2 In/2 Out Rule And How It is Interpetted

[Bnechis 3,961]

In the volunteer fire service its a lack of properly trained FF's committed and/or available to respond on demand; in the career service its a lack of funding for proper staffing; everyone wants proper staffing levels, but either don't want to raise taxes or shift funds to pay for it. In all honesty, I don't expect it to change materially much in our lifetimes given the current mindset of our politicians and voters.

Yes it is the mindset of the politicians and the voters, but it also is the mindset of the fire service. We complain of insufficient personnel, but when consolidation is suggested as a solution, we immediately say NO WAY. We have depts. that can never meet 2in/2out without mutual aid and they have convinced themselves and the public that they are providing a top notch service.

[Bnechis 3,961]

To me, we as firefighters must do what we must with what we have when we have to, anything less and we risk losing the public trust...and if we lose that the damage done may undermine the very fight we're trying to win.

It may already be too late to save that trust. When the public finds out that many local depts. no longer respond to calls because they have no personnel. When they drive by the fire station and their are 3 or 4 new trucks "protecting them" and it turns out that their are only 2 paid ff's and the volunteers are gone, the moment a call goes bad, we have no recourse, because they trusted us to not lie about our abilities.

[AFS1970 504]

It is also supposed to be the job of the fire service to be able to be that strength in the face of an emotional event. We have all heard the story, which I think is really an urban myth, of the woman telling you her baby is inside and needs to be rescued. The Firefighters go in and find that the baby is either a 35 year old who self rescued or a pet. However it is the emotional effect of the word baby that drives the immediate entry to go make that grab, even if that drive entails a pre RIT entry. Asking who or what baby is would solve this problem, but does anyone ever ask this?

As a kid I was taught once a year in school (because fires only happen in October) about meeting places. When I started doing public education I pushed this and also told adults to make sure they knew if everyone who was supposed to eb there was there. But I also told them that we were still going to search the whole house anyway. We were all trained that we still do the primary, and I can't help but think that this is due to knowing that the escapees will not have a complete picture or will not give accurate information in a stressful state.

These are exactly the reasons that the exemption for the known life hazard is in the standard, however I have always been told that the hazard has to be know to the rescuer (or at least the IC) and not the resident. So being told someone is in the house is a suspected rescue, seeing someone in a window is a known rescue.

As for working without manpower, well in this we are our own worst enemy. However I don't think I would have it any other way.

If you are in a department that say normally goes out with 3 man crews and your manpower is reduced to 2 man crews by something beyond your control what do you do? Yes there may be some increased mutual or automatic aid, but we all know that because of who firefighters are, they will work harder to get the job done with less resources. That reduced crew (or department as a whole) will push ahead, will figure out new ways to pack hose or carry ladders, they will redeploy apparatus in order to do more with less. We will even discuss on line how to make rescues without RIT teams in place.

[Bnechis 3,961]

1) We have all heard the story, which I think is really an urban myth, of the woman telling you her baby is inside and needs to be rescued. The Firefighters go in and find that the baby is either a 35 year old who self rescued or a pet. However it is the emotional effect of the word baby that drives the immediate entry to go make that grab, even if that drive entails a pre RIT entry. Asking who or what baby is would solve this problem, but does anyone ever ask this?

2) That reduced crew (or department as a whole) will push ahead, will figure out new ways to pack hose or carry ladders, they will redeploy apparatus in order to do more with less. We will even discuss on line how to make rescues without RIT teams in place.

1) No myth. I have heard it on more than 1 occasion. When asked where the baby would be, was told could be anywhere. I then asked if baby was a pet. twice it was a cat or cats. once a dog.

2) And we fight against additional manpower that is not hired or recruited into our dept.

[FireMedic049 597]

If the politicians have been told that with current staffing levels we can not complete everything that needs to be done, like searching, what options do you have (beyond mutual aid)? You always do your best, but if they only give you X, you can't do X plus 1, 2 & 3.

True again under normal circumstance, but for many departments trapped occupant(s) is not "normal" so sometimes extraordinary steps need to be taken where X plus 1, or X plus 1,2 or even X plus 1,2 and 3 may be necessary to save those lives.

I agree that encountering trapped occupant(s) is not "normal" and my department is no exception to that. I agree that sometimes extraordinary steps need to be taken to save those lives, but I think you are misunderstanding Bnechis' final point as you apply it to making that extra effort to save those lives. The X, 1, 2, 3 he is talking about are independent tasks like fire attack and water supply (X), throwing ladders (1), search/rescue (2) and ventilation (3).

While it may be necessary to do X, 1, 2 and 3 to effect the rescue, the staffing on hand only allows for X and the 1, 2 and 3 that you are talking about would be stuff like searching alone, sharing your air supply with the victim or pushing beyond what is otherwise reasonable in your search efforts.

In my department, at a minimum staffing of 5 on-duty, we are somewhat limited in what we can do in simultaneous fashion until more personnel arrive, particularly in regards to adhering to best practices like always working with a partner. As such, in that initial stage of the operation, we can simultaneously establish IC, establish a water supply and deploy the first attack line. We simply do not have the ability to do anything else without taking away from those 3 tasks at that moment. If we assume a dedicated IC and pump operator, then once the water supply is established, there is only one person readily available to perform another task. Unless, they join the attack team or search by themselves, they would be limited to things like throwing ladders or exterior horizontal ventilation until more personnel arrive.

If you throw a known rescue into the mix, without more personnel immediately available, we simply can't address that without taking away from our normal ability to do those 3 tasks. So what do you sacrifice to perform the rescue - fire attack or water supply?

We don't have a lot of fires with trapped victims, but we've had several occasions in recent years that we've been faced with this decision.

I know fighting for proper staffing is an uphill and often losing battle and one worth the fight, but to be brutally honest I do have strong reservations about using 2 in 2 out to prove the point. Mrs. Smith and her family, while taxpayers, are not usually directly responsible for the staffing decisions made by policy makers, so to me they should not be punished by our inaction for them.

I agree that they should not be punished by our inaction, but that inaction also includes not truthfully informing Mrs. Smith and her family that the current deployment model is insufficient to address the actions they would expect of us when we arrive at their burning door step. If we clearly make our limitations known and Mrs. Smith, her family and the rest of the community choose not to provide sufficient means to be able to address all of those actions they expect of us, then they are punishing themselves.

Using 2in/2out to help make that point is exactly what we should be doing with it off the fire ground. I know that in my department, we don't make that known as well as we should.

To me, we as firefighters must do what we must with what we have when we have to, anything less and we risk losing the public trust...and if we lose that the damage done may undermine the very fight we're trying to win.

I would tend to agree that we have to do as much as we reasonably can with our limited resources, especially if it involves a savable life.

[FFPCogs 863]

I agree that encountering trapped occupant(s) is not "normal" and my department is no exception to that. I agree that sometimes extraordinary steps need to be taken to save those lives, but I think you are misunderstanding Bnechis' final point as you apply it to making that extra effort to save those lives. The X, 1, 2, 3 he is talking about are independent tasks like fire attack and water supply (X), throwing ladders (1), search/rescue (2) and ventilation (3).

While it may be necessary to do X, 1, 2 and 3 to effect the rescue, the staffing on hand only allows for X and the 1, 2 and 3 that you are talking about would be stuff like searching alone, sharing your air supply with the victim or pushing beyond what is otherwise reasonable in your search efforts.

I may have misunderstood, but in the end as I've said every reasonable effort and by that I mean under the right conditions (amount of fire/smoke, type of structure, available water) yes I alone would enter a burning structure with a charged line and attempt as best I could to find any trapped occupant(s) and remove them if I could. At the very least there's a chance I may be able to ascertain where they are and could communicate that to incoming units. Additionally, by virtue of taking a charged line, although it would slow me down, I would have the ability to offer a measure of protection to them and myself.

And yes, although in three of the four cases in my 34 years there was ultimately no victim, I have been in that position (both at home and at work) before, and acting alone I have done just as I described above. In the fourth case at work I was able to grab a seriously wounded victim and remove him. He was about 15 feet inside the structure on the 1st floor (he later succumbed to his injuries sustained during the rocket attack). But make no mistake I'm not talking about raging infernos here. In all cases there was only moderately heavy to heavy black/brown banking smoke and only moderately high heat (outside of the immediate but growing fire area) to contend with.

If you throw a known rescue into the mix, without more personnel immediately available, we simply can't address that without taking away from our normal ability to do those 3 tasks. So what do you sacrifice to perform the rescue - fire attack or water supply?

If I was convinced based on my size-up that a trapped occupant was viable (and savable by my actions) I would forgo water supply and use tank water to attempt a rescue. This is just what happened in each of the events described above. Truth be told though, as I also stated before, there is no black and white, only a whole lot of grey. Each incident has it's own set of circumstances to consider and that choice can only be made in light of those circumstances. I have also not entered burning buildings in which it was borderline or obvious that doing so would be in vain and ultimately in a few of those cases there was a loss of life. We all do the best we can with what we have when faced with that decision. I fault no one for their opinion or their actions, I am not in their shoes. I trust that the judgments made by members on a scene are ones that are the right ones under the circumstances they face.

Using 2in/2out to help make that point is exactly what we should be doing with it off the fire ground. I know that in my department, we don't make that known as well as we should.

Yes OFF the fireground, I agree wholeheartedly...but not on it if a good possibility exists that a life is savable with the resources at hand.

Let me just add that I have never and nor would I ever expect or order someone to do that which I myself wouldn't do or haven't done, nor would I fault someone for not doing it if they felt it was unsafe

Edited August 31, 2014 by FFPCogs

[wraftery 1,275]

I think this horse has been beaten beyond recognition. Yes 2 in 2 out is for our safety. Yes, we may stray from it under certain circumstances.

Yes Rit is 2-2's cousin and again for our safety. As far as I can see, straying from RIT rules is treading on dangerous turf because we have left our interior people out to dry.

Yes, a consolidated FD would do a world of good for Southern Westchester. As for Northern Westchester I believe the residents make enough money to support a paid department. Check out real estate values if you don't believe me.

One more thing to ponder:

A FF who gets 5 feet in the front door and makes a grab gets a medal. The guy that searches a whole house and finds no victim gets nothing. Who's task was more difficult, more dangerous?

[FFPCogs 863]

One more thing to ponder:

A FF who gets 5 feet in the front door and makes a grab gets a medal. The guy that searches a whole house and finds no victim gets nothing. Who's task was more difficult, more dangerous?

Depends on the circumstances.

[Dinosaur 844]

I think this horse has been beaten beyond recognition. Yes 2 in 2 out is for our safety. Yes, we may stray from it under certain circumstances.

Yes Rit is 2-2's cousin and again for our safety. As far as I can see, straying from RIT rules is treading on dangerous turf because we have left our interior people out to dry.

Yes, a consolidated FD would do a world of good for Southern Westchester. As for Northern Westchester I believe the residents make enough money to support a paid department. Check out real estate values if you don't believe me.

One more thing to ponder:

A FF who gets 5 feet in the front door and makes a grab gets a medal. The guy that searches a whole house and finds no victim gets nothing. Who's task was more difficult, more dangerous?

Consolidating southern Westchester paid departments would be child's play compared to establishing a paid department in northern Westchester or even a consolidated volunteer one.

"Residents make enough money to support a paid department. Check out real estate values if you don't believe me"

I'm a staunch supporter of improving emergency services but I don't think this statement is fair. Residents deserve to keep the money they earn. I think the residents make money to support themselves, not a department that may not even be needed. Westchester would benefit from about 50 fewer departments but the north county could probably do well with just consolidation and reorganization.

People are getting their pockets picked enough by the government. WE don't need to compound that problem.