This past week on the fireground, between the fireground advances and unit structure fire review, we made several phone calls back and forth about the same incident and the perception of operations. Both parties seem to understand the importance of the incident and the dialogue flowed easily on subjects such as the frustration with us being on the same page view, differences in communication since the incident and the desire to work together. The emphasis, as always, is on the mutual respect that both sides feel for the incident and the difference between fair and unfair criticism. If there is a disconnect in communication it is up to the firefighter and line officer to work through the incident commander and the incident commanding officer about how to resolve the issue.
I appreciate the dialog about what is perceived by the firefighters and first responders and I look forward to the opportunities to speak to both groups. On Friday, 16 December, I received an email from Christopher Naum, a division chief in the email address used at the incident, about the same incident but with a different orcompany name. I have no further details to share at this time.
The important thing to understand is that, as I understand it, the company having the fewer available seats on the first engine had the option to perform a less strenuous search of the fire building. This was done, ostensibly, to confirm the presence of occupants and, in this case, to look for children.Disclaimer: The preceding content was generated by an AI algorithm, trained on millions of points of data scoured from the web. It is constantly updating itself, but while some of the information presented in this article may be true, none of the facts have been verified.