'Old school' firefighter quits after reprimand

[Guest]

'Old school' firefighter quits after reprimand

By Nicole Macintyre

The Hamilton Spectator

(May 3, 2006)

A volunteer firefighter has quit his job after being reprimanded for using his pickup truck to get the Jaws of Life to an accident.

Larry Armes threw the equipment in the back of his truck when a fire engine at the Mount Hope station wouldn't start.

He then ignored a superior's order to turn back because another truck from an Ancaster station was already on the scene.

Both sets of equipment were used to free the trapped driver.

"He should be praised for what he did, not reprimanded," Councillor Dave Mitchell said.

"He did what any other good firefighter would do."

But fire officials says Armes's insubordination and actions risked health and safety.

"Clearly that is not the way we respond to emergencies," Hamilton fire Chief Jim Kay said.

Armes, 60, has volunteered with the rural fire station for a decade. He's walking away with a sour taste, believing he's too "old school" for the new force.

He was at work in his welding shop April 20 when a call came in about an accident on Sawmill Road with someone trapped.

Armes arrived at the station to discover the truck with the rescue equipment wouldn't start. As other firefighters left in another vehicle, Armes stayed behind with a rookie to try to get the vehicle going. When it wouldn't start, Armes said he had a choice to make.

"Stay there with the equipment and do nothing or get the equipment to the scene and possibly be able to help someone."

He threw the rescue gear in his truck and took off for the accident with the probationary officer. When he was less than two kilometres from the scene, Armes said he radioed his captain to say he was on the way. He was told to head back because another truck from an Ancaster station had responded.

Armes drove on anyway, deciding he still might be of some help. At the scene, firefighters used both sets of equipment to free the injured woman.

After a meeting with his supervisors, Armes was formally reprimanded for failing to follow orders and exposing himself, his fellow firefighter and the public to a "potential, unnecessary risk to health and safety."

Armes was reduced in rank from lieutenant to first-class firefighter for 90 days and received a black mark in his file.

He quit.

Kay stands behind the reprimand, saying the department can't allow firefighters to transport equipment on their own. The Jaws of Life contains corrosive oil, which requires the equipment to be carefully stored.

"It's a health and safety issue," he said, noting he doesn't question Armes's motivation. "He had nothing but good intentions."

The firefighters' union could not be reached for comment.

Armes said he can understand the department's rational that they don't want to encourage such behaviour, but argues the truck not starting -- due to a dead starter that was immediately fixed -- was an exceptional circumstance.

The blending of volunteer and professional fire crews has not always been smooth since amalgamation. In the past, rural volunteers did whatever was needed to get the job done, says Armes.

"... if the same thing happened again and I thought that someone was in danger and needed that equipment, I probably would do it again."

[Guest WolfEMT]

He probably wasn't reprimanded for the act of putting the Jaws in his truck. Chances are, he was reprimanded for failing to obey a direct order from a superior, and rightfully so.

[TRUCK6018 50]

I would commend the firefighter for doing what he had to do to get the equipment to the scene. Unfortunately, the bottom line is he disobeyed a direct order.

What would happen if nothing happened? That would show orders from superiors mean nothing. You can't be in a para-military force and do what you want. You would have to expect to get reprimanded. To quit afterward is just plain childish.

[Guest]

I think like you guys are saying he is both right and wrong, but his mind and heart were in the right place to help out and bring the tools for the job.

[calhobs 110]

to heck with the story did any of you catch this in the story

A volunteer firefighter has quit his job after being reprimanded for using his pickup truck to get the Jaws of Life to an accident.

The firefighters' union could not be reached for comment.

Dude sign me up for that

[BIGRED1 71]

correct me if i'm wrong but didn't he need something to run the tool? i mean if he got to the scene how many air compresses could there be? they only work one at a time. maybe he also grabbed the generator and threw that in the back also. just food for thought

[Guest Rich DD]

correct me if i'm wrong but didn't he need something to run the tool? i mean if he got to the scene how many air compresses could there be? they only work one at a time. maybe he also grabbed the generator and threw that in the back also. just food for thought

←

What the hell are you talking about? Take a rescue class!!! Most of the "Jaws of life" tools are not dependant on air compressors, or generators.

Although we do have electric powered HYDRALIC tools, most of our tools run by motors.... small portable motors.

Man........ think before you speak, and speak from knowledge.... not ignorance.

[TRUCK6018 50]

I think like you guys are saying he is both right and wrong, but his mind and heart were in the right place to help out and bring the tools for the job.

←

No, I'm not saying he was right and wrong. He was wrong. If he returned when ordered, nothing would likely have come from this. The second he disobeyed the order, he was wrong. Technically, he shouldn't have even put the equiptment on his POV without contacting an officer first. Not knowing if this captain was responding when he decided to transfer the jaws, I can't speculate further.

A volunteer firefighter has quit his job after being reprimanded for using his pickup truck to get the Jaws of Life to an accident.

The firefighters' union could not be reached for comment.

Yeah, I did pick up on this in the story. The only thing I can think of is it's a combo department with the firefighter being volly and the captain being career. If that's the case, the union would be representing the captain. Then again, this is from a newspaper article so every other word might be right.

Edited May 4, 2006 by TRUCK6018

[ex-commish 490]

I think like you guys are saying he is both right and wrong, but his mind and heart were in the right place to help out and bring the tools for the job.

←

Sometimes you have to put your heart in check and realize there are rules for reasons. We can't just do what we want when we want. People could get hurt.

Yes I will agree what he did was noble but what he did came with concenquences and as a man he should of taken his medicine instead of quitting. I would of had more respect for him.

[Jason762 2]

correct me if i'm wrong but didn't he need something to run the tool? i mean if he got to the scene how many air compresses could there be? they only work one at a time. maybe he also grabbed the generator and threw that in the back also. just food for thought

←

ECLEMENTE,

You're kidding me right???? This has to be a joke, no person with 300+ posts and as many quotes, sayings, and pictures on their emtbravo profile would think that hydraulic rescue tools were run by air compressors!!! Before we all dress up to play fireman, and talk a big game, shouldn't we all know our equipment and our job. This is the type of attitude that really aggitates me of so many volunteers. They like to play the game and act like firemen, but when it comes down to doing the job, what do they know!?!? Now before everyone jumps on me I know, most of you are not like this, but it only takes one ridiculous comment like that to make us all look bad. Do your homework, learn your equipment, and think before you speak! And by the way, there are also plenty of systems where you can run more than one tool of the same power plant...LEARN YOUR JOB!!!

[sbvfd596 2]

once again hurst tools are hydraulic.

secondly , how can a volunteer firefighter quit his job? if it's a volunteer

[jaytl42 6]

before we say who is right or wrong. Why did they end up using the tool at the scene if it wasnt needed. There could be more info to this article that happened on the scene.

[348 4]

before we beat up eclemente to much, perhaps he mistakenly put compressor. if it was not a mistake, by all means continue the beating

[x152 179]

If a volunteer is the same as paid, but does not recieve financial compensation, why can't he be allowed to quit/resign?

In some places, the position may be considered a job?

[BIGRED1 71]

guys i wrote my post at 1AM. i was just a little out of it. plus we don't use the jaws in my department so get the heck off my back about that stuff since i dont know about it.

Also i never claimed to be some know it all fireman. maybe you guys who like to criticize someone for an honest mistake should loosen up a little. Those who do know me and ACTUALLY WORK WITH ME, know i am pretty well informed with this stuff.

[Guest]

People shouldn't criticize the people Volunteer or paid. Sometimes when incident's happen, the rules have to be broken to get the job done. maybe if your life is in question, you may only then relize this.

[dfcic 0]

I agree with WolfEMT here...and I think his point is getting lost in the shuffle.

To me, this story is interesting because it is about chain-of-command, which in my mind is too often lost in the fire service (and, as a volunteer in an all volunteer department, please note that I'm not saying as much about combination or paid departments - I cannot comment on that).

As I read this, the disgruntled firefighter directly defied the authority of a superior officer, and to me there's no room for that in the fire service. Freelancing makes a fire scene less safe for all of us involved. Best intentions aside, not playing by the rules of command is bound to be destructive more than constructive.

Asstchieffd hit it right on the head.

We all have to think on our feet sometimes, and improvise, which this firefighter was clearly trying to do at first. But when you've clearly been told not to do something, stop trying to play hero and work within the overall strategy dictated by the leaders/officers.

This ties in interestingly with the "elections as popularity contest" thread that was recently revisited. Who knows, maybe the firefighter didn't think the superior officer was qualified to make such a decision. I don't know if he was or not. I guess all I can say about that is that our members will have to trust that their officers are qualified. And, we as line officers had better do everything possible to earn that trust (take classes, take classes, take classes). I don't claim to be the best line officer in this profession - heck, even in my department - but I like to think that the decisions I make will be followed by those under me; I'm basing them on my training and experience, after all.

I also agree that we can only make so many judgments from what's printed in newspapers - everyone here has probably seen first-hand how their accounts can go widely astray from the truth.

[res6cue 67]

Technically, he shouldn't have even put the equiptment on his POV without contacting an officer first.

Armes was reduced in rank from lieutenant to first-class firefighter for 90 days

He was an officer himself.

A few things bother me about this story. First of all, that there's probably a lot more to it than can be known from a single newspaper article, yet we're freely passing judgment in both directions (which I'm about to add to lol). Secondly, that this dept seemingly has more problems they should be dealing with than reprimanding a veteran lieutenant for trying to do the right thing. How about some PM on your apparatus maybe? Thirdly, I'm a little curious if the other firefighters responded in an actual piece of apparatus or another POV. The article isn't clear on that. If it was another piece of apparatus, surely they could've taken the spreader, some hydraulic hose and the portable hydraulic pump with them. It might've been a tight fit, but more than likely it was possible. If it was a POV, then shouldn't they be just about equally as guilty as this guy for responding improperly?

I would love to have all the facts on this, especially the on scene times of that mutual aid rescue vs. this guy in his pickup. It would be very interesting if this guy got to the scene first with the Jaws, and would lead me to believe the IC didn't really have a handle on the incident. All in all though, this story stinks of career vs. volly politics. The comment about "it's a health and safety issue" illustrates that pretty well. If that's the best reason the Captain could come up with, well.

Incidentally, I'm not saying the guy was right for disobeying an order. No matter how inept the person giving that order might be, or how much you feel it might be personal, unless it clearly and overwhelmingly affects life or safety, you obey it. I just think it's terribly sad that a Captain and Lieutenant can't be on the same page here.

My personal opinion is that I would not have turned him back if I was IC. I would've pulled him aside after the call to explain to him one on one that I didn't approve of his actions and in the future, that's not how a similar situation is to be handled. I also would've made sure an SOP or directive was issued outlining the proper procedure for dealing with such scenarios in the future.

[Jason762 2]

One more point, just because your dept. doesn't use "Jaws"is no excuse not to have a basic understanding of how they work (i.e. they are powered by hydraulics, not pneumatics). I think these tools are covered in FFI and in the IFSTA Essentials book, thus making them a piece of equipment that all FF's meeting the 1001 standard should have a basic idea of how they work. Maybe it's me, but I though we were all supposed to be on a level playing field...

[Guest]

He threw the rescue gear in his truck and took off for the accident with the probationary officer. When he was less than two kilometres from the scene, Armes said he radioed his captain to say he was on the way. He was told to head back because another truck from an Ancaster station had responded.

Armes drove on anyway, deciding he still might be of some help. At the scene, firefighters used both sets of equipment to free the injured woman.

Right there in the article it says he was told to stop and "drove on anyway, DECIDING he might still be of some help."

He was neither in the position nor rank to make such a decision. As said before, unless it it puts people in danger, follow your orders. Firefighting is not a "rogue" job, you work as a team, and under a chain of command. He broke a rule, was punished accordingly, and quit.

Good intentions don't always make the best plans...

[Guest]

Wow there's alot going on here - First of all, lay off Eclemente - we're all entitled to a "mess up" or 2 on these threads. There's an appropriate way to correct someone...constructively...not by jumping down the throat of a member who has posted some insightful comments.

Secondly, I agree with res6cue - they should not have turned the guy around - what purpose would that serve, other than to make him feel like sh%# for thinking on his feet - I would have pulled him to the side and made him stand-by on the scene until it was clear they only needed one set of jaws. Then I would have discussed the potential hazards of what he did. REMEMBER - at the time he pulled off in his pick-up (according to the story) he did not know there was another rig on the scene - he was acting in the best interest of the victim. Having said that disobeying the IC's command is worth a slap on the wrist...i don't know about a demotion - unless he was a repeat offender.

[Guest]

Secondly, I agree with res6cue - they should not have turned the guy around - what purpose would that serve, other than to make him feel like sh%# for thinking on his feet - I would have pulled him to the side and made him stand-by on the scene until it was clear they only needed one set of jaws. Then I would have discussed the potential hazards of what he did. REMEMBER - at the time he pulled off in his pick-up (according to the story) he did not know there was another rig on the scene - he was acting in the best interest of the victim. Having said that disobeying the IC's command is worth a slap on the wrist...i don't know about a demotion - unless he was a repeat offender.

←

I keep trying to understand the message here. Just from my experience on this part of the country, I thought it would be the same everywhere. I guess their not. I agree, what this guy did was very heart felt. Just letting him drive himself with the rescue tool in his private vehicle because his thoughts were noble is ludicrous. What happens if he gets into a wreck whether it was his fault or not. The circumstances would come out in the investigation and his insurance company would tell him that his claim would not be covered. He would be on his own. If he hit someone else, he would loose his house, retirement and everythings he worked for all his life, not to mention that his town would now be sued along with the fire department and the person in charge that "allowed" him to go because of good intentions. I often hear about units breaking down over the radio, but I never hear the captain say ",but its no problem dispatch. I got a new dually and my crew is on board with some equipment. We are en route."

Bottom line is, out here it doesn't matter whether you are a vollie of paid, you pull a stunt like that, you'll find 5 CHP patrol cars behind you along with an Air Unit, end up behind bars and loose your status or job with the agency you worked for. And never again think of being a FF unless your okay with wear one of the orange Nomex suits, cutting line at a brush fire and hiding your face when your old buddies drive by...

[Guest]

LAFire,

In my district personnel can respond in their personal vehicles and are covered by insurance - I do not know if that is the case in this gentleman's district - In some areas where there is a large amount of ground to cover responding in your vehicle is allowed. Therefore, it may not be so ludicrous that he wanted to respond in his own car. However, if his district rules say only respond in district apparatus then my feelings would be different and you would be right.

[Monty 35]

One more point, just because your dept. doesn't use "Jaws"is no excuse not to have a basic understanding of how they work (i.e. they are powered by hydraulics, not pneumatics).  I think these tools are covered in FFI and in the IFSTA Essentials book, thus making them a piece of equipment that all FF's meeting the 1001 standard should have a basic idea of how they work.  Maybe it's me, but I though we were all supposed to be on a level playing field...

←

Even though most extrication euipment is hydraulic (Powerhawk for example is electric battery), they still need a power plant. Maybe most are self contained gas engines, but there are definitely electically driven pumps too. I think there are even some water powered pumps out there.

As was recently reinforced, shame is not a good motivator, we should find another way to get our point across.

As for being on a level playing field I don't think that will ever happen. One of my main reasons for being here is to learn & get new ideas from people with more experience than me.

[CAM502 6]

Secondly, that this dept seemingly has more problems they should be dealing with than reprimanding a veteran lieutenant for trying to do the right thing. How about some PM on your apparatus maybe?

←

So in the article it says, "the truck not starting -- due to a dead starter that was immediately fixed -- ". I take it you have never had a starter go on you...I'll enlighten you a little. You see one second it works and starts your vehicle...then you park and go do some stuff...then you come back to the vehicle and low and behold NOTHING, it won't start. I wanna see you prevent it. So unless you work there or know for sure they don't care about their vehicles than who are you to make such a statement. I mean damn dude I put a brand new starter (right from the box) in a vehicle once and guess what...it didn't work.

[res6cue 67]

So in the article it says, "the truck not starting -- due to a dead starter that was immediately fixed -- ".  I take it you have never had a starter go on you...I'll enlighten you a little.  You see one second it works and starts your vehicle...then you park and go do some stuff...then you come back to the vehicle and low and behold NOTHING, it won't start.  I wanna see you prevent it.  So unless you work there or know for sure they don't care about their vehicles than who are you to make such a statement.  I mean damn dude I put a brand new starter (right from the box) in a vehicle once and guess what...it didn't work.

←

I should hope I understand how a starter works, considering I worked as an ASE certified mechanic for quite a few years. Who am I to make such a statement? I'm just like you or anyone else who forms an OPINION based on the article. Or just like you formed the opinion that I have no idea about vehicle starters and made the statement that you would "enlighten me", when obviously you don't know a thing about me, how many years of service I have or what my experience is. Do us a favor and stick to commenting on the article itself, not worrying about the opinions anyone else posts. It's bad enough some of you felt the need to tear down ECLEMENTE for not having a full understanding of hydraulic rescue tools THAT HIS COMPANY DOESN'T EVEN OWN OR OPERATE. I hope you guys feel much better about yourself now that you've shown the world your superior knowledge by "enlightening" us ignorant fools.

Seriously people, let's tone it down a little with calling each other out. There's a right way and wrong way to address something that might be bothering you, and quite frankly, some of you appear to have horrible interpersonal skills.

Edited May 5, 2006 by res6cue