FFPCogs

Alot is being made here of proper staffing and I too agree that staffing should be a priority, but my comments are more directed at departments that use 2 in 2 out to justify not acting when action is necessary. One of the benefits of my particular kind of firefighting "career" is that I get to work with guys from just about everywhere and the fact is there are now departments that do NOT risk to save a life and they use 2 in and 2 out as one of the reasons for their inaction. It's not about showboating or being a cowboy or a tough guy, it's about doing what we are here to do when it counts...when lives are in the balance and there is a chance we can make the difference. Bottom line in my book, there is no excuse for not acting when someone's life is savable...period. It is my belief and my experience that 2 well trained, knowledgeable and safely aggressive firefighters can make the attempt to at the very least contain the fire to give those trapped a better chance at survival and they can do this based on all they know to make the judgement that the risk is worth it. Unfortunately it is also my experience that there are firefighters out there now (and maybe not here but they are out there) that are being trained that they should not act without "proper" staffing even if they could make the difference...and I'm sorry but that to me is completely contrary to our primary mission.

Thanks guys for the input...keep it coming!!

Actually yes I do think that it would work, because that's exactly what did work for the 200 years of American firefighting before the 2 in 2 out rule became the the rule. The idea of having members outside ready to assist is a good one, but it's not a new one, we just didn't give it a name years ago. Maybe if more emphasis was put on training guys to put the fire out instead of trying to regulate them to do everything but so they don't get a boo boo, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I've said it before I'll say it again, the surest way to make the fireground safe is to know how to do your job and the only way you learn how to do you job is by doing it. I will take safely aggressive over aggressively safe any day and I believe that those we serve are better served by that attitude, as is the fire service itself.

I have a question, how many firefighters have died in the initial phases of an incident due to disregarding 2 in- 2 out? I know roughly 100 of us die annually, but about 1/2 of those LODDs are vehicle accidents, heart attacks ect leaving the other 1/2 as actual fireground deaths due to the fire. Now I've been around awhile and I do my best to keep up on LODD reports and I can't really think of any incidents where disregarding the 2 in 2 out rule was a contributing factor. To the best of my knowledge (and I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge may be limited) the vast majority of fireground deaths have happened when a good number of FFs are on scene, operations are well under way and in most if not all cases a FAST was assembled and ready to go. Personally I find the 2 in - 2 out rule to be overkill and another attempt to make things safer that ultimately makes them less safe.

Getting that kind of info is one of our goals. I have some stuff already, but none of it local, so I'm hoping to be able to contact departments closer to home to see what they do, how they do it and if (or to what extent) it's working.

Who changed the title of this thread and why?

That option and similar ones have been proposed on numerous occasions here in Stamford, but as of yet have not borne any fruit. There is a contingent among the city's volunteers who continue to look at options to remedy, even if only in part, the current state of over all volunteer responses to incidents. Unfortunately in most cases none of these members are command level personnel so the battle is doubly difficult as first the Chiefs and then the City have to be convinced. Thus far we have been fortunate in that those who have taken on the challenge have not lost interest and continue the struggle. A better fire service which combines both career and volunteer elements is possible here, it will just take what it takes to make it happen, so for those so committed the fight goes on..and on and on and on........

Looking forward to it.

Is that not what the vast majority of people in any organization do? Career, volunteer it doesn't matter, it's the same on that front. Most people want to coast along, not ruffling feathers, so they turn a blind eye. Worse though is the constant din of whining and complaining without action. How many guys show up to work at their firehouse and b**** and moan all day long about this, that or the other thing but do absolutely nothing but flap their gums about it? Same in Vollywood, members come out of the woodwork to cry and whine at the monthly meeting but are nowhere to be found when it comes time to do the work of fixing their gripes. So it was, so it is and so it shall be. Complaining, bitching, whining, finger-pointing, that's the easy part, which is why so many people are so good at it. Although the specifics may be different, all of us who strive to be better tomorrow than we are today face that same endless chorus from the choir of the loud, the ignorant and the blind within our departments..and we all have them, in fact at times we ourselves will play a part in the symphony too. Those who are true to themselves, to their departments and most importantly to those they serve will rise above that din and take the harder road And while they may complain the loudest they are also the ones who lead the charge in tackling the problems. Sometimes they make a difference, sometimes not but they do not give up, they do not run away and they do not denigrate the actions of others without first walking in their shoes. I cannot speak for anyone else, but like most I too notice an abundance of generally negative comments about volunteers here. Now there are times when maybe these views have merit and times when maybe they don't but the point is everyone here has the right to express them. What is important is what we do with those views. As I see it, and again I'm speaking only for myself, I often use them as a tool. I will read something inflammatory or derogatory or negative and instead of getting angry or offended I will ask myself "is that me? Is that my department? If so, what can be done about it? This site and others like it and everything that's posted on them offer a wealth of information and knowledge, but it is up to us to take advantage of that opportunity...for even the most negative of comments or opinions can offer us a means to better ourselves. Stay safe all and take the high road, the low one is too full of complainers, whiners and malcontents already.

I for one do NOT wish he "would just go away". Mr. Res24cue has just as much right as anyone else here to post his opinions, even if they may not be the most popular, and frankly I enjoy reading them, they offer a wonderful insight. Beyond that his views offers us a perfect picture of what I described earlier in this thread about the cancer of the "us against them" mentality, which if we let it is a disease which will slowly erode the true meaning of service. Better to have those views expressed out in public so they can be dealt with than to leave them lingering in the darkness behind closed doors where they are far more insidious and damaging.

Congrats!!!

Although a bit off topic, troubling nonetheless. http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/nbc-news-crew-threatened-with-arrest-for-filming-a-fema-camp-you-will-be-stunned-by-what-the-officer-says-to-the-reporter I have no problem with the police (or in this case COs) doing their job, but a badge is not a license to practice Gestapo tactics...EVER!!!

And there it is folks, proof positive of just how good the Liberal Democrat tax and spend agenda works. Fitting that the city that put our sleazeball governor in office should now reap the "benefit' of becoming the most overtaxed city in America

I know Seth and in answer to your first question above, police officers need the ability to control a scene, including the proximity of any videographers that may be filming. When one of these would be Steve Spielbergs "crosses the line" and either gets too close or attempts to disrupt the officers in the performance of their duty than by all means at the very least they should be arrested and charged with interfering with a police officer. As far as the suspect and for the police too, there is not nor should there be any expectation of privacy when in a public space, such as a street corner, mall or movie theater, therefore if they are filmed either being arrested or arresting that video can be put out in the public realm without consent. If on the other hand a suspect is in their living room or on their front lawn, well then that's private property and a person has every right to expect what goes on there to remain private. The police though as public servants enjoy no such protection when on someone else's property, so Mrs. Jones has every right to film them arresting her husband in that living room or on the front lawn. And finally in answer to your last question, well I think we all know the answer to that one. Social media has indeed changed the game for all of us, public servant and civilian alike, and put us all under the harsh scrutiny of the public eye. And while I understand that you did not call for the preventing of people of filming arrests, again it is disconcerting that the question was even asked because it belies a much bigger problem. We Americans have become desensitized to violence in our streets and in the world around us, and it is only natural that at some point we would also become desensitized to the curtailing our personal freedoms as a means of combatting that violence. On the surface yea sure the problem is dealt with, but at what cost? With each new restriction comes an acceptance of the loss of personal freedoms and it then becomes that much easier to take away more of them. We must be forever vigilant and protective of our First Amendment rights, including the right to film and share the police in action, for if we let them be curtailed we will not ever get them back.

Yes they were !!! and I thank God everyday I joined when I did and was able to be a part of that fire service.

And we are discussing it Seth. What troubles me is the idea that censorship is OK is even entertained or questioned. This is not intended as a slight against you Seth, you simply asked a question, but it is more than a bit disconcerting to me that the question would even arise in the first place. Preventing the public from filming the police performing their duty amounts to tyranny and as Thomas Jefferson said: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny".

Disagree. Civilian shot video of arrests can give clear evidence that proper procedures are being followed should claims of police brutality be made. On the flip side those same videos can give clear evidence that brutality has occurred if in fact it has. Those who perform their duty in accordance with the law, their department's procedures and a suspected perpetrator's constitutional rights have nothing to fear from being filmed. Now if the person or persons filming should interfere with the police doing their job or in some other way create a problem they should get whatever they have coming to them under the law. Censorship in any form is a very dangerous road to travel once embarked upon especially when it concerns the actions of government or municipal agencies. To protect our rights every effort should be made to maintain transparency and allow scrutiny of these agencies, up to and including the public filming of arrests.

While I can agree that "nothing showing" is a valid arrival report, I believe that "on scene investigating" is better terminology to use. The bottom line is until we get in and take a look we have no idea what is going on and unless we state otherwise it's a given that there is nothing showing...otherwise we would have said so when we arrived, wouldn't we? "On scene investigating" let's incoming units know that the situation is not yet under control and keeps them mentally in a state of readiness, it also clearly states what action we, as the first due, will be taking. I agree with Seth's point that saying nothing showing often times leads to complacency, and whether or not that's a training/leadership issue or not, it still happens...why invite it? Finally I'm not a fan of radio chatter...short, sweet and to the point is always better. We've arrived, we do not yet know the entirety of the situation or what may be needed and we are going to investigate to find out is all covered by the phrase "on scene investigating" without the potential of bringing everyone's guard down or reciting a novella over the radio. Years ago in my FD we were taught to never say nothing showing upon arrival, now maybe my view is a holdover from those days...or maybe we're just better served by simply saying investigating until we have done so and know there's nothing there before saying so.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news...on-5633078.php Posting this here not only to acknowledge our ever so sweet victory yesterday but more importantly to ask anyone in the area (or anyone willing to make the trip) to help support our charity, the Stamford Fire Safety Foundation Fund, by shopping at Stamford's Fairway Market on Wednesday Aug 6th between 4pm and 10 pm. 25% of all sales between those hours will be donated by Fairway to the Foundation and every penny helps!! Here's a link to the Foundation's website: http://www.stamfordfiresafetyfoundation.org/ Thanks

One: They hang tough, stand firm and do their jobs, steadfastly working to build a better department from within, one more concerned with firematics than social activities Two: They move on to another department more in tune with their own personal training and duty philosophies and thereafter they flourish Three; They tuck their tails between their legs and quit

And this surprises?? We, ALL of us, have become conditioned to the senseless animosity and pointless "better than you" nonsense which has overtaken the fire service in the last decade. It is now the norm to jump on the bandwagon of spite and malice to show just how much you support your "side" in the great career vs volunteer saga. Long gone it seems is even a modicum of common ground or common mission camaraderie and support that was once enjoyed by the vast majority of firefighters in our area. The very vocal but still relatively small minority of malcontents and rabble rousing sh!t-stirrers has hijacked our service and turned it into an "us against them" morass of bitter resentment fed by uninformed rumor mongering and deceit...all in an effort to fulfill their own grandiose visions of self importance. Make no mistake, the persistent and unbridled hate spewed forth by some within our service is a cancer, no matter how well couched in "facts" it is. We have a choice, we can feed this cancer and let it grow ever more disruptive and divisive or we can refuse to play into it and thus show it the respect it deserves...none!! I choose the latter...how about you??

This was sent to me on Facebook, so I'm sharing it here to get the word out. We sent ours this morning. http://www.wvec.com/home/267418521.html

RIP FF Mack

RIP Firefighter Groover

Congrats R1....looking forward to more posts.