Perfect Firefighters

I just watched a video of a fire. I'm not going to say what department because thats not the issue. The issue is perfect firefighters commenting on the thousands of the things the company did wrong.

They comment on how many drivers does it take to pump an engine. Using the wrong lines, etc etc.

I was in the business for 30 years. I've made alot of mistakes as a firefighter, driver and officer. But never lost anyone or had a firefighter hurt. Mostly thats from luck.

Its so easy to watch a video and monday morning quarterback. But I'm sure if they were on video people could do the same thing. Most of us know there are rules to this business. But we also know those rules go out the windows sometimes.

Pulling a booster line on a house fire. Sure we don't want a inch line but if thats all you can do and use it to protect esposures until more arrives or even stick it in the window I have no issue with that.

If it takes 3 drivers to pull lines, hook up the supply line, make sure the lines are clear and the crew gets water who cares.

And my biggest pet peeve. "They took forever to get there" I've told the story befoe how my mom called for an ambulance I called and cursed 9-1-1 because they were taking too long. I've been on all three sides of an emergency situation. As a responder going to the firehouse I didn't go slow. As a driver I didn't go slow, It feels like your flying like the wind. When I tool calls as a 9-1-1 operator I entered the calls as I was talking to insure prompt response. Bu as a person who needed emergency services...you people take forever. Or thats the way it seems.

My point of this long rambling post...think about the situation before you make a comment on a website about another company or department. Especially if your gear is still fresh and new and the closest you ever come to fire and the cigarette in your mouth. No fire department is perfect. We all make mistakes. Instead of bashing use it as a learning point.

1 member likes this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on April 23, 2011 at 7:34pm

Pierre-Louis,

The fact that the fire is a meter from the street makes is ridiculously easy to extinguish, as I've pointed out to you more that once.

The fact that the other fire had ALREADY spread means that your claim about the risk of vertical spread is silly. You are comparing the risk of vertical spread at a fire that could be extinguished easily from the street to one that had already extended from Level 2 to the attic. That is not a valid comparison.

Comparing a risk that did not occur to an actual event is not valid.

Your claim is not valid.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on April 23, 2011 at 7:42pm

Once again, your using logical fallacies in a weak attempt to support your arguments.

"You know perfectly well that when I say "compare" it's in real life." No, I don't. You did make that clear in the discussion and I don't know it at all.

"You don't want to compare, that's all." That's also not factual. I've done nothing but compare in this discussion.

As for your large sample sizes, that's the first time you've mentioned them without any supporting evidence. Everything you've either posted or linked here prior to this has only shown a sample size maximum of n=3 and your challenge included a very small sample size offer as well.

Your data recording of temperature under turnout gear is off topic and diversionary. The issue isn't how hot it gets under turnout gear, it's what kind of firefighting tactics are the most effective in a variety of fire situations with a variety of rescue/non-rescue needs, different building construction types, different interior configurations, different response times, different manpower configurations...ooops, there I go again making those comparisons you say I don't want to make.

Given the many factual errors you've posted in this debate, what you say you've heard of is frankly quite unreliable to me. Facts are not based on "whether Pierre-Louis has heard of them or not".

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pararescue on April 24, 2011 at 4:12am

You've been to a fire that water did not convert to steam???? And to dilute CO isn't a really big deal. I'd worry more about the hydrogen cyanide that can cause problems hours or years after the exposure. CO is no longer the big bad guy. We have methyl ethyl really bad shit in the smoke now.

And your TRAINING INSTRUCTOR aloud a live fire with 2 FF's with no SCBA's on? Sorry bra, your "training methods" no matter what just took a dump!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Paschal on April 24, 2011 at 8:40am

Hell Yea! As a fire officer I have always believed, and I always tell new officers "What ever goes right is the crews falt, what ever goes bad is my falt." If you practice only this one management technique your folks will walk bare foot on broken glass for you.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on April 24, 2011 at 9:27am

That's easy. Killing the fire - which could have been done from the street in the European fire you showed - would eliminate the source of the heat and the steam will eliminate the possibility that the smoke would flash over.

That eliminates the risk of either horizontal or vertical fire extension.

Are you really teaching flashover simulator training without understanding such basic concepts?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Paschal on April 24, 2011 at 1:11pm

Absolutely, Jason. Hackensack Ford and Waldbaums Department Store are the first LODD studies that come to my mind. We have also learned to wear seat belts in fire apparatus, SCBA in smoke and to stay in good shape to prevent heart attacks. All from LODD studies.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pararescue on April 25, 2011 at 2:27am

I've learned how FF's have died. How the Dept tears them apart and make families feel like their son/daughter father/mother did the job wrong. Like they didn't know what they were doing. Then place the blame of the LODD on the dead Brother/Sister. If you wear your seat belt in the car, do it in the engine or truck. If you didn't know to breath fresh air out of the tank on your back, QUIT. Know the area you respond to. If they are in disrepair in one area and new builds in another, which is safer to fight fire in? Structures over 100 years old have actual 2" X 4" 2X4's, and they are closer then 16" on center, however, a new build in our economy for the last 20-30 years has been horrible. New builds have 2X4's that are 1.75X3.5" and are spaced as close together to meet code, but save on materials. Most collapses occur with in the first 15 minutes. We get updated every 15 minutes at fires.... From the time the first unit arrives on location. NOT good enough! It's from the time of the first call.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59dKU479h54
In this clip the FF is in the wrong place, he needs to have his feet on the butt of the ladder, who is to say this slip wouldn't have happened while he was under the ladder and now 2 FF's are injured? As for being in shape to fight fires.... go to your nearest city, no matter how big or small and tell me how many guys are outta shape. The heart attack issue is we stay mostly in a normal state of homeostasis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis, when we are put to extreme measures and conditions the heart overexerts and fails. Common sense, knowing your limitations and knowing what is going on with current building procedures and materials makes better practice in my book. "No two fires are ever the same."