The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Safety Culture vs. Extinguishment Culture – Smart Fire Departments Can Have BOTH!
If you have a personal or departmental "Extinguishment Culture", would you grab a line and enter this flashed over abandoned house that is showing signs of impending collapse? If you have a personal or departmental "Safety Culture", would you wear your SCBA , a traffic safety vest, and crank a PPV fan while sitting in the rig a half-mile down the street? Chances are, if you are a U.S. firefighter, you'll choose an option somewhere in between the two extremes.
In his recent FDIC speech, Lt. Ray McCormack, made some statements that have, to say the least, generated a great deal of controversy in the U.S. fire service. His comments in favor of an “Extinguishment Culture” and against a “Safety Culture” in particular have stimulated a lot of thought, comment, disagreement, and counter-disagreement. Art “ChiefReason” Goodrich, in particular, blogged a sharp and well-articulated counterpoint to Lt. McCormack’s thoughts here on FFN.
I watched the video several times, and read some of the thoughtful, not-so-thoughtful, and some downright nasty comments that other firefighters posted in replies to Art’s counterpoint. I gave the issue a lot of consideration for several days, watched the video again to make sure that I didn’t miss something, and decided that I finally couldn’t go any longer without saying something myself.
First, for those of you who called Art a “coward”, a “yard-stander”, or who made rude, vulgar, or even threatening responses to his blog, shame on you!!! Those comments are an embarrassment to the profession. Just because another firefighter has a differing opinion doesn’t make him a coward. In particular, I noticed that many of the alleged firefighters that called Art a coward and worse posted anonymously. Does anyone else see the irony in that??? In case you don’t, I’ll spell it out for you. You call someone who posts his opinion under his real name a coward, while being too chicken to post your own name??? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who the real cowards are when that occurs.
Brotherhood includes respecting other firefighters opinions and differences, even when you disagree. Calling a brother firefighter a coward out of one side of your mouth for a simple difference of opinion while preaching the brotherhood out of the other side is practicing the former while demonstrating that you really don’t understand the latter.
On the other hand, for those of you who castigated Lt. McCormack for his fist-pumping, gum-chewing performance at FDIC, you’re focusing on style points at the expense of consideration of the substance. I don’t care about the style points – what is important is what he said. I don’t think Ray was advocating that we commit suicide for anyone or anything. It is apparent that he truly believes that extinguishing the fire before it grows larger tends to make the fireground safer, and he’s got a point. Al Brunacini’s 1985 comment that “Things on the fireground tend to get better when the fire is extinguished.” tends to agree with Ray, too.
There are three important issues that neither Lt. McCormack’s or Chief Goodrich’s comments addressed.
1) New York firefighting rules don’t work for everyone else. Not every fire department has the building types, manpower, apparatus, or short response times to which Lt. McCormack is accustomed. When you have a three-minute response time for 35 or 40 firefighters to a multistory, ordinary construction apartment building, there is a reasonable expectation that the structure won’t collapse on the firefighters in the first 15 minutes of the firefight, and that you’ll have enough manpower to accomplish all of the necessary fireground tasks in fairly short order. On the other hand, when you get 3 or 4 firefighters, an engine and a tanker, no hydrants, and a 15-minute response time to a lightweight construction, two-story house with truss floors and roof, putting firefighters inside is flipping a coin with their survival chances, no matter the reason or method of entry. Years of fire fatality statistics show us that in almost every lightweight construction house fire, the occupants either self-rescue or they are dead when we get there.
2) We generally rescue civilian victims from smoke, not from fire. If the room – or structure – has flashed over, anyone in it is dead. If the truss void has flashed over, pretty much anyone we put in it or on it is probably going to be dead, too. On the other hand, if you have a solid apartment building with smoke-filled apartments above the fire, take the can, tools, search rope, and thermal imager and go get ‘em. New York and other big cities have a lot of situations where they can rescue people from smoke. The vast majority of U.S. firefighters don’t see a lot of those situations, because they don’t fight fires in that structure type. The rules for non-dimensional lumber frame houses or garden apartments are simply different than a lot of the building construction seen in the big northeast and Midwestern cities.
3) We can have a culture that achieves both safety and extinguishment. That culture is smart - it's one that believes strongly in fire sprinklers in EVERY occupancy, along with smoke detectors, kitchen hood systems, and monitored fire alarm systems. Fire protection systems – especially automatic sprinkler systems - make the building safer for the civilians and for the firefighters. Their response time is better than what any engine company on the planet can match. Of course, that will take away a lot of the “fun factor” in going to fires, but the public doesn’t fund the fire department based upon us having fun while they experience tragedy.
Firefighting is challenging, it’s ever-evolving, and the rules for doing it are not the same for every occupancy or for every fire department. A culture that places extinguishment over safety in all situations is a culture that will run into Born Losers and unnecessarily kill a lot of firefighters. A culture that places safety over extinguishment in all situations is going to have fewer funerals…and more parking lots. We need a culture that stresses both. Safety and extinguishment are not mutually exclusive. We need to be smart about choosing the right mix, depending upon the situation.
From All Hazards Contemplations
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Ben Waller on June 7, 2009 at 9:53am
-
strtcopr,
That's what good officers and instructors have been teaching since the mid 1980's, with the addition of 4. Environmental Conservation that sometimes moves into 3rd place. (Think hazmat contamination)
Once I got out of the hospital the first few times in my rookie years, I thought to myself "Self, this HURTS and we need to find a way to make it stop." So, self and I figured out that we needed to be smarter about how we sized up and attacked the jobs. It's a continuing process, but it's worked for me. It's worked for the building fires, victims, and rescues I've come across as well.
I agree with Ray that extinguishment is a good idea, but there are many ways to do it.
I agree with Art that there's no such thing as "too much safety".
The problem is that the debate has been framed by the extremes and by a few departments that have lots of companies, lots of manpower, and lots of fires in multiple-occupancy, solidly-built buildings.
Those rules simply don't apply for the vast majority of fire departments in the U.S., and we'll needlessly kill and injure our own if we apply those rules in places where the basic assumptions for those rules don't exist.
The reasons for avoiding injury (or worse) to our own is that if one of us gets injured, it takes at least two of us out of the fight - the injured firefighter and at least one additional firefighter to assist. It also violates the rule of "Don't make things worse after you arrive on scene." An injured firefighter, by definition, makes things worse.
The same goes for property that's already fried. When it's burned, we're not going to save it.
Frankly, that's where I disagree with European low-volume, high-pressure attacks, because they advocate avoiding the risk of water damage. Water damage is easy to fix - you just call a fire restoration company and have them dry it out. As Al Brunacini says, "Once it's burned, we can't unburn it." European expectations don't apply here - the structures, the culture, the fire department organization and funding, and the manpower are not the same.
It's also why I don't make fun of departments that don't have the manpower, money, or equipment to conduct OSHA-compliant interior attacks. If that's the best they can do with what their community funds, then it's acceptable for them to operate at that level. NYNY expectations don't apply to the WayBack VFD. That isn't what I or my department does, but it's not my place to judge those that do it, especially if it's the best that they can do with what their community gives them.
So...where does this leave us. In my opinion, it's back around full circle to somewhere between the two extremes. Each local community has to decide where to draw the line - for that community. After all, they're the ones paying for it.
-
Comment by Brian Couzens on May 6, 2009 at 10:45am
-
I have mourned the loss of a friend who died senselessly on a service call, and I have held dead children in my arms at a fire. I cannot agree with you more! I have but one simple rule: Pick your battles carefully. Fighting fires is like fighting an army. You never go into a battle without adequate intelligence on your enemy, and you never willingly fight an army when you are out manned and out gunned. Sadly, you only need to read a few NIOSH reports to realize that we commit to both of these transgressions daily.
-
Comment by Kimberly A Bownas on May 3, 2009 at 9:45am
-
Nice post Ben and I agree there are differences in urban and city firefighting as in man power and response times. There are ways to do this job safely and accomplish what we need on the fire ground.
-
Comment by Joe Stoltz on May 2, 2009 at 9:04pm
-
I think Lt. McCormack has been successful in bringing the risk vs. benefit discussion to the forefront, where it should be. And there has been a lot of excellent discussions here thanks to Ben and Art.
When reading through these discussions I can't help but remember the words of Billy Goldfeder sent in The Secret List on April 22, and I take the liberty of repeating some of it here since the exact text does not seem to be on the FFCC web site.
"The policy that now requires the 1st due officer to do a size-up, has angered some of the city's firefighters, who say it's their job to save people and property, even when it means putting their lives on the line. "We have always learned that you never know if someone is in a building unless you search it," said their local President. "Somebody who doesn't want to do that is probably in the wrong line of work."
"Well, it depends. It ALWAYS depends on CONDITIONS. Determining CONDITIONS as a part of a size up, are what determines if we go in or not (and in most cases we do-as we should)...and size-up determines everything else we do until we start packing hose. That fact is found in every fire tactics book written by FIREFIGHTERS and FIRE CHIEFS for the past 30+ years. It is nothing new. You will not find any seasoned Firefighter, Company Officer or Chief that will suggest Firefighters go in without an initial size up of some kind. If so, they are probably in the wrong line of work.
"You must size up. Seasoned Fire Officers, Firefighters and the survivors of Firefighters who have been killed in the line of duty in non-sized up buildings can confirm that. Size up. Simple proven logic that any seasoned veteran fire officer who has commanded fires will back up. And even with confirmed victims, there is still some level of initial size-up. You must size-up. But sometimes it's tough for a Firefighter to understand that. And that's understandable. That's why there are coaches and players. And that's why there are Chief Officers, Company Officers, Driver/Engineers and Firefighters. Each should clearly understand their role in coordination with the others and have the training and experience to go along with it. And all of us, at every rank must accept that sometimes, we just need to follow orders."
-
Comment by Al (olddogg) Westbrook on May 2, 2009 at 1:44pm
-
I would like to think that I have always had a "safety Culture" attitude toward the job , maybe more now after 28 years on the job, but when I was starting out I had officers who did there level best to keep me safe and not do something stupid :) .
I have grown to believe in the "me, my partner,my rig,the civilian (patient)" order of importance-because I mostly ride a medic rig . On the fireground it would still be me,my partner or crew first .
Am I right ? We have to watch out that we don't do something stupid ,and that our partner and crew stay intact .That we all go home alive to me is the MOST important goal . I don't ever see going into a structure that has a great potential for collaps to do a recovery .We may be willing to risk all to save a life ,but not for some damn building .
-
-
Philly,
As long as you don't stand next to the principal as I did through much of middle school and high school...
-
Comment by Christopher J. Naum, SFPE on May 1, 2009 at 11:42pm
-
Very well stated.....
-
-
Philly,
I get it - the same principle as Miss America always seems to be standing next to a friend with a "hormone problem".
-
-
Art,
I sent you an invite on your secret squirrel profile as well.
-
Comment by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on May 1, 2009 at 10:56pm
-
WP:
Everyone here and I mean everyone has been very respectful and gracious with their replies. Perspectives have been varied and yet, the discussion has been very civil, bordering on polite.
I was not focused on agreement, atonement or a blood bath when I posted ...the Yellow, Safety Brick Road...
What I have found is: even truckies-yes, truckies-will operate as safely as they can and protect their brothers/sisters at any cost EVEN if it means abandoning a rescue of a civilian. That is what I meant when I said that my men come first. I posed that very scenario at two other websites. Zero replies at one and the one I got at the other is exactly the answer I expected.
If it hadn't been for the five knee surgeries by my sophomore year in college, I would have been riding the truck in a metro area.
I envy and admire firefighters like you. I am living the dream vicariously through guys like you, Ben, Mick, Tiger and yes; Chief Bobby Halton and Lt. Ray McCormack.
As I said; I had to take down all of the comments from my blog site and that pissed off the ones who spewed their hatred even more, so they sent more and I wouldn't post them. I have FAMILY reading my blogs, for God's sake.
Anyway; I'm sorry I hi-jacked Ben's excellent blog, but I want things to be good between us "regulars" here at FFN.
And if we are not on each other's friend's list, we by God should be.
TCSS.
Art
© 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