Stay or Go

[FFPCogs 863]

Not sure if this is the right heading for this topic but here goes.

Here's a hypothetical that came up during a drill in which there was some "disagreement" between the American and British contingents here at work.

OK so the scenario is thus:

On a scene with limited manpower and no operational radios with one line in position and operating to contain a rapidly spreading fire in an adjacent area, you and a partner are the search team. You have found and are starting to remove an unconcientous but viable victim from the IDLH to the only available exit and safety, when it becomes apparent that niether of you have enough air to make it out while exerting yourselves to bring the victim, What do you do?

1) Leave the victim, make your way out and report their location to command upon exiting the structure so they can send in the next available search team to retrieve them.

2) Continue on as far as you can go with the victim trying to manage your remaining air, while alerting command and others of trouble via your PASS

3) Remain in place with the victim to conserve the air you do have and use your PASS to alert others of your plight

4) Another option...explain.

I know we shoudn't get into this position in the first place but for the puposes of this query please just stick to the scenario.

I will refrain from putting forth my answer for the moment but anyone who knows me knows what it is.

Thanks all

Stay Safe

Cogs

Edited January 8, 2012 by FFPCogs

[FDNY 10-75 640]

Grab and go, filter breathe if possible.

[grumpyff 1,159]

Activate PASS to alert others, ans start towards the closest exit with the victim. Hopefully we can make it to an area with with cleaner air. If our SCBA run out before we can exit the structure, I would remove the facepiece and stay low as possible while still attempting to remove the victim. A little smoke isnt gonna kill you.

Just curious to the different viewpoints of our British counterparts

Edited January 8, 2012 by grumpyff

[FFPCogs 863]

Just curious to the different viewpoints of our British counterparts

Option 1. They are taught and firmly adhere to the FF comes first mentality.

Let's just say that the discussion took a decidedly vociferous turn when I was "advised" that option 1 was the only correct way to operate. A lecture ensued about the vaildity of such tactics with the basic premise being we're no good to anyone if we're out of commission or dead. And while I have to admit that such a view does hold water after a lenghty explanation in defense of the decision to leave a victim my simple retort was "well then I'm just glad I'm not the victim". Bottom line here is that as far as I'm concerned once I lay a hand on a viable or potentially viable victim I become responsible for that person's life and I'll be damned if I'm going to desert them. My duty is to save lives even if, at times, that means I must risk my own. I'm trained, equipped and prepared to work in that extremely hostile environment. I'm also trained to deal with situations when they go south...no one else but firemen are. If we're not prepared and willing to give everything than people might as well call the garbage man.

That's my $.02

Grab and go, filter breathe if possible.

Activate PASS to alert others, ans start towards the closest exit with the victim. Hopefully we can make it to an area with with cleaner air. If our SCBA run out before we can exit the structure, I would remove the facepiece and stay low as possible while still attempting to remove the victim. A little smoke isnt gonna kill you.

By the way like you guys I'll take my chances with option 2

Stay Safe

Cogs

Edited January 8, 2012 by FFPCogs

[PCFD ENG58 1,085]

#2 ,could not go home and slept with any other !

[EMTDelta 22]

You have found and are starting to remove an unconcientous but viable victim from the IDLH to the only available exit and safety,

What is an unconcientous person? Unconscientious as in not guided by their conscience? Maybe that's why they ended up a victim in the first place.

[jack10562 414]

First, get the grammer police outside the hot zone,

Option 3: Staying inside, on a scene with limited manpower and hoping to have immediate response to your PASS alarm sounding, is putting yourself way out on a limb, and out of the question.

Option 2: is probably what we would all do without thinking twice, even though it jeopardizes our own safety.

Option 1: is the best response, it's supposed to be 2-in-2-out, right? Get the hell out and have your relief team go in and remove the one victim, otherwise we might end up with there being three.

[ckroll 101]

That we should not get into this position bears repeating. Going into a dangerous situation without the resources to get the job done not professional. And depending on what kind of smoke it is, a little might kill you.

When working through an 'I'd risk my life if I had to...' scenario like this..... well of course we will all say, yes we'd risk our lives to save another person [preferably an adorable 3 year old and not a felonious, disease encrusted, drug dealer]. But on some level, allowing ourselves the luxury of considering our own heroism encourages the behavior.

Depending on how this scenario plays out, there are three dead people. Taking the approach that in the absence of adequate resources that the victim must be left behind may be useful in the long run. If we don't get to be the hero unless we are prepared, then maybe we will take the extra time to check the gear, switch out a low tank and to ask ourselves what will we do when this goes bad BEFORE we go into the building.

That said, if it's low probability of death and the victim is viable and just darling, then I'd take the chance. If the probability of none of us making it out is high, then the drug dealer is on his own until I can get a fresh tank of air. And then I'd find another line of work because making a mistake in an office is a whole lot different from making a mistake on the fireground.

[ny10570 745]

In discussions with European firefighters I see this division between us and them frequently. Its been explained one of two ways. The first is usually Europeans brushing it off as the American "cowboy complex". All of us apparently aspire to be John Wayne reluctantly rising to the occasion and saving the day. The second is usually posited by the Americans, suggesting our roots in the volunteer fire service where we were there to protect neighbors that we personally knew has led to a culture of aggressive firefighting tactics and our skewed risk vs reward math. I'm not sure what it is, but few peers posed these scenarios even think twice and choose option 2.

[FFPCogs 863]

In discussions with European firefighters I see this division between us and them frequently. Its been explained one of two ways. The first is usually Europeans brushing it off as the American "cowboy complex". All of us apparently aspire to be John Wayne reluctantly rising to the occasion and saving the day.

A frequent "jibe" directed at us Yanks that while said with a smile we know is meant literally and derogatorily.

[ckroll 101]

OK fellow cowboys..... We've all chosen to haul out our victim, get as far as we can and take our chances from there. This scenario isn't over. Here's some details. You are 'Mac', young, strong, ex-marine, works out every day, so handsome you wear a bag on your head to shop so women won't faint away. Your partner Hank is another story. He's 59, balding, a little heavy, probably should have put down the hose 5 years ago when his knees got bad, but he's got 14 year old twin girls who are crazy for horses, so he isn't finished raising a family, needs the income.

You two have your victim half way down the hall when your partner Hank's air runs out first. Something's wrong, he panics, rips off the regulator takes a deep breath of burning plastic. Heat, exertion, bad air, panic, whatever.... he's having a heart attack. He pukes in his face mask and slumps to the ground.

Now you have a victim, a partner down, one working face mask and one partial tank of air. You can't haul Hank to safety on what's left in your tank. What do you do now? Leave partner and victim? Give Hank your tank and hope you get out on room air?

[And think about our British friends, Stan and Ollie. They left with enough air to get out. They are at the truck getting new tanks when Ollie has his MI and he is already in an ambulance on its way to a cath lab. Stan has a new partner, Angus, and they're heading back in to rescue the victim.]

So, what do you do with one nearly empty tank of air one mask and two people who need rescuing? You've got 7 minutes to figure it out before the scenario becomes one mask and no bottled air.

[ny10570 745]

Grab hank, miraculously escape on 3 minutes of air, go back and grab the victim, and return with him. Just as you exit your mask sucks into your face.

Seriously, you take each wrinkle as it arrives. Did Hank's air suddenly go from 1/4 to empty? The original scenario had both in a similar poop show rescuing the vic. What if the vic was our officer that has his mask knocked off during a ceiling collapse? What if it was my best friend's father(already been to calls at friends homes)? What if they were aliens that thrived on CO and were out to get us? You can what if this to death and eventually you will get a scenario where everyone agrees.

A much more interesting conversation is why do we see our lives as being so much less valuable than europeans do? Is this same difference found in the police or military?

Coggs, you're spot on. It's always a dig, yet they drool over our stories. Something as simple as searching past the fire elicits oohs and aahs from a captive audience. Is this a cultural issue or a career thing? In Italy firefighting is a job, no different than road building or any other government gig. Would you expect a DPW guy to take the same risks as firefighter?? Arguably DPW is far more important socially than FD. Water borne illness and poor sanitation kill many more than fire ever will.

Edited January 8, 2012 by ny10570

[ckroll 101]

Grab hank, miraculously escape on 3 minutes of air, go back and grab the victim, and return with him. Just as you exit your mask sucks into your face.

Seriously, you take each wrinkle as it arrives. Did Hank's air suddenly go from 1/4 to empty? The original scenario had both in a similar poop show rescuing the vic. What if the vic was our officer that has his mask knocked off during a ceiling collapse? What if it was my best friend's father(already been to calls at friends homes)? What if they were aliens that thrived on CO and were out to get us? You can what if this to death and eventually you will get a scenario where everyone agrees.

A much more interesting conversation is why do we see our lives as being so much less valuable than europeans do? Is this same difference found in the police or military?

A scenario where everyone agrees? Are we posting on the same forum? My thinking is that this scenario does not end halfway down the hall. [Hank's air runs out slowly, one breath at a time, but as the original scenario sets out, neither have enough air to get out with the victim and one of them has to run out first].

You are correct, there is a really interesting conversation in here somewhere. Do we see our lives as less valuable? Do we have more faith? Do our colleagues from Europe take a longer view of things? Do they like to gamble less? Perhaps we value life equally, but they have more aversion to risk or see value in living long enough to take better risks another day?

What happens to Mac, Hank and Vic? The IC sent 2 people into a building, has no way to communicate with them and has to assume that they will follow protocol, [search and return before their air runs out.] How long will it take the IC to figure out that he's got 2 firefighters who aren't coming out and need to be rescued? My sense is that if they do not find good air when their tanks run dry, they're dead.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I have to look at this 2 different ways the more I've thought about it.

The 22 year old firefighter in me says drag until you can't anymore and activate your pass alarm.

The 37 year old says drag until your on free air and then make a bee line for the exit and get another crew to re enter for the victim. I have no ethical dilemma...incident priority 1 is life safety and this includes me and my partner. We will do nothing but complicate the matter if one and even worse both of us drop. A little smoke has never hurt anyone...but the problem is, is that smoke is the least of our worries here. Its the toxic by products of combustion that may be present even in the absence of smoke. Right amount of CO and to the floor you'll go.

Another thought I had..and it violates the core principles of firefighter operations is take a look at your air..whoever has the most left stays and does what they can and the person with the least heads for the exit to get assistance and advises that you have an urgent situation with a member with low air and a victim. Send the FAST with an extra air pack so the remaining member can do a hot swap, have an extra person assist them out and the FAST can remove the victim to boot. If its an uncomplicated removal..simple use of a stokes may make quick work of what could be a very tedious drag. Not textbook..but an option.

CKroll...I only wish I could fit the bill of your "mac"...guess I'm gonna have to do as a co worker for now with ya.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I get into some good conversations with some european fire instructors from time to time. Some even comment on how we use too much water and how they often use high pressure. I've gotten a few tight jaws from them when I say to them the only thing I use a power washer on is the siding of my house.

[Bnechis 3,961]

On a scene with limited manpower and no operational radios with one line in position and operating to contain a rapidly spreading fire in an adjacent area, you and a partner are the search team. You have found and are starting to remove an unconcientous but viable victim from the IDLH to the only available exit and safety, when it becomes apparent that niether of you have enough air to make it out while exerting yourselves to bring the victim, What do you do?

1) Leave the victim, make your way out and report their location to command upon exiting the structure so they can send in the next available search team to retrieve them.

2) Continue on as far as you can go with the victim trying to manage your remaining air, while alerting command and others of trouble via your PASS

3) Remain in place with the victim to conserve the air you do have and use your PASS to alert others of your plight

I was originaly going to say that you should be on your radio giving unit/location/situation as using your PASS alarm as a primary communications tools is unaceptable. Till I went back and saw that I dont have a radio (which we have had for everyone for 20 years). The PASS just lets them know some one is not moving/introuble, you are not rellaying what you need.

You also said, you you have limited manpower. So the big question is...Will someone becoming to help you? If you decided to continue the rescue and rely on others to grab you, your partner and the victim, are there potentially 6ff's coming? I suspect with "limited manpower" at best you might get 2-4. If thats the case the victim still dies and maybe you too.

The real issue brought up in this scenario is do you have enough manpower and equipment to do the job? From reading these boards and seeing what is going on thruout our region, its a real scenario, because too many depts. do not have enough personnel in the critical first minutes, when this is going to happen.

Now, we have trained and drilled something similar........Confined Space Rescue. (and we have documented actual cases where this is how it has worked). We send a search team in and they are "on the clock" at a predetermined time they are ordered out. When we start that training, you always hear "We almost have it...just a few more minutes". I have heard this from dozens of different depts, including many very experienced ff's. In the classes we show actual incidents where it took, multiple teams...1) to find, another to get them in a harness or drag sheet/stretcher, another to move them part way out and then a final team to get them the last bit. Why is this any different?

A friend was involved in a fatal confined space incident were a civilian and a FF was killed. The FF tried to push it and ran out of air, took 1 breath and died. My friend was on the rescue team and it took 6 entries to remove the FF. The contracter was not even attempted because of the down time. My friend had a SCBA (actually a SAR) malfunction and told me he almost did not make it out. He always said how important it was to consider it may take more than 1 crew and if you have to back out, give the next crew the location or in this case you might need to swap the bottle and go back your self.

This is not the emotional answer we would all like to give but, how is any different than the issue of flying thru intersection to get there faster? If you do not get there how are you helping? If the IC now has to divert resources to get you...who is going to save the victim and what kind of delay is it.

A little smoke isnt gonna kill you.

All depends on what is burning. Since we know that there are levels of CO & Cynide that will disable you in one breath....maybe it will. We will never know but how many LODD's occured because of just a few hits of toxic chemical.

[FFPCogs 863]

This discussion has brought up some great points and while I may subscribe to the "cowboy" eithic the fact is it would all come down to a personal choice for us whereas for my British colleagues it is cut and dry...leave the victim. This may be one of the biggest differences I have seen between us. Almost every step taken across the pond is predetermined with little or no choice for personal "flexibility", which given the fact that London (meaning the UK national Health and Safety boys) dictates policy nationwide, is not suprising. This is not to say they are any less dedicated, they have just taken a far more nationally centralized and uniform approach to firefighting...much of which stems from the Blitz (for those unaware that's the Battle of Britain of WW2 where Germany tried to basically bomb and burn Britian into submission). That coupled with the fact that British officers can now be criminally prosecuted for LODDs has by their own admission had a profound effect on their overall aggresiveness and depending on who you talk to that's a good or bad thing. Here's a shocker, and no offense intended but the more rural and thus less busy guys tend to side with the Safety nazis, while the few here from the Liverpool and London Fire Brigades long for the days of getting in and just "doin the job".

I will tell you that one of the most shocked looks I've gotten here was when I asked one of the Brits if they do a secondary search. The reply..."what in tha ell is dat mate"? When I explained that the for us a secondary search is done as a matter of course to verify everyone's out they replied that as professionals you should only have to do one search and they expect it to be done thoroughly the first time....anything after that is a waste of manpower. But this is just one of many differences.

As for the scenario it was left broad on purpose and while I know there are any number of variables I was just curious as to the sentiments of you all back home given the choice of stay or go under the condition of low air.

Great input so far thanks

Cogs

I was originaly going to say that you should be on your radio giving unit/location/situation as using your PASS alarm as a primary communications tools is unaceptable. Till I went back and saw that I dont have a radio (which we have had for everyone for 20 years). The PASS just lets them know some one is not moving/introuble, you are not rellaying what you need.

You also said, you you have limited manpower. So the big question is...Will someone becoming to help you? If you decided to continue the rescue and rely on others to grab you, your partner and the victim, are there potentially 6ff's coming? I suspect with "limited manpower" at best you might get 2-4. If thats the case the victim still dies and maybe you too.

The real issue brought up in this scenario is do you have enough manpower and equipment to do the job? From reading these boards and seeing what is going on thruout our region, its a real scenario, because too many depts. do not have enough personnel in the critical first minutes, when this is going to happen.

Now, we have trained and drilled something similar........Confined Space Rescue. (and we have documented actual cases where this is how it has worked). We send a search team in and they are "on the clock" at a predetermined time they are ordered out. When we start that training, you always hear "We almost have it...just a few more minutes". I have heard this from dozens of different depts, including many very experienced ff's. In the classes we show actual incidents where it took, multiple teams...1) to find, another to get them in a harness or drag sheet/stretcher, another to move them part way out and then a final team to get them the last bit. Why is this any different?

A friend was involved in a fatal confined space incident were a civilian and a FF was killed. The FF tried to push it and ran out of air, took 1 breath and died. My friend was on the rescue team and it took 6 entries to remove the FF. The contracter was not even attempted because of the down time. My friend had a SCBA (actually a SAR) malfunction and told me he almost did not make it out. He always said how important it was to consider it may take more than 1 crew and if you have to back out, give the next crew the location or in this case you might need to swap the bottle and go back your self.

This is not the emotional answer we would all like to give but, how is any different than the issue of flying thru intersection to get there faster? If you do not get there how are you helping? If the IC now has to divert resources to get you...who is going to save the victim and what kind of delay is it.

All depends on what is burning. Since we know that there are levels of CO & Cynide that will disable you in one breath....maybe it will. We will never know but how many LODD's occured because of just a few hits of toxic chemical.

B,

As a part the discussion here it came up from the other officer on our watch (from London Fire Brigade) a story of a confined space rescue there in which they very nearly lost 5 trying to save one victim. In the end they basically went with scenario 2 in that real incident and were soundly hammered for it by the UK Health and Safety board, so much so that they revampd their entire SCBA procedure nationwide.

Cogs

Edited January 9, 2012 by xfirefighter484x

[Guest Devon Foulke]

Grab and go- filter breathe, stay low and GTFO. If manpower is in question, you could return outside to find that all crews are at work and your victim is now a black tag. Its easy to be a safety stickler now but when your looking at that 4 year old and you know your their only hope, sometimes eating a little smoke and pulling a John Wayne is the best option. Every situation is different and you have to evaluate as you go- no ones life is worth your own but sometimes taking pre meditated risk is viable.

Hope everyone has a safe year

[Bnechis 3,961]

Grab and go- filter breathe, stay low and GTFO.

You are not the 1st to say filter breath, last time I saw that as a viable option the SCBA's still had low pressure hoses that you could stuff into your long coat (that went with the 3/4 boots). Most places abandoned these before you were born.

Very few FD's have filters that work with Scott 4.5 or that handle CO, cyanide and none deal with limited O2. And if they have them are they carried on every call?

[1075onarrival 2]

You are not the 1st to say filter breath, last time I saw that as a viable option the SCBA's still had low pressure hoses that you could stuff into your long coat (that went with the 3/4 boots). Most places abandoned these before you were born.

Very few FD's have filters that work with Scott 4.5 or that handle CO, cyanide and none deal with limited O2. And if they have them are they carried on every call?

Another form of "filter" breathing is removing the regulator and reversing your hood to cover the hole and give somewhat of a "filter" (NIOSH 2000a). Not as effective as the option with the low pressure hose (NIOSH 1998) but as you said, that option is out the door. But if your out of air anything helps. I haven't heard of anyone using the last chance filters and i think the price tag is the reason.

Thanks Capt.

Be safe

[Bnechis 3,961]

Another form of "filter" breathing is removing the regulator and reversing your hood to cover the hole and give somewhat of a "filter" But if your out of air anything helps.

What are you trying to filter with this?

1) Do you really think this will stop CO & cyanide? And we still need O2.

2) Have you actually tried with SCBA on, gloves on, helmet on in dark conditions and under extreme presure (while still in a drill) to do this?

It one thing if you are trapped and its your last ditch effort to save your life, another to consider using it to push beyond the limits.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I've seen the comment of filter breathing a few times in posts...but the problem still remains..that is a last ditch you are screwed and have no other option for YOUR survival. It might help with the fine particular matter which could prevent a bronchospasm, but it will not "filter" the toxic gases which will be the biggest enemy here. I'm all for pushing it as an aggressive firefighter as well, but at some point you really have to think that the best option for everyone is potentially leaving the victim for another crew to come in and complete the removal. They went unconscious for a reason...and are you potentially removing a person in cardiac arrest that has less then one half of one percent of being resuscitated. You may waste more time removing your regulator and doing all these other things then actually exiting and getting another crew to come in on full air to complete the job.

[ckroll 101]

A couple of observations:

Coggs says he's glad he's not the victim in the British system. By choosing to run out of air inside a burning building doesn't he become a victim in the Cowboy system?

How 'flexible' should a fireground be? When 'flexible' works you're an innovator, when it fails it's called freelancing. I think long term, patients and fellow firefighters may be best served if we are all working with the same set of rules and stick to them. 20 guys at a fire scene with nothing more than the command to 'do the right thing' scares me. The best team I ever worked with was my high angle rescue team. We knew exactly where we had flexibility and where we did not. Breaking any rules just was not tolerated because lives hung in the balance. I do not recall that having to play by rules ever limited us... and when things got tough we all knew what each other would be doing, even out of radio contact. That was a huge positive.

We have high capacity tanks, gauges, alarms. All of this is intended to get us out of buildings while we still have air. Just past agressive is reckless. Knowing where that line is means knowing what your limits are. Here is a proposal. Anyone who thinks he's going to grow a mustache and then breathe through it as a back up plan needs to have done it in a drill. Why don't departments do the drill? Do your firefighers who think they've got what it takes to make their own rules actually have what it takes? Now is the time to find out.

I like ALSfirefighters suggestion that if a rule is to be broken, split the team and get word out that there's an emergency. That said, I'm not sure of the advantage of leaving someone behind.

The observation that depending on the scenario, 4 fresh rescuers might do the victim more good than 2 tired ones with no air is well taken. To give a better answer to the original question, I think I'd drag a victim as far as I can until the alarm says get out and then I get out.

Excellent topic, thanks Coggs.

[FFPCogs 863]

I think it's fair to say that this scenario would be an extraordinary event for just about any FD for a number of reasons. That said let me add this thought to the mix. As I and my partner move ever closer to the exit, we are also moving that victim we refused to leave along with us, thus bringing all of us closer to safety. Along with that we are also reducing the distance and TIME it will take for any relief personnel to reach us the closer we get to that exit.

Cogs

[PFDRes47cue 653]

I too agree with other posters about getting yourself and the victim as close to the exit as possible then leaving to get fresh help. You can also once you find the victim and realize you might run out of air, radio to get crews coming in and to meet you half way. This way there is no gap in time between you leaving the victim and fresh help getting back to he victim allowing you to focus on getting out quickly with limited air while the fresh help can focus on the victim and themselves.

[FFPCogs 863]

This topic is running on another site as well and this response fits just as well here as there I think:

This scenario was left vague for a couple of reasons. First off because this was simply the situation as presented in our discussions here. Secondly I thought it would be interesting and enlightening to see how this situation would fit in regards to the latest trends vis a vis safety that have come into the fire service in recent years. What strikes me is that like many other aspects of the service like career v volunteer or smoothbore v fog there are two very distinct and divergent trains of thought at work here. As is obvious this hypothetical situation plays into the larger debate of overall fireground safety, but unexpectedly, at least to me, we find ourselves with two very different and opposing points of view regarding the lengths we should go to in saving a life . This particular scenario, in which we have a viable victim in our hands, but extreme and potentially fatal risks involved in saving them, pits what I'll call the "old morality" against the "new morality".

In the world of the "old morality" we were taught and it was expected that you just did not leave a viable victim behind once you've found them, whereas in the world of the "new morality" to do so to save ourselves is not only justifiable, but expected. I make no judgements on what choice anyone would make in these circumstances, since as many have said we all have to live with ourselves and the choice we make in the end.

That said I will pass judgement though on a fire service that is slowly passing into a new era. One in which we have become more important than those we are here to serve. One in which regulations and protocols replace good training, experience and fireground flexibility in making decisions. One in which lives other than our own have become increasingly expendable if risks are involved in saving them. To me, and this is just MY opinion, such a change is not only a travesty but in essence an abandonment of the four basic principles of good firemanship...

Courage. It doesn't mean not being afraid, it just means being calm and doing what you have to do -- what others are relying on you for in a dangerous situation.

Dedication. Being dedicated to your crew, the brotherhood, and to the public we protect. We demonstrate that when we study and train and put it in action during an emergency.

Sacrifice. That is demonstrated time and again. We put ourselves in harm's way to help perfect strangers.

Tradition. We remember the courage, dedication, and sacrifice of "the old guys," we live it and do it, and pass it on to the rooks. Tradition ensures that the other principles never die

To close here's a quote, author unknown, that sums it up.

"As a profession we must return to the basics of our trade: Hot, dirty, hard work that every generation has done before us. Keep yourself educated, in shape and be true to the job. Remember we are the fire service and it is only as good as we make. Do not forget Firemanship, because without it public works could do our job".

Cogs

[ny10570 745]

Cogs I have to disagree with your assessment. It is not so much a change in the values of human life or the emphasis on us or them. It is the evolving math of risk vs reward. Encapsulation allows us to push deeper into hotter and more toxic environments. Some of these places have zero chance for survival yet we can enter, even if only for a brief few seconds. Is there a benefit to pushing that envelope?

Forget that if a firefighter goes down they can't help the victim, what about the next in firefighter? Are you going after the original victim or the firefighter? From my limited experience once a firefighter goes down all attention turns to that member. Even members unable to disengage from their current task are distracted and trying to get involved. If you go down, you're certainly no help, but what about everyone else? How effective will they be?

[RWC130 594]

GREAT Discussion!

We need more like this

Makes you think...

Things can go from bad to really bad fast.

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs I have to disagree with your assessment. It is not so much a change in the values of human life or the emphasis on us or them. It is the evolving math of risk vs reward. Encapsulation allows us to push deeper into hotter and more toxic environments. Some of these places have zero chance for survival yet we can enter, even if only for a brief few seconds. Is there a benefit to pushing that envelope?

Forget that if a firefighter goes down they can't help the victim, what about the next in firefighter? Are you going after the original victim or the firefighter? From my limited experience once a firefighter goes down all attention turns to that member. Even members unable to disengage from their current task are distracted and trying to get involved. If you go down, you're certainly no help, but what about everyone else? How effective will they be?

No disrespect intended, but while I do agree that we are dealing with an evolution in the math of risk vs reward, as I see it that math is becoming more and more skewed in favor of us taking less risk to achieve the same reward of saving a viable human life than it has been in the past...much IMHO to the detriment of those we are here to serve.

We all face the potential to be in a situation where we will have to make a decision as to what we are willing and, (based on our experience, training and knowledge of the situation) capable of doing to save a life or if that life is even able to be saved. Alone with a partner searching in the heat and smoke if it comes to be that we have chosen to go and get a victim because as far as we can tell conditions warrant and support that decision, then once we have found and are removing them it becomes a matter of "pushing the envelope" as far as is possible if need be to ensure they and we get out alive. Unlike the victim and most civilians we are trained and equipped to work in conditions that other can't, and that includes dealing with unforseen "problems" such as the one presented in the scenario. There are always options and as far as I'm concerned every one of them should be pursued if it means you save that life. In my ledger that reward is worth the risk.

Cogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

No disrespect intended, but while I do agree that we are dealing with an evolution in the math of risk vs reward, as I see it that math is becoming more and more skewed in favor of us taking less risk to achieve the same reward of saving a viable human life than it has been in the past...much IMHO to the detriment of those we are here to serve.

while the "math is becoming more and more skewed in favor of us taking less risk" lets look at the entire process and not just the answer. Over the last 40 years civilian fire deaths and injuries dropped dramatically (mostly do to the fire prevention efforts of those that pushed hard in the 70's & 80's). But as the number of fires, fire deaths & injuries dropped, the number of firefighter deaths did not. Why? because we did not change our tactics when construction, fire conditions and PPE changed. Now I am not saying don't give it your all, but when you do the math, if you die in this fire, so does your partner and the intial victim. That helps no one.

When I got on the job I use to get teased by the sr. members for wearing that stupid air pack. Not one of the guys that teased me lived very long in retirement and the quality prior was not very nice. The irony is many were on "air" to make up for it.

We are asked to do more and more with less and less. My 1st instructor told us that when he got on the job you were expected to die for the public. He told us that "today" (25 years ago)that is no longer true. Your responsibility is to yourself, your brothers and your family. If you die at work you let them down. If you are an officer you have even more responsability to making sure your men go home at the end of the shift (or call). Will we keep pushing in....YES, but there are limits.