The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Did people make too big a deal about this injured fire cadet explorer?
Glen Ellen fire chief defends actions of 16-year-old firefighter
By DEREK J. MOORE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 8:37 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 8:37 a.m.
Glen Ellen's fire chief on Tuesday hotly refuted concerns that his department put the safety of a 16-year-old boy at risk during the battle to douse a raging New Year's Eve house fire. “I can tell you categorically that this appears to be overblown,” said Peter Van Fleet, who took over as chief in June 2008 and was a volunteer for the department for 25 years.
Van Fleet returned from vacation Tuesday to be greeted by a firestorm of controversy over the role the minor, identified as Japen Soto-Pomeroy, played during the response to the blaze, which tore through an unoccupied vacation home on Trinity Road east of Glen Ellen.
Sonoma County fire officials, who had jurisdiction over the fire scene, raised concerns about the teen's work after he and a Glen Ellen firefighter were taken to Sonoma Valley Hospital to be treated for heat exhaustion. Van Fleet returned from vacation Tuesday to be greeted by a firestorm of controversy over the role the minor, identified as Japen Soto-Pomeroy, played during the response to the blaze, which tore through an unoccupied vacation home on Trinity Road east of Glen Ellen.
Sonoma County fire officials, who had jurisdiction over the fire scene, raised concerns about the teen's work after he and a Glen Ellen firefighter were taken to Sonoma Valley Hospital to be treated for heat exhaustion.
But after speaking with his firefighters who were at the scene that day, Van Fleet said Tuesday that neither their actions nor that of the teen violated the department's policy for fire cadets, which the chief said he drafted last May.
The policy forbids cadets — defined as trainees 16 and over — from going inside a building where there is an uncontrolled fire. But they can go onto roofs to help with “ventilation, exposure protection and overhaul” so long as they are accompanied by two other adult firefighters. (full story...)
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Montpetit on
-
and Reg...you have gained all this insight in 3 whole years in the Fire Service....amazing...
-
Permalink Reply by Reg Mathis on
-
Paul,
I don't believe that common sense is a proclivity of the Fire Department. I gained this insight from years of living and functioning in the everyday world.
You have based an assessment on what you can glean from a profile...amazing...
-
-
Paul,
Let me start by saying that I have much more confidence in the NFPA guidelines than I do OSHA. Having spent over 30 years dealing with OSHA, I think I have a pretty good grasp of what the do well, and where they fall short. But that is beside the point. Do you really believe that an open, intelligent discussion on my opinions of the effectiveness of OSHA is harmful or detrimental to the youngsters that may read it?
Blind obedience does no one any good. I believe that the younger students of fire science should be CONSTANTLY questioning both OSHA and NFPA. But perhaps you are also of the opinion that if we continue to teach them that their "peepees" and "ho ho's" are dirty, we can one day eliminate teen pregnancy.
And lastly, I did not make, or even ATTEMPT to make a decision for anyone. I simply put my opinions out there.
TCSS
Reg
-
-
So true...I not only gained insight from formal education but also from the school of hard knocks (graduated from that one top of my class)...But I also check profiles to see what experience and knowledge the people are bringing to the table......
-
-
Thank you also, Billy. It is refreshing to have a dissimiliar viewpoint with someone without it degenerating into a bout of name calling.
And both you and Ben are correct in your assessment of the legality of it all. And of course, faced with a real-life decision on the subject I would, without a doubt, follow the rules. But that doesn't mean I have to accept the policy as perfect!
TCSS
Reg
-
-
and I told you about "opinions"...And yes, any experienced Firefighter expressing in an open forum that children read can be detrimental...as my first Chief told me when I took Firefighter Survival and had to exit a 2nd story window head first down a ladder....."You ain't got to like it, you just got to do it."..This is a risky business and to even hint that we don't need to follow standards and guidelines is irresponsible.....enough said.....Parents leave your children at home...when they are old enough to get CERTIFIED as Firefighters then send them out.....will welcome them with open arms.....
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Reg,
Annual physicals and annual mask fit tests are more than necessary. These two issues are critical to firefighter safety on the fireground, in that the firefighter has been determined to be physically fit to perform his duties and that the mask he wears both functions and fits properly.
That your department does not require the above suggests that they may likewise have an alternative viewpoint on the placement and usage of juniors on the fireground. Perhaps your viewpoint on juniors is based on your departments views?
Even accepting that your viewpoint expresses your own opinion, does there not need to be an objective line somewhere that delineates who may and may not perform on the fireground?
Becoming an adult 1 second after midnight of your birthday does seem absurd indeed, yet that is what the law has declared. While it may be a bit arbitrary it at least removes subjectivity from the issue. At 18 you're an adult, at 17 you're not.
You suggest that there may be some 17 y/o's that are indeed mature enough to handle the fireground, but who makes that determination? And is that person objective enough to make it?
Once again I'd like to point out that the majority of firefighters have never been a junior/explorer yet have managed to become qualified, competent firefighters. So why then the manic desire for so many children to have to be able to work on the fireground?
-
-
Hey jack,
I am absolutely positive that my departments lack of proper fit testing is a direct result of funding and in no way should be construed as my department attempting any "shortcuts". Also, we have recently instituted a mandatory fitness test for all members, our first test being next Saturday.
Also, I did not intend my post to be a statement that the current laws concerning legal ages are in any way wrong or misguided. My intent was to express my opinion on the roles and responsibilities we are and are not willing to give these kids. And again, in my opinion, me saying that every junior out there is capable of handling the stresses and demands of being a Fire Fighter is just as wrong as someone else saying that NONE of them are capable. Our department does not have a Junior or Explorer program. I don't know if it is the liability factor, or a lack of funds to support and equip any Juniors, but we don't have one and are not(to the best of my knowledge) planning on fostering one anytime soon.
In addition, let me state that my opinion of the capabilities of youngsters may be even harsher than a lot of the folks that post here. I believe that no kid should be given a drivers license without a high school diploma or GED. A lot of people find my stand on that issue a bit extreme, but it is what I believe would be in the best interest of the general public. And this is just one example.
I knew when I posted what I did, I would meet with a good deal of argument(the good kind), but if we do not continously question our current methods, there will be no improvement in what we do. Sadly, it appears that some folks here consider that quest for improvement to be wrong. But if we blindly follow whatever the standards are that we are given, can we ever expect them to become the ideal?
TCSS
Reg
-
-
Reg,
That your department lacked funding for fit testing (as well as the apparent lack of physicals) is a fundamental issue. If funding to meet necessary standards for adult firefighters is lacking, where then would be the ovesight for a junior/explorer program?
Regardless of individual views on the use of juniors on the fireground, I'm betting everyone could agree that before ever considering any issue of juniors, all fire departments should be trained to NFPA standards, that funding should be sought and found to supply all the necessary equipment, apparatus and PPE necessary to perform at those standards and that, once that is accomplished the issue of juniors could then be addressed.
Until such time, it is in everyone's best interest that juniors be, at most, nothing more than an opportunity to watch and observe. After all, if the ADULT firefighters are not operating to NFPA standards then what guaranty is there that the juniors would be any better off?
-
-
Hey jack,
Such is the life of a tiny-town vollie FD. We do what we can with what we got.
But let me say that every point you make is valid, as usual. And I would not ask any Junior OR Senior member to enter into a hazardous environment without the absolute best PPE we can supply.
The entire point to my post was that !!!!!SOME!!!!! of the folks that are absolutely adamant about no Juniors on the fireground will willingly and without a second thought, allow this same youngster to get behind the wheel of an automobile, operate heavy machinery or hold a job in an industrial environment.
My intent was an attempt to get the readers to consider the hazardous activities we WILL allow our children to indulge in while considering the things that we will NOT allow them to do.
TCSS
Reg
-
-
Reg,
I too agree but the world we live in is one of acceptable risks. While I do think that 16 is too young for a driver's license, the risk can be somewhat ameliorated by the use of a graduated license, with greater "freedom" at various benchmarks (age primarily).
For better or for worse, many 16 year olds "need" to drive to get to work (which is beneficial and thus an acceptable risk). I don't consider driving to school to be necessary as communities supply buses for that very purpose.
Sports expose children to other risks as well, but are likewise deemed acceptable, with appropriate supervision and requisite gear. Parents allow their kids to swim, ski, roller blade/skate board, surf, rock climb and many other activities, all deemed acceptable risks.
But one thing to bear in mind is that in every one of these activities, they are essentially recreational -that is neither "important" or critical- and they tend to be graduated activities with decreasing supervision (skiing as an example).
But the key difference between those activities and firefighting is that in firefighting that which is occurring is time sensitive, risk intensive and relies on many things occurring simultaneously with little overt supervision and the trust in training and judgment of the personnel involved which allows them to function in such situations.
Why would we willingly place children in a situation that almost guaranty's that they will be both unprepared for the situation and under supervised?
Life is not without risk and part of the transition from child to adult is their awareness and exposure to these everyday risks. Firefighting is just not an everyday risk in that transition.
-
-
Hey jack,
More valid points! But what about the activities that aren't recreational in nature? In our rural community, it is not uncommon during the planting or harvesting seasons to see a kid as young as 8 or 9 happily motoring down the road on a tractor or combine. Unsupervised. And understand, I'm not APPROVING of this action, just making a point.
And again, not attempting to challenge the legality of it all, but if a kid around here drops out of high school at 17, his first stop is usually at one of the carpet mills where a day or two later they are on a production line that is every bit as dangerous(albeit in different ways) as a structure fire. Okay, maybe not AS dangerous, but you get my drift.
But to address another one of your points, I'm not proposing dropping an untrained 17 year old on a structure fire and sticking a hose in his hands and pushing him in the door. My scenario was if you had a 17 year old youngster who had completed his FF1 and had the proper approach towards safety and adhering to command decisions, why should their chronological age be a factor(and DON'T fall back on the "legal" aspect. That's not what we're arguing about!).
Reg
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
