Welcome to EMTBravo.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.

FireMedic049

Members
  • Content count

    604
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

About FireMedic049

  • Rank
    Forum Veteran

Profile Information

  • Location SWPA
  • Gender Male
  • Primary Sector You Work In Fire
  • Your Primary Role Captain

Recent Profile Visitors

7,053 profile views
  1. You gotta love what passes for journalism these days.
  2. Provided the fire has extended from the garage. Hyperbole aside, you are correct that that there can be more than one way to handle a situation. However, it's incumbent that we do our best to choose the best option rather than just any option. As such, departments and their leaders have an obligation to be adequately trained and prepared for the situations that they will likely see based on those things you mention in order to not limit their available options for mitigation. This particular department didn't seem to be adequately prepared for the task at hand shown in the videos.
  3. I disagree with the conclusion that "the whole lower level is well involved" based on the fire showing from the garage and that the handline should have gone thru the garage first. If you look at the beginning of the first video, just before and after that engine arrives, there is fire burning around the garage doors, but there is no fire at the front door and no visible fire and limited smoke from the downstairs window to the right. The whole lower level is clearly not what I'd consider to be "well involved". To me, based on that assessment, the area of origin is more than likely the garage and actual fire does not appear to spread much yet. Smoke yes, fire not so much. Conditions on the upper floor seem like they could still be survivable for any occupants (not sure what the occupancy information they had was). Looking at the videos a few times, it kind of looked like the fire spread to the front door area may have been an exterior spread from the garage rather than the interior burning thru. While the garage certainly needs addressed, getting thru the garage doors is likely going to take a few minutes to do anything other than flow water from the driveway. As such, my first line would be hitting the visible fire from the garage and then attempting to make entry thru the front door in attempt to cut off the fire spread and protect the stairs for a quick search of the bedrooms over the garage. As manpower would allow, other personnel would simultaneously get to work on removal of the garage doors while the 2nd line supports that work (Ideally, you create an opening large enough to flow water thru in the one door to hold the fire in check some while working on removal of the other door.). Given how choppy the video editing is, it's hard to get a good sense of the timing of the obvious fire spread that occurs. So, it's hard to tell for sure if conditions would allow for sustained interior operations, but it might be long enough to at least make a quick search.
  4. I agree that there are times in which using the deck gun for a quick knockdown in order to perform interior operations is appropriate however, I don't think that tactic was appropriate for this particular fire being discussed. Based on the initial view shown in these videos, the amount of fire showing on arrival appears to be manageable with a handline giving no true advantage to the use of the deck gun. As the video progresses, one could make the argument for hitting it with the deck gun, but that need appears to be the direct result of what looks like insufficient action by the initial crews that allowed the fire to progress to that point.
  5. Why? Because far too many continue to think that as long as the fire trucks show up and the fire (eventually) goes out, it's a "win". I freely admit that I'm making a judgement without the "full story", but based on what these videos show, I'm pretty comfortable in saying that this is what a fire department that isn't adequately prepared to perform its core function looks like. Fire departments that know what to do don't have a large group of personnel dressed for the occasion standing around doing nothing in front of a house while it burns!
  6. It's hard to say for sure given the limitations of the video, but this incident doesn't appear to be an "A" effort.
  7. In that situation, the decision to not respond was clearly the correct one as your Captain was aware that the incident was already being handled and adding yourself to the party could certainly be considered freelancing. In this case, I'd be curious to know some more details to help determine if this was freelancing or just a good faith effort to perform their duties and the incident just happened to be across the borderline.
  8. There are places in which calls are dispatched to the closest units regardless of response district boundaries, but in a lot of areas in which that happens, the departments have all signed off on doing so and are all dispatched by the same dispatch agency and may even be sharing a common dispatch channel. As for this particular incident, there seems to be insufficient information presented on here to determine if what happened was or wasn't "ok".
  9. Leaving your (100' ladder) tiller behind and taking the much smaller squirt because you lack a tillerman is not what I'd consider to be an "excellent plan B".
  10. If I'm not mistaken, the feature that you are describing allows the rear steer axle to be locked and this allows the vehicle to be operated with a single driver, but it's more like driving a tractor-trailer than a straight ladder.
  11. For the most part, I agree with your message, but have a few thoughts and questions.... 1) Was the Eastchester Captain in charge of the whole shift at the time of the incident or just the station nearest the incident? 2) Are Eastchester and Scarsdale on the same dispatch channel? 3) I'm not familiar with the area, but if the map at the beginning of the thread is accurate, it looks like the location of the fire is very close to the Eastchester/Scarsdale border and possibly within sight of the Eastchester station. As such, I could easily see a situation where Eastchester units started to the incident thinking it could possibly be in their area, particularly if they aren't on the same dispatch channel. 4) The media is notorious for misreporting, misrepresenting or misquoting things. As such, their statement of what happened may not fully represent what actually happened. 5) I have some difficulty with the use of the term "freelancing" in this particular context. My understanding of the definition for freelancing is essentially doing a task or taking an action without communication or coordination of such. There's a fair bit of detail about this not readily available to draw informed conclusions, but in general, I wouldn't consider investigating signs of a possible fire nearby to be freelancing, even if doing so happened to take you a couple blocks into the next town. Once on scene, as the initial arriving unit(s), as long as they communicated that they were on scene, going to work and subsequently worked within whatever command structure that was established, I wouldn't necessarily call that freelancing and wouldn't necessarily call it operating without accountability.
  12. We have similar issues in my area. I agree, more is definitely better. Just pointing out that many of us on the career side don't have the option to wait a couple minutes for more personnel to arrive before responding. Some of us are fighting just to maintain the understaffing that we already deal with. I've read up on some of that research, but I don't recall reading about any scenarios where they studied two 2 man crews. Would you happen to have a link or something off hand for that part? I'd be interested in reading that. I don't dispute the findings of that research, but I also have a good bit of experience with responding to fires understaffed and know what we're often able to accomplish while the cavalry assembles. So while not ideal, a crew of 2 (experienced, competent FFs) is not pointless like insinuated above.
  13. Acceptable, NO. Unfortunate reality for many, YES. Yes, but I bet that a 2 man crew arriving quickly, followed by an additional 2 man crew (or more) a couple of minutes after also outperformed a single 2 man crew and probably did at least as well as that 4 man crew arriving together minutes later.
  14. While certainly not ideal, a competent and experienced crew of two arriving quickly can have a positive effect on many incidents rather than a unit with more staffing arriving a few or several minutes later. I've spent the majority of my career (the paid part) working on an engine staffed with only 2. We've been able to have 3 at times over the last few years. Several years ago now, we had a 2 man crew arrive first at a working fire and execute a ladder rescue of a trapped victim prior to arrival of other units. That gentleman knows what the point would be. You'd be surprised at what we've accomplished at some incidents.