FFPCogs

To all the veterans out there,

THANK YOU for having the courage, fortitude and dedication to put on the uniform of our military and protect all Americans

THANK YOU for your service in times of war and times of peace

THANK YOU for making the world a better and safer place through your service

THANK YOU for the freedoms I and my family enjoy today because of YOU!!



God Bless America, Land of the free...because of the brave who have, do and will serve her

Although he's been on the job for a number of weeks already, our new Assistant Chief of Volunteer Services was sworn in last night.

Let's just get rid of sirens altogether then...I mean if all that loud noise is hurting the ears of FFs on the rigs, than one can only imagine the horrific damage that must be happening to the civilians in our path when responding.

RIP Sgt. Major Gallagher.

Good stuff, thanks for posting Wraftery

Belltown FD in Stamford will be holding a Pasta Dinner fundraiser to help fund our recruitment efforts.

Date: Oct 24, 2014
Time 6pm - 8:30pm

Seating is limited so please call 203-323-0626 for more information, directions or to make a reservation

Air Force is the best Firefighting experience. You get Structure, Aircraft and other first responded certifications. Good Luck!

And at present the Air Force is the last remaining service that maintains firefighting capabilities on their bases outside of combat zones. All the others have gone to DoD or local national civilians to fulfill that role.

If you have a budget you must stay within, the money man is just a waste, unless he will nitpick every item, then he is a major detriment.

I have sat on committee's for career, combo and volunteer depts. and if you have a target amount and/or a max amount you are set.

Many committees I have witnessed have no clue what the process is and spend time on everything but what is important...i.e we don't care how much water actually flows through it (as long as the plaque says xxx more than some other dept). But we spent 20 hours debating if the blue light should be on the left and the red on the right or the other way around. (and it takes 5 minutes to change the lens so what difference does it make)

The other big mistake I see is "we want it exactly the same as the unit its replacing but 30 years newer" ...... Does that rig perform the way it needs to? "No, but we still want the new one to be the same". In 30 years have you ever used the front suction with the shiny cap on it? "No but we want it on the new rig so they look the same".

Been there done that as well.

I would say 5 on the committee, (6 if you choose to use a consultant) 1 chief officer, a mechanic/ skilled operator, a trustee or money man and two members at large. Anything more and the committee becomes too unwieldy and cliques within the cliques can form creating far too many problems and far too many opinions on how to solve them.

As far as inspection trips go I would say 3 should do it. (Four if you have a consultant)

1 Chief

1 Mechanic or skilled operator

1 Trustee or "check writer"

These members should be be well versed on the specs and what it is you're looking to buy since as committee members they developed them

Was Stamford Truck 1 affected by the Sutphen recall?

Yes, it is out of service indefinitely. As of now it will be replaced with a new 95' Aerialscope

I have often heard people question the wisdom of sending firefighters into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11th. It is not their fault, these people simply do not understand that firemen do what they do because they must, for without their actions lives would be lost. So much is made of the losses that fateful Tuesday 13 years ago and that is as it should be, but when looking back at that terrible day in New York let us not forget that the sacrifice of the 343 brave FDNY firefighters lost and the actions of their comrades who survived directly saved the lives of over ten thousand people, TEN THOUSAND!!!!. So in the midst of all the sadness and anger that comes with this day let us also remember that those 343 lives were not lost in vain.


I will never forget you, the 343, and all you gave, your sacrifice gave life to thousands, THANK YOU!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq_n_...ature=youtu.be

Should all fire trucks carry water?...NO

We'll be there with a rig.

Unfortunately for us and lucky for the rest of you, no competitions this year for BFD....

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.

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

As a general statement I will agree. But the Key word here is "KNOW"

Fair enough

So if the family says everyone is out, is that enough? do we "know"?

We at times must rely on the information provided especially when short staffed, but regardless once it becomes possible in relation to 2 in 2 out we must also verify with our own eyes. If a family member(s) say everyone is out and there's only 2 or 3 members on scene, unless we physically see a trapped occupant(s) we will have to rely on that verbal report and act accordingly. In that scenario we have not done anything "wrong" but only acted prudently based on the information we have. On the other hand if in fact we realize that the family's report is inaccurate and there is a victim(s) every reasonable effort should be made to rescue them with the personnel on hand.

One must be very careful in how this is answered. If the definition is wrong, then either a civilian may not survive, that should have been saved or a ff may die searching for no one.

True, see above

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 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. 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.

We can nit pick to the end of time and relate stories of how many times family members or visible indicators were wrong, but the bottom line to me is we assume every...EVERY...structure is occupied until we KNOW differently, the only questions then become how, when and where should I act if shorthanded. More often than not the fire and the situation regarding further resources will dictate the answers to those questions. No matter the choice though, once the decision has been reached we have to live (and yes maybe even die) with the consequences of it. I would no more want to have to inform a member's family that their loved one has perished because of rash actions than anyone else, but by the same token I wouldn't want to have to inform that family whose home was just ravaged by fire that their baby or husband or wife perished because I didn't act when I could have.

Sigh, we're sitting here debating how to fight fires with 4-6 people and find loopholes in OSHA regulations so our operations are kosher. This is ridiculous.

That's not my take on this conversation. As I've already stated, the discussion has been about initial operations and how 2in/2out affects them. I haven't seen anybody advocating fighting fires with ONLY 4-6 people and NOBODY else on the way for back up.

Nor is it my take, as far as I'm concerned we are discussing the various interpretations of when to violate 2 in 2 out and why, not debating. And like FireMedic I do not see anywhere in the previous posts anyone advocating fighting a fire with only 4 -6 members for the duration. Something we'd all do well to remember though is that all of us can only draw on our own experiences, so when I envision the scenarios we discuss they are of course seen through the eyes of my own situation. It is almost a certainty that I would never be faced with a situation where only 4 members we available to fight a fire entirely by themselves, but maybe others are in that boat including Dino.

That said I will pose this question to Dino and the rest of the group:

You arrive at your typical good working fire (smoke and fire showing from multiple windows of a typical structure in your area) with signs of occupancy visible but only two or three members and additional resources still a good 10 minutes away, would you stand fast or attempt entry in this situation where 2 in 2 out is not met and a known life hazard may exist? And why?

Many moons ago, as a relatively new FF, I responded on a fire in a split level ranch. The call came in as heavy fire @ about 6am on a Sunday. There was a delay in dispatch as the caller was a dog walker and called the wrong street & called the wrong dept. So an additional 10 minutes was wasted.

The fire was coming out multiple windows from multiple rooms and from vents in the attic. The truck opened the garage and their where 2 cars in the garage.. We had just finished establishing a supply line (we were 2nd due) when our Lt. ordered us to take a 2 1/2" line to the front door. We made it to the top step and could not make it down the hall to the bedrooms. We knew that based on the time of day, day of week and the cars, that their had to be victims in there. I realized something kept hitting me and it hurt. Took a long time to figure it was slate as the fire had burned thru the ceiling and now the roof.

We were pulled out. Latter we found that the family was in FL. on vacation.

B,

I understand that the cars in the driveway/garage scenario is a somewhat dubious fact to hinge your actions on, but I would venture that those cars being there means a better than 50/50 shot someone's inside. Of course alot of other factors play into it as well, factors which are a normal part of a size up. Ultimately the decision to enter would be based on the probability that someone might be alive under the conditions present and my ability to reach and remove them. There is no clear cut black and white answer. For me personally, if I strongly suspect, based on all the information I have, that someone is viable I will make every reasonable effort and use all the tools at my disposal to get to them and get them out.

Which goes back to the original question of how we apply the concept.

We apply the concept at every fire unless there is a known life hazard, which I take to mean visible signs of occupancy such as:

Car(s) in the driveway/garage

Open doors with no one outside

Open/broken windows with screens/broken glass on the ground under them/nearby

Report from bystanders/neighbors/family members/co-workers of trapped occupants

Verbal confirmation via phone or other means from the trapped occupants themselves

Confirmation by FD members that occupants were seen within the structure

In days past I had a somewhat more liberal policy regarding when to side step 2 in 2 out. Basically, fires without a known life hazard could be attacked using a variety of tactics such as:

Transitional attack

Direct attack on small or single room fires

Interior exposure protection/confinement (the next room/adjacent area could be considered an exposure) to buy time and reduce fire spread

But only under the right circumstances in which certain variable are known such as:

Size and location of fire

Type of material involved

Building construction

Experience level of personnel

Difficulty in accessing fire area and maintaining escape route

Firemedic is correct, I think we are not on the same page or there is a misunderstanding. My original post in which I stated 2 in 2 out was overkill was in reference to the initial phase of an incident, that first few minutes when 2 firefighters CAN make a difference if they are free to act and do so. In subsequent posts I noted a few of my own experiences where such action did make a difference in "violation" of the rule along with a video which shows just what a few guys can do under the right circumstances by relying on their own training, experience and wits. To be fair though 2 in 2 out can be circumvented in the event of an imminent threat to life, so the actions of the crew in the video were not a violation of the law and I trust if any of us were in a similar situation we would do just as they did. And let me be clear in case I misrepresented my view, I have not, I do not and I will not ever advocate undertaking anything without adequate personnel, other than initial actions to save life or under certain circumstance property. I do not know where the notion of 3 or 4 guys handling an entire job by themselves comes from, but I for one have never advocated for that. I think FAST is a great and useful concept which should be present at every fire and in light of that the skills to accomplish that mission should be incorporated regularly into every firefighters training. What I do have a problem with is the idea that the fireground can be regulated to make it "safe" and this is based in the simple fact that the fireground is a dynamic and ever changing environment where flexibility and the freedom to act immediately, using one's own knowledge, experience, training and intuition, is imperative.

Pete, I enjoy reading your input and you always post thought provoking comments. To your point, you asked about data to support the issue in an earlier post, now I ask you - do you have any statistics or cases where operating without minimum required personnel resulted in a loss of life or the opposite, where a crew effected a rescue without having the minimum staff required to operate?

Here's a video of what appears to be a rescue affected by 1 FF

http://www.statter911.com/2011/09/27/must-see-video-mogadore-ohio-house-fire-with-apparently-wo-rescued/

Pete, I enjoy reading your input and you always post thought provoking comments. To your point, you asked about data to support the issue in an earlier post, now I ask you - do you have any statistics or cases where operating without minimum required personnel resulted in a loss of life or the opposite, where a crew effected a rescue without having the minimum staff required to operate?

I do not on hand but I will endeavor to track some down.

What I do know is that on a number of occasions the actions of guys with only two or three on the crew (and thus no 2 out) did affect a significant reduction in property damage due to quick and aggressive action on well involved fires (multiple rooms)....including four cases off the top of my head which I myself was party to.

btw Dino I enjoy your thought provoking posts as well.

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.