 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Emergency call question
Okay, I've seen this more than once, and again yesterday. Some young woman apparently twists her ankle or something on the trail I was hiking on. She didn't even appear to be in pain. She was just sitting there apparently enjoying all the attention she was getting. Anyway, FIVE large vehicles from the local fire dept show up, including a full sized fire engine! Also, two Park Ranger cars of course. The parking lot was FULL of emergency vehicles just for this person with a sprained ankle. Tax dollar waste at best. Is she gonna get a bill for this, or is all on the taxpayer's dime? > Okay, I've seen this more than once, and again yesterday. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > at best. Is she gonna get a bill for this, or is all on the taxpayer's > dime? I agree it sounds like overkill for a sprained ankle. But any kind of injury could lead to shock if it's severe enough and not treated in a timely manner. As for all the fire department engines showing up, you need to keep in mind that many localities don't have ambulance service. (Though you can call for a private ambulance service, if you wish) Even if they do, a call for an ambulance WILL result in fire department units (not just an ambulance) responding. Fire units usually have trained first responders on board, and a pretty good emergency medical kit, much of what you'd find in an ambulance. So when an ambulance is called for, the local fire department will usually roll equipment also, and whoever gets there first starts immediate first aid. Seconds count! Think of it this way. If it was your daughter injured, and the response was inadequate and too slow to help her, how would you feel? It's better to respond with every resource available and recall any personnel/equipment that's not needed than to send out the one unit to find that one unit can't handle the situation. -Dave > Tax dollar waste > at best. Is she gonna get a bill for this, or is all on the taxpayer's > dime? In my area, Truckee-Lake Tahoe, outdoor recreation is the foundation of the local economy. Therefore a certain amount of taxpayer-funded SAR should be regarded as part of the cost of doing business. Especially considering how we gouge the tourists. John Reece > Okay, I've seen this more than once, and again yesterday. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > at best. Is she gonna get a bill for this, or is all on the taxpayer's > dime? You're out in the middle of nowhere, so this is obviously an area served by volunteer firefighters. Many of them just LOVE going on calls and roll on them even if they aren't called for. They *think* they're helping, but all they're really doing is getting in the way, compromising safety, span of control and accountability. It looks like a 'noble' thing to do, but they're compromising the safety of the rest of their jurisdiction because they have nose trouble and want to act important. Imagine a serious call coming in on the other side of the territory while all those trucks are out in the middle of nowhere for a minor call. The Rangers were necessary, five fire trucks was overkill, and incompetence at it's worse. HJA >> Okay, I've seen this more than once, and again yesterday. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >*think* they're helping, but all they're really doing is getting in the >way, compromising safety, span of control and accountability. In fact though, volunteers are trained to the same levels as professionals. And there is no way to tell if that is a volunteer organization or not. (Given the description of the response vehicles, my bet is that at least half of the responders were paid professionals.) It has been well understood for quite some time now (a few decades) that for an ambulance call (other than for routine transport, such as moving a hospitalized patient from one facility to another), the most efficient and economical policy is to roll a "rescue" vehicle with the ambulance *every* time. What is available as a "rescue" vehicle varies from one organization to another, but often it is a fire truck manned by firefighters (who are virtually all trained to at least an EMT I level). That doesn't mean their services are actually put to use on every single call. However, lives are saved consistantly because they are there and ready to assist *instantly*. While you may not see the obvious value to having 3 or 4 extra sets of hands, it does in fact make a huge difference. For example, just take traffic control. If *you* were asked to make sure that traffic control for an accident scene was handled, it is clear from your article that the results would be confusion. But when that rescue vehicle shows up, the chief medic on the ambulance *knows* that it will be done correctly. That avoids wasting time sorting it out after there is a huge jam, and it also avoids causing accidents and more injuries. There is no substitute for training... >It looks like a 'noble' thing to do, but they're compromising the >safety of the rest of their jurisdiction because they have nose trouble >and want to act important. Imagine a serious call coming in on the >other side of the territory while all those trucks are out in the >middle of nowhere for a minor call. The Rangers were necessary, five >fire trucks was overkill, and incompetence at it's worse. The description was one fire truck, not five. That would be the vehicle with extrication equipment on board. The five vehicles were describe as "large vehicles", not fire trucks. Those would be on call vehicles provided to individuals expected to respond. They are highly trained people with certification to provice emergency medical care (EMT's, paramedics, etc.). If you want to be critical of our EMS system, you do have to actually *know* something about how it works, and what is or is not effective. I didn't find anything described above to be "wrong" as such, except that it is a lot of commotion for not enough effect. In many European countries they get *far* better results than we do in the US, for example. They have a doctor on scene too...  SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >> Okay, I've seen this more than once, and again yesterday. > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > In fact though, volunteers are trained to the same levels as > professionals. Every single volunteer has to take a battery of tests, and finish near the top BEFORE they can even go away to the Fire Academy for a few months? Oh, do tell. In Pennsylvania there is NO training requirement for volunteer firefighting. Many places you just show up, get some basics, and you start running calls. Your claim is wrong. There are actually SOME volunteers who may actually be better trained than some professionals, but for the most part there is NO comparison, and it stands as obvious why. Someones in the station for 42 hours a week it's easy to train them. And there is no way to tell if that is a > volunteer organization or not. (Given the description of the > response vehicles, my bet is that at least half of the > responders were paid professionals.) The Rangers for sure, the ambulance maybe. The rest I'd bet were volunteers looking to act important. > It has been well understood for quite some time now (a few > decades) that for an ambulance call (other than for routine > transport, such as moving a hospitalized patient from one > facility to another), the most efficient and economical policy > is to roll a "rescue" vehicle with the ambulance *every* time. Really? :-0 I've been a career firefighter for nearly three decades and the only time we send rescue is for 'rescue' oriented calls. We sometimes get lift assist, but that's not rescue, that's the nearest station. I can say with absolute certainty that that's also the policy of all the other career departments in my area. How would it be 'economical' to waste fuel and manpower when it's most likely not going to be needed? What about the rest of the residents who might actually NEED that apparatus for an emergency only to find it's needlessly unavailable? Screw them? You're full of dangerous ideas, I'm guessing your one of those who feels he has to respond to EVERY call, right? > What is available as a "rescue" vehicle varies from one > organization to another, but often it is a fire truck manned by > firefighters (who are virtually all trained to at least an EMT I > level). ROFLMAO! You're living in dream land! I'd bet less than 7% of paid firefighters within 100 miles of me are EMT's! > That doesn't mean their services are actually put to use on > every single call. However, lives are saved consistantly > because they are there and ready to assist *instantly*. And injuries happen, and deaths occur when the span of control, and accountability is compromised due to having too many hands at a scene. It's a HUGE problem, especially in mutual aid scenarios. > While you may not see the obvious value to having 3 or 4 extra > sets of hands, it does in fact make a huge difference. For > example, just take traffic control. If *you* were asked to make > sure that traffic control for an accident scene was handled, it > is clear from your article that the results would be confusion. Firefighters aren't trained in traffic control, and are liable in the event an accident occurs while thay are doing so. In PA, the only people who can legally direct traffic are police officers, and certified fire police. I'm sorry, but it's quite obvious you have no idea what your talking about. > >It looks like a 'noble' thing to do, but they're compromising the > >safety of the rest of their jurisdiction because they have nose trouble [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > They are highly trained people with certification to provice > emergency medical care (EMT's, paramedics, etc.). "FIVE large vehicles from the local fire dept" Extrication equipment for an 'I fall down' call? What a complete waste of resources, and a callous diregard for the safety of others who might actually NEED extrication. > If you want to be critical of our EMS system, you do have to > actually *know* something about how it works, and what is or is > not effective. As I noted, I have nearly thirty years of career firefighting experience, and that includes working with EMS 'when needed'. I've been the officer of an engine that responds to 3400 + calls a year for the last 10 years. We have an excellent relationship with our EMS, but we don't go unless they need us, just like they don't come to our fires unless we need them. There is no doubt in my mind that the call involved in the OP was a bunch of volunteers trying to act important, as I've already noted. I've seen it a thousand times. HJA >> In fact though, volunteers are trained to the same levels as >> professionals. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >stands as obvious why. Someones in the station for 42 hours a week >it's easy to train them. If Pennsylvania does it that way, well... I'd move to some place where they don't. I cannot *imagine* this "just show up, get some basics, and ...". If nothing else, just for insurance purposes such a person should not even be allowed to even ride on a vehicle during an actual emergency (as opposed to a demonstration). >> And there is no way to tell if that is a >> volunteer organization or not. (Given the description of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The Rangers for sure, the ambulance maybe. The rest I'd bet were >volunteers looking to act important. Well, it turns out that I was *exactly* correct. The OP has stated they were all paid professionals. >> It has been well understood for quite some time now (a few >> decades) that for an ambulance call (other than for routine [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Really? :-0 I've been a career firefighter for nearly three decades Wonderful. I served on the Board that certified EMS providers (both individuals and organizations) in the Interior Region of Alaska. That of course was a policy making position, not administrative. >and the only time we send rescue is for 'rescue' oriented calls. We To some degree that is similar to what I said. We differ on where one draws the line apparently. >sometimes get lift assist, but that's not rescue, that's the nearest >station. I can say with absolute certainty that that's also the policy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >unavailable? Screw them? You're full of dangerous ideas, I'm guessing >your one of those who feels he has to respond to EVERY call, right? I'm just one of those people who have been in a policy making position, with the accountant sitting next to me explaining the consequences of any changes. >> What is available as a "rescue" vehicle varies from one >> organization to another, but often it is a fire truck manned by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >ROFLMAO! You're living in dream land! I'd bet less than 7% of paid >firefighters within 100 miles of me are EMT's! Actually, that was a typo on my part, as most here are trained to the ETT level, not EMT. Many are of course also EMT's as we do encourage *all* police and fire officers to get EMT I level certification. >> That doesn't mean their services are actually put to use on >> every single call. However, lives are saved consistantly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >accountability is compromised due to having too many hands at a scene. >It's a HUGE problem, especially in mutual aid scenarios. There is no substitute for quality management and adminstation. >> While you may not see the obvious value to having 3 or 4 extra >> sets of hands, it does in fact make a huge difference. For [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >certified fire police. I'm sorry, but it's quite obvious you have no >idea what your talking about. I certainly don't know a thing about what is done in PA! It doesn't appear that I would want to either, if what you are saying is correct. >> >It looks like a 'noble' thing to do, but they're compromising the >> >safety of the rest of their jurisdiction because they have nose trouble [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >we don't go unless they need us, just like they don't come to our fires >unless we need them. What can I say... except: >There is no doubt in my mind that the call involved in the OP was a >bunch of volunteers trying to act important, as I've already noted. >I've seen it a thousand times. Your best estimate appears to be dead wrong. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >> In fact though, volunteers are trained to the same levels as > >> professionals. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > person should not even be allowed to even ride on a vehicle > during an actual emergency (as opposed to a demonstration). Apparently you have NO idea how desperate the need for volunteers has become. But that's besides the point, just prove that all volunteers sre trained to the same level as career firefighters, OK? > >> And there is no way to tell if that is a > >> volunteer organization or not. (Given the description of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Well, it turns out that I was *exactly* correct. The OP has > stated they were all paid professionals. He's speculating because "an SUV marked "assistant chief" was at the scene. There are many volunteer vehicles with such markings. Judging from the location and the unecessary number of vehicles that responded I'd still bet there were some volunteers there. I'd also be willing to bet that some of those on the scene heard the call on their scanners and responded on their own, without being requested. > >> It has been well understood for quite some time now (a few > >> decades) that for an ambulance call (other than for routine [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > There is no substitute for quality management and adminstation. LOL, yes there is, common sense'. > >> While you may not see the obvious value to having 3 or 4 extra > >> sets of hands, it does in fact make a huge difference. For [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > doesn't appear that I would want to either, if what you are > saying is correct. > >> >It looks like a 'noble' thing to do, but they're compromising the > >> >safety of the rest of their jurisdiction because they have nose trouble [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Your best estimate appears to be dead wrong. See above... And then provide proof that all departments run rescue with EMS!! Our EMS runs 10,000 calls a year, rescue about 3400. I don't see how that could work ANYWHERE, and as I noted, our EMS has made it clear they don't want us there unless requested. It's common sense and safer. > -- > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > While you may not see the obvious value to having 3 or 4 extra > sets of hands, it does in fact make a huge difference. For > example, just take traffic control. If *you* were asked to make > sure that traffic control for an accident scene was handled, it > is clear from your article that the results would be confusion. Traffic control is the responsibility of the LEOs that have been called to the scene not FF. However, there are areas of the country, namely the Mid-Atlantic and New England States, where Fire Police are trained in traffic control. SignatureJeffrey S Austin FF CFR-D Chesapeake VA >Traffic control is the responsibility of the LEOs that have been called >to the scene not FF. However, there are areas of the country, namely the > Mid-Atlantic and New England States, where Fire Police are trained in >traffic control. In my city the fire department does traffic control at accident scenes but the police will do it too. >>Traffic control is the responsibility of the LEOs that have been >>called to the scene not FF. However, there are areas of the country, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In my city the fire department does traffic control at accident scenes > but the police will do it too. In our region, they (the town council) tried to tell us that we (fire fighters) were not allowed to direct traffic unless officially certified. After a couple of incidents where line firefighters were nearly hit by oncoming traffic, they bowed to us using common sense to block, redirect or direct traffic on the scene. (Keep in mind that the average response time for our hall is anywhere from 2-15 minutes, depending on the call location (we're a rural area) ambulance is *at least* 26 minutes and police can be anywhere from 5 minutes to 45, depending what their call volume is. Traffic direction for police isn't a high priority if they're dealing with other issues. (I am in Northern Ontario; For the Howards out there, POC's here (Paid On Call firefighters) must, _by law_ achieve the same certification levels as full time firefighters. The only difference is that a paid FF has one year from hire to get all the course levels, whereas POCs and vollies have three years. SignatureMarc Bissonnette Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com Largest ISP comparison site across Canada. >>> Traffic control is the responsibility of the LEOs that have been >>> called to the scene not FF. However, there are areas of the country, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > year from hire to get all the course levels, whereas POCs and vollies > have three years. I was trying to direct traffic at a wreck we had last Saturday, the ambulance had arrived and they were loading the patient into the ambulance, so I had to block traffic to get the ambulance out. I walked out into the road, waited for a car to pass, waved my little cone lights and held up my hand trying to get them to stop... This god damn rubbernecker was just staring at the accident to the left, not infront of him and damn near hit me. He saw me, swerved out of the way, and kept driving. Next person did the same thing. I said to hell with this and got the state trooper who was on scene to block with his vehicle. >>>> Traffic control is the responsibility of the LEOs that have been >>>> called to the scene not FF. However, there are areas of the [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > I said to hell with this and got the state trooper who was on scene to > block with his vehicle. I've spoken with more than a few FF's, both career and POC who relate similar things (Hell *I've* been on traffic duty and almost been run over) - Their solution, completely unofficial and not on the books, is to have the traffic wand in one hand and an axe in the other - If the car tries to bypass the FF and the axe *just happens* to trail down the side of their car... well, "oops": What are they going to say ? "Yes, officer, I was running past emergency personel who had clearly indicated that I stop and he was wearing his full bunker gear with reflective stripes *and* a reflective traffic vest *and* an illuminated traffic wand, but still, he scratched my car!" Mind you, we've had a couple of scenes where the rubber neckers just got plain stupid over time and we blocked both lanes with our engines - to hell with the traffic patterns: We're there to save a life, not to be moving targets from people too damned stupid to realize that it could be *them* in that wreck that we're trying to pull out. SignatureMarc Bissonnette Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com Largest ISP comparison site across Canada. >>>> Traffic control is the responsibility of the LEOs that have been >>>> called to the scene not FF. However, there are areas of the country, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I said to hell with this and got the state trooper who was on scene to > block with his vehicle. In New York State, Fire Police receive specific training and are sworn peace officers. Our preference is to have them direct traffic, but if there are not enough of them on scene, we do what we have to do. One reason we respond an engine to every MVA is to block/redirect traffic. Hard to ignore when it is sitting in your lane! >>>>> Traffic control is the responsibility of the LEOs that have been >>>>> called to the scene not FF. However, there are areas of the country, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > One reason we respond an engine to every MVA is to block/redirect > traffic. Hard to ignore when it is sitting in your lane! The road was 3 lanes, 1 lane for both ways of traffic, 1 center lane for turns (dunno why but it runs the entire length of the road, even if theres nowhere to turn). They would go around the engine into the turn lane. I was standing in that turn lane. Excellent decision. I'm always tempted to beat on the top of the car with my light. Wake em up. SignatureChristopher A. Young You can't shout down a troll. You have to starve them. . > I was trying to direct traffic at a wreck we had last Saturday, the > ambulance had arrived and they were loading the patient into the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I said to hell with this and got the state trooper who was on scene to > block with his vehicle. >>>> Traffic control is the responsibility of the LEOs that have been >>>> called to the scene not FF. However, there are areas of the country, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >I said to hell with this and got the state trooper who was on scene to >block with his vehicle. I once saw a woman in the car in front of me actually knock the STOP paddle out of the hand of the guy doing traffic control. She was just plodding along at 5 mph not really seeing what was happening due to sensory overload I assume. >> Okay, I've seen this more than once, and again yesterday. >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >HJA I've seen this before with volunteer forces, it's a social call and a chance to get in on the gossip. >> Okay, I've seen this more than once, and again yesterday. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You're out in the middle of nowhere, so this is obviously an area > served by volunteer firefighters. Nope, this was in a National Park smack dab in the middle of Atlanta's urban sprawl. These guys were all County employees, not volunteers. Hell, even an SUV marked "assistant chief" or something similar showed up with all the rest of the brigade. > Many of them just LOVE going on calls and roll on them even if they > aren't called for. THis is something I notice a lot....fire trucks cruising around when I know it's probably not necessary. I know that it can get boring sitting around and doing housework at a fire station all day, but really, these big trucks should only be out when there's a fire. They > *think* they're helping, but all they're really doing is getting in the > way, compromising safety, span of control and accountability. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > middle of nowhere for a minor call. The Rangers were necessary, five > fire trucks was overkill, and incompetence at it's worse. My question is, why, when the call was made about the woman and the hurt ankle, wasn't the response appropriate for the "emergency?" This response was simply ridiculous. >> Many of them just LOVE going on calls and roll on them even if they >> aren't called for. Rest assured, that is speculation, and purely bullshit. It doesn't work that way. There are certainly protocols to determine exactly what level of response is generated. None of it is simply at the whim of someone wanting to go for a ride or see an accident. >THis is something I notice a lot....fire trucks cruising around when I >know it's probably not necessary. I know that it can get boring >sitting around and doing housework at a fire station all day, but >really, these big trucks should only be out when there's a fire. That is an absurd statement. They are *not* out "cruising around". I can't imagine why you think they do nothing but sit around a fire station all day. You probably should take the time to visit a fire station and find out more about how it works. Just for starters, the training requirements are phenomenal, just for a regular fireman. For a paramedic that must maintain firefighter certification as well, continuing education is almost a full time job! >My question is, why, when the call was made about the woman and the >hurt ankle, wasn't the response appropriate for the "emergency?" >This response was simply ridiculous. As has been pointed out in several of the followup articles, it is impossible to determine exactly what is the appropriate response level until it is too late. The typical person who calls 911 has no perception of the actual situation is, because they simply do *not* have the extensive training necessary to make that judgment. (That is as opposed to most police officers, as one example, who do have the required training.) It has *long* been recognized that (as I explained previously) in the long run more lives are saved and less cost is encountered if an ambulance is *always* accompanied by a rescue vehicle. That is standard practice *everywhere*. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >> Many of them just LOVE going on calls and roll on them even if they > >> aren't called for. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it is simply at the whim of someone wanting to go for a ride or > see an accident. That simply isn't true. 3/4 of my departments jurisdiction abuts volunteer serviced territory, and we often find them at our calls, many times 'jumping' our calls, trying to take them over. They monitor scanners and show up without being requested. It's an accountability nightmare. Check the most recent LODD stats, and you'll see that 'lack of accountability' is one of the top causes of injuries and deaths. There have been numerous 'I'm in charge' altercations at mutual aid calls amongst local volunteers. When you have people who aren't rquired to meet any criteria whatsoever joining fire departments, you get all kinds of social misfits, and nuts, including a LOT of firesetters. This is undeniable, google volunteer firefighter arson and see for yourself. Claiming that there aren't a multitude of volunteers monitoring scanners and chasing other departments calls is ridiculous. I've had hundreds of them come up to me and offer their assistance. > >THis is something I notice a lot....fire trucks cruising around when I > >know it's probably not necessary. I know that it can get boring [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That is an absurd statement. They are *not* out "cruising > around". I agree, we never 'cruise'. We sit in the station and wait for calls in our district so we can respond expediently. That's the purpose of a career fire department. > I can't imagine why you think they do nothing but sit around a > fire station all day. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > training requirements are phenomenal, just for a regular > fireman. I wouldn't say 'phenomenal', a couple of months at a certified Academy. After that, there are no con ed requirements for firefighters. In many departments, after graduation, very little training is done. Doing your job every day is training enough. Certainly you must maintain proficiency in new equipment as it arrives, but that's it. > It has *long* been recognized that (as I explained previously) > in the long run more lives are saved and less cost is > encountered if an ambulance is *always* accompanied by a rescue > vehicle. Utter Bullsh*t. Please provide proof that unecessarily using fuel and manpower saves money. Just paying for the inevitable wear and tear, not to mention accidents negates this claim completely. That is standard practice *everywhere*. Absolutetly absurd. My department doesn't do it, and in fact I don't know of one single FD in the state of Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, that runs any fire apparatus along with their ambulances. Again, I'm going to have to ask you to provide some proof of this, since I know it's not true. Our EMS has stated *repeatedly* that they don't want us there unless they need us. You seem to be a 'bell chaser'. HJA >>THis is something I notice a lot....fire trucks cruising around when I >>know it's probably not necessary. I know that it can get boring [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That is an absurd statement. They are *not* out "cruising > around". I see it all the time. And I frequent an area with a fire station nearby. > I can't imagine why you think they do nothing but sit around a > fire station all day. I used to work at an office right next door to a fire station. We sometimes would go over and eat lunch vittles with the firemen. They'd charge us a nominal fee for a great home-cooked meal. Most of the time, they'd just hang around the station, but kept the place really immaculate. What do you think they do all day, when not on a call? This was in a big city btw. On West Peachtree Street in Atlanta. >>My question is, why, when the call was made about the woman and the >>hurt ankle, wasn't the response appropriate for the "emergency?" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > make that judgment. (That is as opposed to most police > officers, as one example, who do have the required training.) It should have been clear to you by now that this was a young woman with a sprained ankle on a trail. No one was on fire, and there were no other extenuating circumstances. Understand? I donn't know, maybe the caller lied and said there was a forest fire or plane crashe with people down everywhere, but I doubt it. > It has *long* been recognized that (as I explained previously) > in the long run more lives are saved and less cost is > encountered if an ambulance is *always* accompanied by a rescue > vehicle. That is standard practice *everywhere*. But of course, there were quite a bit more than one rescue vehicle, as was pointed out. How's the weather up in Barrow today?:) It is 63 degrees here...just came in from a run. Just thought I'd rub it in! :) > I used to work at an office right next door to a fire station. We sometimes > would go over and eat lunch vittles with the firemen. They'd charge us [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on a call? This was in a big city btw. On West Peachtree > Street in Atlanta. Maybe Fire Chief Dennis Rubin would like to hear that you're dumping on his firefighters. I know him and he would not be happy with you. They do train but, when you're at a station for 24 it becomes quite hard to keep up the training tempo for the entire tour. In fact, most cities have a ride along programme and Atlanta might have one as well. Get off you butt and see what the Brothers (and Sisters) do for a 24 tour. Not just a couple hours but for the full tour. > It should have been clear to you by now that this was a young woman > with a sprained ankle on a trail. No one was on fire, and there were > no other extenuating circumstances. Understand? I donn't know, > maybe the caller lied and said there was a forest fire or plane crashe with > people > down everywhere, but I doubt it. I've been on many calls only to find that the caller and intentionally misled the dispatcher in order to provide a quicker response time. Folks, a call is a call. Our object is to be on scene in four minutes, generally less, from when the call is first received. Now, that's four minutes for the first due engine and not four minutes total for all apparatus. That's why the placement of stations are so important in a growing city. Some folks think that we take to long getting there when they don't understand that we're operating a Class 7 or 8 heavy vehicle. It doesn't handle like a sports car. SignatureJeffrey S Austin FF CFR-D Chesapeake VA > I've been on many calls only to find that the caller and intentionally > misled the dispatcher in order to provide a quicker response time. It seems to me that there should be consequences for doing something like that when it's obviously an intentional exagerration or deception. I'm not talking about someone (perhaps mistakenly) saying there was a broken leg when in fact there was only a sprained ankle, but I heard of a case where someone reported a fire because his cat was stuck in a tree. Now that I've googled the story (to refresh my memory), it was even worse than that - he started shooting at firefighters after they told him to call animal control. At least he got arrested for that. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2333283 > Folks, a call is a call. Our object is to be on scene in four minutes, > generally less, from when the call is first received. Now, that's four [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they don't understand that we're operating a Class 7 or 8 heavy vehicle. > It doesn't handle like a sports car. >> I used to work at an office right next door to a fire station. We >> sometimes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Maybe Fire Chief Dennis Rubin would like to hear that you're dumping on > his firefighters. I'm not "dumping" on anybody clown. When you learn to read better, let me know; then we can perhaps talk. I never realized till now what a dopey group firefighters are. >> Maybe Fire Chief Dennis Rubin would like to hear that you're dumping on >> his firefighters. > >I'm not "dumping" on anybody clown. When you learn to read better, let me >know; then we can perhaps talk. I never realized till now what a dopey >group firefighters are. I don't really want to dump on Jeffrey, but, well I'll just have to explain this as simple as I can: Firefighters habitually go into burning buildings when everyone sane is getting out. They are *all*, to put it mildly, *f.cking* *crazy* by definition! (I've always enjoyed telling that to every group of firefighters I've ever run across. Usenet being what it is, I expect someone to call me names, deny it, and argue. But in real life I've *never* seen a fireman who didn't start laughing and say it was true!) SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >> Maybe Fire Chief Dennis Rubin would like to hear that you're dumping on > >> his firefighters. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > *never* seen a fireman who didn't start laughing and say it was > true!) Don't worry folks, Floyd says the same things about ParaTroopers..... "anyone who makes a practice of jumping out of a perfectly good airplane........" >>> Maybe Fire Chief Dennis Rubin would like to hear that you're dumping on >>> his firefighters. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to explain this as simple as I can: Firefighters habitually go > into burning buildings when everyone sane is getting out. IIRC, firefighters also have a relatively high rate of heart attacks, often brought on by hours of idleness with sudden periods of great exertion. >>>> Maybe Fire Chief Dennis Rubin would like to hear that you're dumping on >>>> his firefighters. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >often brought on by hours of idleness with sudden periods of >great exertion. You are confused. They may well be crazy, but idle is not something that describes the average firefighter. These guys are intense, and *very* active. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>> Maybe Fire Chief Dennis Rubin would like to hear that you're dumping >>>>> on [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > something that describes the average firefighter. These guys > are intense, and *very* active. But not very fit. Heart attack is the leading cause of death for them. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=61257 "The leading cause of death is sudden cardiac death, and we can reduce these risks by having fitness programs and annual physicals," said Marilyn Ridenour, co-author of the report and an epidemic intelligence officer with the CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. "Fire departments should consider mandatory annual fitness exams for firefighters, .." > >>>> Maybe Fire Chief Dennis Rubin would like to hear that you're dumping on > >>>> his firefighters. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > something that describes the average firefighter. These guys > are intense, and *very* active. Floyd, you might very well be the most misinformed person on usenet, and that's saying a LOT. The man is, unfortunately, completely right... http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/txt/06-fatality-summary.txt Change is coming, but it's coming slowly. Many career departments now require annual physicals, but being healthy isn't the same as being fit. Some have begun mandatory fitness assesments, but many are also fighting it tooth and nail. Fifteen years ago I formed a committee to purchase exercise equipment for all the stations and was overwhelmed by the negative response, right down to the death threats on my answering machine. We're dealing with a job where going from a completely idle state to carrying a hundred pounds up five flights of steps in 3-4 minutes is the norm. I'd be willing to bet that 50% of career firefighters aren't physically up to the job, and I've never heard of ANY volunteer departments with any guidelines whatsoever. I'm quite proud of my career and willing to submit to a fitness test at a moments notice, but I won't hide my head in the sand. Heart attack is the number one killer of firefighters, and has been for a long time. HJA > -- > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >> >>>> Maybe Fire Chief Dennis Rubin would like to hear that you're dumping on >> >>>> his firefighters. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >The man is, unfortunately, completely right... Wrong. He has the right numbers, and does not have a clue as to what they mean. >http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/txt/06-fatality-summary.txt > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the negative response, right down to the death threats on my answering >machine. (I might point out that here in Barrow there is a fully equipped exercise room in one of the two fire stations.) However, you hint at something above that is significant, being "healthy" isn't the same as being "fit". The figures you have provided in the URL cited do *not* say anything about the physical fitness of firefighters. It does indicate that stress and over exertion are the major external mechanism causing death, and the injury suffered is a "heart attack". The claim was that firemen are not physically fit, but those statistics to *not* support, much less prove, that claim. The URL cited by Bobby Bowdown says that fitness programs and medical exams would help reduce the number of deaths, and that is true... but *not* necessarily by making firemen more physically fit. Both would help spot firemen who are *not* *healthy* due to heart disease. (And yes, that is in addition to helping prevent heart disease too. However, many people are genetically predisposed to heart disease and it makes *no* difference how physically fit they are, they *will* have heart disease. The trick for fire departments is to determine who those individuals are *before* they die while on a fire call.) They are dying because, while they might well be quite physically fit, they have heart disease *and* they are commonly exposed to situations where stress and over exertion go far beyond what typical men in the 40-60 age group encounter. >We're dealing with a job where going from a completely idle state to >carrying a hundred pounds up five flights of steps in 3-4 minutes is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >a moments notice, but I won't hide my head in the sand. Heart attack >is the number one killer of firefighters, and has been for a long time. Heart disease is the number one killer of men 40-60 years old, period. Your point is meaningless. You haven't demonstrated any facts that support your personal observations, and nothing you've said gives me confidence in those observations. Keep in mind that this is not a question of whether firemen are "physically up to the job"! When the job is more than anyone could do, none of them are. The question was whether they are as a group a bunch of idlers who tend to sit around doing nothing all day. I said they are very active and very intense people. The fact that they get into highly stressful situations and over exert proves what I said. Obviously there probably are at least some fire departments somewhere that are what you say. I doubt the percentage is significant. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > However, you hint at something above that is significant, being > "healthy" isn't the same as being "fit". Not always, but being slim and fit gives one normally predisposed to early heart disease a huge edge. The evidence is hard to ignore. The figures you have > provided in the URL cited do *not* say anything about the > physical fitness of firefighters. It does indicate that stress [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The claim was that firemen are not physically fit, but those > statistics to *not* support, much less prove, that claim. A heart that is regularly stressed through physical exertion is much better able to take the stress, and operate, during sudden periods of extreme exertion. These are basic facts that you apparently are unaware of. > The URL cited by Bobby Bowdown says that fitness programs and > medical exams would help reduce the number of deaths, and that > is true... but *not* necessarily by making firemen more > physically fit. What? Regular exercise wouldn't make these men more physically fit????? > Both would help spot firemen who are *not* > *healthy* due to heart disease. (And yes, that is in addition [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > disease. The trick for fire departments is to determine who > those individuals are *before* they die while on a fire call.) So, are you now claiming that somehow, men who are genetically predisposed to early heart disease are drawn to being firefighters? Since heart attack is the #1 cause of death in this sometimes very dangerous profession, this would appear to be your claim. > They are dying because, while they might well be quite > physically fit, they have heart disease *and* they are commonly > exposed to situations where stress and over exertion go far beyond > what typical men in the 40-60 age group encounter. And they should likewise be fit men, capable of handling the stresses of the job. If they were more fit as a group, and if they were tested regularly, fewer firemen would be dying of heart attacks while fighting fires. > Heart disease is the number one killer of men 40-60 years old, > period. Your point is meaningless. Not at all meaningless. Why are you so defensive about this subject? A fit man (100% healthy or not) always performs better. A fit man almost always has a lower resting heart rate, which has been shown time and again in studies to lower progression of CAD, and mortality in general. > Keep in mind that this is not a question of whether firemen are > "physically up to the job"! When the job is more than anyone > could do, none of them are. The question was whether they are > as a group a bunch of idlers who tend to sit around doing > nothing all day. Nobody is putting down firemen as lazy do-nothings. As I've said, the station I used to have lunch at was clean as a whistle, but housework and standing around waiting for a call does not make a fit firefighter. >Nobody is putting down firemen as lazy do-nothings. As I've said, That is *exactly* what you have said, and are saying. Nothing more, nothing less. It isn't supported by facts, and your illogical analysis doesn't demonstrate *anything* about the fitness of an average fireman. What we started with was this exchange: FD: These guys are intense, and *very* active. BB: But not very fit. *Nothing* you have come up with supports your statement. >the station I used to have lunch at was clean as a whistle, but housework >and standing around waiting for a call does not make a fit firefighter. And only a fool would claim that the only physical excersize the average fireman routinely gets is housework. But *you* continue to say exactly that! SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >Nobody is putting down firemen as lazy do-nothings. As I've said, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > *Nothing* you have come up with supports your statement. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010507083027.htm http://www.firerescue1.com/firerescue-magazine/24-7/241142/ http://www.occupationalhazards.com/News/Article/34376/Firefighters_Greatest_Dang er_May_Not_Be_Fires.aspx "First, firefighting includes long sedentary stretches followed by irregular heavy exertion" "Few fire departments require veterans to maintain the physical standards required of new hires [23]. Therefore, many incumbent firefighters lack the minimum exercise tolerance thought necessary to safely perform the most demanding tasks [23-25]. In addition, firefighters have high prevalences of overweight, obesity and hypercholesterolemia [26-31]. Furthermore, although the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recommends fire department medical examinations and specific fitness for duty criteria [16], most firefighters do not receive these examinations." http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=293431 >> >Nobody is putting down firemen as lazy do-nothings. As I've said, >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010507083027.htm That one is a _little_ better, at least the study is apparently valid, and may demonstrate the implied significance claimed (by the study, not by others in this thread). Of course it is a study of only 74 firemen, which is *not* definitive. Regardless, the conclusions claimed are not what was claimed above. "... often firemen are overweight and have less-than-ideal cholesterol levels" is not the same as saying the *average* fireman is not fit. >http://www.firerescue1.com/firerescue-magazine/24-7/241142/ This is nothing more than the same illogical bullshit presented before. >http://www.occupationalhazards.com/News/Article/34376/Firefighters_Greatest_Dang er_May_Not_Be_Fires.aspx Nice try, but this is just a duplicate of your first cite and does not add anything useful. >"First, firefighting includes long sedentary stretches followed by >irregular heavy exertion" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >firefighters lack the minimum exercise tolerance thought necessary to >safely perform the most demanding tasks [23-25]. In addition, Okay... "many" might, but that in no way is indicating the average fireman... Don't you realize when you are reading weasel words? These people have a point they want to make, and while it is not wrong, they are using typical propaganda techniques to make it sound *far* more significant that it is. Nobody generally is going to be upset because it *is* for a good purpose, and while under estimating the problem would cost lives, exaggerating it does no harm. >firefighters have high prevalences of overweight, obesity and >hypercholesterolemia [26-31]. No numbers... That statement is like all of the others that have been given, *meaningless*. For example, I would say that "high prevalences of overweight" for firefighters would be any number greater than about 5%. Others might accept 10%, and of course the inference in this thread has been over 50%. It's all just blue smoke. >Furthermore, although the National Fire >Protection Association (NFPA) recommends fire department medical >examinations and specific fitness for duty criteria [16], most >firefighters do not receive these examinations." Which is again saying the *medical* examinations are lacking, and should be implemented. "Fitness for duty" is *not* the same a physically fit. >http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=293431 This one is *much* better, and produces some good data! Here are the conclusions stated in the above article: Our findings strongly support that most on-duty CHD fatalities are work-precipitated and occur in firefighters with underlying CHD. Improved fitness promotion, medical screening and medical management could prevent many of these premature deaths. It does *not* claim that firefighters are in general physically unfit. It does say that those who are dying have pre-existing undetected Coronary Heart Disease (CHD). Certainly *some* of them would benefit from increased fitness levels, but the basic recommendation is that better medical screening is needed. The study indicated *nothing* about physical fitness of the subjects studied, but did list causative factors as age over 45, smoking, hypertension, and pre-diagnosed "arterial-occlusive disease". What you have demonstrated is that firemen need better medical care. Prevantive medicine rather than reactive medicine. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >> >Nobody is putting down firemen as lazy do-nothings. As I've said, > >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > less-than-ideal cholesterol levels" is not the same as saying > the *average* fireman is not fit. Apparently you don't know what the word 'fit' means. Fitness is comprised of body composition, strength, flexibility and cardiovasular endurance. One strike and your out. Overweight is one strike.. > >http://www.firerescue1.com/firerescue-magazine/24-7/241142/ > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Okay... "many" might, but that in no way is indicating the > average fireman... I noticed you ducked the word 'sedentary', now why would that be? -0 > Don't you realize when you are reading weasel words? These > people have a point they want to make, and while it is not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > under estimating the problem would cost lives, exaggerating it > does no harm. Heart attacks have been the number one killer of firefighters for decades. Look at the big picture, a firefighter goes down, manpower is utilized to assist him, supression and civilian safety is compromised. Add to that the countless injuries from getting his fat a.s out of trouble. You can't 'exaggerate' something that important. > >firefighters have high prevalences of overweight, obesity and > >hypercholesterolemia [26-31]. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > and medical management could prevent many of these premature > deaths. And if there is no fitness problem, why would "Improved fitness promotion" be recommended as preventative? > It does *not* claim that firefighters are in general physically > unfit. It does say that those who are dying have pre-existing [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What you have demonstrated is that firemen need better medical > care. Prevantive medicine rather than reactive medicine. No, I've demonstrated that firefighters need mandatory fitness assesments to keep themselves aware of their ability to meet the demands of the job. It's an inconvenient truth that you can't deal with. Denial has no place in a life and death occupation. I've been in the fire service for nearly 30 years. There's no doubt that I've been in a lot more fire stations than you have. You're pretty little romantic portrait of a bunch of busy little bees flitting around and patting each other on the back while they spend their day pursuing physical endeavors is quaint but inaccurate. The TV's and couches aren't there for decoration. Down time for a lot of firefighters is exactly that. BTW, instead of mounting new claims, don't you think you should be posting the proof of your previous claims? "It has *long* been recognized that (as I explained previously) in the long run more lives are saved and less cost is encountered if an ambulance is *always* accompanied by a rescue vehicle. That is standard practice *everywhere*. " cheers.... HJA > -- > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>> Nobody is putting down firemen as lazy do-nothings. As I've said, >>>> That is *exactly* what you have said, and are saying. Nothing [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > <snip> Interesting. By your definition, the gentlemen competing in the "World's Strongest Man" competition aren't fit, as most of them would be considered "overweight." Notan > >>>>> Nobody is putting down firemen as lazy do-nothings. As I've said, > >>>> That is *exactly* what you have said, and are saying. Nothing [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Notan It's not my definition, it's the standard... http://www.goerie.com/nie_jumpstart/what_does_it_mean_to_be_physic.html What Does It Mean To Be Physically Fit? Physical fitness involves several different types of fitness, and we call theses types health-related components. They are called health-related components because the better you are in each component, the less likely you are to become sick. There are four very important health-related components that you should know about: 1. Aerobic Capacity The ability of the circulatory system to provide oxygen-rich blood for energy. A person who can run several miles without stopping has good aerobic capacity. 2. Muscular Strength and Endurance * Muscular Strength - The greatest amount of weight your body can lift at a given time. * Muscular Endurance - How long a group of muscles can perform. Each activity or exercise that we do has a purpose. Some exercises are for aerobic capacity and some are for flexibility. We select certain exercises to do certain things, and we need to include exercises for all components of fitness. Any exercise needs to be done at least three times a week. One or two days are not enough. 3. Flexibility The amount of motion in a joint. A person who can do a back bend has back flexibility. 4. Body Composition The amount of fat and lean tissue in you body. Several members of the NFL were invited to attempt the Combat Challenge. Out of a dozen, only one could complete it. He was a linebacker, and his time was terrible. So yes, the competitors in The Worlds Strongest man, are exactly that, strong. They aren't going to touch their toes, or run a mile, and their BMI would make a cardiologist cringe. They certsinly don't meet the criteria to be considered 'fit'. How many of them live to ripe old ages? HJA >> > Apparently you don't know what the word 'fit' means. Fitness is >> > comprised of body composition, strength, flexibility and cardiovasular >> > endurance. One strike and your out. >> > Overweight is one strike.. Whatever, that is made it up. As is obvious from this feeble response! >> > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >http://www.goerie.com/nie_jumpstart/what_does_it_mean_to_be_physic.html Standard??? *Whose* standard? You've cited some less than astute references before, but citing the Erie Times-News and calling it a "standard" is just incredible. >What Does It Mean To Be Physically Fit? > >Physical fitness involves several different types of fitness, and we >call theses types health-related components. They are called ... That was all fascinating, but it just isn't authorative in any way. (You must have dug for a long time trying to find something that supported what you said, eh?) How about a "credible" definition? Say, for example... why not ask a US Army boot camp drill instructor what "Physical Fitness" means to the US Army? Or, we can look up AR 350-1 (9 April 2003) and see! It turns out the US Army thinks they can test physical fitness with what they call the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) which is graded as described in FM-21-20, but we only need the simple description from AR 350-1: 1-21. Army Physical Fitness Training Program ... Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) d. ... The APFT consists of push-ups, sit-ups, and a 2-mile run, done in that order on the same day. If you can do the prescribed number of push-ups, the prescribed number of sit-ups and run 2 miles, each within the time limits prescribed in FM-21-20, the US Army says you are by definition physically fit. *That* is a credible "standard". >Several members of the NFL were invited to attempt the Combat >Challenge. Out of a dozen, only one could complete it. He was a What is "the Combat Challenge"? You aren't exactly helping your arguments by off the wall unexplained references to meaningless things. >linebacker, and his time was terrible. So yes, the competitors in The >Worlds Strongest man, are exactly that, strong. They aren't going to >touch their toes, or run a mile, and their BMI would make a >cardiologist cringe. They certsinly don't meet the criteria to be >considered 'fit'. How many of them live to ripe old ages? You know, you win the cake for logic. NFL players can't compete in the Combat Challenge, therefore "The Worlds Strongest man" isn't physically fit. That is simply an absurd bit of logic. I think it is safe to say that virtually all NFL players are physically fit, so are competitors in the World's Strongest Man contests, and so are Army recruits who pass the PT test in Basic Training. I'd venture that the average fireman is physically fit too. And... I would note a couple of other points about the US Army's perception of "fitness". They require *all* soldiers to pass the test annually. They significantly relax the need for a 2 mile run for soldiers 55 years of age and older. But most important, physically fit or not, all soldiers starting at age 40 *must* undergo a medical evaluation for coronary heart disease. As has been pointed out to you on several occasions now, physical fitness is *not* the same as being healthy. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>> > Apparently you don't know what the word 'fit' means. Fitness is >>> > comprised of body composition, strength, flexibility and [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > way. (You must have dug for a long time trying to find > something that supported what you said, eh?) Actually, if you talk to several firefighters, you'd find that it's not an uncommon concern that one or more of their battalion-mates are more than just a little "extra heavy". Perhaps you might like to dry donning a full set of bunker gear, a BA and then take a charged line up a ladder and spend 30 minutes at the top of a corn silo while it's on fire, then tell us what you think "physically fit" means... Better yet ('cuz the silo's comparatively easy) - Try doing a primary search in a 3 storey home to find a little girl who's hidden herself in a closet - It's no where near what you might think it is, in terms of exertion (Physical or mental, for that matter) > How about a "credible" definition? Say, for example... why not > ask a US Army boot camp drill instructor what "Physical Fitness" [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > arguments by off the wall unexplained references to meaningless > things. Ummm... Combat Challenge - "Meaningless" to _fire fighters_ ??? Try googling for "toughest two minutes". Frankly, I'm surprised even a single NFL player could complete the Combat Challenge - Most _fire fighters_ have a tough time at it and many won't complete under two minutes. (Which is why there are _always_ medics at the challenge - Inevitably, at least one FF needs resusitation or medical attention) Your spat with Howard is mildly entertaining; I certainly don't like his attitude towards firefighters who are not career, but you suggesting that the combat challenge is a 'meaningless thing' pretty much shoots your credibility about knowing things about the fire service. >>linebacker, and his time was terrible. So yes, the competitors in The >>Worlds Strongest man, are exactly that, strong. They aren't going to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > contests, and so are Army recruits who pass the PT test in Basic > Training. See below. If you knew what the combat challenge was (better yet; If you'd actually _participate_ in one), you wouldn't be comparing the NFL and the army's version of "physically fit" with that of the fire service. > I'd venture that the average fireman is physically fit too. A fireman is someone responsible for stoking the boiler fires on a train or boat. A fire fighter, on the other hand... > And... I would note a couple of other points about the US Army's > perception of "fitness". They require *all* soldiers to pass [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > As has been pointed out to you on several occasions now, > physical fitness is *not* the same as being healthy. So, out of curiosity, how many fire halls have you actually _visited_ ? What Howard is pointing out is a very real, very valid concern in the fire service that sees no boundaries between career and Volly and POC: Personally, I think it's a _great_ idea to require mandatory physical testing on an annual basis. Have you ever been on a flashover training course ? The bulk of the course is mostly sitting on your knees. Keep in mind that (at least in our department) your air supply is a 20 minute bottle. A decent FF can make this last 30 minutes under mild exhertion. In the flashover course, it's no where near uncommon to see people leave the chamber in under 15 minutes, air completely exhausted or requiring urgent cooling and hydration. If you're not fit, that time can be even less. Have you ever been in a burn house or burn tower ? I have. I recall one FF who left the burn house after _seven_ minutes - her air completely gone and refusing to re-enter. The temperature was only 700 degrees celcius. You are basically comparing apples to asteroids by going on about the army fitness test. I'm not putting down our Canadian soldiers or our respected neighbours, the American soldiers - I don't think I'd want to be in Afghanistan or Iraq doing what they do: But: You would be hard- pressed to take a soldier who just passed his physical, stick him in bunker gear, a BA and another 50-75 pounds of rescue/forcible entry gear and tell him to complete a burn house S&R training evolution. SignatureMarc Bissonnette Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com Largest ISP comparison site across Canada. >Your spat with Howard is mildly entertaining; I certainly don't like his >attitude towards firefighters who are not career, but you suggesting that >the combat challenge is a 'meaningless thing' pretty much shoots your >credibility about knowing things about the fire service. Did you engage your brain in any way at all before writing this article? You *clearly* don't have a clue what the discussion was about, or who has said what. I did *not* claim your "Combat Challenge" is a meaningless thing. I said that the term "Combat Challenge" when undefined, is *meaningless*. It might well be something every fireman knows about. That is not of any import at all. This thread has been crossposted to four different newsgroups, only one of which is about firefighting. I have *never* suggested that I am a firefighter or that I am in anyway familiar with much of the training etc. I have no idea what a "Combat Challenge" is. Simple as that. But if you are now telling me it is some specific physical test of stamina or whatever, that you do not expect any NFL players to be able to complete but do expect virtually all firemen to be able to do... well, I rest my case as to whether the average fireman is or is not in poor physical shape! Of course, you don't seem to understand that you just made *my* case... :-) So you go on to repeat that several times in the rest of your argument. First you tell me I'm wrong, and then offer what you see as proof... that I'm right. You really should have read the thread first and written about your opinions after. >>>linebacker, and his time was terrible. So yes, the competitors in The >>>Worlds Strongest man, are exactly that, strong. They aren't going to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >you'd actually _participate_ in one), you wouldn't be comparing the NFL >and the army's version of "physically fit" with that of the fire service. Ahem... again I have to ask if this is just a bad day, or what. You aren't making much sense. I say the average firemen is physically fit, and you say I'm wrong but that they make NFL players and US Army Drill Instructors look weak. Logic isn't your strong point, eh? >> I'd venture that the average fireman is physically fit too. > >A fireman is someone responsible for stoking the boiler fires on a train >or boat. A fire fighter, on the other hand... Fireman \Fire"man\, n.; pl. Firemen (-men). 1. A man whose business is to extinguish fires in towns; a member of a fire company. You aren't too well versed on this topic? >> As has been pointed out to you on several occasions now, >> physical fitness is *not* the same as being healthy. > >So, out of curiosity, how many fire halls have you actually _visited_ ? This is sort of like the business that NFL players can't compete, therefore strong man candidates are not physically fit. How many fire stations I've ever seen in my whole life has *no* significance. How many *you* have been is just as important (not at all). >What Howard is pointing out is a very real, very valid concern in the >fire service that sees no boundaries between career and Volly and POC: >Personally, I think it's a _great_ idea to require mandatory physical >testing on an annual basis. Did anyone say it that there should not be physical testing? Did you bother to even read what the discussion is about? >Have you ever been on a flashover training course ? The bulk of the Oh, that's *really* pertinent... >course is mostly sitting on your knees. Keep in mind that (at least in >our department) your air supply is a 20 minute bottle. A decent FF can >make this last 30 minutes under mild exhertion. In the flashover course, >it's no where near uncommon to see people leave the chamber in under 15 >minutes, air completely exhausted or requiring urgent cooling and >hydration. If you're not fit, that time can be even less. And so you are claiming I'm wrong about them being fit? Did you read this thread, or not? >Have you ever been in a burn house or burn tower ? I have. I recall one More bullshit to baffle babbling buffoons? Who cares! >FF who left the burn house after _seven_ minutes - her air completely >gone and refusing to re-enter. The temperature was only 700 degrees >celcius. Where? Are you saying the FF was exposed to 700 degrees? Are you sane? >You are basically comparing apples to asteroids by going on about the >army fitness test You didn't read what it was about, have no idea what the significance was, and are babbling... >. I'm not putting down our Canadian soldiers or our >respected neighbours, the American soldiers - I don't think I'd want to >be in Afghanistan or Iraq doing what they do: But: You would be hard- >pressed to take a soldier who just passed his physical, stick him in >bunker gear, a BA and another 50-75 pounds of rescue/forcible entry gear >and tell him to complete a burn house S&R training evolution. So lets see... my claim that the average firemen is fairly fit can't be right, because all he can do is run circles around solders? Now I'm just wondering if you will actually get your head screwed on and read this thread to find out what you have said... my bet is you won't (probably can't), but I certainly hope I'm wrong about that. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>Your spat with Howard is mildly entertaining; I certainly don't like >>his attitude towards firefighters who are not career, but you [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > firefighter or that I am in anyway familiar with much of the > training etc. [Rest of article deleted as irrelevant] So Floyd, you've just admitted that you're not a fire fighter, you're not familiar with the training and therefore are not familiar with what levels of physical fitness is actually required for the job. Why are you wasting electrons spouting off your uninformed opinions ? You state you are unfamiliar with firefighting training and fire ground operations and yet you continue to spew about what you think is a "physically fit" firefighter: You haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about. It's akin to me ranting about the state of training updates for neuro surgeons: I am no neurosurgeon, therefore I know better than to offer nothing more than an opinion with the caveat that I am an outsider. What about _you_ Floyd ? Are _you_ physically fit ? Are you a 300 pounder who waddles about his home from the keyboard to the fridge and back to make your rantings known online ? If not, do you have any loved ones who might fall into the heiffer category ? If so, you'd better hope like all hell that Howard is wrong and that all firefighters are fit to do their job in the adverse (to put it mildly) conditions of a burning structure, should you or yours ever find the need to have one of us haul your butt out. I'd love to put someone like you through even the Module A course at Gravenhurst, Ontario: I don't think you'd make it past the third day before you broke down telling everyone that would listen that you realize there really *are* different kinds of "physical fitness". What you don't realize (and I highly doubt my words will change) is that your words make you look like a complete and utter fool for those of us who _are_ firefighters. As far as I can see, your rantings rank right up there with those who claim the moon landing was all a hoax. Tell you what, Floyd: You let the professionals worry about fire fighting and you go back to whatever it is you think you are contributing to humanity. Check the batteries in your smoke detectors; Get your furnace and chimney cleaned and make sure you have a fire extinguisher by your bedroom door and by the main entrance door. Have a nice and safe day, Floyd. Firefighter 419, Whitewater Fire Department, Station #4, Ontario, Canada SignatureMarc Bissonnette Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com Largest ISP comparison site across Canada. > So Floyd, you've just admitted that you're not a fire fighter, you're > not familiar with the training and therefore are not familiar with what > levels of physical fitness is actually required for the job. > > Why are you wasting electrons spouting off your uninformed opinions ? Good question. My guess is that his fat son or grandson is a fireman. > What about _you_ Floyd ? Are _you_ physically fit ? Are you a 300 > pounder who waddles about his home from the keyboard to the fridge and > back to make your rantings known online ? A quick check reveals that he's had a quadruple bypass in his life... nuff said I guess. From: f...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) Newsgroups: rec.music.artists.springsteen Subject: Re: NBC: My Dad had a heart attack Saturday Night Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 05:57:20 -0900 Organization: __________ Message-ID: <87bql8459r.fld@apaflo.com> References: <qwCoh.57822$qO4.56811@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net> User-Agent: gnus 5.10.6/XEmacs 21.4.15/Linux 2.6.17-11 Cancel-Lock: sha1:AU1nnnL8oyhhAWERI8TVH6PB+YI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 57 "Deacon Dave Dewar" <thedewars@"nobush"ameritech.net> wrote: > Ended up getting an ambulance ride and was thought to only be a minor >blockage. As of Sunday he was being treated with blood thinners and a >possible catherazation on Monday which was the determined course of action >as of Sunday night. Today it was determined he had 3 blockages with the >largest one unable to be removed this way. He undergoes a triple bypass >tomorrow at 2:00, less than a month shy of his 68th birthday. Been there, done that (quad bypass), and I'm here to tell you how lucky he is! >> So Floyd, you've just admitted that you're not a fire fighter, you're >> not familiar with the training and therefore are not familiar with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > A quick check reveals that he's had a quadruple bypass in his life... > nuff said I guess. Hrm. Perhaps it is a subconscious level of fear on his part that he is hoping like hell all firefighters are fit enough to get his derriere out of the building, if it is ever needed, Ghu forbid. Personally, it was him referring to the Combat Challenge as a "meaningless reference" that more than showed his inability to participate in this thread ;) > From: f...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) > Newsgroups: rec.music.artists.springsteen [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Been there, done that (quad bypass), and I'm here to tell you > how lucky he is! Indeed. May he never, ever need the services of firefighters. SignatureMarc Bissonnette Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com Largest ISP comparison site across Canada. >> A quick check reveals that he's had a quadruple bypass in his life... >> nuff said I guess. > >Hrm. Perhaps it is a subconscious level of fear on his part that he is >hoping like hell all firefighters are fit enough to get his derriere out >of the building, if it is ever needed, Ghu forbid. Perhaps you should had a little light go on when you read that. Somebody has a *lot* more education and experience on this topic than the two of you... >Personally, it was him referring to the Combat Challenge as a >"meaningless reference" that more than showed his inability to >participate in this thread ;) It might help you to learn how to write effectively, using logic. The above is another of your absurdly illogical comments. Your reference, if anything, indicated *you* aren't qualified to be in this discussion! SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >So Floyd, you've just admitted that you're not a fire fighter, you're >not familiar with the training and therefore are not familiar with what >levels of physical fitness is actually required for the job. > >Why are you wasting electrons spouting off your uninformed opinions ? What's the matter, is logical discussion totaly beyond you? Do you actually think only a fire fighter can have informed opinions on these subjects? That is absurd! >What about _you_ Floyd ? Are _you_ physically fit ? Are you a 300 >pounder who wad |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message