The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
How Aggressive Suppression?
Fire Engineering editor Bobby Halton makes statements that force us out of our comfort zone. My first encounter with this was reading the December 2006 editorial about fire-based ems. Flying out to a January conference in Phoenix, here was the opening paragraph of a letter-to-the-editor I was writing:
I was left with a queasy feeling while reading Chief Halton’s December editorial “Rampart, This is Squad 51.” I understand the issue of protecting the fire service portion of federal funding, but the images invoked in supporting the mission of fire-based ems service were jarring, inaccurate and out-of-date. Fire-based EMS has significant challenges and opportunities that were not known while I sat in a hospital classroom learning to identify cardiac arrhythmias three decades ago.
I only knew that Halton was a former Texas fire chief. I assumed that he, like many baby-boomer era chiefs, observed fire-based paramedicine as a first responder. This editorial was part of the effort by fire service leaders to protect and expand their turf as the federal government allocated EMS resources. Here is the part of the December 2006 editorial that pushed me to respond:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
EMS has always been and always will be a major part of our primary mission. As Chief of Department Edward F. Croker (FDNY, 1899-1911) said, “I have no ambition in this world but one, and that is to be a fireman. The position may, in the eyes of some, appear to be a lowly one; but we who know the work which the fireman has to do believe that his is a noble calling. Our proudest moment is to save lives. Under the impulse of such thoughts, the nobility of the occupation thrills us and stimulates us to deeds of daring, even of supreme sacrifice.”
Chief Croker would not make any distinction between the resuscitation of someone pulled from a burning building and someone who collapsed from a heart attack at work. To a commonsense firefighter, they are all some of our proudest moments. We make jokes about EMS and “Box” duty, but the reality is that it is as important today as truck work is to structural firefights. We do EMS better than anyone else, and we are proud of that.
(link to editorial HERE)
< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do not believe that Chief Croker was staying awake after midnight at the fire station waiting for a medical run. Based on published accounts, he was waiting for a structure fire in an occupied building - when time makes all the difference in a rescue. I am sure that the firefighters under Croker’s command would do everything they could for the civilians that they rescued from a structure fire, building collapse or other catastrophe. I was offended at the misappropriation of Crocker’s image and tradition.
Arriving at Phoenix I learned that Halton was speaking at the Change in the Fire Service Symposium. I took away three things from his talk: (a) he worked as a paramedic/firefighter, (b) I have heard him speak before and (c) he is a pretty smart guy. Never finished the letter.
RISK A LOT TO SAVE …. PERSONAL RECORDS?
I was reminded of that experience last month, while listening to Halton speak at the Fire Department Instructor’s Conference welcome Wednesday morning. It appears he was working to counter the position taken by some that you should never enter a burning structure unless you are SURE that you have a savable life. You can read his remarks HERE.
Sitting in the big room, it seemed as if Halton was advocating a re-calibration of the “risk a lot to save a lot” mantra:
Risk EVERYTHING to rescue a savable life
Risk a lot to stop the spread of the fire - from one apartment to another, from one building to another.
Risk a lot to save personal records, photographs and personal treasures - especially for the poor.
I can agree with the assertion of making a extreme effort to save a life, as described in his speech and article.
I am uncomfortable with the idea that I could get critically injured saving photos, financial records and vacation memorabilia. Are we over-reacting to those who advocate exterior fire attack for almost all structure fires?
The recalibration concept was reinforced the next morning, with a vivid and dynamic presentation by FDNY Lieutenant Ray McCormack promoting a “Culture of Extinguishment”. Of the two presentations, I was more comfortable with the personal opinions expressed by McCormack.
Apparently McCormack’s presentation was too vivid, as the video was pulled off the Fire Engineering website and replaced with Halton reading a letter sent by the Chief of Department Salvatore Cassano (go HERE and click Letter to the Editor video).
The 30-minute FDNY produced “Everyone Goes Home” video mentioned by Chief Cassano can be seen HERE. It is worth your time to view it. Just as Lieutenant McCormack’s recent detail to the Safety Command is unrelated to his FDIC presentation, so is the departmental requirement that every member view this video by June 30, 2009.
WHAT LEVEL OF AGGRESSION IS APPROPRIATE IN A “CULTURE OF SUPPRESSION”
Politics and procedures aside, the sweet spot for effective interior fire operations is somewhere between these two extremes. It depends on resources, experience and training. What is appropriate for a big city department, who can deliver 40 battle-ready firefighters in 15 minutes is not appropriate for hometown VFD who can get three trainees and four firefighters on the scene in the first 15 minutes.
I was left with a queasy feeling while reading Chief Halton’s December editorial “Rampart, This is Squad 51.” I understand the issue of protecting the fire service portion of federal funding, but the images invoked in supporting the mission of fire-based ems service were jarring, inaccurate and out-of-date. Fire-based EMS has significant challenges and opportunities that were not known while I sat in a hospital classroom learning to identify cardiac arrhythmias three decades ago.
I only knew that Halton was a former Texas fire chief. I assumed that he, like many baby-boomer era chiefs, observed fire-based paramedicine as a first responder. This editorial was part of the effort by fire service leaders to protect and expand their turf as the federal government allocated EMS resources. Here is the part of the December 2006 editorial that pushed me to respond:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
EMS has always been and always will be a major part of our primary mission. As Chief of Department Edward F. Croker (FDNY, 1899-1911) said, “I have no ambition in this world but one, and that is to be a fireman. The position may, in the eyes of some, appear to be a lowly one; but we who know the work which the fireman has to do believe that his is a noble calling. Our proudest moment is to save lives. Under the impulse of such thoughts, the nobility of the occupation thrills us and stimulates us to deeds of daring, even of supreme sacrifice.”
Chief Croker would not make any distinction between the resuscitation of someone pulled from a burning building and someone who collapsed from a heart attack at work. To a commonsense firefighter, they are all some of our proudest moments. We make jokes about EMS and “Box” duty, but the reality is that it is as important today as truck work is to structural firefights. We do EMS better than anyone else, and we are proud of that.
(link to editorial HERE)
< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do not believe that Chief Croker was staying awake after midnight at the fire station waiting for a medical run. Based on published accounts, he was waiting for a structure fire in an occupied building - when time makes all the difference in a rescue. I am sure that the firefighters under Croker’s command would do everything they could for the civilians that they rescued from a structure fire, building collapse or other catastrophe. I was offended at the misappropriation of Crocker’s image and tradition.
Arriving at Phoenix I learned that Halton was speaking at the Change in the Fire Service Symposium. I took away three things from his talk: (a) he worked as a paramedic/firefighter, (b) I have heard him speak before and (c) he is a pretty smart guy. Never finished the letter.
RISK A LOT TO SAVE …. PERSONAL RECORDS?
I was reminded of that experience last month, while listening to Halton speak at the Fire Department Instructor’s Conference welcome Wednesday morning. It appears he was working to counter the position taken by some that you should never enter a burning structure unless you are SURE that you have a savable life. You can read his remarks HERE.
Sitting in the big room, it seemed as if Halton was advocating a re-calibration of the “risk a lot to save a lot” mantra:
Risk EVERYTHING to rescue a savable life
Risk a lot to stop the spread of the fire - from one apartment to another, from one building to another.
Risk a lot to save personal records, photographs and personal treasures - especially for the poor.
I can agree with the assertion of making a extreme effort to save a life, as described in his speech and article.
I am uncomfortable with the idea that I could get critically injured saving photos, financial records and vacation memorabilia. Are we over-reacting to those who advocate exterior fire attack for almost all structure fires?
The recalibration concept was reinforced the next morning, with a vivid and dynamic presentation by FDNY Lieutenant Ray McCormack promoting a “Culture of Extinguishment”. Of the two presentations, I was more comfortable with the personal opinions expressed by McCormack.
Apparently McCormack’s presentation was too vivid, as the video was pulled off the Fire Engineering website and replaced with Halton reading a letter sent by the Chief of Department Salvatore Cassano (go HERE and click Letter to the Editor video).
The 30-minute FDNY produced “Everyone Goes Home” video mentioned by Chief Cassano can be seen HERE. It is worth your time to view it. Just as Lieutenant McCormack’s recent detail to the Safety Command is unrelated to his FDIC presentation, so is the departmental requirement that every member view this video by June 30, 2009.
WHAT LEVEL OF AGGRESSION IS APPROPRIATE IN A “CULTURE OF SUPPRESSION”
Politics and procedures aside, the sweet spot for effective interior fire operations is somewhere between these two extremes. It depends on resources, experience and training. What is appropriate for a big city department, who can deliver 40 battle-ready firefighters in 15 minutes is not appropriate for hometown VFD who can get three trainees and four firefighters on the scene in the first 15 minutes.
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Mike Ward on May 12, 2009 at 3:45am
-
Hi Perpetual,
Thanks for your post. Halton said a lot of things, most of them show up in the narrative that is available HERE.
Art, Chris Naum, Kent "Aussie Fire", Dave Iannone, Chris Herbert, Tiger Schmittendorf, Irakil West
and other bloggers who gathered at FDIC (here) shared the observation I wrote about ... the apparent effort to recalibrate the "risk a lot to save a lot" guideline.
It is not as pronounced in the article, but was a central point in the presentation.
As mentioned before, I was comfortable with he personal statements made by McCormack in the now-removed presentation.
-
Comment by Mike Walker on May 11, 2009 at 9:42pm
-
Whether we want to admit it or not, the matter of safety is relative. It depends on the brains, training, experience, and confidence of the crews. You've all seen it. When we watch a real pro do something, they make it look easy but to someone less experienced, its quite difficult and perhaps unsafe.
Hell yes I'll commit my crews to interior attack to save personal records, and it may be perfectly acceptable to do so. If I have sufficient on scene staffing at the time and the fire hasn't progressed too far, why wouldn't we? The job can "safely" be completed.
Now for some other departments the same fire may not be safe enough because they don't have the resources I have and there isn't any thing wrong with that either.
The bottom line, safety is relative depending on the situation and particular crews/department responding.
-
Comment by Perpetual student on May 11, 2009 at 9:21pm
-
The video has now been pulled. I would like to say that you are not stating all of Halton's statements. He stated we should conduct interior operations in unoccupied (don't read as vacant) structures when it is prudent to do so. We must use a resonable and credible size-up regardless of the situation, size-up can't be short-cut even when a rescue is known.
-
Comment by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on May 11, 2009 at 7:43pm
-
Yeah; I forgot to tell you that it's 80MB.:-)
-
Comment by lutan1 on May 11, 2009 at 6:08pm
-
Thanks Art- downloading now...
-
-
lutan1:
Here is a link to the speech. Better hurry up and save it to your computer.
http://secretlistthis.blip.tv/file/2086908
-
-
Geeze Art,
That is a loaded question that must be asked ...
I agree that Bobby was strident about risking a lot for papers
... sitting at a keyboard it is just a couple of guys expressing their opinions. I have heard this debate before, much closer to home.
Trying to implement 2-in-2-out the company officers were telling the battalion chief that they were assuming that there was an immediate life risk at every call ... structure, dumpster, etc.
They are not setting local policy, the safety-versus-suppression culture is a real conflict, and Lt. McCormack may be a victim of his own enthusiasm.
I like the FDNY "Everyone goes home" video.
Gotta get back to grading papers, end of semester stuff.
Mike, "artfully" dancing around the question :)
-
-
Coming from the other side of the world, I'm finding it hard to comprehend what all the issues are that you're disucssiung, and the hype surrounding McCormack's presentation as I haven't seen it as it's been pulled from the web.
However, I can't throw enough support behind Ben's statement- it's fantastic food for thought- When you hear a FDNY firefighter tell you that sometimes it takes more courage to fight a fire from the outside, listen. When you hear a FDNY firefighter tell you that the most important job you have is to go home to your family, listen
The interior attack mentality that many seem to have for ALL fires has to change- it has to change to reflect a proper risk assessment. Doing an exterior attack does not make us any less of a firefighter.
I find breathing really addictive, and I love to come home to my family- everyday....
-
-
Professor:
I was getting worried about you.
Now I understand what you were saying to me at Indy. Most everyone thought Halton's remarks were more disconcerting than McCormack's which confused me. But not anymore. After reading your blog and the associated links, I get it.
It's weird, but in my blog where I basically said that I had a problem with what both of them said, no one took exception with the Halton statements, but MAN OH MAN, I got nailed for the McCormack assessment.
There are some who believe that we should rescue photo albums and grandma's quilt and risk it to do it. Again; if it is safe to enter and do so, do. But, Bobby didn't sound like he was giving us the option.
Let me ask you something, because you are intelligent and have been in the business for some time; why should WE give Halton and McCormack the benefit of the doubt on what they said and why they said it? I mean; we are suppose to factor in that they are obviously safe and promote safety without them actually saying it? They criticized leaders who made decisions that hampered, hindered or halted their departments for risking "everything" to save a lot.
I don't get it.
Can you help?
TCSS.
Art
-
-
The above comment should read: The IC who allows his charges to function without full and appropriate PPE...
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
You need to be a member of My Firefighter Nation to add comments!
Join My Firefighter Nation