모두
← Back to Squawk list
No charges against firefighters in Asiana 214 crash
A firefighter responding to a San Francisco plane crash who ran over and killed a survivor covered in flame-retardant foam will not be charged. (www.bbc.co.uk) 기타...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Dear friend PhotoFinish, talking of fire fighting protocols, it reminds me to highlight the roles of two groups with in fire fighters.
One who are equipped to fight the fire and the second with SAR mission. Their task and therefore the equipment are totally different from each other.
Both are distinctly different in responsibilities and hence different in their respective approaches to the task.
Here we are talking about the member of the fire fighting group. Who had a job vastly different from rescuing.
This driver ought to be and will be viewed in similar context.
The death of the girl, qua this driver , an ACCIDENT.
One who are equipped to fight the fire and the second with SAR mission. Their task and therefore the equipment are totally different from each other.
Both are distinctly different in responsibilities and hence different in their respective approaches to the task.
Here we are talking about the member of the fire fighting group. Who had a job vastly different from rescuing.
This driver ought to be and will be viewed in similar context.
The death of the girl, qua this driver , an ACCIDENT.
Just to add a couple things to the PhotoFinish comment below. The firefighters were performed different roles in the event. As a generalization, they all were trained in each of the roles and could perform any of them as assigned. While performing separate roles they are aware of the expectations of the other roles.
The drive was traveling through and over the debris field in order to reach the fire. Tragically, in doing so, the driver altered the girl's status from victim to debris. Harsh, I know.
The drive was traveling through and over the debris field in order to reach the fire. Tragically, in doing so, the driver altered the girl's status from victim to debris. Harsh, I know.
Short Simple and to the point.... It is that simple.... Even though the family probably feels the same... It would be different if the girl was standing up and facing the fire truck in the middle of the runway, but she was covered in the debris to begin with. As bad as it sounds, she probably would have died before being found with her exiting the plane injuries.
I wouldn't necessarily divide them that way, although what you said was true. Every single firefighter is trained to remove people from burning building and other dangerous scenes.
The difference here is the massive numbers of victims. Expectations have to be readjusted in a mass causality incident.
In this situation it may have appeared to the firefighter crews, that the earlier rescuers may have left the 'body' on the ground as a causality of the incident, and went on to treat the treatable.
These firefighters were moving toward a burning plane and were circling it to cover it in foam to control the active fire that had engulfed it. Within few minutes of the crash, the forward passenger sections were engulfed in a fireball. The scene was an extremely dangerous and volatile situation.
It didn't occur to the 1 firefighting crew that saw the 'body' left behind on the ground, to leave the relative safety of their vehicle to check on/ move a 'body' just feet from an airliner engulfed in fire. It likely seemed more appropriate to put out the fire so that no others would be killed by the fire, including the very personal that had just run 'toward' the fire when everyone else ran away.
In a MCI incident these things are possible. Namely, bodies left behind for dead, while the limited hands help the living. So it would be reasonable for other responders to see a 'body' lying on ground after rescuers depart the area to have been left behind as beyond help.
There is no duty to endanger oneself to save another. Brave individuals do so everyday, but they are going beyond the call of duty to do so. In fact, the first rule if reuse is to assess the scene and not put yourself in a dangerous situation and add to the casualty list, and create more victim requiring assistance.
So, I wasn't joking when I advised to not get left behind after an evacuation of a burning plane, when everyone else is running away for their lives. The rules in mass casualty are different.
The difference here is the massive numbers of victims. Expectations have to be readjusted in a mass causality incident.
In this situation it may have appeared to the firefighter crews, that the earlier rescuers may have left the 'body' on the ground as a causality of the incident, and went on to treat the treatable.
These firefighters were moving toward a burning plane and were circling it to cover it in foam to control the active fire that had engulfed it. Within few minutes of the crash, the forward passenger sections were engulfed in a fireball. The scene was an extremely dangerous and volatile situation.
It didn't occur to the 1 firefighting crew that saw the 'body' left behind on the ground, to leave the relative safety of their vehicle to check on/ move a 'body' just feet from an airliner engulfed in fire. It likely seemed more appropriate to put out the fire so that no others would be killed by the fire, including the very personal that had just run 'toward' the fire when everyone else ran away.
In a MCI incident these things are possible. Namely, bodies left behind for dead, while the limited hands help the living. So it would be reasonable for other responders to see a 'body' lying on ground after rescuers depart the area to have been left behind as beyond help.
There is no duty to endanger oneself to save another. Brave individuals do so everyday, but they are going beyond the call of duty to do so. In fact, the first rule if reuse is to assess the scene and not put yourself in a dangerous situation and add to the casualty list, and create more victim requiring assistance.
So, I wasn't joking when I advised to not get left behind after an evacuation of a burning plane, when everyone else is running away for their lives. The rules in mass casualty are different.
Keep in mind, these fire fighters would've risked their own lives and boarded the plane and attempted to rescue any passengers still in there, had the evacuation not been announced as complete.
So the 'body' on the ground that was unmoving and unresponsive was considered dead by the only crew to have seen her. Had she shown any signs of life, they would've been the ones endangering their own lives to get her away from the airliner engulfed in flame.
So the 'body' on the ground that was unmoving and unresponsive was considered dead by the only crew to have seen her. Had she shown any signs of life, they would've been the ones endangering their own lives to get her away from the airliner engulfed in flame.
I just went back and re-read an earlier story on the tragedy and it states the girl was covered in foam. If that is the case, the firefighter who ran her over clearly isn't at fault. But - what about the guy who covered her in the foam? That's kind of odd.
The firefighters who arrive to fight the fire on a commercial airliner are too occupied with their firefighting duties and are apparently trained to ignore casualties left for dead on the airfield, after all other passengers, crew and earlier first responders evacuate the dangerous scene.