Did people make too big a deal about this injured fire cadet explorer?

Photo by JEFF KAN LEE/THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

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...)

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Greenman on January 24, 2010 at 3:49pm

Billy,

Seventeen year-olds in the Army do train with automatic weapons, and other weapons prior to their eighteenth birthday. The only restrictions on 17-year-olds in the military is that they cannot deploy overseas. That is because The Law is different for the U.S. Military than it is for any other entity in the country. they cannot deploy because they are legally "child Soldiers" until they turn 18.

Greenman

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greenman on January 24, 2010 at 3:57pm

It does not matter if a 17 year-old has completed FF1, or any other training. It is just a fact of life that people under the age of majority (18), cannot do certain things.

A 17 year-old cannot pose for Playboy or Playgirl, no matter how good they are, or how "ready" they are to do it. They simply cannot do it until they turn 18.

Firefighting is the same; you cannot do it until you turn 18.

As an adult, and as a person with responsibility within your department you have a responsibility to look that young person in the eye and tell them "no." Then, back at the house you explain to them why they cannot, and why the rule exists...even if you personally disagree with it.

If you disagree with it, then begin the work of changing the law to allow 16 year-olds to be certified Firefighters. While your at it, why not change to law to allow 16 year-olds to pose for Playboy?

Greenman

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on January 24, 2010 at 5:46pm

Greg,
The child in question was 16 years old, working on the roof of a working fire and was taken to hospital for heat exhaustion. Which aspect of this situation do think is appropriate, that the child was on the roof, or that he suffered from heat exhaustion? Any department that would allow a 16 year old to perform such duties, legally or not, is just asking for the opportunity to put together one hell of a LODD ceremony, not to mention the after-action lawsuits from the family of the "firefighter".

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Leonard,Jr. on January 24, 2010 at 5:54pm

I think the Chief needs to have a second look at his policies.Compair them to the state child labor laws,OSHA regulations,as well as those of other Jr. programs.Then some SERIOUS EDITING needs to happen. An as I see it A 16 YEAR OLD HAS NO BUSINESS BEING ON THE ROOF OF A BURNING BUILDING,PERIOD! Everything else seems ok,as long as said activities don't endanger the kids.But yes,lets put it to rest and look at our policies concerning just what our Jr./Explorer programs can and can't do.Heck maybe it's time to even have a class room session with the firefighters and Jr./explorers just to make said policies clear,an explain action taken when they are broken.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on January 24, 2010 at 6:46pm

Following department policies is not the issue here. Following the federal child labor laws, OSHA restrictions, and common sense are the issues.

Allowing a 16-year old on the roof of a fire building is putting the 16-year-old in an IDLH or potientially IDLH atmosphere without a SCBA, fit testing, or medical clearance. That is a bad, bad idea.

There's also the "res ipsa loquitur" principle. When the cadet was worked so long and/or so hard that he had heat exhaustion that required transport, the thing "speaks for itself" that the fire department wasn't following common-sense safety and rehab rules, much less federal law.

You are asking us to research things that simply don't matter, as the bulk of the posters here have pointed out.

Federal safety and child labor laws trump department training and rules every time.