Tim Olk was at Engine 91’s house on Sunday when they were sent to a car fire on Kostner Avenue at Parker. Arriving with the engine and finding a well-involved car, Tim was able to get photos before they got water on the fire.
Engine 91 arrived to find a well-involved sedan on Kostner at Parker. Tim Olk photo
Firefighters from Engine 91 stretch a line and go to work to knock down the fire. Tim Olk photo
After the flames have been extinguished, a firefighter moves in to pop the hood. Tim Olk photo
Tim has a gallery with more images HERE.
#1 by DH on January 19, 2012 - 10:18 PM
Tim, your work is brilliant, don’t let a few armchair quarterbacks or Saturday morning critiques keep you from shooting photos. And as far as the SCBA debate, yes, we should all be masked up at fires, but unless the department has a policy for such things where you will be reprimanded, the fault lies on the shoulders of those that choose to suck in the toxins and end up with cancer. They will have no one to blame but themselves. We all know it is toxic, some people are just very stubborn and hardheaded…
#2 by danny on January 19, 2012 - 5:47 AM
lay off tim he was just doin what he loves to do …. also i grew up in chicago and now live elsewhere and am a volly firefighter. when i go home and go to CFD houses and they do respect volly firemen but still give us a lil shit cause we’re not big city firemen. chicago is still an old school style job… lots of guys still think like the old timers that either taught them or taught the guys who taught them …. what was the old saying? 150 years unimpeded by tradition. this is the same department who just started wearing bunker gear in what 2005 or 2006? when most places had been using it for almost a decade? there is/was no real call to jump all over one photo, especially if it causes a man with great talent like tim to not want to share his work with us anymore
#3 by Michael W. on January 18, 2012 - 7:49 PM
See Tim, you prove my point. “and saw big flames” It’s a (*#& AUTO FIRE! The Pilgrim Church fire we had 5 years ago was “big flames” NOT THIS!!!
#4 by Bill on January 18, 2012 - 4:35 PM
The ego’s of some big city firefighters often get in the way of common sense. The fires of today are much hotter and (more) toxic. As far as disrespecting volunteer firemen, that shows that you really aren’t one yourself. Firemen quietly just do their jobs. I know, I’ve worked with them proudly.
#5 by Tim Olk on January 18, 2012 - 3:32 PM
Hello All,
I took the pictures but at the time did not think that taking these pictures would cause such a debate. I followed them to this call and saw big flames. In the future I will not send any pictures out
#6 by Tom on January 18, 2012 - 2:28 PM
I think you make a very good point about wearing a mask and the logistics of refilling your SCBA, Pat. The extension of the SCBA argument is that you would wear your mask with it as well and all fires where you’re put to work. I’m not sure how Chicago does it, but our large metropolitan department always has spares at the stations and most stations are now having cascades added. I just think it’s so important to keep safe that you should always make an effort to use your mask and SCBA.
#7 by Pat on January 18, 2012 - 12:34 PM
I understand that most department where SCBA’s on car fires, but how many actually put there mask on? Also if CFD engine companies went on air for every car fire and dumpster fire, they would be going to the firehouses that have extra bottles all day long. Remember this isn’t the burbs where almost every station has a cascade to fill bottles. Now I am not saying that E91’s house doesn’t have a cascade, just generalizing. Also how many guys out there in the burbs or other cities that wear air packs on car fires wear them on dumpster fires. Just as many people get hurt on dumpster fires as car fires from propane tanks in them, etc. Where I have worked, I have to wear an SCBA, but never get messed with if I don’t put my mask on. Whats the point to just having it on your back?
#8 by John H on January 18, 2012 - 10:53 AM
Michael W – that’s an excellent response that I hope you’ll remind this firefighter and his family of when he develops lung cancer at 45 years old and wonders what precautions he could have taken to avoid that death sentence. And if all of these CFD are so brave and all knowing that they don’t need gear for a silly car fire, then might as well leave the hat, coats, and gloves in the truck as well–after all, what could possibly go wrong with a silly car fire???
#9 by Tom on January 17, 2012 - 4:51 PM
Granted, with a little less than two years on a department, I am still young in my fire service career so take what I have to say for what it’s worth. But, from most of the training I’ve been through and academic work I’ve read, the overwhelming consensus is that one should minimize the amount of exposure to smoke they inhale. The amount of carcinogens and toxins that is present in the smoke and air of a fire (especially that of a vehicle) pose significant long term health risk in the form of cancer. Not to mention there is the added benefit of protection to your face from exploding materials or whatever else may happen when battling a vehicle fire (we’ve all seen the YouTube videos of worse case scenarios). While you may ask “Why”, I ask “Why risk it?”
#10 by Michael W. on January 17, 2012 - 1:56 PM
Because if anything is going to injure Chicago firemen (you know, the guys who ***ACTUALLY*** see action) it’s not going to be some car fire. CFD, and E91 specifically, isn’t some hick volly dept. that creams their pants every time they see a rubbish fire.
#11 by bill on January 16, 2012 - 11:11 PM
Why?
#12 by Tom on January 16, 2012 - 9:07 PM
No SCBA?