Aggressive vs Reckless Tactics

By Douglas Cline
The Kitchen Table

There is a general attitude of "It won't happen to me" in the fire service when it can. Safety and survival starts prior to the incident and continues throughout the incident with actions and attitudes both before and during the incident.

For years I have heard firefighters internationally say, "we have to be aggressive when combating fires, that's what we do." I pose the question, "are we being aggressive or are we being reckless in our tactics?" There is a fine line that often gets crossed. It is fed by the mentality "this is the way we have always done it" or "I have been doing this for years and nothing has ever happened."

I want folks to stop and think differently for a moment. If you were playing Russian Roulette what would be your odds? Now revert back to some of the tactical operations and decisions that you have either made or were required to carry out. What were the outcomes? What were the "odds" that the outcomes could have been different?

To be blunt most times these aggressive mentalities involved no rescue efforts, the building was non-tenable and torn down within 30 days after the event. So what did we really gain? Experience? Instant gratification of being able to fight fire? All for what? Experience that embeds outdated tactics and philosophies, risks far exceeding the benefits, and it is all fun until somebody gets hurt or killed. Then we write it off as part of the job and what is expected (I have actually heard that more times than I care to).

Aggressive is good only when it is calculated based upon true situational awareness and evaluated based upon a risk benefit analysis where the gains are high and probable for positive outcomes. Recklessness will eventually catch up to you. Risk a lot for a savable human life, risk nothing for what can be replaced.