 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Well, let's think about this. The building could randomly implode
>> Buildings don't randomly implode, they follow the laws of physics.
>
> Yep - the thing is that you learn to risk. I. e. your training includes
> looking for certain signs, and comparing them with what the dispatcher told
> you, along with simple common sense. The whole idea of surviving AND doing
> the job on the fire ground is to risk from a position of knowledge. You need
> to know how far you are LIKELY to be able to go and still survive and do
> your job.
>
> Remember also it is usually very military in the fire service - you act
> pretty much like a soldier, doing what your lieutenant or battalion chief
> tells you to do. And the same reaction is expected as well - instant
> obedience to orders.
>
> That's the thing - most firefighter fatalities are when some unknown factor
> was present (like a homeowner storing propane in his garage, or an
> unanticipated collapse of a trench wall, for example.)
>
> I have seen thought, that in the fire service (at least here, in the past)
> the military paradigm is largely adhered to, but a smart officer will always
> listen (at least a bit) versus military officers who more commonly have the
> "shut and do what I tell you" mentality.
...so "learning safety" means that if the building is about to explode,
they just don't go in there? [As I originally asserted.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> You WILL fail. Sooner or later. Somebody WILL die (they have on my watch)
> and you will just have to deal with it. The trick is doing your best,
> always, even at risk of your life, or loss of it. At least if you HAVE to
> loose a patient or your own life, loose it after putting up the a hell of
> fight and doing the best you could have done.
>
> I had to face this when I lost some friends operationally in the fire
> service. For months afterward I castigated myself, should I have done this,
> said this, done that, warned them... eventually I realized the simple fact
> was I had done my very, very best, and NOTHING I could have done more would
> have saved them.
Doesn't work.
No matter how hard you tried, there's always something you could have
tried harder, something you could have done different, if only you had
done X instead of Y, maybe they'd still be alive... No matter how much
you know, rationally, that there's nothing more you could have done, the
knowledge of "if I did X, they would still be alive" will taument you
for the rest of eternity...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> ...so "learning safety" means that if the building is about to explode,
> they just don't go in there? [As I originally asserted.]
Yes, to a very great degree. However, risk has to be balanced. E. g. your
training and experience may say "no" but you have to balance that against a
report that a person (or persons) are still in there.
Also, there are many firefighters who will go in anyway (sometimes against
training and doctrine) if they -know- that civilian lives could be lost if
they do NOT at least -TRY-. I'm convinced this is part of what happened to
the 300+ firefighters who died on 9/11, for example.
Sometimes you just have to do what is needed, no matter the risk, or the
odds, or what the personal cost to you might be - pretty much like a soldier
who knows he is going to certainly die but keeps on firing as fast as he
can.
You cannot do this type of work with an "is it safe?" mentality limiting -
EVERY- action. You always try to do it with a kind of "how can I do this the
SAFEST way?" mentality. Unfortunately, missing the smallest detail can have
fatal consequences. That's were training, experience, discipline, and having
a good officer around comes in.
The type of personalities I worked with in the fire service are the kind
that WILL charge a burning building, in order to save a life, and are then
content to die trying, if that is what is required.
Sure that sounds macho and crude maybe, but in the heart of any person who
does this for a living, year after year, it is a simple fact that is
accepted, and then moved beyond. It actually is kind of liberating once you
realize that. Of course, if there is -ANY- way at all, you'll save yourself,
but what then follows is what separates soldiers and civilians, firefighters
and mere men - they are willing to lay down their lives at a moment's notice
for someone else.
Somebody who stops fighting (and trying) removes even the -possibility- of
success. Survival and victory is always a possibility, as long as you don't
give up.
"We don't expect kittens to fight tigers and win, we merely expect the
kittens to try."
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
>
>> You WILL fail. Sooner or later. Somebody WILL die (they have on my watch)
>> and you will just have to deal with it. The trick is doing your best,
>> always, even at risk of your life, or loss of it. At least if you HAVE to
>> loose a patient or your own life, loose it after putting up the a hell of
>> fight and doing the best you could have done.
>>
>> I had to face this when I lost some friends operationally in the fire
>> service. For months afterward I castigated myself, should I have done
>> this, said this, done that, warned them... eventually I realized the
>> simple fact was I had done my very, very best, and NOTHING I could have
>> done more would have saved them.
>
> Doesn't work.
>
> No matter how hard you tried, there's always something you could have
> tried harder, something you could have done different, if only you had
> done X instead of Y, maybe they'd still be alive... No matter how much
> you know, rationally, that there's nothing more you could have done, the
> knowledge of "if I did X, they would still be alive" will taument you
> for the rest of eternity...
Maybe for you, I guess it depends on your personality.
Which I guess is why you are psychologically evaluated before being accepted
as a recruit into the fire service (at least in the days when I was involved
with emergency services in South Africa).
Note I was a -dispatcher- - i. e. strictly speaking my job was NOT to charge
into burning buildings - most of the time. We did cross train though (always
a good idea to know as much about this stuff as possible) and I did have to
go into some exciting situations in the field - when we were short-staffed
or there was a huge incident. In that way we differed from American 911
operators for example - I was physically in the fire station, and cross-
trained in at least the basic firefighting and paramedical disciplines. Just
in case you had to help out. Real 911 operators often never even see the
people they dispatch.
But the mental stuff remains very much the same, and I simply did not
experience the level of torment you seem to think is involved when your
shift or unit (or "watch" in British terms) inevitably take casualties.
Note that this is NOT a criticism! Its perfectly okay to feel the way you
do, and it is perfectly okay not to want to be associated with or get into
those kinds of situations.
But I'm convinced if you do not, you are missing out on at least one (or
two) of the most basic, wonderful things about being a human - facing danger
with together good, brave comrades, being part of something extreme special
and unique, and doing real and good things for the good of your community
and society. Thing that matter and make a difference.
If you do anything besides this, you can often ask yourself "do I make a
difference? Is what I am and do worth it?"
If you have served in the fire and emergency services, this doubt and
question is forever removed from your life.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:00:25 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> But consulting work does pay well; generally, it pays very well.
>
> Presumably because it's extremely high-stress work with no job security?
The successful consultants generally have job security because their
reputation precedes them. As for the stress of the work - it pays enough
that the hours are largely consultant-selectable; I know several who have
no stress at all and make very good money just being "on retainer" for
critical system issues and remote administration for small businesses.
>> But one other thing that's fairly common is to buy a house and let the
>> value increase - and then sell it for the increased value and roll that
>> over into another house. If one is smart about it, one can make a
>> pretty decent amount of money doing that through "trading up" like
>> that. It's rare at least here for anyone to live in the same house
>> long enough to pay off a 30 year mortgage.
>
> ...which brings us back to my point of "if your house burns down, you
> now have an extremely serious financial problem". ;-)
And that brings me back to "that's what homeowner's insurance is for". ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:09:34 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> ...so "learning safety" means that if the building is about to explode,
> they just don't go in there? [As I originally asserted.]
Clearly not always the case - I hesitate to cite 9/11; a lot of good
people died that day, and not all of them were running *out* of the
buildings.
It seems to me that it's about being able to do an accurate risk
assessment and weigh the options very very quickly and make a decision -
as well as being willing to change the decision when other factors become
apparent that were not part of the initial risk assessment.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But one other thing that's fairly common is to buy a house and let the
>>> value increase - and then sell it for the increased value and roll that
>>> over into another house. If one is smart about it, one can make a
>>> pretty decent amount of money doing that through "trading up" like
>>> that. It's rare at least here for anyone to live in the same house
>>> long enough to pay off a 30 year mortgage.
>>
>> ...which brings us back to my point of "if your house burns down, you
>> now have an extremely serious financial problem". ;-)
>
> And that brings me back to "that's what homeowner's insurance is for". ;-)
My brother's father in law made an insane amount of money this way. But you
have to be quite careful (at least "this side of the pond") - quite a few
folks have gone bankrupt trying to do this here, and then find out when the
economy takes a dip they can't keep all those mortgages covered, and they
can't squeeze enough out of their renters.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:16:20 +0200, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> My brother's father in law made an insane amount of money this way. But
> you have to be quite careful (at least "this side of the pond") - quite
> a few folks have gone bankrupt trying to do this here, and then find out
> when the economy takes a dip they can't keep all those mortgages
> covered, and they can't squeeze enough out of their renters.
Yep, you really have to know what you're doing if you don't sell the old
property but instead decide to rent it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Well, let's think about this. The building could randomly implode
>>> Buildings don't randomly implode, they follow the laws of physics.
>>
> ....so "learning safety" means that if the building is about to explode,
> they just don't go in there? [As I originally asserted.]
>
Yes, but you are using emotive language and make it too dramatic. It
takes time for buildings to be destroyed and in that time a rescue can
be effected. One of the aspects of fire fighting training is to expose
the situation. No fire officer would expose his men or women to
unnecessary risk. So if a building was in imminent danger of exploding
or collapsing s/he would remove them to safety and fight the fire from a
distance. But with experience and the officers are experienced, they
would evaluate the situation before sending anyone into a blaze.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ....so "learning safety" means that if the building is about to
>> explode, they just don't go in there? [As I originally asserted.]
>>
> Yes, but you are using emotive language and make it too dramatic. It
> takes time for buildings to be destroyed and in that time a rescue can
> be effected. One of the aspects of fire fighting training is to expose
> the situation. No fire officer would expose his men or women to
> unnecessary risk. So if a building was in imminent danger of exploding
> or collapsing s/he would remove them to safety and fight the fire from a
> distance. But with experience and the officers are experienced, they
> would evaluate the situation before sending anyone into a blaze.
My point being, having "training and experience" doesn't stop a building
from collapsing. It just stops you from being inside the building when
this happens. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
