+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1234 ... Last
  1. #1
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default Two in/Two out QUESTION?

    Fire on the first floor of a house at 3am. Three firefighters on-scene.

    VES of the second floor windows for 'potential' occupants -
    • One firefighter at the base of the ladder
    • One firefighter in SCBA at the head of the ladder
    • One firefighter in SCBA enters the room, closes the door and makes a quick search

    They do this searching two bedrooms on the A side and one on the B/C corner.

    Is this a violation of the OSHA regs? Or is it a potential 'loophole'?

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber
    JohnVBFD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Norfolk, Va
    Posts
    1,481

    Default

    Well....

    Some will argue that by the letter of the rule, there is no confirmed life hazard so they will say that: Yes this is in violation.

    Most of us here will argue that the situation as presented does present a possible life hazard and we will say: No this is not in violation.

    Personally, 3am...someone's house...fires don't start on their own without help or carelessness....I would lean toward getting the first line in operation, as that will present the best means of protecting life. However I would have no issue at all with VESing and conducting the primary search first.

    However, as writen currently, it can be read as a "loophole". But by the same token, some can use it to justify doing nothing.
    Co 11
    Virginia Beach FD

    Amateurs practice until they get it right; professionals practice until they cannot get it wrong. Which one are you?

    'The fire went out and nobody got hurt' is a poor excuse for a fireground critique.

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    tnff320's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    152

    Default

    The 2in/out rule does not apply when a rescue must be performed, and man power is not available.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    I'm confused: As described, isn't it 1-in, 2-out anyway? There are still two firefighters outside who could perform a FF rescue if needed.

    Either way, I'd think TITO would not apply since its a possible rescue situation
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    MemphisE34a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Memphis, TN - USA
    Posts
    2,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9 View Post
    I'm confused: As described, isn't it 1-in, 2-out anyway? There are still two firefighters outside who could perform a FF rescue if needed.

    Either way, I'd think TITO would not apply since its a possible rescue situation
    Not that I am a bid proponent of it, but in this instance it is the 1 in that would be the violation, not the 2 out. Hence why it is titled 2 in / 2 out.

    To the Chief - at 3 in the morning, with no one to meet you stating that everyone is out, I would be inclined to do my job and try to explain (beg for forgiveness) after the fact. Its hard to have someone outside telling you people are in there when they are ALL still in there.

    Lets face it, most callers that do reside in the home they are calling about can really not factually state whether anyone is home or not. They offer their best guess which should be the same is ours. I don't see them, so they must still be in the house. Even if it proves false, as it does in many instances, you erred on the side of giving any possibly trapped occupants the best possible chance.

    Again I say 2 in / 2 out is a joke!!
    RK
    cell #901-494-9437

    Management is making sure things are done right. Leadership is doing the right thing. The fire service needs alot more leaders and a lot less managers.

    "Everyone goes home" is the mantra for the pussification of the modern, American fire service.


    Comments made are my own. They do not represent the official position or opinion of the Fire Department or the City for which I am employed. In fact, they are normally exactly the opposite.

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    LADDER2EKU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Eastern Kentucky Univ./Stafford Va
    Posts
    127

    Default

    As much as I prefer truck work such as V.E.S. in that situation I would most likely be strecthing an handline inside, and putting the fire out, that is what will be the most beneficial to anyone still inside the house, in my opinion of course.
    Wade Munday

    www.Stafford2fire.com
    -and-
    www.fairfaxfire.org

    RIP DET. VICKY ARMEL
    Fairfax County PD
    LODD
    End Of Watch 5-8-2006

    RIP DEPUTY/FF JASON MOONEY
    Stafford Sheriffs/Stafford VFD
    LODD
    End Of Watch 10-19-2007

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

    Default

    1. To those of you who want to stretch the line in first - you are in violation of the 2 in/2 out!

    2. To those who think it is ok to search - this is not a 'known' life hazard - it is potential or 'suspected'. You are in violation of the regs.

    3. To those that are thinking that it is 1 in/2 out - maybe yes ... but that's what VES is in some situations ... one at the head of the ladder in voice contact with his/her buddy .... is this a loophole?! Maybe this is two in/one out?! either way you can argue the point no?

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber
    jfTL41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    573

    Default

    Violation or not, the scenario states 3 firefighters, it does not give much info other than that they have SCBA (did they come in POVs?) and are attempting to VES the living areas of the home. If these 3 guys came on a rig that can pump water, at least one of these guys should be stretching a line and putting water on the fire (makes EVERYTHING better). As for the waiting on the ladder thing, it is far more efficient to search with 2 than with 1, staying at the top of the ladder is probably the last thing I would do, get in search and get out if there is not a line in place after you are complete.
    Two in two out doesn't work, fire scenes are too fluid to have any hard fast black and white rules. Do you need to have a plan of action to protect operating members? Absolutely! Do you have the luxury in the initial moments of a fire to sit two guys out? Not likely! Maybe in a world where fires are attacked from behind desks and lines flow water through open windows.
    We must protect our own through our operations, accountibility, training and communications, rather than by tying one hand behind our back.

  9. #9
    makes good girls go bad
    BLSboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    On the beach, Fla/OCNJ
    Posts
    2,859

    Default

    Batt18, who wrote the 2/2 rule, and what was the intended use for it? Was this a reg designed PRIMARILY for firemen, and the special hazards that we encounter?

    Also, with your scenario, there are a few things that I would like to know. Cars in driveway? Who was the RP? Where is my second due? What did I arrive on? What are the fire conditions? Heavy and blowing out of multiple windows? One window? Light smoke showing?
    Too many variables, not enough info.

    Assuming I arrived on an Engine, or QUINT, and there is a life hazard, here is how I would do it

    1 with hoseline, making attack on seat of fire
    1 pumps, dons bunker gear, meets up with nozzleman
    1 doing VES.
    AJ, MICP, FireMedic
    Member, IACOJ.
    FTM-PTB-EGH-DTRT-RFB-KTF
    This message has been made longer, in part from a grant from the You Are a Freaking Moron Foundation.

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    MemphisE34a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Memphis, TN - USA
    Posts
    2,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    1. To those of you who want to stretch the line in first - you are in violation of the 2 in/2 out!

    2. To those who think it is ok to search - this is not a 'known' life hazard - it is potential or 'suspected'. You are in violation of the regs.

    3. To those that are thinking that it is 1 in/2 out - maybe yes ... but that's what VES is in some situations ... one at the head of the ladder in voice contact with his/her buddy .... is this a loophole?! Maybe this is two in/one out?! either way you can argue the point no?
    No. If you can't see the loophole in the fact that a 3 am fire with cars in the driveway and swing sets in the yard and no one from the residence to meet you is not enough of a loophole because you only "suspect" someone might be in the house..........

    ......How in the hell do you think it is a loophole to operate as 1 in / 2 out or 2 in / 1 out???? It's called 2 in / 2 out because "by the regs." as you state, you have to operate with a team of 2 inside with a team of 2 outside. Four people required Chief, not three. You are also in violation!

    You are a fine example of a chief that has been wearing his helmet a bit too tightly! Loosen it up a lil Chief.
    Last edited by MemphisE34a; 03-03-2008 at 05:20 PM.
    RK
    cell #901-494-9437

    Management is making sure things are done right. Leadership is doing the right thing. The fire service needs alot more leaders and a lot less managers.

    "Everyone goes home" is the mantra for the pussification of the modern, American fire service.


    Comments made are my own. They do not represent the official position or opinion of the Fire Department or the City for which I am employed. In fact, they are normally exactly the opposite.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,694

    Default

    Batt18, who wrote the 2/2 rule, and what was the intended use for it? Was this a reg designed PRIMARILY for firemen, and the special hazards that we encounter?
    OSHA. And No, it is not intended for firemen only. It's intended for anyone that enters ANY IDLH atmosphere. Firemen are just the biggest group that opposes it, most times with good reason.

    I have never VES'd and left a guy waiting at the top of the ladder. Then again, in my area, where the area around most of the houses is grass, you probably won't find a guy at the bottom footing the ladder during it either.
    "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?

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    MemphisE34a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Memphis, TN - USA
    Posts
    2,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jfTL41 View Post
    Do you have the luxury in the initial moments of a fire to sit two guys out? Not likely! Maybe in a world where fires are attacked from behind desks and lines flow water through open windows.
    We must protect our own through our operations, accountibility, training and communications, rather than by tying one hand behind our back.
    Thats beautiful!!
    RK
    cell #901-494-9437

    Management is making sure things are done right. Leadership is doing the right thing. The fire service needs alot more leaders and a lot less managers.

    "Everyone goes home" is the mantra for the pussification of the modern, American fire service.


    Comments made are my own. They do not represent the official position or opinion of the Fire Department or the City for which I am employed. In fact, they are normally exactly the opposite.

  13. #13
    Worldwide Menace
    DFurtman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wandering the World
    Posts
    541

    Default

    too many variables...

    What about having a search line attached to the FF doing VES, attached to a FF on the outside of the structure.. what about doing an exterior attack from a window until M/A or support arrives?

    -Damien

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber
    JohnVBFD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Norfolk, Va
    Posts
    1,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DFurtman View Post
    too many variables...

    What about having a search line attached to the FF doing VES, attached to a FF on the outside of the structure.. what about doing an exterior attack from a window until M/A or support arrives?

    -Damien
    Exterior attack you have most likely just written off anyone still inside that structure.

    As has been pointed out, this is going to go no where fast.

    At 3am in the morning in any type of house that looks remotely occupied, that is significant reason enough for me to begin interior operations to protect life.

    There is not going to be some magic neon sign that will pop open on your arrival stating "People trapped here" "Person dead here" "Fire located here".

    Some can/will/(and have) use(d) 2in/2out and its current poor wording as the justification for doing nothing.

    Others will damn the rule and do what is necessary to protect life.
    Co 11
    Virginia Beach FD

    Amateurs practice until they get it right; professionals practice until they cannot get it wrong. Which one are you?

    'The fire went out and nobody got hurt' is a poor excuse for a fireground critique.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MemphisE34a View Post
    No. If you can't see the loophole in the fact that a 3 am fire with cars in the driveway and swing sets in the yard and no one from the residence to meet you is not enough of a loophole because you only "suspect" someone might be in the house..........

    ......How in the hell do you think it is a loophole to operate as 1 in / 2 out or 2 in / 1 out???? It's called 2 in / 2 out because "by the regs." as you state, you have to operate with a team of 2 inside with a team of 2 outside. Four people required Chief, not three. You are also in violation!

    You are a fine example of a chief that has been wearing his helmet a bit too tightly! Loosen it up a lil Chief.
    Well I'm glad this has created some debate. But I am not looking at tactics! If I was the Chief in this scenario I know how I would approach it but I am not asking for opinions on tactics. I am asking -

    Is the man at the top of the ladder considered (legally) an 'inside' man or an 'outside' man?


    In this scenario - can VES operated in this way create a viable loophole in the OSHA regs that we might use?

    We cannot officially search for 'suspected' ....

    We cannot fight the fire ....

    If we are to comply where the regs apply (state).

  16. #16
    makes good girls go bad
    BLSboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    On the beach, Fla/OCNJ
    Posts
    2,859

    Default

    Why don't I like the direction this has taken...

    How are you going to run your calls? From a textbook, or the way that saves lives, and protects property?
    AJ, MICP, FireMedic
    Member, IACOJ.
    FTM-PTB-EGH-DTRT-RFB-KTF
    This message has been made longer, in part from a grant from the You Are a Freaking Moron Foundation.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    OSHA. And No, it is not intended for firemen only. It's intended for anyone that enters ANY IDLH atmosphere. Firemen are just the biggest group that opposes it, most times with good reason.

    I have never VES'd and left a guy waiting at the top of the ladder. Then again, in my area, where the area around most of the houses is grass, you probably won't find a guy at the bottom footing the ladder during it either.
    So how would you VES a bedroom? Two firefighters inside? In this scenario (and most) it is sound tactics to make entry with one with his buddy remaining at the top of the ladder, maintaining voice contact and guiding him back to the window and taking any occupants from him. Thats not set in stone but it is my first choice.

  18. #18
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BLSboy View Post
    Why don't I like the direction this has taken...

    How are you going to run your calls? From a textbook, or the way that saves lives, and protects property?
    If you look a bit deeper here and think outside the box, I am asking if the 'LAW' can be adapted to allow us to stay 'legal' (arguably) and still get inside to search an occupancy, just as you are implying we should. I am not arguing that the rule should be used to prevent rescue attempts.

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Here read the applicable standard instead of letting some chess player trick you into or out of something. This is the fed standard, any state plans have to offer the employee at least this level of protection.

    http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...able=STANDARDS

    1910.134(g)(3)
    Procedures for IDLH atmospheres. For all IDLH atmospheres, the employer shall ensure that:
    1910.134(g)(3)(i)
    One employee or, when needed, more than one employee is located outside the IDLH atmosphere;
    1910.134(g)(3)(ii)
    Visual, voice, or signal line communication is maintained between the employee(s) in the IDLH atmosphere and the employee(s) located outside the IDLH atmosphere;
    1910.134(g)(3)(iii)
    The employee(s) located outside the IDLH atmosphere are trained and equipped to provide effective emergency rescue;
    1910.134(g)(3)(iv)
    The employer or designee is notified before the employee(s) located outside the IDLH atmosphere enter the IDLH atmosphere to provide emergency rescue;
    1910.134(g)(3)(v)
    The employer or designee authorized to do so by the employer, once notified, provides necessary assistance appropriate to the situation;
    1910.134(g)(3)(vi)
    Employee(s) located outside the IDLH atmospheres are equipped with:
    1910.134(g)(3)(vi)(A)
    Pressure demand or other positive pressure SCBAs, or a pressure demand or other positive pressure supplied-air respirator with auxiliary SCBA; and either
    1910.134(g)(3)(vi)(B)
    Appropriate retrieval equipment for removing the employee(s) who enter(s) these hazardous atmospheres where retrieval equipment would contribute to the rescue of the employee(s) and would not increase the overall risk resulting from entry; or
    1910.134(g)(3)(vi)(C)
    Equivalent means for rescue where retrieval equipment is not required under paragraph (g)(3)(vi)(B).
    1910.134(g)(4)
    Procedures for interior structural firefighting. In addition to the requirements set forth under paragraph (g)(3), in interior structural fires, the employer shall ensure that:
    1910.134(g)(4)(i)
    At least two employees enter the IDLH atmosphere and remain in visual or voice contact with one another at all times;
    1910.134(g)(4)(ii)
    At least two employees are located outside the IDLH atmosphere; and
    1910.134(g)(4)(iii)
    All employees engaged in interior structural firefighting use SCBAs.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g): One of the two individuals located outside the IDLH atmosphere may be assigned to an additional role, such as incident commander in charge of the emergency or safety officer, so long as this individual is able to perform assistance or rescue activities without jeopardizing the safety or health of any firefighter working at the incident.

    Note 2 to paragraph (g): Nothing in this section is meant to preclude firefighters from performing emergency rescue activities before an entire team has assembled.

  20. #20
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geinandputitout View Post
    Here read the applicable standard instead of letting some chess player trick you into or out of something. This is the fed standard, any state plans have to offer the employee at least this level of protection.
    Not the case buddy - you'd better brush up on the standards before you debate this! There are a host of definitions and state interpretations that present variations and exploit loopholes in the Fed standard.

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    Not the case buddy - you'd better brush up on the standards before you debate this! There are a host of definitions and state interpretations that present variations and exploit loopholes in the Fed standard.

    my state and two adjacent states adopted the section verbatim. My issue is that your trying to mess with guys heads. If you want to teach somebody something, then you should do it. If you want to prove how smart you are pick up a friggin' Chemistry book, but near as I can tell you are trying to demonstrate your ability to read a code book - not fight fire.

    Oh by the way, if there are so many statutes and interpretations, where does you lovely little scenario take place?

    PS - Do you think your head is getting a little large, when you suggest who can post on a free and anonmyous internet forum?
    Last edited by Geinandputitout; 03-03-2008 at 06:56 PM.

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Spring Branch, TX
    Posts
    28

    Default

    If I reasonably believed that there were occupants upstairs I would VES without hesitation. That being said without knowing the dimensions and the layout I wonder if you can effectively VES 3 rooms before the fire extends to those areas.

  23. #23
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geinandputitout View Post
    my state and two adjacent states adopted the section verbatim. My issue is that your trying to mess with guys heads. If you want to teach somebody something, then you should do it. If you want to prove how smart you are pick up a friggin' Chemistry book, but near as I can tell you are trying to demonstrate your ability to read a code book - not fight fire.

    Oh by the way, if there are so many statutes and interpretations, where does you lovely little scenario take place?

    PS - Do you think your head is getting a little large, when you suggest who can post on a free and anonmyous internet forum?
    I didn't come on here and throw insults at you Mr. so either take part in the debate with some respect, without name calling, or go bust some balls elsewhere.

    This is a viable question that should promote thought. There are many on here who don't even want to consider the OSHA ruling and will adopt their own approach (not sure if that is the official line of their department). There are others who will (must) follow the ruling because that is what their employer demands they do. Just because your surrounding states adopt the standard as written doesn't mean this is standard everywhere.

    Then there are those who will use opportunities to make this ruling work in practical terms. It was simply a question to start some reasonable debate.

    I didn't say you can't post! Show me where! I said you better brush up on the standards and their varied definitions and interpretations and recognize that many states are using loopholes.

  24. #24
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    I didn't come on here and throw insults at you Mr. so either take part in the debate with some respect, without name calling, or go bust some balls elsewhere.

    This is a viable question that should promote thought. There are many on here who don't even want to consider the OSHA ruling and will adopt their own approach (not sure if that is the official line of their department). There are others who will (must) follow the ruling because that is what their employer demands they do. Just because your surrounding states adopt the standard as written doesn't mean this is standard everywhere.

    Then there are those who will use opportunities to make this ruling work in practical terms. It was simply a question to start some reasonable debate.

    I didn't say you can't post! Show me where! I said you better brush up on the standards and their varied definitions and interpretations and recognize that many states are using loopholes.

    Fair enough. I'd go ahead and search the structure. I would consider the structure occupied until proven otherwise. As others have stated its a residential structure at 3 AM and no one met us on the front lawn.

    Here are some other things that I would quickly want to know:
    does the structure look occupied?
    are there vehicles in the driveway?
    what can I tell about the fire from the outside?
    when are my next do companies going to arrive?
    are there signs of children around or near the house?
    are there are any neighbors that can offer any additional information?
    can I do some horizontal venitlation on the ground floor quickly to affect the fire?
    Last edited by Geinandputitout; 03-03-2008 at 08:08 PM.

  25. #25
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geinandputitout View Post
    Fair enough. I'd go ahead and search the structure. I would consider the structure occupied until proven otherwise. As others have stated its a residential structure at 3 AM and no one met us on the front lawn.
    Ok I appreciate that. But it still takes you in violation of the ruling as you only 'suspect' life hazard. My question is to get your views on the viability of using VES to search for 'suspected' life risk, but remaining legally (arguably) within the ruling.

    OK I know it is 2 in/2 out .... but we only have 3 and (in theory) must comply with the ruling. But if we have 'one in' for VES (this is a well-used tactic) is the 'buddy' considered in or out? If it can even remotely be argued he is 'out' there is at least 'two out' .... and he remains in voice contact (then there is two-in) and compliance is maintained. Long shot I know but its got to be a valid legal argument in situations of 'possible' life risk where compliance with the riling was attempted.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1234 ... Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. multi question truck modification question
    By CaptainMikey in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-25-2005, 01:48 PM

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