LODDs

[FD123FD 5]

In 2013 we had 101 LODDs (god bless them all). Our loss is up 18 from 2012 and 20 from 2011. The US Fire Administration hasn't come out with the statistics yet, but this is something we as members of the service should be addressing (instead of ranting and raving over this EMT in Ellenville). This topic is a serious problem in our field and we should be spending time on this. Even subtracting the loss of the 19 brothers and sisters in the Arizona Wildland Fire, the numbers of lost brothers and sisters is still way to high.

[ks1980 36]

I totally agree with you brother! Out here in Oregon the dot of Public Safety and Standards is pushing the "Everybody Goes Home " program it is actually a good class and should be taught nation wide. It's a program put together by the National Firefighters Memorial and several federal agencies. It's a great eye opener.

However no class or case study after a incident can truly make a difference unless we actually put to practice the mistakes made. We as a community must sometimes put our pride aside and break away from " this is how we do it " and the "we have been doing it this way for years" . There are many new studies being conducted on safer practices by NISTA . If we can incorporate some of them maybe we can be safer on the fire scene, maybe not but worth trying.

The bottom line is there will always be injuries and sadly LODDs, and no matter how much training there is always something new to learn. And with the advancement in our bunker gear, we actually go further inside and potentially put ourselves into danger. Lets all make a resultion to be safer on the fireground and in our response to and from emergencies.

One death is to many.

Stay safe brothers

[dave0820 50]

My guess is the increase is due to budget cuts, trying to do too much with too few people and not being able to keep up training requirements. I would like to know how many departments are using less training hours now then 10 years ago. Too many Town/city/county/ state politicians who just see #s on a paper and have no idea at all what firefighters actually do.

[FireMedic049 597]

In 2013 we had 101 LODDs (god bless them all). Our loss is up 18 from 2012 and 20 from 2011. The US Fire Administration hasn't come out with the statistics yet, but this is something we as members of the service should be addressing (instead of ranting and raving over this EMT in Ellenville). This topic is a serious problem in our field and we should be spending time on this. Even subtracting the loss of the 19 brothers and sisters in the Arizona Wildland Fire, the numbers of lost brothers and sisters is still way to high.

A couple of points (and not fully directed to you):

1) Statistically speaking, the 19 Arizona LODDs are an anomoly since we typically don't see single events with that many deaths. Subtracting them from the 2013 total you listed of 101, last year is on par with 2011 and 2012 in terms of total LODDs and the 5th year in a row under 100. This is kind of significant considering we spent 19 of the 22 years prior to that over 100 annually and that for many of those years post-incident onset deaths where not counted like they are now.

2) I agree, our LODD total is too high.

3) Although I wouldn't describe the discussion about Ellenville as "ranting and raving", we can discuss that situation and numerous others while also working to reduce LODDs. It's called multi-tasking and a lot of firefighters are pretty good at it.

4) Before we can truly make any progress on reducing LODDs, we have to identify and understand what is causing them. I repeatedly see posts in forums and comment sections trying to insinuate that what they perceive to be "unsafe" fireground operations (including non-LODD incidents) as the reason the annual LODD total is what it is.

Looking over the USFA stats for 2011 and 2012 and as best as I could decifer some of their coding, the 2 year averages for LODDs are as follows:

* During training - 8

* Vehicle related - 12.5

* On scene medical related - 10.5

* Post incident - 17

* Other, non-fire related - 21 (Includes on-duty medical related and on scene, non-fire related trauma)

* Traumatic fire related - 15 (These are the ones in which the fire or building kills us)

5) What that data tells me is that the "problem" is not predominately related to how we (collectively) fight fires. This doesn't mean we don't have stuff to learn and practice to keep this number down. To me, it means that the areas in which we need to be more focused are our health and apparatus operations. If we can get fitter (which should include keeping our most vulnerable members off the scene) and stop crashing our apparatus in the same ways over and over again, we should be able to make a sizable dent in LODDs and OTJ injuries.

Edited January 3, 2014 by FireMedic049

[FD123FD 5]

A couple of points (and fully directed to you):

1) Statistically speaking, the 19 Arizona LODDs are an anomoly since we typically don't see single events with that many deaths. Subtracting them from the 2013 total you listed of 101, last year is on par with 2011 and 2012 in terms of total LODDs and the 5th year in a row under 100. This is kind of significant considering we spent 19 of the 22 years prior to that over 100 annually and that for many of those years post-incident onset deaths where not counted like they are now.

2) I agree, our LODD total is too high.

3) Although I wouldn't describe the discussion about Ellenville as "ranting and raving", we can discuss that situation and numerous others while also working to reduce LODDs. It's called multi-tasking and a lot of firefighters are pretty good at it.

4) Before we can truly make any progress on reducing LODDs, we have to identify and understand what is causing them. I repeatedly see posts in forums and comment sections trying to insinuate that what they perceive to be "unsafe" fireground operations (including non-LODD incidents) as the reason the annual LODD total is what it is.

Looking over the USFA stats for 2011 and 2012 and as best as I could decifer some of their coding, the 2 year averages for LODDs are as follows:

* During training - 8

* Vehicle related - 12.5

* On scene medical related - 10.5

* Post incident - 17

* Other, non-fire related - 21 (Includes on-duty medical related and on scene, non-fire related trauma)

* Traumatic fire related - 15 (These are the ones in which the fire or building kills us)

5) What that data tells me is that the "problem" is not predominately related to how we (collectively) fight fires. This doesn't mean we don't have stuff to learn and practice to keep this number down. To me, it means that the areas in which we need to be more focused are our health and apparatus operations. If we can get fitter (which should include keeping our most vulnerable members off the scene) and stop crashing our apparatus in the same ways over and over again, we should be able to make a sizable dent in LODDs and OTJ injuries.

Sir,

You seem to have done your research, which is good. I wish there were more Firefighters out there like you that would actually look into the data. Hopefully you can help improve the fire service in your area.

1. I am well aware that the unfortunate loss of the brothers and sisters in Arizona is an anomoly. Even though this could happen again. Learning from our past incidents is key.

2. I am glad you still agree that out LODDs are still high. Because in fact they are. If anyone is content that the LODDs have been below 100 for the fith year in a row they should be ashamed. I want to see these numbers lower.

3. I know exactly what multi tasking is. I know its part of our trade. So your jab really isn't appreciated. With a little research you can easily find the facts of the EMS incident. The EMT screwed up. There were 2 calls with an interval of 2 minutes, the 2nd being a non priority. He decided to send a crewed rig to the later. He has a history of not following policy. If his history wasn't haunting him there is a possibility the board wouldn't have given him a suspension. He admitted that he was wrong and knowing so he should have taken the 60 day instead of quiting. WHY DO WE DO THIS JOB? I don't know too many that would quit!!

4. I am familiar with the data and thank you for posting it for everyone else.

5. I agree with your statement. It is very true.

I am not on here to argue or have a heated conversation with you or anyone else. That is a waste of my time. I am sorry you disagree that the Ellenville blog isn't a rant and rave, but that's my opinion. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[FireMedic049 597]

Sir,

You seem to have done your research, which is good. I wish there were more Firefighters out there like you that would actually look into the data. Hopefully you can help improve the fire service in your area.

I'm trying, but it's a big uphill climb.

1. I am well aware that the unfortunate loss of the brothers and sisters in Arizona is an anomoly. Even though this could happen again. Learning from our past incidents is key.

2. I am glad you still agree that out LODDs are still high. Because in fact they are. If anyone is content that the LODDs have been below 100 for the fith year in a row they should be ashamed. I want to see these numbers lower.

3. I know exactly what multi tasking is. I know its part of our trade. So your jab really isn't appreciated. It was more of a joke, than a jab. Some humor doesn't always play out well in forums.

With a little research you can easily find the facts of the EMS incident. The EMT screwed up. There were 2 calls with an interval of 2 minutes, the 2nd being a non priority. He decided to send a crewed rig to the later. He has a history of not following policy. If his history wasn't haunting him there is a possibility the board wouldn't have given him a suspension. He admitted that he was wrong and knowing so he should have taken the 60 day instead of quiting. WHY DO WE DO THIS JOB? I don't know too many that would quit!!

4. I am familiar with the data and thank you for posting it for everyone else.

5. I agree with your statement. It is very true.

I am not on here to argue or have a heated conversation with you or anyone else. That is a waste of my time. I am sorry you disagree that the Ellenville blog isn't a rant and rave, but that's my opinion. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think it's probably more about differing definations of what constitutes ranting and raving. I saw it as more of a discussion/debate.