4 ms·

>In fact, my priorities (usually...) are me, then my crew, then you. So you take an inherently unsafe job and then act to maximize your safety? If those are yo

>In fact, my priorities (usually...) are me, then my crew, then you. So you take an inherently unsafe job and then act to maximize your safety? If those are your priorties then why do you ever go out on a job? Certainly the safest place for you and yours to be is playing cards at the firehouse. You know, I know, the reason you go out is because if you don't go you'd be fired for insubordination. You'd be fired because you're being paid to go out on those calls and take those risks. So you do the next best thing: you go out on the call, but you make a series of operational decisions that, essentially, make you as safe as if you didn't go out on that call. And what's your justification? So you can be well enough to go out on the next call - and not take risks there, either. So you end up going on call after call, and on each call acting for your own benefit, rationalized, you say, to keep you healthy for the next call.

vmarsy 11y ago
Because a dead firefighter is useless? Because he has a training that would help save many lives in the future for the many other fires to come. Sure a "heroic/fool" firefighter could have saved one more life that particular day, but if instead he ends up dead, he might have sentenced to death future fire victims. So in term of life saved these priorities seems perfectly good. You assume "maximizing his safety" means going home without any bruise. You assume he is a coward.
JshWright 11y ago
No, my goal is to remain effective on _this_ call. If I take a stupid risk and fall through a floor, now the entire operation stops, all but guaranteeing no one else will be able to effect a rescue either. That does not mean I never enter a structure. It means I consider the construction type, the size, nature, location, and duration of the fire, and make an educated decision about whether or not the risk is worth the potential reward. If I decide it's worth it and end up going through the floor anyway, well... that was the choice I made. It sucks, but it's the nature of the job. Here's hoping the RIT is ready to pull my ass out. Firefighting is a dangerous job, I'm not disputing that at all (not as dangerous as say, farming... but still). My point is not to avoid all risk. My point is to avoid needless risk, and to prepare as thoroughly as possible for the risks we do need to take. Are you in the business? From the sounds of things you either just started out, or retired years ago, before we started applying actual science and data to firefighting tactics.
__jal 11y ago
I don't know that it is universal, but placing self-protection first is normal in all the training I've had, or have heard about. It is the same principle as the patter you hear on planes about putting oxygen masks on yourself first, then assisting others. Dead/injured/incapacitated first responders don't respond, they require assistance, which just make the situation worse. Before you go imputing others' motives in a topic you don't know about, mayhap give some thought to learning a little first. I promise you that anyone who has any sort of first-responder training just wrote that post off as clueless.
- JshWright 11y ago
  My guess is he is either a very young firefighter or a gung-ho, but fairly inexperienced, volunteer. He uses some firefighting 'slang' (referring to a call as 'a job', etc).
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I remember being surprised by this sequence of priorities when first learning them on first-aid course. I guess we like to picture people like you as heroes, bravely stepping in to save the day, ignoring the risk to themselves, but we don't stop to consider that this may not be the most effective course of action. As usual, the optimal way of doing stuff is quite different from what we see on TV.
    - JshWright 11y ago
      Yeah, it's a far more pragmatic business than many people realize... Risk a lot to save a life, risk a little to save property, risk nothing to save nothing (i.e. if it's past the point of being saved).

vmarsy 11y ago

Because a dead firefighter is useless? Because he has a training that would help save many lives in the future for the many other fires to come. Sure a "heroic/fool" firefighter could have saved one more life that particular day, but if instead he ends up dead, he might have sentenced to death future fire victims. So in term of life saved these priorities seems perfectly good. You assume "maximizing his safety" means going home without any bruise. You assume he is a coward.

JshWright 11y ago

No, my goal is to remain effective on _this_ call. If I take a stupid risk and fall through a floor, now the entire operation stops, all but guaranteeing no one else will be able to effect a rescue either. That does not mean I never enter a structure. It means I consider the construction type, the size, nature, location, and duration of the fire, and make an educated decision about whether or not the risk is worth the potential reward. If I decide it's worth it and end up going through the floor anyway, well... that was the choice I made. It sucks, but it's the nature of the job. Here's hoping the RIT is ready to pull my ass out. Firefighting is a dangerous job, I'm not disputing that at all (not as dangerous as say, farming... but still). My point is not to avoid all risk. My point is to avoid needless risk, and to prepare as thoroughly as possible for the risks we do need to take. Are you in the business? From the sounds of things you either just started out, or retired years ago, before we started applying actual science and data to firefighting tactics.

__jal 11y ago

I don't know that it is universal, but placing self-protection first is normal in all the training I've had, or have heard about. It is the same principle as the patter you hear on planes about putting oxygen masks on yourself first, then assisting others. Dead/injured/incapacitated first responders don't respond, they require assistance, which just make the situation worse. Before you go imputing others' motives in a topic you don't know about, mayhap give some thought to learning a little first. I promise you that anyone who has any sort of first-responder training just wrote that post off as clueless.

JshWright 11y ago
My guess is he is either a very young firefighter or a gung-ho, but fairly inexperienced, volunteer. He uses some firefighting 'slang' (referring to a call as 'a job', etc).
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I remember being surprised by this sequence of priorities when first learning them on first-aid course. I guess we like to picture people like you as heroes, bravely stepping in to save the day, ignoring the risk to themselves, but we don't stop to consider that this may not be the most effective course of action. As usual, the optimal way of doing stuff is quite different from what we see on TV.
  - JshWright 11y ago
    Yeah, it's a far more pragmatic business than many people realize... Risk a lot to save a life, risk a little to save property, risk nothing to save nothing (i.e. if it's past the point of being saved).