It does yes, but not as yu might think. I am totally against GLs, a subject more than covered in a prior thread. We are still firefighters when we need to firefight. We also still train in these skills, we also now do community safety work, as our first goal is to save life. This has always been the case, but which is actually better saving a life that is alreay in peril, or saving it from getting into the peril?................ Yes the former may give you hero status and be more exciting, but the latter gives more satisfaction and is morally, socially and humanely more acceptable. So I would rather fit 1000 smoke detectors that prevent people being trapped in a fire than rescue 1 from a fire.
Now to GLs...then modern Ff has many tools at their behest, DRA (oh no Health and Safety? well yes sorry it is, but it is no petty rule it is sense) that will inform the IC when not to commit, PPV that will clear smoke logging, TICs that allow you to have visibility and then there is the 7(2)d that will have created a plan already, the FSO who will have recommended precautionary fittings (smoke extraction, sprinklers, protected areas etc) all these together should mean we do not go into large buildings following a piece of string.
Yes Gillender St showed the need to use GLs correctly if they are to be used at all, but how many people have actually looked at the size and layout of that building? Would you have ever dreamt of using a GL? If, and we know this is the case, they are so difficult to operate safely and correctly then why have them? Yes if you train with them constantly you will improve, but they will still cause accients, take too long to layout to be of any use in saving lives and we have so many other safer things to use instead. The real story to come out of that (and Fleur Lombard's death was in a small supermarket - size like you find in suburban estates not a supestore size at all - where GL was also being laid) is do not use GLs. The hose lines in G St were not submerged, indeed some had no water in so the posssibility of submersion through run-off was a tad unlikley. If you want to argue that G St did nothing to demonstrate the inherent dangers associated with GL use then you need to see the full picture, not just the bit about the teams getting confused at the branch line join. Remember how they became confused for a start, ages in a very hot atmosphere (no water applied to fire by them, time spent laying a GL and no ventilation in use) being mainly contributory.
It's about time Firefighters were professionals using the latest equipment and not old ladies knitting with bits of string.
Some excellent points made here, but there are a few points that should be considered in addition to your points.
YES we should be saving the lives of the public in the best way possible, if this means that we put up lots of smoke alrms to do this then I am fine with that, what I'm not fine with is the way that certain senior officers come along with unreasonable targets which are just grasped from nowhere other than their empty minds and demand that operational firefighters "Just get on with it" The fact that probationary firefighters are missing out on their training due to watch managers desperate not to fail in their target returns shows the bad management of the watch managers and the bosses in charge of them. I always remember the saying that "we save ourselves first, then the public", "not save the public when they are in their homes by fitting smoke alrms and not train at all then not have a bleedin clue if we get a job anywhere else"
You mentioned Fleur Lombard, the fact that a guideline was being used at the time in no way overcomes the bad practice of entering a building which is well alight without firefighing media, I think that may also have been a major contributing factor.
Gillender Street, you are making my arguments for me, crap training regimes and lack of discipline on all counts, you mentioned that the hose lines wouldn't be under water, fine, I agree, but were they not using it as a method of tracing their path to and from the seat of fire?
The fact that they applied no water to the fire once they got to it...... again, lack of training and discipline.
I have no doubt that we should investigate the use of other methods and use other equipment when fighting fires but once again, these items of equipment need just as much training or the use of them will be just as dangerous. I have experienced very recently a watch manager who had received offensive ppv training only 1 week before who wanted to switch on a ppv fan to ventilate a building which had 2 ba teams in it, yet there was a loss in radio comms and no exhaust had been made. This was his DRA and mine was to tell him to get his head back in his books before he killed somebody.
In addition to this, I have also come across firefighters who did not understand that a TIC will give a false image if pointed at a reflective surface such as a mirror or a flat vehicle panel. Neither did they know that it would not show depth the same as normal vision and there was still a need to use the correct BA shuffle whilst moving along. This is because when they received new TIC's, it was switched on, everyone took a glance through it at each other then passed it along without knowing anything about it........... Lack of training !!!!!
All these points come down to lack of training with the equipment, the comments about Gillender St and Fleur Lombard...... what can I say, we are all a bit older and wiser these days but the messages are still the same, we need to be proficient with our equipment before we are sent on the run putting up smoke alarms. Guide lines are there and as long as there are gaffers wanting to use them we better be damn sure we know what we are doing with them or some high flier will get a firefighter or 2 killed and at the end of the day it will be everyone's fault for not knowing their job.
