Add a Comment

Comment by Shareef Abdu Nur on September 22, 2010 at 3:42pm

The real problem with this issue is the mentality of the newer generations of fireifghters graduating from the academies now. These members are coming into the Fire Service during a time where below minimum staffing levels is the norm. Therefore they have no real point of reference in regards to a properly manned apparatus. They are being taught and being forced to believe that it is OK to go to a fire with an understaffed apparatus crew. I heard one younger member tell me, "4 members on any apparatus is overkill because we do not fight fires as often as we used to..." I told him that if I ever hear anything like this from his mouth again, our crew will be one less short at his own cost.
Nonetheless, if we as a service do not believe that we need at least minimum staffing, how can we ever sell the idea to the public. I know that the average citizen does not care about staffing and I know that no one plans on their home catching fire, but we have to stop doing more with less. if we can not increase staffing, then we must do whatever we can to get more members on scene and this might mean a longer burn time or a delayed rescue.
We did not start the fire, crash the car, or stop someone's heart from beating, but we have to stop shooting ourselves in the foot. We should never advocate for anything that cuts manpower.

Comment by Eric on September 21, 2010 at 9:21pm

Weak. 2 vs. 3. In Salt Lake we are fighting for 4. We staff everything with 4 and 3 handed rigs just don't cut it. I came from Sonoma area and running with 2 was the norm. No more 4 to 5 is the only way.

Comment by Foley&son on September 21, 2010 at 10:41am

more men safer! da