Skip to content


A Little Safety Parable

2 comments
You too could be roadkill. Photo courtesy of aanimalcontrol.com

You too could be roadkill. Photo courtesy of aanimalcontrol.com

So I’m walking from our house to the beach with my three daughters.  There’s a road we have to cross in between here and there that’s pretty busy.  On occasion tourists come flying around the curve, not realizing that there’s an area where you have to cross (although it’s not a marked crosswalk).  While no one has been hit at that spot in the 29 years I have been living on the Island (that I know of), I know it’s a bad section that you can’t see around.  It occurred to me today when I was making that crossing that it’s a lot like the risk we endure as firefighters.

I had the opportunity this weekend to read a recent article on Stat911, that seems to have created some serious wailing and gnashing of the teeth between people who call themselves brothers.  Honestly, it was pretty sad to me as I read these comments.  I admit, it is a little bothersome when a video comes out and a number of people point out the obvious mistakes made, but as I mentioned in an earlier article here on FHZ, we should be looking at things that go wrong and learning, and resolving to keep from repeating events that maim and kill our brethren.

Conversely, instead of saying how stupid some of these people are, perhaps we should offer some constructive criticism and offer suggestions on methods that would help solve the problems, rather than lowering the bar into that angry pit of accusatory language.  And when we generalize about whole departments or organizations based on a squirrely few, we aren’t doing anything other than trying to piss one another off.  I agree 100% that some of the repeated actions (or inactions) taken by other firefighters that endanger themselves and their their colleagues are a little infuriating (like refusing to wear a seat belt), but like the point I have also made over and over again, people aren’t going to learn when you rub their nose in it, they will learn when they see the logic in changing.

But back to my story.  There is, of course, risk in crossing the street, but we accept that risk when we go for a walk, don’t we?  As a pedestrian, we take a calculated risk every time we go out in the road, but it doesn’t stop us from doing it.  In fact, walking in the middle of a busy street is exhilarating.  There’s a certain adrenaline rush when you run out in front of moving cars.

As a responsible father, however, I’d advise against running in front of a moving car.  I’m sure I’d get in a little trouble with my wife, the law, and probably get a few death threats if I just let my children run out in front of cars.  If my four-year-old got struck by a car there, after having  just let her run out there, knowing the risks involved, wouldn’t that make me a little bit liable?  But given the logic espoused by a few of my more enlightened colleagues, I suppose I am overreacting when I tell my girls it’s a wise idea to look both ways at that intersection.  After all, no one has ever been struck or killed here.  If I insisted on having the street marked with lines and a sign, I might be construed as overreacting if you ask some of these folks.

I eat risk for lunch.  I eagerly chose to pursue a fire service career because it was exciting.  Even more so, I focused my whole career to concentrate on special operations.  I’m the Deputy Director of a US&R Task Force.  I used to teach high-line rope rescue, and hold internationally recognized instructor certifications in SCUBA and water rescue.  I hold NPQ and IFSAC certifications as a HAZMAT Technician.  Two of my favorite hobbies are mountain biking and skiing.  I’m not in the slightest bit worried about taking risks.

But there is a serious difference between taking stupid risks and calculated risks.  Firefighting isn’t Jackass.  We have a serious job to do that involves serving the public, and using our personnel as cannon fodder doesn’t do the job.  If you take a risk and die trying to save a life in our job, I’ll be the first one to sing your praises.  If you take a risk and die trying to save a burning trash pile, I’m sorry, I’m not impressed.  If you get burned because you failed to use the safety equipment we provide you, I guess my first question will be, why wasn’t it used?

I think some of the plastic vests and hard-hats are a little much sometimes, but I can understand the effort to make ourselves more visible and to avoid having something clonk us on the head.  But as a leader and chief officer, I also know what can go wrong, what can go seriously, seriously wrong, and to ignore it because I’ve never seen it first hand would be folly.  And to just turn my back on personnel who fail to use good safety practices, knowing what the outcome could be, would be negligent.

Quit the name calling and sand throwing and act like grown-ups.  You can argue that it’s just “ragging”, but it’s not.  The language some of you all out there are using is just plain wrong and malicious.  And it certainly doesn’t represent your side of the argument professionally at all.  I can give people crap all day long with the best of them, but that’s not what some of you are engaging in.  What you are engaging in is simply destructive behavior, and it’s one of the reasons why our profession isn’t always taken very seriously. The only people we are hurting here is ourselves.

Stuck In The Past

5 comments

The definition of something “world-class” years ago led me to consider what we mean in the fire service when we say “world-class” in the same breath as “progressive” and “professional”.  The use of these terms is truly in the eye of the beholder.  Given the evidence that continues to mount in the Charleston incident, many people in that community are struggling through the nightmare of believing their fire department was the definition of excellence only to find that the leadership mentality was still operating in the past.

I guess its all in how you frame your reference as to what is acceptable versus what is “excellent”.  It certainly sounds as if that culture is evolving into a better place with Chief Carr at the helm.  But across the entire fire service, while exposed to so many ideas, we continue visit the same problems within our own organizations that other organizations have been experiencing for years.

Professionalism or progressiveness isn’t defined by experiencing the same problems over and over again. Being effective doesn’t include repeating mistakes that others have made, got the t-shirt for, and moved on from. If learning isn’t occurring from all of the rhetoric, then what use is it?  When your organization is experiencing such dysfunction that it is obvious even to the newest recruit, then how clueless are you to insist that everything is coming up roses?

The sad part is that this lesson has to come on the backs of dedicated firefighters and the deaths of our brothers.  While it appears our friends in Charleston are moving forward, we continue to read story after story around the rest of the nation of lessons that continue to be learned the hard way.  After all, how many unbelted firefighter LODDs need we read about before deciding once and for all that using our seatbelt is a smart idea?

Instead of reading the news and saying, “Wow, that’s incredible”, perhaps we should be saying, “Wow, how do I make sure that doesn’t happen here?”  Be an agent of productive and progressive change.  Set the positive example and show others what the real definition of progressive and professional is and be a real leader.

It’s The Minimum

5 comments

If you didn't have standards, this might be your first out engine.  Swan River, Queensland, Australia 2002

If you didn't have standards, this might be your first out engine. Swan Creek/Emu Creek Bushfire Brigade, Queensland, Australia 2002

Authentic Neapolitan pizzas are typically made with tomatoes and Mozzarella cheese.  Genuine Neapolitan pizza dough consists of high-protein wheat flour (type 0 or 00, or a mixture of both), natural Neapolitan yeast or brewer’s yeast, salt and water. The dough must be kneaded by hand or with a low-speed mixer. After the rising process, the dough must be formed by hand without the help of a rolling pin or other machine, and may be no more than 3 mm (⅛ in) thick. The pizza must be baked for 60–90 seconds in a 485 °C (905 °F) stone oven with an oak-wood fire.[4] When cooked, it should be crispy, tender and fragrant.

Those were just a few of the standards for an authentic Neapolitan pizza (published on Wikipedia), as recognized and protected by the Associazione Vera Pizza Napoletana.  Likewise, most of the things you take for granted in the world, with the exception of things like knock-off Rolexes, are constructed from materials meeting standards, are built to certain standards, and if they carry any kind of guarantee of quality or workmanship, must meet performance standards.

Unless your organization is living in a 1950’s time warp, the people in your community, when they call the fire department for help, expect help for many things that exceed the scope of “firefighting”.  Regardless of whether your community is staffed with a career or a volunteer department, there are increased expectations on the level of service being provided.  I can rationally argue the need for standards on a number of different levels.  I will, however, only provide you with this one today; it’s the minimum.

If you want to call yourself a firefighter, there are certain things you should be able to do.  If you cannot do these things, you run the risk of hurting yourself, not to mention others.  You also run the risk of making an emergency greater than it was when you arrived.  As a reasonable and prudent individual with a duty to act, you agree that your “job” (as a firefighter) entails certain knowledge, skills, and abilities to allow your organization the ability to advertise a product. What that product is in your jurisdiction could be limited to fighting fire or could be all-hazards, or anywhere in between.

Your community, in supporting the “fire department”, does so with the understanding that you are what you say you are.  The community defines that expectation; if their only expectation is that a group of bubbas show up to put out a fire when it occurs, then maybe you don’t need to meet a standard.  If that’s the case though, when insurance companies decide the risk is too great in your community, don’t be surprised when the citizenry can’t get coverage and they hang you (or your chief) in effigy at the town square.  And that may be getting off light.

Minimum standards, among other things, define.  Since a group of individuals representing different aspects of the world affected by a certain thing decided and agreed on a definition, and that group is recognized by the others affected by that thing, the definition becomes a standard.  I could write a standard on constructing nuclear plants and declare it the minimum standard, but since I have no authority or expertise in doing so, my standard would likely be considered meaningless and useless.

For those who aren’t in favor of standards, I’d suggest that it’s not that you aren’t in favor of standards, but what is in those standards and how they came to be.  If that’s the case, I’d say that before you make any proclamations on a standard being a “bad” standard, you seek to understand how that definition came to be and how it happens to be the minimum.  In many cases, I’d bet that you’d find that others wanted a much stricter or more restricting definition and the end result was what everyone on that committee agreed was acceptable for use or was prudent.

Like I tell the people who work with me, don’t complain about anything unless you tried to do something about it.  If you don’t like a standard, feel free to get involved.  But the long and short of it is this: standards exist for at least one primary reason, and that reason is to define what something is.  In the absence of any other meaningful definition, if something close fills that void, that standard will be the one that defines the subject matter.  You can be angry about it if you like, but if you don’t like it, change it.

In the meanwhile, if it’s an accepted standard, you can assume you’ll have to meet it.  You can say all day that you choose not to meet certain standards, but if you are like me, you will understand that to not do so will leave you open to a number of things, including liability.  The only way to escape it is to lay that decision on the people who are at that payscale: the politicians. But that’s a blog post for another day.

Stay safe and do the best you can with what you have.  But remember, the standard is what defines you.  If you have no standard, you have no definition, and in that case, a monkey can do your job.  Even pizzas are made to standards.  If having no standard is what your community believes to be okay, then know that you ultimately get what you pay for, and if your community doesn’t support a department with minimum expectations of members, they shouldn’t be surprised when everything within the city limits are a smoking ruin some weekend.

The Roto-Ray: Beauty or Beast?

6 comments

The Roto-RayAhhhh, the Roto-Ray.  For those of us who grew up in or around East Coast fire companies as children, they are something we cherish dearly, a unique spinning tornado of light on the front of a shiny engine or truck.  The department I work for, in a reach toward tradition and including a touch of modern technology, specified LED Roto-Rays on the fronts of our new fleet of engines and our future tractor-drawn aerial (minor refurb of Truck 7′s  trailer with a new prime mover).

When I posted some pictures of our new quints on Facebook the other day, I was surprised to hear that some people aren’t fans of this fancy warning light.  In response, I searched for similar feelings and found that there are, in fact, quite a few who don’t like them, and quite a few who do.  So I guess, Roto-Rays are the Philadelphia Flyers of warning devices: You either love them or you hate them.

A write-up I found on them came from the Fenton Fire Apparatus website, from which I have paraphrased:

Roto-Ray Warning Lights have been used on fire and rescue apparatus for over 65 years.  Roto-Rays are three sealed beam lights rotating @ 200 RPM in a horizontal plane that still commands attention in today’s traffic. The Roto-Ray Model 200 has three red sealed beam lights; the Roto-Ray Model 200W, available where permitted by state law, has one white and two red sealed beam lights.

Both models draw @ 10 amperes at 12.8 volts D.C. current [Since I'm not a technical guy, I don't know if this is for the new LED version or not]. Both models are available in four different mounting applications. Roto-Rays have an all spur gear drive train with all-driven components using ball bearings. The lamp spider is made of aluminum or polished chrome. All housings are made of 16 gauge steel.  All Roto-Rays except the hidden mount are available in an all-chrome version. Roto-Ray Warning lights have been tested by an independent testing laboratory for compliance with applicable California and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards.

I also found the patent information on the Roto-Ray, which was issued in 1930 to Edward Rumsey.  So that’s a little about them.  Anecdotally, I think they work great.  A few weeks ago I was driving down the road in daylight hours and I caught in my rear-view mirror this visible circle of red and white behind me.  It was our Engine 6, pulling out onto the main drag about 3/4 of a mile behind me.  Between the reflective chevron striping of the front bumper and the Roto-Ray, it was pretty visible.  Scientifically, I have no proof (sounds like an Executive Fire Officer research paper to me).

I have found a few threads where these devices have been debated like at NassauFDRant and of course, at the ol’ Firehouse Forums.  There are also dozens of pictures and videos of them online, like this beautiful Hyattsville rig.

So what say you?  What’s the controversy, other than cost (which seems like some of the issue)?  Or tell us your special Roto-Ray story.  In the meanwhile, I’ll do some deep Internet searching to see if I can find more history (like where the first one was used) and I’ll post it if I find it.  Stay safe and thanks for reading.

[Editor's Note: I have also added a picture of the front of one of our rigs so you can see it; I'll find the night shot at some point]

Two HHIFR engines with Roto-Rays and chevrons.

Balance and Equilibrium

1 comment

I think it does us good to be a little of everything.  One of the best parts of the fire and emergency services is that although it is the same job each day, for the most part, the challenges presented to us each day differ.  Conversely, one of the problems with fire and emergency service is that we enjoy it so much, we are reluctant to leave that part of our world behind from time to time and appreciate other aspects of our lives.

Months ago a plane landed on the beach near my house, striking a jogger and killing him.  In terms of emergencies, this is a pretty big deal in our code-enforced, fire-protected community.  It is within a short walk from my front door.  Yet I had no desire to go see the scene, to go join in the bands of gawkers, or to show my relative importance by going down there in a uniform and stepping authoritatively through the fire line tape.  I’ve seen a plane crash before; I have the t-shirt.

Unless I am compelled to do so for official business, or intend to engage in a learning session in which I can take away lessons from the event, I’d just as soon avoid hanging around to look at the carnage of someone else’s bad day.  However, in the fire service, we have among us a considerable number who have bought into the whacker lifestyle wholesale.  They are the thrill-seekers, or the egomaniacs, or the wannabes, people who aren’t motivated by helping others, but for the “glory” and the adrenaline.  One of the complaints I have against that mentality is that it seems to lend credibility to the theory that some of these people are suffering from low self-esteem and they lean on the title of “firefighter” like a crutch.  There is a certain thrill in responding, everyone is looking at you, everyone is happy to see you.

The biggest problem with that is that we just don’t run that many calls that are that thrilling.  This isn’t Emergency, where each new episode brings an exploding chemical plant or someone dangling from a crane.  We don’t run two or three workers in a day; chances are that if you do, there won’t be much fuel load left in your jurisdiction before long anyway so you’ll be back to not running calls again shortly.  So in real life, where most of our calls actually involve solving a relatively mundane problem and interacting with a customer, and the people who work for you aren’t motivated by helping others, conflict arises.  When frustration sets in, the result can follow one of a number of courses.

The mature find alternative methods to focus their energy. On the other side of the spectrum, along come the individuals with the emotional intelligence of a fourteen year old.  Among other issues, these folks act out their aggressions not so constructively, by engaging in destructive behavior.  I’m pretty sure all of us can describe this kind of behavior, ranging from burglary, to arson, and other things.  Just read Dave Statter or Bill Schumm’s blogs for the reports if you doubt that.   Somewhere in just left of the middle of this range there are those who develop behavior that is not destructive in the physical sense, but doesn’t help them any; the constant devotion to one issue to the exclusion of all else.

Everything is good in moderation, and even the good things in life can become bad if we do them all the time.  Spread the time out a little and smell the roses.  Take some time for yourself.  Sharpen the saw.  But don’t think that focusing exclusively on any subject is going to bring you happiness, and if you keep at it, it could also burn you out.  Stay safe and keep a healthy mental attitude.

Risk vs. Reward and Patient Advocacy

2 comments

An OLD shot of Savannah's LifeStar landing for a Hilton Head Island F/R medevac.

The SC-TF1 Director copied an article to our command staff that I found interesting.  It ran in Popular Mechanics titled Unacceptable Risk (I couldn’t find a direct URL for it, so here’s the pdf: HelicopterCrash).

Our organization allows paramedics on scene to request a medical helicopter evacuation with a minimum amount of oversight by the medical control physician.  Being a paramedic myself, I know when to call for a flight and when not to.  I am not about to call for a chopper to take a patient to a hospital for a broken foot, and likewise, I am intelligent enough to be able to assess a patient and opt to fly them to a hospital that has the resources to help my critically injured victim.  I am appalled at some of the case histories where someone was flown out for a routine (very routine) injury and consequently, I know of agencies who simply won’t call for a flight, regardless of the need for it.

How bad of a medic must you be that you can’t tell the difference between a potentially life-threatening injury and one that can be transported by ground to a hospital?  If I’ve got an altered patient with a potential head injury, I know they need to go to a trauma center.  So what if I have to go on an out-of-jurisdiction transport to the trauma center- it’s what we do.

Regardless of whether or not the aeromedical evacuation of a patient is risky and may or may not have tangible benefit, the decision must come to this: What do I need to do for the best interest of the patient? I don’t care if you don’t like the way they look, or they stink, or you are tired.  When you became a medical response professional, you probably took an oath that involved a statement like “Above All, Do No Harm”.  Our jobs involve making sure our patients not only get care, but that it is the right care, it is not care that is provided at a huge cost because we were too lazy to do our jobs, and that the patient’s rights are maintained in their treatment and transport to a medical facility (or not).

Just as I wouldn’t make you take a treatment that could possibly kill you in order to cover my ass, ordering a helovac for a finger amputation isn’t in my first line of thought.  And I know I curse and fuss when I DO call for a chopper and a spot of rain on the pilot’s windshield causes them to scrub the mission, but you know what? I’m a big boy- I’d MUCH rather you err on the side of keeping your crew and my patient safe and I’ll deal with the fallout otherwise.  But to just say, “All patients go by air” or much worse, “No patients go by air” is ridiculous.

Maybe like everything else, we need to stop applying a broad brush to a situation and do our jobs, by appropriately assessing our patient, determining their logical needs based on mechanism of injury, observable findings, and our experience, and make a good call as to what to do with them.  If we ca’t do this much, it’s no wonder we continue to have to convince people we aren’t just “ambulance drivers” but real, live, medical professionals.

Safety Message With A Parental Advisory

7 comments

Repeat after me: "It will all be okay." Breathe deeply.

That got your attention, didn’t it?  However, I strive to maintain a “G” rating on FHZ, and the language is not that bad.  I’m not interested in pushing any of your buttons; I just want to get this safety message across.

So let’s just jump right into it.  Depending on where my shift falls, I drive my youngest daughter to school three or four times a week.  Without fail, there is one dumbass who every morning, manages to tie up the carpool line for an extra five minutes while she yaks incessantly to one or another of the other parents waiting in line.

When she finally decides to pull up her tricked-out Escalade and discharge her whiny little brats, she ties up those exiting by stopping and talking to someone else.  Thus far, I have not succumbed to the (strong) urge to walk up and pull her out through the partially open window of her status machine.  But even as I originally contemplated this post, she ran a stop sign, swerved across three lanes of traffic at carpool pick-up, cell phone in one hand and double decaf frappe crappacino in the other, cutting cars off, just so she could pull up next to one of the other moms (there for the afternoon social, of course) and gab some more. (Breathe deeply).

“Where is he going with this?” you ask (cautiously).  Well, while watching this daily comedy of the bizarre, I was thinking that perhaps our apparatus operators are also too distracted while driving very large, inertially-challenged, parade beasts, and maybe this is part of the cause of so many minor and major vehicle collisions each year.

Take for example, the discussion that I encountered this past week.  I am the Chair of our department’s standard operating guideline committee and people sometimes pull me aside to discuss recent changes to our manual.  With recent changes to the way we back our apparatus, our logic is to make everyone get off the apparatus (except the drivers, obviously) and act as spotters to provide some more eyes on the blind sides of the apparatus.  As you can expect, there are those who think more than one spotter is a bad idea.  I think that given the number of accidents we have had, we should be doing anything in our power to change things, since the current modus operandi doesn’t seem to be working all that well.  If one spotter isn’t working, two or more might be better, but one certainly doesn’t seem to be doing the job now.

In our organization, the command staff (unreasonably, I guess) believes that any number greater than one is an unacceptable statistic for collisions.  We LIKE being proactive.  Consequently, we have people who think a few collisions is okay.  ”It’s the price of doing business”, I heard someone say.

Of course, when assigned to spot the apparatus, if we happen to be doing so with a spotter who can actually manage to do more than fog a mirror, that’s all well and good.  I say this because we have drivers who still manage to back into something even with an individual out there to plausibly prevent such an occurrence.  Of course, that’s if THE SPOTTER isn’t themselves distracted by their own cellphone, the hottie crossing the street, shiny objects, or the flashing lights.

Between the radio going, the siren blaring, the other distracted drivers, the officer ordering, and the three swans-a-swimming, our modern fire apparatus operator has a serious challenge when it comes to paying attention to the road and the myriad hazards encountered between Point A and Point B.  In today’s emergency services, and having read some interesting posts by members of some of the forums, while many of us believe the foremost concern of the apparatus operator should be the safe operation of their vehicle, there are people who are more concerned with what music they should be blasting on their way to “the big one”.  Then we wonder why we have accidents.

Years ago, I heard someone say that if every vehicle on the road was equipped with a nine-inch stainless-steel spike in the center of the steering column, we would probably decrease the number of traffic accidents ten-fold.  While I agree that a sharp object pointed at my chest would probably cause me to think twice before exceeding the speed limit, I think a less lethal solution, like a machine that would punch you in the balls for exceeding the physical limitations of the rig, might just be the answer.  Trust me, if I were smacked in the cajones every time I unlawfully exceeded the speed limit, it would get my undivided attention.  I certainly wouldn’t make that mistake twice.  So, if you’re sincere about avoiding this terrible contraption: FOCUS ON DRIVING THE (Pick one: engine/truck/medic/rescue) SAFELY, because I’m off to get the patent.

It is painfully obvious each time we roll a vehicle, smash one into a car at an intersection, park one on the train tracks, or run over our back-up man that there are serious issues of attention at play here.  Instead of focusing on getting to the fire first, we need to focus on getting to the fire in one piece.  And so long as officers on these rigs sit silently and pray that the ride ends up well instead of speaking up and ordering the driver to slow down and drive reasonably, we will continue to lose our brothers and sisters for what- so some hopped up adrenaline junkie can pretend he’s Mario Andretti racing in a 25-ton killing machine?

Just as my story about the clueless soccer mom riled some of you up, so should the image of a fire apparatus driver ramming into the side of a carload of kids be equally, if not so much more, reprehensible.  After all, our subject mom is just another dumbass civilian with a cell phone.  But you, my friends, are caretakers of the public trust.  The taxpayers chose to allow you to drive the biggest, shiniest example of the American Fire Service down its public thoroughfares because they had a semblance of trust that you wouldn’t mow them down like a dog when you were running to that alarm activation.

Let’s be serious about safe driving of our trucks.  If you really want to kill yourself, do it at the scene where at least you can pretend you were saving someone’s life.  Driving down the highway like a maniac isn’t helping anyone, may likely kill someone, and is really just an excuse for showing off.  Don’t be a dumbass.

Do your job and be proud you are a firefighter, and keep your community safe by easing back a little on the throttle.  Focus on what is important; delivering your highly trained crew with the necessary equipment to the scene of the emergency, and insuring that not only they arrive safely, but everyone and everything encountering you in your travels survives the experience as well.

Almost Good Enough

1 comment
Pseudoladder.  Could pass as a truck company in some places.

Pseudoladder. Could pass as a truck company in some places.

What does it mean to be “good enough”? Is being good enough sufficient to meet the needs of our customers? Is it good enough to meet safety requirements? Is being “good enough” good enough to keep civilians from being killed, much less firefighters?

When we establish a standard, the document is a minimum definition of what is “good enough”.  While standards may prove irksome to people, those standards keep what is featured in the attached picture from being termed a “truck company” in some communities.  When we have standards it keeps the old “five bubbas, a pound hound and a pickup truck” example that I like to use from time to time from being called an “urban search and rescue task force”.

As an officer, and more accurately, a leader, what is “good enough” for you to proclaim that title?  Is it a minimum standard of education and experience?  Or was it that you had the lowest social security number?  Or even worse, was it because you are a “nice guy”?  That would be the ol’ elected standard, in some places.

In most businesses, unless you are related to the boss by blood or marriage, there are certain standards required for achieving the pinnacle of success in your company.  It may very well have been that you were the person who lasted the longest, but chances are that you had some kind of a spark of leadership somewhere if someone decided to put you in charge.  Fogging a mirror might not be the only criteria, but if you fogged it the best, maybe that was the deciding factor.

As a leader in emergency services, “good enough” gets personnel injured or killed.  ”Good enough” costs the public millions of dollars in waste.  ”Good enough” is the price for an annual fire loss that leads all industrialized nations.  So long as we continue to settle for the status quo, “good enough” is good enough.

If you fail to recognize that just being good enough isn’t, take this as a call to achieve more than that.  By establishing vision, promoting core values, declaring a mission and goals, and doing something to tie all those things together, you take your team from existing to succeeding.   By seeking innovation and more effective practices, we strive for excellence.  By observing the mistakes of others and instead of ridiculing those people, learning constructively from their experience, we avoid having to make the hard (and painful) mistakes ourselves.

No one reading this probably feels like “good enough” is the answer to anything; by reading this, it shows you are probably interested in motivating yourself and your team and are looking for answers.  If anything, be reassured, “good enough” has killed and injured more of us than any one factor, by way of heart attacks, falls, drownings, vehicle accidents, and any other number of causes of firefighter deaths.  It shows itself in complacency and in acceptance that what the current situation is cannot be altered.  I challenge you to look into your soul and wonder if by standing around and doing nothing, you were leading, or simply accepting your role in the line.

Be excellent and strive for being the best.  It will keep you and your crew alive and it will better serve the public you are charged with protecting.

Get Your Facts Straight

No comments

DSC00043As usual, Dave Statter is hard at work getting us News from the Beltway, where there always seems like something is going on (it’s a happening place).  In this case, crews were on scene preparing to extricate a patient declared deceased when it was determined that the victim was in fact, alive.  While I was not there, nor are all the facts out there for examination yet, it makes for a very graphic illustration of today’s discussion: What facts may seem to be in evidence right now may not always be accurate, thus the need for continual re-evaluation of your situation.

I’m not advocating continual monitoring of the “pre-hospital dead”, although I would hope that this is a good case for the medically affiliated that we need to insure pulslessness and apnea, and confirm asystole in three leads (and print it).  That is called triangulating your facts and documenting them in the hopes things don’t change later (like the person is actually alive).

No, what I want to discuss is that in all kinds of places where we need to make a decision, even though something appears to be true right now, it might not be in a few minutes, a few hours, or a few days.  Conditions change and regardless of the origin of the facts you hold dear, they might not always be accurate facts.  The response to this ever-changing environment isn’t to throw up your hands in frustration (like my children and firefighters seem to do sometimes), but to re-evaluate your situation and to flex with the new conditions.  There’s a quote attributed to Whitey Ford I heard years ago (and of course, I can’t find my source now) and I have to paraphrase it because I don’t remember it exactly: “Don’t make up your mind about something until the moment you absolutely have to; it may be that by the time for coming to a conclusion occurs, the conditions may have changed.”

People who worked with me closely before I made Chief probably recall my frustration with schedule changes, personnel changes, equipment and apparatus changes that occurred over the course of a shift, often with no warning.  Now as a Chief Officer, I have a different perspective on the situation because I now have to step back and look at “the whole forest”.  I now understand how and why some of those “course changes” have come about and I also see why frustration with those changes is counterproductive.

As firefighters, we deal with changing conditions on scene without too much drama.  We know Murphy is a constant companion and if anything, we are surprised if everything goes RIGHT on a scene.  No incident is “textbook”.  But because we are good at our jobs, we flex with the new situation, understand it, and make whatever we have work.  Why we can’t do that in our daily operations, I guess, is my question.

If there’s anything I know about myself, it’s that I know I am not a patient man.  In fact, I’m probably one of the least patient people I know.  I also know I don’t have a lot of tolerance for less-than-excellent performance.  But part of maturing and growing involves experience, and experience shows us that there are many changing elements that occur over the course of a day, and a life, and reacting to them rather than soaking them in and understanding them (and then solving the problem) isn’t productive.  In fact, it is stressful and irritating to those who we have to live with.

I have a lot of personal growth and understanding to continue working toward and I wish some of this stuff would have been shared with me when I was a firefighter and a young officer, but it wasn’t.  I now have that benefit of experience, though, and it is my responsibility to share it with you all.  Take the time to understand the situation and instead of criticizing, find benefit in the lessons we learn and resolve not to let mistakes happen again, or at least in the environment we personally control.

Get facts before making critical decisions and don’t dwell on them too long, because in many cases, the facts will change before you even get a chance to decide on them.  Take decisive action when necessary, and when not, take considered action, and always, always, continue to re-evaluate the situation. By understanding your surroundings, you will be safer and your life richer for it.

Command Presents

4 comments
Hilton Head Island Fire Station 7

Hilton Head Island Fire Station 7

It’s that time of the year that we hear the word “presents” often enough to make your ears bleed, so I was wondering if my misuse of the word “presents” got your attention. Apparently it did, or you wouldn’t be reading this now.  Or maybe you didn’t notice.   If you didn’t notice, go and look again: when we speak of “command presence”, we speak of the characteristics of the person in charge to lead from a strong, visible, and decisive point of view, not “presents” like a gift.  Having strong leader-like characteristics  as part of your daily personality could be a “present”, if your job is to be a leader.  It also could be very annoying to the people around you.

According to my family and friends, acquaintances, and the Myers-Briggs (and every other psych profile I’ve ever gone through), I exhibit decisive, directive behavior as part of my normal personality.  More often than I care to, my “command presence” comes out when I’m talking with my wife (she doesn’t like it), my kids (they’re not crazy about it either), or my colleagues (they probably think I’m insufferable anyway).  This just goes to show you there is a time and place for everything.  Explaining to your daughter the intricacies of math, for one, is probably not a good time to be strong, visible and decisive.

Likewise, when you are leading firefighters into emergency situations, it is not a time to be easy-going, reserved, and willing to compromise.  There are those out there who are; they are also the ones with crews free-lancing, poor accountability, mixed commands, and poor coordination.  These are also the ones who get people hurt and killed.

While you don’t have to be the second coming of Field Marshal Rommel, you should understand that the fireground or rescue scene is the place where only one person can be in charge.  Coupled with the observation that leadership abhors a vacuum, you can probably understand that if you fail to establish a clear picture of who is in charge, someone else will.  It’s not the act of having a fist fight to decide who that is; the only person who can be in charge is the legally responsible incident commander.  How that decision is made is pertinent to the laws of your jurisdiction, but if you have someone who can’t command, they probably shouldn’t be in that position.

All too often, I see failure in company officers who are “best buds” with their troops on a daily basis, and then can’t understand why there’s so much chaos on their incident scene.  It is simply because those people don’t necessarily see you as the “alpha dog”.  To them, you are just another “member of the pack”.  Other members of the pack don’t call the shots, the alpha dog does.  And like I said, if you aren’t filling that role, someone else is.  That person will also be the one that when things go south, everyone turns toward for the answers.

In this time of giving, give your subordinates a lesson in leadership.  Your leadership should set a positive example, a role model, if you will, for your aspiring officers.  Command and control is important on the emergency scene and failing to work with that does not instill confidence in the abilities of the IC.  It is essential that not only do your charges see you as a leader on the scene, but in the station as well, for if they do not, on the scene is a bad place for them to convince them of that.  Make it a “present” to the people you are responsible for teaching and watching over.  Give them the tools to lead others, and they will hopefully show you that they trust your leadership, and when the time comes, they will walk on that path as well.

Playing With Sharp Objects

No comments

webIMG_1668Recently I was dwelling on an inventory of stupid and dangerous things I have done in the past. Since the list was way too long to go on about, I began to wonder why I did those things.  While some of them were from my youth (like jumping off a roof with an umbrella), and some were from my bachelorhood (getting my Suzuki GS750E up to very unsafe speeds), it occurred to me that a lot of them occurred during my adolescence after watching the movie “Hooper“.  At no time during any of those periods did I have a suicide wish- I didn’t WANT to die- but in my mind, I hadn’t really given it much thought.  I hadn’t fully considered the consequences.

You can put the dangers out in front of someone in back and white.  You can paint the picture for them in classes and education.  You can bore them to death with your blog, like I do.  I think that what it really comes down to, though, is that unless you have a very graphic experience with death and understand not only the implications on you, but on others, I don’t think most people can really grasp the message.

There is a lot to be said for working in our business.  I have seen my share of people ejected from vehicles to convince me that wearing a seatbelt is a good thing.  I have seen enough burned homes to understand that being fire safe will head off a lot of heartache.  But no matter what, we have people who ride in fire apparatus without seatbelts and won’t keep their fire station free of hazards, and then they wonder how they end up on the national news wire.  Risk vs. benefit doesn’t have to be limited to the fireground.

I enjoy fighting fires, but some of the fires I used to fight still baffle me.  I have literally put everything on the line for an unsavable building before and to what end?  They tore down the building later.  But we still have people charging into fires, like they just want to roll in it for a little while.  Well, the excitement of the fire is one thing, but I’ve actually seen what a fire can do to someone, so you’ll have to excuse my reluctance to get up close with it and get to know it better.

As emergency service leaders, we need to remind ourselves that just because we used to play in the street when we were kids doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.  Riding on tailboards and charging into unsafe buildings was fun until we saw people dying from those decisions.  Be the grown-up and help point out to your personnel that just because things used to be one way, we have actually learned from our mistakes and it only makes sense to avoid these problems in the future.  Revisiting them for experience’ sake isn’t fun, it’s just stupid.

An Atmosphere of Trust

2 comments
webMen of Iron BW 2

You want that hole WHERE?

Having worked my normal 24 hour shift, I got up at 0530 and went to the station’s kitchen to make a pot of coffee.  As I stood there, filling the pot with water, I realized that the crew’s dinner kitty was still sitting there on the counter.  Although it wasn’t much, it made me think about the trust that you find (or don’t find) in some firehouses.  It contrasted with a discussion I overheard about one shift raiding the other shift’s fridge just the day before.  Now while most of our stations are “hardened” facilities and require an ID card for entry, I remember when we could leave the place wide open and never have to worry about anything being touched.  In this day and age, not only do we need to worry about some mutt walking in while we were on a call and stealing a laptop (it happened to one of our guys), we have to worry about the criminal elements who want our ID, uniforms, or even a vehicle, so they can pose as a firefighter.

Trust, however, is a pretty interesting concept of its own.  As a leader, you have to earn the trust of the troops.  And as I pointed out, twenty years of being their buddy can go right out the window if you hose them on one thing.  I’ve found that it’s better to be circumspect than to lie to another firefighter.  If you just can’t talk about it, you might as well lead off by saying that, because if you try to act like you are bringing them in on “the scoop” but you can’t tell them the full details, your credibility is shot.

I look at the way my crews trust me in differing degrees.  Do they trust me to command them going into a burning building or to guide them at a building collapse or a confined space incident?  I’d guess most of them do since I’ve never had them second-guess me on a scene.  Do they trust me on most things?  I’d guess they do.  Do they trust that I’ll get the roster right in the morning.  I’d bet much less so (I’m notorious for having to re-send everyone the “amended” roster).  But whatever you do, you had best build credibility in the areas you want them to find you credible in, because if you don’t, your word is crap.

I know company officers (and chief officers) who simply aren’t trusted.  The guys may like them, they may have a beer with them, but get them aside and they’ll tell you, “This officer isn’t trustworthy”.  They may feel like the officer has got their back on daily things but just can’t trust them to make the right decision on the fireground.  And on the fireground, when people have the possibility of being injured or killed, you’d better bet that if you are leading a crew, a section, or the entire incident, you’d better have some credibility.  Because do you know what happens when you don’t have credibility?  No one will listen to you.

When elements of mistrust exist on a regular basis between the troops and the brass, those factors simply add to frustration levels that always exist anyway between these two dynamics.  If you are an officer trying to increase team morale and trying to slow down the rampant rumor mill, you’ll find that deep at the seat of these sentiments lies that mistrust.  Be it that the previous leaders were untrustworthy, or that others have continued to fuel the conspiracy theories for their own amusement, in any case, so long as your people fail to trust you, no amount of money, new trucks, etc. will stop the train.  It requires making that leap to show them that you can be trusted.  In exhibiting your faith in them, hopefully they can begin to have some faith in you.

Maintaining this kind of relationship requires a lot of work.  From first-hand knowledge, it can often be frustrating.  I am a “firefighter’s firefighter” (or at least I hope that’s how my people see me) and I still walk the walk as much as talk the talk.  Yet when I pinned on those chief’s bugles, it didn’t matter that some of these individuals have known me and what I am about for decades: I’m a chief now.  The whole element of trust seemed to have to begin from scratch and work its way back to the same level it was at when I was a Captain, I guess.

The problem is that for as much as you try to show these people that you are only interested in doing the right thing, because of years of mistrusting anyone in a white helmet, they don’t feel comfortable putting their trust in you.  Firefighters pride themselves in being a cynical bunch; show me one firefighter worth his or her salt and I’ll show you that they have a skeptical eye about pretty much any subject that presents itself.  It’s a survival mechanism.  While others pride themselves in seeing a half-full glass, we fully expect that the glass is half-full alright: with an unknown toxic.  Firefighters require everyone and every incident to prove it is safe to trust first, and only then will they dip their toes into the pool.  So an understanding of that culture requires actually living it because the lack of “street cred” automatically targets you as being an outsider and unable to be trusted.

We as leaders must work hard to develop a space of trust.  Of all of the qualities of a leader, trust is most important.  Frankly, no one is going to follow you if they don’t trust that you’re going to take them someplace they want to go.  While you may have all kinds of degrees and certificates, there’s nothing other than setting an example for your troops that is going to teach them that they can follow you and that they can trust that they’ll survive the experience.  If you are trying to change your organizational culture and continually meeting resistance, chances are that your either personnel aren’t mature enough to appreciate that individuals are different and new  leadership isn’t automatically to be distrusted (until you’ve done something to break that trust already), or because no one has ever given them a reason in the past to let go of their fears and follow you.  In both cases, it’s going to require you to stand in front and establish that relationship or understand that you need to develop a thick skin, because the sniping will never end.  Standing up and setting an example seems to be the most productive means of accomplishing the mission.

Turtles, Circumstances, and Change

No comments

Hilton Head Engine 7Just this week, not only on our relatively quiet haven of Hilton Head Island, but right here in the community in which I live (Palmetto Dunes), comes a story which has become national news.  Before I knew it would be on CNN and everywhere else, I read in our Island Packet this article on a romantic proposal gone wrong, and the subsequent death of sea turtles.  Now while I never really thought I might read in the same article anywhere, the words “sea turtle”, “romance”, and “death”, you really might be wondering, “What does this have to do with the fire service?”  I can reassure you that it does. 

 

How it does is that it clearly illustrates the law of unintended circumstances.  I’d be willing to bet you that no one involved in this story desired to kill off 60 turtles and had no idea that their simple luminary tribute to the sanctity of marriage would touch off what ended up on the AP news feed.  But as a result of something they did, or might also be the case in our situation in fire and emergency services, didn’t do, there was heartache, conflict, and even injury and death.

 

Actions are taken in our fire stations and on emergency scenes on a daily basis that sometimes go badly, and I would venture to guess that 99.9% of actions that resulted in poor outcomes were purely unintentional.  However unintentional these actions (or inactions) are, though, our actions may have wide-ranging impact on our entire organization.  Our actions or inactions may not even be noticed today, or could end up as front page news.  We must constantly be vigilant of the actions we take and how they affect our current situation, and even more importantly, our team, our agency, and our customers.  What may seem insignificant to us may end up costing someone their life later.

 

Working together as a team, we have to have the courage and the ability to say, “Hey, that doesn’t look right” to our colleagues, and they should also be able to say it to us.  It’s a basic tenet of crew resource management.  Fostering this attitude in your team requires cultural and social change, especially in our traditional paramilitary hierarchy.  Our most important role in this concept is awareness of the things we do and importantly enough, to do things right, as well as to be open to the suggestion from others that we should be doing something differently.

 

Being in the position of a transformational leader requires more than being right, it requires us to be open to the idea that we might not be.  As part of a team, when we make a mistake, we must strive to understand what occurred and what the results were, so that we and others don’t repeat that mistake.  When we mistakenly lay off blame we don’t really learn from the mistake. 

 

I had a driver once who had a minor accident with the apparatus we were assigned to.  It was obviously a result of a failure for someone else to do their job.  But he owned that situation and every time he pulled out of the station from then on out, I noticed him looking to insure it never happened again.  It is imperative for us to understand our shortcomings (hey, I have many), own them, and resolve to do better next time. 

 

I’d say that if that couple ever does decide to re-visit our Island again, they’ll never forget to blow out the candles when leaving the beach.  It’s called a watershed moment,  In our lives, it is one thing, but when we have one of these events occur while operating as part of a team we are tasked with leading, it is a requirement that we critique it, learn from it, and resolve to not let it happen again.

(Insert Task Here) For Dummies

1 comment

IMG_0144 webI’ve been very busy working on my wife’s company’s website and unable to really spend any time blogging lately.  That’s probably a good thing as I really have wanted to learn a little more about creating sites from scratch (or close enough, using Dreamweaver) but found it to be much harder at first than I thought it would be.  I created a whole bunch of sites several years ago which caught the attention of many of you (the old HHIFR Station 6 – The Icehouse website as well as one for each of our stations, etc.) using a VERY user friendly online program.  Then when someone decided to jack up the price on the site hosting and it ultimately started to come out of my own pocket, I just let it close down.

But anyway, since then I have undertaken several web management and development projects and the long story short, I had to purchase the book “Dreamweaver for Dummies”.  It really opened up the door and now I am making much more headway than I had at all before.

I have contemplated a “Firefighting for Dummies” book, but I’m not sure that’s a good thing.  Or how about “Paramedic Certification For Dummies”?  As I’m writing this, someone is probably stealing my idea, but I’m afraid itn not likely that any fire academies or paramedic training institutions out there are going to spend big bucks recommending a book to their students that suggests they are dummies (I think the books are mostly of the “self-help” genre).

So anyway, as I was writing this, I’m watching the news and on a neighboring island, there have been a significant number of drownings this summer.  Now the video-journalist shoots a picture of the beach and on it there are not one, not two, but FOUR signs warning people about the rip currents, etc.  I’d bet there’s more, but the segment had to fit in people talking and stuff.  There’s talk now about educating the tourists and other beachgoers.

Any time that you have multiple signs on anything warning about something and people disregard the warnings, something tells me an education message isn’t going to do much more than heap onto the pile of ignored information.  I don’t know what the answer is.  Think anyone hanging out at the beach would like to purchase an advance copy of “Beaching for Dummies”? 

When we put people through a training academy and we tell them about the safety issues of our job, then educate them on a daily basis, warn them with little tags and signs on the equipment we use and the apparatus we ride, and put posters in stations, etc. and unsafe behavior continues, is it an education issue or an attitudinal issue?  There’s a favorite question someone asked in a seminar I was in once, as to whether the problem a subordinate had was a commitment issue or a competence issue.  The difference, he said, was, “if you were to put a loaded and cocked .45 to the head of the person and said, ‘do the task’, if they could then do the task, the issue wasn’t a competence issue, it was a commitment issue”.

Now I certainly don’t advocate trying this at home, but it kinda makes for an interesting point.  Because the issues I am discussing here are the ability for personnel to take precautions regarding safety issues, it really is an issue of life or death and yet there are those who choose to challenge the odds anyway.  So is it really a competence issue?  Is it a commitment issue?  I’d suggest that it’s the challenge of “it can’t happen to me”.

Despite the warnings, despite the education, and the despite the dangerous nature of our jobs, firefighters continue to exhibit risky behavior when no value is gained by their doing so.  Something as routine as buckling your seatbelt doesn’t take away from the glory and excitement of going to a working fire, yet firefighters are killed and injured every year because they fail to do it.

It puzzles me as to why people continue to do things that are contrary to common sense.  Hell, I’m one of them.  But there are things I do that I know will save my life and I make it a point to share those tips with people on a regular basis, and yet I see those same people ignoring that advice and getting hurt.  Maybe we do need a “Firefighting for Dummies” book.

Innovation Distinguishes Between Leaders and Followers

No comments
Safely chocking those wheels.

Safely chocking those wheels.

If you didn’t know, that’s a quote from Steve Jobs (I didn’t).  I was sitting in the office of our Deputy Chief/Ops, reading a magazine while he finished up a meeting, and I saw that quote.  I liked it a lot and wanted to share it with you.

The quote was being used by David White, the editor of Industrial Fire World, in this month’s editorial, where he is discussing “evolution vs. intelligent design”.  His point was that while it is fantastic we have these newfangled radios and all, they’re really not worth anything if we can’t talk to anyone on them because they’re too complicated to use. What’s more, while we have been wrestling with interoperable communications for eons (I mean, look at the Tower of Babel and all), we have another situation that merits a technological solution: tracking firefighter location inside a burning structure.

While some of this stuff is a little out of my immediate reach, there are tools used daily around us that don’t get used to their full efficiency.  Take for example, that little bundle of software you probably have on your computer right there in front of you.  If you’re like me, you have some sort of office pack with a word processing application, a spreadsheet application, and a database application.  In most total office packages, I would surmise that they are interoperable between each other.  I’d be willing to bet you that most fire stations these days have computer workstations and in each of those you also have some sort of interoperable office pack.

How many of you are proficient at using these programs, not just as stand-alone applications, but in concert with one another?  Can you create a table in Excel and transfer it to Word?  Can you create an Access database and then query it to get information, then export it to Excel to create graphs and tables for presentations?

I was at a “presentation” the other day, and the person was trying to influence a governmental body into giving their project funding.  While the speaker was disorganized, what was more appalling is that in this day and age, there weren’t any supporting slides or visuals to reinforce their points.  There’s that whole theory of how much you retain by hearing and seeing something in comparison to just hearing it or just seeing it that you learned in Instructor I (one more reason for requiring this kind of a course as a pre-requisite for Fire Officer I: it teaches you how to communicate to an audience).  You’d think that by now someone might have retained that information themselves.  If you care enough about your project that you’re willing to get up in front of a whole bunch of people to discuss it, why wouldn’t you try to SELL it?

If you want to be a leader, it’s not just about surviving, it’s about EXPERIENCING.  You have to stretch and pull, not push.  You don’t see the lead climber at the back of the pack, do you?  They’re the one forging the way, finding the path, and establishing the precedence.  You have to get out ahead of people to lead them and the way to do that in places other than on the battlefield is to be innovative and thinking about new ways to do things, and learning and finding out the better way up, not by taking the same path everyone else takes.

To be a real leader requires creativity and more than anything, the ability to manage in a dynamic environment.  If you are willing to be flexible and change with the conditions that present themselves, people will look to you for the answers when they don’t have them.  This isn’t just from your subordinates, either, this will very likely come from your superiors as well.

There’s a question I once heard on The West Wing, “Would you rather be ‘The Man’, or ‘The Man that The Man Goes To’?”  If you are a subordinate who desires to be considered a leader (or wishes to have real influence), consider that premise.  I hear from people all the time who complain that they wish their boss was a better leader and I always say, “Why don’t you fill that spot?”  Leadership abhors a vacuum.  If the appointed or legitimate leader fails to lead, someone will.  If that place is filled by you, insure that you cement your value to the boss and the rest of the crew by being a positive, motivated, seeker of truth and knowledge.

If you care enough about your job that you want to lead, you should consider that leading requires more effort than following. A lot of that effort is learning how to be ahead of everyone else in the pack, especially when it comes to improving your condition and by employing creativity to do a safer and more effective job.  Be proactive and be the best at what you do.  if you do that, I can reassure you, with a good attitude, people will come knocking on your door for the answers.

Reserving Our Scorn for the Deserving

7 comments
Hot Day on the Training Ground

Hot Day on the Training Ground

I know that I am one of the chief purveyors of snarkiness as a means of combating the less-than-professional element in our midst.  I guess that just because I have a personal vision of what I’d like to see the fire service evolve into, there are those out there who also have a vision of well-lit POVs and thumping bass stereo in their engines as what is considered to be worthy of discussion.  However, just as many other red-blooded males of the species, I’m okay with crushing my enemies, seeing them driven before me, and hearing the lamentations of their women.  To each his own, I suppose.

So the dilemma, I guess, is which battles need to be fought and to what degree.  This then relates to what level of sarcasm should be employed when you are trying to point out that someone is discussing what we consider to be bizarre or to the extreme and we are trying to point out that yes, they are an idiot.  As I have found out over the years(and especially recently), the degree of snarkiness should probably be limited when dealing with the less fortunate, the disadvantaged, and the criminally insane.

As to why we blog or write, there are different reasons, of course.  I am not interested in blogging for the interest of stirring up hate and discontent, except as it goes to encourage spirited but civil debate over subjects that require deeper thought.  So for me, my reason for writing and expecting feedback is to ask questions to challenge the minds of others, in an effort to learn more and to grow. 

Some people blog and posts to hear themselves speak.  Just as when we must tolerate the gas from a nearby infant, what comes out of the mouths of some of these people may stink, but just as we wouldn’t flame a child for passing an offensive cloud in our direction, we must consider the source of some of these scratchings (“writings” would be pretty charitable for some) and be relatively tolerant. 

Likewise, no amount of clever rhetoric is going to get you back the thousands you’ll have to spend defending a frivolous lawsuit.  What it really all comes down to is that we must decide for ourselves what is harmless and what is dangerous, and go after the dangerous and ill-advised.  All other discussion is probably wasted because with some of these individuals, no amount of logic will sway them from their misdirected viewpoint.

I guess my measurement on deciding which individuals should be dealt with would be that there are those whose views are derived either because of laziness (and reluctance to change because it would require them to do something other than to take up space), those who are as a result of ego or greed guarding their domain (and reluctant to change because it would cost them their position in our “society”), those who are defrauding others (for whatever reason, again as a result of ego or greed, aware that change would cause people to analyze their claims), and the malicious.

Believe it or not, I don’t find too many people in our business that fit into the category of deserving of a flame attack.  In most of the cases I have found where I am dealing with someone who gets my temper to flare up, after a few moments of deep breathing I have found that they fit into the category of the misinformed.  The question then is, are they receptive to education, or is it me who needs to be educated?  After all, maybe I’m the one who was misinformed or misunderstood the issue.  The key, I have found, is that both parties need to be open to civil discourse and willing to appreciate the viewpoint of their counterpart.  It is in this area where I find many of us, including myself, to need improvement.

By checking our emotions at the door and getting to the point of the discussion, figuring out the difference between factual information and rhetoric, we achieve enlightenment.  Let me paraphrase something from the Tao Te Ching; the useful part of a jar isn’t the jar, it is the empty space within the jar.  Unless we are willing and able to understand someone else’s position on a subject, no matter how right or wrong, we will not be able to teach someone the truth, or appreciate the truth ourselves.  In understanding how someone comes to a conclusion, we can then effectively show the way, if that is what is necessary, or we can be shown the way.

I may have lost some of you with that, but it is in this that you can probably see the point better.  When was the last time you were completely convinced that something was the truth, only to find out after time that you were wrong?  So in that interim, did you find yourself defending that “truth” to the point of being uncivil to another?  How did you feel then about what you said or did that may have been to defend your position, only to find out now that you were wrong?  Did you regret your actions?

There is an eastern tradition that the victorious should be be magnanimous in victory and as much as possible, allow the defeated to save face.  In doing so, you secure allies and you earn respect.  If you trot around like T.O. after a touchdown after winning your point, be reassured that if you are ever wrong, it will be rubbed in your face (like I wish someone would do to T.O.).  When you are convincing someone of your point, you’ll find it to be a good move to win them over rather than to point out their folly and subsequently, you’ll find that you gain trust and respect as well.

It may feel good to be snarky and rub someone’s face in their ignorance (I enjoy it), but after a while, you’ll find it to be a hollow victory.   I’m sure we can all agree we should never attack the unarmed, and in a battle of wits, that is the root cause of much of the problem. So instead of being smug about our victory, maybe we should celebrate together that we have another convert to our cause.  That seems to be a more appropriate celebration anyway.

Cellular Dependency

1 comment
Hilton Head Island Engine 7 at truck fire

Hilton Head Island Engine 7 at truck fire

It wasn’t really by design, but the last time I was in Atlanta, I found that I had some problems getting my e-mail on my fancy smart phone.  Likewise, on this occasion when I spent a few days in “The City Too Busy To Hate”, my “missing” status this week evolved into a few days of real time with my family.  As far as being away went, other than a boneheaded move in leaving my wife’s laptop unattended on top of luggage (while my 3-year-old daughter lurked nearby- things didn’t end well), it was a beautiful weekend with my wife and children.  The weather in Atlanta was amazing, the hotel and staff excellent, and best of all, the smart phone silent.

Interestingly enough, the homilist at Mass on Sunday reflected on the same thing: Even Jesus needed a break.  You know the story: Jesus asks His entourage to go ahead after a hard day’s work and prepare a place away from the huddled masses where He could rest, only to find someone leaked the plan and when Jesus arrived, there were plenty there waiting.  Of course, Jesus goes on to have pity on these “sheep without a shepherd” and goes back to work.

While I’m certainly not even in the slightest comparing my situation to Jesus’ situation, the point is that even the most important people in the world need to step away from time to time, so really, who am I to believe that the world will come apart if I shut off the phone for a while?

There’s a certain amount of imbalance in our lives, especially for those of you who like me, are always picking up a new thing they want to share and work with.  The problem is that in our doing so, we forget that we need an opportunity to recharge and step back for a while.  If anything, you can chalk it up to needing fresh perspective.

So you’ll have to accept my apology when I keep this one short, as my daughter wants me to teach her how to make fried chicken.  After that, I’ll check the e-mail.

Why Yell?

3 comments

IMG_1146I’m Mick, and I yell.  I think this is the part where you all are supposed to say, “Hi Mick.”  Why do we yell?  I started to say, “I’m a yeller”, but that doesn’t sound right.  And I don’t scream.  Screaming to me indicates panic or total loss of personal control.  But anyone who knows me knows I have a little bit of a fuse and when you light it, I’m liable to say some things I wouldn’t intentionally repeat around the God-fearin’ folk.

This blog is as much about therapy as it is for education and sometimes the questions I ask are actually me asking myself the question (did that make sense?).  Why yell?  Well, I guess the simplest way to say it is that I yell when I am frustrated.  I guess in a bit of self-analysis, I should ask, who gives me the right to yell except me?  Who made me the arbiter of all things?  Does the yelling solve anything? In short, I probably don’t really have a right to yell and the yelling only solves things when the recipient gets the message.

So it sounds like it’s more of a communication problem.  I don’t really yell when I don’t get my own way.  I yell when it is apparent to me that someone isn’t paying attention or I yell back when someone is yelling at me.  When someone isn’t paying attention in most cases, I get angry because I feel like the other person is being selfish and acting in a manner that doesn’t show consideration for others.  It’s funny, because I don’t nearly get as angry about someone wronging me as when I see someone wrong someone else.  And when someone is yelling at me, I guess I’m inclined to yell back because when I screw something up, I take it to heart and simmer over it for a while.  So you don’t have to yell at me, I get it.  And if you don’t get that I get it, I begin to yell too.

Generally, I am an empathetic man, and when I finish yelling, I wonder why I did it in the first place, and more often than not, I feel badly about it.  I don’t CHOOSE to yell.  I guess that’s the powerlessness coming out.  Just as a three-year-old will lash out when no one understands what they want, I guess yelling is a form of emotional immaturity that we need to choke back.  But how else then can we communicate what it is we need when the subject doesn’t seem to be listening?

The problem at the heart of this truly is communication.  If all the laws of effective communications came together like they are supposed to, we wouldn’t have to yell.  We tend to yell when there is a lot of noise, and by noise, I’m not just talking audible noise, but distractions – problems at home, busy schedule, not feeling well, etc. I suppose the key is to either find a way to effectively drill through the problem or to postpone the communication until a more appropriate time.

I’d just as soon never yell again, but unfortunately, I’m in a business where sometimes things go seriously wrong and people die when orders aren’t understood.  If you aren’t paying attention on the fireground, I’d rather yell at you then see you fall through the roof, so please bear with me.  And I have three young children at home, none of whom seem to be inclined to pick anything up when they are done with it, so as much effort as I have put into not yelling at home, it’s inevitable that it will happen again.  I suppose it all really comes down to a matter of perspective.  If I don’t yell at home, the result might be a dirty house.  If I don’t yell at work, someone might die.

But just like commercials and other annoying things, too much completely ruins the effectiveness of it.  If I yelled all the time (other than everyone staying away from me), the intended recipients just see it as another crazy rant.  I know people who like to yell at me (a lot) and while at first it bothered me, now it is just so much background noise.  So if yelling a lot isn’t working, I guess the key observation would be that you should save your yelling for when it is absolutely necessary, else it will have no impact whatsoever on your chosen yellee.

I guess this brings us full circle then.  Is yelling effective?  Why yell?  It almost seems counterintuitive to suggest that yelling will cause people to NOT listen to you, but if you do too much of it, chances are that you are headed right down that path.  So some advice- take a deep breath, put the problem into perspective, and decide if yelling is even worth it.  On occasion, it might be.  But the likely scenario is that by the time you consider all that, the problem individual has moved on already and you may have even cooled off.  So think hard before you use a shotgun to kill a housefly.  Save the yelling for the completely necessary events only.  My audiologist thanks you.

I Wanna Be A Libertarian

5 comments

mod abf slidell (7)For the most part, I consider myself a Libertarian in that I’d just as soon the government not tell me what to do.  In some aspects, I guess, I’m pretty conservative in my values, so I’m a little Republican, and I like the idea of people on welfare getting off of it someday, especially since I had to eat a lot of PBJs and continue to drive a car with 100k+ miles on it to afford the house we live in (but that’s called choosing your priorities).  And although I’m all for funding the arts, I’m pretty sure I don’t want to fund anything called “Piss Christ”. 

Socially, I guess, I’m pretty Democratic.  While I want people off of welfare eventually, I’m also realistic in that there are people who really need help.  I also believe that just because I believe in certain things, others do not.  Just as soon as I would never force anything down your throat, though, I’d just as soon you didn’t force me to either.  So I’m all in favor of saying “One country, under God” and courthouse lawn manger scenes, in season, of course.

Our government should help when it can and stay out of our business when it can not. But when public safety is involved, time and time again the public has shown it can’t be trusted to do what is right for their neighbors, so there are times when the government should really step in and set things straight.

What am I talking about?  Well, in Breckenridge, Colorado, an ordinance was passed to create a defensible space between properties.  While some people see this as a sane thing to do, others think that it infringes upon their rights.  As I see it, it is the right to have highly combustible timber and brush leading right to your home (or your neighbors), and then, I guess, your right to bitch about it when it catches on fire and the fire department is overwhelmed trying to help all the other Libertarians in your neighborhood.

Now, I don’t for a minute think all these people are Libertarians (nor do I care, and the same for any other political affiliation, just bear with me), but there really does come a time when the common good trumps that of your personal rights.  Call it a slippery slope, but you know, as much as I embrace your religious rights, I don’t see a problem with being able to see your face when you enter a public building.  And I as much as I believe in my First Amendment rights, I think race-baiting and hate speech should be banned, because it is apparent some people lack a certain amount of civility.

When we in emergency services make proposals for public safety, we should always consider the effect we have on individual rights.  The decisions we make really do affect those rights, but so long as we are using good logic in doing so, the public has to understand that we need a LITTLE HELP sometimes.  If you choose to exercise your right to build right up to the interface, you are going to have to give us a little break when we ask you to cut back the forest from your house a little.  When we tell you that you need to leave your home because the fire is heading in your direction, trust me, if I could leave you in place, I would, because frankly, you’re just going to get out there and tie up the highway and gawk and get in my way instead of evacuating anyway, so I’d just as soon leave you there.  I do, however, realize that leaving you to burn up in your property, regardless of your individual rights, is going to land me in court because I left you to do what you wanted anyway.

How do we take into consideration individual rights versus the right to protect people from themselves?  By educating people, and sometimes that requires bold and candid speech.  It is this exact kind of speech that politicians hate, because it shakes up the status quo.  So long as the populace is happy, the politicians are happy and it’s a lot less work.  When we make decisions to cut back trees or not to respond to calls for help at a certain windspeed during a hurricane, or to evacuate people from harms way, it certainly upsets people and they take that moment to complain.

We have to make the grown-up decisions, though; it’s why we exist.  Sometimes it’s best to leave things be, but sometimes you need to point out to people that their decisions could very well result in injuries and fatalities.  If people can’t see their way through those choices, then maybe we should just restrict our response to help them when all Hell breaks loose.  After all, we wouldn’t want the government to interfere with your life, would we?

The Case for Credentialing – Answering Your Comments

No comments

I hate to break free in the middle of this series like this, but there were some comments made that I wanted to discuss.  Since one is on one post and the other is on another post, I felt the need to tie them together and talk really quickly to the issue.

On June 15, Steve said:

Yes, credentials would help but WHO is the final authority on issuing them? WHO sets the standards? How are you going to avoid the age old paid vs volunteer bias in any credentialing agency?

My quick answer: I am against the bias in the career vs. volunteer.  If you can meet the standard, you can meet the standard.  I think there is plenty of room for volunteers, especially in disaster response.  So some career guy is going to tell me my docs can’t be part of the team because they aren’t career guys somewhere?  And I have said in regard to SC-TF1, where I do have some pull, if one person in a one-station volunteer department down the road wants to be part of our team, we need to let him if he meets our criteria (background check, physical agility, etc.)  As Ray Wilkinson, our past Director once said, “I can teach someone to break rocks, what I can’t teach is desire.”  If someone wants to do the job, and goes through the requirements to meet a position, why should I care if he’s a member of FDNY or of Acme Fire Department?  So Steve, I’m with ya, brother.

On June 16, Kevin said:

I live in a state where there is no agency tasked with certifying or credentialing Search and Rescue dogs. I have seen (many times) where someone will buy lights for their POV and load their pet dog into the truck and call themselves a SAR team! If I didn’t know better, I might think all volunteer SAR teams were like this. However, there are a number of excellent non-governmental SAR teams in my state as well. I myself and a member of a volunteer K9 team.

Kevin goes on to say that they have a volunteer K9 SAR team because there isn’t an existing asset and law enforcement has asked for it.  Well, Kevin, as they say in Australia, “good on ya”.  You have identified a need and you have tried to meet that need.  No one else has that asset and it sounds like you have tried to do a good job of using accepted industry standards to meet the need.  THAT is good stuff.

However, I just went to discuss the concept of “those of us who want to do this right, but there are people with authority screwing things up so we can’t get in”, and realized that the post I wrote for that last week never posted as scheduled!  So that is now on the post schedule and I hope it does discuss some of the feelings I personally have in that regard. 

On June 16th, SAR Volunteer also commented:

I totally agree with your points. Please understand this are a handful of small volunteer K9 SAR teams in the state of SC who do NOT self deploy, do NOT work for anyone but the proper state or municipal authorities, train hard, carry their own liability and workmenscomp insurance, align their standards with NIMS Resource Typing, and are working to ensure they meet the proposed credentialing requirements.

And to you too, SAR Vollie, I applaud your efforts.  I think there is a place for the small volunteer K9 teams at the table as well, if they meet a standard.  Let’s take SC-TF1 again for example.  I have said over and over again, if we have people out there who want to do this stuff, let’s get them involved.  But not being a canine guy, I have some difficulty understanding some of the things the canine types are telling me.  So when I get national experts telling me one thing, and some guy with Rover in a pickup truck (or Expedition, as it were) saying his dog can detect live scent, cadavers, lost pets, and get a beer and catch a frisbee, understand that I am skeptical.  And the self-deploying thing is just purely bad in my book, but that’s a whole other issue as well that doesn’t stop with canine SAR teams, and DOES include career guys, departments, and organized teams, etc.  Frankly, if you (SAR Vollie) or anyone else in SC have dogs trained to find LIVE HUMANS in collapsed or damaged buildings, and feel like you can meet a standard, send me an e-mail.  I’d love to hear from you.  But anyone who calls themselves “Urban Search and Rescue” and they are running around doing wilderness searches, well, go back to my box of rocks comment.  Be what you say you are.

Anyway, I hope this illustrates some of the issues considered so far and we’ll get back on track with the next post (which should have published before the last one- go figure).  Please continue with your comments.  I certainly appreciate your perspectives.  Stay safe.

The Argument for Credentialing – Moving On

2 comments

crimson-060aNow that we have discussed the four major players in the argument against credentialing, lets talk about the argument for it.

A credential is only as good as the standard by which it is issued.  The point of having a credential should be to identify an individual or other resource as a certain type and kind.  If there is no standard, you might as well tell the carrier of a credential, “just stand over there until I can find something you can’t screw up.”

A worthwhile credential should also have some security associated with it.  After all, if anyone could get one, what good would it be?  So there are issues of validation involved as well.

In disaster after disaster, free-deploying individuals and “organizations” (and I use that term very loosely) go to “help” and in many cases, put a drain on an already over-taxed system and cause the diversion of legitimate resources from going to areas in need.  And while there is obviously some merit in the use of bystanders for certain aspects of disaster response, that has to be weighed seriously against the risk of their involvement, including the risk to themselves and the affected community, as well as the risk to rescuers, who ultimately must rescue the well-meaning if things don’t go according to plan.

There is no way to eliminate the truly altruistic in their quest to render aid.  Nor should there be.  But likewise, the civilians must understand implicitly that there comes a point when they must be diverted from the scene so the professionals can take over, especially when it comes to the extremely hazardous parts.

The standards in themselves seem to be quite the sticking point with some.  Standards utilized for the purpose of credentialing should be consensus standards and all keyholders included in the development of those standards, versus the exclusivity of some of the currently suggested drafts.  But once these are done, ratified, and chosen to be the driving force in identification of the qualified, there needs to be the embracing of the concept.  If organizations can’t agree on and use a standard that has meaning, then the credential is useless.

Like anything else, the change in this concept might be painful for some.  There are departments out there who are struggling with the unfunded mandates.  I can also sympathize with the organizations who want to become part of a greater plan like a National Mutual Aid Box Alarm System but don’t seem to know where to start or how to get involved.  I guess my first order of business, then, is to tell you how to get involved.  If there’s anything I can do, it’s point you in a direction toward activism.

Change will only come about if we work together to make it happen.  If you won’t stand for change, you don’t stand a chance to change.  Our industry is going through some important times but as you might notice (as I do all too well, sometimes), these initiatives take off for a while then they lose momentum.  Of course, that’s just until the next disaster.

Let’s work together to make something move.  In the next post, I’ll talk about opportunities to get involved.

The Case for Credentialing – The Spontaneous Bystander

1 comment

First, we have the genuine thing, the spontaneous bystander, who sees a need for action, then does something about it.  Rescue911 commented on the story of the Good Samaritan and how a traveler, with no reason to do so other than to help his fellow man, went out of the way to assist another.  This lends a certain amount of credibility to the discussion that nothing should prohibit people who wish to help others in their time of need.  Now realize, of course, when I am referring to these individuals, I am referring to people who just have a desire to help their neighbors and do the right thing.

 Quarantelli discusses the social aspects of the emergent response of spontaneous bystanders in Katrina, but also in the Guadalajara gasoline spill and fire.  There is also discussion on the subject by Kirschenbaum that the current philosophy of governmental and NGO response to disasters effectively dilutes the response of neighbors and has resulted in an over-reliance on these agencies to provide assistance.  After all, man has been besieged by disasters since time immemorial and it’s not like they had FEMA to come to the rescue back in biblical times.

There’s something very beautiful (albeit, chaotic) in the spontaneous response of the altruistcally motivated.  But call me skeptical, I see a lot of response from people who claim that altruism is their motive, but I’m not seeing that generosity of spirit coming out when they’re busy operating video cameras to sell tape to the media or taking souvenirs, rather than manning a sand-bag line.  More about THAT kind of person later.

There are indeed a few challenges with this kind of emergent response, problems that if resolved, would go a long way toward goodwill with the community in general (it seems like everyone’s got some kind of beef with FEMA in every disaster, despite their extraordinary efforts to educate people that they need to be more self-sufficient and less reliant on the government), and provide resources to the jurisdictionally responsible agencies that seem to be strapped for bodies when the big one rolls around to their neighborhood.

The main problem faced by those of us in the disaster community when it comes to spontaneous response, is the fact that as the designated adult supervision at these events, we have a responsibility to insure not only mitigation (or depending on the complexity and scope, control) of the incident, but the safety of those who were not necessarily part of the problem before, but now are. 

Let’s step down a wee bit and look at it from the perspective of the first-due engine arriving at the scene of a water rescue.  Let’s even go further to relieve the complication of the situation, and let’s say this is a static water body and it’s just one person involved.  Now I understand that the vast majority of those of you reading the are responders, so bear with me as I educate those who are not.

If, as the officer of the first arriving fire apparatus on scene, we have a single person in need of assistance in a pond (or lagoon as we call them here on Hilton Head Island), it’s really just a cut-and-dried approach to the situation.  Providing we have the resources (water rescue equipment, trained and prepared personnel), it’s a matter of assessing the scene, determining the problem, solving and planning a solution, and putting the solution into action.

Our problem, however, is that more often than not, it isn’t that easy.  In a lot of cases, when we roll up, there are people in the water trying to make a rescue.  In a lot of cases, one or two of these people are now ALSO in distress.  There are bystanders who are interfering with the operation because they don’t understand that standing for a second and looking over the scene for additional hazards is necessary so that we ourselves don’t also become part of the problem (“WHY AREN’T YOU DOING SOMETHING?!!!”).  There are those who parked their vehicle in our way so they could get a better look.  These days there are people video taping so they can sell it to the media or even better, catch you doing something wrong.  Without beating this horse too much, suffice it to say that there are a whole lot of other things going on here.

Now how, you might ask, does this apply to me as a spontaneous responder?  Well, the video taping and the access issues aside (you are a Good Samaritan, after all), let’s go to that first issue: those of you in the water.  Think for a moment, while you are in front of your computer, why this person got into trouble to begin with.  It might very well mean that they can’t swim.  It might be, however, that there is another danger you don’t see.  Thus the need for experienced and equipped responders who can provide an effective rescue.  There is an oft-quoted saying in the confined space rescue community, that 50% of the victims in confined space emergencies are the first responders.  These are often well-intentioned, but less-than-educated or undisciplined responders who failed to take into account the dangers associated with space entry themselves.

My whole reason for saying this is that while most of us in the response community can certainly appreciate the bystander response to an emergency, there are cases upon cases in every aspect of disaster and technical rescue response where the spontaneous bystander response in and of itself became an additional rescue mission for us on our arrival.

So, how can the person who doesn’t have a desire to be part of an organized response help?  Take CPR and first aid courses.  Attend a seminar on what to do in a disaster.  Know that there are other ways to help (“throw, tow, row” come to mind BEFORE “go”).  Put your name on a volunteer reserve list or call your local jurisdiction and ask if there is some way to help if needed.  But more importantly than anything, when you are inclined to go and help, if the legally authorized incident commander (or their designee) gives you an assignment, no matter how mundane, it is what they DO need done for the management of the incident.  You may not understand or appreciate the IC’s request, but in our eyes, there may very well be a method of allowing you to contribute at your level of expertise and to permit your contributions without adding to the complexity of the situation (when something goes wrong and you aren’t equipped or prepared).

This all being said, in times of disaster, people do want to help and the response community has to be proactive enough to have a mechanism for channeling the energy of these responders.  The big issue in my eyes is to make sure people know in advance what they can do, create programs to educate lay responders, and tap them when you can to promote interest.  Furthermore, it is a good practice to identify a place they can report to and get information on them, credential them to the extent possible, and assign them according to their quickly-identified expertise.

I will tie this into the argument about credentialing later, but this is the first discussion regarding the “interested parties” against the argument for credentialing, so be on the lookout for the next post.  Thanks and feel free to comment or help illustrate your view on the subject.

The Case For Credentialing – The Argument

11 comments
SC-TF1 in Chalmette, September 2005

SC-TF1 in Chalmette, September 2005

As discussed in the last post, there are those who are against credentialing, for their own reasons.  Because I have had plenty of discussions about the subject, I think I have the discussions channeled into four groups (and if you have a different argument, let me know, because I don’t want to miss anything on the subject).  I plan to talk about each of these in a little more depth, but I wanted to at least put the parameters of the argument out there.

First, we have the genuine thing, the spontaneous bystander, who sees a need for action, then does something about it.  The discussion I have heard so far from this camp is that there should be nothing that would stand in the way of people who just have a desire to help their neighbors and do the right thing.  Quarantelli discusses the social aspects of emergent response from spontaneous bystanders in Katrina, but also in the Guadalajara gasoline spill and fire.  Plain ol’ people like every other neighbor you ever had saved lives, and were not agents of the government, had no training, and only did so in the effort to help others.  There’s something very beautiful in that, but call me skeptical, I see a lot of response from people who claim that is their motive, but I’m not seeing that altruism coming out when they’re out operating the video camera or taking souvenirs, rather than manning a sand-bag line.  More about THAT kind of person later.

We also have the disaffected group/person I call the “outsider”.  Having been one on a few occasions, I can certainly empathize with their cause, but I don’t necessarily sympathize with their way of handling things all the time.  Often, these are people who have a lot of training, or maybe come from somewhere where they had a lot of training and experience, and the place they are now in life won’t make room to allow them in.  There are dozens of reasons we will discuss, but there are also some issues regarding the credentialing side of things that would STRENGTHEN their position if they were in fact, truly qualified but being marginalized.

Then there are those who are currently the jurisdictional responder but are afraid the light of truth will expose that their organization/agency is not following industry standards, or that they are not ready, or are failing in any number of reasons.  These people really don’t have much sympathy from me in regard to their argument against credentialing.  However, there might be some discussion that merits a look.  I’ll reserve my judgement for now.

And finally, there are the thrill and glory seekers.  They might be there for the attention, they might be there for the notch in their gun, or they may be there to profit by defrauding the response community.  So as of now, this is where I stand and these are the arguments I want to discuss at first.  There are in some, compelling ideas.  There are in the others, no possible way you’ll be able to get me to support their theory.  But we’ll talk about them and I’d love to get your thoughts on the subject.  See you in a few.

Thoughts While Sitting in Traffic

1 comment

Sorry for not being around lately. I’ve had family in town and lots of stuff to do with the wife and girls. However, as I returned home from work the other day (this is at about 0645 in the morning), I was riding side-by-side with a vehicle best described as a “vintage beater”. As we approached a traffic light from a little way out, it changed to yellow. I knew that even speeding up I wouldn’t catch it, but the beater didn’t even bother and ran the red from so far out that I was shocked he hadn’t hit anyone.

In my recent attempts to not be angry (what good would it do?), I instead got to thinking about what would have happened had he actually hit someone, and what, at that time in the morning, was so important that he might risk his and and the lives of others in order to save a few seconds. I even caught up with him at the next light and I was driving the speed limit.

Later that afternoon, however, I WAS in a hurry to go somewhere. I was driving along and had the very same scenario presented to me. As tempted as I was to just fly through the intersection, since I was late to an appointment, I didn’t, and was a little frustrated as I sat there and waited for the light.

It occurred to me that doing the right thing may be inconvenient at times, but in some cases, the risks you take are certainly not worth the end result. It also occurred to me that even though you may feel like you are saving time by taking a short-cut, it doesn’t always work out that way and in fact, it might even be detrimental to the outcome.

How many times have you been working on a project and felt that taking the easy way out was warranted, only to have to go back and re-do things because you didn’t do things right the first time? When thinking about it from a safety perspective, how many times have you felt compelled to leave out a step (packing up, using gloves, etc.) because you felt like time was of the essence? How much longer would it have taken to complete that important mission had you gotten injured or killed because you took that short-cut?

Sometimes the shortest path between two points isn’t a straight line. Take the time to do things right and more often than not, you’ll be rewarded in the long run.

Firefighting as Asymetrical Warfare

2 comments

2005-1139There used to be a day when warriors considered it less than chivalrous to take cover or to shoot from a prone position.  Most of us in this millennium probably would never consider it a good idea to stand up and march forward upright into a withering hail of bullets unless we were certain we wanted to end it all right there.  While Napoleonic tactics continued to be used on the battlefield well into the 1900′s, for centuries, experts in the art of warfare were aware that when fighting a battle with an enemy that had a decided advantage, less than conventional tactics had to be applied.

As anybody who has ever been in the military knows, the one of the least preferable places to engage the enemy is on his own ground.  This is especially true in urban warfare, where going house to house can bring on any sort of undesired surprise.  Again, marching down the street in perfect formation, wheeling into position to the left or right, and moving forward to the center of the contested area is likely going to result in a heavy body count.

The advantage for the opposing force utilizing unconventional tactics is surprise; your force doesn’t know where or when the attack will come, you are unfamiliar with the terrain, you are unfamiliar with the weapons that will be used against you, and the attack is most likely going to come where your units are concentrated and have little ability to maneuver or escape.

Likewise, as we engage a fire in a building, especially in commercial occupancies, we have a disadvantage in that we are relatively unfamiliar with the layout, we may or may not be familiar with the fire load and the construction, and we don’t know for sure how long the fire has been burning, where it has extended to, or what components have been impacted.  We can get good reconnaissance when we do our preplans, but even then, unless it is a building you are in routinely, you probably aren’t going to have a good feel for the “terrain”.

Nonetheless, we have some holdouts in the fire service who continue to embrace the romantic image of the valiant firefighter, bolt upright, dashing into the flames with no regard for his own safety, and emerging unscathed with babe in arms, to the cheers of the crowd.  And before some of you haters out there begin to judge, realize that I come from four generations of these, of whom I am extraordinarily proud to be descended from.

And although I’m okay with that image in my heart, there’s a point where my head takes over.  Because while there is a certain amount of adrenaline surge in the glory of headlong engagement with the enemy, my years of education and experience kick in and I realize that I am locked in mortal combat with an enemy that has a decidedly favorable advantage.

If I choose to ignore the risks involved to the point that only the mission matters, if we had an unlimited amount of resources with which to throw at the enemy, maybe that would be okay (stick with me, now).  I don’t know about your department,  but in my department, we would have a limit of about one dead firefighter before things get a little crazy on scene (I’m being facetious; I hate to spell that out, but I’m heading off the hate mail).

There is nothing wrong with that image of valor I discussed before, but as I said in my earlier post, misusing the resources we have been allocated, of which losing personnel would be probably the most severe (at least it would be in my department), is a seriously poor contribution to minimizing the disaster and bringing it under control.  In fact, in most cases, it exacerbates it.

In no way should my opinion be construed as being against taking risk.  Risk is part of my job and if God strikes me down while taking what I considered to be a good risk versus an appropriate return, than so be it.  But risk to the exclusion of common sense isn’t valiant, it’s stupid.

Most of the firefighter deaths in this nation don’t come from valiantly charging into a burning building to save a life.  Most of them come from preventable issues, like cardiac-related incidents and motor vehicle collisions.  And while I mourn my fallen brethren just as terribly whether done on scene or in training, my job as a responsible emergency service leader is to insure that we aren’t throwing away souls toward lost causes or through poor judgement.  I know my family is appreciative when I come home intact, and so should yours be.

Saying you are for doing the job regardless of the safety aspects isn’t manly, it’s irresponsible.  Being cognizant of safe working practices doesn’t mean I stand outside a building and tremble when I roll up on a structure fire, but it does mean that I look at the fire progress, the extent of involvement, the building construction, and the likelihood of interior tenability (among other things) before committing my personnel.  Realize that this comes from a guy who has charred several helmets off the top of his head in his day and has had his share of hairy saves.  And I loved riding the tailboard just as much, if not more, than any of you out there as well.  But there comes a time when you look at what you are doing, and remember how close you came to throwing everything you had at the fire, only to have the insurance company write it off and be out there with a track-hoe the next day, hauling your “saved” building into a dumpster.

As Chris Naum says in his post on The Kitchen Table, there is a place in between overly cautious and overly aggressive that the good firefighters take their place in the line.  I ask that you consider that location and mark it out, and strive for the use of thorough size-up, sound tactics, and reasonable safety measures while remembering that there are more out there who depend upon you than just that victim.  Don’t throw everything you have at a situation you can’t win.  Choose your battles through knowledge and skill, and do the best you can do.