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 Ben "Batman" Barry on
-
The same type of incident happened in CT. An explorer was on his bike with a scanner rode into traffic going to an MVA a couple of blocks away. I am reminded by the saying "No response is that important that we can not get htere safely".
-
Permalink Reply by Loyd Dittfurth on
-
your probably right but its easy to say that if it isnt your aunt, friend, friends family or if another life is at stake. Im not back home and to be honest I firmly believe that they will kill someone because of lack of training and stupid decisions. I just hope it isnt any of my family or friends that is lost in the chaos.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Problem goes both ways Loyd, yeah it may not be my friends or family in trouble, but it could be my friend or family members kid that is going in because he is eager and looked upon as the "best bet". I have to agree with Jack here and that if there is such an issue about getting volunteers that you have to resort to kids, then you need to be looking at other options, even the possibility of closing the doors.
-
-
well asual that is my opinion and I am usually wrong here. But let me put it this way yall aint here and there is no department to merge with. They are a fire department that covers 600,000 acres. It may have fluxuated since I last knew of. To call another department it would take 45 minutes to get there so you might aswell just get the garden hose and make sure it doesnt go anywhere so its easy clean up and hope no one was inside.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
You know; not to be a smart aleck, but we could save ourselves alot of work on SOGs if we just have one page that reads: We will show up and hope for the best.
Yeah; that will fly in the face of an investigation.
We just had a fire at the high school. Three weeks earlier, we put a new guy on the department. Now; he is a 28 year old with fire department experience from another department. Guess what? He was NOT allowed to enter the IDLH!
You see; HE knows that he has experience, but WE don't know that yet. But we will and when he passes muster, he will be very productive.
You have to protect them against themselves. No exceptions.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Ben, you were not the "Batman" that I was thinking of, but thanks for your well-thought-out reply.
-
-
I don't think this issue is isolated to WI. The overall results in the WI incident were more severe, but the direct danger to the CA Explorer was a much larger risk to both the Explorer and to the department, given that the incident occurred due to interior firefighting.
The "we only let them overhaul because it's safer" reasoning doesn't wash for that, either.
The report doesn't say, but do the CA departments that allow this perform air monitoring to rule out toxins, low oxygen concentrations, etc. prior to unmasked overhaul? That goes for everybody, not just Explorers/juniors.
Even if the atmosphere was monitored and low oxygen levels and high toxin levels ruled out, do those departments make everyone wear a fit-tested N-95 respirator to keep dangerous smoke, drywall, fiberglass, and other dangerous particulates out of the respiratory tract?
If the do, they're probably violating the OSHA standard, because N-95's require the same medical clearance and fit testing that are required for SCBA. If not, then they're still letting an Explorer be exposed to respiratory hazards. Explorers doing overhaul is a lose-lose proposition.
On the WI incident, remember that blast trauma that caused any hearing impairment, including any degree of deafness and/or tinnitus is still blast trauma. If you're close enough to be injured, it's pretty difficult to defend that "he was a safe distance away" statement.
There's a big difference between the military and firefighting, too. The military does allow minors to enlist with parental permission, but the military isn't regulated by OSHA or state fire marshal/fire academies. That makes the legal repercussions quite different between the two.
-
-
Loyd, if a patient is bleeding or coughing at a wreck, then it's a Hazmat scene. Biohazards are, by definition, hazardous materials.
The hazardous substance (blood, TB in sputum, etc) may not be present in 55-gallon drum or rail tanker quantities, but how much of a virus or drug-resistant bacteria does it take to either kill you slowly, make you so sick that you require a liver transplant, or to ensure that you have to wear a filter respirator in your own home so you don't infect your family.
-
-
I was meaning more of big tanker go boom boom scenes
-
-
I understand, but the risks that can kill you slowly and agonizingly over months are years are just as dangerous as the big boom scenes. That's one of the really insidious things about firefighting - you don't know what you are inhaling or what is being absorbed through your skin that may destroy internal organs or give you cancer.
That is especially true for teenagers, who have not finished growing and developing yet.
It is especially cruel to have them recieve disabling injuries or illness prior to even growing up, and it's why we need to protect them as both the future of our profession and as a critical community resource.
-
-
Why risk the 15-year-old before he gets the three or four years of life experience will probably make him/her a better firefighter. In other words, why risk the future of the department because we're shorthanded today?
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Buck on
-
CB when you get the report pass it alone to me i would love to read it also thanks
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
