abaduck

This is a good idea. Video can be a great training tool. A video such as this of a structure prior to FD arrival presents an excellent opportunity to discuss strategy and tactics without second guessing another department.
In response to scenario #1, I will offer the following: (I will detail what my actions would be as the first engine officer given the resources available as per the scenario- if this fire occured in my own department we would have more manpower available and thus certain things would be done differently).
1. Give a quick size-up via radio and call for more help.
2. If a hydrant is within 50 feet, order the driver to hook up to it. A competent driver should be able to get water from a hydrant within 50 feet of the rig and charge a handline. This is not ideal of course but we need to work with what we have.
If a hydrant is further away than that, radio the second engine that they will need to secure a hydrant and feed us.
3. Leave room for the truck in front as usual but this fire will not require the use of master streams. Neither will we need aerial or tower ladder to reach the roof.
4. Order the other firefighter to stretch a 1 3/4" handline to the front door and wait for me there.
5. Go around back for a quick look. As I am doing that I would question any people in the area as to whether anyone was inside. Don't waste a lot of time doing this but do ask the question. Oftentimes people will remain mute until asked and once asked will say, something like, "yes, there are two children in a back bedroom, etc." If someone says yes, there are people inside, take a quick moment to ask how they know this, how many people,and where they are located. Sometimes bystanders have this information also but do not volunteer it until asked. Of course, use your judgement in deciding how credible any info. you receive might be.
During this walk, check for a basement and make sure the fire did not start there. It is very important to not be above the fire unless you know you are. This particular home seems to be built on a slab with no basement but always discipline yourself to check for this.
Is this building truss construction? Maybe, but doubtful. Look at the windows. I believe they are an older, aluminum frame type.
6. On the way back to the front give another quick report by radio to the incoming companies as to what you have and what you want from them. Truck should be doing a search. Second engine should be securing a water supply if not already done by your driver, and second engine should also be stretching a backup line.
7. Take the line in the front door and head for the interior door to the garage. You do not need to wait for a FAST team to be assembled as there is a potential life hazard. In any event, another engine and the truck should be there by now or in another minute, as per the scenario information. Be agressive but cautious. Keep in mind that your company is undermanned, that you might only be working off the tank, that the wind is blowing toward you, the fire may be in the attic, etc. All of these things are concerns but no reason not to initiate an interior attack.
8. Put the fire out. At this point I will take some time to explain...several others in this thread have stated that this fire should be an exterior attack, or that 2 1/2" should be stretched. In my opinion,, neither is correct. The amount of fire showing can certainly be knocked down with an adequately supplied 1 3/4" handline. 2 1/2" is too much to handle for a 2 man hose team anyway. Putting some water on this fire is the best thing we can do to save anyone who may still be inside.
It appears that the main body of fire is in the garage. It may be in the living area of the house too, and also in the attic. You will find out if fire is in the main part of the house when you enter with the line.Hopefully you have a thermal imager. If so, use it to scan the attic and the rest of the house. Before advancing far, check the upper levels of the room for heat and listen for crackling. Do not pass fire. Get the truck inside with you to complete the search and open the ceilings to check for fire in the attic as soon as possible.
Oh, if you encounter any occupants inside, remove them....
***Some of the things in this post which may raise some disagreement are my decisions to make an interior attack with this much fire showing; to enter without a FAST team assembled; to make the attack potentially on booster tank water; to use a 1 3/4" handline***
I acknowledge in advance that these actions may seem controversial to some in the fire service not because they should be, but simply because I am aware of the way many of us think.
OK. I took a few minutes to respond to this type of thread which I usually don't. Can I go back to bashing vollies now????

I always like to get the insights of my colleagues in the fire service on incident management and size up. In that vein I'm starting this topic to tap into the knowledge and experience of the contributors here.
While pictures are good I like videos as they offer a more dynamic and true representation of what's going on. In this one the FD is not on scene yet, so it's open and there's no action to critique.
(edit) When posting replies to this video please identify that your response is in regards to scene #1 ( there are now 2 different incidents in this thread to discuss)
Here is scene #1:

I'll reserve my comments on the video so as not to spoil it. Take a look with no audio and describe your tactics based on the following;
You're the officer, you have a driver and 2 FFs on the crew with you. This is what you pull up on. It's unknown if anyone is inside and the next due Engine and the Truck are still 3 mins out......what would you do?
Cogs
ps If anyone has any other videos in which the FD has not yet arrived or is just arriving please post them for discussion.

Chief,
I don't know how the details differ, CT vs. NY. I work in a combo department. Are you saying that, if I'm working alongside one of my career colleagues, and we screw up (or even if we don't!) and some smart lawyer decides to come after us, the career firefighter should be indemnified, but I should not? What's the basis for your distinction? We're performing exactly the same duties under the same command.
Mike

So what you're basically saying is that these 2 cadets should have self rescued after being exposed to severe hypothermia for an extended period of time?
If you really have any high angle experience you'd know just how physically taxing rope ascension is. With the onset of hypothermia you lose much of your strength, manual dexterity and your mental capacity begins to diminish. You're the ONLY person I know that can operate after prolonged exposure to such conditions.
What do you do at a working job with people trapped? Do you shout instuctions to them from the street on how they should get off the fire floor because you're afraid you'll get burned?
Gotta love the Internetz lol

Chief,
I don't know how the details differ, CT vs. NY. I work in a combo department. Are you saying that, if I'm working alongside one of my career colleagues, and we screw up (or even if we don't!) and some smart lawyer decides to come after us, the career firefighter should be indemnified, but I should not? What's the basis for your distinction? We're performing exactly the same duties under the same command.
Mike

I'd say that's reasonably well-trained. I'm still fairly new to the fire service, and the day I stop learning they can put me in a box!
Thanks Chief, that's all I really wanted; some opinions on if it was reasonable to treat two firefighters performing the same task differently, just because one was career and one was volunteer.
It's certainly not going to happen at my department, and I respectfully suggest it's extremely unlikely to happen at any department; if an 18 year old is the only Chief they can scrape up, then they must be pretty much a one-man department, and they've got FAR bigger issues to confront than debating indemnification!
Again I can't relate to that; we don't do parades, except in our own district. If departments do do that, I suppose they must arrange for cover with their neighbours.
Chief, I've not attacked anything you've said, and I resent the accusation. I simply declined politely to take the debate in the direction you seemed to wish, and confined my interest to a particular question which, as it happens, related to my own department - it being a combo department. And it brings out the essence of the debate: should you treat career and volunteer firefighters in a combo department the same with respect to the issue at hand? If you argue that you should, that provides a basis for arguing the case in departments which are exclusively career, or exclusively volunteer. If you consider that 'unreasonable' or 'attacking' then I suggest... qtip :-)
Mike

I'd say that's reasonably well-trained. I'm still fairly new to the fire service, and the day I stop learning they can put me in a box!
Thanks Chief, that's all I really wanted; some opinions on if it was reasonable to treat two firefighters performing the same task differently, just because one was career and one was volunteer.
It's certainly not going to happen at my department, and I respectfully suggest it's extremely unlikely to happen at any department; if an 18 year old is the only Chief they can scrape up, then they must be pretty much a one-man department, and they've got FAR bigger issues to confront than debating indemnification!
Again I can't relate to that; we don't do parades, except in our own district. If departments do do that, I suppose they must arrange for cover with their neighbours.
Chief, I've not attacked anything you've said, and I resent the accusation. I simply declined politely to take the debate in the direction you seemed to wish, and confined my interest to a particular question which, as it happens, related to my own department - it being a combo department. And it brings out the essence of the debate: should you treat career and volunteer firefighters in a combo department the same with respect to the issue at hand? If you argue that you should, that provides a basis for arguing the case in departments which are exclusively career, or exclusively volunteer. If you consider that 'unreasonable' or 'attacking' then I suggest... qtip :-)
Mike

I'd say that's reasonably well-trained. I'm still fairly new to the fire service, and the day I stop learning they can put me in a box!
Thanks Chief, that's all I really wanted; some opinions on if it was reasonable to treat two firefighters performing the same task differently, just because one was career and one was volunteer.
It's certainly not going to happen at my department, and I respectfully suggest it's extremely unlikely to happen at any department; if an 18 year old is the only Chief they can scrape up, then they must be pretty much a one-man department, and they've got FAR bigger issues to confront than debating indemnification!
Again I can't relate to that; we don't do parades, except in our own district. If departments do do that, I suppose they must arrange for cover with their neighbours.
Chief, I've not attacked anything you've said, and I resent the accusation. I simply declined politely to take the debate in the direction you seemed to wish, and confined my interest to a particular question which, as it happens, related to my own department - it being a combo department. And it brings out the essence of the debate: should you treat career and volunteer firefighters in a combo department the same with respect to the issue at hand? If you argue that you should, that provides a basis for arguing the case in departments which are exclusively career, or exclusively volunteer. If you consider that 'unreasonable' or 'attacking' then I suggest... qtip :-)
Mike

Chief,
We appear to be still at cross-purposes; you're talking generalities, I'm talking specifics.
'What is an "ex-chief"?' - I can't see how that, for instance, is relevant to my question. As for the rest, I'm just a firefighter, I don't speak for my department on a public forum. Suffice it to say I have full confidence in my Chiefs & Officers, and none of them would ever order an unqualified member into an IDLH environment.
Let's make the question even more specific, shall we? I, and one of my career colleagues, both interior qualified and well-trained (career academy in his case, 250 hours+ at FTC in mine) are ordered to perform a primary search. We fail to locate a civilian. The civilian is subsequently found, deceased, on secondary. A relative finds a smartass lawyer and proceeds to sue my career colleague & I for negligence in failing to find their relative. Chief, should the department, and the municipality, handle our cases differently, and indemnify us to different degrees? Why? If you look back to the first post, that's the issue. That's the question.
Mike

Chief,
We appear to be still at cross-purposes; you're talking generalities, I'm talking specifics.
'What is an "ex-chief"?' - I can't see how that, for instance, is relevant to my question. As for the rest, I'm just a firefighter, I don't speak for my department on a public forum. Suffice it to say I have full confidence in my Chiefs & Officers, and none of them would ever order an unqualified member into an IDLH environment.
Let's make the question even more specific, shall we? I, and one of my career colleagues, both interior qualified and well-trained (career academy in his case, 250 hours+ at FTC in mine) are ordered to perform a primary search. We fail to locate a civilian. The civilian is subsequently found, deceased, on secondary. A relative finds a smartass lawyer and proceeds to sue my career colleague & I for negligence in failing to find their relative. Chief, should the department, and the municipality, handle our cases differently, and indemnify us to different degrees? Why? If you look back to the first post, that's the issue. That's the question.
Mike

Chief,
You misunderstand, hopefully not intentionally. When I said 'We're performing exactly the same duties under the same command' I was referring to operating at a specific incident, perhaps one leading to litigation... By 'same duties' I mean myself and one of my career colleagues 'performing the same fireground assignment, working as a team'. By 'under the same command', I mean 'following the same orders from a superior officer on the fireground'. I trust that clarifies my point, and my question, which remains unanswered: if the actions of the team on the fireground lead, for whatever reason, to litigation, why should the career FF be treated differently to the volunteer when it comes to issues such as indemnification?


It wasn't in any sense a general comment about hiring, training, or promotion, and I regret you mistakenly took it at such; your 'debunking' was unnecessary and doesn't contribute to this debate and I apologise if my meaning was unclear.


Mike

Chief,
I don't know how the details differ, CT vs. NY. I work in a combo department. Are you saying that, if I'm working alongside one of my career colleagues, and we screw up (or even if we don't!) and some smart lawyer decides to come after us, the career firefighter should be indemnified, but I should not? What's the basis for your distinction? We're performing exactly the same duties under the same command.
Mike

Chief,
I don't know how the details differ, CT vs. NY. I work in a combo department. Are you saying that, if I'm working alongside one of my career colleagues, and we screw up (or even if we don't!) and some smart lawyer decides to come after us, the career firefighter should be indemnified, but I should not? What's the basis for your distinction? We're performing exactly the same duties under the same command.
Mike

Chief,
I don't know how the details differ, CT vs. NY. I work in a combo department. Are you saying that, if I'm working alongside one of my career colleagues, and we screw up (or even if we don't!) and some smart lawyer decides to come after us, the career firefighter should be indemnified, but I should not? What's the basis for your distinction? We're performing exactly the same duties under the same command.
Mike

I am glad the Grand Jury Reached this decision, truth be told, this was the only decision to come to. These cops did NOTHING WRONG, dj henry did EVERYTHING WRONG... he drank underage, drove drunk and tried to kill a cop... THIS WAS ALL HIS FAULT. His parents are making fools of themselves with their statements and forget michael sussman, calling him an ambulance chaser is too good for him, that would be an insult to ambulance chasers.
My prediction is that the feds will leave this one alone... the process has been followed, the officers have been cleared.. end of story

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/paramedics_rescue_toddler_from_bronx_eV7tWP92GbOi6QtJjERTYO?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d532bb8bae2b71b%2C0
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/events/2011/020911b.shtml
Great job to all the members who saved a family and a gave a Mother and Child a chance at a future! On a side note EMT Poliakoff and I were partners for a while at work. He is a standup guy, I am happy he was able to make a huge difference,

Push the cop car (that will probably be in front ) down the hill and stand on the roof.

...but still a lot slower than 32ft per second per second...
The correct answer to all this is, identify the issue during inspection & pre-planning, and give the occupants appropriate advice. If I worked in that back office I'd want a bailout ladder. And if this was in my district we would know all about this structure...

I'll bite.
Tower ladder? Or think outside the box a little... maybe a roof ladder, with the hooks over the sill to provide enough support to prevent the butt sinking? Or, who gives a damn about the butt sinking if you need to effect a rescue... let the damn thing sink until it finds solid ground, then adjust the extension of the fly section as required? Or... does anyone still carry a pompier ladder?
Floors are thin and made of...?

I don't know about Jeter but I hear Pettitte is available.

I'll throw a few random comments in to get things going, and I'll second the request to keep it civil:
1. Freedom to associate also implies freedom NOT to associate; I really don't like the idea of a closed shop.
2. The article mentions forbidding vollies from responding in the hours immediately before a shift. Excuse me, I'm an adult. I don't need anyone telling me what I can and can't do in my off hours; it's your responsibility to see you show up at your job - any job - fit, sober, rested, and ready for work.
3. I can absolutely see where the union is coming from. If I was a career firefighter and union member, I would still volunteer - but I wouldn't do it in a combo department with union firefighters. That's MY choice - quite apart from union rules, I'd consider it professional courtesy.
4. Maybe the British model provides an answer. They don't have pure vollies, they only have 'retained' - a bit like paid per call. They're welcome to join the union, and many do; contracts may only affect career guys & girls, but there's a whole raft of other issues - health, safety, legal, disciplinary - that affect all firefighters, paid or otherwise. So, should vollies be able to join the union?

I do not believe 18 or EMS and 21 for FD's is too young for drivers. With that said, I do feel that these must be filtered. Perhaps even more filtered than some agencies/department do. I do not think the number should be focuses on as much as the ability of the driver. Numbers are stupid and just provide a guideline. I know some young drivers that are very good drivers as well as some whom are not so good. There must be in depth driver training and certification requirements in agencies/departments. This process also must not be rushed through and all issues with someone driving must be addressed.
Our country trusts 18 year old to go into Iraq with a bunch of explosives and powerful guns and kill people to protect our freedom. We allow these same people to drive tanks that have the capabilities of running over vehicles, people, or the ability to blow up entire buildings, villages, cities etc. These same people should be able to drive fire trucks and ambulances.
On a side note, they should be able to drink to!!!

Accuweather has it at 3.4 inches, and no offense boys, but this girl isn't going to get excited over 3 inches.

As of Friday 1/30, the City of Yonkers has decided to accept the Safer Grant. The rest of the laid off members are being reinstated and demoted officers will receive their respective ranks back. Looks like this will happen by the end of next week. Thank you to all who made this happen, especially the local 628 executive board. Nice job guys!

Just got word from our union that our department secured a safer grant for our laid off members. Congratulations! Kudos to all the people who worked so hard on the grant.