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 Malcum Salyers Jr. on
-
I'm sorry Chief but it seems to me you have lost or missed the true goals of this program. It is to teach the young what firefighting realy is. It is NOT a tool to help get firemwn at an early age. At no time should a Cadet, Explorer or Jr. Fireman be used in place of a carded fireman. Please refer back to your local Scout Council and get a copy of the national rules and guide lines. WE as adults agreeing to have theses youngsters at our departments take the responsibility yo teach and to protect them as we would any other member of our community. It is time for you to step back and take a good hard look at the national guide line for explorers and remember YOU CAN BE MORE STRINGENT, but not less and remember WE TEACH BY HOW WE LEAD, and to re-wright your SOG to allow such an act is not a good example or the proper thing to teach. Model your program for the safety of all, especilly the young.
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Ayotte on
-
Children do not belong on the fireground. Period. End of story.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Short and to the point. Apparently not everyone gets this as clearly as you do, Ron.
-
Permalink Reply by Jessica Travis on
-
i dont agree with the department allowing the junior to do ventilation, i really dont see that as safe.... on a fire scene all i can do is get tools, pack things up and change air packs and i really dont see that as changing anytime soon. If anyone brought up letting the juniors feed hose into a doorway, do ventilation or even enter a house if the fire is under control they would be laughed right out of the bagdad fire department. The policies we have are considered strict compared to some junior firefighter posts who allow there juniors to participate in flashover simulators but i feel like im being looked out for until im mature enough to make the best decision about certain things. so i think yes we are making a big deal about this incident, but we should be making a big deal about the department rules regarding junior firefighters and their role on a fire scene. Yes the department might have followed the rules, but if the rules have flaws in them that can put someones safety in danger they need to be addressed as seriously if not more seriously than if rules were not followed.
-
Permalink Reply by Reg Mathis on
-
For the most part, I have remained silent on these ongoing discussions concerning the activities of individuals under the age of 18 years in the fire service. This is mostly due to the fact that my opinion varies so greatly from the majority of experienced veterans who post here.
So let me elaborate:
I have read the repeated posts of indignation, outrage and disbelief at the mere possibility that these "juniors" might somehow endanger themselves in their pursuit of a career in the Service. The wringing of hands and expressions of this sense of doom at the possibility that some youngster might get injured or killed during one of these operations tend to leave me a bit bemused. The cries of foul and the staunch denial of anything good that may possibly come from these evolutions cascade down like the proverbial "cats and dogs". And I have trouble discerning why?
We shake our heads and tsk-tsk the mere thought of putting these "children" in harms way, but we openly encourage(for the most part) these same people to actively engage in actions that are FAR more deadly and dangerous than going on an offensive attack in a structure fire or assisting in ventialting a roof. And we even give them permission to attempt these actions as early as 14 years. Yep, I'm talking about driving.
And so we tell a 17 year old young man that there is NO WAY he should be allowed to do anything on a fireground but stand across the street and watch. Then, 15 minutes later(with a signature from mom or dad), we tell this same youngster that we think he is MORE than capable of making life and death decisions on a daily basis. The same kid that we say couldn't possibly be mature enough to safely pack up and assist on an overhaul is told at the end of 90 days, we plan to stick an automatic weapon in his hand and let him go make the aforementioned life and death decisions whenever necessary.
It is my firm belief that if a young man or woman has received the proper training and exhibits the attitude necessary to do this job safely and correctly. Age should not be a factor. Do they lack the maturity? Probably so. But a lack of maturity is what got most of us here in the first place. And maturity is only gained from experience. Do they lack the wisdom to make the right choice in a critical situation? Probably so. But isn't that the reason we have Chiefs? To provide the wisdom to make correct choices?
Do they lack the emotional tools to deal with the horrors we can and do see on this job. Probably NOT. It's a different world than the one I grew up in. Most of these kids have seen more carnage(real or simulated) by the time they are 18 than I did by twice that age!
I guess what I am trying to say is that before we condemn their eagerness to get involved and deny them the opportunity to learn this craft in the best classroom around, maybe we should back up and look at all the dangerous and deadly things we DO allow them to do. Then maybe these postings wouldn't leave such a hipocrytical taste in my mouth...
TCSS
Reg
-
-
Reg, The crux issue is that the under 18 group is legally allowed to drive after obtaining a driver's license, usually at age 16.
OSHA bans "child labor" from IDLH or other dangerous atmospheres. OSHA also requires medical clearance exams and respirator fit testing prior to hazard zone operations, and both of those elements are restricted to adults.
I don't have the slightest problem with juniors - my department sponsors an Explorer post and I'm one of the advisors. We don't let them anywhere near IDLH, we don't allow them to wear SCBA, and we certainly don't use them as substitutes for trained, certified, and qualified adult firefighters.
This issue isn't about emotional readiness - it's about what is legal and what is not.
-
Permalink Reply by BillySFCVFD on
-
Reg,
You have a point. I don't agree with all of them but you still have a point.
As far as your regard to putting a 17 y.o. in to a life or death decision making situation. I'm assuming you're referring to the US military. If so, you must realize that training with automatic weapons, or other weapons for that matter, by a 17 y.o. is conducted but only when said service member turns 18 they can be allowed in a combat zone. Even the DOD recognizes that liability when it comes to keeping minor personnel safe. TCSS
-
-
Hey Ben,
I intentionally did not get in to the legal issues because most of the posts I read do not touch on this aspect. I understand what you are saying, but that does not seem to be the main thread of the majority of the posts on this topic. And before I get off on a rant about my primary peeve, just because OSHA says something, that doesn't make it the smartest(or the best) thing to do in a given situation.
And I hope I don't get myself in hot water by saying this, but in my short time in the fire services, aside from my preliminary PT to get on, I have never received a medical clearance exam and have NEVER been fitted for a respirator. I use whatever mask is available when I pack up and it's up to ME to make sure it fits and don't leak!
My real question is are we doing the best thing for these kids by trying to shelter them from danger(OSHA regs aside)? Perhaps I should have done a better job of emphasing it, but if a young man or woman has gotten the training we required of them and has demonstrated the ability to apply this training in a safe and sensible way, why should their participation be based on a chronological age? I can cite more than a few cases where, were you to base ability on the emotional age of the individual, I wouldn't let them install shingles on a doghouse, yet they are active members of the service and regularly run calls.
But I digress. Again, I wasn't attempting to address the legality of it all, I was merely trying to offer a differing point of view on whether these youngsters should be allowed to learn from real world experience. Which in my (misguided?) opinion is the best teacher!
TCSS
Reg
-
-
Hey Billy,
Just because I wrote it don't make it right! And disagreement is what prompted this post, so I didn't expect to sway anyone to my side!
As far as your clarification on DoD guidelines, I agree that you are correct in your statement, but as you and I both know, that "18 years old" line is blurred daily. And the main problem I have with these types of guidelines is this: Yesterday you were 17 and unqualified to engage an enemy(or enter a burning structure). Today is your birthday and now you are fully qualified to engage in these hazardous endeavors? 24 hours made THAT big a difference?
TCSS
Reg
-
-
Reg,
I understand, but if a department engages in something that is clearely illegal and it is brought to light in the local paper - or the Associated Press, or on CNN - then the costs of being caught in an illegality will far exceed the costs of the medical clearances, fit testing, and waiting until the firefighters are of legal age before putting them in harm's way.
When it comes to the law, our personal opinions of chronological age vs. readiness and training don't matter.
-
-
Reg,
True about the "magic" 18th birthday when someone becomes a legal adult. Are they ready or or they not? The legality, as Ben states, is what matters. It doesn't say if they are ready for the big world, it says that the can be responsible for their own actions. Anyone younger must be protected by adults, who are responsible for minors under their care, and not put in harms way. TCSS
PS This has been a very pleasant disagreement and I do understand your view.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Montpetit on
-
Reg...I have issues with the way you portray your opinion on OSHA standards...OSHA and NFPA are there for our protection and if you hap-hazardly toss them about it shows a lack of professionalism that is really a poor example for the young and up coming firefighters to be...as far as your "opinion" on how your firefighters to be are trained or how they learn...well sir, as I have said before.."You know that "opinions" are like assholes..everyone has them and they all stink."...Society has put forth that the legal age of consent is 18...at that age a person may make their own decisions and are responsible for it....before that time it is a parent (not you sir) to make decisions for them...
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
