• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
  • Hello all! We will be performing a website & forum update soon. You may get logged out so now is the time to make sure your email address in your account is correct - go to your account to check it and update it now. Send us a message with your username and/or email address if you need help.

I hate for this to be a first post, but....

New posts
I spoke with a crew at a fire station this evening & they confirmed that a WCFR fire truck (E 11) was dispatched to a structure fire & showed up on scene with no water in the truck. Luckily the fire was out when they got there. Unfortunately the luck will run out one day & someone will get seriously hurt, or worse, before things change at WCFR.

I also found out that they are seriously under manned on their fire trucks. As a taxpayer in Walton County I am upset that we have 1 person on a fire truck at most stations. How is WCFR better than what we had in the past with volunteers? At least when we had volunteers we had several people show up at calls, most of which have more contact with fires than the ones we have now.

Sorry for the rant, this just upsets me.
 
Tight Wad
As the WCFR matures and the budget that they get is enough to provide the service the people want, then they will have more than 1 or 2 people on the trucks. I believe that volunteers still play a part in departments that WCFR has taken over, maybe not to the extent they once but they still are there.
 
Please edumacate me - how the puck is dispatching an empty truck w/ only one person it an effective way to fight fires?

Based on my rather limited experience w/ firefighting I was under the impression that several people were needed just for basic operations like holding/directing a fire hose etc. Even flushing the hydrants is a 2 person job from what I've seen. :idontno:
 
It's not safe or effective, but when you are limited by your budget, something is better than nothing. With the push for lower taxes and Constitutional Amendments, it will eventually affect services provided. Whether that means roads don't get paved or libraries close early, or reducing the amount of Fire, EMS or Police or Sheriff protection we receive. Going to the fire with an empty truck will obviously affect the outcome. Hope this helps.
 
I'm assuming that they did not intend to go without the water. All 4 lights burned out on the pump panel perhaps?
 
I dont' think it is the most safe and effective way but budgets do limit what they can do. Even in tough times they should be able to afford shirts and at the very least, (see post #1), keep them on...
 
Cut & pasted from WZEP1460.com

"Walton Fire Rescue Looks Into Truck With No Water

Bill May, C Shift Walton Fire Rescue Battalion Chief investigated an incident at the Mossy Head station where a report came a fire truck responded with no water in it’s tank. May’s investigation showed that on August 6, Engine 11 responded to a structural response call. May says he received a call later in the day from Volunteer Richard Mason stating that Engine 11 did not have water in the tank when the crew responded to the call.

During his investigation, May says he made contact with 3 of the 4 personnel involved, Lt. Lusk, Roach, and Pippin. May said each reported basically the same information.

The Engine had been sent for repair and was being returned that morning. Lt. Lusk had called for Medic 11 to assist with moving equipment from the reserve Engine back to the primary unit. Prescott drove the unit to Station 11 (Highway 90 West) and was to return with the reserve Engine to Station 4. During the swap of equipment, Lt. Lusk found a note to the pump engage lever that she read (and was later verified by H. Roach) “New water in tank”. Lt. Lusk later found the meaning of the note to be “needs water in tank” not there was water in the tank. May says the note had been written in a hurry by maintenance person working on the CAFS when the unit was leaving after repair.

The Engine 11 crew (Lt. Lusk, H. Roach) stated that after taking about an hour swapping the equipment in the midday heat, they had gone into the station for something to drink and to cool down. They were inside approximately 15 minutes when the call was received for the structural response.

May says Medic 11 had arrived on scene first, making contact with the resident who stated he had the fire out. Medic 11 crew (G. Pippin, J. Lovell) packed out and entered the residence to verify the extinguishment of the fire. All other responding units were cancelled.




In his conclusion, May says:
  • After a repair, whether major or minor, the repair should be checked for operational proficiency prior to placing a unit or piece of equipment back in service.
  • All components of a vehicle that ensure it to be operational should be checked prior to placing that vehicle in service.
  • Lt. Lusk stated she accepts full responsibility for this incident. He says he disagrees, Holding all personnel involved responsible to varying degrees.
The Battalion Chief says he counseled with the 3 primary personnel involved in reference to the conclusions."
 
You have made good points. It is obvious that those responsible have been held accountable, whether the punishment fits the offense is not for me to judge. Obviously B/C May made some good points to prevent this from happening in the future which is positive and corrective in nature. In the end, if you as a resident/ taxpayer have issues with this type of incident you can talk with Chief Rivers or Mr. Baltzley at the EOC and address your concerns with them, if that fails talk to your County Commissioners.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter












                               
Back
Top