The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
South Carolina Department Charged Over 2-In, 2-Out Violation
WCSC
Reprinted with Permission
NORTH CHARLESTON, SC (WCSC) - Officials with the North Charleston Fire Department said they are committed to safety in the face of recent citations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration stemming from a July 5 fire.
Related
SCOnFire Coverage:
In that fire three North Charleston firefighters sustained burns battling a house fire on Purity Drive near Rivers Avenue.
This month, the city and fire department received two citations from OSHA stemming from the house fire. Both citations claim the department put their men in a dangerous situation.
A statement released by OSHA said, "The employer knew or should have known that on or about July 5, 2010, firefighters performing interior structural firefighting were exposed to the hazard of being trapped in a burning residential building."
OSHA contends there were three rules that were not followed while trying to extinguish the fire.
The department must have at least two people in contact with each other at all times while inside a burning structure, two firefighters must be outside the structure at all times and everybody must be wearing a self-containing breathing apparatus.
Copyright 2010 WCSC. All rights reserved.
Reprinted with Permission
NORTH CHARLESTON, SC (WCSC) - Officials with the North Charleston Fire Department said they are committed to safety in the face of recent citations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration stemming from a July 5 fire.
Related
- Firefighter released from burn unit after North Charleston fire
- North Charleston Fire Department, City slapped with citation
- Fire department cited for safety violations
- Citation and Notification of Penalty
SCOnFire Coverage:
In that fire three North Charleston firefighters sustained burns battling a house fire on Purity Drive near Rivers Avenue.
This month, the city and fire department received two citations from OSHA stemming from the house fire. Both citations claim the department put their men in a dangerous situation.
A statement released by OSHA said, "The employer knew or should have known that on or about July 5, 2010, firefighters performing interior structural firefighting were exposed to the hazard of being trapped in a burning residential building."
OSHA contends there were three rules that were not followed while trying to extinguish the fire.
The department must have at least two people in contact with each other at all times while inside a burning structure, two firefighters must be outside the structure at all times and everybody must be wearing a self-containing breathing apparatus.
Copyright 2010 WCSC. All rights reserved.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
"It is possible situation was bad prior to arrival."
"I am NOT making speculations about this incident, I am NOT speculating on how they do things, I am NOT Monday morning QBing here either."
John, since both of those are your quotes from this thread...
Which is it? It can't possibly be both.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
It is possible situation was bad prior to arrival."
"I am NOT making speculations about this incident, I am NOT speculating on how they do things, I am NOT Monday morning QBing here either."
John, since both of those are your quotes from this thread...
Which is it? It can't possibly be both.
Yep, but again seems you skimmed right over the second part of the comment......."It is possible situation was bad prior to arrival. I'm not concerning myself with the issues involved for the dept"
I'm not concerned about the dept, I did reply to what you mentioned about the situation....but I personally don't care about the situation to be second guessing nor commenting on their operations.
Again, the only reason I mentioned this is because of your comments to Capcity about station proximity and ops. I mentioned the possibilty of doing a search while pulling a line....and speaking in generality about that, no where stating this is what this particular dept should have done. I was meerly disagreeing with your comment to Capcity.
This was the reply in which I originally commented on......
North Charleston - 47 square miles (land), with 11 fire stations and one under construction. They operate 11 engines, 2 trucks, a tower ladder, and 3 rescues.
DCFEMS, by way of comparison covers 61 square miles (land), has 33 fire stations with 33 engines, 15 ladders, one tower ladder, and 3 rescues.
The relative station density is 1.8 square miles per station in DC and 4.28 square miles per stationfor North Charleston. To put the numbers another way, DC's station density is almost three times what North Chuck's is.
That means if the first due station for North Chuck isn't a double-company house or if one of the two companies is out on another call, then it is much less likely that they're going to have the manpower to both search and stretch a line at the same time. The company officer will have to pick one or the other, even if their rig is equipped to do both.
It is possible to search off a line, not ideal, not the best approach, not the fastest, and if a victim or fire is encountered first, the decision to rescue or attack the fire is to be made. It is another tool that could be used depending upon the situation presented. I also mentioned a similar dept make up to N Charleston and the same issues faced there, we could also face...and to search off a line is a tool option if needed, depending upon situations involved.
-
-
By definition, an incipient fire is one that is fuel-controlled, that is not close to flashover, and is not extending outside the room of origin.
-
Permalink Reply by Cory on
-
How about putting on advanced classes or allowing people to go to more advanced classes even though they can't do the basics? Im not a fucking idiot so worry about the basics and get that right first! Certified don't mean qualified! Maybe to you guys it does but last time I checked just cause a paper says you can do it don't mean when it comes to the real job you can! If you want to try to be an ass or dick that's fine but understand lutan the stuff you listed of course should be trained on and drilled along with reading smoke, firefighter rescue, proper ventilation, nozzle use, how to use a 2 1/2 by yourself, search, extrication, and the list goes on for basic skills people need to have and UNDERSTAND and be able to use before getting more advanced training. Ben how about nims? Some of it I understand but most of it is the same ol same ol. Or repelling we will never repell and last time I checked you don't repell in the fire service. You might need to learn bailout or high angle. rescue at your department but it is not repelling.
-
-
By training them you can't always go interior so they need to understand what is tenable and what is not. A real firefighter understands when to take a risk and when not to. But the problem is education, if you don't educate people then they don't understand what is right or wrong. Just like in the other blog when I said give people training they are going to use and start with the basics.
-
-
If the building was on fire, then ergo, the situation was bad before the fire department arrived.
What we're talking about is a matter of degree and whether the manpower needs were adequate, whether the interior attack met the risk-benefit tippiing point, and whether the situation was worth putting a firefighter in the burn unit.
I don't have enough detail to know one way or the other, but putting DCFEMS expectations for response time and concentration of force on a department with 1/3 of the station density is unrealistic.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
How about putting on advanced classes or allowing people to go to more advanced classes even though they can't do the basics? Im not a fucking idiot so worry about the basics and get that right first! Certified don't mean qualified! Maybe to you guys it does but last time I checked just cause a paper says you can do it don't mean when it comes to the real job you can! If you want to try to be an ass or dick that's fine but understand lutan the stuff you listed of course should be trained on and drilled along with reading smoke, firefighter rescue, proper ventilation, nozzle use, how to use a 2 1/2 by yourself, search, extrication, and the list goes on for basic skills people need to have and UNDERSTAND and be able to use before getting more advanced training. Ben how about nims? Some of it I understand but most of it is the same ol same ol. Or repelling we will never repell and last time I checked you don't repell in the fire service. You might need to learn bailout or high angle. rescue at your department but it is not repelling.
So how about putting all that in your orginal post? Then we'd know what stuff you were talking about instead of us guessing what you're talking about?
I agree with training in core business- absolutely! But with the lack of info in your post on the 20th, we're left wondering....
-
-
I don't have enough detail to know one way or the other, but putting DCFEMS expectations for response time and concentration of force on a department with 1/3 of the station density is unrealistic
capcityff on September 20, 2010 at 7:56pm
My point was that if conditions are okay enough for you to do a search without a hose line, you should be able to send another crew in there with one and they will be fine. I know other departments may not have the resources mine does, but a national standard would affect us as well. If a rescue or truck company is doing a search, we usually have a few engine companies in there to attack the fire
I understand this bit of the conversation is what started this tangent. I know Capcity stated you could send in another crew, but he did mention the realization not all depts have the same resources as DC and mentioned a national standard. This is the reason I interjected the possibility of being able to search AND stretch a line....there are just all the other issues that have been hashed out, when utilizing such a tactic.
His response was in reply to Heather who asked "why not do a quick search and then attack from outside?" The reply does make sense that if conditions are tenable enough for search, then why not attack the fire as well? If there are not enough immediate resources due to other calls, etc, it is still possible to search while pulling a line.
While Capcity's comments seem to take his dept and resources into account, I do see his point as being more broad and general in nature, moreso than comparing DC to a dept 1/3 the size of his. His response was also to someone who states they are a volunteer and not commenting on the article at hand. That is why I interjected my comments, because there are other options than a seperate search and attack teams.....situation specific.
-
-
I do apologize for not posting more but I posted it on my phone and was about to do something else I should have taken more time for it, I do apologize for that. Trust me I agree with training ever day, but we need to make sure its what helps us be better firefighters. Detroit Fire a couple of years back lost a good firefighter named Walter Harris he was in my motorcycle club, but Detroit burns daily with tons of fires every day. All the training in the world sometimes isn't enough. But all we can do is train in what we do and try to make the best decisions we can. If you haven't seen Burn one year in Detroit that it a great video. I'll send you a friend request and sorry I just got side tracked was watching the baby move around in the wifes belly. But if you haven't seen the video I can track it down and send it to you.
-
-
Cory, you still haven't answered my question.
" Ben how about nims? Some of it I understand but most of it is the same ol same ol. Or repelling we will never repell and last time I checked you don't repell in the fire service. You might need to learn bailout or high angle. rescue at your department but it is not repelling."
Your lack of understanding of NIMS doesn't mean that it's not relevant. It is extremely relevant to virtually anything we do.
If by "repelling" you meant "to cause distaste or dislike in; disgust" or "to cause (insects, etc. )to react by staying away" I don't know any fire department that trains for either.
If you meant "rappelling", or "to descend (as from a cliff) by sliding down a rope passed under one thigh, across the body, and over the opposite shoulder or through a special friction device" then it is not only pertinent to fire department training, it is an essential for any fire department that responds to rescue incidents involving high rise buildings, water, electrical, or communications tower rescues, or rescues from cliffs, bluffs, or waterfalls. If you have the hazard, you need to be prepared for it.
And when you say we will "never" repell (sic) then I guess the dozens of time I've rappelled on actual rescues in the last 35 years occurred after then end of "never".
-
-
I think he did Ben when he spoke about rappelling, as an example of training that was not of use to his department.
-
-
If his department has any structure taller than three stories, then rappelling has the potential to be beneficial to his department.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
