Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on November 13, 2011 at 4:46pm

I read the article and find it nothing more than a person's opinion. The simple reality IS the fire service has been changing and adapting, tactics have changed, technologies have changed, operations changed, and so forth. To me it is almost as though this speach is several decades too late for what has been addressed.

 

Along with the stuff mentioned, there also seems to be a lack of foresight to the realities that are faced today that we just simply alsways can't make the changes so easy as the speaker alludes to.

 

"We've got to work to reflect our population," he said, adding that fire departments need to focus on recruiting more minorities..............

 

Really? As though this hasn't been already happening? Sorry buddy, you can not make people apply for and test for a job. I believe in requirements to meet the job and the best person gets the job, not just the goal of meeting demographics. 

 

"Stop fighting interior fires," he said. "Don't go into those fires anymore. It's not worth it. They build disposable houses these days. Our lives are not disposable." 

 

He must forget the concept of protecting property. While I understand the context here, I also believe this is a wrong approach as well. There is a lot that can be said to save a property where a business, owner, etc can rebuild lessen displacement of business or taxbase and get jobs back or homes restored faster because of quick intervention. Now, such interior tactics do depend on tactics and training, but the reality is there are countless small fires extinguished quickly with minimal damage because of interior interventions. Lets also not forget how the speaker seems to omit the mere fact of people possibly being inside. To me, such comments are talking points from someone who no longer does the job. There is much more to interior tactics than just about disposable buildings.

 

By fighting fires from the outside, he believes firefighters will be safer and more line of duty deaths will be prevented........

 

As has been the sermon points of anyone who doesn't believe in interior ops. Let's not forget the number of injuries and deaths which occur AFTER the fire is knocked down or during overhaul, etc. You still have to (or at least should) go in even after a defensive operation in order to assure the fire is completely out. This ideal of being able to do everything from outside is a dream, not the realities. As taxpayers and citizens, people also come to expect a certain service level from their tax dollars and this is also the nature of the job.

 

Also, lets not forget the number of LODDs that don't occur from the fireground. Most deaths today seem to come from vehicle accidents, after responses, medical issues etc and have nothing to do with the fact of going inside a structure. Sure is easy to feign LODD as a reason to sit outside, but the facts tell us otherwise.

 

He said that fire departments must stop merely responding to fires and instead find better ways to make sure they don't occur in the first place........

 

As though this isn't already happening? Sorry, there is still a limitation in being able to watch and see what individual people do. I know and heard all the data on getting out and staying out, yet how often do we hear of people going back in? Cooking fires are the number one cause of fires....yet they remain. There has been a push for residential sprinklers which have gained some ground, but then knocked back because of the construction industry lobbyists. We physically can not take out the human factor and hearing such stuff over and over again like we have to do more is becoming moot. There really IS only so much that the fire service can physically do.

 

"We have to shift from the response and the exciting part of fighting fires -- which I love -- and focus on prevention and mitigation," he said. "We have to stop thinking that we are 'cleanup on aisle 7' and start analyzing these incidents."..............

 

We also have to be ready to respond for the "what ifs" which means you still have to train and be ready for "the exciting part of the job". Besides, there is a reason one wants to become a FF and the exciting part is a big part of it, the realities can change a person over the years, but once again it is a person's personal perception. I haven't worked with a single person over my years who didn't understand the importance and focus on prevention, but yet you still have to be ready to intervene and mitigate once the prevention aspect has been breached.......let's not forget the real reason the fire service is here.

 

Now, Farmer was making this speech at the IAFC's VCOS (Volunteer and Combination Officers Section), so the question can crop up as to the audience. While there are many depts that already meet these changes and have adapted, there are still depts out there that haven't. We still see "good ol boys" clubs where education and prevention efforts take a back seat to having some drinks at the fire hall. Some of the stuff said is not far off either, education is being more paramount today, we see the use of social media spreading training and education messages. It is nothing to look on Youtube and get some training ideas or even find videos to learn from and do size ups on and so forth.

 

I adamently disagree with the staying outside concept. Part of our education that is being promoted and even touted here is recognizing situations, learning the buildings, preplan, train, and know when to go in, when to get out, how to attack etc. When making a statement like fight fires from the outside, you have now essentially said all this education we want you to know is now a crock because we have dumbed down a scene approach for you.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on November 13, 2011 at 6:39pm

I appreciated John's synopsis on the article. Not sure who the guest speaker was and don't really care at this point. Anyone professing that we as the American fire service should discontinue interior ops is ludicrous. I'm sure firefighters in europe are scratching their heads about just how progressive we as a nation truly are after listening to this individuals opinions. 

You have to figure that the guy was asked to talk about something and this is what he pulled out... A collection of all the things talked about and beat to death over the years by the surround and drown mentality folks as well as throwing in the race card just to make sure he stirs someone up about something. Folks better be careful about pulling that card anymore because in many areas the ethnic group that was citing unfair under representation for hiring has changed to where the folks doing the repressing were now the minority. Give me a break.

And isn't our job description include both the preservation of life and property... That should sum it up... And how many times does someone turnout to be inside the structure when no one knew about it until we did a primary search? Not to mention actually saving large portions of structures from complete destruction. No one wants to watch the fire department shoot water from outside, actually causing more damages on top of the fire damages. Why doesn't this guy talk about getting all engines equipped with a CAF (compressed air foam) system? There's your way to minimize how heavy a hose is, and how much damage is done to a structure in the process of active firefighting. 

There's a time and place to not take risks but that's what we do when necessary. There is no broad brush approach to how any of us fight fires and this include using our current and successful interior tactics and strategies. We need to look to the future using the tools we have at hand, and hopefully inventing new ones to do a better job.

CBz

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on November 13, 2011 at 7:59pm

"Stop fighting interior fires," he said. "Don't go into those fires anymore. It's not worth it. They build disposable houses these days."

This idea of 'disposable houses' is really little more than conventional wisdom.  Ask someone who just moved into their brand new house if they think it's disposable.  Houses built today of lightweight construction are no more 'disposable' than are new (in the last 20 years at least) cars that are made of significantly thinner sheet metal panels, with plastic and other composite materials where steel used to be used

Timber, balloon  and platform framed houses (and buildings in general) weren't built to survive fires, rather they were built according to prevailing methods and available materials.  If you look at the evolution of building practices, it's never been to create throwaway structures but instead to simply take advantage of cheaper, faster and easier materials, methods and technologies.

Tactics for fighting fires in modern, lightweight construction houses have changed and continue to change, as it should be.  But if rolling up on a working fire and deciding it's 'safer' to just surround and drown without regard to the saveability of the structure, then there's no real point in having a fire department. Or just protect the exposures and let the building burn down, makes demo much easier when rebuilding.

John hit all the points.  My department is always exploring new tactics based on the type of structures we have.  Going into a 2 1/2 story, open floor plan, 4000sq.ft. structure built with lightweight materials and techniques has to be dealt with differently than a conventional 1500 sq. ft. ranch or cape.

As Mike pointed out, many departments use CAFS and many departments are exploring the use of PPV with initial fire attacks.  So it would appear that tactics have, and are, changing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on November 13, 2011 at 9:12pm

Fighting all fires from the exterior is simply unacceptable, not only to the fire service but to the geneal public.  It wouldn't take the public long to realize exterior firefighting could be handled with a minimum crew and crash truck type fire apparatus.  The logic would be if you aren't going to save anything anyways why do you need so many trucks and 20 guys standing around?

 

Seriously, a fire in a lightweight constructed building, that is confined to the compartment and hasn't extended into the attic space, would be fought EXACTLY the same as the same kind of fire in traditional dimensional lumber rafter roof house.  The true danger in lightweight construction fires is when the light weight framing members are attacked.  Usually the fire has to have a heck of a head start for that to happen.  I believe we need to better learn how to read buildings and how fire attacks them.  If we have fire or heavy smoke pushing from the roof vents or the gable end, or the soffit area in a suspected lightweight truss roofed building it probably is not appropriate to put firefighters under that portion of the roof because the trusses are under attack by the fire. 

 

If people are inside, OR suspected to be inside, we must make every effort to rescue them.  This is the element that the outside/defensive firefighting crowd seems to forget.    The citizens expect, no demand, that we do everything we can to save their loved ones and the only way to do that is to go inside the burning building.  This part of our job will NEVER change.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion