FFPCogs

I found this on the other site I frequent about this topic. In that forum the discussion has in part delved into "unsafe" (old) practices vs "safe" (new) practices and this article was linked as a part of that discussion: http://community.fireengineering.com/profiles/blog/show?xg_source=activity&id=1219672%3ABlogPost%3A588931&cmpid=EnlFireEngWeeklyNovember132013 While I'm sure will take a look at it I'll leave you with this excerpt that I think sums it all up. "If your mindset from the moment you hang your coat on the rig is to avoid risk, you are in the wrong profession. Risk avoidance places someone else at a greater risk. By being a smart firefighter, by reading, learning, training over and over again, you will learn to manage risk. Your training needs to be about not just getting it right, but training until you can’t get it wrong. Your training needs to be realistic, repetitive and relevant. It must be based on your SOPs, your environment, your resources and equipment. If you train like this, then you will know that the preconceived notions of todays Fire Service are no way to manage a fireground. Taking the path of least resistance, because you think it is safer and because of a blanket statement, not based on fact is unacceptable. It isn’t what you signed up for, it isn’t what your citizens expect and it creates a dangerous mindset that will eventually lead you to be ineffective as a firefighter/fire officer, and possible more dangerous than those ‘cowboys’ you call out.

And good ones at that they are.

For what it's worth here's my $.02 You're right it doesn't make any sense. It's up to the volunteers to demand better training and the closure of loopholes which allow different standards. It's up to fire the service to develop the means by which that training is achievable by all.

Just a quick word on this. Unlike ship fires, structural fires don't generally enjoy that level of compartmentalization. Hence the idea of confining a fire by closing interior doors and then hitting it from the outside really isn't applicable in most cases. On top of that if we're going to enter to confine the fire in this manner, why not just attack the fire while we're in there. On another note Here's a brief outline of "old" vs "new" tactical objectives for anyone interested, for my part I'll stick with the old:

This topic has had a bit of discussion on another forum. I'll sum up my view like this: There is a time and place for every tactic, old and new alike. To discount any of them is to limit ourselves and thereby do a disservice to those we serve and ourselves. A well rounded firefighter or Fire Officer takes it all in and then based on all that knowledge and their own experience applies the right tactic at the right time in the right place. I'll also add my general criteria for utilizing the transitional attack on a house fire: (Obviously different fires present different scenarios so there is always flexibility based on the conditions upon arrival) 1) NO known life hazard and the place is really rockin' i.e. fire out of 4 or more windows or backdraft conditions present 2) Exposures directly threatened 3) Limited manpower

Sorry but I just read this guys full bio and while he makes some valid points, I'm not sold on his views. Seems he's spent much of his 28 years teaching firefighting and not practicing it.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would advocate going back to the good ole days of no hoods, that is simply foolishness. But neither should we go so far as to discount using heat as an indicator of your environment either. It is but one of a number of factors such as visible fire conditions prior to entry, building construction and reading smoke that we should all be paying attention to when working an aggressive attack. Nor should we ever become completely reliant on our technology to give us signs. Thermal imaging cameras, heat guns and heads up displays are great tools too, but they are just that, tools. And like any tool they work best in conjunction with our senses and experience, not as replacements for them.

I have to agree as well. When you start feeling heat to the point of discomfort you're already in a precarious position, so the "better" the protection the longer it takes to feel the environment around you, thus making you actually less safe. I also wholeheartedly agree with ongoing size up and strongly advocate knowing your buildings and how they react when on fire. On the other hand, and I won't speak for anyone else, but most fires I've been in have tended to be situations of total or near total smoke blindness. As such as part of my personal size up while working a fire attack or search I have had no other means of determining my immediate situation other than the heat I'm feeling. I think it is imperative that members thoroughly know all of their equipment, how to use it and it's limitations and that includes working in their PPE. This happens through training. My VFD doesn't get alot of work so what I try to do in training is simulate actual fire environments in terms of smoke and heat so guys get accustomed to feeling what working in "normal" or should I say safe heat feels like. This is a valuable aid in helping them to gauge conditions when working for real out in the field. Flashover simulators while a great training tool, are just not the same as actually working in that environment. And while training fires in burn buildings are a far cry from the real thing in the field, they are for all intents and purposes the best tool we have in that regard. BTW I'm not sure of what brands are the best but here's a tip for your hoods taught to me by one of my mentors. Sew the back flap of your hood to the inside of your turnout coat where it normally sits when donned.

I put my info here because I choose to put a "face" to the comments I make and I have no problem standing behind my comments...otherwise I wouldn't and quite frankly shouldn't be making them. And while I will always respond to questions or attacks on my views, I don't put much stock in contributions by anonymous posters. It has been my experience over the last few years of my membership here that some of those who post anonymously tend to be those who cannot have a civil conversation, nor accept a differing opinion, the right fighters and the egomaniacs. Here as in life outside the virtual world more often than not it is the sh!t stirrers and ignorant that need hide in the shadows, for they have neither the courage nor the intelligence to stand behind their words to defend them.

I don't know, nor do I care, what this Chief was doing, that business is between him, his Department and those who foot the bill. But what should be clear to everyone by now is that we are ALL under scrutiny...everyday, everywhere, anytime, any place. Whether it's driving dept vehicles or simply wearing FD apparel think before you act...or speak. A moment of carelessness and you just might find yourself plastered all over Youtube, and the fodder for forums like this...or worse still, in the unemployment line on the evening news trying to explain yourself.

Hollywood

Forgot to add...if it's not good enough for them, well then it sure as hell isn't good enough for me!

Ever heard the phrase "lead by example"? Well what I'd like to know is, if this coverage is supposed to be so great for all why aren't Congress and the Prez lining up to be the first in line to sign on to it instead of making themselves exempt? What the hell kind of leadership is that? Which leads to another appropriate axiom..."actions speak louder than words"...I think it's pretty loud and clear what their actions are saying in this case and it speaks volumes.

If the Feds pay that means all of us that work pay...that's where the Feds get all the money they waste, our tax dollars. Unless of course they're giong to just borrow more from China and mortgage away more of our children's futures. Either way we're screwed. And if anyone thinks the insurance companies are going to take the hit to their bottom line, well I'm sorry that's nothing more than wishful thinking at best. Business, especially big corporate business, is in business to make a profit for the corporation and it's shareholders, not to help the needy or do the right thing...and with one of the most powerful lobby's in D.C. to protect that profit, well it's a sure thing that the profits will go nowhere but up.

Letter from the IAFC in regards to this issue: http://www.iafc.org/files/1GR/gr_commentIRS4980H.pdf I would say that if this is going to negatively impact your FD you should get a campaign going to make sure the powers that be in DC are aware of it and why. Obviously the more that do so the larger the impact on Crapital Hill.

Whether or not a paid department would've made a difference here is irrelevant for a few reasons: 1st off since there wasn't a paid department in place in Seaside Heights at the time of this fire, it's impossible to tell if their presence would've made a difference under the conditions present upon arrival. We can speculate all we want about response times, staffing or tactics, blah blah blah, it doesn't matter. Things were as they were and any number of circumstances could have placed a paid department in a position to be unavailable at that moment. 2nd paid departments do not have the monopoly on tactics, equipment or competency and that's a fact. Now if someone here was actually in Seaside Heights at the time and was there on the initial alarm and they know the Chief or officers and they know their backgrounds and competency...well then yeah to an extent, they can comment factually, otherwise it's nothing more than the speculations of Monday morning quarterbacks. I mean let's get real here, many a building(s) has burnt to the ground in career towns too and upon hindsight we learn that better resource management or deployments or tactics could have or should have been used. That's called learning and that's something we should all be doing regularly. The truth is every department makes mistakes or faces situations that test their limits and when faced with those circumstances does what they believe to be the "right" thing at the time. Should we sit here behind our keyboards and fault them for it, or worse revel in the misfortune of others to justify our point of view? No we shouldn't unless we were there to judge based on facts. What we should do is look at the situation for what it was and what it is and do our best to learn from it, lest we find ourselves in the same situation and get the same results. Lastly, if taxpayers don't want to fund a paid department well then guess what, there isn't go to be one...end of story Stay Safe

ToR - Tanker 68 LRFCo - Tankers 73 & 78 Pound Ridge - 1 tanker New Canaan - 1 tanker Banksville - 2 tankers + Westchester County Batt 16 along with 411 as WSO's

And therein lies the key to just about any tactic. Transitional attack is just another play in our playbook, and it's one that has been around for a very long time. In fact most departments have probably employed it at fires in the past, as the incident has dictated a need for it. This tactic is neither good nor bad in and of itself, as firegrounds are dynamic and flexible situations where tactics may need to change as the incident progresses. But it isn't a one stop shopping cure all either. What is of vital import is knowing when, where, how and why to apply it to achieve the best results.

Yes it is veering off so why don't you PM me everbodygoes with the "facts" of which you speak, I'm sure your observations will be most enlightening. That said, this is a great topic that illustrates the state of Brotherhood in the fire service today, thanks Brian for starting it. Hopefully members will continue to chime in with their views and experiences..

Do what you must, as for me I will NEVER refuse a call for help no matter who it's from. Stay Safe

Well I guess it's time for pitchforks and torches again... I never could get the argument that volunteers are "taking food out of" a paid members mouth. If you're a career member in a combo dept, you show up, do your job for X number of hours and you go home. You get paid for the hours you work (the hours your contract states your entitled to at the salary you agreed to) no matter how many volunteers show up, or don't. How then are volunteers taking food out of anyone's mouth? And let's be clear overtime is NOT an entitlement, that's why it's called overtime. Now a paid member volunteering in a combo dept. is quite another story if his volunteer service directly impacts a career members ability to earn his base salary. As I stated earlier on, the most obvious (and detrimental) sign of the decline of brotherhood is the relationship between career and volunteer members. The more we accept or promote the divisive rationales like volunteers "take food" out of anyone's mouth or career members "are only in it for the money" the larger the gap and problems will grow Fire away

Pretty fitting here I think...... Do you recognize this man? Do you know his name? Lots of people know he’s an actor, and that his name is Steve Buscemi. What very few people realize is that he was once one of New York’s Bravest. In 1976 Steve Buscemi took the FDNY civil service test when he was just 18 years old. In 1980 Steve Buscemi became a New York City Firefighter. For four years, Buscemi served on one of FDNY's busiest, Engine Co. 55 in Manhattan's Little Italy. He later left the fire service to become a successful actor, writer and director. After 9/11/2001... Brother Buscemi returned to FDNY Engine 55. On September 12, 2001 and for several days following Brother Steve worked 12-hour shifts alongside other firefighters digging and sifting through the rubble from the World Trade Center looking for survivors. Very few photographs and no interviews exist because he declined them. He wasn't there for the publicity. In 2003 he also gave a speech at a union rally supporting higher wages for firefighters and to stop fire houses from closing. He got arrested along with other firefighters. Also not very well known is that in 2012 Brother Buscemi showed up in Breezy Point, NY and quietly assisted in the clean-up efforts of the damage and mass destruction left by Super Storm Sandy. Once a brother, always a brother! Just so we're clear… this guy is a Badass !!! Tip of the helmet Brother Steve! Jonathan Lusk Publisher ~ Brotherhood of Fire Captain ~ Fresno Fire, CA ~ E18C “Brotherhood Strong”

You know this is quite simple when you come right down to it. Brotherhood is really just remembering to follow a few core tenets: Treat others as you want to be treated. Remember we're here to serve so put others above yourself The wants and needs of the many outweigh the wants and needs of the few...or the one. Everyone has a place to serve and all service is valuable and important even if only in small amounts. I am who and what I am in the fire service because of those who came before me and those who serve with me. WE are the fire service, I am only one very small part of it.

Brotherhood can take on a number of different aspects. Yes without doubt firefighters talking and doing firefighting activities is surely a big part of it, but how about a few others like: When a member or spouse/ family member of a member is sick long term or gets deployed their fellow members help them out with things like, *shopping *yard work *house cleaning *babysitting or... *How about actually taking 15 minutes out of our busy schedules to visit the guy/gal in the hospital *or if need be a little financial support for the members family to help get them through and... maybe even something as simple as an ear if it's needed Here's a good one too - Treating the members you don't like as well as the ones you do...a little respect goes a long way I think you get the idea

Brian, I'm not in the military and the FFs I serve with in the sandbox are all civilians as well. To all Although some may take it otherwise, my opinion on the career/volunteer breakdown in Brotherhood is nothing more than an observation based on my experiences. As I see it that breakdown is just another case of progress destroying tradition. Stay Safe