The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Two Firefighters Initial Attack on Structure Fire
Two Firefighters from an understaffed Fire Department had a close call. The City does not want to hire any more guys . What will it take, a LODD before they wake up. Below is the article from the Review
Firefighter injured in early blaze
By MICHAEL D. McELWAIN (mmcelwain@reviewonline.com)
POSTED: November 29, 2009 "Firefighter injured in early blaze"
EAST LIVERPOOL - One of the two, initial, firemen at a Riley Avenue blaze Saturday morning was injured after falling through a weakened floor.
According to Lt. Jeff Kreefer, the fire, at 676 Riley Ave., was reported at 6:53 a.m. Two minutes later, the two firefighters on duty at the time, Bill Jones and James Allmon, arrived with a pumper.
"They arrived to find fire extending from the roof and smoke filling all the rooms to the residence," Kreefer said.
A second and third alarm was sent out, and both men opted to attack the blaze.
"They made their way through the front door and into the living area," Kreefer noted. "The fire in the living area extended to a second-floor bedroom."
About eight feet from the home's front door, Allmon fell through a fire-weakened floor between some floor joists.
Still, Allmon was able to get free and help extinguish the blaze. He was later taken to the hospital as a precaution and released, suffering from bruised ribs.
A total of 10 firefighters were at the scene. Moderate fire damage occurred along with heavy heat, smoke and water damage, according to Kreefer. The fire was contained to the one home.
According to the fire report, Jeff Diddle is the owner of the residence, and Robert Thorn is listed as the resident. However, Kreefer said Thorn has not been there in recent weeks.
"It was basically unoccupied at the time but rented with the renter out of town," Kreefer said.
An investigation is still under way to determine the cause of the fire. At 9:34 a.m. Saturday, the fire was under control, and firefighters were back at the station.
Kreefer said there was insurance on the structure, but it's still unknown if there was insurance on the contents.
Firefighter injured in early blaze
By MICHAEL D. McELWAIN (mmcelwain@reviewonline.com)
POSTED: November 29, 2009 "Firefighter injured in early blaze"
EAST LIVERPOOL - One of the two, initial, firemen at a Riley Avenue blaze Saturday morning was injured after falling through a weakened floor.
According to Lt. Jeff Kreefer, the fire, at 676 Riley Ave., was reported at 6:53 a.m. Two minutes later, the two firefighters on duty at the time, Bill Jones and James Allmon, arrived with a pumper.
"They arrived to find fire extending from the roof and smoke filling all the rooms to the residence," Kreefer said.
A second and third alarm was sent out, and both men opted to attack the blaze.
"They made their way through the front door and into the living area," Kreefer noted. "The fire in the living area extended to a second-floor bedroom."
About eight feet from the home's front door, Allmon fell through a fire-weakened floor between some floor joists.
Still, Allmon was able to get free and help extinguish the blaze. He was later taken to the hospital as a precaution and released, suffering from bruised ribs.
A total of 10 firefighters were at the scene. Moderate fire damage occurred along with heavy heat, smoke and water damage, according to Kreefer. The fire was contained to the one home.
According to the fire report, Jeff Diddle is the owner of the residence, and Robert Thorn is listed as the resident. However, Kreefer said Thorn has not been there in recent weeks.
"It was basically unoccupied at the time but rented with the renter out of town," Kreefer said.
An investigation is still under way to determine the cause of the fire. At 9:34 a.m. Saturday, the fire was under control, and firefighters were back at the station.
Kreefer said there was insurance on the structure, but it's still unknown if there was insurance on the contents.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Shareef Abdu Nur on
-
I am not knocking these two members for their actions, as I was not there. I am not judging them and critiquing them either, but this is an all to common occurence in many parts of this country. We have to do something besides allow politicians to rely on the fact that we will risk our lives to save lives and property. We have to take control from the politicians, educate the public, and seriously think about what we are risking and why.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Two Firefighters from an understaffed Fire Department had a close call. The City does not want to hire any more guys . What will it take, a LODD before they wake up.
I hate to say it but this sounds all too familar.We usually average about seven firefighters per structure fire.
What is missing here is if this dept had reduced their manpower in the past. While your dept may operate with typically 7 on a fire, still well below what should be, that is the chance your community is risking and the service they are paying for. Yes, it is about risk vs gain, but it is something different if personnel were lost because of attrition or layoffs, or there are vacant positions and the community is just refusing to hire.
There was a similar case in Massachusettes not long ago where a FF was injured trying to make a rescue in a fire and the stairs collapsed. The community recently laid off personnel and this was a case of "risk a lot to save a lot", but unfortunately at what cost?
I recall a saying somewhere that you can't put a price on someone's life. Unfortunately, we see more and more politicians willing to do so.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Cole on
-
It's not so uncommon at all. In fact, many departments operate this way. But what needs to change is the mindset of the firefighters. Now I understand there will be hundreds who will disagree with this, who stand by the notion that this is some service or death-type job, meaning hazards be damned, we will do the job of 4 firefighters with only 2 present at all costs. And THAT is the problem with this whole situation. (of which I am no stranger to, by the way).
I feel strongly that the answers are simple. You give the service that the community is willing to pay for, and nothing more. With only 2 firefighters present, there was just NO way to perform the required tasks in the way they should be done. Let me ask this: After the fire, after the newspaper wrote the story, and public digested it, was there much of a public outcry? Are the taxpayers angry that the local fire department is understaffed, and unable to perform in an effective, safe way? What good IS an excellent, 2 to 3 minute response time with insufficient staff?
I would bet that the whole incident is shrugged off. A freak thing. And so the politicians will say nobody was killed, and perhaps the firefighters should have waited until more helped arrived before beginning an offensive, interior attack. You see, it will ALWAYS be OUR fault, and according to the armchair firefighters (politicians and citizen know-it-alls) we always have other options that we COULD have done. And come on, when will happen again? Now to be sure, if your union or department speaks of the staffing danger, they will be labled as using scare tactics, and using a tragedy to promote thier special interest needs.
Sorry, but only WE can change this situation. Give 'em what they are willing to pay for. And that may well mean washing the furniture out the back door from the outside most of the time. Let them understand that the fire involving a small area in their home requires a few more firefighters, and that's exactly why it grew from a simple, few second burst of a 1.75" line, to them losing their home. I know, I'm callous, right? Well it's been 30-some years of the same garbage that made me this way.
I agree completely that we need to educate the public before-hand. Reach out to local citizen groups, and clubs, especially seniors. Put on a presentation, and show them what duties need be done and how quickly. Even with medical runs, 2 people is NOT sufficient for trauma or CPR jobs. Now that's not saying your gonna get enough people hired to staff your apparatus, but the addition of a couple here and there goes a long way.
Sadly, I know of departments that show up with only ONE firefighter. And some in local government and some taxpayers feel the risk is worth not hiring any more firefighters.
If the community falls silent on this issue, you have your answer,
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
You can blame the bean counters for setting them up for failure but we as firefighters must understand our capabilities when forced to run short. Train as such, create policies that enforce the parameters of running short.
Their is an NFPA Standard on 2 in 2 out. The article doesn't mention the report of people trapped just a decision to enter and fight fire... Quote: "It was basically unoccupied at the time but rented with the renter out of town," Kreefer said.
-
Permalink Reply by larry jenkins on
-
Jeff Cole, I totally agree with you. In my department we get a minimun of 32 personnel on each 1st alarm.Were blessed.
Unless there is a life hazard those guys should not have gone in. If you burn down every structure you respond to may be they will increase the staffing. That is totally unsafe.
If you do it with 2 people and put them out, why would they give you more?
-
Permalink Reply by Derek R. on
-
I agree as well. Should not have gone in an unoccupied structure without backup.
"They made their way through the front door and into the living area," Kreefer noted. "The fire in the living area extended to a second-floor bedroom." risk was way to high for whatever gain. no floor and no ceiling. Only 2 firefighters. They were lucky bruised ribs was the only damage. But like Shareef stated, I was not there either. Don't know all the facts.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
