# Paramedic helped residents escape house fire



## NepoZnati (Apr 25, 2010)

*Paramedic recounts how he helped residents escape Mount Kisco house fire*


> Residents of a multi-family house that caught fire Thursday night have a paramedic to thank for breaking into the smoking structure and warning them that their lives were in danger.
> 
> The fire on Maple Avenue displaced four families, but Westchester EMS Paramedic Jeff Slotoroff prevented a potential catastrophe by kicking open doors and alerting residents.
> ...



*READ HERE*


----------



## Flight-LP (Apr 25, 2010)

Glad he was able to help and possibly save a life, but the decision to enter the house was stupid. Do we not teach our volunteer firefighters the basics about protective gear anymore?


----------



## nomofica (Apr 25, 2010)

Flight-LP said:


> Glad he was able to help and possibly save a life, but the decision to enter the house was stupid. Do we not teach our volunteer firefighters the basics about protective gear anymore?



Pretty sure that a vFF on duty as a medic and not firefighter at the time would not have said protective gear available. He didn't get hurt, and that's all that matters.


----------



## Bosco578 (Apr 26, 2010)

As they exited, firefighters were arriving. About 100 firefighters from several area departments brought the fire under control

Are they sure they had enough help.............:usa:


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 26, 2010)

Flight-LP said:


> Glad he was able to help and possibly save a life, but the decision to enter the house was stupid. Do we not teach our volunteer firefighters the basics about protective gear anymore?


I remember watching a short Russian documentary about fire service. There was a line in it I kinda liked:

_"There are strict rules which govern what firefighters can and cannot do on a fireground. Presumably, if all of these rules were followed, firefighter's job would be no more dangerous than, say, truck or bus driver's job. The problem is, sometimes you have to violate these rules"._


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 26, 2010)

Flight-LP said:


> Glad he was able to help and possibly save a life, but the decision to enter the house was stupid. Do we not teach our volunteer firefighters the basics about protective gear anymore?


well, considering cops do this ALL THE TIME, I don't see how it is any different.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Apr 27, 2010)

DrParasite said:


> well, considering cops do this ALL THE TIME, I don't see how it is any different.


 
Excellent point. Just because a house is burning does not mean that if you step in the door without turnouts on you will die or get roasted, it just increases the possibility that you will. And I'm guessing the house was not that involved when he entered. Maybe his decision was risky, but he weighed his options and made a choice. Apparently he made the right one and that is all that matters. Saving a life will always involve risk. Some are willing to take more than others.

And I love that line foxbat.


----------



## Flight-LP (Apr 27, 2010)

nomofica said:


> Pretty sure that a vFF on duty as a medic and not firefighter at the time would not have said protective gear available. He didn't get hurt, and that's all that matters.



The reference was to imply that the presence of protective gear should be an absolute as this is generally what rookie FF's are initially taught. It wasn't meant as an assertation that he actually had gear at the time. Sorry for the confusion.


I am surprised at some of the responses. I actually interpret some folks are condoning entering a fire without gear, thus ignoring the principle of scene safety. If that is the case, how can you justify putting the emergency ahead of your own safety? It doesn't matter if there is a trickle of smoke or if its fully involved, the safety of providers is the first priority, every time. This doesn't seem to be a grey area to me, it appears quite black and white.


----------



## Flight-LP (Apr 27, 2010)

lightsandsirens5 said:


> Excellent point. Just because a house is burning does not mean that if you step in the door without turnouts on you will die or get roasted, it just increases the possibility that you will. And I'm guessing the house was not that involved when he entered. Maybe his decision was risky, but he weighed his options and made a choice. Apparently he made the right one and that is all that matters. Saving a life will always involve risk. Some are willing to take more than others.
> 
> And I love that line foxbat.



Just because shots are no longer being fired doesn't mean your scene is safe either. You still stage until PD secures the scene don't you? What is the difference?


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Apr 27, 2010)

Flight-LP said:


> Just because shots are no longer being fired doesn't mean your scene is safe either. You still stage until PD secures the scene don't you? What is the difference?


 
There are lots of differences. 

1. The perp with the gun is a human, the fire is not.

2. The shooter is out to get someone, the fire is inhuman and therefore not.

3. With a proper knowledge of fire behavior, you can pretty much anticipate what the fire will do, the shooter will act totally unexpectedly.

4. The fire follows the rules, the shooter does not.

5. The shooter may lay in wait for you to show up then start shooting again, the fire, while it may not be completely visable, will not be totally invisable.

6. Basically the fire is for the most part, predictable, the shooter is not.

The article is not a step by step synopsis of his actions so it is hard to say. I am assuming he used his knowledge of fire behavior to make his decision. 

I am a firefighter too. I can appreciate what he had to process before he entered. Based on what the article says and assuming everything else he say on scene was normal, I would have made the same choice. Wispy grey smoke is a good thing. It means the fire is breathing, but not that big yet. Not much danger of a backdraft or flashover. Yellow or orange smoke is very bad. Dark black usually comes only if petrolium products are involved or if the fire is really cooking.

Assuming all I saw when I arrived on scene was wispy grey smoke and a quick walk around didn't show anything too dangerous, I'd enter.

Besides, the guy is fine and so are the occupants. You may not be comfortable with the same decision, but you also don't have to live with it one way or the other. 

There is a WA State Trooper who works my county who, many years ago, had an MVA happen right in front of him. By the time he could get to the vehicle, it was mostly involved. While pulling the passenger out, his shirt was pretty much burned off and his belt buckle was heated to the point that it burned through his belt and branded him. And today he says that even if he knew he would be burned he would make the same choice.

You didn't have to make the call, don't say that medic made the wrong choice based on what the article said. Like I said earlier, just because the haise has fire in it does not mean you die or get burned just be stepping across the threshold. If you ever find yourself in the same situation, everyone will expect you to make the decision you personally are comfortable with.



Flight-LP said:


> I am surprised at some of the responses. I actually interpret some folks are condoning entering a fire without gear, thus ignoring the principle of scene safety. If that is the case, how can you justify putting the emergency ahead of your own safety? It doesn't matter if there is a trickle of smoke or if its fully involved, the safety of providers is the first priority, every time. This doesn't seem to be a grey area to me, it appears quite black and white.


 
I am not condoning entering a fire. I don't even enter fire _with_ turnouts on. I am condoning entering a structure that may possibly contain fire. Yes the safety of providers is paramount, but it may have been safe enough! You can't tell from the article. Emergency services involve risk. If my safety was so importaint that I never took risks, I'd be afriad to step out of the door in the morning. I'd be afriad to dirve code. I'd be afriad to enter an involved house with turnouts.

It is not just a grey area, but an area with multiple shades of grey. Manu multiple shades. Construction type, size, amount of smoke, location of smoke, presance of occupants, time of day, wtx conditons, you name it, it factors in. There is such a thing as risk vs. benefit (spelling? spelling of my whole dang post I guess.) Weigh the two, make a choice. In his case, the right choice was to enter. Now if you show up and the entire first floor is fully involved save the entryway, hall and stairs, do you enter? Heck no. That would be idiotic. But wispy black/grey smoke from the rear of the structure. Maybe. Factor in the other stuff, the chose.


----------

