The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Perfect Firefighters
I just watched a video of a fire. I'm not going to say what department because thats not the issue. The issue is perfect firefighters commenting on the thousands of the things the company did wrong.
They comment on how many drivers does it take to pump an engine. Using the wrong lines, etc etc.
I was in the business for 30 years. I've made alot of mistakes as a firefighter, driver and officer. But never lost anyone or had a firefighter hurt. Mostly thats from luck.
Its so easy to watch a video and monday morning quarterback. But I'm sure if they were on video people could do the same thing. Most of us know there are rules to this business. But we also know those rules go out the windows sometimes.
Pulling a booster line on a house fire. Sure we don't want a inch line but if thats all you can do and use it to protect esposures until more arrives or even stick it in the window I have no issue with that.
If it takes 3 drivers to pull lines, hook up the supply line, make sure the lines are clear and the crew gets water who cares.
And my biggest pet peeve. "They took forever to get there" I've told the story befoe how my mom called for an ambulance I called and cursed 9-1-1 because they were taking too long. I've been on all three sides of an emergency situation. As a responder going to the firehouse I didn't go slow. As a driver I didn't go slow, It feels like your flying like the wind. When I tool calls as a 9-1-1 operator I entered the calls as I was talking to insure prompt response. Bu as a person who needed emergency services...you people take forever. Or thats the way it seems.
My point of this long rambling post...think about the situation before you make a comment on a website about another company or department. Especially if your gear is still fresh and new and the closest you ever come to fire and the cigarette in your mouth. No fire department is perfect. We all make mistakes. Instead of bashing use it as a learning point.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Pierre-Louis Lamballais on
-
For that, there is a little story. In 1937, a man named Heinz Guderian wrote a book titled "Achtung Panzer!" explaining how to build Panzer bataillons, how to organise them, how to create anti-tank gun, how to battle with tanks and so on. This book was used by all tank teams, and today, in all countries, tank teams read or use the content of this book.
The English translation start with "This is one of the most significant military book of the 20th century".
What is funny and proove "How to know things we're not in !" is not true, is that Guderian was not a tank officier. He had had no involvement with tanks during WWI. The first time he encountered real tanks was in... 1929!, during a trip to Sweden: he was given hospitality by a Swedish tank bataillon which permitted him to learn how to drive a M21 tank. And at this time, due to the Versailles contract, the German were not allowed to build tank: they were training using cars and wooden tubes, simulating guns...
In fact, the French and the British army were pushed to the sea in 1939, and so all the other European countries were smashed down by tank teams, using a tactic created by a man who have had only a theorical view of the subject.
In order to create a tactic for "tanks against tanks" battle, the only example that Guderian had was the battle of Niergnies-Deranvillers on the 8 octobre 1918. It was a tank battle of... 2 tanks against 2 other!! But by studying carfully, by extracting step by step all informations, he produced a tank tactic still used today.
Maybe we must ask ourselves if we are serious enought when we study accidents. It seems we tend to close quickly the subject, perhaps in order to avoid to have to admit we are not very "good" and that, in the same situation, we would have done the same mistake. I'm sure that a proper analysis of many fire accidents would give us a better view of the subject.
We must not accept to see an accident, and a few month latter, to see the same acccident in a different city.
Best regards
Pierre-Louis
-
-
Interesting. Maybe it's because each one of us thinks that his way of skinning the cat is the best. So, as my way is the best, yours can be only worst.
Maybe one of the main problem is that, on the fireground, we measure nothing. So, the battle has no end as I can't proove I'm right. And if I can't proove that, in many cases, you are not able to proove you are right. So we stay with bad judgemnt in one side or, on the other side with nice and pretty sentences like "we are all friend and we are all different"...
But when I watch a US FF or a Belgium one, they both use helmet, hose line, nozzle and water, they drive trucks carrying water, and they fight fire in houses which at 95% are the same...
Pierre-Louis
-
-
I just have to add something: for analysis of accidents or common fire scene event, FF are in full contradiction wih themselves:
* Point 1: in many discussion, when we talk about a fire, people say "All fire are different".
* Point 2: when we talk about a fire and say "What they've done is not the right think", the reply is like the one you do "How to know things we're not in !"
If I take the Point 2, this mean as I was not here, I can't learn from your mistake. And If I add the Point 1, this mean that even YOU are unable to leran because what you've learned after you accident will be of no use on other fire scene.
If we admit these two points, we must consider NIOSH report as of no sense, as analysis of video, debrieffing and so on. This is common sense.
Complacency Killed the Cat
Pierre-Louis
-
-
Hi,
Rather than talking, maybe we can do a little exercice. Just to see if a video, showing funny think is able to give us some "details" we can learn.
See that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaLwBLp206o
What can you say and what can you learn?
Best regards
Pierre-Louis
-
-
Hi,
We have all our way of thinking, but we all face fires. The goal is not to proove someone is right, the goal is to be able to use info from other to change our way of doing. But if I think other are different, I can only learn by my own, and I have too little information for that.
The main problem is that, today, many FF have only two ways of thinking: first is to use strict pre-defined system, like the MGO in France or the VES in the USA. Always do the same thing. But it doesn't work.
On the other end, as stictly pre-defined systems don't work, we tend to think they dont work because all fire are different and we are all different.
But that's also wrong.
The right way is the way soldier use for about one century, and which came from the "fog of war" from Clauswitz than we renamed "fog of fire": all fire are identical but are surounded by a fog, hidding them and which let you think they are different.
Its' like your car on the car-park of the shopping center: there are 10.000 cars but you can find yours as, from this point of view, your car is unique. But, you are able to drive all cars on the parking, because driving a car is the same as driving an other. So, in this point of view, all cars are identical.
For fire, that's the same. If you face 10 fires, and analys them, you will see than we have about only 20% of each fire which is different from other fire. They are not strictly the same, but far from different.
If you want to see only the differences, you will see only them, and start to believe we are all different, all fire are differents and so on. If you start to look at the common points, you will see many points are the same. And in this case, you will be able to learn throught the good and the bad thinks other are doing.
This is only a change in "point of view". For example, the redactionnal team for our courses is made of people from 5 different countries. And we write a common course, only because we admit we are all the same. And here, really it's humility
Best regards
Pierre-Louis
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Oomkes on
-
I hope that if I fight a fire like those in the video that Craig is referring to somebody gives me a good butt reaming instead of a "great job, fire went out and nobody got hurt" line.
I will leave the door open to equipment issues, but the FD in question is a ISO 2 that acted like it was their first day on the job.
I know I am not perfect and will take criticism when I screw up, I'd be stupid not to. If someone posts a video of a fire that I am at, and it looks like Keystone Cops the way this department did, I deserve it, because I did not do even close to as good of job as should have been done by a career ISO 2 department.
And just maybe, criticizing in public (of something of this magnitude) some changes will be made because our employers (the taxpayers) will demand a better job be performed in the future.
-
Permalink Reply by Sebastien THILLY on
-
I never said we can't learn about mistakes from others ! Happily ! Of course it's important to learn about each experience.
-
-
Hi,
I reopen the discussion as I think the answers given here can be of a great help.
Of course, we all agree that people only saying "this is bad" are of no use.But we also agree that the way people listen has also a big impact and even if you try to stay "nice", the one who is completly sure of doing right will not be happy to hear you saying maybe it's not no good.
In many cases, "the bad" is not very far from "the good". If you need 30 guys to kill a fire and I need 29, the difference is too low to justify criticism. If I need 20, I can make criticism and you will listen because the difference is big enought to justify an optimisation, but at the same time, small enought in order to be admited. But if you need 30 guys and I need 4, the difference can be seen as too big to be true.
Now, just see this slide show:
http://ontariofirewire.com/wpg2?g2_itemId=2518
It can be seen as an ordinary way of doing in the USA. We imagine the time needed, we can count the number of trucks, imagine the price of each, count the number of people and so on. You can also look at the fire size at the beginning.
Now, just read that:
A sucessful fire intervention. As you can see, the fire size at the beginning is about the same. But the number of FF, number of truck, time of action and result are not "exactly" the same...
The question is: How can we explain to the FF performing the first way they are wrong?
And, in the same way, do you really think you are right? or will you immediatly try to find "excuces"?
Best regards
Pierre-Lous
-
Permalink Reply by Andy Turnham on
-
I'm eager to see the responses to this one. I'm ex-London Fire Brigade and we would have tackled this fire pretty much the same way our Belgium "neighbours" did, with only minor differences.
Being a city fire service with full-time manning, two pumps would have been mobilised as a matter of course and the "Chief" would have been a Watch Manager riding on one of the pumps, otherwise exactly the same methodology.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Apples and Oranges comparison on those two fires. There are many, many differences in those two fires that have nothing to do with the differences in the two fire departments.
1) The European fire is a meter from the street. The North American fire is set back.
2) The European fire is flashed over with an obvious seat of the fire and no apparent extension. The North American fire is initially mostly smoke with little fire showing, then extension to void spaces.
3) The European fire is in good weather. The N.A. fire is in the snow.
4) The European fire is in a solid masonry-walled structure that likely has masonry dividers between the separate living spaces. The N.A. fire is in a lightweight wood structure.
5) The European fire is at greound level. The N.A. fire is on multiple levels.
6) The European fire has an obviously non-survivable seat of the fire. The N.A. fire is smoky but apparently survivable.
7) The European fire is close to a fire station and the response time is short. It was reported immediately. The N.A. fire distance to the fire station, reporting time, and response time are unknown, but all may be substantially longer, thus a more developed/extended fire.
8) The amount of space involved (cubic feet/cubic meters) involved in the European fire is apparently much smaller than the amount of space involved in the N.A. fire.
If you can extinguish a small, autovented room and contents fire right next to the street at ground level with 4 firefighters, and it takes me 100 firefighters to extinguish a gasoline tank farm fire, does that make your fire department or extinguishment method better than mine? Actually, it doesn't. The same goes for two very, very different structure fire types such as the one you linked.
Most importantly, the flashover simulator-type firefighting doesn't work well if the structure is either completely unvented or if it is well-ventilated from many openings. It works best with a single autovented opening. That kind of firefighting also assumes that there is no rescue problem. No unprotected civilians are going to survive a flashover - or immediate pre-flashover condition - it is simply too hot and too poisonous for them. We usually rescue civilians from smoke, not from fire. If there are many victims, it takes many more firefighters to effect the rescues. The European firefighters can be very, bery glad that they had no serious rescue problem, as they didn't have enough manpower to handle the hoseline and make a rescue at the same time.
As I said, apples and oranges. It's easy to insist that you've unlearned everything you thought you knew about apples after eating your first orange, but that's simply not the case. It's simply that oranges are different than the apples you previously ate.
-
-
We'll see we're all talking about orangse OK?
1) The European fire is a meter from the street. The North American fire is set back.
Guys from Mouscron have different set of hose line. It would take about 10 second more to gain access to the US Fire. Orange and orange.
2) The European fire is flashed over with an obvious seat of the fire and no apparent extension. The North American fire is initially mostly smoke with little fire showing, then extension to void spaces.
Extension to first floor by the internal stair. In the US case, no extension risk as the fire is at first floor. In the Belgium fire, risk of extension by the outside and to other house and to the rear of the house with no access (no space between houses).
Also at first picture of US Fire, fire is showing. This is only after the "extinction" by outside the fire "smoke". But the smoke is pyrolisis and we can be sure than 30 minutes after, the fire will reignite.
Orange and orange
3) The European fire is in good weather. The N.A. fire is in the snow.
The temperature is about the same and the level of humidity is very high in Belgium. and when you fight a fire by inside, snow is of no impact. And when there is snow in Belgium, they fight the fire the same way. Orange and orange.
4) The European fire is in a solid masonry-walled structure that likely has masonry dividers between the separate living spaces. The N.A. fire is in a lightweight wood structure.
This could have been a difference in term of collapsing risk, But with a fire fighted in so little time, collapsing risk is low. And in this case, for US FF it would be a reason to fight differently the fire. Notice also no collapsing in the US fire. Orange and orange.
5) The European fire is at ground level. The N.A. fire is on multiple levels.
A fire at ground level has a higher propagation risk than a fire at first one without other higher level. So the propagation risk is higher for the Belgium fire than for the US one. Orange and orange.
6) The European fire has an obviously non-survivable seat of the fire. The N.A. fire is smoky but apparently survivable.
The US fire is at level one, with open window, the smoke will stay at the same location. The movement of smoke at one of the last picture came from the chimney effect the guys creates by ventilating the front of the house. In Belgium, the risk of smoke inhalation is great at level one. Also, if the US FF is apparentkly survival, due to the time to extract smoke from the house, I think victim would have die. In the Belgium fire, the speed of action will have save them. Orange and orange.
7) The European fire is close to a fire station and the response time is short. It was reported immediately. The N.A. fire distance to the fire station, reporting time, and response time are unknown, but all may be substantially longer, thus a more developed/extended fire.
When a fire is well ventilated it spreads quickly and breaks all windows, or stay in the same room.In both cases the fire size is the same and the fire is on one room. In case of the US FF, the fire spread more slowly but time of response is longer. In case of Belgium fire, the time of response is shorter but the explosion of the fuel heating system spread the fire violently. This explain bith fire are of the same size. Orange and orange.
8) The amount of space involved (cubic feet/cubic meters) involved in the European fire is apparently much smaller than the amount of space involved in the N.A. fire.
Not sure. The volume of the room is about the same and the Belgium house are very "long". There is a direct communication between the room in fire (dining room) and the kitchen and other room, at the back. And there is only the front access. The access to the garden, rear of the house, can be done only by the house. A nice mousetrap!
If you can extinguish a small, autovented room and contents fire right next to the street at ground level with 4 firefighters, and it takes me 100 firefighters to extinguish a gasoline tank farm fire, does that make your fire department or extinguishment method better than mine?
We start to educate the Belgium FF in 2007. During one of the course (which is only 8 hours), a FF told us he had fight a fire a few weeks ago: about 5 pumpers and a use of 125.000 liters of water (33,000 gallons). About one month after the course, the same guy had to fight the same fire, same kind of house. They used about 50 gallons and need one pumper.
In the same time, some fire service in Belgium don't want to use these method and are still using gallons and gallons of water and need to be 30 in front of a fire other will face with 5 guys. The reason is "tradition".
Actually, it doesn't. The same goes for two very, very different structure fire types such as the one you linked.
The two fires are the same or, in fact even if they have some differences, the difference don't justifie the difference on operation.
Most importantly, the flashover simulator-type firefighting doesn't work well if the structure is either completely unvented or if it is well-ventilated from many openings. It works best with a single autovented opening.
The guys learn 5 nozzles techniques and know how to perform them perfectly. One attack method is for underventilated fire, and one other is for overventilated fire. They have a kind of "toolbox" and choose the correct technique depending on the situation.
In the training in container, we use only the underventiled extinction techniques as the other dont work correcly in the container and the container is not able to produce correctly a ventilated fire. This is a tool for some method, not for all.
That kind of firefighting also assumes that there is no rescue problem.No unprotected civilians are going to survive a flashover - or immediate pre-flashover condition - it is simply too hot and too poisonous for them. We usually rescue civilians from smoke, not from fire. If there are many victims, it takes many more firefighters to effect the rescues. The European firefighters can be very, bery glad that they had no serious rescue problem, as they didn't have enough manpower to handle the hoseline and make a rescue at the same time.
This kind of firefighting is very good for rescue, The cooling effect is very good and also the dilution of CO. We've made some tests about that and the toxicity level of smoke disminish a lot with pulsing method. Also, this method don't create steam and don't "push" the fire in void spaces.
I've made test to demonstrate that to the Mouscron"s FF after the instruction. They wanted to save first and in order to proove that this extinction method are so effective that you must attack first, we put the fire in a basement, and stay with two other guy, without SCBA in a room at a higher level, waiting for the fire to be out.In a few second, the fire was out, the guy used a ventilator and clean the stair then came, one the door, and we were able to exit, gently.
As I said, apples and oranges. It's easy to insist that you've unlearned everything you thought you knew about apples after eating your first orange, but that's simply not the case. It's simply that oranges are different than the apples you previously ate.
When I started as a FF in France, I was sure of the taste of apple, to be the best. As you are. That's only after about 9 years in the fire service that I ask myself "What are these strange apples?" In fact, it was oranges, I test them and discoverd they are far more better. Today, you eat apples. That's nice. Very nice and all the courses you get, encourage you to eat apple. As the course we had a few years ago in france and that the Belgium had before 2007 (so only 5 years ago...)
If you want, just test oranges. You'll see they are very good.;-)
-
-
There is a key difference between fighting war and fighting fire.
In one case, people are fighting other people, and understanding the human culture on both sides is important to which side wins, especially if the sides are relatively evenly matched and the stakes are high.
In the other case, people are fighting a force of nature. Applying methods that are intended to overpower a human enemy don't necessarily translate to winning against a force of nature on either the strategic or tactical level.
There's another apples to oranges comparison you made - the "100 LODD per year" comparison. Compare the number of U.S. LODDS to the U.S. annual fire/rescue call volume and call-per-firefighter average to similar statistics for Europe. I don't have exact numbers at hand, but I believe that the vastly higher call numbers in the U.S. contribute a lot to the 50% or so of U.S. LODDs that are stress-related. Higher call volumes equal higher stress levels and higher LODD rates.
Claiming that things are the same while ignoring the many variables in call volumes building construction, fuel loads, etc. is ignoring a simple reality - that there are indeed differences, that they are significant, and that U.S. firefighters LODD rate - even the heart attack LODD rate - is exponentially lower than similar death rates and heart attack death rates in the general population we serve.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
