Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Follow the Yellow "Safety Brick" Road!

Borrowing and paraphrasing a comment made by FDNY Lt. Ray McCormack, I would wonder in his safety culture if I were the Cowardly Lion for a lack of courage, the Tin Man for lack of a heart or the Scarecrow for lack of a brain. I would think maybe some of all three, but this I know:

Last week at FDIC, in just under 40 minutes, Safety in the fire service took a major hit.

From the opening salvo delivered by Chief Bobby Halton to his “body-burying buddy”, FDNY Lt. Ray McCormack; disdain, indifference and apathy for a safer fire service was never more evident.

And clearly, I will respectfully disagree with their messages in this year of personal responsibility for safety.

This I want to die with my boots on mentality in the fire service is killing us. I cannot recall one incident where SAFETY killed one of us at an incident. So, it is Safety that is our only hope for reducing injuries and deaths; both firefighter AND civilian.

Honestly; I am shocked by what I heard. If I understood, Halton wants us to risk everything to save a life and to preserve the symbolism of the red fire truck, as defined by writer Kurt Vonnegut.

Now; I realize that when I became a firefighter, I promised God that I would risk my life to save another, BUT, I NEVER agreed to GIVE UP my life to save another.

So that you understand that last statement, what it means is that I would not consciously put myself in a position to die, but if I crossed that threshold during an attempted rescue, then play lively music at my funeral! It also means that conditions changed while I was inside from when I went inside.
And I’m sorry, Bobby, but art and commerce are not on my “save” list as you would like. I’m not willing to cross the threshold for an album filled with “Kodak moments”. They can get another camera and start a new album along with that new life that we just gave them!

I believe that our public does not want to see us dying in property that is unoccupied, insured and can be re-built. They do not want the guilt of knowing that we died and left families of our own behind.

Before I turn my attention to Lt. McCormack’s comments, I will say this with regards to Chief Halton’s comments: if you want a world where firefighters give the ultimate sacrifice to preserve honor, tradition and the sacred trust, then these should be men and women-orphans who are unfeeling, uncaring and unimportant to and of themselves, with no families or friends-who will not leave someone suffering, in order to relieve the suffering of others.

WE-every firefighter that you have ever stood before-understand and accept our fate. Unfortunately, our parents, families, friends, wives, and especially our kids do not feel full from our deaths; only emptiness.

So maybe, you should take your message to THEM. Get their buy-in and then we can come back to the safety table and talk about how sissified and saftified we’re making the fire service.

I will put my heart, guts and balls out there with anyone else, but as a leader, MY MEN COME FIRST, but the public is first on our list. Making my men number one does not make the public number two. I understand that we have to serve them, but we are not sub-servant; no less important.

And as their leader, no one is more important to me than my men are. And I am unwilling to believe that their lives are worth less than the life of someone we swore to serve.

The irony of all of this is that we only want to roll out Safety when there is talk of budget cuts and reducing manpower. Now, that’s unsafe!

“Too much safety lends itself to fear”, says FDNY Lt. Ray McCormack.

What is “too much safety”? I have been involved with safety as a profession for twenty-plus years and I have yet to see “too much”.

But, can someone show me ONE example of where Safety EVER got in the way of any of you doing your jobs?

No? That’s because you CAN’T!

You see; we pick and choose where we invoke the cry for Safety. The rest is simply ignored.

Why do we waste that one position on safety officer? Give him a set of irons and go do something, for chrissakes.

Teaching people the safe way to do their jobs gives them a better understanding, helps them to avoid problems caused by a lack of understanding and builds their confidence that is the underpinnings for their courage under fire. It makes them FEARLESS; not fearful!

In closing, I will also respectfully disagree with the Lt.’s assessment that “the path is paved with yellow safety bricks”.

The path is paved with black bunting, lined with Class A’s, vibrating with drums and bagpipes, grieving with widows, moms, dads, fatherless/motherless children and cemented with the spirits of thousands of glorious and gifted lives who thought that they were bound by duty to die, either by necessity or by accident.

“Courage-Determination-Pride”; me and the Lt. agree on these three, but this is my take on them:

Have courage to stand up to those who believe there’s too much safety and say that there is as of yet, not enough.

Have the determination to develop, implement and enforce SOGs that are constructed with a foundation strong in safety.

Show your pride, knowing that you did your job, did it safely, got the job done and you didn’t have to compromise your sacred trust.

To Bobby Halton and FDNY Lt. Ray McCormack; thank you for keeping the spotlight on Safety.

It will continue to be seen in a different light.

TCSS.

This article is protected by copyright and may not be re-produced in any form without the expressed consent of the author.

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

19 comments:

  1. Art; thanks for taking lead on this vital and critical need to respond. As always a pleasure to see other progressivs in the fire service put their leadership in motion and cool quell and quench the fires that can destroy so much of what we have built to date regarding the safety message for our firefighterveterans. Good Job. It was an easy lead to write my own p.o.v. from the comments you put out....
    thanks
    firefighterveteran.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. We are the American Soldier on the HOMELAND! Let's tell the American people we are not willing to give our lives for them! What every happen to the Green Berets of the Fire Service. They have been replaced by Computer Geeks. All he said, Was the civilian comes first and TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No; I respectfully disagree with your assertion of "all he said".
    His address was 21 minutes long.
    He said plenty.
    You don't have to tell firefighters to train.
    And you don't have to tell them that "too much safety causes fear".
    And we aren't soldiers; we're firefighters.
    Soldiers will fight many enemies. Firefighters have one-a building under fire load.

    ReplyDelete
  4. With all due respect Art, before you "borrow and paraphrase" from the speech Lt. McCormack made.You should actually try to LISTEN to what he said.
    You said that in just under 40 minutes, safety in the fire service took a major hit....and I TOTALLY disagree.I will say that the people that HIDE behind safety in the fire service took a major hit....and hopefully they will realize that this isn't the place for them.

    You also go on to state that,"I cannot recall one incident where SAFETY killed one of us at an incident." And I don't recall the Lt. stating, inferring, or making a claim that it had (and altho I am sure Mr.McCormack has no need for me to defend him) I can show you MANY examples of where civilians have died because of fire service "leaders" justifying their cowardice by screaming SAFETY.
    I do recall the parts of the speech where he said WE are the last hope of the civilians. And altho I REFUSE to call the people I respond to "customers", I realize what he was saying.But
    I will risk NOTHING for a customer (and by the way if they ARE customers, why can't they schedule their emergency between the hours of 9am and 5pm?) BUT I WILL RISK MY LIFE FOR A VICTIM.
    I think you would do yourself a favor if you listened once (or twice) again, and used some common sense and judgment to understand what the good Lt. was saying.
    You state, "I will put my heart, guts and balls out there with anyone else, but as a leader, MY MEN COME FIRST, but the public is first on our list. Making my men number one does not make the public number two. I understand that we have to serve them, but we are not sub-servant; no less important.

    And as their leader, no one is more important to me than my men are. And I am unwilling to believe that their lives are worth less than the life of someone we swore to serve."

    WE chose this profession, it was NOT forced on any of us.... And even though I am really bad with mathematics, I know that you can't have two "firsts", EITHER the people you swore to protect and serve come first....or you do (this isn't Little League where EVERYONE plays, so people can feel warm and fuzzy inside......this is the BIG LEAGUE, you (should) have to EARN your spot) And I don't recall anyone talking about being "sub-servant" except for you.

    Remember, WE have the training....WE have the knowledge....WE have the experience(hopefully) and WE ARE THE LAST RESORT, If WE fail...it's over. And TOO many people are accepting FAILURE and feeling good about it by wrapping a big florescent and scotchlight vest around it and calling it "safety".
    COWARDS use safety as an EXCUSE, firemen use safety as a tool.
    Sincerely,
    Michael C. Harrison....and I like to go to fires

    DISCLAIMER: I know there are typos, grammatical errors and so forth....I don't get paid to have an editor, I don't even get paid for what I do.....I get paid for what I am WILLING to do, for a victim.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chief, with respect, I seek to direct the conversation toward our sworn duty to safeguard not only the lives of those we are sworn to protect, but their property as well. I am far more interested making sure that our members are competent, predictable, professional and combat ready. I believe that the best way to improve the safety of our members is to provide fire departments with the necessary manpower required to mount an aggressive, coordinated interior fire attack. This approach requires that fire departments build battle ready fire suppression forces and dedicate the appropriate resources to demanding training programs, adherence to sound operational procedures and a constant attention to and a demand that firefighters respond to every call as if it was the real thing.

    There is a fundamental difference between firefighters and the rest of the world. When we take the oath, with our right hands raised, we agree to certain things and these things become our solemn duty, our obligation. These duties include the understanding that a time may and likely will come when we have to be willing to risk everything…..to save the life of a stranger. We also have a duty and obligation to take risk for a stranger’s property. That’s the deal, this is what makes us different from everyone else, with the exception of the military.

    To be sure, we have other obligations as husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. We have still more obligations and duties to our friends and extended families. No one wants to die; however, our duty to perform our job and our obligation to the citizens we protect rightly takes precedence when faced with the saving of a life and given a fighting chance. When our citizens, in spite of all of our education and prevention efforts, end up needing to be rescued, we are all they have. No one else will come to save them, they will surely die alone if not for our efforts.

    We also have a duty and an obligation to protect their property. A person’s home represents the bulk of their life’s investment. Their home is filled with a lifetime of memories and priceless items that would be lost forever in an extensive fire. What is your home worth? My home remains “vacant” and “unoccupied” much of the time; however, if there was a fire in my home, I assure you that I would expect the fire department to mount an aggressive interior attack to save my property. I believe that we have that agreement that contract with our citizens.

    A recent fire in Chicago involved the Holy Name Cathedral. The Holy Name Cathedral was built in 1874 and it is the seat of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, one of the largest Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. What was the value of this “unoccupied” church? What level of risk is acceptable for this truly priceless property? I can tell you that the building was saved because the Chicago Fire Department mounted an aggressive, coordinated interior attack that was truly remarkable. The skill and courage displayed in extending large caliber hand lines up to the attic from the interior, across narrow catwalks and through barriers to fight this fire and save this building that has so much meaning to the people of Chicago and beyond was only accomplished at great risk to the firefighters involved. If, God forbid, something had happened to any of those firefighters, we would have to answer the same questions….is there any building or property worth the life of a firefighter?

    I fear that the “let it burn” movement, under the guise of safety is gaining momentum. I fear that more members of our service are being convinced that we should not commit our members to “vacant” or “unoccupied” structures because no building or property is worth a life. Of course no building or property is worth the life of a firefighter. If we could know that a life would be lost before we arrive instead of after the fire is out and the investigation is completed, who would commit their members to the fight? This is why it is difficult to have a reasoned, logical and thoughtful discussion on this topic. If this is where the discussion starts, how can we ever have open and honest dialog. We know why firefighters die while engaged in structural firefighting and it has little to do with if the structure is "occupied" or "vacant". It has always been due to the same factors over and over....those lessons NOT learned. Lack of training, poor communication, lack of command, failure to recognize changing fire conditions, failure to follow accepted strategic and tactical practices and on and on.......

    I believe the safety of our members is dependent on our training, our experience and our ability to make sound decisions on the fireground, where it has always been. We must obtain and maintain a high level of proficiency in the fundamental company functions. Engine companies must be very good at quickly stretching the right size and length hose -line to the right location and getting water on the fire. Truck companies need to have excellent laddering, forcible entry and ventilation skills along with the courage and skill required to search under hostile conditions. Our Incident Commanders need to be well trained in all aspects of command and safety and they must have a command presence. Finally, we must have the manpower necessary to accomplish the mission.

    The “let it burn” approach is, in my estimation, the easy approach to safety. The far more difficult approach is for our fire service leaders to work with our elected and appointed officials and if necessary, take up the fight to provide us with the necessary manpower required to mount an aggressive, coordinated interior attack. It’s hard work and takes a great deal of perseverance for our leaders to demand a high level of consistent, predictable and professional performance. It’s hard to provide the kind and amount of training we need to make good, sound decisions on the fireground and to recognize changing fire conditions. It takes guts to speak-out against the complacency and laziness that is having a devastating effect on our ability to safeguard the lives and property of the citizens we are sworn to protect. Letting it burn is the easy way.

    I ask you not to take the easy road, it doesn’t take a great deal of skill, knowledge or training to “let it burn”. I ask our leaders to dedicate yourselves to the difficult process of building properly manned, highly skilled, well trained, competent, professional firefighting forces. I ask the members to dedicate yourselves to the hard work of becoming craftsmen. Don’t be satisfied to learn the basics or to maintain the minimum standard. By craftsmanship, I mean to seek out as much information on every conceivable topic by asking questions, conducting research, reading and doing. Learn the fundamentals and then go beyond the basics to create a depth of knowledge that allows you to be flexible enables you to improvise and gives you the ability to troubleshoot problems and fashion solutions. And finally, it is the citizens we serve, not ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Firefighter Harrison:
    The "borrowing and paraphrasing" came in the first paragraph as a tie-in to the title.
    The "40 minutes" that I refer to is Chief Halton's and Lt. McCormack's speeches combined.
    With regards to the blog; there are quotations around the quotes for either Halton or McCormack.
    If there are not quotation marks around it, then those thoughts are mine. And I do not apologize for any of it.
    As I said; I know what I heard and I know that I am not the only one who heard it. Lt's comments and the comments of Chief Halton are lighting up numerous discussion boards.
    And it's easy to dangle the word "coward" out in front of me and because I know who I am and what I am, I laugh at the notion that safety is an excuse for failure and used by cowards.
    Again; pick and choose and use it when it serves purpose in your arguments like reduced staffing.
    I have listened to BOTH speeches numerous times.
    I keep hearing the same thing.
    I stand by what I wrote.
    Thanks.
    Art

    ReplyDelete
  7. Art Zern:
    I know what I swore to do; I just happen to think that it can be done with an eye on safety.
    Why is it when someone writes a "pro-safety" article, they are immediately accused of not wanting to initiate attack and watch it burn down?
    I had a firefighter from DC call me a "yard breather". Cute!
    However; I am told from yet another that because I am not on a big metro fire department, I have no credibility.
    I can understand that we might not see eye to eye on issues, but we can keep it clean spirited and not mean spirited can we?
    I mean; I showed no disrespect when I voiced my disagreement.
    Why can't I have it back in kind?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chief,


    Please point out to me how my comments were "mean sprirted" or "disrespectful"? In my comments, I stressed what I believe it means to operate safely. I believe in safety, I just think that there is a better way. There was no disrespect intended or delivered.

    You raised the issue, I did not name you as a "let it burn" proponent. You must know; however, that there are many firefighters that do believe that either that is the right or only choice when faced with a fire in a "vacant" or "unoccupied" structure. My point again was and is, firefighters can and do conduct agressive, interior attacks safely. I am only asking the members of our great service to strive to attain the necessary manning, training, equipment and resources to do the job efficiently and...safely.

    In fairness, I also believe that your attack on Chief Halton and Lt. McCormack was unwarrented. Chief Halton, as you well know, has been a strong advocate for firefighters and firefighter safety for years. He has done much in his efforts for firefighter safety and I am sure he is due more respect that he has been shown here.
    Your statement that Chief Halton's comments showed "disdain, indifference and apathy for a safer fire service" was indeed disrespectful and out of line. Additionally, you seemed to have missed the point of Lt. McCormack's speech as well. If you meant to start your blog with "Clean spirit", your “body-burying buddy” description of Lt. McCormack missed the mark.

    Can we agree that the best path to safety includes: the necessary manpower required to mount an aggressive, coordinated interior attack and for our leaders to demand a high level of consistent, predictable and professional performance and the kind and amount of training we need to make good, sound decisions on the fireground and to recognize changing fire conditions? Can we agree to have the guts to speak-out against the complacency and laziness that is having a devastating effect on our ability to safeguard the lives and property of the citizens we are sworn to protect? And, can we work really hard to supply our firefighters with comprehensive annual physicals and the equipment and time to exercise on duty so that we can improve our level of fitness and wellness?

    That is the point.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Art:
    I was not accusing you of being mean-spirited in your remarks. You have articulated your positions very well. The remarks that I allude to were said by others elsewhere and not by you.
    I showed no disrespect to Chief Halton or Lt. Ray McCormack. However: though I don't write for Fire Engineering, I have charted a career in the volunteer service that I feel deserves respect.
    And I have read several of Chief Halton's articles and in my mind, his message at FDIC was in some respects counter to his previous articles. HE made the comment about Ray being his undertaker-a reference to burying bodies in the back yard-and I was only referring to that and not to be disrespectful.
    I introduced aggressive interior attack to our fire department back in the early 80s. Because some of us believe that safety should be in front of us and not in the backs of our minds, we are accused of breaking our sacred oath to our citizens and that couldn't be farther from the truth.
    Like Ray, I liked going to fires too. And I liked going home after them even better.
    I respect their opinions and it's up to others whether they want to respect mine.
    I am not out to discredit ANYONE or to prove anyone wrong.
    If I'm not entitled to take a position on an issue or to take a different career path in a different segment of the fire service without being berated, belittled and insulted (not by you), then it's a sorry world we live in.
    I have kept this respectful, like I always do.
    However; I stand by my comments; no disrespect intended or implied.
    I have been involved with the fire service for over 28 years. I have earned my place too.
    And I will not apologize for it.
    I posted negative comments from some on my blog site. The simple thing would have been for me to delete them, but I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether I agree or not, so I posted them like I would any others.
    People should be allowed to disagree without becoming mortal enemies to one another.
    They are opinions.
    TCSS.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Chief,

    Point well taken. Like you, I always do my best to keep the discussion on point and away from attacks on individuals. Indeed, you have earned your place in the fire service and I appreciate and respect your work. An unfortunate aspect of cyber discussions is that the participants can hide behind their cyber “names” and feel the freedom to take liberties with the truth and common decency. I always use my name and I wish others would follow suit. I believe it helps to maintain a level of decorum as we discuss and/or debate the important issues of our service.

    I believe there is plenty of common ground; in fact, much of this debate/discussion is directed toward the extreme elements. I would still like to know if we could find agreement with the approach to safety that others in the so-called "anti-safety" camp and I are discussing? Can we agree that the best path to safety includes (not necessarily limited to): the necessary manpower required to mount an aggressive, coordinated interior attack and for our leaders to demand a high level of consistent, predictable and professional performance and the kind and amount of training we need to make good, sound decisions on the fireground and to recognize changing fire conditions? Can we agree to have the guts to speak-out against the complacency and laziness that is having a devastating effect on our ability to safeguard the lives and property of the citizens we are sworn to protect? And, can we work really hard to supply our firefighters with comprehensive annual physicals and the equipment and time to exercise on duty so that we can improve our level of fitness and wellness?

    It is not extreme, anti-safety or controversial, what do you say?

    Art

    ReplyDelete
  11. i think the fact this has created so much debate across these sites shows there is an issue out there and the speech did bring up an issue that needed to be address

    ReplyDelete
  12. Art Goodrich,

    Thank you for the most honest, respectful and enjoyable reply to this very controversial speech by Lt McCormack. You have more support than you will ever know!

    …and I like to go to fires too, but also want to come home!

    Moe

    ReplyDelete
  13. Art Zern:
    I agree 100% with the last paragraph of your last reply.
    We agree on more than some realize. The only difference is that I would like to see an emphasized safety component added to our training.
    As an example; if your squad is given the choice of going to a roof ops class or a "safety" class, which one would you choose? That's easy, I know.
    But, if we take the time to incorporate safety into the roof ops class as a separate and distinct part of the training, then that is what I emphasize, because if we don't, it leads to our worst enemy...complacency.
    I am not from the "let it burn" camp. I believe that we can perform better risk assessment in our size ups and save more lives and property, including our own.
    I realize that we serve at the pleasure of our communities and we don't have to be reminded who we work for, but though risk is a part of the job description, dying is not.
    I had to remove the comments section from my blog site, because of the vile vicious names that some were calling me. I removed ALL the comments, including the ones from my son and sisters. You see; I have family who visit my blog site and I didn't want to expose them to the "mine are bigger than your's" BS. As twisted as it sounds, I believe that people have a right to call me whatever they want; it doesn't bother me, but it would bother my loved ones, so I removed the entire comments section.
    By the way, your earlier reply to my blog also appears at www.iacoj.com.
    Thank you for your respectful replies. I realize how emotionally charged this topic is, but like I said, many, many listeners were at the least, confused by the addresses presented.
    At least, we have brought some clarity to it.
    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  14. From one of McCormack's own, taken from news story comments: [quote]Posted by urgent1075 on Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:32 AM Pacific Report Abuse

    Part 2 Safety in the Fire Service has been in debate for a long time. It???‚?„?s almost like how can you fight a fire and be safe at the same time. I see the culture of safety and the culture of extinguishment working hand and hand. Every life and death decision made on the fireground can be made according to our fireground guidelines. The basic principles of risk benefit analysis are made upon these two guidelines, the protection life civilian and firefighter and the protection of property of value. The most effective method of accomplishing these two guidelines and satisfying the priorities of risk taking is:
    EXTINGUISHING THE FIRE WITH THE INITIAL ATTACK HOSE LINE.

    Posted by urgent1075 on Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:32 AM Pacific Report Abuse

    I am a 30 year veteran of the FDNY and I can not believe some of the crap that I am reading here.???‚?? Firefighters die; it's what we're here for. Dying is part of the job." WOW what department do you come from? In all my years of leading men I have used the #1 rule of firefighting and that's to GO HOME SAFE. Firefighting is inherently a dangerous job and does not come without risks. But those risks can and should be managed. The risks must be weighed against the potential gains. As for the culture of safety and the culture of extinghuisment that???‚?„?s where Lt. McCormick and I differ. Now Lt McCormick did not get to were here is today by shooting from the hip. He has proven himself as a fireground officer and a leader. I am sure that he has and continues to size-up the situation first before rushing in. I think that his message was a little strong and was not meant to disregard safety but to emphasize the basics of firefighting. See part 2[end of quote]

    ReplyDelete
  15. In keeping with part of the message delivered in Lt. McCormack's address and the tenor of this discussion, I have a question directed to the smaller fire departments:
    You are dispatched to a report of a structural fire in a two-story with a civilian still inside the structure; their whereabouts in the structure unknown. You respond with an engine and a truck with 3 firefighters each.
    Upon arrival, you initiate a search/rescue with a team of two firefighters. Within two minutes of entry into the structure, a may-day is announced before the civilian is rescued.
    I won't give you any choices, but what would you do?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Chief,

    Very sorry to hear that members can't seem to discuss or even disagree without being disagreeable. Again, if we want to have open, honest and insightful dialog.....use your real name. Don't hide behind a cyber name, it doesn't take courage or guts to conduct "drive-by" blogging.

    Keep The Faith,

    Art

    ReplyDelete
  17. When a person delivers a speech, it could be the State of the Union from tghe President of the USA or the keynote of FDIC, the power of "words" has incredible influence.

    We the dedicated instructors of the fire service world, strive to achieve behavioral modification(s) and when we do, it confirms that our hardwork and dedication have evolved.

    My thoughts are less on what everyone "thought" they heard from Lt. McCormack, and more that "the words" left everyone debating the underlying issues of today.

    Now as far as censoring the rest of the fire service, from disallowing the world from seeing the podcast, that is a shame. Shame on F.E. Chief Halton for that.

    TCSS

    PS: Hey Art... I bet all the money you make on this TKT blogsite is really paying off for all the he said / she said huh?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes; I figure a couple more blogs here and I will be able to retire or at least cut back to where I do them infrequently.
    I might even start using one of those pen names...something catchy like "Anonymous".
    I couldn't help but notice that you "attacked" Bobby Halton in your response.
    Be prepared for the fallout.
    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Chief,

    Point well taken. Like you, I always do my best to keep the discussion on point and away from attacks on individuals. Indeed, you have earned your place in the fire service and I appreciate and respect your work. An unfortunate aspect of cyber discussions is that the participants can hide behind their cyber “names” and feel the freedom to take liberties with the truth and common decency. I always use my name and I wish others would follow suit. I believe it helps to maintain a level of decorum as we discuss and/or debate the important issues of our service.

    I believe there is plenty of common ground; in fact, much of this debate/discussion is directed toward the extreme elements. I would still like to know if we could find agreement with the approach to safety that others in the so-called "anti-safety" camp and I are discussing? Can we agree that the best path to safety includes (not necessarily limited to): the necessary manpower required to mount an aggressive, coordinated interior attack and for our leaders to demand a high level of consistent, predictable and professional performance and the kind and amount of training we need to make good, sound decisions on the fireground and to recognize changing fire conditions? Can we agree to have the guts to speak-out against the complacency and laziness that is having a devastating effect on our ability to safeguard the lives and property of the citizens we are sworn to protect? And, can we work really hard to supply our firefighters with comprehensive annual physicals and the equipment and time to exercise on duty so that we can improve our level of fitness and wellness?

    It is not extreme, anti-safety or controversial, what do you say?

    Art

    ReplyDelete

Join the discussion here! The Kitchen Table welcomes comments, but please be respectful. Comments must be approved by the blog administrator before they will appear on the site.

Web Analytics