Thread: Time for Change

  1. #21
    MembersZone Subscriber
    sdff1520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001


    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    SDFF: The problem is, that we all can come up with excuses for not doing the right thing.!
    I'm not comming up with excuses, I honestly don't believe this solution to be the right thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    If you're travelling 30 miles for first or second due coverage the most dangerous part of the incident is most likely the ride there!.!
    I don't believe that to be a fact at all. Our apparatus are well maintained, and while they may not be NFPA compliant they are safe. The chassis are not overweight and carrying more than they are designed to. Our drivers are well trained experienced folks that are very capable of keeping their head in the right place and driving safely. Most of them possess CDL's and have much experience drive large loads.

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Hell I'd argue that if you're first due and 30 miles out, it probably isn't even a life or limb emergency by the time you arrrive..!
    That is just so wrong it doesn't even warrant a response. You have absolutely no idea...

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    What is the gain from running emergency to calls in the rural areas..!
    Again, you simply don't have a clue about emergency service delivery in rural america.

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    I realize I might sound harsh but it's time to try and do what we can to protect ourselves from ourselves.!
    I noticed in one of your earlier posts on another thread you were inquiring about hose testing? You test your hose using a fire pump, even when the first page of every pump manual I have ever read says 'DO NOT USE THIS PUMP TO TEST HOSE'. You want to test hose lengths longer than 300 ft. You test hose without a hose testing flow limiting test valve on the truck? You don't use a designed, manufatured and engineered hose testing machine, but instead use a homemade non-engineered solution to test hose and don't follow an industry standard? Those are all blatent violations of an industry standard specifically written with your safety in mind. How dare you....? You obviously need protection from yourself as well. May not be as many LODDS as a result of hose testing, but thats no reason to toss NFPA stadards just because you don't feel like following them. I realize this is a rather silly example, but in my opinion removing requiring that any non-nfpa apparatus respond non-emergent is equally as silly.

    I agree, enough ranting.... I wish you luck in your endeavor to eliminate LODDS. I also will agree that having a CDL is a good thing. If you can get your state to pass the legislation you propose, BRAVO... It may very well become the single best thing to hit the fire service, If your successful, I'll be the first in line to congratulate you. My personal belief is that comprehensive constant ongoing realistic and reinforced emergency vehicle operator training would be more beneficial. Know your limitations, know the limitations of your equipment and work within those limitations. A comprehensive training program backed up by sensible department operating guidlelines, reinforced by department leadership is in my opinion a better solution. Why not REQUIRE EVERY ACTIVE FF to complete a comprehensive NFPA 1002 compliant training program, as well as XX hours of continuing education? I think that would be more beneficial. NFPA compliant truck or not, an untrained driver can be just as dangerous.

    You have your opinion and you are entitled to it, I obviously have mine and they differ significantly on this particular subject, I think it comes down to my belief that the government that governs the least governs the best. As well as my belief the much should be left to personal respnsibility.

    I wish you luck in your endeavor. Perhaps we'll chat again, and who knows perhaps we can agree on the next subject.
    Rick Gustad - Chief
    Platte Volunteer Fire Department

  2. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Northeast Coast


    SDFF: I can accept agreeing to disagree. No problem brother, I don't expect everyone to agree regardless of the issue. What I can't accept is if you took my rant personally, I meant it to be kind of a soapbox roll from which I could address some of the arguments to be encountered. In particular I want to be clear that none of my post was directed at your dept or how you do business, yet a broader look at why we tend to look the other way from some of the lessons learned in tragic ways, when the course of action doesn't fit our organization. I'm sure we all do it on many issues. I also don't see this proposal as a silver bullet yet one small piece that may one day prevent a needless accident. A few clarifications as are usually needed after a rant:

    When I say the 30 mile ride to an emergency may be the most dangerous part I base this on the number of LODDs we incur each year from driving. The further we go the more likely an accident will occur. And given accidents are a close second to heart attacks, I'm not stretching anything by saying the drive is probably more dangerous than the incident.

    Again, if you're the first due to a dwelling fire 30 miles away is there enough left to warrant an offensive attack? Is there victims in need of rescue? Yes, I realize there are plenty of other situations that do warrant emergency response but of a tanker?

    Your posting of some of my questions singularly takes them slightly out of the total context, but that's fine I can at least explain my thoughts.

    And I did come from a fairly rural Fire/EMS service. We didn't cover 30 mile runs from one house but there was plenty of long dark stretches of road and no traffic lights. And we ran homemade tankers, one I was comfortable driving and another I was not. We had decent maintenance, but maybe were short on driver training. Never had an accident either, but we understood the potential and created a long term plan to improve the apparatus.

    So I gladly accept you disagree and thank you for your opposing views. It can only help with preparing my own argument. I'm certain we'll see some common ground ahead. Stay Safe.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. HOUSTON walked away from this contract
    By Firewalker1 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 05-17-2007, 12:34 AM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 02-12-06
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-15-2006, 10:51 PM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 06-08-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-10-2005, 08:37 AM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 01-22-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-23-2005, 02:46 PM
  5. World Of Fire Report: 05-30-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-01-2004, 10:37 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