I asked this question in the middle of the discussion on rescuing the stupid vs the ignorant and because the discussion veered into media talk, it kind of got lost. Either that or it was ignored because it called for a bit of self exam maybe? I am reposting what I said in that thread (with some modification).
I am a bit of a fire service history buff (I grew up helping restore the Knickerbocker #5 hand pumper and on the stories of the Fire Zouvres and “leather lunged” men) and am fairly familiar with the attitudes and beliefs of our predecessors in the profession. I have noticed a change in the attitudes of the younger (than me) generation of firefighters and I am curious as to when and why the fire service changed from "giving ones life so another may live" to "me first"?
I am not the only one that has noticed this. There was a recent magazine article by a Chief asking if we are becoming too “risk averse”? Another Chief Officer, Chief Charles Bailey has also noted the phenomena and said in a FireRescue1 magazine article “We exist first and foremost to save people, and we should be thinking about saving people no matter what. Importantly, the people we think about also includes us, the firefighters. If we are to remain relevant to the public though, we must avoid becoming risk averse.”
I had this very discussion during a structure drill the other day and learned (a little to my surprise) that a) if my fellow firefighters had to choose between saving me or the civilian next to me (that I was trying to save), they would take me first and leave the civilian behind. And b) that none of them were willing to sacrifice themselves for any reason for another person except MAYBE wife and kids. No, “throw yourself on the grenade”. It was “I’m the most important, then my fellow firefighters then the civilian”.
When and how did we get here? How and when did we change to “me first”?
BigWhiteDog
View Public Profile
Visit BigWhiteDog's homepage!
Find all posts by BigWhiteDog
#2 09-03-2009, 16:50
Fire Geek
Member Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 51
Re: Are we becomine too risk averse?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It probaly started sometime after July 6, 1994 when the policy came out about the 10 Standard Fire Orders, "We don't break them, we don't bend them".
Fire Geek
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Fire Geek
#3 09-03-2009, 16:59
VallejoRob
Member Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vallejo, CA
Posts: 46
Re: Are we becomine too risk averse?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. If what you are saying is true, it would indicate a large cultural shift within the fire service.
Admittedly, my stint with the fire service was short and limited (seasonal), but I always felt that the emphasis on firefighter safety that was hammered in during training was there to combat the underlying "can do" attitude and the overwhelming willingness of firefighters to sacrifice themselves. When I started, I worked with a bunch of guys who wouldn't turn down any assignment, not matter how dangerous, because they didn't know any better. I was one of them. In hindsight, it led me to take some risks that had little benefit. I wouldn't say experience turned me into a "me first" person, but it discourage stupid, needless risks.
Some form of balance needs to found between being willing to sacrifice oneself too easily and not at all. Perhaps finding that balance is difficult.
I can't help but wonder if any cultural shift that is occurring is due the increased litigious nature of our society. For example, OSHA's institution of the 2 in, 2 out rule holds the IC responsible for infractions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by VallejoRob; 09-03-2009 at 17:00. Reason: grammar
VallejoRob
View Public Profile
Find all posts by VallejoRob
#4 09-03-2009, 17:03
bcjack
Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 224
Re: Are we becomine too risk averse?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigWhiteDog
I asked this question in the middle of the discussion on rescuing the stupid vs the ignorant and because the discussion veered into media talk, it kind of got lost. Either that or it was ignored because it called for a bit of self exam maybe? I am reposting what I said in that thread (with some modification).
I am a bit of a fire service history buff (I grew up helping restore the Knickerbocker #5 hand pumper and on the stories of the Fire Zouvres and “leather lunged” men) and am fairly familiar with the attitudes and beliefs of our predecessors in the profession. I have noticed a change in the attitudes of the younger (than me) generation of firefighters and I am curious as to when and why the fire service changed from "giving ones life so another may live" to "me first"?
I am not the only one that has noticed this. There was a recent magazine article by a Chief asking if we are becoming too “risk averse”? Another Chief Officer, Chief Charles Bailey has also noted the phenomena and said in a FireRescue1 magazine article “We exist first and foremost to save people, and we should be thinking about saving people no matter what. Importantly, the people we think about also includes us, the firefighters. If we are to remain relevant to the public though, we must avoid becoming risk averse.”
I had this very discussion during a structure drill the other day and learned (a little to my surprise) that a) if my fellow firefighters had to choose between saving me or the civilian next to me (that I was trying to save), they would take me first and leave the civilian behind. And b) that none of them were willing to sacrifice themselves for any reason for another person except MAYBE wife and kids. No, “throw yourself on the grenade”. It was “I’m the most important, then my fellow firefighters then the civilian”.
When and how did we get here? How and when did we change to “me first”?
IMHO:
"Me first" is not focused on some selfish desire to not give 110% for the people we serve. The new paradigm is more focused on doing a better job of Risk Assessment or Situational Awareness and not killing or injuring a firefighter for something that is beyond help. We lose over 100 brother and sister firefighters each year. Each one of them is a father, mother, brother, sister, cousin, aunt, uncle, friend, co-worker, or some other form of significant other, and it is high time we re-think the notion of being a "Kamikazie (sp)" and sending our loved ones into situations that are "No-win".
I have spent 34+ years in this business and fortunately, have not personally been involved in dealing with a line-of-duty death or serious injury. I have worked for a Chief who had a line-of-duty death under his watch and had an opportunity to spend a good piece of time talking about it with him when I was a new Captain. The deep and forever-lasting hurt he expressed over that death helped me form a credo that I lived my career by; "My job was to send my firefighters home at the end of their shift in as good or better condition than when their families LOANED them to me at the start of their shift". My first and foremost duty was to get them home safe and sound, or as the new website of the same name states..."Everyone Goes Home". My second priority was to use my resources to the best of their ability to protect the community we served.
I think I have rambled enough for now, but I have, and always will hold my firefighters sacred and refuse to do anything that would prevent me from fulfilling my credo.
bcjack
View Public Profile
Find all posts by bcjack
#5 09-03-2009, 17:05
Sammie
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Central Washington
Posts: 800
Re: Are we becomine too risk averse?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a civilian with former SAR experience I'm going to comment but I'm again, I'm not quite sure how to say what I want to say. I'm good at that!
When I was in SAR, we were told that we can't do anyone any good and can become a liability to our team if we become injured. The ones who were trained in the more technical things had a number of safety measures in place.
I always wondered if it had something to do with the Labor and Industries (Workmans Comp) regulations. Even though we were volunteers a limited L&I was paid to cover us if we were injured while on a mission. There was alot of - you can't do that because you aren't certified, you have to be checked out on that.
I suspect this is part of the reason for not taking the risks in fire fighting.
Sammie
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Sammie
#6 09-03-2009, 18:44
ksengb
Member Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: NE KS
Posts: 69
Re: Are we becomine too risk averse?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent discussion, and I think BCJack hits on the key point. It's not that we won't risk everything to save someone who's saveable, but it is stupid to risk our lives for someone who is unsaveable, or for property. It's rare, but heroic, that a firefighter actually dies trying to save a victim who has a potential for being saved. More often what's killing us is trying to save buildings that are already unstable, dead bodies that can't be saved, or vegetation in a canyon when the winds, fuels, and topography say we shouldn't be there, or not buckling a stupid little seat belt, or similar situations. That's not heroic. Just a horrible waste of a firefighter's life. I've responded to firefighter fatalities, 2 due to medical problems (not being medically fit for the job), and 1 due to a traffic crash responding to a MINOR wildfire. All preventable, none worthy of the life of a firefighter. That's the key. I would risk my life or allow one under my command to do so in a heartbeat to save a civilian or a brother (sister) firefighter who we had a chance of saving. But I'll keep all my firefighters outside of a lightweight commercial structure that's well involved, or a Mann Gulch/South Canyon or you name it wildfire situation that's not winnable, and watch it burn. There isn't a plant or a building or a dead body I've seen yet I'd let one of my guys or girls die for. That's where risk-benefit has to play in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by ksengb; 09-03-2009 at 18:49. Reason: clarify wording
ksengb
View Public Profile
Find all posts by ksengb
#7 09-03-2009, 19:17
firemomma
New Member Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sonoma Co, CA
Posts: 22
Re: Are we becomine too risk averse?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal safety first, co-worker safety second, civilian safety third. Makes perfect sense to me. What good is an injured or dead firefighter?
It has nothing to do with history or honor, just good old common sense!
firemomma
View Public Profile
Find all posts by firemomma
#8 09-03-2009, 19:56
Pyro5755
Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N. NV
Posts: 293
Re: Are we becomine too risk averse?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, BWD; I'm the guilty party on the other thread! I get kinda wound-up...
Way Back When (when I started in the early '70's), there was a lot of talk among all the station-level ranks about just how they'd be perfectly willing to lose their lives on a fire, in an attempt to effect a rescue... virtually all agreed that we'd try about anything, anytime, even if we "knew" the victim was already gone. All agreed this would be "heroic".
Doug Campbell presented our District with a very disturbing slides/maps/commentary assesment of several years of WLF deaths, including Loop, Rattlesnake, etc. We pushed it out of our minds and went back to beating our chests...
My second and third seasons were pretty intense, involving a lot of minor burn injuries (for those days; 3rd degree/6" diameter or less), a lot of lost hair, clothes, etc. I started rethinking my priorities. I was married, and had a kid on the way (now a USFS FF, BTW). That wife wasn't very tolerant of my career choice; I transferred back to engines.
Went as FEO to several pretty hairy fires. Watched 2 friends roll their AT into a ball. Got some great pics of me tied off to a Mdl 51, rappelling down to snags protruding from the sides of Santa Anita Cnyn (they were catching rollout at the root balls) with a chainsaw, and some other "cool" stuff. Watched a copter go down. Hard. Made the mistake of showing the wife a few pics; she decided to marry a doctor. She didn't understand...
Late '70's: Volunteered with a small municipal in SoCal w/ a lot of WUI. Department owned ONE Scott Air-Pac. We were taught "Stay low to the floor; the best air's 3-6" off the floor." New types of fire problems... and a lot more injuries. But a lot more pressure to perform, a "little" pain just goes with the job. After all, everything's a risk on a fire, right? And man, did we kill fire...
A few promotions and a lotta fire later, I've got an engine crew to worry about; no wife, and another kid to raise (also a WLFF, BTW). Make contact with some of my old FS buddies, and find out how many are now dead; old friends and mentors.
We've finally got enough BA's to outfit the whole Dept. I'm not really sure when it happened, but we're starting to hear different language during classes: Risk analysis; risk vs: gain; safety; "hazardous pesticides" (early term for HazMat), etc.
Doug Campbell is now publishing and teaching his FF Ethics... I've got a few (OK, a lot) more scars, so maybe I listen a little better, and maybe even retain some, and think about it a little...
Then July '94 rolls around. We're out for 19 straight; the hour my friends were dying in CO, doing mopup on a brushfire near town; about 30' up an oak tree, tied off to the trunk, reaching waaaaay out to (you guessed it) saw off a smoldering branch of the limb. We hear about Storm King 4-5 days later.
I finally scare myself this year; I coulda lost my crew. Sheer luck I didn't.
Fast forward a few more years: A lot more dead friends. I finally tire of the bureaucracy, and quit. Only after I quit do I realize: I look like a freakin' road map. But I've never had to write one single accident report for one of my people. Was I good? Nope... just damn lucky. Freaky lucky.
After thirty-some years, I've got a little different attitude: I'll still push. Hard. But only AFTER doing a thorough risk analysis, and risk vs: gain. I've finally learned we all deserve to go home to our families.
So really, all of this aside: I really don't know just when the change began, or why. I think I was probably in on the "overlap" generation; the end of the old era, and the beginning of the new. And I still couldn't point to a dividing line between the two.
Personally, I like the new mentality better, as an old crew leader... but I can't think of any experience I regret (well, maybe a couple involving trees, rope, and saws... )
End of Old Man Ramble.
Be Safe, All. Lessons Learned Honor the Fallen.
Pyro5755
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Pyro5755
#9 09-03-2009, 20:37
socalfire55
New Member Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 16
Re: Are we becomine too risk averse?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big, Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You think we as firefighters should be willing to give our life in exchange for another, a perfect stranger? And you think this mentality is a "me first" attitude? In my firehouse there is a "we first" attitude when it comes to doing our job and the risk we are willing to take. We are willing to take high risks for high reward and we will take little risk for little reward. At no time would it be acceptable to trade one of our lives for another doing our job. Risk is unavoidable in our profession and unfortunately firefighters will die doing their jobs. We need to have the attitude that this is our job, and at the end of our shift we need to go home alive and healthy. I think we owe that to our spouses, kids, and loved ones.
socalfire55
View Public Profile
Find all posts by socalfire55
#10 09-03-2009, 21:13
BigWhiteDog
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Georgetown Divide, El Dorado County, California
Posts: 227
Re: Are we becomine too risk averse?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by socalfire55
Big, Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You think we as firefighters should be willing to give our life in exchange for another, a perfect stranger? And you think this mentality is a "me first" attitude? In my firehouse there is a "we first" attitude when it comes to doing our job and the risk we are willing to take. We are willing to take high risks for high reward and we will take little risk for little reward. At no time would it be acceptable to trade one of our lives for another doing our job. Risk is unavoidable in our profession and unfortunatley firefighters will die doing there jobs. We need to have the attitude that this is our job, and at the end of our shift we need to go home alive and healthy. I think we owe that to our spouses, kids, and loved ones.
I think that you have just proved my point. At one time, we as a profession risked all for others. Remember, those were the days of hand and steam power, of no PPE's or BA's. What you are saying is that you will not give your life for another. You would not throw yourself on the metaphoric grenade to save others. You would not die to save a child? Yes I think that is a "me first attitude", that is why I am wondering how and when we got here.
The one point you missed is that some are not even willing to take "high risks for high rewards" just low risks for rewards.
