Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 41 of 53 FirstFirst ... 313839404142434451 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 820 of 1056
  1. #801
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,570

    Default

    Bones and I had a brief exchange on this earlier in the thread and I don't feel it was resolved.
    That would be because you still think my engines don't know they are to lay a supply line. And I've repeatedly told you that is not the case.

    Again, from the SOP...

    Engine Company Personnel Assignments:

    Driver:

    Key Tasks:
    • Drives apparatus to scene and properly place
    Secure water source – supply line connection


    That's it. Real simple. Engines secure their own water source. End of story. Unless they are told differently, they will secure a water source for a reported fire.

    And the reason these SOP's even came up was back when the discussion centered on knowing the involved departments procedures. People were stating they did not hear things on the radio traffic so it must not have been accomplished. Myself and others than stated you would not hear a lot of that on our radios either as it's never said and not needed to be said. Hence, the discussion on whether the panel was truly able to dig deep enough into their actual operations before coming up with a laundry list.

    I'd be willing to bet, at least half of the items on their recommendation list, were there before they even showed up.

    I'm not questioning the knowledge/experience of the panel, just the fact that they have so many recommendations in so little time.

    ---------

    And I'm right there with FFFred on his third point above. And I like Doc's post as well.
    "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. #802
    EuroFirefighter Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    That would be because you still think my engines don't know they are to lay a supply line. And I've repeatedly told you that is not the case.

    Again, from the SOP...

    Engine Company Personnel Assignments:

    Driver:

    Key Tasks:
    • Drives apparatus to scene and properly place
    Secure water source – supply line connection


    That's it. Real simple. Engines secure their own water source. End of story. Unless they are told differently, they will secure a water source for a reported fire.
    OK but that's for 'structure fire' right.
    • What happens if your engines are responding to a 'trash fire'?
    • What happens if you are responding to a structure and an on-scene chief says over the radio 'its just trash burning'
    • Do you still lay in the supply line according to SOP?

    What is your written SOP for 'trash' or 'dumpsters'?

  3. #803
    Hook & Can
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    OK but that's for 'structure fire' right.
    • What happens if your engines are responding to a 'trash fire'?
    • What happens if you are responding to a structure and an on-scene chief says over the radio 'its just trash burning'
    • Do you still lay in the supply line according to SOP?

    What is your written SOP for 'trash' or 'dumpsters'?
    Why does it matter what his SOPs say? Knowing what they do or don't say shouldn't stop anyone from making recommendations...not around here at least.
    Last edited by Nine3Probie; 10-02-2007 at 10:36 AM.

  4. #804
    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 FFFRED View Post
    I and others get blasted when it is stated that this style of command (ie-policy reads, IC is responsible to ensure water supply is obtained..etc.") ammounts to pick-up football and creates one HUGE failure point in that one human being can screw up the entire works if he fails to account for something that should or should not have been done...when delegation and pre-assignment of duties has shown to be a far supperior method that provides consistancy and accountablity that is far safer that hopping one man remebers all the considerations that could have easily been memorized by everyone prior to a fire in any typical building type in ones city.
    This quote intrigues me.

    I would really like to move my volunteer suburban department towards pre-assignment. It does make sense. However, there are some issues that make me wonder how easy that would be, or if it would lead to further confusion.

    Barriers (as I perceive them):
    1. We have large areas of our district that do not have hydrants. We rely on booster tanks, tender water shuttle and long LDH lays (sometimes more than one of those methods).
    2. Being a volunteer department, we do have issues with manpower during the day. Instead of three engines, I might get two and need m/a for a third or more.
    3. We roll out of one house, so we have a set response order for the different types of runs. However, on a residential structure, where there is no hydrant, the ladder truck rolls out last (after 3 engines and tender). So, very often the second due engine will perform ladder company ops other times, they might be setting up a tender shuttle, or laying a long LDH supply line. In areas of hydrants, Multi-family dwellings or commercial/industrial it is second due.
    4. Manpower type varies. To ride first due you have to be an scba firefighter, no candidates, no juniors, no exempt. However, on second due, the crew may have a junior or candidate in the mix.

    That said, we do have riding assignments. They work well, but very often we ask the crew to deviate from those assignments as the incident dictates.

    I have scratched out on paper some pre-assignments for 1st due engine, 2nd due engine, etc... With the hope that it could be an SOP and something we could drill on. However, it always seems that there will be exceptions and then it becomes rather complicated. That make this more of a paper exercise than a useful tool.

    I also agree that there is a huge failure point if the IC fails to remember an item. To prevent myself from being that failure point, I've actually laminted a working fire checklist that I have in the chief's gig. Sounds pretty simple and stupid, if you read it, you'd think i'm a moron! However, *I* don't care if people think that, as long as the utilities are secured (one of the items), and that everyone goes home.

    We have always assigned ICS Positions, in the hope that this also would add a layer of protection. There is another chief who reports to me at a scene who is strictly responsible for the operations in the fire building.

    Any thoughts (like I have to ask!).
    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. #805
    EuroFirefighter Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nine3Probie View Post
    Why does it matter what his SOPs say? Knowing what they do or don't say shouldn't stop anyone from making recommendations...not around here at least.
    So what do YOUR SOPs say in this situation probie? or .... how would you respond to a 'trash or dumpster fire' ... or what if your call to a 'structure' was called in as a 'trash fire' by the on-scene BC?

    How would this affect your SOP or approach?

  6. #806
    Hook & Can
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    So what do YOUR SOPs say in this situation probie? or .... how would you respond to a 'trash or dumpster fire' ... or what if your call to a 'structure' was called in as a 'trash fire' by the on-scene BC?

    How would this affect your SOP or approach?
    I'm not playing your game, Paul. How about you answer my question first.

    Why do you need to ask what Point Pleasant Beach's SOPs say before you will recommend how they fight any particular fire or respond to any particular call?

  7. #807
    EuroFirefighter Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nine3Probie View Post
    I'm not playing your game, Paul. How about you answer my question first.

    Why do you need to ask what Point Pleasant Beach's SOPs say before you will recommend how they fight any particular fire or respond to any particular call?
    Game? Is that how you see this? I am not making any recommendations whatsoever. I am prompting some self analysis of a tactical scenario for debate. Just like we have always done on these forums.

  8. #808
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    775

    Default

    First, that is a regulation, not a statute.

    Second, it is an OSHA regulation, and does not apply in states that have implemented their own.

    Third, Respiratory Protection regs are relevent to 2 in / 2 out...how exactly?

  9. #809
    Hook & Can
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    I know you said you train hard, but good training is dictated by effective protocols. Can you see where I am going with this? Because it appears your SOPs might lead to a similar situation as occurred at the sofa store fire, in that nobody appeared to take any responsibility for laying in, until an on-scene chief (not the IC) called for it.

    Whilst I am in agreement that SOPs are not there to provide 'step by step' instructions in every matter, the directive to lay a supply line needs to be clear and leave no doubt as to how and when this will occur.
    A response to Bones in your discussion regarding his department's SOPs. Maybe my American English is different than your UK English...but sure as heck sounds like a "recommendation" to me.

    Perhaps it's my fault. Maybe I should have used the word "comment" in place of "recommend" in your particular case, Paul. If my poor choice of wording has caused some hurt or consternation on your part...oh well.

    Some here have no problem with the recommendations of the panel, or think these recommendations are spot on (endorsing them), without knowing what CFD's SOPs were or weren't. The question still stands...as has been asked (repeatedly) by SPFDRum, Bones, FFFred, et al.

    How can anyone endorse these recommended changes without knowing the SOPs prior to the tragedy?

  10. #810
    EuroFirefighter Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nine3Probie View Post
    A response to Bones in your discussion regarding his department's SOPs. Maybe my American English is different than your UK English...but sure as heck sounds like a "recommendation" to me.

    Perhaps it's my fault. Maybe I should have used the word "comment" in place of "recommend" in your particular case, Paul. If my poor choice of wording has caused some hurt or consternation on your part...oh well.

    Some here have no problem with the recommendations of the panel, or think these recommendations are spot on (endorsing them), without knowing what CFD's SOPs were or weren't. The question still stands...as has been asked (repeatedly) by SPFDRum, Bones, FFFred, et al.

    How can anyone endorse these recommended changes without knowing the SOPs prior to the tragedy?
    Well you will have to put that question to the panel of 'experts' who made thos recommendations. I have never personally 'endorsed' them? I have stated that I believe its possible to make such recommendations in a week, provided you have full access to SOPs and working practices as well as the support of the CFD.

    What is your problem here probie?!

    And the above is a 'comment'

    I think the forum rules allow comments

  11. #811
    EuroFirefighter Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    This quote intrigues me.

    I would really like to move my volunteer suburban department towards pre-assignment. It does make sense. However, there are some issues that make me wonder how easy that would be, or if it would lead to further confusion.
    Depends a lot on your staffing Chief and also your objectives, in terms of the strategies you utilize to achieve aims, ie; PPV etc. To approach this you need to list the scenario types and match them with an analysis of critical fire-ground tasks, ie; fire attack, search & rescue etc.

  12. #812
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by randsc View Post
    First, that is a regulation, not a statute.
    Technically correct, but moot in this discussion. (The statutory law behind 29 CFR can be found in 29 USC 654.)

    Quote Originally Posted by randsc View Post
    Second, it is an OSHA regulation, and does not apply in states that have implemented their own.
    Also technically correct, but SC happens to be an OSHA Plan state and modifies "2 in/2 out" only slightly from the FedOSHA original.

    Quote Originally Posted by randsc View Post
    Third, Respiratory Protection regs are relevent to 2 in / 2 out...how exactly?
    It's the regulation where "2 in/2 out" originates. When "2 in/2out" is discussed, we're talking about 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(4).
    Last edited by DeputyMarshal; 10-02-2007 at 12:21 PM.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  13. #813
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HotTrotter View Post
    Sorry, you will have to turn to the USFA, NFPA, OSHA and academia, for that. I do recommend you not be so closed minded, open your mind and be accept change for the better. Do yourself and your department a favor and get out of the mind set we do it this way because we have always done it this way.
    Oh, I will happily listen to the above mentioned groups and modify our operations accordingly - just as soon as they aquire a greater amount of fireground experience and knowledge than the assembled chiefs of the chicago fire department, not to mention the vast pool of knowledge aquired in the last 1 3/4 centuries that we have been doing this. Until then why don't you listen to the people on here with actual experience and you might learn something.
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  14. #814
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,570

    Default

    OK but that's for 'structure fire' right.
    Actually, No. That is the SOP for an engine company response. Yes, we will drop a line for a dumpster fire. It may not get charged, but it gets dropped...unless command is given not to.

    Trash can fire. No, we won't drop a line for that.

    Car fire. Yes, engine drops a line. Again, it may not get used, but unless directed not to, it's getting dropped.

    We don't operate on the "drop a line if needed" theory. We operate on the drop a line unless told not to theory.

    I would really like to move my volunteer suburban department towards pre-assignment. It does make sense. However, there are some issues that make me wonder how easy that would be, or if it would lead to further confusion.
    ChiefKN, it is a lot of work. Been there, still doing that. We wrote ours for the most common occurrences. We do not have a set "engine" and/or "truck" out of the building. Every vehicle has a pump, so they can (and have) all been assigned as Engine #. They've all been assigned as Truck # too. We have also written ours spelled out as the tasks that are to be performed, and then who is to do it. And then written out for 6 man, 5 man, 4 man, 3 man response crews.

    Training is the key. Guys need to learn/know/train on the system. They need to know what is expected and what they can expect. It took a good year for us to get our Truck company operations ironed out. Engine went a bit quicker. Now, it's automatic to us. I would not choose to go back to the old way, even though it worked for us for about 100 years.


    Knowing what they do or don't say shouldn't stop anyone from making recommendations...not around here at least.
    Ouch.
    "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?

  15. #815
    EuroFirefighter Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Actually, No. That is the SOP for an engine company response. Yes, we will drop a line for a dumpster fire. It may not get charged, but it gets dropped...unless command is given not to.

    Trash can fire. No, we won't drop a line for that.

    Car fire. Yes, engine drops a line. Again, it may not get used, but unless directed not to, it's getting dropped.

    We don't operate on the "drop a line if needed" theory. We operate on the drop a line unless told not to theory.
    Bones, I just wonder how many fire departments operate this way? What you are saying is if three engines respond they each lay in their own supply line and this may occur even if its a dumpster. Your guys must be very well versed in dropping supply lines.

    What about fast water attacks? Do you find your trucks might be operating without protection longer than necessary?

  16. #816
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,570

    Default

    At a dumpster, and many other fires, the 2nd and 3rd engines will be told not to lay in as they are normally not needed to. But if they are not told, yes, they'd be putting lines on the ground.

    Explain fast water attack as I'm not sure what you are referring to.

    When our nozzle man calls for water, he gets it. Whether it comes from the tank (due to supply not being ready yet) or it comes from the supply line. If coming from tank (while working on getting supply in use) the pump operator will radio the nozzleman at 1/2 tank and then again at 1/4 tank.

    It is extremely rare, and only done via radio command to do so, that an engine would go straight in to a fire without dropping it's supply line.
    "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?

  17. #817
    EuroFirefighter Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post

    Explain fast water attack as I'm not sure what you are referring to.
    Some departments pre-assign the first engine to respond directly to the structure to use the water tank supply to provide immediate coverage for exposures or Ladder crews undertaking search & rescue etc. The second due engine will be the one that lays in the supply line to the first engine.

    This process ensures water reaches the fire a lot quicker.

  18. #818
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    That's how we operate.First Engine out has 1250 water and thirty gal of Class A.Second Engine will pick up nearest permnent water unless otherwise directed by the IC.Stick goes to the fire bldg unless otherwise directed.This applies to ANY event involving fire.All our Engines have at least 1000 on board as well as our neighbors.Tankers(tenders)are 3500 gal and automatic on any working fire.A thousand is either going to put it out or you're going to have a bunch of "pipe"(LDH)in the road.I'm not a big fan of 500 page Sog's.We function just fine with a simple document that outlines the common ops and allows for easy expansion on events of growing magnitude.That way you don't have to flip thru the "playbook"at an event to know what the next step is.All our area Chiefs(13)meet once a month to discuss ways to improve the system and ANY of these Chiefs is authorized by agreement to run one of the other towns fires in the absence of their officers.Not for everyone but it works very well here.ALL use LDH but often it is easier(and less labor intensive)to truck water to the scene. Sog's are great but some lose their minds in the fine details. T.C.

  19. #819
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    Some departments pre-assign the first engine to respond directly to the structure to use the water tank supply to provide immediate coverage for exposures or Ladder crews undertaking search & rescue etc. The second due engine will be the one that lays in the supply line to the first engine.

    This process ensures water reaches the fire a lot quicker.
    Thisis how we operate. With two engines and three quints, the first in unit goes direct to the scene and fights fire off the tank. Engines have 750 gallon tanks, quints 500.

    Second and third in units stage at the primary and secondary hydrants. If there's any indication of fire, a line is put on the ground. If a working fire is present, the second line is laid in, unless the IC requests different.

    The fourth in unit (four are dispatched to any possible structure) awaits assignment in staging.

  20. #820
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    434

    Default

    FFFRED, if the one of the panel's preliminary recommendations was for CFD to implement "ICS/ NIMS procedures" on all incidents and "Initiate and complete Incident Command and tactical operations training for all officers" AND the SC OSHA fined and cited CFD for failing to do so AND CFD is sending thier Chiefs to school for that, why is it that you continue to argue against that, saying "where the 1st officer hands out assignments like a pick-up football game" is a "sophmoric recommendation".

    You know better than the panel & SC OSHA and CFD management? Or could it be that you think that the system in place for your dept works and all others should follow it? Are you completely discounting the whole NIMS/ICS thing? It is a national standard despite what you think, and if your dept is not using it than maybe they should start? What you call 200 years of hard earned lessons another could call tradition.

    I don't think you have an arguement about the other recommendations, do you?

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