Where firefighters come to talk training
Take risk or write it off. Part 2.
Back in January, I wrote a blog post asking the question, “Can we establish a common understanding of risk? Or.. should we write it off?” Because my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek when I posed the question, I don’t want the point to be missed. I believe our duty to ourselves and our beloved fire service cannot be separated from our duty to the citizens we are sworn to and are obligated to protect. What is good for us is good for them. My question is, are we seeing this trend to "let it burn" because we have given-up the fight to provide our members with all of those things that are necessary to provide effective and efficient fire and rescue services? Have we rolled-over, bent-over and given up our hopes to provide excellent service and the ability to accurately assess risk? Have we allowed those that seek to undermine our mission to gain a foot-hold? Have we become complacent because we don’t believe it can or will happen today? Are the enemies of the fire service going to be allowed to dismantle our combat readiness to the point where the easy or only option is to “let it burn”?
When you have a few minutes, please view the FDIC keynote speech given by Lt. Ray McCormack. It was indeed an honor for me to be present as Lt. McCormack delivered a passionate plea to the fire service, to keep fire in our lives. I couldn’t agree more and as the saying goes, Ray’s speech spoke to me. Rather than commenting on or adding to Ray’s speech, I’ll let it stand on its own as a clarion call to the American fire service. We can’t allow the “safety experts” that promote the “let it burn” philosophy to convince firefighters that we should place our safety and our lives above the lives of our citizens.
As I further ponder the question of safety as it relates to risk and our sworn duty and obligation, the reality of the situation has come into focus. The American fire service is divided into two camps. Both camps speak to their cause with passion and righteousness. In one camp are the “guardians” of safety, many of whom have decided that no building or the contents of that building are worth the life of a firefighter. The other camp seeks to direct the conversation toward our sworn duty to safeguard not only the lives of those we are sworn to protect, but their property as well. This camp of so called “reckless” firefighters is far more interested making sure that our members are competent, predictable, professional and combat ready. This camp believes that the best way to improve the safety of our members is to provide fire departments with the necessary manpower required to mount an aggressive, coordinated interior fire attack. This camp’s approach requires that fire departments build battle ready fire suppression forces and dedicate the appropriate resources to demanding training programs, adherence to sound operational procedures and a constant attention to and a demand that firefighters respond to every call as if it was the real thing. And finally, we believe as Lt. Ray McCormack articulated, that the fire service is wrong to place the lives of firefighters above the lives of civilians.
The guardians of safety are not shy about their disdain for the other camp, the “reckless holdovers of a long lost era in the fire service". They seek to discredit this camp by questioning our dedication to safety, saying that we are so bound by tradition and the mentality that we do things because “we always do it that way” that we are endangering our members. I’m growing weary of defending myself and like-minded firefighters against constant attacks from the disciples of the “let it burn” philosophy. It is impossible to have a reasoned, logical discussion with someone that will use the tragic loss of a firefighter in the line of duty to justify their philosophy. Their favorite arguments are fashioned following the tragic loss of a Brother or Sister in a building that was later determined to be unoccupied. After the fact, it’s easy to ask, “was that building worth a firefighter’s life?”
As I said in the earlier post, there is a fundamental difference between firefighters and the rest of the world. When we take the oath, with our right hands raised, we agree to certain things and these things become our solemn duty, our obligation. These duties include the understanding that a time may and likely will come when we have to be willing to risk everything…..to save the life of a stranger. We also have a duty and obligation to take risk for a stranger’s property. That’s the deal, this is what makes us different from everyone else, with the exception of the military.
To be sure, we have other obligations as husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. We have still more obligations and duties to our friends and extended families. No one wants to die; however, our duty to perform our job and our obligation to the citizens we protect rightly takes precedence when faced with the saving of a life and given a fighting chance. When our citizens, in spite of all of our education and prevention efforts, end up needing to be rescued, we are all they have. No one else will come to save them, they will surely die alone if not for our efforts.
We also have a duty and an obligation to protect their property. A person’s home represents the bulk of their life’s investment. Their home is filled with a lifetime of memories and priceless items that would be lost forever in an extensive fire. What is your home worth? My home remains “vacant” and “unoccupied” much of the time; however, if there was a fire in my home, I assure you that I would expect the fire department to mount an aggressive interior attack to save my property. I believe that we have that agreement that contract with our citizens. A recent fire in Chicago involved the Holy Name Cathedral. The Holy Name Cathedral was built in 1874 and it is the seat of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, one of the largest Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. What was the value of this “unoccupied” church? What level of risk is acceptable for this truly priceless property? I can tell you that the building was saved because the Chicago Fire Department mounted an aggressive, coordinated interior attack that was truly remarkable. The skill and courage displayed in extending large caliber hand lines up to the attic from the interior, across narrow catwalks and through barriers to fight this fire and save this building that has so much meaning to the people of Chicago and beyond was only accomplished at great risk to the firefighters involved. If, God forbid, something had happened to any of those firefighters, we would have to answer the same questions….is there any building or property worth the life of a firefighter?
I fear that the “let it burn” movement, under the guise of safety is gaining momentum. I fear that more members of our service are falling under their spell and being convinced that we should not commit our members to “vacant” or “unoccupied” structures because no building or property is worth a life. Of course no building or property is worth the life of a firefighter. If we could know that a life would be lost before we arrive instead of after the fire is out and the investigation is completed, who would commit their members to the fight? This is why it is difficult to have a reasoned, logical and thoughtful discussion, if this is where we start, how can we ever have open and honest dialog.
I believe the safety of our members is dependent on our training, our experience and our ability to make sound decisions on the fireground, where it has always been. We must obtain and maintain a high level of proficiency in the fundamental company functions. Engine companies must be very good at quickly stretching the right size and length hose -line to the right location and getting water on the fire. Truck companies need to have excellent laddering, forcible entry and ventilation skills along with the courage and skill required to search under hostile conditions. Finally, we must have the manpower necessary to accomplish the mission.
The “let it burn” approach is, in my estimation, the easy approach to safety. The far more difficult approach is for our fire service leaders to work with our elected and appointed officials and if necessary, take up the fight to provide us with the necessary manpower required to mount an aggressive, coordinated interior attack. It’s hard work and takes a great deal of perseverance for our leaders to demand a high level of consistent, predictable and professional performance. It’s hard to provide the kind and amount of training we need to make good, sound decisions on the fireground and to recognize changing fire conditions. It takes guts to speak-out against the complacency and laziness that is having a devastating effect on our ability to safeguard the lives and property of the citizens we are sworn to protect. Letting it burn is the easy way.
I ask you not to take the easy road, it doesn’t take a great deal of skill, knowledge or training to “let it burn”. I ask our leaders to dedicate yourselves to the difficult process of building properly manned, highly skilled, well trained, competent, professional firefighting forces. I ask the members to dedicate yourselves to the hard work of becoming craftsmen. Don’t be satisfied to learn the basics or to maintain the minimum standard. By craftsmanship, I mean to seek out as much information on every conceivable topic by asking questions, conducting research, reading and doing. Learn the fundamentals and then go beyond the basics to create a depth of knowledge that allows you to be flexible enables you to improvise and gives you the ability to troubleshoot problems and fashion solutions. And finally, it is the citizens we serve, not ourselves.
When you have a few minutes, please view the FDIC keynote speech given by Lt. Ray McCormack. It was indeed an honor for me to be present as Lt. McCormack delivered a passionate plea to the fire service, to keep fire in our lives. I couldn’t agree more and as the saying goes, Ray’s speech spoke to me. Rather than commenting on or adding to Ray’s speech, I’ll let it stand on its own as a clarion call to the American fire service. We can’t allow the “safety experts” that promote the “let it burn” philosophy to convince firefighters that we should place our safety and our lives above the lives of our citizens.
As I further ponder the question of safety as it relates to risk and our sworn duty and obligation, the reality of the situation has come into focus. The American fire service is divided into two camps. Both camps speak to their cause with passion and righteousness. In one camp are the “guardians” of safety, many of whom have decided that no building or the contents of that building are worth the life of a firefighter. The other camp seeks to direct the conversation toward our sworn duty to safeguard not only the lives of those we are sworn to protect, but their property as well. This camp of so called “reckless” firefighters is far more interested making sure that our members are competent, predictable, professional and combat ready. This camp believes that the best way to improve the safety of our members is to provide fire departments with the necessary manpower required to mount an aggressive, coordinated interior fire attack. This camp’s approach requires that fire departments build battle ready fire suppression forces and dedicate the appropriate resources to demanding training programs, adherence to sound operational procedures and a constant attention to and a demand that firefighters respond to every call as if it was the real thing. And finally, we believe as Lt. Ray McCormack articulated, that the fire service is wrong to place the lives of firefighters above the lives of civilians.
The guardians of safety are not shy about their disdain for the other camp, the “reckless holdovers of a long lost era in the fire service". They seek to discredit this camp by questioning our dedication to safety, saying that we are so bound by tradition and the mentality that we do things because “we always do it that way” that we are endangering our members. I’m growing weary of defending myself and like-minded firefighters against constant attacks from the disciples of the “let it burn” philosophy. It is impossible to have a reasoned, logical discussion with someone that will use the tragic loss of a firefighter in the line of duty to justify their philosophy. Their favorite arguments are fashioned following the tragic loss of a Brother or Sister in a building that was later determined to be unoccupied. After the fact, it’s easy to ask, “was that building worth a firefighter’s life?”
As I said in the earlier post, there is a fundamental difference between firefighters and the rest of the world. When we take the oath, with our right hands raised, we agree to certain things and these things become our solemn duty, our obligation. These duties include the understanding that a time may and likely will come when we have to be willing to risk everything…..to save the life of a stranger. We also have a duty and obligation to take risk for a stranger’s property. That’s the deal, this is what makes us different from everyone else, with the exception of the military.
To be sure, we have other obligations as husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. We have still more obligations and duties to our friends and extended families. No one wants to die; however, our duty to perform our job and our obligation to the citizens we protect rightly takes precedence when faced with the saving of a life and given a fighting chance. When our citizens, in spite of all of our education and prevention efforts, end up needing to be rescued, we are all they have. No one else will come to save them, they will surely die alone if not for our efforts.
We also have a duty and an obligation to protect their property. A person’s home represents the bulk of their life’s investment. Their home is filled with a lifetime of memories and priceless items that would be lost forever in an extensive fire. What is your home worth? My home remains “vacant” and “unoccupied” much of the time; however, if there was a fire in my home, I assure you that I would expect the fire department to mount an aggressive interior attack to save my property. I believe that we have that agreement that contract with our citizens. A recent fire in Chicago involved the Holy Name Cathedral. The Holy Name Cathedral was built in 1874 and it is the seat of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, one of the largest Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. What was the value of this “unoccupied” church? What level of risk is acceptable for this truly priceless property? I can tell you that the building was saved because the Chicago Fire Department mounted an aggressive, coordinated interior attack that was truly remarkable. The skill and courage displayed in extending large caliber hand lines up to the attic from the interior, across narrow catwalks and through barriers to fight this fire and save this building that has so much meaning to the people of Chicago and beyond was only accomplished at great risk to the firefighters involved. If, God forbid, something had happened to any of those firefighters, we would have to answer the same questions….is there any building or property worth the life of a firefighter?
I fear that the “let it burn” movement, under the guise of safety is gaining momentum. I fear that more members of our service are falling under their spell and being convinced that we should not commit our members to “vacant” or “unoccupied” structures because no building or property is worth a life. Of course no building or property is worth the life of a firefighter. If we could know that a life would be lost before we arrive instead of after the fire is out and the investigation is completed, who would commit their members to the fight? This is why it is difficult to have a reasoned, logical and thoughtful discussion, if this is where we start, how can we ever have open and honest dialog.
I believe the safety of our members is dependent on our training, our experience and our ability to make sound decisions on the fireground, where it has always been. We must obtain and maintain a high level of proficiency in the fundamental company functions. Engine companies must be very good at quickly stretching the right size and length hose -line to the right location and getting water on the fire. Truck companies need to have excellent laddering, forcible entry and ventilation skills along with the courage and skill required to search under hostile conditions. Finally, we must have the manpower necessary to accomplish the mission.
The “let it burn” approach is, in my estimation, the easy approach to safety. The far more difficult approach is for our fire service leaders to work with our elected and appointed officials and if necessary, take up the fight to provide us with the necessary manpower required to mount an aggressive, coordinated interior attack. It’s hard work and takes a great deal of perseverance for our leaders to demand a high level of consistent, predictable and professional performance. It’s hard to provide the kind and amount of training we need to make good, sound decisions on the fireground and to recognize changing fire conditions. It takes guts to speak-out against the complacency and laziness that is having a devastating effect on our ability to safeguard the lives and property of the citizens we are sworn to protect. Letting it burn is the easy way.
I ask you not to take the easy road, it doesn’t take a great deal of skill, knowledge or training to “let it burn”. I ask our leaders to dedicate yourselves to the difficult process of building properly manned, highly skilled, well trained, competent, professional firefighting forces. I ask the members to dedicate yourselves to the hard work of becoming craftsmen. Don’t be satisfied to learn the basics or to maintain the minimum standard. By craftsmanship, I mean to seek out as much information on every conceivable topic by asking questions, conducting research, reading and doing. Learn the fundamentals and then go beyond the basics to create a depth of knowledge that allows you to be flexible enables you to improvise and gives you the ability to troubleshoot problems and fashion solutions. And finally, it is the citizens we serve, not ourselves.
Views: 461
Comment
-
Comment by Ben Fleagle on April 28, 2009 at 6:55pm
-
Art, I hope you know I was not suggesting the you advocate true recklessness. Never thought that. I really agree with everything I've ever seen you write. I do feel that the problems we talk of are complex and things that have to be taken into account are the many, almost insurmountable issues that small departments face and how different that is from a large department or area that has the manpower, but doesn't use it well. Its hard to face a chief and demand a particular tactic when you know as well as the chief does that the people needed to do that tactic will only just barely be provided, let alone all the other things that an NFPA minded department is expected to achieve on any given fire scene. You are right on track and I love reading your blog!!
-
Comment by Art Zern on April 28, 2009 at 6:33pm
-
Ben,
Thanks for jumping-in, and as Mike said....great points. It is very difficult to discuss the reasons behind a tragic LODD. It is equally important to examine the reasons for the loss. Often, these tragic losses are due to the same lessons NOT learned. I am not advocating a thoughtless, reckless and anti-safety approach. I believe that a firefighter with a greater depth of knowledge, training and experience is a safer firefighter. We don't need to turn our backs on the best of our traditions, we are not here to serve our needs, we are public servants.
Thanks again Brother, very thoughtful and thought provoking.
-
Comment by Mike Walker on April 28, 2009 at 5:52pm
-
Great points Ben.
-
-
Well, H-E-Double L! My name is "Watash" and I love going to fires!
Art. You spoke volumes. I don't know if you were able to read my last blog post, but you and I have some very similar thoughts on what public service actually means and I cannot help but jump up and down as I read this and feel like someone else feels as I do!
Here is my cogitation on your post. I think that many of the "safety" crowd are brought along without an understanding of what is actually being said. As you wrote, no one wants to die. So telling the inexperienced and uneducated that our lives are more valuable than the public's and that no building is worth a life sounds very profound and powerful. It isn't easy to see through the one speaking and realize it is often the fear of failure that drives this attitude. I have known several Chief officers who were far more aggressive as Captains than they are as Chiefs. They also seem to have a lack of integrity due to clear thought. "We are we under the roof if it wasn't safe enough to be on top of?"
There are many reasons for this. Manning, lack of continuity in the workforce, lack of adequate training at ALL LEVELS, etc. Additionally I think that to top it off, we are dealing with a post-Vietnam era culture of "SELF" and it finds the concept of public service "quaint" and "old-fashioned". The idea that a healthy young man or woman would sacrifice everything for a member of the public is lauded if they were successful, but not so much when the building is empty, but, as you said, "how are we to know?"
The often quoted Chief Croker said it best in his speech about the simple ambition of being a fireman. In it he states that we are public servants and defines what he means by that. That we are tasked with saving the public from the very things the public has created, which lead to their deaths. It is our duty and being a "hero" is really not a part of it. But most folks only read the first sentence. I find that many of today's young firefighters can't get past that sentence for a lack of grammar and vocabulary.
I am willing to say that yes, I am looking back at the past, I am a traditionalist and I was raised to believe in service and commitment as the greatest honor a man can have the privilege to perform in his earthly life. I would give my life for another if asked, I hope that I would without hesitating. However, where we run afoul in this "reckless" camp is in not controlling our young "elephants" as Bobby Halton described them. Many tragic LODD's could be prevented, by adhering to what we have been trained to do, and by being open to training and tactics that make better sense in the bigger picture of things. I am against losing life over a failure to perform with common sense. When we lose life through a lack of sound tactics or mis-applied tactics, we only feed the "safety" camp. This is a fight I am constantly embroiled in. I believe in strong discipline on the fireground, with aggressive, sound tactics and the presence of mind to call it when it is no longer a viable option to continue without unnecessary casualties. After 911, governments and the general public no longer seem to have the stomach to hear about the death of firemen. We are mistaken if we think we can ignore that and we must push that much harder to solidify our professional approach to structure fires.
The crazy thing is that we "reckless" ones are usually more safety aware than those that are screaming "safety!". Thanks for speaking out about things that many people just don't want to face.
-
Comment by Wayne Benner Jr on April 28, 2009 at 9:39am
-
I too took a liken to Lt McCormicks message. How ever I just came off another site where many were not so impressed with his message.
I will start off by saying. IM A FIREFIGHTER THROUGH AND THROUGH, This is my life that I chose. I did not work my a** off to get on a career department to stand by and watch those who need rescue to die a horrible death because WE choose it to be unsafe.
UNSAFE is our job. No matter how much reflection, Nomex, Plastic, Leather, SOG, SOP, we get thrown at us will not make our job safe. Its a fact its just plain and simple its unsafe. We need to take safety and go backwards. Learn how to fight the fires from the inside. Not outside heck a Police Officer can do that. Do a better job of how to be aggressive and know fire behaviour, and building construction. How many lives are saved because we went in? Im sure its. 99.9%
We look at all of the LODD yes some are because of an agreesive attack and approach. TRAIN TRAIN TRAIN.. Lets get our buts off the couch and train. No more excuses... The safety book is just that a book. I can replace a smoke damaged building but not a charred one. There is a video on here in the Commen Sense group with Buffalo Fire arriving at a so called abandoned building with heavy fire showing. Guess what? They pulled a gentlemen from the front door. How many would have gone defensive right away?
I think its becoming too EASY for Chiefs and I/C and officers to take the easy way out by cutting our losses to go defensive. Heck the taxpayer doesnt know any better right?
Lets start using our brains and learn to fight the fire not sit back and cut our losses due to some excuse that is was write off before we go there. If in fact no entry can be made because the situation reads so then so be it. We go defensive..But atleast we tried. And I will end by saying that Im known as a WHY guy... So tell me WHY do we give up so easy?
-
Comment by Don Huneke on April 28, 2009 at 12:08am
-
Brother that was great. I would rather go in to a fire then play cop any day !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Very well writen and thought out. I will tell you this as both a Firefighter and Police Officer for my entire adult life the new trend I see from the fire service where I work and live is this "have PD advise" are we crazy? Nothing kills me more then that. Either a medical or fire related call should never get passed to PD to advise.
My Brother and Sisters in the fire service remind me all the time how PD can mess up a fire scene and in return my Police family points out how FD messes up police scenes. I have designed classes that teach both fire and police to work together on scenes. The classes focus on showing both PD and FD members what the other must do and how they do it. It is an eye opening class for both. Some members had no ideas what either dicipline really did on scenes.
We in the fire service are under attack for our lower fire call volumes. Buildings and construction have changed and it happened. We have been more aggressive code and inspection wise. So fires are less then back in the day. To point out an event that broke my heart about the new fire service. While working a late shift as a road Officer I responded to a fire call. We arrived prior to FD. I was told by the home owner that the home was clear all occupants were accounted for. FD arrived the fire was contained to one room. Still small and contained. The first in Engine was a typical 3 person Engine. The FF jumped off the rig dressed out pulled a cross lay to the front door, and waited for the Officer to back him up. The Officer told the FF not to enter. The Officer was not even dressed out. The FF disputed the order as nice as he could. The line was charged and the home owner was now flipping out that no one was going to save the home. The FF is a friend so he asked me to help him hump the line in. In the time the FF disputed the lack of enrty the hall and two more rooms became involved and then the fire self vented from the windows. It really took off then. We agreed to make entry and the FF did a great job knocking the fire down. We took a beating. When all was said and done the one room job turned into three and a half rooms, and went from maybe $20,000 in damage to over $100,000 in damage. I recived a letter of commendation the FF recieved a letter of reprimand. This killed me. The home was stable not in poor condition and the fire at the time the line was stretched would have been a room and contents only.
How can we in the fire service stand bye and let someones home burn and do nothing ? Or worse delay our response to any possible call by having "PD advise".
I know in my police world we would never or could never have FD advise. I can assure you a suspension would be at hand if that happened.
Brother I guess this is what I should say now. My name is Don and I too like to go in to fires. And I thank God so many of my brothers and sisters still do too. Be safe all (EGH)
-
Comment by Brandon Krause on April 27, 2009 at 10:52pm
-
Im glad to see that Ray's presentation spoke to more that just a few of us so called "crazies" who still believe in agressive fire attack. If more of us dont speak up we will be forced into a world of let it burn. It will become worse than we can imagine, let it burn if its vacant to begin, then let it burn if only a few lives can be saved; before we know let it all burn will be the motto of the next generation of firefighters. I raise my glass to you gentlemen who stand firm on your beliefs, thank you!
My name is Brandon, and I too like to go to fires!
-
-
Good blog Art
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
Policy Page
PLEASE NOTE
The login above DOES NOT provide access to Fire Engineering magazine archives. Please go here for our archives.
CONTRIBUTORS NOTE
Our contributors' posts are not vetted by the Fire Engineering technical board, and reflect the views and opinions of the individual authors. Anyone is welcome to participate.
For vetted content, please go to www.fireengineering.com/issues.
We are excited to have you participate in our discussions and interactive forums. Before you begin posting, please take a moment to read our community policy page.
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 peter.prochilo@clarionevents.com.
FE Podcasts
Check out the most recent episode and schedule of UPCOMING PODCASTS
Podcast Archive
Groups
-
National Fallen Firefigh…
62 members
-
Operational Guides
73 members
-
"Outside The Box" Engine…
166 members
-
Engine Company Ops
65 members
-
Fire Service Leadership
277 members
-
COMPANY DRILLS
510 members
-
Swiftwater Rescue
10 members
-
Step Up and LEAD
106 members
-
Swift Water Rescue
15 members
-
Truck Company Operations
345 members
© 2024 Created by fireeng.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Fire Engineering Training Community to add comments!
Join Fire Engineering Training Community