AFS1970

Date: 09/03/2014
Time: 00:18
Location: 29 Bittersweet Ln, Cross Streets
District: Turn of River
Units: Turn of River: E64, K68 (Tanker), V617 (LT)
Long Ridge: E72, E74, K78 (Tanker)
Stamford: E8, E9, E7, T1, R1, E5 (RIT), E3, T2 (2nd Alarm), E1 & LDH1, T3 (Reliefs), U4 (Command),U6 Safety, FM101, FM107, FM109
Belltown: T45, E41, E42, C411, V415 (LT)
Pound Ridge: E112, Tanker 3
New Canaan: Tanker 8
Darien: Tanker 45
Vista: Tanker 4
Stamford EMS: M4, M901 (Supervisor), U94 (Rehab), U91 (Field Comm)
Darien EMS: 312, 316 (Supervisor)
Stamford PD: 8D (LT), 8S1 (SGT), 8S4 (SGT), 4D295, 4C58, 4E16, 4A43, 3D33, 3C29
CT State PD: Fire Marshal Unit
Description: Multiple calls for house explosion with fire.
00:22 V415 on scene reporting fire in rear of a 2 1/2 story wood frame single family residence.
00:24 C411 Requesting Tanker Shuttle from Westchester. K68 Enroute special called Mutual Aid Tankers (Call for Round Hil & Banksville changed to Pound Ridge & Darien due to location). Initial call for Noroton Heights Tanker switched to Vista due to Tanker Out of Service.
00:51 U4 calls a Second Alarm
00:56 Red Cross Notified for victim relocation
01:02 2nd Floor has Collapsed - Exterior Operations.
01:06 CL&P requested Priority 1
02:14 Tanker Shuttle shutting down, most mutual aid units released except for E112. K68 remaining as sole tanker.
03:43 FM101 calling for State Fire Marshal
04:43 8S4 assuming Police Sector from 8S1
05:35 U4 requesting DPW with backhoe or payloader to assist with moving debris
06:40 T3 Responding for relief crew

This had been going around Facebook today

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.

I think this horse has been beaten beyond recognition. Yes 2 in 2 out is for our safety. Yes, we may stray from it under certain circumstances.
Yes Rit is 2-2's cousin and again for our safety. As far as I can see, straying from RIT rules is treading on dangerous turf because we have left our interior people out to dry.
Yes, a consolidated FD would do a world of good for Southern Westchester. As for Northern Westchester I believe the residents make enough money to support a paid department. Check out real estate values if you don't believe me.
One more thing to ponder:
A FF who gets 5 feet in the front door and makes a grab gets a medal. The guy that searches a whole house and finds no victim gets nothing. Who's task was more difficult, more dangerous?

I think STAT213's post is a good way to end this discussion. He gives some good advice and hopefully some will listen.
For the record, EMTBravo and me supports Westchester County Police Department and it's mission based on numerous years experience and familiarization with the agency.. It's one of the very few agencies in Westchester that truly understands and utilizes the "shared services" concept. I'm dismayed that there are some people who forget this equipment is there to protect us all who are in Westchester, resident or not. We're very lucky to have these relatively standard (to most major metropolitan areas PDs across the country) resources available to us. And lucky enough to have officers brave enough to man these type of units. It's unacceptable to bicker for bickering's sake and cause misconceptions on issues like this.
To anyone STILL questioning the need, please re-read my post below:

Sort of related to this is a bit of a story.
I heard of one department that had a somewhat secret way of letting members know how many were on board. This was not an official method and to the best of my knowledge the Chiefs were unaware. It was just a clue to other FF's to high tale it to the station if the secret code was not used. I thought it was an innovative way of doing this but the problem with any secret is that in order for it to work, people have to know what it means and if people know what it means those you are keeping the secret will eventually learn the truth. I don't think this is used any more in that department.
This idea was when responding to a call and having less than 4 FF's or (as it was explained to me) less than 4 GOOD FF's the unit signed on the way everyone else did "Engine X responding"
If the unit had a full crew of GOOD FF's the officer would simply insert the word company into the phrase and say "Engine Company X responding"
To most people it would not sound odd and if it did would be taken as a buff thing, not a secret code. The members listening to pagers would know if they heard the word company they were probably not going to the scene.

It is also supposed to be the job of the fire service to be able to be that strength in the face of an emotional event. We have all heard the story, which I think is really an urban myth, of the woman telling you her baby is inside and needs to be rescued. The Firefighters go in and find that the baby is either a 35 year old who self rescued or a pet. However it is the emotional effect of the word baby that drives the immediate entry to go make that grab, even if that drive entails a pre RIT entry. Asking who or what baby is would solve this problem, but does anyone ever ask this?
As a kid I was taught once a year in school (because fires only happen in October) about meeting places. When I started doing public education I pushed this and also told adults to make sure they knew if everyone who was supposed to eb there was there. But I also told them that we were still going to search the whole house anyway. We were all trained that we still do the primary, and I can't help but think that this is due to knowing that the escapees will not have a complete picture or will not give accurate information in a stressful state.
These are exactly the reasons that the exemption for the known life hazard is in the standard, however I have always been told that the hazard has to be know to the rescuer (or at least the IC) and not the resident. So being told someone is in the house is a suspected rescue, seeing someone in a window is a known rescue.
As for working without manpower, well in this we are our own worst enemy. However I don't think I would have it any other way.
If you are in a department that say normally goes out with 3 man crews and your manpower is reduced to 2 man crews by something beyond your control what do you do? Yes there may be some increased mutual or automatic aid, but we all know that because of who firefighters are, they will work harder to get the job done with less resources. That reduced crew (or department as a whole) will push ahead, will figure out new ways to pack hose or carry ladders, they will redeploy apparatus in order to do more with less. We will even discuss on line how to make rescues without RIT teams in place.

And there goes the thread.
Bottom of the hill, his point is a valid one.
It, however is, like many other posts on here, lost in the delivery. As soon as you call me names, or insult me or my involvement in whichever service I'm in, you've lost me.
It is VERY easy right now to type away on your computer, phone or whatever device a snappy reply to an internet posting. If it makes you feel good when you're typing it, wait 24 hours to post it.
Best to keep your virtual mouth shut and let folks wonder if you're an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt.
Now, as for that sexy black pooooooleece truck...riddle me this...how many times a year is it used? And by used I mean driven to a scene where stuff on it gets deployed. Not just parked.
And, how far away is the next closest one like it? If we ALL asked those questions when specing apparatus, think where we would be!
Regardless, it is a nice pic, Seth. Thanks for posting it.

In the volunteer fire service its a lack of properly trained FF's committed and/or available to respond on demand; in the career service its a lack of funding for proper staffing; everyone wants proper staffing levels, but either don't want to raise taxes or shift funds to pay for it. In all honesty, I don't expect it to change materially much in our lifetimes given the current mindset of our politicians and voters.

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

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

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."
When will the madness end???

I was going to bring this same idea up. I read an article and I think listened to a pod cast a few years ago about a concept called the Safety Engine. Other than adding a new title to the RIT / FAST debate, it outlines some basic not rescue duties of this crew.
Interestingly enough it placed them under the Safety Officer in ICS and not directly under the IC. This was because this type of operation was seen as a safety issue and it took direct supervision of any single unit from the IC so as not to bog down the guy who has to look at the big picture.
From what I can remember this crew would assemble all the required equipment for RIT operations, then instead of standing around waiting did 2 main things. 1 was to get at least one ground ladder to the second floor on each side of the building. This way they were either in place for a bail out or could be easily moved should a bail out or rescue at another point on that side be needed. 2 was in 2 teams of 2 (assuming a 4 man company) they did a secondary exposure size up to learn the building and any special rescue considerations that will be factors should a RIT operation start. One team does sides A/B or 1/2 and the other does sides 3/4 or C/d. They come back to the Safety Officer and report the findings before assuming the common stand by.
I will say that the one time I was a RIT officer I tried the size up idea. I lost 2 of my 6 guys doing this because they were grabbed by a Chief on the other side of the building and sent inside the building. When I asked them what happened they said the Chief told them to do it so they followed his orders. To be fair they probably did not like being RIT and would take any excuse to get out of that assignment and that Chief was an old timer who did not fully understand RIT and frequently either reassigned a RIT or allowed a RIT to freelance. Which goes back to the original question of how we apply the concept.

I was going to bring this same idea up. I read an article and I think listened to a pod cast a few years ago about a concept called the Safety Engine. Other than adding a new title to the RIT / FAST debate, it outlines some basic not rescue duties of this crew.
Interestingly enough it placed them under the Safety Officer in ICS and not directly under the IC. This was because this type of operation was seen as a safety issue and it took direct supervision of any single unit from the IC so as not to bog down the guy who has to look at the big picture.
From what I can remember this crew would assemble all the required equipment for RIT operations, then instead of standing around waiting did 2 main things. 1 was to get at least one ground ladder to the second floor on each side of the building. This way they were either in place for a bail out or could be easily moved should a bail out or rescue at another point on that side be needed. 2 was in 2 teams of 2 (assuming a 4 man company) they did a secondary exposure size up to learn the building and any special rescue considerations that will be factors should a RIT operation start. One team does sides A/B or 1/2 and the other does sides 3/4 or C/d. They come back to the Safety Officer and report the findings before assuming the common stand by.
I will say that the one time I was a RIT officer I tried the size up idea. I lost 2 of my 6 guys doing this because they were grabbed by a Chief on the other side of the building and sent inside the building. When I asked them what happened they said the Chief told them to do it so they followed his orders. To be fair they probably did not like being RIT and would take any excuse to get out of that assignment and that Chief was an old timer who did not fully understand RIT and frequently either reassigned a RIT or allowed a RIT to freelance. Which goes back to the original question of how we apply the concept.

I was going to bring this same idea up. I read an article and I think listened to a pod cast a few years ago about a concept called the Safety Engine. Other than adding a new title to the RIT / FAST debate, it outlines some basic not rescue duties of this crew.
Interestingly enough it placed them under the Safety Officer in ICS and not directly under the IC. This was because this type of operation was seen as a safety issue and it took direct supervision of any single unit from the IC so as not to bog down the guy who has to look at the big picture.
From what I can remember this crew would assemble all the required equipment for RIT operations, then instead of standing around waiting did 2 main things. 1 was to get at least one ground ladder to the second floor on each side of the building. This way they were either in place for a bail out or could be easily moved should a bail out or rescue at another point on that side be needed. 2 was in 2 teams of 2 (assuming a 4 man company) they did a secondary exposure size up to learn the building and any special rescue considerations that will be factors should a RIT operation start. One team does sides A/B or 1/2 and the other does sides 3/4 or C/d. They come back to the Safety Officer and report the findings before assuming the common stand by.
I will say that the one time I was a RIT officer I tried the size up idea. I lost 2 of my 6 guys doing this because they were grabbed by a Chief on the other side of the building and sent inside the building. When I asked them what happened they said the Chief told them to do it so they followed his orders. To be fair they probably did not like being RIT and would take any excuse to get out of that assignment and that Chief was an old timer who did not fully understand RIT and frequently either reassigned a RIT or allowed a RIT to freelance. Which goes back to the original question of how we apply the concept.

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?

A recap for the guy in the street who have to put the fire out. Some are rules, some are things I learned along the way
RIT in a nutshell:
1. OSHA says if 2 are in, two must be out. Both must be qualifed as interior structural firefighters. This can be waived for a known rescue situation, but only temporarily
2. OSHA also says if there are more than 2 in, you still only need 2 out. Common sense says you must add to RIT team as conditions warrant.
3. Your RIT team is only for emergencies and is there only to protect the interior members. You cannot use them for other things.
4. If you use your RIT as noted in #3, you must establish a new RIT asap. Using RIT=call for an additional alarm
5 You can make a company RIT or more than one company RIT(appoint a RIT leader they are now a GROUP under ICS) They must all be interior qualified
6. Even if you go defensive, leave your RIT in place
7. A SCBA lasts about 20 minutes,.,,tops
8 One downed firefighter takes 2 companies to effect his rescue

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?"

Good question Bill and great response antique.
Ok I'm caught up.

The rule does not say that for EVERY 2 inside there needs to be 2 outside. If this were the case it would quickly turn into the 4/4, 10/10 or even 100/100 rule as an incident grew. This would mean almost no department in the world would be compliant. It does say that for any interior operation there have to be 2 outside ready to be deployed. Now this leads to the next bit of confusion.
In the fire service everyone loves to have battles over regulations. It is almost a national pastime. various government agencies (NFPA, OSHA, NIOSH) vie for supremacy and many departments try to see how far they can push adhering to the bare minimums. Sometimes this is a manpower issue, sometimes it is a budget issue and sometimes it is an old timer issue.
The 2 in / 2 out rule has it's roots in haz-mat not firefighting. I would also say it has some roots in scuba diving. But how we apply it (which was the original question) varies greatly.
I met some guys from a few departments in upstate CT a while back in a class. In their region they considered 2 in / 2 out and FAST to be completely separate animals. They described a typical response as Department A is primary they go out the door with whatever they have, let's say 2 guys on the first engine. Department B is sent mutual aid and also has 2 guys. This engine is the 2 out engine. They need to be on scene for the first engine to go to work. However Department C is also coming mutual aid, sometimes from more than a town away with a 4 man engine to be the FAST. They can be en route while operations are going on because the 2 out engine is there.
Now as this OSHA reg developed into RIT / FAST programs, we realized some things. Most career departments have 3 or 4 man crews that they do not split up. So the RIT in those departments will be more than 2. Departmetns that have had to deploy RIT have discovered that multiple teams will be needed. I think Phoenix is now sending 12 (3 rigs) but I may be mistaken. I took a class that was all RIT scenarios in a burn building lots of obsitcals. None of us were bale to rescue anyone with only 4 guys. Most RIT's ran out of air and risked becoming extra victims.
I would be tempted to say that based on this training 4 is not enough, but Pete brings up a good point in saying that not having a FAST in place does not seem to be that big a factor in LODD reports. I doubt the data is there but I would hazard a guess that having too small a RIT is not much of a factor either, except perhaps when there are multiple FF's that need to be rescued simultaneously. However in all cases FAST's get supplemented by other crews on scene.
As for counting those with other responsibilities or of lesser qualifications as the 2 out, this is very dangerous. As has been pointed out those tasks still need to be done. However I will use a SCUBA scenario to prove the point. Would you send two divers into the water, knowing that your 2 out were two line tenders that could not swim and had never used a respirator?

I live in Chesapeake, VA now, and distance between firehouses are much more than he mile or two I was used to in the northeast. In the rural areas of this city of 215,000, there are places where the first due engine (a tanker) is close to10 min for the run to the scene. Second due is another 10 min. As we have learned, a typical fire doubles every 10 min, so with 3-man companies, the first due cannot make entry legally and must wait for the second due to make entry. That means the fire has grown to four times the size it was when the homeowner called 911. Aside from an exterior knockdown and wait for another company, there's not much OSHA will let you do.
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. What happens to the Officer and FF? They are heros and OSHA keeps its mouth shut.
But let's say the baby dies because the ff was waiting for the 2-out?. OSHA again is probably silent.
If the baby dies and the FF is injured? OSHA hangs everybody
The Motto if the story: Life is not fair, OSHA will probably hang you, and FF's usually listen to their conscience when they calculate Risk Assessment.

Other than the weapons a lot of focus has been on the uniforms. Now I personally think some of the newer uniforms are bordering on the ridiculous, but that aside, they are often saving money for the taxpayers. CT State Police still uses custom made uniforms.\, I think a pair of pants is priced out somewhere in the $50 to $60 range. A pair of BDU's at any surplus store is in the$20 to $30 range. Should it matter that there are more pockets or drawstrings at the cuffs? If any agency could cut even half of their budget that way, we should be applauding them.
I have read about people complaining about the so called "tactical vests" which have pockets and straps but are also carriers for the body armor. These are generally worn on the outside of the uniform because the pockets would be useless otherwise. However the complaints always about how it looks. Most of the public would never suggest that the police stop wearing body armor, just that they don't want to see it. Seeing armour makes the public lift their heads from the sand and realize that various liberal policies have armed the bad guys more that then good guys.
I noticed something interesting when I was in Canada a couple fo months ago. Considering it is a country that claims to have gotten rid of all those nasty hand guns. Almost every private security officer I saw in my travels was not only wearing body armor, but wearing it on the outside of their uniform. Some in contrasting colors, and some blending in with the uniform. In this country there are security companies that do not allow body armor because they have decided they do not face that kind of threat. However if private security were to do that here, there would be calls to stop the militarization of security.
Just because the military does something does not make it bad. Almost everything on our uniforms has some historical military connection, no matter if the modern use if police, fire or EMS, yet nobody complains about that. This is just a new fad among the pro-crime lobby to try and make it easier to victimize the public.

There's no such thing as "ordering" people to shelter in place. It's just like a "mandatory evacuation". You won't get arrested for violating it, you're just an idiot.

Also, SRS, that word you're looking for is "rioter" not "protester." That's what you call it when people throw rocks, bottles and Molotov cocktails at Police Officers.

And if reporters are dumb enough to stand in the middle of a riot, they don't get to complain about getting hit with tear gas.

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.

The rule does not say that for EVERY 2 inside there needs to be 2 outside. If this were the case it would quickly turn into the 4/4, 10/10 or even 100/100 rule as an incident grew. This would mean almost no department in the world would be compliant. It does say that for any interior operation there have to be 2 outside ready to be deployed. Now this leads to the next bit of confusion.
In the fire service everyone loves to have battles over regulations. It is almost a national pastime. various government agencies (NFPA, OSHA, NIOSH) vie for supremacy and many departments try to see how far they can push adhering to the bare minimums. Sometimes this is a manpower issue, sometimes it is a budget issue and sometimes it is an old timer issue.
The 2 in / 2 out rule has it's roots in haz-mat not firefighting. I would also say it has some roots in scuba diving. But how we apply it (which was the original question) varies greatly.
I met some guys from a few departments in upstate CT a while back in a class. In their region they considered 2 in / 2 out and FAST to be completely separate animals. They described a typical response as Department A is primary they go out the door with whatever they have, let's say 2 guys on the first engine. Department B is sent mutual aid and also has 2 guys. This engine is the 2 out engine. They need to be on scene for the first engine to go to work. However Department C is also coming mutual aid, sometimes from more than a town away with a 4 man engine to be the FAST. They can be en route while operations are going on because the 2 out engine is there.
Now as this OSHA reg developed into RIT / FAST programs, we realized some things. Most career departments have 3 or 4 man crews that they do not split up. So the RIT in those departments will be more than 2. Departmetns that have had to deploy RIT have discovered that multiple teams will be needed. I think Phoenix is now sending 12 (3 rigs) but I may be mistaken. I took a class that was all RIT scenarios in a burn building lots of obsitcals. None of us were bale to rescue anyone with only 4 guys. Most RIT's ran out of air and risked becoming extra victims.
I would be tempted to say that based on this training 4 is not enough, but Pete brings up a good point in saying that not having a FAST in place does not seem to be that big a factor in LODD reports. I doubt the data is there but I would hazard a guess that having too small a RIT is not much of a factor either, except perhaps when there are multiple FF's that need to be rescued simultaneously. However in all cases FAST's get supplemented by other crews on scene.
As for counting those with other responsibilities or of lesser qualifications as the 2 out, this is very dangerous. As has been pointed out those tasks still need to be done. However I will use a SCUBA scenario to prove the point. Would you send two divers into the water, knowing that your 2 out were two line tenders that could not swim and had never used a respirator?

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).