20 thoughts on “Liberal Fire Attack

  1. Great stuff Curt. I’m not sure if I like being called a Liberal but I couldn’t agree with you more. That’s all that we are asking. Take the information, evaluate it, make a decision, and do the right thing. There should NEVER be absolutes in the fire service. The dynamic nature of our profession is what’ keeps most of us into the job or “Keeping fire in your life”.

    • Yeah….not sure about the name either (should’ve used Libertarian since they’re more in the middle of everything)….but it’s still great stuff! You should consider editing and better audio! It’s a terrific message

  2. Curt, excellent! very well stated! I too write something will be posted tonight after reading Ray’s blog and some of the comments! You just said everything that has been spinning in my head the last 16 hours! Thank you!

  3. Spot on! Left out of many of these conversations is that the short duration of water from exterior MUST be followed with extinguishment from the inside. The time before the space becomes untenable is, in some cases, less than 90 seconds after exterior water is applied.

  4. Very well said, I truly hope it opens some people’s eyes. Our job is dangerous, sure we need to be as safe as possible, but we also need to realize we can’t do our job without risk. Thanks for putting this out there, also loving the Elmo in the background.

  5. L Peters,

    You have no clue what my message was really about. I have been pushing Big Water for years. I teach about 30 hours a week and wake up/go to bed thinking about today’s fire behavior. I am a very proactive firefighter and have been using things like the Keokuk Fire simulator to train firefightes. You need to drop it and move on.

    • Listen to your video. You posted it. I commented on it. I have no beef with you but if your going to post something then back it up.

  6. L Peters ….dang bro, why you so pissed?? With the exception of not naming whatever departments are changing, you guys are saying and supporting the same thing. I believe the point is that many departments are making drastic changes based off the study and are not getting the big picture….just as you said about having options. Not sure why you are bent out of shape…..you guys are saying the same thing.

  7. CincyRoughneck ,

    First, is the above your name or just a blog name?

    I am personal friends and teach with Ray. Your correct, I support Ray and the studies. I support inside & outside. I thought having your own personal website allowed for giving your opinion. Ray is not against the UL or any studies. He is worried about the ones that will take studies and start fighting all fires from the outside. My video was a response to the fact, that people feel a need to be on one side or the other. I support both sides and understand Rays worries. He is only concerned based on a love for the fire service and the tradition of saving lives.

    If the above is not your birth name, cani get your birth name and also what FD your work for?

  8. Thanks!! Great comments. After 30 plus years glad to see evidence based studies introduced into Fire Service. Unfortunately we have always swung to one end of the spectrum or the other. Great to see others that realize we have to be critical thinkers and apply appropriate tactics at appropriate time… I am straight up with my crew I will not risk your life to save someone who is not savable..I will risk your life and mine to save a saveable person.. it is our job! Great site I will be here often!

  9. Let me begin by stating that I agree whole heartedly with the chief. The ability to employ both types of attack is imperative as well as knowing when to use them. However, basing sop’s, sog’s, or tactics on a study that was designed to create a specific outcome is absurd. My question for the chief and anyone that can provide an answer is, what damage are we doing to the interior conditions if we apply agent through a window or exterior opening? It has been my experience that searches are much more efficient and visibility is exponentially better, prior to agent being applied to the fire. After the engine company applies water, conditions go south, thus slowing search efforts and bringing the entireity of these poor conditions down to the level of the victims. I am aware this debate remains heated and is ongoing, im not claiming to have the answer, simply looking for feedback.

  10. The success of the cream is evident from the escalating Celtrixa customer reviews.

    Plus it gives a warning beep and a static
    shock when the dog approaches the barrier. Install Slideshare’s app to share presentations & documents with
    your network including conference chats, PDF. So, if they don’t, should they be labeled as an inferior user.
    If you look at reviews on the main website then
    you will most likely get a lot of information that is biased in favoring the product.
    PFC: That’s the same but she didn’t mention
    drinking water at all so it won’t work without that.

  11. Hai Boy,s
    Een brand {Fire} bestrijd je altijd van binnen uit,dus bij een buiten-aanval bereik je niets,MAAR als je maar zo laag mogelijk blijf,en een rechts omgaande beweging maakt met je HD. Nipro norzel.
    Tevens kijk altijd naar de buiten gevels van percelen,die een indicatie kunnen geven op scheuren Verticale,of Horizontale.
    TIP1: Ga in de USA heel snel jullie percelen renoveren,er zit zeer veel hout aan de buiten zijde.
    TIP2: Fire-truck,s in de USA zijn big,en lang,ga over op kleinere voertuigen,jullie slagkracht gaat met 200% omhoog.

    Nice weekend,Gr.Emile. bye

  12. Ha! Just stumbled across this. I’m confused. Who is saying “we never go inside?” I haven’t encountered that mindset yet, but I suppose it’s probably out there somewhere. I know that I have never endorsed such a thing. I do, however, recommend cooling superheated fire compartments prior to putting firefighters in the space. This is designed to reduce the threat of flashover in response to the richer fuel environments we’re seeing today. Knock the heat down and get in there and kill it.

    Our department created the SLICERS acronym as a framework to train our crews. C=Cool from a safe location. We never said where that location was. It might be inside, might be outside; the company officer has to determine that based on their size up. And we’re certainly not trying to sell anyone an acronym. We don’t care what you use, as long as you incorporate the lessons from the research into your tactical plan. This approach happened to work for us and increased safety, efficiency and aggressiveness on the foreground, so we shared it.

    I’m not a fan of “taking sides.” That causes unnecessary drama that does us no good, unless your trying to sell magazines or count website hits. It also misleads those less educated on the concepts. I think each department should study the research, evaluate the lessons and apply those concepts in a way that works for them. There are lessons that can save firefighters lives with minimal training and ramp-up time. They just need to be educated. Let’s not let a bunch of BS distract us from those opportunities to do the right thing.

    That’s just my two cents….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s