antiquefirelt

I do feel a little for dispatchers as the "customers" on one end are the callers requesting service and on the other end are us (some of the most hyper-critical people about everything we're involved in and some things we're not). The callertaker/dispatcher rarely hears feedback from the person who initiated the call (unless it's bad) as the responders provide the service they've requested and thus get the praise when its due, then we complain about our service from dispatch. In the end from the public's perspective it's all one system that send them the assistance they need. Our dispatch advisory board has asked departments to provide positive feedback as well as negative and to mention dispatch for those significant incidents that go well when talking to the media as these folks are often forgotten and have a large role in how the call might end up.

This is a huge issue for our regional comm center. The final product gets very low scores from the users (FD/PD/EMS) and almost every complaint is tied to individuals not following one set of guidelines from what is sent to how it sent and the terminology used. In the end it shows as varying levels of quality day to day, shift to shift, dispatcher to dispatcher, indicative of failed leadership and/or organization.

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.

It's hard to think that any of us with any sense of duty, pride and understanding of this job would feel differently, at least I'd hope not. But, I know tons of folks who might agree with this, then run headlong into danger due to poor training and lack of experience. It is for those people that these rules are designed, the issue is OSHA can tell the difference by looking at us, then again, neither can the public and often our own department members.

Sadly there are tons of us who have no business being interior firefighters, tons with no business being officers and some with no business being chiefs. The perfect storm is when they all come together under the same roof, which is exactly what happens in many places, and so we find ourselves having rules instead of judgment.

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?

Totally understand your question but I want to point out that the Rule is clear enough that you cannot have known life hazard followed by "may exist": If it's known, then it does exist, if it may then it is not a known. Maybe "life hazard" is the issue, how a "known life in jeopardy".

And while I would not commit to any answer about what anyone, myself included, would do in your scenario, without actually being there, I do know that teaching that attacking the fire from the interior in the scenario violates the rule and proves that no matter how much you tell the public and admin about what you need, you'll always undermine your own position by assuming greater risk. What might any one of us tell a firefighters family if he or she is killed making an offensive move in clear violation of the rule that seeks to ensure that member goes home when only property is know to be at stake? It doesn't matter if not having the two out was part of the cause or injury or death, because the firefighter should not have been there in the first place (again, according to the rule).

I know we're talking about doing the right thing to ensure people are safe and accounted for, but the answer is a staffing solution to ensure there's no delay. Every time you think you can make the rule look gray vs. bland and white, you assume greater risk and place members at greater risk. If something goes sideways, a member is injured or worse, and you've willfully violated a safety rule (law) that placed that member in jeopardy. Big risk.

In the end you'll have to decide how you'll handle it when your time comes, but if you're making the decisions, you should know all of the risks to those you serve, those you command and yourself (and FD by extension). Many of us justify breaking some rules/laws everyday, thankfully the consequences may not be as high?

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.

I don't want to sidetrack a good thread, but it appears our FD's have many similarities. We're "lucky" to be all housed in one station, allowing for everyone in house (5 or 6) to arrive at the same time. but due to running an ALS ambulance service, it's rare all on duty staff are in house, so 6 is quickly just 4, still fairly often could be just two. We don't automatically recall off duty and call personnel for EMS runs unless there is less than 2 firefighters in-house. But all reported structure/building fires and most high occupant alarms get an automatic recall upon dispatch. Until just this spring RIT was a request, it's now automatically a mutual aid unit dispatched. We'd love to be far more self-sufficient but the number soup doesn't add up to a workable solution being funded for years. For these reasons 2 in/ 2 out becomes one of our strongest arguments for additional staff or stemming further cuts. It's a constant battle/educational campaign to show the importance of staff when the public doesn't see pictures of fires on the front page every few days.

In that context, for us the answer would be no a fair bit of the time since our minimum staffing is 5 on-duty. We're probably at that level about 1/3 to 1/2 of the time. We're probably at 6 on-duty about 1/3 to 1/2 of the time. Some days we're at 7 or 8, but they are not very frequent.

Like many departments these days, we're a fraction of the size we once were. We used to have individual shifts that were the size of what the department overall is now. When I came on, our minimum was 4 and we worked like that most of the time. Fortunately, we've been able to increase our minimum and probably work above that at least 1/2 the time.

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.

3. Your RIT team is only for emergencies and is there only to protect the interior members. You cannot use them for other things.

It may not have been your intention but this makes it sound as if the RIT/FAST must resist any tasks outside of an actual deployment? It is very common and taught by many, that the RIT/FAST may participate in proactive operations that do not compromise their ability to go to work (not overly demanding-physically, nearby and in communication and doesn't require breathing air). Most commonly, this means throwing ground ladders to ensure firefighter escape, removing locked obstructions for escape, etc. We all would love to be able to have enough personnel that these tasks could be otherwise effected, but if they cannot be completed do they then result in an actual RIT deployment vs. preventing the issue?

True, antique, that is the premise: But I will guarantee that OSHA, NIOSH, and the gang that wasn't there at your job will take that one line "true evidence of a trapped occupant" and beat you up with it. They will hit you with "how tenable were conditions, how rapid was the fire escalating and so on. And they will wind up saying things like "Didn't it occur to you that the baby was more or less dead even before the decision to enter was made?"

I can't disagree, but regardless of any rules, they'll be doing this.

Anytime something turns out wrong it'll likely bring on the storm, at least if you know the rules, and don't blatantly disregard them or have policies that give overt or even tacit approval for disregarding them, you will have acted accordingly. It's harder to legally fault someone for their judgement vs. fault them for failure to know or follow the accepted guidelines, laws, or rules.

Let's say that when the first due pulls up, the homeowner announces to the officer that her baby is inside. The officer repeats this to his crew and one guy goes VES at a rear window and makes a grab of the baby.

This is and always was specifically addressed in the rules that a known rescue is cause to suspend the 2 out. This was tested or clarification was requested early on when FD's asked for greater latitude in what a "known rescue" was. As I recall the ruling or guidance was pretty clear that their needed to be true evidence of a trapped occupant vs. it's 3 am and there's a car in the driveway.

One of the things about 2in/ 2out, is that we appear to be stuck on the two out being a RIT. We know, mostly from direct studies after the implementation of the rule that 2 out does not make a RIT.

If we stick to the exact 2 out, as the first rule came out without any "guidance" that speaks about the pump operator and IC, we are ensuring there are two trained and properly outfitted personnel to assist the two in the greatest danger with whatever they need. Of the two, the chances are that one will notice something bad happening and notify the inside crew is pretty decent, compared to no one. If something goes wrong at the pump, one can either correct it or tell the two in to get out. The two out can free lines, pull lines upon retreat, they can enter if a victim is found, they can be working toward a sustained water supply. Venting ahead of the attack crew? There are numerous tasks that the 2 out can perform that help ensure the two in come out. With no one outside, many more things can go wrong.

We can continually "what if" the situation to show that 2 out isn't close to enough, but does that make the answer: Why Bother? 2 in 2 out stopped departments from continuing dangerous practices of committing all first due personnel to the interior, while pump operators and IC's (if they were present) were in street clothes greatly limiting their effectiveness to react to most problems the interior forces got into. A much better line of questioning might be how to safely and effectively use a minimal crew while still having a positive effect on the actual problem. If it is taking many minutes after the first arriving personnel are on scene for second due units to arrive, maybe it's time to look at the response system?

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.

Kind of exactly the opposite point of view from which I was looking. We often see people finding any excuse to ignore 2 in/ 2 out. In fact my own FD for the first few years after it came out, regularly subscribed to "I think I hear something inside" as the excuse to continue to arrive with 2 or 3 guys and go right to work. Walk around? Rare to never. RIT? Not even a thought. Hell even having a pump operator meant someone was a p***&y. It was very common to arrive to find a pump wound up, one line stretched into a door and not a soul outside. As a combination FD the motto of the day was "get the equipment there and go to work, someone will show up to help". On a full staffed day with no other calls. we left the station with 5 firefighters on 4 pieces. We've slowly evolved and are far more responsible, but I won't deny you can see some of the past if you look hard enough. We still see other FD's around us that don't even give 2 in 2 out a thought, and RIT is just used to request another mutual aid engine who ends up with who knows what assignment.

As for FD's using 2 in/ 2 out as an excuse to limit their risk? Especially ignoring the documented exception for rescue? Unconscionable. I will say I keep reading about the growing number of departments that are using everything they can find (UL/NIST Studies and now 2 in /2 out) to become an outside exposure control department and find it hard to grasp, thankfully I've yet to see that kind of attitude in our area.

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

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

Sadly we have seen guys stepping off some trucks breathing air! I'd rather use the 2 in /2 out as a way to ensure I have better staffing then see it relaxed proving that we are willing to accept further reductions to our safety to appease some other project funding. Without hard fast rules and data I'm not sure how many of us will survive future cuts.

Most of the public bases what they think their FD needs based on the size of the community and the number of fires they see in the media. They have no clue how many firefighters it takes for just one of those fires. Less rules or more local variety will lead to many places seeing greater reductions or failure to bring their numbers to safe staffing levels. Not being able to comply with 2 in/ 2out is a lame excuse for failure to ensure proper staffing. The expectation level should be different between a VFD, a poorly staffed FD and a well staffed FD, but the one common thread is the FD spokespeople not telling the truth about their capabilities.

Maybe with a required minimum training for all responding firefighters, more still for company officers, yet even more for chief officers, maybe then we could allow those people to use their judgement (you know the ones who have been tested and vetted).

And as a result increasing everyones chances of getting injured or killed, and having to deploy your FAST/RIT Team instead of nipping it in the Butt! I believe they're some credibility to this point of view. JMO

You just have to move "the line". Where does the IDLH begin?

Id love to see a Stat on what caused a FAST/RIT Team to be deployed and could it have been prevented by FFs just learning and doing their Job to the best of their ability and using good common sense.

Without a doubt this may be the case in many (most?) occurrences, but the incidents we go to rarely give us all the variables and therefore we must prepare for what might happen when we enter the wrong tactic for X or mistime a particular task. At worst using the common thinking on 2 in/2 out, they're saying that in the absence of a known rescue, you should have 6 personnel (IC, MPO, 2FF in, 2FF out) on scene before committing personnel to the interior fire area. Many of us are forced to modify that down to a smaller number and likely this is why we've not seen stronger language in defining the 2 out.

In the end we all know that we must consider the dangers of committing personnel to an interior firefight when there is no one readily available to assist them should something go wrong. Just having to weigh that decision vs. the old days of being halfway to the door before the brake was set likely has saved firefighters from injury or death.

As far as allowing firefighters to use their common sense? Their training? I think of so many threads here and on other forums and wonder if you really think that would work?

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.

Maybe we were way behind, but I don't remember FAST or RIT even being a "thing" until the 2 in/ 2 out rules came into affect. Before that we had back-up lines and "fresh crews", but personnel dedicated to rescuing our own on immediate stand-by? Nope. So while there may be some times we feel our hands are tied (or we're breaking the rules), it appears this is what it took for us to at least consider what it takes to save our own. We can't prove people would have died if they had ignored 2 in/ 2 out, but I bet we can find examples of members who have lived after being rescued by RIT/FAST?

I agree with the quote in the article, most of these "issues" are just poor attempts to demonize the law enforcement community as a whole. Those who seek to discredit the police at every opportunity continue to ignore that police officers are our neighbors, friends, family and normal human beings, not some group of robotic storm troopers out to impose Draconian laws on unsuspecting people. Again and again they continue to make excuses for people who commit crimes by deflecting and changing the topic. I'm not ready to vilify or exonerate the Ferguson Officer, but I think he and his department (and the community) deserve a fair shooting investigation and one free of political spectacle as this situation has become.

The difference between this picture and the use of Pompier ladders for confidence building is the design. One is used as it was designed and when used properly distributes the forces in a safe manner, so on top of being a confidence builder and physical ability test, it's also a decent lesson on distribution of forces. The aerial/ground ladder bridge is being used to defy the forces for which either ladder was designed and thus the lesson will hurt.

Wow, good to know Captain. When you say designed limit do you mean weight or intended use? Always wondered if the way FDNY and other departments used their aerials to take windows voids any warranty or like you stated decertified the ladder.

I doubt any builder would "allow" you to poke windows or the like if the issue saw the light of day. I had the great opportunity to go out for dinner with two aerial engineers and a now retired FDNY Lt who asked if they could build an aerial tip that was replaceable such that they'd not require extensive testing when the FD used the tip to take windows. Their answer: It likely could be done (some have removable tip sections), but never would get past any legal counsel as there's no way anyone could guarantee the glass would be taken properly. They asked, "What happens when the operator runs it into the sill or the wall?" Far too many variables leading back to their liability. Still, always a good conversation when you can put designers/engineers in the same room with end users.

Depends, is your family member the one on the other side? I agree we shouldn't put ourselves in this kind of danger during training but this is another tool in the toolbox when it hits the fan. While not directly related to this picture or any posts I think the shift in the order of life safety in the fire service over the past few years is disheartening.The risk benefit analysis is something we should always be using but shouldn't use it as a crutch to not do our jobs. Lt. Ray McCormack said it best several years ago in his FDIC keynote speech, "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." If you haven't heard the speech give it a listen, really sums it up. Here is a great read just posted yesterday http://www.backstepfirefighter.com/2014/08/20/women-and-children-first-by-dave-leblanc/ I am sure I will take a beating for this but again I am not promoting any unsafe acts or "John Wayne time", just think we need to take a step back and see what our "progression" looks like from the eyes of the public.

I'm in agreement with your overall view, but with regard to the original post photo I think the risk is too great, as the real "reward" is merely a confidence measure. Many of us have done things beyond our training, some more often than others, but there will always be that time that a little more length is needed, you need to crawl that much further, the heat is just above what most would consider safe to endure. These one-offs will always exist and we will never be able to train everyone for every eventuality. What we can do is train beyond the everyday routine to ensure we're ready, but we do owe it to our families and the families of those who work for us to not accept undo risk when the reward is not directly in front of us.

The only thing that picture proves to me is that some people will do anything they're told. Does anyone believe the rest of the fire service that doesn't take part in this kind of "confidence testing" really all "Sally's"? There is something to be said for a person who has enough presence of mind, self-confidence and sense to hesitate and question some orders, not all of us are 100% right 100% of the time.

For example, let's say Engine 134 was on an EMS assist at the Beach Shopping Center and Engine 131 was out of service because that firefighter was on an ALS call in Mohegan.

During this time, a structure fire with entrapment on Welcher Ave came in (the opposite end of the city). How would the Peekskill Fire Chief explain that the closest fire engine (Engine 130) was out of service because they weren't out on an ALS call, but riding in a BLS call because the VAC couldn't get anything but a driver.

One might assume that the Fire Chief has either been directed by the municipality to assist the VAC or has gotten approval to do so, in which case he'd like say that is what you get when you don't fully fund a FD. How is this any different than if the same engine is tied up on a BS run? The community generally determines the level of risk they're willing to accept vs. the costs. I get the thought process, but there is a point where many (most) communities will not fund staffed fire apparatus due to the low volume of fire calls. This outcry over a one man engine?

For many of us underfunded/understaffed FD's, you take any excuse you can to get another firefighter on shift. If I hire someone to do EMS and that occurs 2 to 3 times a day, the other 5, 8, 10, 0r 22 hours a shift I have one more on duty firefighter. That's a win in small town America. The key is being honest with the taxpayer about what their getting and the risks, ultimately they'll decide the level they are comfortable with.

I might add that in small town America where the daily fire problem is little to non-existent, a citizen in distress is an active emergency that is addressed, we don't withhold care "in case something else happens", when statistically it won't. As call volumes grow, the staff either needs to grow with it, or the second call is slower to be answered, again, at the final determination of the taxpayers. All you can do is educate them, falsely hiding your deficiencies only harms the public and the membership.

This goes to show, yet again, you can never underestimate how stupid people can be.

We see the very same issues in our area. Basically, like the fire service, most EMS services are not honest with their taxpayers as to the true costs of providing the proper standard of care in 2014. This is not a new issue, this is the norm. In Maine the powers that be, in their infinite wisdom adopted (bought) an EMD plan and require the dispatch centers to air the appropriate determinant codes, but failed to train the EMS agencies on how to implement them or how to address what is expected when a Delta level call is received and the service does't have ALS available. Mot days at least 75% of the VAC's ignore the EMD codes, go to the see with BLS then determine if the EMD code was appropriate and request ALS from their preferred mutual aid partner (the one's that won't charge).

In the end the cost of providing the Standard of Care in 2014 is being pushed down to the responder levels, where the EMT on scene must make a determination on the level of care the patient receives and money is a factor. Those people in administrative levels of EMS services ignore their responsibility to properly insulate their responders from needing to factor in costs when providing care. When you have a patient in your bus, you should only be making decisions based on the quality of care that's most appropriate for the patient.

I prefer "negative smoke or fire from the exterior." Less vague so nothing can be confused or misconstrued...

We have on officer that uses something close to this. My question is can we not assume that an arrival report is "from the exterior"? Are we so scared of something that the details must be included? Are people confused that no smoke may still mean there's fire showing? Or is you report fire, must you also note the smoke? I actually don't care what is said, but I do like the same phraseology to be used by everyone in the same department, but that's just me. We use: "Nothing showing, will be investigating".

I think it has far less to do with what the words are, and much more to do with what those hearing the report do. I fail to see why reporting there are no visible smoke/fire conditions is a problem. Please enlighten some of us as to the issue?

Is it acceptable for a mid mount tower ladder to fully extend in the center of the rear of the truck?

Hard to understand your question? Excluding body/cab avoidance, our tower can be extended to full extension for all 360 degrees of rotation so long as the outriggers are fully deployed. Now if you're asking about extending the bucket without deploying the outriggers over the centerline of the truck.. At what elevation? And acceptable to who? Jacks stabbed down or stowed?

I'm a little unclear as to the "defects of the masks" that may be found? A few things come to mind at first glance: 1)At some point every FF must be responsible for his/her own safety and health, so properly checking your seal is necessary and cannot be passed off. 2) if the mask is defective, the air will pass by and leak out faster, which is a hazard, but will not allow CO and other gases in, until you're out of air (no one is using demand type SCBA right?)