Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36
  1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default Somebody Help Me Here

    I just finished reading this story:

    Questions Follow Texas Blaze that Injured 6 Firefighters
    FRED DAVIS
    The Beaumont Enterprise (Texas)

    Dec. 20--The fire that injured six Beaumont firefighters Monday would have been attacked differently had the first trucks on scene known the occupants weren't home, Beaumont Fire Chief Pete Shelton said.

    "I can assure you it would have been handled from an exterior attack," Shelton said.

    Jack Maddox, Beaumont fire marshal, said neighbors told the first units arriving at 8:53 a.m. that a woman who baby-sits her grandson lived in the house and there was no reason for them not to be inside that morning.

    That prompted the firefighters to enter the house and perform a rescue operation.

    The grandmother, Nu Truong, and her 1-year-old grandson, Kevin, left the house at 8:30 a.m. to go to the store.

    "The two responsibilities for a firefighter are to save lives and fight fires," said Maddox, "and saving lives comes first."

    Beaumont fire officials also released a timeline of Monday's events, indicating that the first two units responded in just under six minutes to 2180 Neches St., despite receiving an initial address placing the fire six blocks away in the 1200 block of Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway.

    Maddox said a passing motorist called the fire in at 8:47 a.m. but gave her location instead of the fire's location.

    A neighbor called in the correct address at 8:50 a.m.

    Shelton said average response times for the 12 stations citywide is "about five minutes, maybe higher in some places."

    But the delay, which might or might not have added a minute or two to the response time, didn't lead to the flashover that fully ignited the house's front room in flames, according to Shelton.

    "No, I don't think so," he said.

    However, Jay Lowry, a former Charleston, S.C., firefighter and fire marshal who operates the Web site firefighterhourly.com, said time is a huge component when dealing with a flashover.

    "When you increase your response time, fuel is being burned," Lowry said, "and I mean couches, chairs, mattresses, etcetera.

    "If time didn't matter, we wouldn't see departments trying to reduce response times or cities building more stations."

    Shelton said the department is going to do everything it can "to make sure something like this doesn't happen again."

    Starting today, Maddox and Fire Captain Earl White will conduct interviews with the units and firefighters involved to get an exact account of what happened.

    "We want our guys to learn from this," Maddox said.

    Cody Schroeder, who was seriously injured Monday, remains in stable condition at UTMB in Galveston after receiving burns to 40 percent of his body.

    Maddox believes the 27-year-old will go back to firefighting duty once he's healed.

    "I'm fully confident of it; he's a good, strong guy."

    Schroeder, who joined the fire department in October 2000, lost a kidney in a training accident at the LIT fire training academy after falling from a ladder.

    Shelton said Schroeder showed no signs of being in pain Monday.

    "He's got a high tolerance level."
    If I read this correctly, the chief is saying; had the neighbors been out front of the house and stated "Nobody is home", they would have initiated an exterior attack and would not have attempted a primary search?

    Am I wrong in thinking that you fight the fire the same way regardless of what the neighbors say?

    Am I wrong in thinking "What would the Beaumont FD have done if nobody was out in front of the house"?

    Am I wrong in thinking if it was a fire worthy of exterior attack if no one was home then it was a fire worthy of exterior attack if somebody WAS home?

    Am I wrong in thinking that the Beaumont FD is being led by an idiot?
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.


  2. #2
    Forum Member DrewOnFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    62

    Default

    It is becoming more and more common to hear of departments that will not initiate an interior attack if there is no life safety risk. I think it can go to ridiculous extremes at times, but it is THEIR method, their city and their public they answer to.
    Drew Lyman,
    "Dear Chief, much has happened since we talked last..."

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrewOnFire View Post
    It is becoming more and more common to hear of departments that will not initiate an interior attack if there is no life safety risk. I think it can go to ridiculous extremes at times, but it is THEIR method, their city and their public they answer to.
    Great. But that doesn't answer any of my questions.

    Here's a new question. I have been beat up here because I don't think it is worth risking a life for the remote possibility that a skel is in an obviously vacant building. Moving beyind that, how would one tell if an obviously maintained and lived in house is occuppied or not? (Yes, the question is rhetorical.).
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  4. #4
    IACOJ BOD FlyingKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,757

    Default

    George.

    1. Correct.

    2. Correct.

    3. Correct.

    4. Correct.

    5. Absolutely.
    Psychiatrists state 1 in 4 people has a mental illness.
    Look at three of your friends, if they are ok, your it.

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Wheaton IL
    Posts
    1,765

    Default

    I don't understand why on a fire that they said they would not have gone in on if no one was home, was OK to send guys in to search without a hose.
    No one was inside after a search of the home, so a three-man suppression crew, which included Shroeder, began to attack the fire at the rear of the house.
    I think they have problems way in excess of low manpower.

  6. #6
    Forum Member fireman4949's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tallahassee, Florida
    Posts
    2,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi View Post
    George.

    1. Correct.

    2. Correct.

    3. Correct.

    4. Correct.

    5. Absolutely.
    Ditto! I concur!
    Fire Lieutenant/E.M.T.
    IAFF Local 2339
    K of C 4th Degree
    "LEATHER FOREVER"
    Member I.A.C.O.J.
    http://www.tfdfire.com/
    "Fir na tine"

  7. #7
    Forum Member BFDNJFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    1,508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi View Post
    George.

    1. Correct.

    2. Correct.

    3. Correct.

    4. Correct.

    5. Absolutely.

    Yup.

    Just to add, the safety of the firefighters comes first. Then the occupants. If interior is able to be done then do it.
    ******=================
    ******================
    ******=================
    ******================
    =======================
    =======================
    =======================

    ------GOD BLESS AMERICA ! ------

  8. #8
    Forum Member backsteprescue123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi View Post
    George.

    1. Correct.

    2. Correct.

    3. Correct.

    4. Correct.

    5. Absolutely.
    Ok so the keyboard is definatly fried after it was submerged in a mouthful of Mt. Dew.


    That was F'ing HILARIOUS!


    By far the funniest thing I have seen in a long time.


    Thanks Kiwi.
    ------------------------------------
    These opinions are mine and do not reflect the opinions of any organizations I am affiliated with.
    ------------------------------------

  9. #9
    Forum Member DrewOnFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    62

    Default

    OK, I'm missing something.

    I personally think that if conditions are favorable for an interior attack that can save a structure, do it. I didn't join the fire department for the excitement of medical calls.

    That said, why is it stupid to not conduct an interior attack on a structure, after a primary search has been done, and the house is found clear, IF that is your department's SOP?

    To me, what would be stupid is to break and bend your SOPs. If they say, "We don't enter a structure after life safety has been taken care of." Then to ignore that procedure is dangerous. It sets the standard then to bend or break any SOP that you feel is wrong.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by DrewOnFire; 12-20-2007 at 10:30 PM. Reason: grammar
    Drew Lyman,
    "Dear Chief, much has happened since we talked last..."

  10. #10
    IACOJ BOD FlyingKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,757

    Default

    The interesting thing about SOP's.

    They are a thinking persons guidline, and a maroons rules.

    Ever seen two fires exactly the same?
    Psychiatrists state 1 in 4 people has a mental illness.
    Look at three of your friends, if they are ok, your it.

  11. #11
    55 Years & Still Rolling hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Exclamation Hmmmmmmmmm.................... ..

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi View Post

    Ever seen two fires exactly the same?

    Yes. At the burn building at the Academy. And that might be the problem.
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  12. #12
    Forum Member DrewOnFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi View Post
    The interesting thing about SOP's.

    They are a thinking persons guidline, and a maroons rules.

    Ever seen two fires exactly the same?
    Not saying that you shouldn't use tactics based on the unique problems faced at various fires.

    I'm not even defending an SOP that says "No interior attack on a house with no life safety issues." Personally I think that's a stupid rule.

    What I am saying that if your department says no to an interior attack under the circumstances given, then why is it stupid to follow that SOP?
    Drew Lyman,
    "Dear Chief, much has happened since we talked last..."

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber mcaldwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Panorama, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    3,022

    Default

    I have to further support the fact that this is pretty commonly taught risk management practice these days. Once again, often the difference between the more aggressive urban US depts, and the other 80% of North American FD's in existence.

    While it is sometimes debated here, I have seen the "Risk little to save little, Risk a lot to save a lot" theory taught as a cornerstone principle in most of my strategy and tactics training over the last decade. Based on many of the course I have attended, the Chief was right in line with the messaging.

    You don't have to agree, unless you want to work for him.
    Never argue with an Idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience!

    IACOJ

  14. #14
    IACOJ BOD FlyingKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,757

    Default

    Let us look at the first two questions asked by George.

    If I read this correctly, the chief is saying; had the neighbors been out front of the house and stated "Nobody is home", they would have initiated an exterior attack and would not have attempted a primary search?
    So you believe bystanders 100% with what they tell you? What where the fire conditions in the structure, I defy you to find it stated anywhere what the state of the structure was on arrival at the house. Was it smoke filled? Fully involved? Venting?

    If the damn house is blowing flames out of every window and the roof are you going to commit your people? THAT is what a 360 degree size up is all about, or I thought it was.

    Am I wrong in thinking that you fight the fire the same way regardless of what the neighbors say?
    No he is not wrong, there is only ONE way to beat the fire, put more water on than heat being generated.
    Psychiatrists state 1 in 4 people has a mental illness.
    Look at three of your friends, if they are ok, your it.

  15. #15
    Forum Member DrewOnFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi View Post
    Let us look at the first two questions asked by George.



    So you believe bystanders 100% with what they tell you? What where the fire conditions in the structure, I defy you to find it stated anywhere what the state of the structure was on arrival at the house. Was it smoke filled? Fully involved? Venting?

    If the damn house is blowing flames out of every window and the roof are you going to commit your people? THAT is what a 360 degree size up is all about, or I thought it was.



    No he is not wrong, there is only ONE way to beat the fire, put more water on than heat being generated.
    I guess we didn't see eye to eye at first. Got your point now. The story said that they did do a primary search for victims. I suppose you could infer from the way the reporter makes it sound is that they wouldn't have searched if the neighbors told them it was empty?

    I don't think this is what the chief was saying, he was probably saying that after a search was conducted they'd have gone defensive.

    The reporter, who probably has no fire experience, was getting a story written about injured firefighters. The parts of an interview with the chief used to back the story are not the whole picture. The were just the bits that supported the point that a bunch of firefighters got injured.

    I guess. I dunno.
    Drew Lyman,
    "Dear Chief, much has happened since we talked last..."

  16. #16
    IACOJ BOD FlyingKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,757

    Default

    Arguing with people on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
    If you believe that, please leave this job now. Winning in the Special Olympics takes an effort and focus that most people could not comprehend giving of themselves.

    Arguing with people on the internet takes nothing more than exercising your finger muscles. Most people even leave their brains and heart behind.
    Psychiatrists state 1 in 4 people has a mental illness.
    Look at three of your friends, if they are ok, your it.

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    A Google news search of this incident revealed some interesting things:

    1. FH.com, shocking as this may be, put their own misleading headline on this story. The healdine on the story in the The Beaumont Enterprise was "Experts examine the what-ifs of house fire that hurt six Beaumont firefighters; w/VIDEO".

    2. Shelton was the Interim Fire Chief and he is retiring Jan. 2008.

    3. There are contentious contract negotiations going on now with e BFD and they are using this fire as a means to garner public sympathy for their side. Chief Shelton states in this article http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/si...d=512588&rfi=6, that additional staffing would not have changed the outcome.

    4. There is a short video clip of the flashover at http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/si...d=512588&rfi=6 and an explanation of the video by a DC at http://www.kbmt12.com/news/local/12647741.html.

    Please understand that I am not criticizing the tactics used to fight the fire or the fire fighters who were involved. It certainly does not appear that this was a fire that warranted an exterior attack. Although I hate to judge a fire based on a one-dimensional view, this looked like it was nothing other than a R & C fire. Of course you are going to go in and get it.

    My problem is with a Chief who, when faced with a fire where several of his fire fighters are seriously injured, makes comments that sound, on their face, as if he is throwing his IC under the bus.

    The only place the BFD can go from here is up when this guy retires.

    I also pray for the recovery of these guys.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi View Post
    George.

    1. Correct.

    2. Correct.

    3. Correct.

    4. Correct.

    5. Absolutely.
    Are you saying that I am correct that I am wrong? Or just that my thoughts on this are correct? I don't know whether to be mad or thankful.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  19. #19
    IACOJ BOD FlyingKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,757

    Default

    George.

    Yes yes yes no yes um right, no yes your wrong, right, yes.

    Absolutely.

    I will sit on the fence now after my first response, which I thought was clear enough to start a bloody revolution ( Paul Revere flashbck, never mind).

    Absolutely.

    I think, although after taking legal council from my cat I might have to rescind this complete statement.
    Psychiatrists state 1 in 4 people has a mental illness.
    Look at three of your friends, if they are ok, your it.

  20. #20
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    It's hard to tell what the conditions were on arrival, how involved that structure was at any point..

    Sometimes it's a tough go/no go decision with no clear answer. Surely if you arrive and think it's one of "those", you have people telling you that occupants are trapped, AND you think it's possible that they are not already dead... well, you might give it a try.

    If the neighbors say noone is home... I don't treat it as gospel, but it's another piece of the puzzle. If the home is big enough, perhaps entry can be made on individual rooms (VES) or through a rear door... while the attack is being performed.

    From the very brief and limited view of the video, I think this was worthy of an interior attack... a search without a hoseline, probably not.

    It's tough, and I think that all of us will say that if we think we can save a life, then we'll go the extra step.

    As for the Chief's comments. It seems that there may be other non-firefighting things going on.

    I also agree that vacant buildings pose one of the greatests challenges to an IC. I drove by one today and as I was thinking of the strategy/tactics I would use at this vacant home, I also considered the question of vagrants (we don't have a large population of them, if any)....
    Last edited by ChiefKN; 12-21-2007 at 07:57 AM.
    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."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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