West Coast Fire Thread

[Ken]

For those of you who think the firefighting profession is getting too cautious. I would ask what you think is the appropriate number of firefighters to die every year? Should it be more or less than the current 89? https://www.nfpa.org/about-nfpa/press-r ... hs-in-2023

And a related question would be how much risk of life do you think is appropriate for firefighters to take in order to protect private property that is often set on fire due to the negligence of the property owner? That obviously isn't the case with the LA fires. But it frequently is for most ordinary fires.

The National Fire Protection Association® (NFPA®) released its “Fatal Firefighter Injuries in the U.S. in 2023” report, which showed a total of 89 on-duty U.S. firefighter fatalities in 2023, representing an eight percent decline over the 97 fatal injuries in 2022. Of these deaths, 50 were volunteer firefighters and 30 were career firefighters; the nine non-municipal firefighter fatalities included five full-time state forestry rangers or technicians, one state forestry contractor, one full-time federal forest service firefighter, and two military firefighters.

The 89 firefighter fatalities in 2023 are higher than the totals in recent years; it’s also the second-highest number since 2013, when 98 on-duty fatal injuries were reported. However, much of the increase over the past two years reflects the inclusion of cardiac deaths and strokes or aneurysms occurring within 24 hours of duty, irrespective of manifested or reported symptoms while on duty. These deaths were previously not counted unless there was a specific physical complaint while the firefighter was on duty.

According to the newly released report, reductions in the number of fatalities among career firefighters accounted for most of the decline (23 percent), from 39 deaths in 2022 to 30 in 2023. In addition, while heart attacks remain the leading medical cause of death, there was a 20 percent decline in the number of career firefighter heart attacks - from 15 fatalities in 2022 to 12 in 2023.

The largest share of deaths (32 fatalities) occurred on the fireground while firefighters were operating at fires or explosions. Although this number reflects a downward trend in deaths since the late 1970s—when the number of fireground deaths annually averaged more than 80 per year—the 2023 total is higher than the average for the previous 10 years, and is the highest total since 2013, when 57 firefighters were killed in fireground incidents involving roof or floor collapses, falling objects, entrapment, or rapid-fire progress.

“The fatalities due to rapid-fire progression and structural collapses may be at least partially due to the fact that today’s fires burn hotter and faster,” said Jay Petrillo, a fire data analyst at NFPA and co-author of the report. “Fortunately, within the fire service there is certainly recognition of the importance of improving knowledge about fire behavior and fire dynamics in order to better protect firefighter safety and health.”

Overexertion and strain accounted for more than one-half (54 percent) of the fatalities in 2023, with the vast majority (48 fatalities) being sudden cardiac deaths. According to the report, fitness programs, annual medical evaluations, and medical monitoring are well-recognized preventive measures for cardiac health for all firefighters, but with the predominance of volunteer firefighters among the sudden cardiac deaths within 24 hours, additional areas of intervention are likely needed.

[JohnH]

I don’t know for sure. But that seems to make sense. Although I can’t imagine how their safety first protocol would actually rescue anyone inside the house. Maybe they would rescue someone, but I’d hate to count on them to save anyone. It is risk, and they are allergic to risk by the looks of things.

So the taxpaying public pays for firehouses, firemen, fire trucks, training, etc. And then we end up needing to rely on ourselves and our own equipment anyway.
Such is life in a soft coddled society, whose chief concern is insulating itself from harm and danger.

I’ve noticed government services and big corporations seem very risk averse. Makes me wonder what the point of paying for all of this is for, if they won’t ever actually help you, but only protect themselves.

Seems the insurance industry, broadly speaking, either set itself up for this mentality... or has drifted into it in many areas. (Healthcare another one of course) Not sure what to do about it...

The topic at hand is government provided firefighting, not insurance
Companies.

[JohnH]

For those of you who think the firefighting profession is getting too cautious. I would ask what you think is the appropriate number of fire fighters to die every year? Should it be more or less than the current 89? https://www.nfpa.org/about-nfpa/press-r ... hs-in-2023

And a related question would be how much risk do you think is appropriate for people to take in order to protect private property that is often set on fire due to the negligence of the property owner? That obviously isn't the case with the LA fires. But it frequently is for most ordinary fires.

The National Fire Protection Association® (NFPA®) released its “Fatal Firefighter Injuries in the U.S. in 2023” report, which showed a total of 89 on-duty U.S. firefighter fatalities in 2023, representing an eight percent decline over the 97 fatal injuries in 2022. Of these deaths, 50 were volunteer firefighters and 30 were career firefighters; the nine non-municipal firefighter fatalities included five full-time state forestry rangers or technicians, one state forestry contractor, one full-time federal forest service firefighter, and two military firefighters.

The 89 firefighter fatalities in 2023 are higher than the totals in recent years; it’s also the second-highest number since 2013, when 98 on-duty fatal injuries were reported. However, much of the increase over the past two years reflects the inclusion of cardiac deaths and strokes or aneurysms occurring within 24 hours of duty, irrespective of manifested or reported symptoms while on duty. These deaths were previously not counted unless there was a specific physical complaint while the firefighter was on duty.

According to the newly released report, reductions in the number of fatalities among career firefighters accounted for most of the decline (23 percent), from 39 deaths in 2022 to 30 in 2023. In addition, while heart attacks remain the leading medical cause of death, there was a 20 percent decline in the number of career firefighter heart attacks - from 15 fatalities in 2022 to 12 in 2023.

The largest share of deaths (32 fatalities) occurred on the fireground while firefighters were operating at fires or explosions. Although this number reflects a downward trend in deaths since the late 1970s—when the number of fireground deaths annually averaged more than 80 per year—the 2023 total is higher than the average for the previous 10 years, and is the highest total since 2013, when 57 firefighters were killed in fireground incidents involving roof or floor collapses, falling objects, entrapment, or rapid-fire progress.

“The fatalities due to rapid-fire progression and structural collapses may be at least partially due to the fact that today’s fires burn hotter and faster,” said Jay Petrillo, a fire data analyst at NFPA and co-author of the report. “Fortunately, within the fire service there is certainly recognition of the importance of improving knowledge about fire behavior and fire dynamics in order to better protect firefighter safety and health.”

Overexertion and strain accounted for more than one-half (54 percent) of the fatalities in 2023, with the vast majority (48 fatalities) being sudden cardiac deaths. According to the report, fitness programs, annual medical evaluations, and medical monitoring are well-recognized preventive measures for cardiac health for all firefighters, but with the predominance of volunteer firefighters among the sudden cardiac deaths within 24 hours, additional areas of intervention are likely needed.

OK so you’re saying we shouldn’t expect firefighters to put out fires then?

So why bother having them at all?

[justme]

Our is mixed, largely professional, with volunteers.
When my neighbors house burned this summer, the fire department came. But they focused on methodically setting up their toys, establishing a perimeter, not getting too close, safety first, safety second, safety and procedure third through ninety-ninth. Then finally let’s spray some water. All the while, the fire grows, water is not getting sprayed.

There was no sense of urgency on display. Which was in direct contrast to the time saving gimmicks they spend thousands on.
Of course the house was a complete loss. In the end, the fire departments results were no different than if they hadn’t come at all. The house completely burned to the ground.

i've been perplexed about your attitude towards fire fighters in this thread.
i now understand. personal experience plays a huge role in how things are perceived.

[R7ehr]

For those of you who think the firefighting profession is getting too cautious. I would ask what you think is the appropriate number of firefighters to die every year? Should it be more or less than the current 89? https://www.nfpa.org/about-nfpa/press-r ... hs-in-2023

This is a silly question. How many civilians dying in fires is acceptable? There was 27 last count who died in LA. How many should die before a fire department is willing to accept any risk?

And a related question would be how much risk of life do you think is appropriate for firefighters to take in order to protect private property that is often set on fire due to the negligence of the property owner? That obviously isn't the case with the LA fires. But it frequently is for most ordinary fires.

Risk is part of life, and if a fire fighter is too scared of risk, I suggest he look into becoming a librarian or school teacher.

[R7ehr]

Our is mixed, largely professional, with volunteers.
When my neighbors house burned this summer, the fire department came. But they focused on methodically setting up their toys, establishing a perimeter, not getting too close, safety first, safety second, safety and procedure third through ninety-ninth. Then finally let’s spray some water. All the while, the fire grows, water is not getting sprayed.

There was no sense of urgency on display. Which was in direct contrast to the time saving gimmicks they spend thousands on.
Of course the house was a complete loss. In the end, the fire departments results were no different than if they hadn’t come at all. The house completely burned to the ground.

i've been perplexed about your attitude towards fire fighters in this thread.
i now understand. personal experience plays a huge role in how things are perceived.

I’ve been perplexed at watching fire departments inaction over the last 7 years. I’ve seen so many wildfires, and watched how the professionals operate. It looks incredible weak. They largely depend on airplanes to put them out while the trucks idle on the road.
I don’t have any direct insight that helps me understand why they do what they do. But they certainly don’t seem to prioritize putting out fires very quickly. Sometimes it makes some sense to let a wildfire burn itself out if nothing is threatened. But then we have to hear about it being caused by climate change, when they could have been put out easily when it was small. Which is how they used to do.

And I’ve seen wildfires come within feet of a relatives shop, while the firefighters sat there and didn’t lift a finger. While our guys ran heavy equipment to cut fire lines, they sat in their trucks. They will let structures burn when either very minimal effort would make the difference. I don’t understand their priorities or policies. But they lack.

Sure, if there is a small grass fire along a road or something like that, they generally are of good use. They come out and help eventually. It is helpful. There was a small wildfire that I stopped and helped neighbors fight with shovels and equipment. We had it about under control. The red trucks were a welcome sight when they got there and could make sure it was completely out.

But wildfires? You better not depend on them to keep your place from burning. I’ve seen enough to know that.

I’ve lived in Western Oregon where wildfires weren’t really as much of a thing, and when there was a fire, I think they tried to put them out. There just wasn’t hardly any.
But now in Central Oregon, it is much drier, more fires, and opaque operating processes.

[Ken]

For those of you who think the firefighting profession is getting too cautious. I would ask what you think is the appropriate number of firefighters to die every year? Should it be more or less than the current 89? https://www.nfpa.org/about-nfpa/press-r ... hs-in-2023

This is a silly question. How many civilians dying in fires is acceptable? There was 27 last count who died in LA. How many should die before a fire department is willing to accept any risk?

And a related question would be how much risk of life do you think is appropriate for firefighters to take in order to protect private property that is often set on fire due to the negligence of the property owner? That obviously isn't the case with the LA fires. But it frequently is for most ordinary fires.

Risk is part of life, and if a fire fighter is too scared of risk, I suggest he look into becoming a librarian or school teacher.

It isn't a silly question. Fighting fires carries risk and it is appropriate for the fire fighting profession to define what is the appropriate level of risk. Personally I have no idea whether they take too much risk, not enough, or have it about right. But the calculation itself is most certainly appropriate.

As for the people who died in LA. I'm not aware that any of them were due to excess caution on the part of fire fighters.

[R7ehr]

For those of you who think the firefighting profession is getting too cautious. I would ask what you think is the appropriate number of firefighters to die every year? Should it be more or less than the current 89? https://www.nfpa.org/about-nfpa/press-r ... hs-in-2023

This is a silly question. How many civilians dying in fires is acceptable? There was 27 last count who died in LA. How many should die before a fire department is willing to accept any risk?

And a related question would be how much risk of life do you think is appropriate for firefighters to take in order to protect private property that is often set on fire due to the negligence of the property owner? That obviously isn't the case with the LA fires. But it frequently is for most ordinary fires.

Risk is part of life, and if a fire fighter is too scared of risk, I suggest he look into becoming a librarian or school teacher.

It isn't a silly question. Fighting fires carries risk and it is appropriate for the fire fighting profession to define what is the appropriate level of risk. Personally I have no idea whether they take too much risk, not enough, or have it about right. But the calculation itself is most certainly appropriate.

As for the people who died in LA. I'm not aware that any of them were due to excess caution on the part of fire fighters.

What is excess caution?

[Ken]

This is a silly question. How many civilians dying in fires is acceptable? There was 27 last count who died in LA. How many should die before a fire department is willing to accept any risk?

Risk is part of life, and if a fire fighter is too scared of risk, I suggest he look into becoming a librarian or school teacher.

It isn't a silly question. Fighting fires carries risk and it is appropriate for the fire fighting profession to define what is the appropriate level of risk. Personally I have no idea whether they take too much risk, not enough, or have it about right. But the calculation itself is most certainly appropriate.

As for the people who died in LA. I'm not aware that any of them were due to excess caution on the part of fire fighters.

What is excess caution?

However you want to define it. I would define it as taking precautions that don't serve a real purpose. But are maybe there only because some lawyer thought they were a good idea out of an abundance of caution. Or because of some past lawsuit. There is probably always a lawyer involved.

[R7ehr]

It isn't a silly question. Fighting fires carries risk and it is appropriate for the fire fighting profession to define what is the appropriate level of risk. Personally I have no idea whether they take too much risk, not enough, or have it about right. But the calculation itself is most certainly appropriate.

As for the people who died in LA. I'm not aware that any of them were due to excess caution on the part of fire fighters.

What is excess caution?

However you want to define it. I would define it as taking precautions that don't serve a real purpose. But are maybe there only because some lawyer thought they were a good idea out of an abundance of caution. Or because of some past lawsuit. There is probably always a lawyer involved.

Can you give me an example of a precaution that doesn’t serve a real purpose? An example of excess caution?