The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
SAFE-ISH
There have been a few discussions in here on safety. Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich's latest "Don't Be Afraid" highlights a couple of NIOSH LODD reports. There was an extensive one on Acquired Structure Burns (NPFA 1403) and there is now a group to discuss such things.
My questions here are: Are we too safe (meet all NFPA standards or striving to), safe enough (meet many or most NFPA standards and feel you've done enough) or only safe-ish (meet hardly any or only a few NFPA standards and think that they're too much for most dept's)? Do you feel that NFPA is real-world in establishing our standards or it's something for just the rich kids to worry about?
Why would anyone enter a burning structure without putting on their masks?
Why would anyone have "excessive facial hair"? (recent annual fit test - I passed)
Why would anyone not wear seatbelts?
Why would anyone not require annual, thorough physicals?
Why would anyone utilize minors in any capacity other than strictly learn/observe?
Why is speeding ever acceptable?
Why would anyone, any department, ever be satisfied with being Safe-ish?
My questions here are: Are we too safe (meet all NFPA standards or striving to), safe enough (meet many or most NFPA standards and feel you've done enough) or only safe-ish (meet hardly any or only a few NFPA standards and think that they're too much for most dept's)? Do you feel that NFPA is real-world in establishing our standards or it's something for just the rich kids to worry about?
Why would anyone enter a burning structure without putting on their masks?
Why would anyone have "excessive facial hair"? (recent annual fit test - I passed)
Why would anyone not wear seatbelts?
Why would anyone not require annual, thorough physicals?
Why would anyone utilize minors in any capacity other than strictly learn/observe?
Why is speeding ever acceptable?
Why would anyone, any department, ever be satisfied with being Safe-ish?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Are we too safe (meet all NFPA standards or striving to), safe enough (meet many or most NFPA standards and feel you've done enough) Do you feel that NFPA is real-world in establishing our standards or it's something for just the rich kids to worry about?
Too safe? Safe enough? I actually find both questions being loaded, especially considering the statements in parenthesis. Such questions themselves can be a state of mind and can definately vary depending upon one's position in the dept. Also, NFPA on its own is really just a guideline, especially when some things can be enacted and some are meerly looked upon as a suggestion......(staffing sticks out this way. Most depts would love to meet that NFPA recommendation, reality is another thing). In order to be safe at all, training is also imperative and NFPA doesn't really tell you what to train on or how to do it, except for guidelines to follow.
The reason I find the "Too safe" and "safe enough" as being loaded goes to context. I have seen some comments here about old timers, but many young and new guys can be just as bad. (one doesn't have to look much further than some explorer/jr posts to understand that). I have heard comments made that we are "too safe", we don't go offensive, they don't want us on the roof, we have to drive the speed limit, we have to stop for red lights, "why do we have to train on search and rescue, we don't go in anyway", we only send one rig for a fire alarm, and so forth.
Thing is some of those comments are not far off. It can easily be said "we can never be too safe", but reality is, this is still an inherently dangerous job and we do have a responsibilty to the public. Unfortunately, some things mentioned here have been made as policies in some places, vs to focus more upon Risk Assessment. After all, if we were "too safe" we would never go offensive, every fire would be fought from the outside, we would never go in for a search, because it would be easy to say the conditions are untenable for life, etc.....In order to be "too safe" would pretty much mean Risk Assessment is thrown out the window and there is no trust in the training nor firefighters.
Safe enough...I see as loaded because, there really never is safe enough. There is something always to be learned, there are new techniques, new building construction materials, new hazards and so forth which always require a constant awareness. There is no point to say, this is the "safe enough" point, there is always something out there to learn. When you stop learning, it is time to retire or leave the fire service.
For these:
Why would anyone enter a burning structure without putting on their masks?
There is no reason
Why would anyone have "excessive facial hair"? (recent annual fit test - I passed)
They shouldn't, however look at the case in DC with some FF's suing to have beards because of religious beliefs.
Why would anyone not wear seatbelts?
No reason
Why would anyone not require annual, thorough physicals?
No reason
Why would anyone utilize minors in any capacity other than strictly learn/observe?
They shouldn't...spoke my opinion on this numerous times
Why is speeding ever acceptable?
Define speeding though. Should an engine be forced to obey the speed limit to a fire with reports of people trapped, or should Due Regard, be the guiding factor?
-
Permalink Reply by blair4630 on
-
http://connect.jems.com/forum/topics/safety-and-religion
This is an ongoing dispute on the sister (EMS) site about beards in the fire service and SCBA seals. There are several people on both sides of the fence on this one.
-
Permalink Reply by Dustin J. Millis on
-
just an organized mob with access to water HAHAHA... I know quite a few "departments" that would fall into that category
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Carey on
-
During the investigation of the cheating scandal at the Naval Academy many years ago the phrase 'you rate what you skate' entered into testimony. Midshipmen involved defined it as not only being able successfully cheat the system but to also acquire a social status among themselves (those that cheated); the more you got away with the better you were.
We, the fire service, are as safe as we get away with. Whether it is working to the letter or cutting corners we perform relative to safety based on our past success. It is a sociology norm that says if you or I do a certain task and generally do it fast or in rapid sequences (such as in firefighting), dodging established safety rules continually and suffer no extreme consequence(s), then we create a pattern of justifiable behavior that we will rely on the next time we face a similar situation(s).
While the specific and individual reasons will vary, departments in general are as safe as they get away with, both good and bad.
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
I agree that these are rather loaded questions. Just to stir the pot a bit:
Why would anyone enter a burning structure without putting on their masks?
1) A 9 story building, fire in the top floor - do you mask up at the street level, or after ascending a few floors? We used to climb the stairs up to 10 floors. Heck, if the stairs were clear, we wouldn't mask up until we were on the fire floor.
2) Fires pretty much knocked, ventilation has cleared the air, we are in overhaul mode, but still finding hotspots. How long do you need to keep a mask on?
3) You can smell from the street that it's food on the stove, and the owner is standing in the door, waveing out a bit of white smoke...does a FOTS fire require BA?
let's stay safe out there, but let's not lose our minds. BA is important, seatbelts are an absolute must, etc, etc, but a bit of common sense and judgement needs to come into play at some point.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Vic,
1) Specifically I was referring to a NIOSH LODD report in which two firefighters we recovered from inside a trailer with their masks hanging off, unattached. The conclusion was that neither were wearing their mask when they entered a burning (house) trailer. That is a long way from a 9 story building. No one expects you to mask up prior to climbing 9 flights.
2) If you are doing the overhaul or in the area and it is still smouldering and finding hotspots then I have to think you continue to wear the mask. Assuming that the air quality is being monitored, each time you find a hot spot it's going to change the air quality in the vincinity. That is a call for the safety officer to make.
3) I don't know, what does your dept. protocol say? I suppose breathing in the results of a burned dinner isn't going to be that harmful, once in a while. Then again, what burned? Steak in the oven? Read about the carcinogens that result from 'charbroiling' steak. Was it something in a frying pan? Read about metal fume fever. One time exposures may not be significant, but if the house is smoked up good and it's only dinner...I don't know, you tell me.
-
-
John C.
You left out "...or only safe-ish (meet hardly any or only a few NFPA standards and think that they're too much for most dept's)?"
Don't parse too much of what I've written, the parentheticals were added to define a bit what I was after. Although it may be difficult to tell, it was written with somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek attitude. If you look again at what I wrote but from the safe-ish point of view perhaps it will make more sense.
I'm not sure if I would call NFPA a "guideline", it has happened in court where NFPA standards have been considered to have the weight of the law as NFPA standards are considered to be Industry Standards and best practices. Failure to abide by them and a resulting fatality could find the department liable, a lot more than simple "guidelines" would.
Again, too safe and safe enough are points the yardstick mainly to show their relative location from the base-line, zero point, e.g. safe-ish. I'm thinking maybe I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be, that
"safe-ish" was the trigger that I was pulling. There are those departments that do feel that safe-ish works for them and are very happy-ish being safe-ish. I guess-ish.
-
-
Jeff,
safe-ish is better than no safe-ish? Really? Safe-ish falls so far down the spectrum of safeosity that it barely registers, so much (so less?) so that being safe-ish is probably worse off then being unsafe. At least being knowingly unsafe you pretty much consider yourself lucky everytime you walk away. Being safe-ish implies a false sense of security, that you're as safe as you feel you need to be, you've taken the 'safety' precautions you think are required.
really, the best closing is,
stay safe-est!
-
-
"...departments in general are as safe as they get away with,..."
Exactly!
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
