2 In/2 Out Rule And How It is Interpetted

[Bnechis 3,961]

Actually yes I do think that it would work, because that's exactly what did work for the 200 years of American firefighting before the 2 in 2 out rule became the the rule. The idea of having members outside ready to assist is a good one, but it's not a new one, we just didn't give it a name years ago. Maybe if more emphasis was put on training guys to put the fire out instead of trying to regulate them to do everything but so they don't get a boo boo, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I've said it before I'll say it again, the surest way to make the fireground safe is to know how to do your job and the only way you learn how to do you job is by doing it. I will take safely aggressive over aggressively safe any day and I believe that those we serve are better served by that attitude, as is the fire service itself.

150 years ago my dept had 30-50 member PER APPARATUS

50 Years Ago we had 40 members on duty

today we have 27

we did not need to have a rule back then, enough members were outside, because they did not fit into the fire build at the same time.

We keep doing "more with less" and know its so low, that we need a back-up.

Why is there a debate at all? It clearly states that for every two certified firefighters who enter a structure to provide firefighting activities there SHALL be two certified firefighters outside to save them should conditions fail and they require a rescue. Plain and simple, period, not up for interpretation.......

Wrong. see below

1)The rule does not say that for EVERY 2 inside there needs to be 2 outside. If this were the case it would quickly turn into the 4/4, 10/10 or even 100/100 rule as an incident grew. This would mean almost no department in the world would be compliant. It does say that for any interior operation there have to be 2 outside ready to be deployed. Now this leads to the next bit of confusion.

2) In the fire service everyone loves to have battles over regulations. It is almost a national pastime. various government agencies (NFPA, OSHA, NIOSH) vie for supremacy and many departments try to see how far they can push adhering to the bare minimums. Sometimes this is a manpower issue, sometimes it is a budget issue and sometimes it is an old timer issue.

3) The 2 in / 2 out rule has it's roots in haz-mat not firefighting. I would also say it has some roots in scuba diving. But how we apply it (which was the original question) varies greatly.

4) I met some guys from a few departments in upstate CT a while back in a class. In their region they considered 2 in / 2 out and FAST to be completely separate animals. They described a typical response as Department A is primary they go out the door with whatever they have, let's say 2 guys on the first engine. Department B is sent mutual aid and also has 2 guys. This engine is the 2 out engine. They need to be on scene for the first engine to go to work. However Department C is also coming mutual aid, sometimes from more than a town away with a 4 man engine to be the FAST. They can be en route while operations are going on because the 2 out engine is there.

5) Now as this OSHA reg developed into RIT / FAST programs, we realized some things. Most career departments have 3 or 4 man crews that they do not split up. So the RIT in those departments will be more than 2. Departmetns that have had to deploy RIT have discovered that multiple teams will be needed. I think Phoenix is now sending 12 (3 rigs) but I may be mistaken. I took a class that was all RIT scenarios in a burn building lots of obsitcals. None of us were bale to rescue anyone with only 4 guys. Most RIT's ran out of air and risked becoming extra victims.

1) Thank you for clarifying

2) Correct

3) Yes and other industrial applications like confined space

4) That works well for many places

5) the Phoenix issue is for large open floor plan buildings. The drill was in a former 2 story building that was over 500,000 sq ft. The member was up an escalator and the searches to find him took hours.

[Bnechis 3,961]

1. Overkill? Really? Let's be serious now, if it weren't for OSHA's 2 in 2 out rule, we would still have some departments operating with NOBODY standing around outside (including the IC). Two people isn't enough to perform the rescue of a down firefighter so what are we saying, we don't need to have a contigency for that? Two people isn't enough to perform many tasks on the fireground for very long so we are going to wind up with a lot of unfit people after a bottle change or two.

2. It was written into the respiratory protection standard and has been interpreted to include structural firefighting. See: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22711

3. On the subject of the right number of people, we still have no consensus on what that number is (see below) but I think we can all agree that if we are talking about fighting a fire with just four people (and are even debating their required qualifications (interior vs. exterior) we are completely missing the point. I don't care if it's a career department with inadequate staffing or a volunteer department that can't get the numbers to respond, we are setting people up for failure. And since our mantra is often "failure is not an option" what the hell are we doing? Even the international association of city managers cites minimum numbers but we still bicker and argue about it.

from: http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-162/issue-8/features/fire-department-staffing-a-need-not-a-want.html

The bottom line is we still don't respond with enough FF initially and we don't stage reserve FF effectively for the duration, for contingencies or relief. Why is that?

BINGO....THATS THE ISSUE. NOT ENOUGH FIREFIGHTERS!

Sadly we have seen guys stepping off some trucks breathing air! I'd rather use the 2 in /2 out as a way to ensure I have better staffing then see it relaxed proving that we are willing to accept further reductions to our safety to appease some other project funding. Without hard fast rules and data I'm not sure how many of us will survive future cuts.

Most of the public bases what they think their FD needs based on the size of the community and the number of fires they see in the media. They have no clue how many firefighters it takes for just one of those fires. Less rules or more local variety will lead to many places seeing greater reductions or failure to bring their numbers to safe staffing levels. Not being able to comply with 2 in/ 2out is a lame excuse for failure to ensure proper staffing. The expectation level should be different between a VFD, a poorly staffed FD and a well staffed FD, but the one common thread is the FD spokespeople not telling the truth about their capabilities.

Maybe with a required minimum training for all responding firefighters, more still for company officers, yet even more for chief officers, maybe then we could allow those people to use their judgement (you know the ones who have been tested and vetted).

Well Said!!

Alot is being made here of proper staffing and I too agree that staffing should be a priority, but my comments are more directed at departments that use 2 in 2 out to justify not acting when action is necessary. One of the benefits of my particular kind of firefighting "career" is that I get to work with guys from just about everywhere and the fact is there are now departments that do NOT risk to save a life and they use 2 in and 2 out as one of the reasons for their inaction. It's not about showboating or being a cowboy or a tough guy, it's about doing what we are here to do when it counts...when lives are in the balance and there is a chance we can make the difference. Bottom line in my book, there is no excuse for not acting when someone's life is savable...period. It is my belief and my experience that 2 well trained, knowledgeable and safely aggressive firefighters can make the attempt to at the very least contain the fire to give those trapped a better chance at survival and they can do this based on all they know to make the judgement that the risk is worth it. Unfortunately it is also my experience that there are firefighters out there now (and maybe not here but they are out there) that are being trained that they should not act without "proper" staffing even if they could make the difference...and I'm sorry but that to me is completely contrary to our primary mission.

Since their are exceptions to 2in / 2out, I think the examples you are talking about are mute. If they don't want to get the job done, they will find a reason not to do it. Ever notice the air packs always fail for the same 1 or 2 members.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Let's say that when the first due pulls up, the homeowner announces to the officer that her baby is inside. The officer repeats this to his crew and one guy goes VES at a rear window and makes a grab of the baby. What happens to the Officer and FF? They are heros and OSHA keeps its mouth shut.

This is and always was specifically addressed in the rules that a known rescue is cause to suspend the 2 out. This was tested or clarification was requested early on when FD's asked for greater latitude in what a "known rescue" was. As I recall the ruling or guidance was pretty clear that their needed to be true evidence of a trapped occupant vs. it's 3 am and there's a car in the driveway.

Good question Bill and great response antique.

Ok I'm caught up.

[wraftery 1,275]

This is and always was specifically addressed in the rules that a known rescue is cause to suspend the 2 out. This was tested or clarification was requested early on when FD's asked for greater latitude in what a "known rescue" was. As I recall the ruling or guidance was pretty clear that their needed to be true evidence of a trapped occupant vs. it's 3 am and there's a car in the driveway.

True, antique, that is the premise: But I will guarantee that OSHA, NIOSH, and the gang that wasn't there at your job will take that one line "true evidence of a trapped occupant" and beat you up with it. They will hit you with "how tenable were conditions, how rapid was the fire escalating and so on. And they will wind up saying things like "Didn't it occur to you that the baby was more or less dead even before the decision to enter was made?"

[antiquefirelt 994]

True, antique, that is the premise: But I will guarantee that OSHA, NIOSH, and the gang that wasn't there at your job will take that one line "true evidence of a trapped occupant" and beat you up with it. They will hit you with "how tenable were conditions, how rapid was the fire escalating and so on. And they will wind up saying things like "Didn't it occur to you that the baby was more or less dead even before the decision to enter was made?"

I can't disagree, but regardless of any rules, they'll be doing this.

Anytime something turns out wrong it'll likely bring on the storm, at least if you know the rules, and don't blatantly disregard them or have policies that give overt or even tacit approval for disregarding them, you will have acted accordingly. It's harder to legally fault someone for their judgement vs. fault them for failure to know or follow the accepted guidelines, laws, or rules.

[FireMedic049 597]

FireMedic049, on 25 Aug 2014 - 12:29 AM, said:

1) When you consider what the intent of the 2 in/2 out rule is, I would say that anybody who is counting non-interior qualified/capable personnel towards the 2 out are clearly fools.

2) As Dinosaur points out, the rule itself appears to ignore certain best practices for handling an incident, like the need for an IC and pump operator for situations the rule would apply to for the fire service.

3) The reality is that the rule is typically going to really only be a consideration during the initial stage of a fire response while additional units are still enroute.

4) As someone who's department has a minimum on duty staffing of 5 and had been as low as 4, it's certainly not ideal, but it is possible for the IC to man the pump and direct incoming units until additional personnel can arrive and take over that role.

5) Additionally, the 2 out is not going to be sufficient to perform a FF rescue in most cases.

6) So, it begs the question, depending on the situation at hand, is it better to initiate an interior fire attack (potentially halting the fire growth) with just your 2 in / 2 out or waiting until you have sufficient personnel to staff that plus an IC, a pump operator, etc., but allowing the fire to grow and potentially be "more dangerous" when the fire attack is initiated?

1) agreed

2) since the pump operator may not be part of the 2 out (once committed to pumping) and the IC clearly is not, the issue is do you (and by you I mean any FD) respond with enough interior firefighters to safely operate?

In that context, for us the answer would be no a fair bit of the time since our minimum staffing is 5 on-duty. We're probably at that level about 1/3 to 1/2 of the time. We're probably at 6 on-duty about 1/3 to 1/2 of the time. Some days we're at 7 or 8, but they are not very frequent.

Overall, I think we have enough to operate reasonably "safely" in most situations in terms of initial operations, assuming there are no immediate life safety issue to address, but we definitely have a very dark grey area between getting started and when the cavalry arrives. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to make that area a lighter shade of grey, but I'll keep shouting at the wind about it.

3) agreed

4) agreed, but does the ruling help your department prevent dropping down to an even lower response just by the fact the standard exists?

I don't think it has any true impact at all in terms of our staffing. Our staffing parameters have been set in our contract for at least 15 years now. That is more of a factor than any external regulation.

Like many departments these days, we're a fraction of the size we once were. We used to have individual shifts that were the size of what the department overall is now. When I came on, our minimum was 4 and we worked like that most of the time. Fortunately, we've been able to increase our minimum and probably work above that at least 1/2 the time.

[wraftery 1,275]

A recap for the guy in the street who have to put the fire out. Some are rules, some are things I learned along the way

RIT in a nutshell:

1. OSHA says if 2 are in, two must be out. Both must be qualifed as interior structural firefighters. This can be waived for a known rescue situation, but only temporarily

2. OSHA also says if there are more than 2 in, you still only need 2 out. Common sense says you must add to RIT team as conditions warrant.

3. Your RIT team is only for emergencies and is there only to protect the interior members. You cannot use them for other things.

4. If you use your RIT as noted in #3, you must establish a new RIT asap. Using RIT=call for an additional alarm

5 You can make a company RIT or more than one company RIT(appoint a RIT leader they are now a GROUP under ICS) They must all be interior qualified

6. Even if you go defensive, leave your RIT in place

7. A SCBA lasts about 20 minutes,.,,tops

8 One downed firefighter takes 2 companies to effect his rescue

[antiquefirelt 994]

3. Your RIT team is only for emergencies and is there only to protect the interior members. You cannot use them for other things.

It may not have been your intention but this makes it sound as if the RIT/FAST must resist any tasks outside of an actual deployment? It is very common and taught by many, that the RIT/FAST may participate in proactive operations that do not compromise their ability to go to work (not overly demanding-physically, nearby and in communication and doesn't require breathing air). Most commonly, this means throwing ground ladders to ensure firefighter escape, removing locked obstructions for escape, etc. We all would love to be able to have enough personnel that these tasks could be otherwise effected, but if they cannot be completed do they then result in an actual RIT deployment vs. preventing the issue?

[antiquefirelt 994]

In that context, for us the answer would be no a fair bit of the time since our minimum staffing is 5 on-duty. We're probably at that level about 1/3 to 1/2 of the time. We're probably at 6 on-duty about 1/3 to 1/2 of the time. Some days we're at 7 or 8, but they are not very frequent.

Like many departments these days, we're a fraction of the size we once were. We used to have individual shifts that were the size of what the department overall is now. When I came on, our minimum was 4 and we worked like that most of the time. Fortunately, we've been able to increase our minimum and probably work above that at least 1/2 the time.

Much of what you've said sounds as if you're describing our FD. Are you based out of one station or are those 5 guys further spread between houses? The difference being that sometimes 5 guys on duty still results in 3 arriving and not having enough to readily get in on some jobs.

[AFS1970 504]

3. Your RIT team is only for emergencies and is there only to protect the interior members. You cannot use them for other things.

It may not have been your intention but this makes it sound as if the RIT/FAST must resist any tasks outside of an actual deployment? It is very common and taught by many, that the RIT/FAST may participate in proactive operations that do not compromise their ability to go to work (not overly demanding-physically, nearby and in communication and doesn't require breathing air). Most commonly, this means throwing ground ladders to ensure firefighter escape, removing locked obstructions for escape, etc. We all would love to be able to have enough personnel that these tasks could be otherwise effected, but if they cannot be completed do they then result in an actual RIT deployment vs. preventing the issue?

I was going to bring this same idea up. I read an article and I think listened to a pod cast a few years ago about a concept called the Safety Engine. Other than adding a new title to the RIT / FAST debate, it outlines some basic not rescue duties of this crew.

Interestingly enough it placed them under the Safety Officer in ICS and not directly under the IC. This was because this type of operation was seen as a safety issue and it took direct supervision of any single unit from the IC so as not to bog down the guy who has to look at the big picture.

From what I can remember this crew would assemble all the required equipment for RIT operations, then instead of standing around waiting did 2 main things. 1 was to get at least one ground ladder to the second floor on each side of the building. This way they were either in place for a bail out or could be easily moved should a bail out or rescue at another point on that side be needed. 2 was in 2 teams of 2 (assuming a 4 man company) they did a secondary exposure size up to learn the building and any special rescue considerations that will be factors should a RIT operation start. One team does sides A/B or 1/2 and the other does sides 3/4 or C/d. They come back to the Safety Officer and report the findings before assuming the common stand by.

I will say that the one time I was a RIT officer I tried the size up idea. I lost 2 of my 6 guys doing this because they were grabbed by a Chief on the other side of the building and sent inside the building. When I asked them what happened they said the Chief told them to do it so they followed his orders. To be fair they probably did not like being RIT and would take any excuse to get out of that assignment and that Chief was an old timer who did not fully understand RIT and frequently either reassigned a RIT or allowed a RIT to freelance. Which goes back to the original question of how we apply the concept.

[wraftery 1,275]

It may not have been your intention but this makes it sound as if the RIT/FAST must resist any tasks outside of an actual deployment? It is very common and taught by many, that the RIT/FAST may participate in proactive operations that do not compromise their ability to go to work (not overly demanding-physically, nearby and in communication and doesn't require breathing air). Most commonly, this means throwing ground ladders to ensure firefighter escape, removing locked obstructions for escape, etc. We all would love to be able to have enough personnel that these tasks could be otherwise effected, but if they cannot be completed do they then result in an actual RIT deployment vs. preventing the issue?

You are right. I was multi tasking and should have explained that there are functions that RIT can/should do. These items are all discussed in a RIT class, along with gathering tools and spare bottles, constant comms with IC, etc. I just didn't have time to put it all in one sentence or paragraph. Proof that you must train for this task and you can't do that in a short time. Agreed?

[CTFF 65]

While I think the concept and use of RIT to be proactive as opposed to reactive is better use of personnel, it's another band aid covering the lack of manpower. If I need RIT I'd hope they'd be 100% ready to go not 90%, because they threw some ladders or removed some window bars. Call another truck co or use an engine on scene to perform these tasks.

[FFPCogs 863]

Which goes back to the original question of how we apply the concept.

We apply the concept at every fire unless there is a known life hazard, which I take to mean visible signs of occupancy such as:

Car(s) in the driveway/garage

Open doors with no one outside

Open/broken windows with screens/broken glass on the ground under them/nearby

Report from bystanders/neighbors/family members/co-workers of trapped occupants

Verbal confirmation via phone or other means from the trapped occupants themselves

Confirmation by FD members that occupants were seen within the structure

In days past I had a somewhat more liberal policy regarding when to side step 2 in 2 out. Basically, fires without a known life hazard could be attacked using a variety of tactics such as:

Transitional attack

Direct attack on small or single room fires

Interior exposure protection/confinement (the next room/adjacent area could be considered an exposure) to buy time and reduce fire spread

But only under the right circumstances in which certain variable are known such as:

Size and location of fire

Type of material involved

Building construction

Experience level of personnel

Difficulty in accessing fire area and maintaining escape route

Edited August 28, 2014 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

Much of what you've said sounds as if you're describing our FD. Are you based out of one station or are those 5 guys further spread between houses? The difference being that sometimes 5 guys on duty still results in 3 arriving and not having enough to readily get in on some jobs.

We respond from 2 stations. We used to have 4 a couple decades ago, but lost some as the manpower decreased. Truthfully, losing the stations themselves isn't that big of a deal from the standpoint that as a small city, we can pretty much reach the entire city within 4 minutes drive time from one of the stations.

At minimum staffing, we are split 3/2 manning an engine and a quint with 2 each, plus the duty officer in his own ride. With 6, we split 4/2. For our situation, it's more operationally beneficial to do this vs splitting 3/3. That side of town typically has more 1st due fires than the other, plus it puts another FF on the quint for out of town truck calls. If the engine runs a mutual aid call, the duty officer can always grab the 3rd guy off the quint to take with him to give us 4 for the call. With 7, we split 4/3.

Our fires tend to be in the areas between the 2 stations so in most cases, by the time the first unit arrives and stretches the first line to the door, the second unit is there to fill out the 2in/2out. The main area we need to work on is getting faster and more aggressive with our callback. We primarily fill out our working fire response with our off-duty guys, but the duty officer has to request it. Since we live there, it's pretty much a wash compared to the response times of the mutual aid VFDs to get people on scene. Unfortunately, our leadership tends to be too conservative with the request and in some cases to proud to ask for help it seems. RIT is an additional request and we're hit or miss on that.

For some reason, we just can't get to the point where we automatically do a full callback with mutual aid RIT when a working fire is confirmed. Well, the fact that our fire chief is in no way a leader on anything fire department related definitely has something to do with it.

[FireMedic049 597]

While I think the concept and use of RIT to be proactive as opposed to reactive is better use of personnel, it's another band aid covering the lack of manpower. If I need RIT I'd hope they'd be 100% ready to go not 90%, because they threw some ladders or removed some window bars. Call another truck co or use an engine on scene to perform these tasks.

Depending on how the RIT is staffed, it may not be the band aid that you think it is. If the RIT component is being staffed by a single company with only a handful of people, then I can agree with your concern. However, I know that some departments, probably based on the research that has been done on the use of RIT, are staffing their RIT at a task force level. So, if you have multiple companies making up the RIT component, then having a couple guys throw some ladders shouldn't be a significant detraction from the ability to respond to a RIT activation.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Our fires tend to be in the areas between the 2 stations so in most cases, by the time the first unit arrives and stretches the first line to the door, the second unit is there to fill out the 2in/2out. The main area we need to work on is getting faster and more aggressive with our callback. We primarily fill out our working fire response with our off-duty guys, but the duty officer has to request it. Since we live there, it's pretty much a wash compared to the response times of the mutual aid VFDs to get people on scene. Unfortunately, our leadership tends to be too conservative with the request and in some cases to proud to ask for help it seems. RIT is an additional request and we're hit or miss on that.

For some reason, we just can't get to the point where we automatically do a full callback with mutual aid RIT when a working fire is confirmed. Well, the fact that our fire chief is in no way a leader on anything fire department related definitely has something to do with it.

I don't want to sidetrack a good thread, but it appears our FD's have many similarities. We're "lucky" to be all housed in one station, allowing for everyone in house (5 or 6) to arrive at the same time. but due to running an ALS ambulance service, it's rare all on duty staff are in house, so 6 is quickly just 4, still fairly often could be just two. We don't automatically recall off duty and call personnel for EMS runs unless there is less than 2 firefighters in-house. But all reported structure/building fires and most high occupant alarms get an automatic recall upon dispatch. Until just this spring RIT was a request, it's now automatically a mutual aid unit dispatched. We'd love to be far more self-sufficient but the number soup doesn't add up to a workable solution being funded for years. For these reasons 2 in/ 2 out becomes one of our strongest arguments for additional staff or stemming further cuts. It's a constant battle/educational campaign to show the importance of staff when the public doesn't see pictures of fires on the front page every few days.

Edited August 28, 2014 by antiquefirelt

[wraftery 1,275]

I will say that the one time I was a RIT officer I tried the size up idea. I lost 2 of my 6 guys doing this because they were grabbed by a Chief on the other side of the building and sent inside the building. When I asked them what happened they said the Chief told them to do it so they followed his orders. To be fair they probably did not like being RIT and would take any excuse to get out of that assignment and that Chief was an old timer who did not fully understand RIT and frequently either reassigned a RIT or allowed a RIT to freelance. Which goes back to the original question of how we apply the concept.

This one is not a RIT problem, but a command problem. The Chief that "grabbed" them should have reported that to the IC.The "grabbed" RIT guys should have reported thatt ghange to their immediate suoperion or IC.

[Bnechis 3,961]

We apply the concept at every fire unless there is a known life hazard, which I take to mean visible signs of occupancy such as:

Car(s) in the driveway/garage

Many moons ago, as a relatively new FF, I responded on a fire in a split level ranch. The call came in as heavy fire @ about 6am on a Sunday. There was a delay in dispatch as the caller was a dog walker and called the wrong street & called the wrong dept. So an additional 10 minutes was wasted.

The fire was coming out multiple windows from multiple rooms and from vents in the attic. The truck opened the garage and their where 2 cars in the garage.. We had just finished establishing a supply line (we were 2nd due) when our Lt. ordered us to take a 2 1/2" line to the front door. We made it to the top step and could not make it down the hall to the bedrooms. We knew that based on the time of day, day of week and the cars, that their had to be victims in there. I realized something kept hitting me and it hurt. Took a long time to figure it was slate as the fire had burned thru the ceiling and now the roof.

We were pulled out. Latter we found that the family was in FL. on vacation.

[FFPCogs 863]

Many moons ago, as a relatively new FF, I responded on a fire in a split level ranch. The call came in as heavy fire @ about 6am on a Sunday. There was a delay in dispatch as the caller was a dog walker and called the wrong street & called the wrong dept. So an additional 10 minutes was wasted.

The fire was coming out multiple windows from multiple rooms and from vents in the attic. The truck opened the garage and their where 2 cars in the garage.. We had just finished establishing a supply line (we were 2nd due) when our Lt. ordered us to take a 2 1/2" line to the front door. We made it to the top step and could not make it down the hall to the bedrooms. We knew that based on the time of day, day of week and the cars, that their had to be victims in there. I realized something kept hitting me and it hurt. Took a long time to figure it was slate as the fire had burned thru the ceiling and now the roof.

We were pulled out. Latter we found that the family was in FL. on vacation.

B,

I understand that the cars in the driveway/garage scenario is a somewhat dubious fact to hinge your actions on, but I would venture that those cars being there means a better than 50/50 shot someone's inside. Of course alot of other factors play into it as well, factors which are a normal part of a size up. Ultimately the decision to enter would be based on the probability that someone might be alive under the conditions present and my ability to reach and remove them. There is no clear cut black and white answer. For me personally, if I strongly suspect, based on all the information I have, that someone is viable I will make every reasonable effort and use all the tools at my disposal to get to them and get them out.

[Dinosaur 844]

Sigh, we're sitting here debating how to fight fires with 4-6 people and find loopholes in OSHA regulations so our operations are kosher. This is ridiculous.

It's 2014 and we have more technology now than NASA did when they put a man on the moon. Our apparatus is better designed and more capable than ever before. Yet we still can't put enough people on the fireground at a working fire and actually justify that and accept it.

If you don't have enough FF, call more. If you don't have enough in your department, call mutual aid. Keep calling until you have enough to do the job, staff RIT, and in staging for relief or additional work. The fact that we continue to do the job inadequately staffed without complaining (except here where it does no good) perpetuates the problem. I think Einstein said it, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

When will the madness end???

[FireMedic049 597]

Sigh, we're sitting here debating how to fight fires with 4-6 people and find loopholes in OSHA regulations so our operations are kosher. This is ridiculous.

That's not my take on this conversation. As I've already stated, the discussion has been about initial operations and how 2in/2out affects them. I haven't seen anybody advocating fighting fires with ONLY 4-6 people and NOBODY else on the way for back up.

It's 2014 and we have more technology now than NASA did when they put a man on the moon. Our apparatus is better designed and more capable than ever before. Yet we still can't put enough people on the fireground at a working fire and actually justify that and accept it.

If you don't have enough FF, call more. If you don't have enough in your department, call mutual aid. Keep calling until you have enough to do the job, staff RIT, and in staging for relief or additional work. The fact that we continue to do the job inadequately staffed without complaining (except here where it does no good) perpetuates the problem. I think Einstein said it, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

I would have to disagree with your assessment. I think the vast majority of fire departments are already doing these things most of the time. If you think those of us working in understaffed departments are not voicing our concerns about being understaffed, you aren't paying attention. I'm constantly reading stories about being understaffed, staffing cuts, actual and proposed, and how these negatively impact us doing our job. I've personally been sounding the alarm in my department for almost my entire time there.

Unfortunately, the decision makers aren't always listening to us or willing to take the appropriate actions.

When will the madness end??? Probably never.

[FFPCogs 863]

Sigh, we're sitting here debating how to fight fires with 4-6 people and find loopholes in OSHA regulations so our operations are kosher. This is ridiculous.

That's not my take on this conversation. As I've already stated, the discussion has been about initial operations and how 2in/2out affects them. I haven't seen anybody advocating fighting fires with ONLY 4-6 people and NOBODY else on the way for back up.

Nor is it my take, as far as I'm concerned we are discussing the various interpretations of when to violate 2 in 2 out and why, not debating. And like FireMedic I do not see anywhere in the previous posts anyone advocating fighting a fire with only 4 -6 members for the duration. Something we'd all do well to remember though is that all of us can only draw on our own experiences, so when I envision the scenarios we discuss they are of course seen through the eyes of my own situation. It is almost a certainty that I would never be faced with a situation where only 4 members we available to fight a fire entirely by themselves, but maybe others are in that boat including Dino.

That said I will pose this question to Dino and the rest of the group:

You arrive at your typical good working fire (smoke and fire showing from multiple windows of a typical structure in your area) with signs of occupancy visible but only two or three members and additional resources still a good 10 minutes away, would you stand fast or attempt entry in this situation where 2 in 2 out is not met and a known life hazard may exist? And why?

[antiquefirelt 994]

You arrive at your typical good working fire (smoke and fire showing from multiple windows of a typical structure in your area) with signs of occupancy visible but only two or three members and additional resources still a good 10 minutes away, would you stand fast or attempt entry in this situation where 2 in 2 out is not met and a known life hazard may exist? And why?

Totally understand your question but I want to point out that the Rule is clear enough that you cannot have known life hazard followed by "may exist": If it's known, then it does exist, if it may then it is not a known. Maybe "life hazard" is the issue, how a "known life in jeopardy".

And while I would not commit to any answer about what anyone, myself included, would do in your scenario, without actually being there, I do know that teaching that attacking the fire from the interior in the scenario violates the rule and proves that no matter how much you tell the public and admin about what you need, you'll always undermine your own position by assuming greater risk. What might any one of us tell a firefighters family if he or she is killed making an offensive move in clear violation of the rule that seeks to ensure that member goes home when only property is know to be at stake? It doesn't matter if not having the two out was part of the cause or injury or death, because the firefighter should not have been there in the first place (again, according to the rule).

I know we're talking about doing the right thing to ensure people are safe and accounted for, but the answer is a staffing solution to ensure there's no delay. Every time you think you can make the rule look gray vs. bland and white, you assume greater risk and place members at greater risk. If something goes sideways, a member is injured or worse, and you've willfully violated a safety rule (law) that placed that member in jeopardy. Big risk.

In the end you'll have to decide how you'll handle it when your time comes, but if you're making the decisions, you should know all of the risks to those you serve, those you command and yourself (and FD by extension). Many of us justify breaking some rules/laws everyday, thankfully the consequences may not be as high?

Edited August 29, 2014 by antiquefirelt

[antiquefirelt 994]

For me personally, if I strongly suspect, based on all the information I have, that someone is viable I will make every reasonable effort and use all the tools at my disposal to get to them and get them out.

It's hard to think that any of us with any sense of duty, pride and understanding of this job would feel differently, at least I'd hope not. But, I know tons of folks who might agree with this, then run headlong into danger due to poor training and lack of experience. It is for those people that these rules are designed, the issue is OSHA can tell the difference by looking at us, then again, neither can the public and often our own department members.

Sadly there are tons of us who have no business being interior firefighters, tons with no business being officers and some with no business being chiefs. The perfect storm is when they all come together under the same roof, which is exactly what happens in many places, and so we find ourselves having rules instead of judgment.

Edited August 29, 2014 by antiquefirelt

[AFS1970 504]

We apply the concept at every fire unless there is a known life hazard, which I take to mean visible signs of occupancy such as:

Car(s) in the driveway/garage

Report from bystanders/neighbors/family members/co-workers of trapped occupants

I am going to pick these two because I saw them live at an incident. Here is the scenario. Coming from not to far away with another member, tones go off for automatic aid call, report of structure fire with person trapped. The fellow member I was with was probably one of only 2 drivers nearby at the time for the ladder truck that was being called for. I called the station by phone to let them know we were close and on the way. We get there suit up and join the other 3 members of the crew and go to the call. 2nd Driver stays behind to wait for more manpower and bring another rig if needed (rescue was special called very soon). We get to the scene, mix up between engines means we get there and the initial line is still being stretched to the door. light smoke and no visible flames. Resident on scene saying her husband is trapped inside. RIT en route but not there yet. Tanker is just arriving for supply. Chief is out front and send our crew inside. As much as I would have liked to go in, I assumed Safety Officer in front of building. All searches are negative. Fire turns out to be small electrical fire, not involving the structure. Still no sign of husband.

When the homeowner / wife is questioned she tells us he has to be inside because his van is in the driveway. Then he calls her back on her cell phone and tells her he dropped off the van and went out with a friend. All information was based on faulty assumption of wife, but relayed to dispatcher then to responding units. Information was repeated to arriving units. Still proved to be based on wrong assumption. The bottom line with this call was THERE WAS NO KNOWN LIFE HAZARD PRESENT.

Had this been a bigger fire of had water supply been the problem it was thought to be initially this might have ended much worse for the crews. A couple of simple questions of the wife by either the dispatcher or the IC could have changed the tactics. Those would be:

When did you last see your husband?

What part of the house was he in?

When the answers proved to be earlier this morning before work and in the kitchen having breakfast, that would have either lead to further questioning to confirm time frame or delay of search until RIT* was on scene.

*The Engine confusion would have actually added a small delay into who was supposed to be the RIT but that got worked out pretty quickly.

[FFPCogs 863]

We can nit pick to the end of time and relate stories of how many times family members or visible indicators were wrong, but the bottom line to me is we assume every...EVERY...structure is occupied until we KNOW differently, the only questions then become how, when and where should I act if shorthanded. More often than not the fire and the situation regarding further resources will dictate the answers to those questions. No matter the choice though, once the decision has been reached we have to live (and yes maybe even die) with the consequences of it. I would no more want to have to inform a member's family that their loved one has perished because of rash actions than anyone else, but by the same token I wouldn't want to have to inform that family whose home was just ravaged by fire that their baby or husband or wife perished because I didn't act when I could have.

Edited August 29, 2014 by FFPCogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

We can nit pick to the end of time and relate stories of how many times family members or visible indicators were wrong, but the bottom line to me is we assume every...EVERY...structure is occupied until we KNOW differently, the only questions then become how, when and where should I act if shorthanded.

As a general statement I will agree. But the Key word here is "KNOW"

So if the family says everyone is out, is that enough? do we "know"?

One must be very careful in how this is answered. If the definition is wrong, then either a civilian may not survive, that should have been saved or a ff may die searching for no one.

If the politicians have been told that with current staffing levels we can not complete everything that needs to be done, like searching, what options do you have (beyond mutual aid)? You always do your best, but if they only give you X, you can't do X plus 1, 2 & 3.

[CTFF 65]

Take a look at the cover photo on this months Fire Engineering and the blurb on page 6 about the fire. They even mention 2 in 2 out.

[gamewell45 258]

1. Overkill? Really? Let's be serious now, if it weren't for OSHA's 2 in 2 out rule, we would still have some departments operating with NOBODY standing around outside (including the IC). Two people isn't enough to perform the rescue of a down firefighter so what are we saying, we don't need to have a contigency for that? Two people isn't enough to perform many tasks on the fireground for very long so we are going to wind up with a lot of unfit people after a bottle change or two.

2. It was written into the respiratory protection standard and has been interpreted to include structural firefighting. See: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22711

3. On the subject of the right number of people, we still have no consensus on what that number is (see below) but I think we can all agree that if we are talking about fighting a fire with just four people (and are even debating their required qualifications (interior vs. exterior) we are completely missing the point. I don't care if it's a career department with inadequate staffing or a volunteer department that can't get the numbers to respond, we are setting people up for failure. And since our mantra is often "failure is not an option" what the hell are we doing? Even the international association of city managers cites minimum numbers but we still bicker and argue about it.

from: http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-162/issue-8/features/fire-department-staffing-a-need-not-a-want.html

The bottom line is we still don't respond with enough FF initially and we don't stage reserve FF effectively for the duration, for contingencies or relief. Why is that?

In the volunteer fire service its a lack of properly trained FF's committed and/or available to respond on demand; in the career service its a lack of funding for proper staffing; everyone wants proper staffing levels, but either don't want to raise taxes or shift funds to pay for it. In all honesty, I don't expect it to change materially much in our lifetimes given the current mindset of our politicians and voters.

[FFPCogs 863]

As a general statement I will agree. But the Key word here is "KNOW"

Fair enough

So if the family says everyone is out, is that enough? do we "know"?

We at times must rely on the information provided especially when short staffed, but regardless once it becomes possible in relation to 2 in 2 out we must also verify with our own eyes. If a family member(s) say everyone is out and there's only 2 or 3 members on scene, unless we physically see a trapped occupant(s) we will have to rely on that verbal report and act accordingly. In that scenario we have not done anything "wrong" but only acted prudently based on the information we have. On the other hand if in fact we realize that the family's report is inaccurate and there is a victim(s) every reasonable effort should be made to rescue them with the personnel on hand.

One must be very careful in how this is answered. If the definition is wrong, then either a civilian may not survive, that should have been saved or a ff may die searching for no one.

True, see above

If the politicians have been told that with current staffing levels we can not complete everything that needs to be done, like searching, what options do you have (beyond mutual aid)? You always do your best, but if they only give you X, you can't do X plus 1, 2 & 3.

True again under normal circumstance, but for many departments trapped occupant(s) is not "normal" so sometimes extraordinary steps need to be taken where X plus 1, or X plus 1,2 or even X plus 1,2 and 3 may be necessary to save those lives. I know fighting for proper staffing is an uphill and often losing battle and one worth the fight, but to be brutally honest I do have strong reservations about using 2 in 2 out to prove the point. Mrs. Smith and her family, while taxpayers, are not usually directly responsible for the staffing decisions made by policy makers, so to me they should not be punished by our inaction for them. To me, we as firefighters must do what we must with what we have when we have to, anything less and we risk losing the public trust...and if we lose that the damage done may undermine the very fight we're trying to win.