FireMedic049

So all this back and forth is about a title ? Really ? Come on guys is this what it has come to ? What should we call those who do not go interior so we can move on from this lunacy ?

It's not exactly the trivial thing that you seem to be inferring. I don't have a specific term to throw out there, but here's an example to help you understand the argument.

Let's say that everyone who belongs to a fire department is titled "firefighter" regardless of what role they perform or don't perform. Using that same logic, everybody who works for a hospital can be titled "doctor" regardless of what role they perform or don't perform. We don't do this because titles do matter. The titles doctor, nurse, ER tech, janitor, aide, etc. help the patients and staff distinguish between the different roles and what they each contribute to the overall operation. So, if you are sick and in need of a doctor, you wouldn't want a "doctor" (aka janitor) to treat you.

If you polled the average citizen on what a "firefighter" is and what their expectations for them are, it won't be that they just drive or just help outside if that person's house was on fire and a loved one was trapped inside. Therefore, using the title "firefighter" for all members is misleading in the same fashion that "doctor" doesn't mean the person who pushes the broom down the hallways of the hospital.

You get to or you have to. Aren't there duties that can be preformed such as fire inspections, fire prevention, driving,etc?

Yes and No. In large departments, there may be positions dedicated to doing things like fire inspections, fire prevention and fire investigations. However, there likely aren't that many of those positions out there and there has to be a vacancy. In smaller departments, like mine for instance, inspections and prevention are something that everybody participates in and investigations are handled by the County Fire Marshals.

In some departments, the position of driver rotates among the company members. In others, it is an assigned position and the permanently assigned person drives when they work, but they are expected to be able to do the rest of the job if they are not performing driver related tasks on scene like pumping or operating the aerial. In small departments like mine, off-duty personnel are called in when we have working fires. When that happens, the driver jobs are already covered and we need people to fight the fire.

So, typically when you can no longer do the whole job, retirement is the only option.

This is probably in the long run a good thing.

I agree that doing a series of tasks in short order on a single bottle of air is unrealistic, unless we are going to drop that pesky rehab standard that was implemented a few years ago. You know the one that limits the time you can work without a rest period. Which probably would prevent you from doing a rapid series of tasks on a single bottle on a fire ground.

I'm not sure I'm following your line of thinking on this. Doing a series of tasks in short order on a single bottle of air is in fact very realistic. For one, have you not seen the FF Combat Challenge? I've done something similar for a firefighter research study on one cylinder. Heck, in my department, doing a series of tasks on a single cylinder is the norm.

The only rehab necessary would be after completion of the tasks.

Are you saying that the rehab standard requires a rest period before the first cylinder is expended?

As for the ability of the instructors to do this, I would be willing to bet that most can, however we all know guys who while mostly good at what they do have made teaching their main career and have not been in a fire in years. I have a feeling that this is who will be questioned, not the younger gung ho guys who nobody doubts can do the job.

As for a single standard, that is good in theory but has some problems in practice. The ability of someone in a career department to spend more time training is a reality that we have to face. The ability of a department to order someone to attend an academy on a full time basis is simply not there in a volunteer department or even some smaller career departments. a 14 week academy is over 500 hours, when I took FF1 is was about 120, the same for FF2 which together equal about half of that time. So how long would it take to run that full time standard on a part time basis?

It isn't necessarily the issue that you think it is, depending on what is defined as the single standard. If the standard is a 500 hour fire academy with a standard curriculum, then yes, most volunteers would have trouble attending on a full-time basis and there would be issues with getting someone quickly thru it on a part-time basis.

However, if the standard is testing for certification to a specific set of skills and knowledge, then it would not be quite as challenging to accomplish. For example, in my area, there are two paramedic training programs. One is run by the Community College and the other is run by a sub-organization of one of the local hospital systems. The Community College's program is less intensive, fewer hours and less expensive by comparison and more than adequate to train a paramedic. The other one in my opinion is a really good program for those whose ultimate goal is med school or nursing because of the depth to which they teach. In the end, all of the students from both programs have to take the same examination (NREMTP) in order to become a certified paramedic.

In that same vein, if there is a standard 3rd party testing process that validates the ability to perform a common set of skills and possess a certain level of fire service knowledge, then the process is less about the path traveled and more about one's ability to perform.

How often do City trucks utilize the hard suction?

The smaller hose tube at the bottom gets used pretty frequently. It's commonplace to use it to connect directly to a hydrant.

The larger hose tubes for drafting probably don't get used much at all. It is my understanding that they and the current engine design are primarily for alternate water supply usage in the event that the hydrant system is unusable, like what happened on 9/11 in lower Manhattan.

I hear that rolling the windows up is a great way to reduce siren noise inside the cab.

Sure, but when you're riding around in hot weather and your AC isn't working because your employer hasn't gotten it fixed, it won't seem like a very good option.

Who out there is buying E-ONE apparatus ? There #,s must be way down. I always new they were junk from the day they forced one on us, it only lasted 13 years before going to the junk yard. Anybody ?

We have an HP75 Quint from E-one that's coming up on the 13 year mark and still going strong. We've had a few issues hear and there. Some big, some small, but overall we've been pretty happy with it. Some issues were with non E-one components and I think there's a decent possibility that some of the other issues we've had could have more to do with our shoddy maintenance program rather than because E-one built it.

We're at a point where we should be working on its replacement and move it to reserve status, but that's not happening yet (for a few reasons). I think we'd definitely consider them when it comes time to replace it (whenever that is). That wasn't the case when it came time to replace our KME pumpers 5 years ago. They were/are junk (ours specifically, not necessarily KME in general) and they weren't even considered.

Let us also not forget the efforts and sacrifices of our brothers/sisters in blue and in EMS on that day along with that of the crew and passengers on Flight 93 that prevented further tragedy.

To a quint is somewhat different than the rescue engine concept in that the role of the personnel is vastly different. When we arrive at a fire we need engine companies and truck companies doing their specific functions well. When we have a pin job we typically don't see the need for multiple different company types. Extrication is a fairly easy role for either a truck or engine, of course better with a dedicated company who spends even more time training and conducting these ops.

The second issue I have is putting two primary systems on one truck-aerial and pump. Both systems can take the truck out of service killing both roles. To me a rescue engine with portable equipment works where there aren't other companies that can cover the assignment when the pumper is out for service or otherwise engaged.

I see quints as perpetuating the "jack of all trades, master of none". So where multiple houses and companies are needed, I think the quint is an impediment to better quality apparatus and personnel. And as Chief Raftery points out, they are like the magic lantern the "lay off Genie" resides in.

I think to a large extent, the "problem" with quints has a lot to do with the way we view them, design them and what we expect of them.

Oftentimes, when this debate comes up, the knock on the quint is this "jack of all trades, master of none" argument. Essentially, quints are bad because you can't do everything or carry everything that you could with individual apparatus. There doesn't seem to be the understanding that all quints are not equal nor are they used the same.

For example, my department has been running a quint (75' RM) for almost 13 years now. It runs primarily as an engine since we only have 2 units staffed and on-duty. Overall, it doesn't have as much hose on it as our engines, but it has enough of what we need. Other than being bigger, it works very well as an engine for us. There's no doubt that we can't carry the full compliment of truck tools and ladders that you'd find on a FDNY truck, or Chicago or LA, but that's ok since we don't need all of those things.

People seem to think that if it can't do everything, then it's no good. However, that's not a big deal if it can do what you need it to do 95+% of the time and do it good enough.

I read an article a number of years ago regarding a city's switch to a TQC deployment strategy. It was written by a member of that department and from the way the article was written, it was pretty clear that he was not a fan of that switch. Anyway, he listed several examples as why this switch was a problem, but IMO, all of them were department created. There were issues with how the supply line deployed thru hose chutes - now this was before the sidestacker hosebed, but that's a design issue. Having to send a 2nd unit to a vehicle fire on an interstate for more water. The quint they sent was a Tower quint with a 300 gallon water tank - that's an issue of not sending the right resources. The department also used ARVs for medical responses and one time a company was responding to a fire from a medical call and was given an assignment that their "mini-pumper" couldn't handle. If I recall correctly they were to pump a FDC of some sorts, but they had a small 500gpm pump, so of course the task had to be reassigned - that's an issue of not adequately designing your ARV for the way it will be used.

So back to the engine / truck / quint debate, why is it that we are generally against quints, but we seem to love rescue pumpers?

I've seen plenty of comments against rescue pumpers, but overall they seem to be more accepted. I think this is for several reasons.

1) We tend to view the dual role capabilities of each unit in a different fashion. When responding to calls, the rescue engine's role tends to be more universally clear. MVA = rescue, Fire = engine. Although there is an engine company component to some rescue situations, the either/or deployment role is fairly clear. For the quint, there often isn't that same level of clarity from the outset as to what the role is.

2) The role of the quint is often misunderstood. Many seem to think that the dual role function means dual action and thus the comments about needing extra staffing to do both engine and truck work at the same time. In some cases, this may be the case, but in many others, particularly in a total quint concept (TQC) type deployment, the company is capable of work in both disciplines, but is not expected to perform both simultaneously.

3) Deviation from tradition. Combining engine/truck is far more sacrilegious than putting rescue equipment onto a pumper.

4) Quints are too often seen as a mechanism to eliminate personnel rather than evaluated on their own merits or with consideration for the overall situation in which they are used. You just don't see the rescue engine being used in the same way. In many cases, the quint is seen as THE reason that manpower was eliminated rather than understanding that the manpower was going to be eliminated anyway and the use of quints although maybe not ideal, is a viable or even better option than the alternatives. Yes, quints are often used to cut individual engine and truck companies, but they are also used to keep stations open when these cuts occur. So, if you're going to lose 5 companies anyway, is it better to stick with traditional deployment and have to close 3 stations and/or have stations with only a dry truck or keep all stations open using some or all quints?

Why is it OK to cram water and hose onto a rescue but not a truck?

In most cases, it seems that we are trying to cram rescue equipment onto a pumper.

Again I ask why it does not work the other way around, as in why are not all engines required to carry extrication equipment?

Should all fire trucks carry water?...NO

in easily deployable 16-20 ounce plastic bottles.

Here is the real problem with scripts (or what those who don't sit behind the console call consistency). Eventually you are saying words that you don't really understand. You get so used to reading the script that the words, like the example of 10-4, loose their actual meaning.

For years before plain language Stamford had some signals that were generally used together. THe two most common were 5, 7 & 9 or 1 & 5. These were so common that most units stopped using the word signal in front of them. However here is what they meant.

1 - In Service / On Air

5 - Returning to Quarters

7 - False Alarm

9 - Recall

However 1 & 5 was used so often as the generic signal that you were clear from a call that we started having EMS units who were not quartered at the hospital saying they were 1 & 5 out at the hospital. They can be 1 at the hospital but not 1 & 5. But they were being consistent.

I don't think this is what we're discussing, so the problem you stated doesn't apply. What you've identified in your example are not "scripts", but rather "codes". The use of codes, like the 10-codes, is fine as long as everyone is consistently using them and using the same definitions otherwise it's like trying to communicate with one person speaking english and the other speaking spanish.

Scripts are typically the verbal dispatch format. As you correctly point out below, saying "all Turn of River Units" vs "Turn of River Fire Department" isn't the problem when talking about dispatch consistency. The issue is when information is left out or presented in a manor that is problematic for the field units.

In my county, the dispatch script is supposed to include the municipality that the call is in. The dispatchers are somewhat inconsistent with that. This may not be a problem if your department only responds to calls in a single municipality, but leads to issues when you don't. The ambulance I work part-time for in my city covers 4 municipalities and responds mutual aid into several more. We have a large number of street names that are common between 2 or more of our municipalities. Sometimes there are subtle clues, like one having 3 digit numbers and the other having 4 digits. Sometimes they give cross streets which help, but often enough we have to clarify it.

Another issue that we experience in my area is that our dispatchers are inconsistent with calls to commercial buildings. Every dispatch to a commercial building should include the business name along with the street address. Unfortunately, there are numerous instances where the business name is left out. This can create a response issue on the field side of things because unless you go to that business frequently for calls, you are far more likely to know where ABC Plumbing is on Main Street in your town vs driving down Main Street trying to find it using the street numbers on each building, which may or may not be there or readily visible.

In one case, an EMS call was dispatched to a street address in a neighboring community. Their EMS was not available, so mine was sent and given just a street address. That community's FD was dispatched (by a different dispatcher, same center) for QRS on the call, but were given the call as the street address and that it was the Jr High School in their town. The school sits back a long driveway off the street it is addressed to and is the only non-residential building on the street. There's a big sign for the school at the entrance, but it doesn't have the street number on it.

There are also fads depending on who is reading what book at the time. We had a senior dispatcher with no field experience yell at a junio dispatcher who had been a member of 2 local departments and 1 out of town department because he didn't ask the color of the smoke that a caller was reporting. Also on a call with a report of a fire with children in side she yelled that the ages of the children were imnportant. The junior dispatcher asked why, did they rescue 4 years olds diferently from 5 year olds? But both of these theories were because of incomplete information given to dispatchers so they would be consistent with field units.

So if I dispatch a call and say attention all Turn of River Units and the next guy says attention Turn of River Fire Department, I don't see that is a problem. Trust me, we have lots of real problems to solve. We do not need to go making up more imaginary ones just so we can create a solution.

1) How important is it to you that your dispatch agency maintain consistency when giving the intial dispatch? Very.

2) Different dispatchers will phrase and format the same incidents several different ways. Is it important that every dispatcher in the same agency dispatch in the same format using the same concise terminology and format? Yes.

3) Or should every dispatcher be able to dispatch in their own "style"? No.

Now, I'll qualify those answers with the following:

1) Is it important that as a fire department, we are consistent with our response to a dwelling fire? Is it important that we always send 2 engines and 1 truck or is ok to do that sometimes and just send a mini-pumper sometimes or just 1 engine and 1 truck? Setting aside the "every fire is different" aspect, can we expect a consistent outcome, if we aren't consistent with how we respond to the same type of incident?

2) Is it important that the individual companies in the same department respond in the same manor (SOPs), operate in the expected manor, use the same concise terminology and format?

3) Dispatchers will always exhibit their own "style" in their dispatching. However, that must be done with compliance to their dispatching SOPs as consistently as possible. Would it be ok for a dispatcher to use 10-codes because it's their "style" when the SOPs clearly state they are not to be used and there are no locally adopted 10-code definitions?

If the SOP says the dispatch format is tones, address, complaint, company due, is a big deal if a dispatcher occasionally announces calls as tones, complaint, address, company due? I would say no, because nobody will be exactly consistent 100% of the time and the variation is minor. Does every dispatch have to be given as a monotone oration like tones, 123 Main Street, Building Fire, Company 5 respond? I would say no, the dispatcher can throw in a little style as long as they stick to the basic format and convey the required information in a timely fashion, like - tones, At 123 Main Street in Anytown for a report of a dwelling fire, Company 5 is due to respond.

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.

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.

It's 2014 and we have more technology now than NASA did when they put a man on the moon. Our apparatus is better designed and more capable than ever before. Yet we still can't put enough people on the fireground at a working fire and actually justify that and accept it.

If you don't have enough FF, call more. If you don't have enough in your department, call mutual aid. Keep calling until you have enough to do the job, staff RIT, and in staging for relief or additional work. The fact that we continue to do the job inadequately staffed without complaining (except here where it does no good) perpetuates the problem. I think Einstein said it, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

I would have to disagree with your assessment. I think the vast majority of fire departments are already doing these things most of the time. If you think those of us working in understaffed departments are not voicing our concerns about being understaffed, you aren't paying attention. I'm constantly reading stories about being understaffed, staffing cuts, actual and proposed, and how these negatively impact us doing our job. I've personally been sounding the alarm in my department for almost my entire time there.

Unfortunately, the decision makers aren't always listening to us or willing to take the appropriate actions.

When will the madness end??? Probably never.

While I think the concept and use of RIT to be proactive as opposed to reactive is better use of personnel, it's another band aid covering the lack of manpower. If I need RIT I'd hope they'd be 100% ready to go not 90%, because they threw some ladders or removed some window bars. Call another truck co or use an engine on scene to perform these tasks.

Depending on how the RIT is staffed, it may not be the band aid that you think it is. If the RIT component is being staffed by a single company with only a handful of people, then I can agree with your concern. However, I know that some departments, probably based on the research that has been done on the use of RIT, are staffing their RIT at a task force level. So, if you have multiple companies making up the RIT component, then having a couple guys throw some ladders shouldn't be a significant detraction from the ability to respond to a RIT activation.

Much of what you've said sounds as if you're describing our FD. Are you based out of one station or are those 5 guys further spread between houses? The difference being that sometimes 5 guys on duty still results in 3 arriving and not having enough to readily get in on some jobs.

We respond from 2 stations. We used to have 4 a couple decades ago, but lost some as the manpower decreased. Truthfully, losing the stations themselves isn't that big of a deal from the standpoint that as a small city, we can pretty much reach the entire city within 4 minutes drive time from one of the stations.

At minimum staffing, we are split 3/2 manning an engine and a quint with 2 each, plus the duty officer in his own ride. With 6, we split 4/2. For our situation, it's more operationally beneficial to do this vs splitting 3/3. That side of town typically has more 1st due fires than the other, plus it puts another FF on the quint for out of town truck calls. If the engine runs a mutual aid call, the duty officer can always grab the 3rd guy off the quint to take with him to give us 4 for the call. With 7, we split 4/3.

Our fires tend to be in the areas between the 2 stations so in most cases, by the time the first unit arrives and stretches the first line to the door, the second unit is there to fill out the 2in/2out. The main area we need to work on is getting faster and more aggressive with our callback. We primarily fill out our working fire response with our off-duty guys, but the duty officer has to request it. Since we live there, it's pretty much a wash compared to the response times of the mutual aid VFDs to get people on scene. Unfortunately, our leadership tends to be too conservative with the request and in some cases to proud to ask for help it seems. RIT is an additional request and we're hit or miss on that.

For some reason, we just can't get to the point where we automatically do a full callback with mutual aid RIT when a working fire is confirmed. Well, the fact that our fire chief is in no way a leader on anything fire department related definitely has something to do with it.

Why do we still see paramedics wasting time on scene starting IVs?

It's somewhat of a pet peeve of mine and I don't have any definitive answer to that.

Personally, once the patient is in the ambulance, unless there's a critical issue that immediately needs to be addressed - like an airway problem, I want to get moving. We're 20-30 minutes from a trauma center by ground, so I want to get moving and I'll do what I need to on the way. If we're going to fly, then I want to get moving to the LZ. If makes no sense to me in the vast majority of cases to sit on scene doing stuff and potentially have the helicopter land before you get there vs going to the LZ and then doing whatever you can get done before they arrive. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, every minute that the helicopter is on the ground and not yet with the patient is wasted time.

I've ruffled a few co-worker feathers over the years telling people to get out of the ambulance so we could leave the scene.

So why call? Most people think of a helicopter as a "fast ambulance". While this is true, the abilities of the flight crew are far greater than the average ALS ambulance. I agree that if the transport time is going to be 20 minutes then by all means go by ground. Just remember that the air crew offers more than just a fast ride. Some of their capabilities include video laryngoscopy, RSI, surgical cricothyrotomy, pericardiocentisis, intraosseous infusions, and mechanical ventilatory management . They carry some familiar equipment like EZ-IO guns, pelvic binders, and CAT tourniquets. Some additional medications that are carried and not found on ambulances are Ancef for open fractures, warmed Lactated Ringers solution for hypovolemic patients, Mannitol for head traumas, and Tranexamic acid to help slow internal hemorrhage. All of these measures are greatly beneficial for patients with extended transport times but can also be very useful and sometimes necessary for patients that may be within driving distance to a trauma center. Hope this helps!

While this may all be true, in my experiences, it is a very small percentage of patients that would truly benefit from these things vs getting to the hospital quickly in this mid-range distance from a trauma center. The paramedic in charge of caring for the patient on the ground needs to be able to distinguish between patients that could benefit from these critical care offerings and those in which would likely see no appreciable benefit from air transport and make the appropriate decision regarding mode of transport.

FireMedic049, on 25 Aug 2014 - 9:50 PM, said:

FFPCogs, on 25 Aug 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

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.

I can't readily think of any LODDs attributable to not following 2 in/2 out. The closest incident that I can think of off hand is Keokuk, IA in 1999. It was a triple LODD in the very early stages of the incident, but even though the known rescue exception applied, they had enough to meet the rule. However, you can't solely look at LODDs regarding this. You have to consider line of duty injuries also, but I'm not sure if that type of information is readily available or even tracked in that context.

1. 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.

2. One thing to keep in mind about the 2 in / 2 out rule is that it really wasn't written with the fire service response to building fires in mind. If I'm not mistaken, it written for hazmat related incidents.

3. I agree that the rule does have a limiting aspect to it that can make an incident "less safe" as I alluded to above. Sometimes, waiting for the right number of people to arrive and letting the fire grow is not the safest strategy.

1. Overkill? Really? Let's be serious now, if it weren't for OSHA's 2 in 2 out rule, we would still have some departments operating with NOBODY standing around outside (including the IC). Two people isn't enough to perform the rescue of a down firefighter so what are we saying, we don't need to have a contigency for that? Two people isn't enough to perform many tasks on the fireground for very long so we are going to wind up with a lot of unfit people after a bottle change or two.

Just to be clear, I wasn't the one who used the term "overkill" in regards to 2 in/2 out. I support the premise and goal of 2 in/2 out, but can also see situations in which the strict adherence to it creates a work environment that can be "more risky" to more people than the conditions initially encountered. It's an interesting paradox to consider.

I would venture a guess that we still have some departments conducting operations without meeting the rule, which is ridiculous. I would agree that 2 people isn't enough to perform a FF rescue.

I think we may not be on the same page here. I don't believe anybody is talking about trying to mitigate a working fire with only 3 or 4 people. Unless, I'm way off, we're talking about initial, first unit on the scene with more on the way operations. Ten minutes later we'll have 20 people there, but what is the impact of 2 in/2 out on initial operations when that first unit pulls up?

If we know there should be a dedicated IC and pump operator, then shouldn't the rule be 2 in/ 4 out?

If we know two people is not enough to effect the rescue of a downed firefighter, then shouldn't the rule be 2 in/ 12 out or 20 out?

Which brings us back to the question, if we wait for that right amount of people before initiating an interior fire attack, will the operating conditions actually be "safer" or will more people be at greater risk?

2. It was written into the respiratory protection standard and has been interpreted to include structural firefighting. See: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22711

I know that it applies to structural firefighting, but as I stated, it is my understanding that it was written with hazmat operations in mind, not structural firefighting operations.

3. On the subject of the right number of people, we still have no consensus on what that number is (see below) but I think we can all agree that if we are talking about fighting a fire with just four people (and are even debating their required qualifications (interior vs. exterior) we are completely missing the point. I don't care if it's a career department with inadequate staffing or a volunteer department that can't get the numbers to respond, we are setting people up for failure. And since our mantra is often "failure is not an option" what the hell are we doing? Even the international association of city managers cites minimum numbers but we still bicker and argue about it.

As I mentioned above, I don't believe that we are talking about fighting fires with only 4 people.

The bottom line is we still don't respond with enough FF initially and we don't stage reserve FF effectively for the duration, for contingencies or relief. Why is that? I don't think you can effectively answer that question with any certainty unless talking about a specific department, there's too many possible variables otherwise.

pretty strong words there.i would put these guys up against anyone any day.i know the reason but you sit here and run your mouth.In your eyes your the best.

Yes, they are pretty strong words, but I stand by them based on my experiences. I also didn't say that was specifically the case for this incident, only that it was a possibility.

I've spent a significant part of my 20+ years in EMS working in areas that are 15-30 minutes from a trauma center by ground. I've seen it first hand on many occasions. I've discussed incidents with co-workers that have seen it first hand on many occasions. In my experiences in these areas, many patients that get flown, don't get flown because it's truly faster or because they specifically require an intervention that cannot be performed by a street paramedic. Far too many times they get flown because the ground crew either lacks confidence in their own ability to treat the patient or they are poor providers that find themselves "in the weeds" anytime they get a bad patient.

I've never claimed to be the best and readily admit that I'm not. I'd say that I'm confident, above average and have plenty of people that I've run calls with that would concur.

You just have to move "the line". Yup!

Where does the IDLH begin? Where the front apron meets the street.

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.

I can't readily think of any LODDs attributable to not following 2 in/2 out. The closest incident that I can think of off hand is Keokuk, IA in 1999. It was a triple LODD in the very early stages of the incident, but even though the known rescue exception applied, they had enough to meet the rule. However, you can't solely look at LODDs regarding this. You have to consider line of duty injuries also, but I'm not sure if that type of information is readily available or even tracked in that context.

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.

One thing to keep in mind about the 2 in / 2 out rule is that it really wasn't written with the fire service response to building fires in mind. If I'm not mistaken, it written for hazmat related incidents.

I agree that the rule does have a limiting aspect to it that can make an incident "less safe" as I alluded to above. Sometimes, waiting for the right number of people to arrive and letting the fire grow is not the safest strategy.

When you consider what the intent of the 2 in/2 out rule is, I would say that anybody who is counting non-interior qualified/capable personnel towards the 2 out are clearly fools.

As Dinosaur points out, the rule itself appears to ignore certain best practices for handling an incident, like the need for an IC and pump operator for situations the rule would apply to for the fire service.

The reality is that the rule is typically going to really only be a consideration during the initial stage of a fire response while additional units are still enroute.

As someone who's department has a minimum on duty staffing of 5 and had been as low as 4, it's certainly not ideal, but it is possible for the IC to man the pump and direct incoming units until additional personnel can arrive and take over that role.

Additionally, the 2 out is not going to be sufficient to perform a FF rescue in most cases.

So, it begs the question, depending on the situation at hand, is it better to initiate an interior fire attack (potentially halting the fire growth) with just your 2 in / 2 out or waiting until you have sufficient personnel to staff that plus an IC, a pump operator, etc., but allowing the fire to grow and potentially be "more dangerous" when the fire attack is initiated?

If they gave an ETA of 12 minutes they could have been more than half way to the medical center by then. There's no extrication time and most ALS could be done en route so why the delay?