I would like to pose this question to the nation because if you have an answer I believe you may have a problem. When we start believing that we can truly dominate a fire scene and manage what ever is delt to us we end up joining the secret list. If you run many fires or just a few each needs to be treated as the challenge that it is not "routine."

      What is you opinion on this?

Views: 229

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks chief guess that's why your chief.
We, in the fire service, know there is no such thing as a routine fire. And if you don't, go back to the academy, I don't want you on my crew. The only time I would ever want to hear the words routine fire coming out of a firefighter or officers' mouth is when speaking to the media, so that the general public may understand.
a routine fire is the fire that does the unexpected and bites you squarely in the ass....NEVER EVER take any call especially a Fire call with this attitude....you will surely get hurt and possibly killed.
Routine whatsthat?? Anytime we think its a routine fire or just a regular medic assist or a false alarm, Thats when we get the s##t kicked outta of us....Never take any call for granted.
That's what I was hoping to hear.
The only time I would ever want to hear the words routine fire coming out of a firefighter or officers' mouth is when speaking to the media, so that the general public may understand.

I disagree. It is bad enough that the media will use the term "routine fire" just in their report, but nothing like that should come out of a FF's mouth and perhaps some media education may be in order.

There is no reason to downplay any fire by using the term, instead it is just as easy to describe the fire without having to "dumb it down". For example we just had a fire yesterday, the fire was confined to the kitchen with smoke damage throughout the first floor. A room and contents fire can be described the same way, "the fire was located in the back bedroom, a quick response and extinguishment by crews, limited fire damage to the one room with smoke damage to the house".

Just reading that last simple description says A LOT more about the fire dept than just a stupid "routine fire". It states that the fire dept was quick to respond to the emergency and extinguishment, keeping the fire contained to one room etc, gives an impression of a trained professional. Saying fire damage was limited says the fire didn't get a chance to really take off and saying smoke damage says that smoke is dangerous and can get everywhere.
History tells us that tragedy strikes when we least expect it...not at the most tense moment on the big incident. On a wildland fire, for instance, tragedy can even strike during the "mop up" stage. There's never a good time to be laid back about fire ops.
Amen brother! With the constant threat of terrorist activity, clandestine drug labs and in some cities, booby trapped "shooting galleries", even the smallest fire has the potential to go bad quickly!
I dunno... I see somewhat of a routine when it comes to fire calls.
---pager goes off
---stop what I'm doing
---decide whether to pee or not
---get in my car
---drive to the scene or station (whichever comes first)
---bunker up
I do that every time. routine.
That's as far as the routine goes, though.
Excellent point(s). Ok, I never want to hear those words come from a firefighter or officer's mouth, even when speaking to the media.
Alright, I can't take it anymore. Of course there are routine fires. The vast, vast majority of jobs I've made (hundreds) have been routine. That's not to say I take a cavalier approach to firefighting - that's not part of my routine - but I have no problem calling something what it is.
WP,

What then do you consider a routine fire and why do you describe it as such?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Find Members Fast


Or Name, Dept, Keyword
Invite Your Friends
Not a Member? Join Now

© 2024   Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.   Powered by

Badges  |  Contact Firefighter Nation  |  Terms of Service