« Is it something in the water? | Home | Seven random facts…a day late. »

‘Tradition’ Doesn’t Cut It

By Chris | July 2, 2007

Ultimately, the remembrance of the nine firefighters dubbed the ‘Charleston 9′ will be twofold.  One for the sacrifice they made for others (that’s you, me, and all the other citizens), and the second for the changes that their loss will affect on Charleston FD.  On Monday, 18 June 2007 when I was watching the footage on Channel 2, I witnessed what I observed to be multiple questionable practices.  Coupled with prior knowledge of how CFD accomplishes some things, I’m not at all shocked that someone with some clout has finally shed some light on what many of us in the fire community had noticed: CFD’s risky practices (Post & Courier Article).  Yes, it’s easy for me to armchair quarterback an incident I wasn’t at, but I lost friends in that fire and as a firefighting community as a whole we lost brothers.  I believe that it would be irresponsible for the firefighting community to sweep it under the rug and dismiss bad practices as ‘tradition.’  Tradition doesn’t cut it when people get killed.

Below, I’ve selected parts of the article and commented on them.  These are my opinions based on my experiences in the fire service.  Don’t misread my comments as an insult to the CFD members or their Chief.  Chief Thomas is a good man, his people are good people - that are misled into thinking that it’s acceptable to risk lives for tradition.

The Charleston Fire Department has long prided itself on a hard-charging, aggressive approach to battling fires. Firefighters don’t stand by and wait for flames to die. They rush into the belly of the blaze to save lives and property. Risk is just part of the job.

Risk is part of the job - it’s inherent when you respond to fire calls.  It’s important to mitigate the risk however.

“That’s the tradition that’s been carried on in the city of Charleston Fire Department since time was time,” Fire Chief Rusty Thomas said. “Are we going to let someone’s property burn? No, sir.”

Life over property.  I think we all would be much happier if the Sofa Super Store was burnt to a crisp and nine firefighters were alive today.  Mitigating risk and operating a fire scene safely does not mean you’re ‘letting’ someone’s property burn.

In particular, they [fire safety experts] question why the incident commander was allowed to actively participate in the Sofa Super Store fire rather than maintain a vantage point to monitor the blaze.

I wondered that myself.  I’ll add I see this occur even on fires in my neck of the woods.  Fire officers are firefighters at heart - they want to go in there and put the wet stuff on the red stuff as much as the rest of us, however when they put on that white hat, their responsibility as an officer outweighs their personal desire.   ICS (incident command system) recommends that incident commanders NOT be involved, so that they have the ability to monitor all aspects and operations that relate to the incident.

Charleston Mayor Joe Riley scoffed at the recommendation, saying it makes no sense to keep an experienced commander away from the action. “The somewhat bureaucratic notion that a fire incident commander is not to be engaged, to me, is foolhardy.”

WTF does a friggen politician know about firefighting?  Incident command?  I understand he is standing behind his fire chief, but seriously - he should refrain from commenting on something with which he likely has little experience.

The department’s hard-charging attitude is evident in video footage and photographs from the scene of the June 18 fire. Off-duty firefighters can be seen participating in the battle wearing shorts and short-sleeve shirts, while other firefighters move around partially dressed in protective gear.

Off-duty firefighters who are not wearing their turnout gear should not be permitted to actively participate in an incident such as this.  The need for safety should outweigh their desire to help.  Who didn’t see the man climbing the aerial in shorts and a t-shirt, wearing only a fire helmet for protection?  Absurd - it was one of the first things I noticed.

I liked the article, and hopefully it will focus some attention on the outdated and unsafe practices.  A well-known practice that I think is pretty insane is the use of a 40-50 GPM booster line (small hoseline, often seen on a reel on the top of the truck) to put out house fires.  Another is the use of 2.5″ supply lines from a hydrant.  The friction loss on a 2.5″ supply line makes the use of two needed when one LDH (5″) would suffice.  CFD is proud of the ISO (Insurance Service Organization) Rating of 1 (the highest you can attain), however I’ve heard that it’s only for the peninsula, where the historic status of the majority of the buildings means that most of the standards that apply to newer buildings do not apply…basically ‘grandfathering’ in standards.  Oh, that building is historic, you don’t have to meet fire protection standards.  Crazy.

Okay, I’m sure I’ll read this later and have to edit it for errors and reign in some wild tangential thoughts….I need my sleep.

Topics: Fire Dept, News, Public Safety |

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.