The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Did people make too big a deal about this injured fire cadet explorer?
Glen Ellen fire chief defends actions of 16-year-old firefighter
By DEREK J. MOORE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 8:37 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 8:37 a.m.
Glen Ellen's fire chief on Tuesday hotly refuted concerns that his department put the safety of a 16-year-old boy at risk during the battle to douse a raging New Year's Eve house fire. “I can tell you categorically that this appears to be overblown,” said Peter Van Fleet, who took over as chief in June 2008 and was a volunteer for the department for 25 years.
Van Fleet returned from vacation Tuesday to be greeted by a firestorm of controversy over the role the minor, identified as Japen Soto-Pomeroy, played during the response to the blaze, which tore through an unoccupied vacation home on Trinity Road east of Glen Ellen.
Sonoma County fire officials, who had jurisdiction over the fire scene, raised concerns about the teen's work after he and a Glen Ellen firefighter were taken to Sonoma Valley Hospital to be treated for heat exhaustion. Van Fleet returned from vacation Tuesday to be greeted by a firestorm of controversy over the role the minor, identified as Japen Soto-Pomeroy, played during the response to the blaze, which tore through an unoccupied vacation home on Trinity Road east of Glen Ellen.
Sonoma County fire officials, who had jurisdiction over the fire scene, raised concerns about the teen's work after he and a Glen Ellen firefighter were taken to Sonoma Valley Hospital to be treated for heat exhaustion.
But after speaking with his firefighters who were at the scene that day, Van Fleet said Tuesday that neither their actions nor that of the teen violated the department's policy for fire cadets, which the chief said he drafted last May.
The policy forbids cadets — defined as trainees 16 and over — from going inside a building where there is an uncontrolled fire. But they can go onto roofs to help with “ventilation, exposure protection and overhaul” so long as they are accompanied by two other adult firefighters. (full story...)
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
I think the bigger question is, have we made enough of a deal out of it?
Regardless of what any junior thinks of this issue, it is an issue that needs to be debated and decided by adults. That being said, any department that utilizes juniors in a function other than the most basic, mop-up type activity should likewise be banned from participating in the discussion; obviously they've already made up their mind.
Perhaps in applying for any grant there needs to be a clear and concise written departmental guideline in how they intend to use their juniors. It should then be matched against a federal template regarding juniors et al. Any dept. that violates the usage terms would be subject not only to OSHA fines but would be required to pay back the grant, with interest. Clearly common sense is not operating in a lot of VFD's and so this is a classic example of where and how the government needs to step in with enforcement powers.
Failure to abide by the agreements could very well bankrupt a fire department "corporation", forcing them to declare bankruptcy and shut down. Maybe that is exactly what is needed to get the point across and to break down the wall that allows VFD's to operate as private organizations. In many respects, such "private" organizations are really not so much volunteer as a private service that operates with little if any oversight. As a result of this 'privatization', NFPA standards and best practices are but mere suggestions to these private FD's.
Maybe these 'junior' incidents will create enough of a backlash that will end these social club departments and require them to rise to the level of professionalism that seems to be lacking in these clubs. Which is worse, no department responding, or one that does that creates more injuries and death upon their arrival? I'm just saying.....is safe-ish really an acceptable option anymore?
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Too big of a deal? No, instead I think the issue should be raised even further, even to a national level. If such things are allowed regularly, really how much longer before we hear of a tragedy on a fireground involving minors, even moreso than the ones just recently in the news. I mean, the chief of this dept states policy is the kid can go on the roof....WHAT?!?!....as if nothing bad could happen there? Just look at a couple VETERAN FF's falling through the garage roof, and this clown thinks it is OK for a minor to be there?
Instead, I think it is examples like this where the fire service needs to take a collective step back and truly analyze what minors should and shouldn't do. Personally, I would like to see an adoption of the rules regulating explorers through Learning for Life. Those rules give enough to keep kids interested, but not enough to be a statistic for the most part. The problem is that there are so many different programs and rules set up that there is no standard and it is examples like this where people are too arogant, too stupid, or too clueless to see thepotential problems of having minors working. These kids don't need to be learning this job as some like to tout, it is fine to be eager, but there is also a thing about patience and waiting until one is an adult.
There is a thread to junior/explorers where a member commented that many issues come from the lack of supervision or insight by adults....I agree, but the issue comes about when juniors and explorers today become those FF's tomorrow and think it is OK for juniors to be put in harms way in the name of learning or "works for us" because they did so once themselves. Sorry, it is time these issues with juniors and explorers stop and it is time for a defined set of rules concerning ALL minors, irregardless if it is an explorer affiliated with Learning for Life, or a dept run junior program.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Montpetit on
-
How in the hell can someone get too concerned or upset when anyone let alone a Jr gets hurt....? And further more...what is he doing on the roof...? That's not as dangerous as going interior...? How many of us have opened up a roof only to met by an inferno...? Our SOG's state that you have an airpack on if you are doing roof ops...and so does NFPA 1001....I would be looking to have someones ass on this one....it was wrong...no excuses....and lets look at another aspect of the situation....an UNOCCUPIED home ..whats the rule of thumb...Risk a lot to save a lot...risk little to save little...risk nothing to save nothing...was this the decision...to risk a 16 y/o and the rest of the men fighting a "raging fire" in an unoccupid dwelling...?? I wouldn't be commenting on this too much if I were a member of this department....I suspect someone is going to court......Just my look at it...........Paul
-
Permalink Reply by Fireyladd - Retired Chief Sharp on
-
Bigger still is a National Standard and enforcement of the standard. We have rules, laws and standards now that are either viewed as suggestions, could be's or ignored. We read things written on here all the time that brings concern to us. Obviously there is a need to have oversight and enforcement of these rules. While ignorance and stupidity abounds unabated, people are injured or killed because of it. There is a common misconception by the public that there is a fire agency down the street and thats as far as their concern goes. No one really looks to insure that do they really train?, are they meeting State and Federal Standards? Do they continue to maintain CEU's for this training?, Is there documentation for their training?, Is their PPE meeting Federal standards?Who's maintaining their equipment?, when was the last time their equipment was inspected/certified?, this can go on and on. Who is really overseeing the local agency and if so why arnt they? Many rural, small "Mom & Pop" fire agencies exist on a whim and a prayer and no one is looking until something happens. On the same token some would argue that something is better then nothing. Hummm? Again, who is really looking or not?
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
As stated in a prior post... There is a difference between adults and children... Knowing this, and putting a child at risk is something that no one should ever do. I believe it's called child endangerment...
Child Endangerment laws make it a crime to endanger the health or life of a child through an adult's recklessness or indifference. Some states include child endangerment offenses in existing child abuse statutes. Other states made child endangerment a separate offense.
What are the Penalties for Endangering a Child? The penalties for endangering a child vary from state to state but can be very severe:
California: Imprisonment for up to 6 years
Illinois: Imprisonment for up to 10 years
New York: Imprisonment for up to 1 year
Texas: Imprisonment for up to 20 years
In this case, the heat exhaustion issue has come and gone and chances are pretty good that a 16-year old would not really have issues here compared to an adult. This is not the real issue folks. What is the main problem is that 16-year old children have not finished maturing and developing.
The brain in juveniles has not completed developing the part of the brain that is responsible for decision making. This means that to an adult firefighter would say no way when it comes time to making a critical decision that could cost them and others their lives.
The 16-year old, lacking appropriate judgement and decision making skills due to physiological development issues, is more prone to make bad choices. This is why there is national discussions as to whether it is prudent to allow a 16-year old to drive a motor vehicle.
And to think that we are putting kids into situations where they might encounter a problem, without adult supervision, creating a scenario that could go wrong, very wrong. These recent incidents the past few weeks exemplify just what I am stressing here.
CBz
-
-
From the AllState Insurance website:
Even bright, mature teenagers sometimes do things that are “stupid.” But when that happens, it’s not really their fault. It’s because their brain hasn’t finished developing. The underdeveloped area is called the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex. It plays a critical role in decision making, problem solving and understanding future consequences of today’s actions.
Problem is, it won’t be fully mature until they’re into their 20s. It’s one reason 16-year-old drivers have crash rates three times higher than 17-year-olds and five times higher than 18-year-olds. Car crashes injure about 300,000 teens a year. And kill nearly 6,000. Is there a way for teens to get their driving experience more safely— giving their brains time to mature as completely as their bodies? Allstate thinks so.
Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) laws are one approach that’s been proven effective at reducing teen crashes. These laws restrict the more dangerous kinds of driving teens do, such as nighttime driving and driving with teen passengers. Since North Carolina implemented one of the most comprehensive GDL laws in the country, it has seen a 25% decline in crashes involving 16-year-olds.
To find out what the GDL laws are in your state, visit Allstate.com/teen. Help enforce them—
and if they aren’t strong enough, ask your legislator to strengthen them. Let’s help our teenagers not miss out on tomorrow just because they have something missing today. It’s time to make the world a safer place to drive.
That’s Allstate’s Stand
So... now that we know that the insurance company totally gets the whole brain maturation thing... don't you think that we should listen as well? It makes me wonder who on earth is insuring these jurisdictions and if there has been case law where an adult is prosecuted for contributing to the death or injury of a juvenile playing firefighter...
CBz
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
I agree completely, Jack. Compliance with a bad policy doesn't make that compliance OK.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Jack and Ben, I agree with you both...
Supposedly the young firefighter didn't do anything wrong..... that was from the end of the story and STRAIGHT FROM HIS CHIEF!!! So the issue has been debated in this department and policies have been created already, by adults.
In my opinion the hitch appears to be what people call them. Some say "Juniors", or "Fire Cadets", or better yet "Fire Explorers", etc. What I want to know is who is insuring them when things go wrong and what national rules, regulations and by-laws are they using?
I believe at first report of this incident he was called an "explorer" and on a mutual aid response so he is OUT OF TOWN. Therefore the receiving department may not the rules or restrictions of there neighbors department. Hell it is their fire so most likely they are operating under their own SOG's.
I do know that true BSA explorer posts are covered under the BSA by-laws. Explorers who are covered per BSA by-laws cannot operate as this Glen Ellen Fire Chief states, he has drafted his own Fire Cadets Rules/Regulations for his department.
Therefore, I guess he is taking responsibility for using underage, non-certified children firefighters when they get hurt. He stated they cannot perform interior firefighting but he allows them to perform ventilation ops with two other adults above the fire if needed. So if the kid falls through the roof and into the uncontrolled burning structure below, when it occurs, the cadet will have not been trained in that environment because it they are not allowed to enter from below but allowed to work above???
Hence a homegrown policy.
As with about a hundred other posts on the matter of juniors and what they should be allowed to do.... I wanna know does the department's insurance provider know they are using underage minor at the scene of an uncontrolled emergency (for work purposes) Yes thats right, regardless if you are a volunteer it is considered "work" per workmen's compensation and many others, and are they going to be covered?
-
Permalink Reply by Bud Schlessman on
-
im my opion is that a cadet which i was just 3 yrs ago is that if the cadet is under the direct supervision of a adult FF then they should be able to work with them in MOST situations. that is what my dept. did for me and another cadet. The only thing i could not do is go into a burning building i would work wrecks, mantain hose outside of a burning building and medical call seeing as i was a Cert. First Responder at the age of 17. Most cases if a fire dept. would be more willing to train there cadet more proplery then they would be less likely to be hurt on a sence. Which I was trained as a full FF, and i would be correcting the adults as far as saftey and proper ways of attacking a fire. So in my opoion the dept in this case is not out of bounds.
-
-
Young Bud....you "corrected" adults on the proper way to attack a fire...? If you tried that BS in my Department you would no longer be in that Department....We as a society have rules, most of which are laws and here in NY it is against those laws to allow a Jr or anyone under the age of 18 to be engaged in Firefighting....I really don't think roof ops are appropriate for a 16 year old and no matter who says otherwise I will NOT change my mind....Perhaps you have seen the case here in NY where a Chief had 2 new Firefighters act as victims in a live burn scenario...well things went wrong in a hurry...they ended up trapped and 1 died, the other was burned badly.....guess what happened to the Chief.....? He was tried and convicted of negligent homacide and ended up serving jail time....and the Department....well, after this fiasco it no longer exists....OSHA and PESH shut them down....Fire scene is no place for kids...Paul
-
-
And Bud, that is exactly the problem with most junior type of programs put together by a dept and not an established organization like the BSA. There is still much which can happen on a scene and it is no place for children, even if they are shadowing an adult. The whole basis of such programs is not to train you so you can be FF's whenyou turn 18, it is to give a taste of what the job entails. Problem is that you get the opinion and ideas, like yours, where you should still be able to operate on a fireground as if the hazards are not present. And if you believe that operating on a roof is NOT out of bounds for a minor, then that just shows a need for a standard regulation for ALL juniors. It is such opinions that will get a kid killed one day because it is a rush to learn the job.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
