The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Riddle Me This, Batman
...as the Joker used to say in the old Adam West TV show...
I just caught a quote from the recent tragic LODD and multiple LOD injuries in St. Anna, WI. One of the nine injuries was an Explorer.
According to Capt. Adam Schuh of the SAFD, "Among those injured were 17-year-old Chase Fritsch and 15-year-old Joshua Scott. Fritsch, who is Schuh’s stepson, is of legal age to serve as a firefighter, with parental permission. Scott is a fire department explorer, a training program for teens aspiring to become firefighters. Scott was never in the actual danger zone on Tuesday night, Schuh said." (Emphasis Supplied)
Source: Statter911
This begs the question; If the Explorer was not in "the actual danger zone", then how did the explosion injure him?
For those of you who are Explorers or juniors and can't wait to get close to the danger, this should make you think. Even something that appears as routine as a dumpster fire isn't alwasy what it appears. Sometimes "out of the danger zone" is still too close.
So should this story from Glen Ellen, CA, where an Explorer was treated for heat exhaustion suffered while reportedly ....
For those of you who have Explorer or junior programs, these incidents should give you pause.
Why would anyone let an Explorer fight an interior fire for any reason?
How can an explosion injure an Explorer who is thought to be out of the danger area?
I wonder what their parents are thinking right now?
Any LODD is tragic. I share in the sorrow for the St. Anna department's loss, and am greatful that this incident or the Glen Ellen incident were not even worse. The potential was certainly there. The adult firefighters generally understand the risks when they respond to any call, even if it's "just a dumpster fire". The juniors and Explorers among us clearly don't have the experience and judgement to do the same.
If your department has an Explorer or junior program, the rules for what they can do, how close to a hazard zone they are allowed, their PPE, need to be clear, concise, and enforced. Their supervision needs to be absolute.
I sincerely hope that this is the last time we ever hear about an Explorer injury while operating at a fire.
I just caught a quote from the recent tragic LODD and multiple LOD injuries in St. Anna, WI. One of the nine injuries was an Explorer.
According to Capt. Adam Schuh of the SAFD, "Among those injured were 17-year-old Chase Fritsch and 15-year-old Joshua Scott. Fritsch, who is Schuh’s stepson, is of legal age to serve as a firefighter, with parental permission. Scott is a fire department explorer, a training program for teens aspiring to become firefighters. Scott was never in the actual danger zone on Tuesday night, Schuh said." (Emphasis Supplied)
Source: Statter911
This begs the question; If the Explorer was not in "the actual danger zone", then how did the explosion injure him?
For those of you who are Explorers or juniors and can't wait to get close to the danger, this should make you think. Even something that appears as routine as a dumpster fire isn't alwasy what it appears. Sometimes "out of the danger zone" is still too close.
So should this story from Glen Ellen, CA, where an Explorer was treated for heat exhaustion suffered while reportedly ....
For those of you who have Explorer or junior programs, these incidents should give you pause.
Why would anyone let an Explorer fight an interior fire for any reason?
How can an explosion injure an Explorer who is thought to be out of the danger area?
I wonder what their parents are thinking right now?
Any LODD is tragic. I share in the sorrow for the St. Anna department's loss, and am greatful that this incident or the Glen Ellen incident were not even worse. The potential was certainly there. The adult firefighters generally understand the risks when they respond to any call, even if it's "just a dumpster fire". The juniors and Explorers among us clearly don't have the experience and judgement to do the same.
If your department has an Explorer or junior program, the rules for what they can do, how close to a hazard zone they are allowed, their PPE, need to be clear, concise, and enforced. Their supervision needs to be absolute.
I sincerely hope that this is the last time we ever hear about an Explorer injury while operating at a fire.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Doug on
-
I recently stated the same thing about the two junior/explorer firefighters being injured in WI, in one of those junior/explorer threads, concerning this very topic. And guess what!?! Not a single junior or explorer on this site replied to or commented on my statement.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
I suppose that chief's of those departments that allow and encourage minors to work on scene should be nominated for the Darwin Award. Although technically it's for people that do amazingly stupid, dangerous and often fatal things to themselves, I'm sure there must be a category for allowing it to happen to someone.
But yes, like Doug said, nary a response but from the junior crowd, quiet except for the
-
Permalink Reply by Derek R. on
-
Maybe you used too many words. You know how eager they are.....skip the "crap" and let me in there.
I am with you in hoping that this will not become any further of an issue. Although, maybe after these incidents, the powers that be may be forced to cancel their jr/explorer program. or lay down some harsh sentences for those who oversee them.
-
Permalink Reply by Fireyladd - Retired Chief Sharp on
-
Prefer to think of the Jr crowd as the sound a Mosquito makes flying around your ear when your sleeping.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
This begs the question; If the Explorer was not in "the actual danger zone", then how did the explosion injure him?
Ben, the reports here regarding this is that the 15 year old was 100 yards from the scene (I have my doubts) and was treated for ringing in his ears, a plausible injury for anyone at such a distance. As for the 17 y/o, I also believe he should have been back from the scene, even with parental permission, there is no reason to use minors.
-
-
Can you say OSHA?
-
-
OSHA as far as what?
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
Ben, As long as we are playing riddle me this... here's my question...
Why did the facility not make use of NFPA 704 Hazard Diamonds? Somewhere I read that some of the department firefighters worked at the facility in question and had personal knowledge of the hazards. Can you say preplan? Does this city and department not conduct annual fire inspections where safe practices for on site handling, storage and use can be monitored for compliance? I am trying to understand how rural parts of the country operate. There is no mystery that aluminum is a very dangerous material, in fact did you know that:
• Aluminum is the most reactive metal in the periodic table.
• Aluminum is classified as a reactive flammable solid.
• Bulk aluminum powder or dust in contact with water may heat spontaneously.
• Moist, finely divided aluminum powder may ignite in air, with the formation of flammable
hydrogen gas.
• The hazard increases as the aluminum particle size decreases.
• Contact of burning aluminum with water forms flammable hydrogen gas, an extremely
dangerous explosion hazard, particularly if the fire is in a confined area.
• Bulk aluminum metal itself is not combustible.
• Under certain conditions, a dust cloud of aluminum powder can explode when ignited by a spark
or flame.
When evaluating the explosion hazard of a specific process or sample of material, the important factors to consider include: particle size and shape, dust concentration, the nature of any impurities, oxygen concentration, humidity, and extent of containment. Explosions of aluminum dusts have occurred man times in industry. This is not a surprise and should have been pre-planned for the worst case scenario.
Note: I am really curious about what color the flames were upon arrival of the first engine company. This will tell us a lot of information and remove much of the speculation.
I sure look forward to reading the NIOSH report to find out exactly what went wrong here. Years ago, there was a fire in Blythe, California that involved burning aluminum. Many attempts were made to extinguish the fire but just like magnesium, anytime water was put on the fire, the fire intensified and created explosions. An employee that worked for ALCOA just happened to be passing by the incident and offered assistance that was immediately denied. The guy stuck around and eventually they figured out that his advise had merit. What did he tell them to do as far as mitigating this incident?
Simple solution... open the doors to the boxcar and allow air to come in... Guess what? It worked. Enhancing oxygen levels for aluminum fires creates aluminum oxide on the outside of the aluminum which does not support combustion... and the fire goes out. So in the trash can scenario, simply tipping the can over, exposing the aluminum to air will result in the same thing... the fire goes out. Now adding water is a different story... and if there was iron rust in the trash can... jeez, ever hear of Thermite which is aluminum and iron oxide (rust) which is classified as an incendiary and burns around 2900˚F. Now add water which will result in immediate liberation of hydrogen and oxygen and we all know just how reactive hydrogen gas is...
CBz
-
Permalink Reply by Rusty Mancini on
-
It's sad that desperation has set in on some departments around the country, that have to rely on children to mitigate hazardous incidents. It's only a matter of time when we will start seeing more LODD of children!
-
-
is it possible that these Depts. use their Junior or Explorers as actual FF's , inquiring minds would like to to know.
Completely possible, almost likely in many instances. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many discussions about what juniors can and can't do on a fireground, not only the juniors themselves talking but many adults as well. The excuse as "it works for us" is quite common which leads me to believe many depts just don't care about rules and allow kids to do stuff on the fireground.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
As I stated over at Statter911, what I think we are seeing are JUNIORS at work and NOT Junior PROGRAMS at work.
You know; because of the relationship of the kid to the dad on the department, the kid is getting to "play" firefighter.
If there is a sanctioned junior/explorer program that is properly supervised and monitored, then can't something still go wrong? How about wind-driven fires? How about exploding aerosols, propane from grills, paint containers, pesticides, ammunition, fierce dogs, meth labs, and on and on.
Again; in both cases, there was a lack of control. Adult control. Yeah; let's give them something else to loathe us for.
But, as someone pointed out at Statter; all the FACTS aren't in. You know what, Einstein? While we wait for the "facts" to come in, more departments are exposing KIDS to their early exit from this Earth...but, we can wait for the whitewash. Tick tick tick...
Boom!
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Wheland on
-
This is why at our meeting this program was shot down again. I highly doubt we will ever have an explorer program here. Always expect the unexpected on every run. Stay safe.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
