deleted by author

deleted by author

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devildog4

[COLOR="Black"]Nobody needs to see any printed policy or what they started with. It is so obvious by the recordings what went wrong. Posted at length here. Same things listed post after post.

---

CFD reportedly have a documented incident command system; they also have an established dispatch and response system; the CFD presumably have lots of other 'procedures' in place. What is of concern is that either those procedures were not followed or, they are outdated and ineffective.

A +50,000 sq.ft configuration of structures stocking a heavy fire load were involved in fire. This was known by the IC on scene. There were several requests made by the IC on-scene for additional engines to respond direct to the fire location but only one of the initial six engines was tasked with obtaining a fixed water supply, despite two main hose-lines being deployed. This was then changed to two engines assigned to hydrants.

The hose-lays used to bring water to the fireground were hydraulically challenged from the start and were never able to keep up with the demands of the attack hose-lines in use. The tanks were running dry .... firefighters inside were calling for water! Then the sudden escalation of fire.

This cannot be right! Hypothetically .... I don't care what procedures or systems we do, or do not, have in place! If I am on the end of that hose-line in the middle of a fire that is developing in front of me, I am going to rely on my IC outside to ensure he uses the resources available to him to get us that water, failing some catastrophic equipment failure! If he can't be sure of doing so .... he shouldn't have deployed us so deeply into such a large structure in the first place.

Why didn't that water come?! That's one of the issues worth debating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devildog4

I should have been more clear. When I said there was no "interior ops" meant that there was no one person designated or assigned thru the ICS system to be in charge of the interior firefighting efforts, reporting back to the IC. That would have stopped the Chief from leaving the command post and going inside (without all his PPE) in order to know whats going on. It would have helped with accountability, because "interior" would/should have known what crews were with him, and the IC should have known who and how many each interior crew had with accountabilty tags, etc.

---

I have a question...in your dept are the officers counted among the manpower or are they limited to supervisory roles?

The reason I ask because this concept that the chief can get updates from the officers inside is compromised by the fact that over 90% of this country's FDs use officers to carry tools, hump hose, perform firemens work. Kind of hard to supervise and observe overall conditions when you are busting your azz on a handline.

Having a chief take a peek inside a building isn't a bad thing and I would really like to know what person developed this concept...I'll bet its origins aren't far from the same clown who advocates putting the command chief down the street inside his vehicle looking away from the fire.

Quote:

---

FFFRED, you said "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?"

Nobody needs to see any printed policy or what they started with. It is so obvious by the recordings what went wrong. Posted at length here. Same things listed post after post.

---

So I'll take that as a "NO" that you aren't going to address the questions posed to you as you obviously have little to no clue about what you are talking about...other than your assertions that your little suburb and state of communists, hippies and illegal immigrants is beyond perfect and should be a model for the Charleston FD to build off of.

I don't think anything is "obvious" anymore than what obviously happened the other day on Liberty Street...I work here, was listening to the radio and know people involved and I still don't have the full picture...I find it amazing that you can deduct so much from so little on the complete other side of the country...simply amazing.

FTM-PTB