"Too much safety makes Johnny a poor leader..."

[FFPCogs 863]

I'm shocked this one hasn't made it here yet, so to get the ball rolling.

What is your opinion of Lt. McCormacks remarks from the FDIC keynote speech?

During a hard-hitting keynote speech to FDIC on Thursday, FDNY Lt. Ray McCormack criticized today's leadership as being too focused on firefighter safety. "Too much safety makes Johnny a poor leader and a terrible rescuer," he said

full article and video @:

http://www.firerescue1.com/firefighter-saf...ent-not-safety/

I would urge all of you to watch his address in full as it is to me right on the money in a number of aspects aside from the obvious call for the "culture of extinguishment not safety". I couldn't agree more with that statement and with his reasoning behind it.

One more of many points in his speech which struck me, was his belief that we are "priviledged" to be a part of the fire service. Now while he may have been speaking specifically to those for whom firefighting is a career, I for one believe that it is indeed a priviledge to be a part of the fire service no matter what your status.

Any thoughts?

Cogs

Edited May 1, 2009 by FFPCogs

[ex-commish 490]

In reading some of the blogs addressing his comments I can understand both points of view and you have to ask when is enough enough when it comes to safety? When I was a chief my #1 concern was that those I was sending in came out and went home to thier families. It can be difficult to make decisions that may affect other people's lives. While I certainly respect and admire Lt. McCormacks experience and opinion I feel leaders do owe it to those under thier command that they operate safely.

As far as it being a priveledge to be a part of the fire service? Absolutely. I have been volunteering for almost 29 years and always felt priveledged to be able to serve my department and community. I also felt it was a priveledge to serve as an officer. It was a challenge that I accepted and glad I did as I served with some very good people, some still in leadership positions today.

[99subi 121]

I kind of agree. Where saftey is very important, there has been many times i feel it gets in the way.

[helicopper 1,050]

I kind of agree. Where saftey is very important, there has been many times i feel it gets in the way.

Could you or anyone else with this opinion give an example(s) of when safety "gets in the way"? I'm curious as to how/when this phenomenon occurs.

[FFPCogs 863]

Could you or anyone else with this opinion give an example(s) of when safety "gets in the way"? I'm curious as to how/when this phenomenon occurs.

As was stated by Lt McCormack when we place ourselves above those we are there to serve (which is what most safety policies can be perverted into meaning) it definitely "gets in the way" and does betray what it means to be a fireman. We ARE the last hope for many in peril, if we WON"T act because it is "unsafe" according to a procedure dreamt up in an office somewhere, the public, those we are here to protect, lose. Another aspect is that it is now common to regulate safety in place of personal and department experience or responsibility. It was/is that experience that allows us to operate safely. Experience gained not only at incidents but through thorough training in dealing with situations with what we had, not what we wanted. Over reliance on safety or should I say regulation has effectively said we CANNOT do much of what was commonplace not very long ago because it is "unsafe"..(things like entering a structure to search or initiate a fire attack alone, which by the way I have done on a few occasions successfully because I was TRAINED to do so if or when I HAD to). You know for all the blessings a "safe" culture is supposed to provide we still lose far to many FFs each year, maybe more than before absolute safety was all the rage.

I stand by my convictions that Lt McCormack's views are the right ones and that when it comes down to it the risks we should be willing to take are what it means to be a fireman.

Cogs

[ny10570 745]

Chris an excellent example from the PD world is the change in tactics after Columbine. Wait for SWAT, ESU, etc with their better armor, more powerful weapons, and more training is much safer for the officers who have to make entry. The risk off regular officers being out gunned is worth the reward of an aggressive initial attack. Same for fire.

[x648eng119 2]

I think this is a great topic, and it's going to produce some very interesting and beneficial responses.

I for one, am all for firefighter (well, not just firefighter, let me rephrase that to "responder" to cover PD and EMS too!) safety, but I do agree with the fact that when it comes down to it, we know there are risks, and sometimes have to be willing to take those risks when someone's life is in danger. Based on 99subi's post, I've never seen safety "get in the way" of an operation, but more so lead to different tactics being used to accomplish goals.

I think this is such a great discussion because so many different aspects can be brought up here. Whether it be actual fireground operations safety, response safety, or even preventative issues like rig/equiptment maintenance or firefighter physicals.

What it comes down to is calculated risks. What can I potentially gain vs what can I potentially loose, or more importantly, WHO could I potentially lose.

KEEP THE RESPONSES COMING!!!

[FDNYDCHI 38]

Its the old "risk" vs "Reward" What or how much risk in a sistuation vs. The outcome/reward

I may be a bit off but from what reading the prior posts that was my concolusion

Edited May 2, 2009 by FDNYDCHI

[JimmyPFD 11]

What it comes down to is calculated risks. What can I potentially gain vs what can I potentially loose, or more importantly, WHO could I potentially lose.

Spot on Art.

"...By this, he seemed to mean, not only that the most reliable and useful courage was that which arises from the fair estimation of the encountered peril, but that an utterly fearless man is a far more dangerous comrade than a coward."

Both men may take their brothers into harms way. Make sure it is for the right reason: the lives of those we serve, our brothers and community. Not for glory or some douche bag's plasma TV

[16fire5 693]

I will start by saying I read the article and didn't see the speech. I think this is a good discussion. I think we may still be too aggressive as opposed to over safe. The risk management comment above is dead on. I think too many times our tactics don't match the risk. Too many departments or members want to be aggressive just for the sake of saying their aggressive but aggressive is only good when needed or called for. Aggressive is good for the engine making the push but dumb for the search when there is little reason to believe someone is trapped. Operating above the fire without a hoseline is a very dangerous tactic a good argument could be made it should be reserved for known life hazards (you’re told someone is inside) not for standard search.

Here's what could be construed as safety or well intentioned things possibly having adverse effects.

1. Does our full encapsulation lead to more deaths from heart attacks than the burns they prevented? We go to fewer and fewer fires and still kill the same number of firefighters.

2. Is waiting outside a fire to get a proper number of firefighters (a minimum of 4) to conduct interior operations and letting the fire grow unchecked put us in greater danger once the attack is begun because the room and contents fire is now a structure fire? I don't know about you but between firehouse.com and the secret list I'm hearing about a lot of firefighters falling through floors weakened by fire.

I'm sure there's more and even for these two very good cases can be made for both sides and I don't think either is cut and dry. No one would be well served by going back to raincoats to fight fires but gear that keeps us cooler and a mechanism to monitor the heat of the surrounding environment would undoubtedly save lives. For the staffing argument no one thinks two person engines are effective but for many places 3 person engines are the norm (I know they are in Newburgh, and probably Westchester). Is stretching a line by a 3 person engine and putting out the fire a better option than waiting for second due? That one I really don't know because I'm lucky to work with proper staffing. If this is off topic I apologize.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Chris an excellent example from the PD world is the change in tactics after Columbine. Wait for SWAT, ESU, etc with their better armor, more powerful weapons, and more training is much safer for the officers who have to make entry. The risk off regular officers being out gunned is worth the reward of an aggressive initial attack. Same for fire.

Excellent points by both you NY and Chris.

I have to grin a bit as this was a topic of discussion that came about while having some refreshments with some colleagues last night and the debates, points and counterpoints were just as diverse as the posts here and in the blog. I agree with your point NY and also you set an excellent example with the mentioning of Columbine but I'd like to add one point that sticks out to me and is around the edges of the comment...when talking about an active shooter scenario with today's tactics employed by most PD's or the "too much safety" comment...its all about life safety. In regard to Lt. McCormack's comment...if there is a life safety risk then I have no problem pushing myself and anyone under my supervision to our maximum to save a life because that is what we are here for. But again it has to be that the benefit outgains the risk..and in my opinion and the way I interpret the comment..its a pretty fine line. There is a difference between known high risk and a suicide mission and good leaders have to know that line.

In another thought process, what exactly is your life worth? My life is worth the possibility to save another...especially a fellow firefighter. But I can never go with that there can be too much safety when it comes to the property debate. Again risk vs. benefit..but life safety is incident priority numero uno. Property conservation is #3. The risk vs. benefit line to me when there is no life safety risk for me widens at this point. I'm not going make my kids or anyone else around me fatherless for a big box store or other property where its pretty obvious that the fire or building construction makes me or others operating the life safety risk at that point.

[ny10570 745]

ALS, I don't think anyone, Lt McCormack included would disagree with that risk isn't worth taking. The issue people are starting to have is situations where say you have a daytime fire in a 3 story residential unoccupied and under renovation with similar attached on both sides. So you have no one inside the original fire building confirmed by the construction forman. Both attached have been evacuated which can easily be verified by a quick search. Second floor is well involved and you're getting smoke in the exposures. Do you make an aggressive interior attack to save the exposures or write all three off? I know there are hundreds of variations and people can debate them all. But the question is at where do you draw a line?

[FFPCogs 863]

The following is a post from another site made by a friend of a friend. While a long read it to me brilliantly illustrates my beliefs. (The highlighting is mine).

"I believe our duty to ourselves and our beloved fire service cannot be separated from our duty to the citizens we are sworn to and are obligated to protect. What is good for us is good for them. My question is, are we seeing this trend to "let it burn" because we have given-up the fight to provide our members with all of those things that are necessary to provide effective and efficient fire and rescue services? Have we rolled-over, bent-over and given up our hopes to provide excellent service and the ability to accurately assess risk? Have we allowed those that seek to undermine our mission to gain a foot-hold? Have we become complacent because we don't believe it can or will happen today? Are the enemies of the fire service going to be allowed to dismantle our combat readiness to the point where the easy or only option is to "let it burn"?

When you have a few minutes, please view the FDIC keynote speech given by Lt. Ray McCormack. It was indeed an honor for me to be present as Lt. McCormack delivered a passionate plea to the fire service, to keep fire in our lives. I couldn't agree more and as the saying goes, Ray's speech spoke to me. Rather than commenting on or adding to Ray's speech, I'll let it stand on it's own as a clarion call to the American fire service. We can't allow the "safety experts" that promote the "let it burn" philosophy to convince firefighters that we should place our safety and our lives above the lives of our citizens.

As I further pondered the question of safety as it relates to risk and our sworn duty and obligation, the reality of the situation has come into focus. The American fire service is divided into two camps. Both camps speak to their cause with passion and righteousness. In one camp are the "guardians" of safety, many of whom have decided that no building or the contents of that building are worth the life of a firefighter. The other camp seeks to direct the conversation toward our sworn duty to safeguard not only the lives of those we are sworn to protect, but their property as well. This camp of so called "reckless" firefighters is far more interested making sure that our members are competent, predictable, professional and combat ready. This camp believes that the best way to improve the safety of our members is to provide fire departments with the necessary manpower required to mount an aggressive, coordinated interior fire attack. This camp's approach requires that fire departments build battle ready fire suppression forces and dedicate the appropriate resources to demanding training programs, adherence to sound operational procedures and a constant attention to and a demand that firefighters respond to every call as if it was the real thing. And finally, we believe as Lt. Ray McCormack articulated, that the fire service is wrong to place the lives of firefighters above the lives of civilians.

The guardians of safety are not shy about their distain for the other camp, the "reckless" holdovers of a long lost era in the fire service. They seek to discredit this camp by questioning our dedication to safety, saying that we are so bound by tradition and the mentality that we do things because "we always do it that way" that we are endangering our members. I'm growing weary of defending myself and like-minded firefighters against constant attacks from the disciples of the "let it burn" philosophy. It is impossible to have a reasoned, logical discussion with someone that will use the tragic loss of a firefighter in the line of duty to justify their philosophy. Their favorite arguments are fashioned following the tragic loss of a Brother or Sister in a building that was later determined to be unoccupied. After the fact, it's easy to ask, "was that building worth a firefighters life?"

There is a fundamental difference between firefighters and the rest of the world. When we take the oath, with our right hands raised, we agree to certain things and these things become our solemn duty, our obligation. These duties include the understanding that a time may and likely will come when we have to be willing to risk everything…..to save the life of a stranger. We also have a duty and obligation to take risk for a stranger's property. That's the deal, this is what makes us different from everyone else, with the exception of the military.

To be sure, we have other obligations as husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. We have still more obligations and duties to our friends and extended families. No one wants to die; however, our duty to perform our job and our obligation to the citizens we protect rightly takes precedence when faced with the saving of a life and given a fighting chance. When our citizens, in spite of all of our education and prevention efforts, end up needing to be rescued, we are all they have. No one else will come to save them, they will surely die alone if not for our efforts.

We also have a duty and an obligation to protect their property. A person's home represents the bulk of their life's investment. Their home is filled with a lifetime of memories and priceless items that would be lost forever in an extensive fire. What is your home worth? My home remains "vacant" and "unoccupied" much of the time; however, if there was a fire in my home, I assure you that I would expect the fire department to mount an aggressive interior attack to save my property. I believe that we have that agreement that contract with our citizens. A recent fire in Chicago involved the Holy Name Cathedral. The Holy Name Cathedral was built in 1874 and it is the seat of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, one of the largest Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. What was the value of this "unoccupied" church? What level of risk is acceptable for this truly priceless property? I can tell you that the building was saved because the Chicago Fire Department mounted a aggressive, coordinated interior attack that was truly remarkable. The skill and courage displayed in extending large caliber handlines up to the attic from the interior, across narrow catwalks and through barriers to fight this fire and save this building that has so much meaning to the people of Chicago and beyond was only accomplished at great risk to the firefighters involved. If, God forbid, something had happened to any of those firefighters, we would have to answer the same questions….is there any building or property worth the life of a firefighter?

I fear that the "let it burn" movement, under the guise of safety is gaining momentum. I fear that more members of our service are falling under their spell and being convinced that we should not commit our members to "vacant" or "unoccupied" structures because no building or property is worth a life. Of course no building or property is worth the life of a firefighter. If we could know that a life would be lost before we arrive instead of after the fire is out and the investigation is completed, who would commit their members to the fight? This is why it is difficult to have a reasoned, logical and thoughtful discussion, if this is where we start, how can we ever have open and honest dialog.

I believe the safety of our members is dependant on our training, our experience and our ability to make sound decisions on the fireground, where it has always been. We must obtain and maintain a high level of proficiency in the fundamental company functions. Engine companies must be very good at quickly stretching the right size and length hose -line to the right location and getting water on the fire. Truck companies need to have excellent laddering, forcible entry and ventilation skills along with the courage and skill required to search under hostile conditions. Finally, we must have the manpower necessary to accomplish the mission.

The "let it burn" approach is, in my estimation, the easy approach to safety. The far more difficult approach is for our fire service leaders to work with our elected and appointed officials and if necessary, take up the fight provide us with the necessary manpower required to mount an aggressive, coordinated interior attack. It's hard work and takes a great deal of perseverance for our leaders to demand a high level of consistent, predictable and professional performance. It's hard to provide the kind and amount of training we need to make good, sound decisions on the fireground and to recognize changing fire conditions. It takes guts to speak-out against the complacency and laziness that is having a devastating effect on our ability to safeguard the lives and property of the citizens we are sworn to protect. Letting it burn is the easy way.

I ask you not to take the easy road, it doesn't take a great deal of skill, knowledge or training to "let it burn". I ask our leaders to dedicate yourselves to the difficult process of building properly manned, highly skilled, well trained, competent, professional firefighting forces. I ask the members to dedicate yourselves to the hard work of becoming craftsmen. Don't be satisfied to learn the basics or to maintain the minimum standard. By craftsmanship, I mean to seek out as much information on every conceivable topic by asking questions, conducting research, reading and doing. Learn the fundamentals and then go beyond the basics to create a depth of knowledge that allows you to be flexible enables you to improvise and gives you the ability to troubleshoot problems and fashion solutions."

Ultimately we all have to make a choice when the time comes. To me taking what AJ calls the "easy" road will make that choice for us and leave our citizens without what may be their only hope.

Cogs

[tonyc856 16]

I think we are confusing risk management with safety.

With risk management, we are looking at the situation and seeing if I have the means to do the job. Yes, in a safe matter. But if I have the manpower, the equipment and water to make an aggressive attack, then it should be done.

The line … it’s a part of the job that firefighters die, is not really true. Take a close look at our LODDs. Many still are dying from getting hit by the truck when backing up. Many dying needlessly during training, and from doing things that just don’t make any common sense.

A good example of this is 9/11. Those firefighters, police office and EMS workers are true heros. They had the means of doing the job safe, just that circumstances wasn’t in the cards for them.

Is it a career vs. a volunteer thing? No taking in call volume it’s pretty much equal.

At the time I am writing this we are at 37 line of duty deaths. At this rate we are looking at another 45 of our brother and sisters never coming home again. With a majority of those deaths being needless.

Yes we are to suspect that each year we will mourn the deaths of one of our brave brother or sisters who have answered their last alarm. But we need to look at that number of deaths per year and say to ourselves, how can I accept those who died needlessly and say it’s part of the job.

If I worked for a major company as a safety professional (ok it’s out … I do in the construction industry, which is just as hazardous) and I went to the board of my company and said the following:

“We are having a good year this year, so far only 37 of our employees have died, so it looks like the number will be lower this year”

Expect me to be looking for a job before the ending of the meeting.

Yes, each year firefighters will die. But, it is up to all of us, to make sure every one of our brothers and sisters make it home and be able to dance at their grandkids weddings.

[TimesUp 148]

Ray's opinion about putting the public first is right on. He is also right on about the experience which is missing from a lot of peoples resume's.

[FirNaTine 370]

Ray's opinion about putting the public first is right on. He is also right on about the experience which is missing from a lot of peoples resume's.

You got that right ltrob. I love the guys who have less then 5 yrs. on the Job, especially in slow Depts. and think they're seosoned ffs. cause they're now big time Instructors. Meanwhile the only time they get a chance to practice their skills is when their in a classroom setting. Anybody can read off of a powerpoint! Take the books away from many of these guys and watch how they perform at a true Emergency when the pressure's on. It's like the time I took a class on High Rise Firefighting and the Instructor given it was from a rural town where the tallest building in his district was 3 stories high. Where was his credibilty! I'll take experience any day over book knowledge!

[aacofd40 6]

This is a topic that we talk about at the firehouse on a regular basis. And, I could not agree more with the inability to have this conversation with the ones who use tragedy to justify their philosophy. Of course we would not take action where we knew someone was going to die.

What I feel is lost in this argument is the training discussion. We spend so much time during a shift doing inspections, running calls (EMS, MVA’s, smells and bells), and administrative work, that we do not train nearly enough. I am not talking about proficiency training with tools, but live-fire training. The number of fires is rapidly declining (a good thing) and we have gone to a 24-72 sked. So when we used to catch 33% of all the fires, we now only run 25% of them. If you play your cards right – or just have bad luck- you can catch a first due fire once every 6 or 8 months. Hard to maintain your skills at that OPTEMPO.

Safety and aggressive tactics are not mutually exclusive. You can be both – as LT McCormack and his colleagues are - because you continuously train (burn), you understand the job, you have experience, and you are familiar with the environment. There is a direct correlation between safety and training. The more you train, the more confident you become, the more proficient you are, and the safer that you are.

As a military guy, this comes second nature to us. You train like you fight. If we are not on deployment, we are training for deployment. So, when you get to the war, you are the best trained that you can be, the best prepared, and, this is the most important part, the most likely to come home safe and sound.

Be Safe,

JR

[antiquefirelt 994]

Part of the "Safety Culture" we need to address is the sudden need for everything to fit into a tidy documented algorithm. Fires are dynamic incidents with tons of variable with numerous weights given to each. There will never be a safe yet effective manner of entering these values into a computer to show the desired plan of action, yet some people fight to achieve this. How many people argue that if a house is 70% involved an interior attack is unsafe? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I know that we'll rarely agree on determining what 70% looks like? What is involved? Heavy smoke, fire?

No one on the "anti-safety side" is anti-safety. We just view safety in a different manner. I prefer my safety to come from effective decision based on solid training backed up with quality experience. Some argue that the experience is too hard to come by so we must build in technology and policy to make these decision for us.

My big issue with this debate is the people who advocate far less aggressive postures to ensure the safety of personnel above all others. The public expects that we'll assume a little more risk that they will, that's why they give us shiny trucks, expensive gear and call us when their house is burning. If we're serious about reducing risk to ourselves than lets start by addressing the number one LODD cause and demand rigorous fitness standards to all firefighters.

We can talk about air management, RIT, safety vests and "Go-No Go" policies all day, but until we're in better shape and drive better we'll still be killing more brothers and sisters than the incidents themselves.

[helicopper 1,050]

We can talk about air management, RIT, safety vests and "Go-No Go" policies all day, but until we're in better shape and drive better we'll still be killing more brothers and sisters than the incidents themselves.

Amen!

[helicopper 1,050]

So, are you saying that there should be acceptable losses in the fire service as there are in the military? Does this mean that the IC is going to say alright, your four guys are going in to make an aggressive interior attack but only three of you may come out?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here but I don't think we should ever say that a firefighter's (or PO or EMT(-P)) life is expendable and I'm shocked to read that in this thread.

[FFPCogs 863]

Never Never NEVER!!!!!! are any members considered expendable. We MUST always strive to be as safe as we possibly can, while providing the service we are here to provide. As has been oft stated in this thread the absolute best possible way to be safe is to be TRAINED and continue to train aggressively following the procedures used by YOUR department, based on what YOUR department has available. If your department relies on mutual aid, then you should be training with those mutual aid companies as much as is possible. It makse sense that companies that train hard together, work hard together. Training, experience and courage will always produce far better and safer firefighters than regulations ever will. To put it bluntly to be effective and "safe" on the fireground requires three things: Brains, Brawn and Balls in equal measure.

Chris,

I don't believe anyone is saying we should knowingly commit personnel to die, but firefighting was, is and always will be an inherently dangerous undertaking and in all frankness to think otherwise is somewhat absurd. But like most other segments of society it seems that we in the fire service are now trying to regulate or control our operations with rules and procedures instead of taking responsibility for our judgements and actions. Just as the IC is responsible for the decisions they make, so too are the firefighters for their actions on the fireground. If we cannot judge or do not know our own limitations, and how to read and understand the conditions we are facing, we are liable to make costly mistakes. That lack of judgement is OUR fault and that of our departments who have failed in training us properly. The only real way to ensure that the right choices are made is to TRAIN in making them every chance we get. But even with all the training in the world enhanced by years of hard experience fires sometimes do the unexpected and lives are lost. This is the reality of firefighting....people...firefighters DO die despite all the precautions under the sun, and as ignorant as this may seem to some this is something we all should know is the risk we ultimately face. Accepting this risk and doing our damnest in spite of it is what it means to be a fireman.

Cogs

Edited May 3, 2009 by FFPCogs

[gamewell45 258]

I'm shocked this one hasn't made it here yet, so to get the ball rolling.

What is your opinion of Lt. McCormacks remarks from the FDIC keynote speech?

During a hard-hitting keynote speech to FDIC on Thursday, FDNY Lt. Ray McCormack criticized today's leadership as being too focused on firefighter safety. "Too much safety makes Johnny a poor leader and a terrible rescuer," he said

full article and video @:

http://www.firerescue1.com/firefighter-saf...ent-not-safety/

I would urge all of you to watch his address in full as it is to me right on the money in a number of aspects aside from the obvious call for the "culture of extinguishment not safety". I couldn't agree more with that statement and with his reasoning behind it.

One more of many points in his speech which struck me, was his belief that we are "priviledged" to be a part of the fire service. Now while he may have been speaking specifically to those for whom firefighting is a career, I for one believe that it is indeed a priviledge to be a part of the fire service no matter what your status.

Any thoughts?

Cogs

While I don't agree with his line of thought (Lt. McCormack), it is an interesting concept. Makes me wonder what the fire service would look like if we jettisoned OHSA, NFPA, NIOSH, and relied on human instinct.

Edited May 2, 2009 by gamewell45

[helicopper 1,050]

Cogs, thanks for the very thoughtful response. I'm sure most people aren't advocating acceptable losses but when you read a quote like the one below it makes you wonder.

The line … it’s a part of the job that firefighters die, is not really true.

I understand the risks, there are probably just as many risks in law enforcement, but it is not a part of the job that firefighters die. It is a failure of the system when any one of us (in emergency services) dies. Virtually all line of duty deaths can be avoided even when being aggressive and doing your job. There's a saying in aviation that removing any link in the chain of events leading to an accident will prevent an accident - the same is true here. Having the best training possible, being physically and mentally fit, using the available equipment to its maximum potential, effectively managing resources, obtaining more resources when needed (and not "doing without" because you think its a sign of weakness to ask for help), changing strategies or tactics when the initial plan isn't working, etc. can all remove the link that would have led to an injury or fatality.

My only argument against your analogy is that most people don't have equal measures of brains, brawn, or balls and the one they're lacking is probably the one they needed! All too often we see the results of the balls and not the brains/brawn!

Great post!

[antiquefirelt 994]

So, are you saying that there should be acceptable losses in the fire service as there are in the military? Does this mean that the IC is going to say alright, your four guys are going in to make an aggressive interior attack but only three of you may come out?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here but I don't think we should ever say that a firefighter's (or PO or EMT(-P)) life is expendable and I'm shocked to read that in this thread.

I'm not sure who said "expendable" but that's far from my feeling. My job is to make decisions that are in the best interest of the firefighters under my command and the citizens whom we're serving. Thankfully I've yet to have to order someone to do something they felt was too dangerous, but conversely I've had to stop actions I felt were beyond the balance of risk vs reward. It's not getting easier though, experience is getting harder to come by every day. New people are far behind in experience compared to just 20 years ago.

As for the scenario above, I can't imagine saying or thinking if 3 out of 4 comes back, thats a good order, but if you've ever sent 4 guys in on an aggressive interior attack and thought there was no chance they weren't all coming out, you've fooled yourself into minimizing the risks of the job. You'd better be thinking: where are those guys? Is that line moving? Is the smoke changing? What else is going on that could hurt them? Your comfort level will be with your experience and the experience and training of that crew. You cannot expect firefighters to enter a structure with smoke and fire inside, with little information on the million variables you cannot see and know with certainty they're 100% safe, fire is far to dynamic.

To eliminate all risk to ourselves would be to tell the citizens, "You're on your own, we're here to protect your neighbors house from your house fire". And even then, we'd still be at a somewhat higher risk than average.

[FFPCogs 863]

While I don't agree with his line of thought (Lt. McCormack), it is an interesting concept. Makes me wonder what the fire service would look like if we jettisoned OHSA, NFPA, NIOSH, and relied on human instinct.

Well, I would think that in many ways things would be as they were.....maybe we'd even still be riding the back step with long coats and 3/4 boots and manufacturers would still offer open cab designs. I think from a technology standpoint much of what we now consider commonplace or indispensable would still be with us. These came about because of innovative minds and the huge advancements in computer science...I do not believe that the fire service would have been able or would have chosen, to be immune to our technological age.

From a tactical standpoint however....well being that we are bound by tradtion in many cases (we've all heard or experienced the motto "200 years of tradition unimpeded by progress")....I think we would still be an aggressive service using traditional methods where applicable. Modern construction having it's unique parameters I believe would have been addressed regardless of the alphabet of organizations that are here to protect us from ourselves. 2 in - 2 out may not have become a formalized "rule" and RIT (FAST) may not have taken on the preeeminent role it currently holds, but I am of the belief that we would be as safe without _______, (name your watchdog) as with them in place. This I believe for a few reasons:

1) Firefighter fatalities have remained relatively constant for decades. What has changed is the manner in which those fatalites are regularly occuring. All the encapsulation is seen by some (including me) to be a possible cause for some of the LODDs that most likely wouldn't have happened years ago...as we would have been unable to enter THAT far. (I know today's fires burn "hotter" and "quicker" but the fact remains we lose a steady stream of FF every year..so how much of an impact does all this personal safety really have)?

2) Civilian fire deaths have not dropped that dramatically due to our increased personal protection. The number of "saves" is about what it always has been, although the property loss rate may have actually gone up as some have chosen in many cases the "let it burn" stratedgy.

3) Tactically RIT and even 2 in - 2 out have always been with us, just not as formalized procedures. We have always had people available on scene to help a fallen comrade, or kept people outside when others are in battling the red devil. I have read and heard of over the years, instances of a firefighter becoming entrapped or injured and low and behold his colleagues WERE able to SAFELY and SUCCESFULLY remove him even without our "overseers" regulations. Why is that...because we were trained to fight our enemy without the safety net or excuse of regulations to bypass that training. It would seem that we are coming to rely far too much on a piece of paper and "special teams" to achieve safety, when hardcore practical training in initial fire tactics and stratedgies and their application on a personal level are what is in fact, needed.

Safety is a personal responsibility and by extension the responsibility of those who are experienced (to whatever ever level that may be) within our departments to pass down to the "new" guys. No amount of alphabet soup can substitute for sound, practical and knowledgeable experienced based training if we are going to actually be proactive and confront and ultimately defeat fire. I still believe that training and it's application on the fireground must be based on what I have available, not a cookie cutter procedure that uniformly paints us all with the same brush. I also strongly believe that as a fireman I MUST do something when arriving on scene, no matter how limited my resources are. This I can do (at least on some level) by accepting the fact and training hard based on the fact, that my department may not fit the mold the alphabets want us to. I have always strived (hope that's a word.. ) to teach others that which was taught to me..that ultimately I am responsible for the decisions I make therefore I am responsible for learning how to make those decisions responsibily. Just as importantly it is also the responsibility of our departments to make available the means for that learning.

Cogs

Edited May 3, 2009 by FFPCogs

[Guest DFD189]

If you go and read all the threads and blogs that are circulating in response to McCormack's FDIC presentation, you'll see a wide range of opinions. Here's my two-cents.

First, firefighting is not the military, and can't be compared to the military. What I mean by this is that we do not ever train to die doing what we do. The military trains to take casualties and continue its mission. Firefighting is an inherently dangerous task, but firefighters are not supposed to die doing their job. The opposite is true for the military. The military assumes there will be casualties, and plans and trains accordingly. When was the last time your department ran a drill where they "killed" half the unit, and instructed the "survivors" to finish the mission? That is not how we do business in the fire service. We are not meant to die. We are not expendable. In the military, everyone is expendable (I say this as a 12-year veteran of the Marine Corps who has served in a combat zone a time or two).

On the other hand, if we removed all risk, we'd never get off the apparatus floor. We are supposed to mitigate against risk by managing risk. Rushing blindly into a burning building to save a child is not risk management. It is Russian Roulette. Raw courage is meaningless in a fire. Courage tempered by sound decision making is the ideal. There are many uncertainties in a fire, and some cannot be predicted or managed. In these cases, bad things can happen, and people, including firefighters, can get hurt or killed.

But we can mitigate against these factors through better training. When I say training, I do not mean simply focussing on how we do things, but more importantly, why we do things. Dumbing down training to the lowest common denominator is simply putting more bullets into the chamber in the game of Russian Roulette we all play every time we respond to a fire. There should be standards, and these standards should be based upon the requirements necessary to accomplish the mission of firefighting -- life safety (my firefighters and me first, all others second), incident stabilization and property conservation.

When we allow outside agencies, or internal self-created obstacles, to mandate activities which detract from these basics, then we are responsible for creating an unsafe environment. If your department spent more time learning how to bail out of a window last year than you spent perfecting the how and why of fire suppression and/or ventilation, search and rescue, then you have a problem. More bullets in the chamber for Russian Roulette. If your department is spending precious training dollars/hours to train drivers to comply with a CDL requirement you have been violating, and will continue to violate for some time, at the expense of training which better prepares firefighters for suppression/ventilation/search and rescue, you add another bullet to the chamber. Soon the "risk" of Russian Roulette simply becomes suicide. Thus, in the name of "safety" and "compliance", one actually makes an inherently dangerous task more so.

This is the crux of what McCormack was getting at. Firefighting is a dangerous job, one which requires us to do it right the first time around. If our training is not focussed on that task, then we are not doing anyone, ourselves or those we are tasked with protecting, any favors.

Pull out your department's annual training plan (if you have one; if you don't, maybe you should ask why not?), and see how much effort is placed in properly explaining the how and why of firefighting. You might be surprised how much time is spent on "safety" and extraneous tasks, and how little time is spent on how and why we do the job we do. Most fire departments are actually perpetuating a paradigm of failure, not success, and in this line of work, such a paradigm translates into dead citizens and dead firefighters. That, I believe, is what McCormack was saying, and in that, I support him 100%.

[FFPCogs 863]

If you go and read all the threads and blogs that are circulating in response to McCormack's FDIC presentation, you'll see a wide range of opinions. Here's my two-cents.

First, firefighting is not the military, and can't be compared to the military. What I mean by this is that we do not ever train to die doing what we do. The military trains to take casualties and continue its mission. Firefighting is an inherently dangerous task, but firefighters are not supposed to die doing their job. The opposite is true for the military. The military assumes there will be casualties, and plans and trains accordingly. When was the last time your department ran a drill where they "killed" half the unit, and instructed the "survivors" to finish the mission? That is not how we do business in the fire service. We are not meant to die. We are not expendable. In the military, everyone is expendable (I say this as a 12-year veteran of the Marine Corps who has served in a combat zone a time or two).

On the other hand, if we removed all risk, we'd never get off the apparatus floor. We are supposed to mitigate against risk by managing risk. Rushing blindly into a burning building to save a child is not risk management. It is Russian Roulette. Raw courage is meaningless in a fire. Courage tempered by sound decision making is the ideal. There are many uncertainties in a fire, and some cannot be predicted or managed. In these cases, bad things can happen, and people, including firefighters, can get hurt or killed.

But we can mitigate against these factors through better training. When I say training, I do not mean simply focussing on how we do things, but more importantly, why we do things. Dumbing down training to the lowest common denominator is simply putting more bullets into the chamber in the game of Russian Roulette we all play every time we respond to a fire. There should be standards, and these standards should be based upon the requirements necessary to accomplish the mission of firefighting -- life safety (my firefighters and me first, all others second), incident stabilization and property conservation.

When we allow outside agencies, or internal self-created obstacles, to mandate activities which detract from these basics, then we are responsible for creating an unsafe environment. If your department spent more time learning how to bail out of a window last year than you spent perfecting the how and why of fire suppression and/or ventilation, search and rescue, then you have a problem. More bullets in the chamber for Russian Roulette. If your department is spending precious training dollars/hours to train drivers to comply with a CDL requirement you have been violating, and will continue to violate for some time, at the expense of training which better prepares firefighters for suppression/ventilation/search and rescue, you add another bullet to the chamber. Soon the "risk" of Russian Roulette simply becomes suicide. Thus, in the name of "safety" and "compliance", one actually makes an inherently dangerous task more so.

This is the crux of what McCormack was getting at. Firefighting is a dangerous job, one which requires us to do it right the first time around. If our training is not focussed on that task, then we are not doing anyone, ourselves or those we are tasked with protecting, any favors.

Pull out your department's annual training plan (if you have one; if you don't, maybe you should ask why not?), and see how much effort is placed in properly explaining the how and why of firefighting. You might be surprised how much time is spent on "safety" and extraneous tasks, and how little time is spent on how and why we do the job we do. Most fire departments are actually perpetuating a paradigm of failure, not success, and in this line of work, such a paradigm translates into dead citizens and dead firefighters. That, I believe, is what McCormack was saying, and in that, I support him 100%.

Exactly!!!

[Paul J DeBartolomeo 0]

Can I ask a question concerning this very split discussion. It is well known on this site and generally throughout the fire service that we lose on average 100 F.F. annually. In my opinion and Im sure everyone elses thats 100 too many. Of those 100 lost how many are a direct result of injuries sustained while actively involved in structural firefighting. Im not trying to lessen the other LODD's as they are equally tragic, just trying to make a point. Of the 100 lost, I believe some where in the range of 30 are killed while fighting fire. Are we to assume that these 30 or so brave men and woman died because they were operating unsafely.Can we honestly say that they would be alive today if only they were more careful at that last fire and conducted a more thorough risk analysis. Risk analysis is great and establishing certain guidelines on how to operate is important too, but at the end of the day the fact remains that things happen at fires that are largely unpredictable and sadly tragedy is often the result. In my 11 plus years as a career fireman I have had the unfortunate duty to see friends die at fires, and never once did I attribute their death to a reckless or careless act on their part or that of someone on scene. I simply resigned myself to the fact that this is an inherintly dangerous and unpredictable business we are in and sometimes things happen that are completely unforseen and unavoidable. Statistically speaking considering the total number of responses nation wide, and the number of structural fires, somewhere in the range of 500,000, as a whole we are not doing that bad. Personally I feel 1 life lost is too many, but I am realistic and know that we will lose people every year. I know I will lose another brother at work, its simply the nature of the beast. I continue to train hard and exercise caution wherever possible but remain fully aware of the inherent dangers that lie within.

[Guest DFD189]

I think you are right that in terms of fireground operations, we lose around 30 or so firefighters. The rest are heart attacks, traffic accidents, etc....and a large number of wildland fire casualties as well (including aircraft crashes).

If we examine the 30 or so fireground casualties, I think you find that a good number are a result of rapid fire progression...flashover, etc, or structural failure (floor collapse, etc).

While "stuff" happens, and sometimes tragedy can't be avoided when doing an inherently dangerous task, I wonder what would happen if we took the time to better understand fire and how fire operates in a given structure, before we put our lives on the line trying to fight it.

Only 1% of the Firefighter I/Firefighter II curriculum is spent covering fire behavior. The same percentages apply when we get into Company Officer training. So our front line people spend extremely little time actually studying the very thing the are fighting. In the military, we studied the enemy tactics and weapons, and adjusted what we did so we could win. In firefighting, we simply repeat the same tactics we have been using for the past 20-30 years, even though fire itself, and the building materials/construction we operate in, has changed. I would say that any military commander who commits his forces against an enemy after training his people to fight a war that took place 20-30 years ago is inherently unsafe. In the same way, and fire department which sends its firefighters into a structure armed with tactics/SOPs that are outdated is likewise operating in an inherently unsafe manner.

If we spent more time learning about fire, why it does what it does, and what the best way to safely and efficiently extinguish it, I think we may see that we are fighting fire smarter, and ultimately safer. The job will get done more efficiently, and with less loss.

I would never insult those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. But I do think that if we took an honest look at the circumstances of many of these casualties (and the NIOSH LODD reports do this), you will find that many of these deaths occured in rapid fire progression circumstances which found the firefighters, and their commanders, ill-prepared to handle what they were confronted with.

Better training, inclusive of more attention to fire behavior and building construction, could mitigate against future casualties.

[Guest DFD189]

Just to add to the discussion, here is a link to something I wrote for Fire Engineering a few years back. I think it is relative to the topic at hand.

Click here: Fire Engineering - Fire Commentary: Picking up the Gauntlet