The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
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.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
I disagree. 95% of the structures in Belgium are not the same as in the U.S.
If you're right, please cite some evidence.
-
-
If they had followed my department's SOGs, things would have been a lot different.
Our SOG is to approach from uphill and upwind, and to chock the vehicle so that it can't roll while we extinguish.
We would also use foam on this fire.
-
-
You missed the point on several of those items, your facts were not correct on at least one point on the N.A. fire, and you definately missed the implied larger point about the cumulative effect of the differences.
For example, the combination of an obvious fire at ground level right next to the street with no access problems caused by the snow in the European fire does NOT equal "oranges" with the U.S. fire that clearly had extended to multiple levels with a longer distance to drag the hose, with footing problems caused by the snow - and the probability of longer response times to the scene caused by the snow between the fire station and the fire.
Humidity doesn't give you footing problems or slow the apparatus response. Definately apples to oranges there.
Speed of action won't save anyone in the flashed-over compartment at the seat of the Belgium fire. If you're claiming that's the case, it's not just apples to oranges, it's apples to bovine feces.
You claim that the two fires with vastly different ventilation, fire locations, fire intensity, quick access to the seat of the fire, and smoke spread and velocity are the same. That's another apples to bovine feces comparison. If that isn't correct, then please explain how a fuel-controlled fire in Belgium is the same as a ventilation-controlled fire in N.A.?
The initial fires are clearly NOT the same size, due to the differences in the construction of the two buildings.
Claiming that your preferred firefighting method will save people from a fully-involved flashover is more apples to bovine feces. Anyone in the flashed-over compartment is dead, deader, most dead.
Using a basement fire example isn't pertinent to the specifics of this discussion. The fires under discussion are not basement fires.
Your claim about the N.A. fire and being sure that the smoke will reignite in 30 minutes is very unlikely, due to the fact that most N.A. departments will ventilate the structure and then overhaul it, ensuring that the fire is completely extinguished.
You simply do not have your facts correct for many of your assumptions about the N.A. fire. For one, the seat of the fire is NOT at ground level as it was in the European fire. The seat of the fire is clearly above grade, with the access problems that go with it, and extension to the attic that the European fire clearly did not have when the first engine arrived.
Look a few photos farther, and you'll see that the N.A. fire was initially attacked from the exterior. (Photo 3) By photo 8, there is interior extension to the entire upper floor and attic. That might not have been preventable in this fire, no matter what tactics were used. The interior stairs could have been obstructed, for example.
Lastly, using a single best-case European fire to a single N.A. fire that is far from a best-case circumstance to make the kind of sweeping generalizations you've made here is not supportable by either scientific fact or from your sample size of n=2.
-
Permalink Reply by Pierre-Louis Lamballais on
-
In case if forest fire, I can admit the fire is a force of nature. In case of structural fire, it's a joke. A FF told me one day after a course and a live training in a house thaht before the course he taught he didn't have the tool to fightg such a fire.
If you don't have a goodl knowledge of the tools and a good understanding of the fire, of course, it's seems to be a "force of nature" against which you will "try something"...
Concernig the number of LODD we've made the count. You are over other. Of course, not of all other but you are. And when you say the max US LODD are stress related, you are 100% true. We 're doing a research in that way which will be publushed in some month.
Concering the fuel load and so on, this is a good "excuse". If the way of fighting fire we usse,was used only in a few location, OK, it would have been logical to say that. But this way of fighting fire is unse eg in Polland and Brazil with the same efficiciency. And these two countries which are only "example" are very very differents. Also, in some countries some FF Service still use the old method and other only a few kilometer from the first one, use these new method. And in this case, they fight the same fires. And we see such a big difference.
So it's not possible to claim "we are different".
-
-
PIzza restaurant in USA.
Little red brick, like house in Belgium. If you compare the Mouscron's house and the Ontario's one of the slide you at the end of the global post, you will see the Pizza restaurant is similar to Belgium house.
Method of attack? Same as in front of the Ontario house.
If I'hve seen FF fighting the Ontario's house with a very special tactics according the the type of house, so a very different in fornt of the brick restaurant, I could have agree for the difference. But as they are both attacked the same way... Or maybe the fact the publicity and the phone number are from USA, this impact the fire? ;) - Attachments:
-
-
pizza.jpg, 77 KB
-
-
-
Even if we admit all these points (I don't but its funny to play), can you tell me what are doing all the guys on the photo? Because if a fire is so dangerous, a "force of nature", I think it would be nice to "do something"...
If you take the photo, and look at them not to say "Oh, the Frenchy is a bad one, we must proove we are different and absolutly avoid to admit we're wrong", you will be able to observe not the house but the guys.
All your post are about differences about the fire and the house. I can admit the two fire are a bit different. But you tend to increase all the difference in order to avoid admitting the reallity: the Belgium gus know what to do as the other are on the scene, but don't really know what to do.
So the time pass, other guys came, and this increase the problem as it's slower the action, each one give his opinion and increase the difficulty to select the right one.
So maybe you have some very effectiv US FF on the scene, but they are surrounded by many other, being here like if it was a barbecue.
I don't say they are bad FF. They just dont' know what to do because the training system didnt' explain them what to do. These guys certainly want to do, but what? Its' a very common point in photo and video from US: many guy on the scene, asking themselvces what to do. I've a tool to break window, OK, i'll break windows. When you ask them why, they will reply "to ventilate" but the impact on fire dynamic is not reallt known.
This is also a reason explaining some LODD: some guys are inside, and other "want to do something". So they ventilate, break something and so on. Not in order to hurt brothers, but to help them. But as there is apparently a lack of knowledge, helping can turn in hurting.
Notice our friend from England fight the same way Belgium do, and that Belgium people are not English one.
-
Permalink Reply by Patti Walz on
-
I agree with you Ben. Benn there.... Seen it....
-
-
That's another apples to oranges comparison. I can't state for sure on the particular "brick" restaurant to which you linked, but in North America, a lot of those structures are not actually masonry construction - they're lightweight wood structures with a decorative brick veneer. In a lot of these, the brickwork is not part of the weight-bearing structure.
Further, selecting a photo of a single structure that you've never seen personally isn't a reliable basis to claim that "95% are the same". That's a single example, and it might not even be the kind of construction that you think it is.
Lightweight wood structures with brick veneer perform much differently when on fire than do true masonry structures with heavy wood floors and roof supports.
Then there are other variables like the interior fuel loads. More apples and oranges.
-
-
When you say things that I didn't say and then try to make it appear as if I had said them, that greatly reduces the credibility of any point you're trying to make.
I haven't called you any names, I haven't said that you're a bad anything, and you have no reason to make that kind of statement or to try to make it seem as if I'd said anything of the kind. It would be wonderful if you would limit your comments to a discussion of what I actually said.
As for the manpower, thanks for bringing up another apples and oranges issue. The European fire you showed involved four career firefighters who literally parked next to the window at the seat of the fire. Career firefighters - you know, the kind that are paid to do the job, that are in the station when the alarm rings, and that are out the door in a minute or so.
Now let's compare that to the volunteer fire department from the N.A. fire. When they have a fire, their available personnel respond, regardless of whether that is 2 firefighters or 20. In this case, they may have had more firefighters respond than in the European fire you showed, but that is a random variable.
You increased the population in your comparative sample from n=2 to n=3 with the pizza shop fire photo, and that's still not a large enough sample size to be reliable evidence for any kind of comparison you want to make.
-
-
"They just dont' know what to do because the training system didnt' explain them what to do." That one is more apples to bovine feces. You have no idea of how they are trained or why.
Your analysis of the fire shown in the photos you linked is badly flawed, as I've already pointed out.
As for "asking themselvces (sic) what to do", the answer to that one is "Not bloody likely". U.S. firefighters typically perform tasks that are directed by their company officers in order to implement the incident commander's strategy.
I'll say it again, comparing a single, small room-and-contents fire a meter from the street in a masonry and heavy timber building to a larger fire in the snow, on an upper floor, with obvious vertical extension in a lightweight wood frame building and claiming that the are the same shows a lack of understanding of the actual differences as well as a lack of understanding of the facts.
-
-
The problem is that you're handing out something that looks very much like a pineapple and claiming that it's an orange.
-
-
Exactly. Well said.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
