The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Car Accidents
Maybe a stupid post, but here it goes.
When we get a MVA in our county our dispatchers use their discretion to page out Fire and EMS. Our dispatchers don't have medical training neither do some our Deputies.Yet they are the ones making the decision to cancel us. It has happened on rollovers and multicar accidents. I feel it is going to bite someone in the rear soon. just looking for some thoughts on this..
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mike "Lapo" Lapotasky on
-
How does that fit with this conversation? Not being crass; just asking.
-
-
This is the typical walking wounded scenario. We have to begin teaching 1st resp. like LEOs and BLS units to play devil's advocate in trying to convince PTs to reach definitive care. Our local LEOs will not take the PTs word for it and would not cancel us unless they can teel that there is not a signifcant MOI. They may request us to reduce our response but almost never cancel us.
As for Rescue, my Rescue Squad is the primary rescue agency, so we do not encouter that problem. We operate as a subdivision of the agency as the TRT.
-
-
I do not believe in cancelling once units are enroute. Placing units on a reduced response is acceptable and encouraged in my opinion. Continuing after cancellation is bad for inter-agency relations and respect.
-
-
However, I will say that it is frustrating to arrive and realize that there is extrication necessary and have to back pedal. Many times the people deciding that there is no extrication necessary know nothing about the discipline and have no basis for making that decision. More people should be trained in motor vehicle collision assessment and strategy. Also, some FDs do not have FRs or EMTs on the apparatii. Not understanding MOI or patient packaging and removal becomes an impediment to their understanding of why a quick relief cut or roof displacement may be necessary to take every necessary C-spine precaution. Although not evident, as stated above there could very well be cervical fractures that are presenting with any signs or symptoms. One never knows. It just so happens that EMTs are ultra-cautious as they realize they may be named in a bullshit lawsuit. Err on the side of caution my friends.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
If there is no need for an engine on scene, let it be canceled. Continuing a rig, even flow of traffic, when there is no need for it is a waste of time and resources. Return it back to the barn.
Canceling a rig for a legitimate reason has nothing to do with inter-agency relations, it's common sense if there is no need. And turning apparatus around has nothing to do with respect either. It's kind of pointless to continue with no need, for what, just so the crew can drive by the scene and see what's going on?
-
-
What state and county do you live in that you don't have EMDs?
-
-
You are taking my comments out of context. Whether you agree or not, it does have to do with inter-agency relations. Period. You saying it doesn't bears no affect on reality. Scenes change. units can block traffic until the scene is secured by PD. I know LEOs who have been hit by motorists that would have been safer if a blocking vehicle had been provided. Look above at Norm's comment about ignoring the cancellation. That is what spawned my comments that you commented on. We are also not just talking about fire apparatus. Your closing question should be directed at Norm, not me.
You are right about wasting resources but that was not the context of our exchange here. You are also right that turning a rig around has nothing to do with respect, but continuing to the scene IS when you have been cancelled.
Try reading the whole post first...
BTW...what constitutes a "legitimate" reason? We have established in this thread that we are sometimes cancelled when we should not be.
If a rig is on the road already...reduce its response...use it for a good purpose. Just because hose or hydraulic lines aren't pulled it's a waste of time?
You're as bad as the guy above complaining about responding to an alarm at a middle school!
-
-
For a person to say that idiocy is a problem and not look in the mirror is an issue in the fire/ems service:
Norm Tindell’s comment:
“What about continuing to the scene even though they try to cancel you.”
My comment in reply:
“Continuing after cancellation is bad for inter-agency relations and respect.”
Your (Jack/dt) comment in reply to me:
“If there is no need for an engine on scene, let it be canceled. Continuing a rig, even flow of traffic, when there is no need for it is a waste of time and resources. Return it back to the barn.”
Now...who exactly is the idiot? By the way, I am not saying that I do not make spelling errors due to typos, but you make the same spelling mistakes over and over. People in glass houses should not throw stones. Try reading entire threads before responding and making a fool of yourself. Nice sentence construction by the way.
-
-
Mikey,
Your comment, and I quote:"I do not believe in cancelling once units are enroute."
I replied: "If there is no need for an engine on scene, let it be canceled. Continuing a rig, even flow of traffic, when there is no need for it is a waste of time and resources. Return it back to the barn."
I may have misread your final comment, or you may have changed it. Hard to know at this point so I'll take the hit and say I misread it and misspoke. Hope that makes you feel better, but feel free to post your insults on my profile page anytime you like. (I leave my profile *open* rather than *private*, as you do, so the opportunity is there.)
-
Permalink Reply by masonfire30 on
-
Bayfield County, Wisconsin
-
-
Ralph...I am with you. I did realize that. My comment was more directed at Barry. In that regard i am with you on that alarm not being an alarm.
-
-
Why don't you have them? That's interesting. I wonder why...see if you can find an answer on that one for me...
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
