antiquefirelt

Wow, I go away for a few days and have to catch up.
1) you are correct, but in addition to being retroactively addressed, this really leaves the dept and possibly its leadership open for litigation if a FF is injured or killed and the dept. knowingly is violating this law.
2) As Fire Medic put it:"the 2 in / 2 out rule is that it really wasn't written with the fire service response to building fires in mind." It was written for industry, some hazmat issues, some fire brigade issues and Confined space issues. The idea was if you need SCBA or Supplied Air to stay alive in a work place, then you need a back-up. OSHA never said: "You Only Need 2", they said "you need a minimum of 2"
3) Its not really a trap, because the law says you can suspend the 2 out, when their is a known life hazard in the IDLH environment and you are attempting to make a rescue.
4) OSHA's interpretation is that anyone who is performing a critical roll outside the IDLH environment can not be considered part of the 2 out. So the pump operator who is not pumping can be part, but if leaving the operating pump might put others at risk than no. The IC has a critical roll (in getting more help) and it has been argued that he should never be part of the 2 out.
5) You are correct. NFPA 1710 does address this, by calling the 2 out an IRIC (immediate rescue intervention crew) and once a working fire is declared the standard is it needs to go to 4 members (RIC or FAST).
The real issue here is not enough manpower. and depts. that fight this are the ones how have the least manpower.
1) agreed
2) since the pump operator may not be part of the 2 out (once committed to pumping) and the IC clearly is not, the issue is do you (and by you I mean any FD) respond with enough interior firefighters to safely operate?
3) agreed
4) agreed, but does the ruling help your department prevent dropping down to an even lower response just by the fact the standard exists?
5) Universally true. Remember it was not the intent to rescue from an IDLH that was also on fire, zero visibility, high heat, deteriorating conditions. just a stable work place with an IDLH atmosphere.
6) No where does it prevent ff's from attacking an incipient fire or potentially a fire in the free burning stage. Everyone appears to have missed that one.
Personally, I find too many depts. that are unwilling or unable to send enough firefighters to any incident, much less an active fire. THis should be a major tool to help depts. fight for minimum staffing.

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?

I don't think we're on different pages. I think we're just looking at this from different perspectives and that's cool. I get that you think it's OK to "do what you have to" with what you've got and you're probably right. The two FF you reference probably can make a difference but that should be the exception, not the rule. Almost every OSHA regulation came about because we (not just the fire service) were doing stupid things that endangered worker safety.
The other problem is not every FF has the training, experience and/or wits to make the judgement calls that you speak of. Without that experience, they will put themselves into far more dangerous situations and eventually reach that point of no return. Think about bnechis's post about training at the FDNY Academy and differences between "upstate" crews and FDNY crews. At least those guys have the benefit of that kind of training and experience, the majority do not!
My issue is that they should never be put in that position because there shouldn't be just two qualified FF operating at a fire. The IC shouldn't be put in that position either. Bottom line is there are entirely too many departments that operate without enough personnel on a regular basis and without regulations and standards it would only be worse.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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. Yes there will always be the unpredictable/unforeseen events that unfold at an Incident causing both death and serious injuries to members but how many times are these unfortunate outcomes caused by our own members, both directly and indirectly, thru poor Strategy/Tactics and piss poor decision making on ones part, no matter what their Rank is. As Ive said numerous times, we are our own worst enemy more so then often and are to quick to point fingers and blame to cover up our mistakes. JMO.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'll bite. I really don't correlate those who propose safe fireground practices with writing off civilians. Most fire service leaders who advocate these changes are doing their jobs and looking to protect their members. The thought that our attempt to be safe on the fireground is killing or going to kill more civilians in fires is backed up by what? They are dying because they don't have working smoke detectors. The fact is the vast majority of fireground traumatic fatalities occur when there was no legitimate civilian life hazard. Are there savable civilians who die in fires? Probably but I doubt the cause is a safety mindset in the fire service. If we could get some departments on scene faster and train all our members to be on their A game when they get off the rig we'd be better serving the civilians that count on us. When the homeowner meets you on the lawn and says everyone is out should get treated differently then when you pull up and 3AM and no one meets you. Those the preach things like aggressive search regardless of intelligence gathered during size-up are pandering to the group that wants to hear that. I get it we all want be aggressive and fight fires but being a professional is not about doing want we want to do but doing what we should be do.

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.

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.

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.