The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Riddle Me This, Batman
...as the Joker used to say in the old Adam West TV show...
I just caught a quote from the recent tragic LODD and multiple LOD injuries in St. Anna, WI. One of the nine injuries was an Explorer.
According to Capt. Adam Schuh of the SAFD, "Among those injured were 17-year-old Chase Fritsch and 15-year-old Joshua Scott. Fritsch, who is Schuh’s stepson, is of legal age to serve as a firefighter, with parental permission. Scott is a fire department explorer, a training program for teens aspiring to become firefighters. Scott was never in the actual danger zone on Tuesday night, Schuh said." (Emphasis Supplied)
Source: Statter911
This begs the question; If the Explorer was not in "the actual danger zone", then how did the explosion injure him?
For those of you who are Explorers or juniors and can't wait to get close to the danger, this should make you think. Even something that appears as routine as a dumpster fire isn't alwasy what it appears. Sometimes "out of the danger zone" is still too close.
So should this story from Glen Ellen, CA, where an Explorer was treated for heat exhaustion suffered while reportedly ....
For those of you who have Explorer or junior programs, these incidents should give you pause.
Why would anyone let an Explorer fight an interior fire for any reason?
How can an explosion injure an Explorer who is thought to be out of the danger area?
I wonder what their parents are thinking right now?
Any LODD is tragic. I share in the sorrow for the St. Anna department's loss, and am greatful that this incident or the Glen Ellen incident were not even worse. The potential was certainly there. The adult firefighters generally understand the risks when they respond to any call, even if it's "just a dumpster fire". The juniors and Explorers among us clearly don't have the experience and judgement to do the same.
If your department has an Explorer or junior program, the rules for what they can do, how close to a hazard zone they are allowed, their PPE, need to be clear, concise, and enforced. Their supervision needs to be absolute.
I sincerely hope that this is the last time we ever hear about an Explorer injury while operating at a fire.
I just caught a quote from the recent tragic LODD and multiple LOD injuries in St. Anna, WI. One of the nine injuries was an Explorer.
According to Capt. Adam Schuh of the SAFD, "Among those injured were 17-year-old Chase Fritsch and 15-year-old Joshua Scott. Fritsch, who is Schuh’s stepson, is of legal age to serve as a firefighter, with parental permission. Scott is a fire department explorer, a training program for teens aspiring to become firefighters. Scott was never in the actual danger zone on Tuesday night, Schuh said." (Emphasis Supplied)
Source: Statter911
This begs the question; If the Explorer was not in "the actual danger zone", then how did the explosion injure him?
For those of you who are Explorers or juniors and can't wait to get close to the danger, this should make you think. Even something that appears as routine as a dumpster fire isn't alwasy what it appears. Sometimes "out of the danger zone" is still too close.
So should this story from Glen Ellen, CA, where an Explorer was treated for heat exhaustion suffered while reportedly ....
For those of you who have Explorer or junior programs, these incidents should give you pause.
Why would anyone let an Explorer fight an interior fire for any reason?
How can an explosion injure an Explorer who is thought to be out of the danger area?
I wonder what their parents are thinking right now?
Any LODD is tragic. I share in the sorrow for the St. Anna department's loss, and am greatful that this incident or the Glen Ellen incident were not even worse. The potential was certainly there. The adult firefighters generally understand the risks when they respond to any call, even if it's "just a dumpster fire". The juniors and Explorers among us clearly don't have the experience and judgement to do the same.
If your department has an Explorer or junior program, the rules for what they can do, how close to a hazard zone they are allowed, their PPE, need to be clear, concise, and enforced. Their supervision needs to be absolute.
I sincerely hope that this is the last time we ever hear about an Explorer injury while operating at a fire.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
Well, far be it from me to buck the system but, a little perspective might be in order here. Let's keep in mind that 17-year-olds (with parental consent) can enlist in the military where they are likely to routinely encounter much more danger than any Junior/Explorer - or Firefighter, for that matter - ever will. In fact, the youngest person to be awarded the Medal of Honor (Post-Civil War) was a 17-year-old Marine for throwing himself on two grenades on Iwo Jima.
I agree that there should be fairly strict limitations on juniors and explorers with respect to fireground activities. But I don't think it's automatically a bad thing for them to be exposed to firegrounds in a limited capacity.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Cole on
-
I just read of another incident in which a 'junior/explorer' was injured in California, and in fact was participating in IDLH active interior firefighting! And one of the quotes from the jurisdiction involved stated that they allow them to participate in the overhaul phase "when the dangers are less severe".
WTF?
ARE they?
Something is wrong with adults, so-called "professionals" who allow minors to play firefighter on the actual battleground. I guess that's the answer to all the short-staffing problems. In fact I have heard of it before. High school stidents used as first-responders, and even inmates allowed release due to shortages of firefighters in some local areas. I guess this makes the statement that anyone will due as long as they wear the bumble bee suit.
Those who accept this as solutions need not wonder why we shot ourselves in the foot so often. The damage is self-inflicted.
Minors, regardless of how much manipulative training they have had (which shouldn't be allowed in the first place) belong on the other side of caution tape.
-
-
Can I get my post from the first page over to this page? (OK, I can't, but can it be done?)
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
The difference between the analogy you used in regard to military service is that the military is responsible for your child... When you reverse this mindset, and apply this to the fire service, the big difference here is that if someone gets hurt, and they are under the age of 18, then you as the company officer have some legal liability issues to deal with. Just the legal fallout alone should be the wake up call for those blowing off common sense.
Risk verses benefit leads one to believe that this is not the best concept... And if they get hurt or disabled, then what? The military has safeguards in the system to take care of their own. If it's a child, then the burden falls upon the family.
So when you are doing hose evolutions and a coupling breaks, creating a water wiggle with a brass hose fitting flying around that makes contact with one of the young kids heads... a major head injury results and the child is left handicapped. Sounds kind of far fetched? Nope, it happened and the family of the fire academy student is left taking care of a vegetable... with no compensation to assist with the expenses. Again, is it really worth it? As a parent, I would say NO.
There is nothing good about letting children play firefighter... It's a serious job, not a hobby or extracurricular activity. The potential dangers of the job out weigh any benefits.
There is so much to learn first. What's wrong with waiting until you are 18 to actually do the hands on tasks? Putting children on the fire ground is in many cases is nothing but the older guys being too lazy to do the grunt work. Sure, it's easier to have the young kids roll hose and help with mop up but the risk of hazmat exposures and injury is totally inappropriate for children to be subject too.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
WP - Copy and paste it?
By the way, you made a good point previously, about 17 year y/o joining the military. But only after3 or 4 months of rigorous boot camp, additional and constant training and supervision are they then let loose as dogs of war. Can the same stringent training and oversight be said to exist with regard to junior firefighters?
-
-
Jack,
"Copy and paste it?" Yeah, easy for you to say. (Trust me on that.)
You have me at a disadvantage with respect to discussions of junior firefighters and their programs. ALL of what I know about them comes from reading various threads here on FFN. I'm sure that the training and oversight with regard to junior firefighters is nothing like that of the military. But I have a feeling that fire training for (adult firefighters?) in many parts of the country leaves much to be desired as well.
I only brought up the example of the military to show that 17-year-olds are not necessarily "children" in the usual sense of the word, and that it may not be completely unreasonable for some departments to use them (with parental consent) for some fireground activities.
-
Permalink Reply by BillySFCVFD on
-
DOD regulations allow military enlistment, with parential consent, at 17 y.o. but are not allowed in a combat zone until 18 y.o.. That was probably true during WWII also but there were so many "17/18 year olds" that lied about their age and forged their parent's signature, go figure. TCSS
-
-
Billy,
Yes, but DOD regulations aside, just going through military training and then doing your job in a non-combat zone - or even in peace time - can be at least as hazardous as any number of fireground activities.
Imagine, kids forging their parents signatures to get INTO the war! A different breed and times exist today.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
With regards to 17 y/o's in the military and such programs yeah parental consent would be needed for both but as pointed out the military has much more training, you are under a contract and if something does happen you are covered. A big difference is that when a 17 y/o goes into the military the parents know what their child is going into, they are more informed. While there may be cases of "shady" recruiters, the big picture is the parents understand what the military is about and what their kid will be doing.
Difference on the firefighting side is that isn't the case. There are differences among all departments regarding training, responses, how they respond, staffing and so on. In which case having parental consent in most cases would be something likened to that of going out for football or any other sport. You may have the kid come home with a "I wanna do this can you sign here" type of message and the parent may not even blink an eye. A parent can go down and check out such a program but how many advisors state they use kids on firegrounds etc and the program is just a way to get them in the field so when they turn 18 they can become a full FF. Difference is that with the military the parents know what their kid is getting into, a FF junior program, not so much.
I have a feeling that fire training for (adult firefighters?) in many parts of the country leaves much to be desired as well.
And that is the issue with utilizing kids on firegrounds, even if they are 17 and have parents permission. There is no real standard amongst fire departments, whereas there is with the military. Basic training is the same whether one goes to California or South Carolina. With some of these departments, you get the excuse "it works for us" despite the fact they are putting kids knowingly in harms way. Many depts think a wildland fire is nothing to worry about, but how many have died in them?
As it is, the question has been raised after the WI incident as to why two minors were hurt on the fireground. I think and hope that the questions get raised even more to address these issues. Yes, just being 18 doesn't mean maturity and one can get injured playing football as they can with being on a fireground, but there is no reason to rush kids into a fire service role.
-
-
WP,
I suspect that, while much of what you said is dead on, those departments whose training may "...leave much to be desired..." may very well be the ones that most rely on juniors to back fill their manpower issues. Adult supervision may not be adequate if even available.
As to copy and paste, just follow along with me and I'll walk you through it.
Place your cursor (the little flashing line or icon that appears at the end of the last letter you typed) right next to the first letter of the item you want to copy. Left click on the mouse or laptop, keeping your finger on the left button drag the cursor all the way to include all of the text you want to copy and then take your finger off of the button. It will all be highlighted in blue. Simultaneously press Ctrl and C, that will copy the text to the (quite magical) clipboard. Open a reply to the discussion you want to post in, click your cursor in the dialog box and then press Ctrl and V, voila, you have copied and pasted your very first item. You should feel good about that.
-
-
Jack,
You do realize that you just wrote a (ten-line!) paragraph to show me how easy it is to copy and paste? (And who's Viola?)
Believe me, I'm not prepared to go to the mat in defending juniors on firegrounds. I do, however, think some of the criticism is a little over-the-top. By the way, John correctly points out that kids on high school football teams get hurt - some fatally. I know there are many more kids playing football - not to mention other sports - than on the fireground. It's just something to bear in mind when weighing the risks/benefits of either activity.
-
-
Yup WP and it's up to reasonable "adults" to keep "kids" safe. Not all minors are unreasonable but lack of maturity makes for bad decisions that can be deadly. And I believe that's the point here.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
