Skip to content

No Trash Talking – Follow Up

3 comments

When someone opposes my viewpoint, I usually take pains to understand their perspective. I value other observations on the issues, provided they are respectful of others and also consider alternative perspectives.  A few weeks back, when I posted No Trash Talking, I suggested change should be embraced if the science recommending the change bears it out. 

Before I go there, however, I did get feedback from others who pointed out other factors like balloon frame construction and the fact that not too many compartment fires go without void space involvement.  And as these observations were respectful and pertinent, I really appreciate them.  I will quickly reply to that as well: I don't believe for a minute that structural firefighting can be limited to exterior attack.  But that being said, the science defends that we can effectively mount a transitional attack without fear of pushing a fire through the building, if anything, to check rapidly progressing fire conditions.  In those situations, I would utilize the quick knockdown then transition to digging out fire in void spaces from inside if warranted.

I did get a comment to that post, however, that I wanted to discuss. I am going to admit that each time I went to address it, my post sounded like I was delivering a public spanking. But this was the comment and I do at least appreciate that they included a link to their own article:

Do not lump all of us who oppose this movement as being stuck in the past.  Myself and others are more than open to advances in our field.  Our problem is when information is cloaked in political propaganda, when the ideas presented do not make sense based on current scientific evidence, and when “new information” is really something we have all known for years.  Don’t just assume that we are uneducated, stubborn naysayers who have nothing substantial to add.

No matter how I phrased it, I found anything I might say could be construed as heavy-handed.  However, after taking a moment to re-read the comment, I went to the linked article from the commenter.  At that site, I then read the article written by Chief Shane Ray in Fire Chief magazine that he was referring to.

The goal of this post is to clarify that I do consider that anyone who would refute scientific evidence without any substantiating counter-argument to be uneducated and stubborn.  And yes, that does infer that those who oppose the movement (in the case of my post, that of the use of quantifiable and measurable data to develop fire tactics) are stuck in the past.  I am not saying that contesting a finding is inappropriate; I am saying that constesting a finding without anything other than your personal observations is.

Let me repeat: I never have said interior attack was not an option.  I said (paraphrasing) that given a choice between applying an exterior stream and an interior stream, if both are equally effective, we should use our head and opt for the safe one over the relatively unsafe one, especially if we can get water on the fire faster from the outside than on the inside. Regardless, the post wasn't even about tactics, it was about the reluctance of people to change when change is warranted.  But since we are going here, let's do it.

Let me make it perfectly clear. Research conducted by a number of sources found the application of exterior streams on compartment fires did not “push” fire, either onto victims or throughout a building.  

I have another paper due and not much time, so I’m going to cut to the chase.  My immediate literature review involved going straight to the UL report Impact of Ventilation on Fire Behavior in Legacy and Contemporary Residential Construction (Kerber, 2011).  There are other studies that Chief Ray cites in his article and they all provide the same observations.  So for the sake of time, let's just use this one right now.

The UL report identified the methodology: Fire was allowed to grow to approximately peak burning rate before the stream was applied.  Temperatures were measured 30 seconds before stream application, during the 10 seconds of the stream being applied, and then 30 seconds after.  The crews operating the streams specifically attempted to push fire and hot gases into exposure rooms while not putting water directly on the items burning in the room.
 
There was no evidence of the fire being pushed into the surrounding rooms.  Temperatures tended to decrease and temperature increases that did occur after water application were minimal. Fire progress was checked and external water application had no observable impact on what would have been considered tenability of the building. The results of this research were pretty obvious: when water was applied from the exterior, it did not push the fire, the streams did not create an untenable situation, and it did check fire progress.
 
Chief Ray can defend his own article, but I didn’t see anything in his observations that were unfounded.  To me, the derisive references to “spraying smoke” didn’t consider what Chief Ray had actually said, as his article actually referred to spraying smoke in the context that cooling the fuel (smoke is a fuel) might have beneficial effect, and if it didn’t hurt the situation, then it wasn’t a bad idea.  Obviously the commenter has problems with the science of cooling fuel, but we have been doing that since I became a firefighter in 1980.
 
I began to defend all the other options and how transitional attacks seemed to work, etc.  Then I realized that none of this evidence based nonsense was going to make any difference to some people. The author shared:
 
I have already discussed in previous articles why I do not agree with making fully prepared crews stand on the sidewalk and fight a fire from the safety of the exterior. It flies against every responsibility we shoulder as firefighters. It continues to be used as an excuse to cover up for lack of preparation and training.

So let’s talk tactics: If the research shows that a quick exterior application of a stream will check fire progress, not result in a substantial increase of interior temperatures, and improve tenability for occupants in less time than it would to deploy an interior line, find the fire room, and attack the fire, you STILL want to make the interior attack? Why? 

The author states that the purpose of his article is to “expose the other side of the argument.”  I am wondering then, what is the other side of the argument? He says his rebuttal “isn't packaged as nicely and doesn't include pictures of myself, but it is from the heart.” 

Well, here's where my comments are going to hurt some feelings. My answer is that it is time we stopped thinking with our “heart” in regard to tactics, and started thinking with our head. We have the FDNY, the Chicago Fire Department, and Underwriters Laboratories conducting research that all agrees.  His contention is that putting water on fire coming out of a window is bad, but other than his feelings as to why that is wrong (and the fact that it runs counter to verifiable, observable evidence), we have nothing.  

I support differences of opinion, so long as your opinion is voiced respectfully. When you try to make me and others sound like an idiot, well, I have problems with that, but okay, I can even live with that.  But when we are talking about what is a best practice for the job, will save firefighter lives and is scientifically shown to not result in adverse effects, and you say you don’t like it, well, you should probably just keep your opinion to yourself.

I had a whole bunch of other stuff to say about this, but I'm simply not going to go there.  As a chief fire officer, when I give someone an order to do something, it is an order based on what is the most effective means to bring resources to bear on a problem with the most chance of success and the least amount of risk to completing the overall operational objectives.  I’ll highlight it for you: It has nothing to do with what is in my heart.  

My job is to save lives, protect property and the environment, and to do my best to bring everyone home in one piece.  If that requires an interior attack to dig out the fire, then we'll suit up and go get it.  But if there is a more effective method, well, I don’t care what tradition says about heart, responsibility, or courage, the science trumps it. I could care less if that sucks the fun out of anyone's day.  We're not doing kumbaya here.  People's lives are on the line.  Let's act like it and do the right thing.

Posted by on May 6, 2013 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership, leadership • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

We Can’t Know What We Don’t Know

No comments

Recently I read an article written by a yoga instructor-trainer as they reflected on the state of instruction as they knew it.  He made an interesting comment about how he and his team had been involved in a great number of instructor certifications, but how he felt like the certification training failed in one major area: in “teaching teachers to teach yoga”.

His observation was that in certifying these instructors, the methods resulted in a great amount of fear; fear of getting it wrong, and the course delivery, as a result, became flat, formulaic, scripted.  Their methods so caused their instructor candidates lose the creativity and energy found in experimentation, in learning from their students, or focusing so hard on the product that they botched the delivery.  They were focusing more on not embarrassing themselves than on passing along knowledge.

I see a number of fire and EMS instructors who are the same way.  As an instructor-trainer myself, it has always been a source of frustration for me when I am faced with candidates who don’t KNOW the material they are supposed to be passing along.  They read the book, they took the course, they checked off the check-offs, and now they were supposed to understand the nuances of a subject they were barely intimate with and communicate it to someone else.

To me, it is no wonder we have some of the issues we face in today’s emergency services; in many cases, the people doing the teaching are learning from those who weren’t inspired themselves.  They might have the desire to teach, but what they are sharing wasn’t shared correctly to begin with.

I recall a discussion with a Captain once about a new Lieutenant who, in his first few shifts, had proven to be a megalomaniac.  Well, maybe not that bad, but it was pretty bad.  I said to that Captain that I wasn’t surprised the Lieutenant led his crews like a tyrant.  He learned to lead from his own supervisor, who was themselves a tyrant. 

How can we expect anything less when it is the only existence they know?

Posted by on May 2, 2013 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership, leadership • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Expectations and Stereotypes

2 comments

I was driving along and a car passed me, stereo booming away. The license plate was surrounded by a chain and the windows were all blacked out.  A sticker on the rear window: the silhouette of a pit bull with the words, “A civilized society does not regulate by race”.

Stereotyping an entire group because of the actions of a few runs counter to what we define as civilized.  But society accepts individuals by way of common values, mores, and an understanding that those are the boundaries.  People bump up against those boundaries all the time and when they do, that is when conflict occurs, and when the judging begins.  There is a big difference between listening to a very loud stereo and embracing the thug life.  However, there are those who claim innocence and can't understand that when they push against those values, there will often be pushback.  

For example, in the animal kingdom, there are many members of the cat (feline) family.  There is, however, a significant difference between a house cat and a tiger.  It isn't being stereotypical to expect different behavior between the domesticated feline and a large striped one living in the Burmese jungle.  But these are different animals; its not an issue of culture or race, it is a difference of species.  We, however, are all one, brothers.  We may worship at different churches, live in different communities, listen to different music, or even have different skin color, but we are all members of homo sapiens. 

We in emergency services create our own divisions that we should be careful to avoid “regulating” by.  We have, as I have mentioned ad nauseam, our career vs. volunteer, our union vs. non-union, our urban vs. our rural, our fire/EMS vs. our many other versions, and in all of these cases, it begins the discussion of, “Are we not all brothers?”

In the spirit of my analogy, when you advertise your membership in the greater society of firefighters, and we have taken an oath to protect the public and carry out our sworn duties faithfully, if you fail to carry out those duties by being ineffective, stealing from the till, setting fires, you are not part of our society.  We seem to have some real mutts in our ranks these days.  I'm sure some of it is just perception, having better access to arrest records and the media's willingness to pump up the anger when someone given public trust is found doing something outside the norm.  

We shouldn't judge others as a group, but in some cases, we have to maintain some objectivity when it comes to high percentages of people proving the perception to be more of a reality than otherwise.  These are not easy questions to answer, despite the shouting from the cheap seats by the trolls who just react to anything that hits the Interwebz.

Just as in religion, every fire department has more commonalities than differences.  We speak pretty much a universal language, no matter where we are on the globe.  A grab is a celebrated occasion in any firehouse.  And holding a worker where we found it when we got there is recognized it for what it is and we will even catch ourselves saying it under our breath- “Nice stop…”  But we are very diverse as well.  We have different cultures and different values when it comes to some parts of our lives.  Regardless of those differences, though, I think we can all agree on one big idea, that there is no room on the job for mutts.

How these people manage to thrive in our ranks is beyond me.  I mean, doesn’t anyone question how some of these issues come about?  Is there simply no fear of repercussion?  Do we honestly continue to tolerate this kind of behavior until it is exposed by the next Geraldo wanna-be?  Well, the news is that we have plenty in our ranks who do actually tolerate it, and enable it, and turn the other way when someone is doing wrong.  And frankly, I have pointed out some of these individuals in my career and heard, “Oh, that’s just how ___ is.”  And then life just goes on.

If an individual is willing to use poor judgment to fulfill their own needs first, what makes you think they are going to develop a whole bunch of integrity when things really get bad?  If an individual is willing to take shortcuts in patient care to avoid extra work, what kinds of decisions do you think they’ll make in regard to putting their own life on the line when you need the help most?  It all comes down to trust. If people can’t be trusted to do the little things, how can we trust them to make good choices when it is absolutely necessary?  You may think you can trust them, but really, think hard about it…do you?

If you have people in your organization who have constant challenges of judgment, you can’t afford to keep them.  If they don’t cause a civil or criminal investigation at some point, chances are, they will find some other means to let everyone down.  The fire service isn’t a club, it is a calling.  There is no room in the brotherhood for people without integrity.  If you really believe that being a firefighter is more than a job or a hobby, then it is incumbent on you to enforce the values we expect from someone when you pin on the badge.

Don’t let the mutts ruin a good thing.  Being a firefighter is still an honorable and noble thing to be.  Kids still grow up wanting to be firefighters.  People do still look up to firefighters.  But as we continue to see more and more of the lapses in our expectations and beliefs, we continue to slide against what we all swore to protect back in the beginning.  Don’t let your brothers down.

Posted by on April 29, 2013 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership, leadership

Who Really Is The Face of Terrorism?

2 comments

In a little research prior to a possible paper on terrorism, I was looking at the history of terror in the United States. Technically, it goes all the way back to our beginnings, when "radicals" belonging to the Sons of Liberty tossed 45 tons of tea into the harbor.  As you can quickly see in that one single case, "terrorism" is defined differently. I guess it just depends on whose point of view you happen to take.

I doubt anyone, however, equates terrorism as we know it today with an act of throwing goods into the harbor.  Things have escalated considerably in 200+ years and now in 21st century Boston we have this reprehensible act of violence.  We don't know the specific issue that sparked this act, but this defines "terror".  Terror, in that these bombs were not just intended to get someone's attention about the unfairness of a point of view.  No, this act included what were certainly anti-personnel devices, placed in a concentrated area of non-combatants, and positioned for maximum effect.  This act was a cowardly act, striking at defenseless civilians in order to make some kind of a point.

I believe in peace and I believe in perspectives, but I'm afraid I'm not a pacifist.  I personally believe we should seek who it is who chooses to harm the innocent and root them out.  Suffice it to say, if someone were to hurt my loved ones, I would pursue them to the ends of the earth.  While I earnestly strive to maintain peace and open-mindedness, and I profess an extraordinary amount of tolerance for other people's viewpoints, that all ends when you choose to escalate with force against me.  

I struggle with my innermost being when I advocate for a return to civility and understanding, then see zealots deciding that whatever it is they stand for is more important than peaceful co-existence.  I, like most Americans, stand for justice.  We believe in equality.  And we may have our own closed-minded radicals, but the majority of Americans abhor those extremes.  When a certain group of individuals decides to plant a bomb among us, they have declared war against us and everything we stand for.

As I mentioned my research, I find that there is evidence of violent or extreme action being taken by almost every faction and belief.  As I mentioned the actions taken in defense of independence, there are also many cases of "terrorism" documented for all kinds of causes.  To the Left, before you talk about right-wing extremism, let's discuss the 1920 Wall Street bombing or the Black Panthers or the SLA.  On the Right, don't leave the discussion without consideration of the white supremacy movement and of course, Oklahoma City and abortion clinic shootings.  But I wanted to address a differently handled case of civil disobedience.  

When I was learning to drive years ago, I practiced in the parking lot of the General Electric nuclear missile facility in King of Prussia, PA, so this event is very near to me.  Those of you who are my age may remember that this is where the "Plowshares Eight" took non-violent action, broke into the facility, damaged missile nose cones, and poured blood onto documents and files.  This is an act these days probably considered terrorism.  

The big difference here, and something maybe people should understand, is that these individuals had a tremendous passion for what they considered to be a crime against humanity.  But instead of bombing something or shooting at someone, they took action against inanimate objects.  They made a point without hurting people, at least not physically.  

For those who proclaim they are indeed "peaceful", this is a lesson in real peaceful protest.  Likewise, there are many cases in history.  Gandhi staged sit-down strikes.  Rosa Parks refused to go to the back of the bus.  Lech Walesa led the Solidarity movement.  These were all effective means of protest without killing others. Strapping a bomb to your body and walking into a marketplace doesn't say "peaceful" religion to me.  It says intolerance.  It says the ends justify the means.  It says that you aren't interested in living respectfully of one another.

Let's look at the Amish, for an example.  The most traditional of their beliefs maintain community with a separation from secular society, yet they maintain a peaceful coexistence with others.  If one participates at its most fundamental teachings, they have very strict rules but function (relatively) without interference from the rest of us.   I would bet  that there is a certain amount of frustration on certain aspects of the interface between their "world" and "ours", but while that may be so, I could be wrong, but I don't recall any outbreaks of terrorism on their behalf. They genuinely believe in peace and non-resistance.

I don't believe for a moment that Islam in and of itself is a violent religion.  I read The Koran and I don't find it any more violent than The  Bible.  But I don't hold up The Bible and proclaim literal interpretation anymore than the parts of The Koran that extremists say defend their actions. I'm not a religious scholar, and I might even come across as slightly heretical, but I believe on a planet as small as this one, in order to survive, we have to learn to live together.

I don't feel like you have to agree with me, but I ask you to respect my beliefs, just as I may not agree with you, but I respect yours.  As I said before, if you choose to ramp up your insistence that I listen to you at the point of a gun, I insist that I have the right to defend myself.  And if you screw with me, don't expect that I'm going to take it lying down.  If you choose to engage in warfare against me, you have to understand that your choice has consequences.  In the United States of America, we proudly allow anyone to live within their beliefs and that we have the right to express ourselves in a manner of our choosing.  If you want to live like a radical, then go somewhere where you can live like that and let the rest of us live our own lives.  But while I choose to be respectful of your choices, and am happy to leave you alone, I will be civil with you.  And yet, if you shove me, I WILL shove back.

If people really believe they belong to a peaceful gathering of individuals, then they need to be prepared to defend that with their actions.  Failing to do that doesn't, in my opinion, buy you any credibility.  Any religious institution that fails to push their extremists into the street and expose them when they preach annihilation of "non-believers" is, as far as I am concerned, culpable.  That goes for any religion, any cult, any group.  Silence is not an acceptable means of solving this problem.  Exposing the intolerant and the extreme to the rest of the world is.

As Gandhi said, "Be the change you wish to see in the world."  If you believe in peace, then let's see it.  Put your money where your mouth is.  If you are in an institution that advocates violence against non-combatants, then you have a responsibility to notify the authorities.  And don't cry persecution when, avoiding that responsibility, we have to come looking in order to protect our way of life.

Posted by on April 25, 2013 • Filed under: administration-leadership, Command & Leadership, Fire Rescue Topics, leadership, News • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Measuring Contest

2 comments

In the fire service, when we ask someone about their department, one of the first places we go with the conversation is call volume.  Of course, “How many calls do you get a year?” is only the feeder line for what we really want to hear: “How many FIRES do you get in a year?”  How do we measure the worth of our department?  In how many working fires we happen to fight in a year, that’s how.  It’s kind of the same as asking a soldier how many battles he has fought, or a ball player how many games he has won.  How do I know you know your job?  By how often you happen to do it, I guess.

There are some firefighters who, asking these questions, tell me stories that would only mean to me that very soon they won’t be telling the same stories, because it won’t be long before they run out of fuel in their district.  But worse is the citizen who, agenda apparent, asks how many fires we have a year and infers that there is a correlation: x (number of fires) = y (quality of equipment).

Not beating around the bush, what I should have said was: “So what you are wondering is, if we were a REAL fire department, we’d be burning down a lot more homes, right?”  Or if we were a really good organization, we’d have many more dead people.  Or more HAZMAT calls. Or perhaps more rescues.  As someone who really believes in what it is I do for a living, my problem with that idea is that the volume of serious calls doesn’t measure departmental success, it measures community failure.

Let’s go back to the beginning of our careers, either as paid or volunteer firefighters, and what was it you were told? We were told that our primary mission was to PREVENT fires, to PREVENT injury and mortality, and to PREVENT disasters.  What?  You didn’t take that conversation very seriously?  That seems to really be the gist of it: We know what we were told, we understand it makes sense, but it’s not the reason we became firefighters.  We became firefighters because it looked cool in the movies, or because we have some kind of belief in the heroism of the job.  We never really bought that prevention nonsense.  We like to bust shit up and go where everyone is running out from.  You can’t do that when you are preventing fires.

Perhaps, though, we should actually be measuring how bad your department regularly burns down room and contents fires because it is indicative of poor skill, or by burning down so many taxpaying businesses it indicates your resources aren't sufficient for the job, or by having so many alarms it indicates lousy codes or enforcement.  Maybe we should be looking at how many people don’t actually walk away from an encounter with your emergency medical care. Or how many HAZMAT calls you have that evolve into county-wide disasters.

I have said before that we should start hitting up the insurance companies for funds.  After al, they have a huge stake in this. When we save a building or a life, we are saving them money.  Wasn't that the premise behind the early 18th Century fire brigades?  Instead of municipal taxes exclusively supporting fire suppression, the insurance companies should maybe back off some of those exorbitant bonuses for their executives and invest in fire protection to a better degree.

There are many reasons why buildings burn that we have no hand in, like the condition of the buildings, the amount of fuel loading, and the intelligence of the occupants who put a pot of oil on the range then go down to the store for cigarettes.  But ultimately, if we want to measure something, maybe we should be comparing what it is we save compared to what it is we protect.  If we want to see how good it is we are doing, I think that the number of times our community doesn't suffer loss should be a better goal.  It is, after all, what we signed on for.

Posted by on April 22, 2013 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership, leadership • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,