The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Riddle Me This, Batman
...as the Joker used to say in the old Adam West TV show...
I just caught a quote from the recent tragic LODD and multiple LOD injuries in St. Anna, WI. One of the nine injuries was an Explorer.
According to Capt. Adam Schuh of the SAFD, "Among those injured were 17-year-old Chase Fritsch and 15-year-old Joshua Scott. Fritsch, who is Schuh’s stepson, is of legal age to serve as a firefighter, with parental permission. Scott is a fire department explorer, a training program for teens aspiring to become firefighters. Scott was never in the actual danger zone on Tuesday night, Schuh said." (Emphasis Supplied)
Source: Statter911
This begs the question; If the Explorer was not in "the actual danger zone", then how did the explosion injure him?
For those of you who are Explorers or juniors and can't wait to get close to the danger, this should make you think. Even something that appears as routine as a dumpster fire isn't alwasy what it appears. Sometimes "out of the danger zone" is still too close.
So should this story from Glen Ellen, CA, where an Explorer was treated for heat exhaustion suffered while reportedly ....
For those of you who have Explorer or junior programs, these incidents should give you pause.
Why would anyone let an Explorer fight an interior fire for any reason?
How can an explosion injure an Explorer who is thought to be out of the danger area?
I wonder what their parents are thinking right now?
Any LODD is tragic. I share in the sorrow for the St. Anna department's loss, and am greatful that this incident or the Glen Ellen incident were not even worse. The potential was certainly there. The adult firefighters generally understand the risks when they respond to any call, even if it's "just a dumpster fire". The juniors and Explorers among us clearly don't have the experience and judgement to do the same.
If your department has an Explorer or junior program, the rules for what they can do, how close to a hazard zone they are allowed, their PPE, need to be clear, concise, and enforced. Their supervision needs to be absolute.
I sincerely hope that this is the last time we ever hear about an Explorer injury while operating at a fire.
I just caught a quote from the recent tragic LODD and multiple LOD injuries in St. Anna, WI. One of the nine injuries was an Explorer.
According to Capt. Adam Schuh of the SAFD, "Among those injured were 17-year-old Chase Fritsch and 15-year-old Joshua Scott. Fritsch, who is Schuh’s stepson, is of legal age to serve as a firefighter, with parental permission. Scott is a fire department explorer, a training program for teens aspiring to become firefighters. Scott was never in the actual danger zone on Tuesday night, Schuh said." (Emphasis Supplied)
Source: Statter911
This begs the question; If the Explorer was not in "the actual danger zone", then how did the explosion injure him?
For those of you who are Explorers or juniors and can't wait to get close to the danger, this should make you think. Even something that appears as routine as a dumpster fire isn't alwasy what it appears. Sometimes "out of the danger zone" is still too close.
So should this story from Glen Ellen, CA, where an Explorer was treated for heat exhaustion suffered while reportedly ....
For those of you who have Explorer or junior programs, these incidents should give you pause.
Why would anyone let an Explorer fight an interior fire for any reason?
How can an explosion injure an Explorer who is thought to be out of the danger area?
I wonder what their parents are thinking right now?
Any LODD is tragic. I share in the sorrow for the St. Anna department's loss, and am greatful that this incident or the Glen Ellen incident were not even worse. The potential was certainly there. The adult firefighters generally understand the risks when they respond to any call, even if it's "just a dumpster fire". The juniors and Explorers among us clearly don't have the experience and judgement to do the same.
If your department has an Explorer or junior program, the rules for what they can do, how close to a hazard zone they are allowed, their PPE, need to be clear, concise, and enforced. Their supervision needs to be absolute.
I sincerely hope that this is the last time we ever hear about an Explorer injury while operating at a fire.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
Think about what needs to be done and stop living your dreams through the eyes of the children.
This is one of most powerful quotes I have read in a long time Art...
-
Permalink Reply by Ben "Batman" Barry on
-
People under 18 can have medical certs (at least in CT). I got my MRT (first responder) at 14. If the state DPH or OEMS feels that the kid is competent enough to treat a person then why would it risk your cert.
-
-
I actually thought you got the name from me. Its true, what was going through that explorers head to do such a stupid thing?
-
Permalink Reply by Tiffanie Pettis on
-
thngs like that are he whole reason why my company stopped our explorer program.. it is unfortunate but they did. everyon was afraid of all of the lawsuits and insurance issues, safety concerns, etc.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Cole on
-
So, it is unacceptable to place a 15 year-old in a life saving role in EMS (which I totaly agree), yet becouse he is chaffing at the bit to play fireman, it IS acceptable to place him ina KNOWN position of IDLH?
JUST becouse he wants to, and for the lack of enough qualified adults? I don't wish to personally attack anyone here, but that attitude of anyone must be better than no one is just another reason the fire service plays second fiddle in the emergency services.
If a community, a township, village, or city does not have enough certified, physically and emotionally capable ADULTS to provide fire protection, it IS the responsibility of that jurisdictions governing body to find a way to provide that protection. But again, the public MUST be aware of the shortage in the first place, and they must demand their politicans address the problem. And should either party not consider it a priority, or worthy of addressing, then so be it. Respond with the two or three actual ADULT firefighters you have, and sit back and throw the water through the windos, if that is the best you can do.
But in NO WAY do you enlist in the aid of a 15 year-old, who cannot even legally drive yet, and expect them to perform those duties, regardless of who supervises them. That goes for 16 year-olds, and 17 year olds as well. If not, where then do we draw the line?
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
Jack,
To answer your question, I'm not really sure where I would draw the line in terms of a minimum age or approved fireground activities for the little ones. But I certainly don't have a problem with a 17 y/o (who can enlist in the military) or even a 16 y/o (who can drive a car on an interstate) doing things like stretching lines to supply a master stream device, or stretching an line from a pumper to a hydrant, or a pumper to a pumper in a relay, or taking up hose lines or ground ladders after a job, or restoring the hosebed or possibly even filling debris cans when clearing out a room - things of that nature. I know that no activity is without risk - breathing isn't. But I just don't see myself getting worked up over a young man (or girl, God help us) performing on the fireground in a limited capacity.
I will, however, defer to you guys who have more experience and knowledge with regard to these Junior/Explorer issues. I can see a slippery slope argument being made - "Stretch a line from a pumper to a hydrant today, stretch a line from a pumper to a second floor back bedroom tomorrow". I get that. And if that were to be the inevitable outcome, than I wouldn't even let them stretch caution tape, let alone a hose line.
-
Permalink Reply by Todd on
-
I see what you are saying, but the thing you have to remember is this......the very citizens you are trying to protect with that 15 year old kid are the ones who have chosen to pay for the level of protection that they have. If they want assured response then they need to come of the money to pay for it.
There is no justification for using children on fire scenes for any task, much less active firefighting.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
No disrespect intended, but I don't think that the "kid" has enough maturity, life experience, or credibility to treat patients, but that's not my main concern.
My concern is that I simply don't think that anyone that young should be put in the kind of risk situation that fire or EMS calls routinely have present.
-
Permalink Reply by Fireyladd - Retired Chief Sharp on
-
Well said and I agree completely Chief. But, who is protecting that firefighter against lack of leadership from above. Seems to be little to no oversight of those leading the firefighters.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
This was a reply to a comment by Bill Carey to my blog:
http://www.firefighternation.com/profiles/blogs/the-tradition-exped...
If we are talking in terms that find us interchanging “tradition” and “experience”, then I believe this: “some” older firefighters will foster older traditions and resist or reject newer interpretations and thinking of the older traditions.
They are convinced that; how they were taught is how it should be. It has worked for them; no one has given them a compelling reason to change, so they won’t. The exclamation point to their argument is the person that is half their age standing in front of them trying to change their mind!
In essence, they will continue to use what has worked for them, because they believe that is what has kept them alive and it doesn’t matter if it’s a young firefighter, a certified instructor or someone with a PhD in Tactics. “If it isn’t broke, then don’t fix it”, comes to mind.
“Some” younger firefighters are more than willing to embrace newer tactics and newer technology and especially if it is easier to learn and easier to use. “Work smarter; not harder”, comes to mind.
It has often been said that, in order to stay in this profession, you must keep up with its ever-changing complexion. I personally found that beneficial during my active service, but I saw the down-side, when some of the older ones simply did not want to invest that much time into “changing”, so they would retire.
Now; this creates a dilemma, in that it may cause a department to short circuit the learning process to get more bodies to an incident. In doing so, I believe that “tradition” takes a back seat or is dismissed all together. If traditions are introduced, it is forced and then resisted by the younger ones. It has to make sense and have palpable value to them.
I believe that the younger firefighters want to be on the fast track, because they want to be productive and therefore, respected by their peers. But, this is in direct conflict with the older notion it has to be taught, practiced, perfected and then demonstrated before it can be used. Young firefighters believe that they can “learn something today and use it tomorrow”. Today’s attention spans aren’t that tolerant. This could be the reason why firefighters under the age of 40 (Karter’s report) has the highest injury rate.
I read an interesting NFPA study by Michael J. Karter, Jr. some months back. Released in May, 2009, Karter examined calendar years 2003 – 2006 for fire ground firefighter injuries. These injuries were reported and compiled by using data from NFIRS.
In reviewing this report, I found that: during 2003 – 2006, we averaged 40,270 injuries per year.
Interesting to note is that total injuries increased in 2003, 2005 and 2006. Though the total injuries decreased in 2004, the minor and moderate-to-severe injury totals increased over 2003 totals.
The severity of injury by age was examined in this report, which I think may lend itself to some discussion as to their contributing causes.
Karter found that: younger firefighters 16 – 19 and 20 – 29 had more minor injuries, while older firefighters 30 – 39, 40 – 49, 50 – 59 and 60 and older had a higher occurrence of moderate-to-severe injuries.
I also want to point out that the highest percentage of injuries (80%) for 2003 – 2006 occurred in structures and in the Northeast region of our country. That would put the highest rates in our fire services’ “cradle of tradition”.
As far as your question regarding “greater fault”; I don’t think anyone is “at fault”. I think that it is the way that we have been wired, trained and allowed to execute by either following a structured chain of command or something that resembles a 3 ring circus.
One question that comes to my mind and perhaps you can answer it is : if older is training newer and newer is getting hurt; is it poor teaching/training, poor oversight at the scene, poor execution at the scene, free lancing at the scene or a combination of these factors?
And if so, where does it fall within the context of “tradition”?
A copy of Michael J. Karter, Jr.’s report is available at: “Patterns of Firefighter Fire Ground Injuries, May 2009”, NFPA One-Stop Data Shop, www.nfpa.org.
Thanks for your questions, Bill. Maybe we should have done this for NetCast!
TCSS.
-
-
sound to me like you are getting it Dave... keep up the good work and learn from the old guys while they are still around. this is how you maintain tradition and a true understanding for our profession.
CBz
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
