Where firefighters come to talk training
My take on VSP
I REFUSE to write someone off that may be viable inside a building based solely on what the exterior conditions tell me. But, before you think I am taking an overly aggressive tactical standpoint on this issue, let me explain.
The take home message that I took from the VSP article I read was that we need to make a calculated risk on whether or not we believe someone is viable inside a fire based upon the exterior conditions and our on scene size up. The other end of the spectrum disagrees with this tactic with passion, stating that this will kill civilians and goes against what we signed up for when joining the fire service. Now, the goal of this technique is coming from a place that I think everyone can agree upon; we want to reduce the number of LODD's in the fire service. But, I fear that it will be taken too literally by some and departments will start to "write off" potentially viable victims.
What we need to do as a fire service, tactically, is not to make a calculated guess on whether or not someone may or may not be alive inside a fire. Until you get eyes on inside the building, you really cannot know 100% whether someone is viable or not. We need to make our tactical decisions based upon what the conditions will allow us to do and then continually reevaluate our size up and tactical plan.
Our rescue priorities need to be coordinated with the fire attack at all incidents, but especially when there are advanced fire conditions in the structure. The fire goes as the first line does. If we put water on the fire, things will get better. So, instead of making a guess and saying that no one can be alive, make a decision to do an aggressive interior push and PROTECT your search crews!
Have you read the UL study on ventilation? Not only does this show how opening a building up will affect fire conditions, it also shows pretty clearly that even though one or two rooms may have flashed, there are still viable conditions in that house!
Aggressive does not mean reckless. You can have an aggressive company while still making smart tactical choices. And you can still make a save when there are advanced conditions in a structure (people hide in closets, under beds, and believe it or not, people can recover after taking in large amounts of smoke).
So, without rambling, I think our focus with this whole topic should be this. VSP comes from a good place. But, we cannot start writing people off before we start opening things up. If conditions do not allow us do make an aggressive search from the primary door, can we VES or can we start to apply water and ventilate, to allow us to go in?
Please don't write your victims off. If you do, please don't come to my house when it is on fire.
Views: 644
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dave LeBlanc on -
Trevor,
I have often spoken against VSP for many of the reasons you have stated here. I do not and have not ever advocated a reckless, headlong charge int burning buildings. I do feel we have an obligation to the public we serve to remove their bacon from the pan, provided we are able to do so.
As you stated, our tactical decisions need to be based on the conditions, not on whether we "think" the vicitm may already be dead. People have the ability to survive in the most amazing of circumstances and fire venting out windows on the Alpha side does not mean that a civilian could not be alive in a Charlie side room.
I agree with you that VSP as explained leaves a lot open to interpretation and some will err on the very safe side of caution and refuse to enter when in fact a life could be saved. I think that we as a service need to focus on teaching and training our people so that they are comfortable operating in the environment that we will be faced with. Will this prevent every LODD? No. But it will go a long way toward lowering the number....
-
Permalink Reply by Trevor Ashe on
-
Amen brother. Amen.
Dave LeBlanc said:Trevor,
I have often spoken against VSP for many of the reasons you have stated here. I do not and have not ever advocated a reckless, headlong charge int burning buildings. I do feel we have an obligation to the public we serve to remove their bacon from the pan, provided we are able to do so.
As you stated, our tactical decisions need to be based on the conditions, not on whether we "think" the vicitm may already be dead. People have the ability to survive in the most amazing of circumstances and fire venting out windows on the Alpha side does not mean that a civilian could not be alive in a Charlie side room.
I agree with you that VSP as explained leaves a lot open to interpretation and some will err on the very safe side of caution and refuse to enter when in fact a life could be saved. I think that we as a service need to focus on teaching and training our people so that they are comfortable operating in the environment that we will be faced with. Will this prevent every LODD? No. But it will go a long way toward lowering the number....
-
Permalink Reply by Dave LeBlanc on
-
"Just a reminder for those who do the new age "survivability profiling". Most would have "written off" anyone or anything inside this apartment. Two unconscious adults were successfully rescued as they took refuge inside of a bathroom." - Tim Aungst
Trevor, this is an example of what I wrote about ..... Photo and description from a friend on mine on Facebook.
-
Permalink Reply by Lt. Billy Greenwood on -
My opinion of VSP is the fire service for the most part has used VSP to a limited degree. It is a new term for a size-up profiling technique. Incident Commanders need to determine the mode of operation from the street. Good Incident Commanders have been doing this for hundreds of years. The difference in the authors intent, it is based on the conditions from the exterior. Here is where I agree to disagree with the intent. I like the authors systematic thought process of VSP but it would be better aligned if it were overlaid on a traditional size-up profile. Traditionally good incident commanders take in an interior condition report from experienced line officers to assure the Risk vs Gain matches his chosen mode of operation. Using a first hand VSP conditional assessment from the interior officer would be more accurate to determine if the building is truly tenable or untenable. Making the VSP call from the street is not as simple as drawing a line in the sand. If you adopt this Command Model there will never be a Marginal Mode of Operation. Will it reduce LODD's? yes with less firefighter exposure to a fire of course it will. With that thought, there are many great examples of what appeared to be an untenable dwelling, and the FD made some great civillian grabs who would have definately perished if they did not make the attempt from exterior only size-up. Every year at medal day there are brothers being tapped with a medal for just such an act.
-
Permalink Reply by Patrick Brown on -
The photo presented does not provide any means to properly size up a building. When you pull up to a building with fire showing from the front windows it means you have a fire in the front. One must do a thorough 360 size up to get a true perspective of the building and the fires impact on the structure and thus the survivability of potential occupants within that structure. I feel VSP is valid. The fire services has lost firefighters in situations where there was NO CHANCE OF VICTIM SURVIVABILITY. This is inexcusable. We have a duty to serve not a duty to die. I am a big proponant of aggressive interior firefighting but I am also a big proponent of firefighter safety. They don't have to be polar opposites. The bottom line is the entire picture of the scene must be thoroughly evaluated by experienced personnel before we risk the lifes of members to save a life that is already lost. My department has lost a few members since I have been a member. No civilians died or were even injured at any of the incidents. We are a big and busy department. We have experienced members. We made mistakes. What are departments that get very few fires doing? How are they learning? How are they getting true fireground experience? THEY ARE NOT!
VSP is another tool in their tool box. If, in the abscence of experience, a proper evaluation of the building cannot be made or the integrity of the structure is in question and one is questioning the survivability of a potential occupant, I feel the life of the firefighters must take priority.
LODD funerals are terrible! There is nothing worse then looking into the eyes of a wife and the children of a firefighter who died. Our ultimate responsibility is to our family. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do our job. It means we need to be smart about how we do our job.
Dave LeBlanc said:"Just a reminder for those who do the new age "survivability profiling". Most would have "written off" anyone or anything inside this apartment. Two unconscious adults were successfully rescued as they took refuge inside of a bathroom." - Tim Aungst
Trevor, this is an example of what I wrote about ..... Photo and description from a friend on mine on Facebook.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave LeBlanc on
-
Patrick, I am not saying they have to be polar opposites, but when you start telling me that based on how much smoke is in the building, victims may not survive, I disagree. My point of the picture show was that people survived in there, where it would appear untenable from the outside.
The decision to enter or not should be based on the conditions present.....not whether the victims are already dead. That is my point. If you want to call that VSP, fine. I say that is just size up. From what I have read about VSP, there is a huge component that describes whether your decision to commit to interior firefighting should be based on if the victims are alive, and that based on the smoke you should realize that CO levels have potentially reached a fatal level. And the basis for VSP is the number of Firefighters were killed in fires where no victims were killed. I am not sure I understand the correlation, would a more valid data set include fires where firefighter were killed and no victims were present or reported?
Experience is a huge factor, and one that is diminishing over time. Less fires, equals less experience. In the absence of experience, training must fill in the gap. That is the world we live in. Know your resources, know your capabilities. Treat each fire as if it is the first time you have seen it, because no two fires are the same. And develop your plan accordingly. I am not sure I agree that VSP is another tool in the toolbox, and I have yet to see a comprehensive explanation of how it should be applied.
-
Permalink Reply by Patrick Brown on
-
Dave,
The first sentence of your second paragraph says it all...."The decision to enter or not should be based on the conditions present".....that is VSP. Firefighters have been killed because the choice was made to go into a structure in which the victim is reported to be in a structure that is FULLY involved.....fully involved. No one can survive in a room or house that is fully involved yet someone thought they could make the rescue only to realize very that the structures interior was untenable. Unfortunately, our gear over protects us and isolates us from the environment we work in until it's too late and we start burning. I feel the ever decreasing experience level is compounding the problem because many firefighters/ fire officers haven't seen/ experienced tenable fires vs untenable fires so they make decisions based on what....training? How does training cover this topic? Pictures? Like the picture you showed in the forum, it only shows one view. When I looked at the picture the first thing I said to myself was "what do the sides and back look like". I didn't think untenable. No one can tell the complexity of the situation from a picture. One has to look at the entire situation.....type of building, the buildings structural integrity, weather, manpower, overall fire conditions, wind conditions, overall smoke conditions, structural impedances (VPS, gates, boards, lack of stairs etc) and so forth. How do you teach this stuff? I have been a firefighter for 13 years and learn new things each time I go to a fire...and I go to fires. How is the guy who doesn't go to fires learn this stuff? The worst firefighters are those who don't think. There is no room in this business for robotic firefigters..."see fire, go in, put out". You seem to have experienced some fires....I have never met you but it sounds like you know what you are talking about. You seem to have such disdain for VSP when it seems to me to be a matter of semantics. VSP is basically sizeup plus.....it adds another question to the sizeup. If VSP helps the firefighter/ fire officer look at the scene better before committing his crew to interior operations I am all for it.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave LeBlanc on
-
Patrick, I dislike it because I feel like in an age of less experience, it over complicates a process that is already difficult enough. You say VSP is size up plus. From discussion I have had and articles I have read, it is intended to be more than that.
Effecting a rescue in a fully involved building? Not going to happen. Writing off a victim because you assume they couldn't survive in the smoke condition? A much different animal. I don't see it as semantics, and I am not sure we need to re-invent size up. Not to say we can learn and improve .... just don't fix what ain't broken.
I don't know if I know what I am talking about but I believe, it was how I was raised in the Fire Service, that our first obligation is to save lives. I just watched the Chicago video where they didn't use EGH as an excuse not to fight fires, but as a tool to make sure they do it the right way. And somewhere in all that includes our obligation to protect property. Not at the expense of our lives, but we should certainly be fighting the fires we can fight.
I appreciate the civil discussion brother, I try and learn on this job every day...and the end of that first sentence, second paragraph completes the thought "....not whether the victims are already dead."
-
-
Patrick, I feel that you, Dave, and I are trying to say the same thing. However, Dave and my impression from reading the VPS article is that victim tenability is the limiting factor in making an aggressive interior attack with a rescue attempt. To the experienced firefighter and officer, there is more to it than that. The experienced firefighter and officer will be able to see the entire picture and say...."Hey, we may have some heavy fire conditions, but with a strong interior push with a handline, we can still attempt a rescue".
If, however, you take the inexperienced firefighter, as you have cited, and give them the VPS article....THAT is a dangerous animal. Because then we are teaching our new recruits to make a size up and develop their initial tactics based upon an educated guess on victim tenability....and not what they can affectively accomplish based upon the conditions in the building.
I still consider myself a new firefighter fire officer. I have 10 years in as a volunteer in Vermont. The department that I am on currently just had its busiest year on record...689 runs...and we are the busiest volunteer department in Vermont. So...from our standards, we stay busy. But we don't go to fires every week, or every month. In 10 years, I have been a junior member (started at 15), a probie, and a lieutenant. I read as much as I can to stay on top of my game. As Lt. McCormack's work has challenged, I try to "keep fire in (my) life".
My point in saying this is that as a young firefighter and officer, and working directly with members with under 5 years on the job (We also work with St. Michael's College Fire and Rescue), I can immediately see how this kind of article will affect decision making and size up in new recruits. Having some experience behind me, I can objectively read the VSP articles and see that the basis is coming from a good place; reducing LODD's. But...if a new recruit reads that article and takes it word for word, and holds onto that idea, we will slowly start to affect a culture change in the fire service. One that is based upon an educated guess about victim tenability, rather than an AFFECTIVE SIZE UP and aggressive interior attack...when conditions allow.
So, I do feel that both of you are trying to say the same thing....just in different ways. My fear is that the new recruits that want to learn as much as possible will take this VSP stuff too literally, and will write off victims before making an attemps.
That is my worry.
-
Permalink Reply by Lt. Billy Greenwood on
-
Patrick I agree, we should have a strong concern with how to train the newer firefighters on this stuff. We have developed a class called Thermal Insult Recognition. This class covers BTU's, Fire Dynamics, Modern Furnishings, How our gear works, What our gear will protect us from and what it will not. The concern of our PPE protecting us at a greater levels is a problem, especially when we focus the training on donning / doffing for time and used at highly controlled, low temp training fires or non-heat smoke houses.
Bill
-
Permalink Reply by Bryan Altman on -
We have to be intellectually aggressive not arbitrarily aggressive. We can be aggressive when we know what we are doing and why we are doing it, not because we feel we have to. VSP goes back to Situational awareness and risk assessment. We must be able to perceive critical elements in the environment, comprehend their meaning and project their status in the future. Once that is done we can form that risk assessment, risk a lot to SAVE A "SAVABLE" life! We didn't start the fire, don't become part of the problem. If they are gone they are gone...
-
Permalink Reply by John Mitchell on -
Great discussion on what I think is THE topic of 2012 for the fire service. Here's my take:
The go/no-go decision should be based upon conditions which must be considered in every individual instance. VSP is only one of these factors. So, what this means is we need to be engaging our cerebellums.
Before the incident, if you have already made a decision on safe vs. aggressive, then you are pre-judging the incident without taking in it's actual conditions. Following this model, we are doing more to identify what side of the fight we are on while doing ourselves and our crews a HUGE disservice.
We should be more concerned about being able to think quickly, making a rational decision each time based upon each incident's conditions rather than fighting so hard for one side or the other on the issue.
Thanks, guys. I could be wrong.
Policy Page
We are excited to have you participate in our discussions and interactive forums. Before you begin posting, please take a moment to read our policy page HERE. -- Bobby Halton
Be Alert for Spam
We actively monitor the community for spam, however some does slip through. Please use common sense and caution when clicking links. If you suspect you've been hit by spam, e-mail peterp@pennwell.com.
Roundtable
Does your fire department have a policy concerning working above or below truss assemblies involved in fire? CLICK HERE to send us your reply.
FE on Twitter
© 2013 Created by fireeng.
