Talk:Firefighter assist and search team

Firefighter Assist and Search Team merger proposal
See my comments on the Firefighter talk page. -- backburner001 17:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (Same comment I left at Talk:Firefighter) Although I think they are fine as separate articles, you have a point about the content not being very exapandible. I guess it would be okay to merge, but see what other people think. -- Nataly a  21:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (Identical comment left at Talk:Firefighter) The term FAST is very specific to American-style firefighting practices. During my eight years as a firefighter, I haven't heard of the phrase "FAST" ever used during firefighting operations. The concept of creating a team to rescue other firefighters is more of a tactical concept that is used when required operationally, rather than a "hard-and-fast" operational procedure that is part of every operational deployment. Most Incident Commanders, if they ever needed to rescue a firefighter in distress (a very rare occurance in Australian firefighting), would direct other firefighters to their rescue, rather than calling in a specialised team. I support the merge of the FAST article into the Firefighter article as one facet of firefighting operations, perhaps with a note regarding it's use. -- Jpmanalo 04:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am currently training in a Firefighter I class and this team is most commonly called a RIT team where I am from, but I think it should be merged, being as it is a portion of firefighter duties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.33.208 (talk • contribs)


 * It does go by both names, hence why "Rapid Intervention Team" is also mentioned the beginning lines. -- Nataly a 10:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging these articles would be like merging baseball pitcher with shortstop into baseball player. The FAST/RIT personnel have a specific job to do, with advanced training, equipment and tools. They cannot be engaged in firefighting per se while on RIT duty -- they are reserved for immediate search and rescue of other firefighters. Therefore, it seems clear to me that the articles should remain separate. The firefighter article is already bloated with subtopics. Lupinelawyer 18:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (certified NH FF)

I'm a firefighter, though I may not have a lot of years of experience, I have found in practice around here (NE Ohio) departments who have a specific RIT or FAST teams tend to use firefighters who are not assigned to other activities. I went to a state fire school and took the course on this, we happen to call it RIT, but the name isn't the topic of discussion. What they teach, is that it is very different. Though they are firefighters, and may be from an engine or truck and do suppression activities at times, when they are assigned to FAST they are geared up, packed up, air on, tool in hand, but are not engaged in suppression activities. Some even advocate keeping the team on hand for overhaul, as structure collapse can happen at this time as well. I therefore feel that this is not "firefighting" and therefore should not be merged.

I am an American volunteer member of a fire and rescue company in NJ. We train and certify in FAST team operations and respond as a FAST team in our district and adjoining townships. I think the articles should be merged unless other operational areas such as pump operation, overhaul, etc are also broken out. FAST teams only operate at fires, unlike other search and rescue operations. They are an integral part of fireground operations. Firefighting priorities are Life Safety, Incident Stabilization, and Property Preservation. FAST team operations are under priority number one. FAST team members must be expert at all other aspects of interior firefighting to be effective because they may need to operate a hose to defend the exit route, etc.PyroNemisis 19:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Firefighter page is a generalized umbrella article on being a Firefighter and it's duties. Merging the two articles would IMHO loose some of its fine points and just add to the lengthy article that already is the Firefighter article. --FiftyOneWicked 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe FAST/RIC/RIT is sufficiently different that merging the article with the general Firefighter article is inadvisable. I am a FF/EMT in a Washington State volunteer FD. Jclemens 16:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As separate as night and day
The duties of a RIT team are more of a rescue or specialized function of a firefighter rather than the traditional fire suppression duties. Linking the term RIT or FAST to the firefighter or technical rescue listing as a job function rather than an all-encompassing job description would be more appropriate in my opinion.

I think listing RIT or FAST gives a lay person an idea that RIT or FAST is a job a firefighter does in addition to fire suppression. In departments that do not embrace the concept of RIT or FAST, it may shed some favorable light; or at least an informed opinion.

In regards to the brother/sister from Australia, throughout the US RIT/FAST teams ARE a hard and fast operational procedure where a first alarm assigment company with a minimum of 4 people is dedicated to that position in addition to a RIT Chief. By "directing firefighters to perform this function" after a firefighter has transmitted a MAYDAY has been shown to be ineffective and chaotic. I agree that a firefighter in distress may not happen often, but there have been two RIT/FAST incidents in or adjacent to my fire district in the past year. One involved 3 firefighters in the bucket of a tower-ladder sustaining a indirect static lightning strike which rendered the personnel in the bucket incapacitated, the second involved a firefighter operating on the fireground transmitting a MAYDAY after being separated from his company under heavy fire conditions. By having a fresh, properly trained and equipped dedicated company, tragedy was averted. I understand that our RIT commitment may not mirror a national standard but based on our buildings and manpower, has become the norm.


 * I concur and am willing to shed some light on the situation in Germany:

Fire departments here now provide one RIT per SCBA-entry point. Usually, at least one of these teams wears a 2-bottle-SCBA (2x6.5 Litres at 300 bars) with an additional connector and a spare medium pressure line. Additionally, depending on the local FDs policy, they carry breaching tools, spare masks and means of transportation (rescue sleds, rescue "buckets" and rescue cloths), carbines and loops, as well as a firefighter's knife or rope cutters. These teams are posted just outside the entry point (outside of any smoke) and their sole responsibility is to immediatley assist fellow firefighters in distress. Additionally, any SCBA-squad not immediately involved in a rescue mission and with enough air left, will probably cease their current activity and proceed to assist the RIT (the same everywhere, I guess). The German term is "Sicherungstrupp" or "Rettungstrupp". On a personal note: When I got my SCBA-Qualifications, the RIT training was part of the course. And probably the most intense part as well, since we were doing it on a stopwatch, in a worst-case-scenario (2 squads missing, we were one of two RITs).

Regardless of what one assumes to be the fine details between the two abbreviations for this general field: I have noticed that it primarily comes down to the agencies specific designation of what an FAST, RIT, RAT, etc. is. Of course we could just use the national stance which would null and void my entire posting here.--FiftyOneWicked 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that they should not be merged. Eventhough it is a firefighter acting in the RIT/FAST role they are not fighting fire, they are performing a completly different job. If the decision is made to merge them then I believe that there needs to be something stating that even though this is a firefighter they are performing a different duty. Jrfireboy2 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization
Any thoughts on the way this article is capitalized? Since it's not a proper noun, normally it would be lower case (Firefighter assist and search team). If it were referring to a specific team, it would be upper case (the Engine 51 Firefighter Assist and Search Team). The Manual of Style at WP:CAPSACRS says that a word should not be capitalized just because it is used in an acronym. I suspect that in the firefighting literature it is often upper case, but I don't think it should be in a general encyclopedia. It's had this capitalization since the article was started in 2005, so I thought I'd check here before changing it. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 05:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)