Firefighter Evaluation: Fill & Download for Free

No, and I’ll tell you why.Here’s the one of the first images that popped up when I entered the query “burning building” into Google Images.You can see that the firefighters are taking a defensive posture and spraying the structure with hoses from the outside, most likely to keep the fire from spreading to the building across the street.The fire has already reached the point of flashover. Everything inside the structure has been ignited, and the temperatures on the inside are probably in the neighborhood of 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit (538 °C), maybe more.If there was anyone in that structure, they have been dead for a long time by the time this photo was taken.There might not even be that much left of them. After being exposed to those temperatures, their body has been burned down to the bones, which are themselves only barely recognizable.Any firefighter who managed to push their way into this building would be committing suicide. Our bunker gear fails at temperatures of 572 degrees F ( 300C) after 30 seconds, if you’re lucky. At the temperatures in that building, it would burn just like anything else.The firefighter in question would die an excruciating death, and they would die for nothing. They would die trying to rescue someone who has long since been dead.Here’s the thing about firefighters. We’re not superheroes. We can’t run into hellflames and run back out in slow motion holding a small child like in the movies. We’re human, and we have physical limitations, as does our equipment. We know what we can and can’t do.Firefighter safety is the number one priority on a scene. That’s been drilled into every firefighter’s head since day one of their training. As my department’s chief so eloquently puts it, “you can’t help anyone if you’re dead”.Believe me, we will do everything we can, and risk everything we can, if we think there’s a chance we can save someone. We will lay it all on the line if we can save a life…but only if there is still a life to be saved.There’s no reason for us to risk our lives if there’s nothing we can do to save someone. Sadly, on some scenes, that’s the cold hard truth of the matter. When that happens, our priorities need to be elsewhere.EDIT:Okay…wow. Just wow.The fact that this answer has reached over 9,000 up votes, including up votes from some big name users I follow, is just insane to me.I know this is a very newbie thing to do, but thank you all for your support. I’m glad you like my writing that much. And that goes double for everyone in the comments thanking firefighters for their service. Your support really does make our days better.A few users have raised concerns that my answer misses the point. They say I used an extreme example, and that I haven’t really answered the question. After thinking about it, I would agree that this is a fair point. I intentionally used an extreme example as a kind of “negative proof”. Although I stand by my original answer 100%, I realize it doesn’t cover the majority of fires.Okay, so let’s back up a bit.Assuming that conditions inside a structure still allow for interior operations, if a firefighter refused to enter the building to save someone, should they be criminally charged?(Something that looks more like this. Image credit to Moyers Corner Fire Department).Again, the answer is no.For one thing, in order to criminally charge someone, that person has to have broken a law. To my knowledge, there’s no law in any state that specifies criminal charges against a firefighter who refuses to enter a building, and for good reason.A fire incident is constantly evolving, with numerous variables that are always changing, and many of which won’t be known to firefighters. You can’t account for all of these variables in a law. Our legal system requires the law to be carried out by the letter, with little to no leeway for misapplication.Crafting a law which requires entering a structure fire would be a herculean task. The law would need to account for everything from building construction, to weather conditions, to resource availability. All of these factors affect what actions are taken on a fire scene, including entry.Obviously, this is neither feasible nor desirable. Better to leave the decision to the intuitions and expertise of trained, experienced, equipped, and prepared individuals on scene. In other words, leave the decision to the firefighters themselves.Searching a building for a trapped victim will almost always happen on a fire scene unless the conditions make searching impossible. 99% of the time, if a fire crew knows there is a reasonable chance someone is trapped in a building, and they can make a search, they will.It might not happen right away; for example, the tactically smart decision might be ventilating the structure or attacking the seat of the fire in order to make conditions in the structure more survivable. However, it will happen.But let’s talk about that 1% of the time. What if a firefighter, despite survivable conditions, refuses to make entry? What if they freeze up like the sheriff’s deputy at Parkland High?Again, they should absolutely not be criminally charged. Every firefighter has a right to turn down an order that they feel is unsafe, as long as they can express valid reasons why it is unsafe. This ability to turn down is very important in the fire service. It preserves individual safety, and combats tunnel vision and groupthink.Maybe a firefighter is new, and didn’t know what they were in for. Maybe they feel too physically weak for some reason. Maybe something brought back a long buried trauma, and they’re breaking down. Doesn’t matter. Do you really think it’s a good idea to force that person into a burning building?Instead, the firefighter in question should be withdrawn from the scene, and evaluated medically. They should undergo some form of psychological evaluation. They should be given the help they need, even if that help means they can’t fight fires any more. But they should not be criminally charged. Instead, they should be given the respect they deserve for all the service they have given and were willing to give.Long story short: the decision of what to do with a firefighter who refuses to enter a burning building is a department level decision, not a government level decision. Departments should think long and hard about what they expect from their firefighters, and then codify these expectations in policies, regulations, and best practices. If a firefighter needs to be held to these expectations by department leadership, then the process should be flexible, respectful, and personable, not rigid and legalistic.Thanks for sticking with me and reading this longer addition. I hope it clears up any confusions or questions. And again, to everyone upvoting, sharing, commenting, and following, thank you so much for your support! To any firefighters reading this, as well as other first responders: keep it up, stay safe, and go kick some serious ass out there.Fire pups thank you for your patience.

“What happens if what happens if a firefighter refuses to go on a seemingly Dangerous Mission?” The simple and short answer is nothing. In the event the job refuse being actually too dangerous it would mean the firefighter didn't get hurt and the supervisor was saved from disciplinary action from ordering an unsafe job. If it was a matter of the job being beyond the firefighters level of competence then retraining would be the result. Possibly some ridicule, good-natured humor, or irritation from peers as well.The wording of the question says a lot about misperceptions about the fire service in the United States. Firefighters do not go on missions. They are not military or even paramilitary. As far as the word “seemingly” that is simply a matter of perception, and a lot of what the public perceives as dangerous is fantasy, the classic example being firefighters go “running into burning buildings while everyone sane is running out”. That is not only false but any firefighter who did so is probably either ignorant or stupid. For one running while in full structural firefighting ensemble is damn near impossible. Entry into a burning building is done, or at least supposed to be done, after an initial evaluation for risk, method, threat mitigation, and benefit. New firefighters, especially those with limited training, and often volunteer agencies, may have an exaggerated sense of their capacity, the perceived need to go in, and the protective abilities of their turnouts ( fire and heat resistant uniforms). YouTube is full of videos of firefighters getting themselves burned up in training evolutions because they thought their turnouts would protect them from anything. When burns, disfigurement or handicap are the result of these foolish actions, it is quite sad.Firefighting is a science and every action taken is done with an objective of Safety First. Jobs firefighters are trained to do such as fire suppression and rescue are undertaken after extensive training and with many safeguards built in. Part of the safeguarding is due to the team approach with the National Standard requiring a safety officer in every event . There is also a saying “safety knows no rank.” This is around to prevent firefighters from feeling forced to do things because of the rank of an ordering officer. At least in California where I work, firefighters are trained and in fact required to voice their concerns, and if necessary refuse orders if they are considered unsafe. This is not just to protect themselves but to alert others to a risk that they may not have noticed. If the perception of risk is due to ignorance on the part of the firefighter, the ordering officer may clarify operation and explain why the operation is in fact safe. If the firefighter still feels unsafe doing the job then there is no obligation to do it.Why? One reason is if the firefighter becomes hurt due to either the job being truly too dangerous or because a firefighter is not competent at that particular job, the fact that the firefighter is now injured may drag in others to the rescue causing them to be at risk. The classic example of this is a firefighter being trapped in a burning and unstable building because he was too aggressive and his attack or fell through a roof he should not have been on.So, do firefighters occasionally undertake excessive risk ? Yes. Individual firefighters may knowingly take excessive personal risk to save someone's life, and be probably even more likely to do so to save the life of a comrade. But these risks are always taken voluntarily, and cannot legally be ordered or otherwise forced.The majority of times firefighters get hurt or killed is due to health (50%+ die from heart attack (Heart attacks leading cause of firefighter deaths in 2015) or crashes from driving too dangerously. A smaller number of get hurt because of circumstances that were very difficult to foresee such as those unlucky 19 (Yarnell Hill Fire - Wikipedia) who were killed in Arizona on a vegetation fire, or because of a mistake in sizing up a building's stability, which is something that happens from time to time when a fire department chooses (not forced) to make entry in search of victims, often in old buildings where transients live (and often start fires).

Your premise seems to be that the US Navy does not know how to fight shipboard fires, which is a flawed premise. As the crews’ efforts during the Fitzgerald and McCain collisions demonstrated, whatever shortcomings currently exist in the Surface fleet’s training and doctrine, it’s not in damage control.The fires aboard Bonhomme Richard are barely out, so it’s way too early to even speculate about the cause and evaluate the DC efforts. However, it should definitely be noted that BHR was in port for a major maintenance availability; this means that among other things, there would have been parts, materials, tools, equipment, and personnel (such as civilian yard workers) who would normally not have been. Systems would have been offline for maintenance and repair. Crew are commonly allowed leave or sent to longer-duration schools and training during Yard periods. Not to mention, the fire broke out on a Sunday in port, which means only the duty section would have been aboard. This was not a ship in “wartime underway” condition, nor should it have been.So while there’s no idea yet of the cause of the fire, idly speculating that incompetence contributed to taking so long to extinguish it is both presumptuous and insulting to the Navy sailors and civilian firefighters who risked their lives to do so.