regulatory definition of suppression of fires in other words when we know that someone is suppressing fires if you're somebody whose job is to lay out the hoses for example how do we know that somebody who lays hoses but doesn't and perhaps not even authorized to actually walk into the building is not suppressing fire i think we have to look at the ordinary meaning of the word gather you're skipping over what seems to me the hard question here which is who's actually what constitutes fighting the fight why am i not fighting the fire if i'm laying out hoses and connecting question it told with travelling to or fro the side of the fire or the fire house is a distinction that's correct on a decision was not that he was excluded from that because he was transferred to the are out there and you have you have a crew of five people one of whom is principally responsible for driving the truck to the site of the fire another is responsible  for spreading let's say cutting away brush to keep the fire front to from spreading all over the fire lines and three others who are responsible for actually going into the handling taking out the brush due to taking out the brush people who drive the truck drive the truck people who actually hoses man homes they despise which among them in that way but nonetheless they're all there at the when the person who's chopping the brush away in the in the face of an oncoming fire in order to try to keep the fire from jumping onto adjacent property would that person be fighting fires a he's doing which is to cut the brush away i mean i think the media can't say well a firefighter or somebody who's authorized to fight fires and to say that's the end of that the matter without and providing food and coffee is not fighting fire any person lay person on the street to be doing their job is just a fire fighter and by doing that by fighting that training and providing food and water catching fire doing whatever one does within the ambit of the fire itself you're saying that's excluded from the special compensation safeguards or do the heavy work and isn't it a factor that is because he was on his bicycle going to the side of the fire is concerned to giving him full fledged firefighter treatment  that they can only provide the water outside the structure is what if one of the i think one of the one a representative from the fire department testified at the hearing correct yes and i think he said that christopher kin situation where someone in his circumstance was working outside what they thought was the zone to collapse that someone had made a mistake or there was an explosion and nevertheless it turned out that we're he was performing his duties that was recently interpreted five to mean a person is authorized to fight fires and this court's recent decisions hopkins says to itself is actually a force that the for your situation you say would be different if pennsylvania i come back to my original question is i'm still not entirely satisfied that i understand the agency's position as to what constitutes fighting fires i say you tell me that well the agency has got a clear position which is a firefighter somebody who fights fires and if that's that circular definition answers in this case and all other cases in which problems can arise it seems to me it doesn't my example i'm still troubled by my example of a forest fire fighter five firefighters who not all of whom may actually be wielding a hose but all of whom are essential to the task of fighting the fires now does the agency give us any more help with respect to what is the line between someone who in the most the clearest most indisputable form of activity fighting the fire versus someone who is involved in the directly involved in the activity of fighting the fires that may not actually be manning a hoax is there any help with anything either in the regulations or in any of the adjudication that will tell us give us a standard that the authority to fight fires i'm looking for something other than the circular statement that a fire fire is a person who has authority to fight fires with no guidance as to who those people are when you actually get down to the on the street after a few was informed that her son's name could not be on the national fallen by her writer's mind and her ensured she was told that her son was not going to be the supposed to do and it said in addition to providing direct financial compensation to the families of the cease fire fight these fires testimony before the committee indicate that this legislation will also significantly increase the morale of firefighters fire personnel and will greatly assist the state and local governments in their recruiting efforts this bill also represents a recognition and your practical appreciation a practical expression of appreciation for the dedicated and meritorious services which have been provided by firefighters who left made i mention that congress was a member of this fire company was an active member sworn in nobody is this agreeing with that he met the requirements he was fourteen years of age and good moral character and he was sworn in and the what the agenc active members are in active members and there are senior members and christopher penley this was an active now as i said this whole case got started on the left foot because they were eating salmon or when we looked at a activities they can just as easily fall off that high ladder or have a real problem with a high pressure hose as they could being the worship person who's sitting in cap number two or seat number two on the fire truck that is probably going to go viral and some pool goes through a red light and hits the fire truck and the three environment killed inside our truck and one of which happened to be we're to your fifteen years old you know now let me make sure i understand your position you're saying that on it as you understand the regulations be a person who's a dispatcher who died not at a fire having been called up and emergency duty to go fight the fire but not know shit who cannot authorize to actually go in building authorized to be a dispatcher and who dies at his or her po by the help that person is entitled to firefighter status under the rex yes and i'm in his her position of advocating something that was written but you're asking me to support something that was written by by  statute here the public safety officers benefit act which is usually the statute we're dealing with do you think that it's clear on its face as to its command or do you think it's a situation where there course looking for things they can do that would be looked upon as hazardous on the space that is one what is your what is your your best response you think really to the argument that the government makes that this case turns on what pennsylvania statutes say in other words so you had a situation where a statute said someone who is at the age of fifteen to give you all they can do  s which seems to me at least somewhat at odds with the breath that you think the statute and the regulations extend to and that let me just you're familiar with it said page seventeen there are and it is and  state is there any state to your knowledge you may or may not be able to answer this where someone of the age of fourteen could perform what anyone would recognize as firefighting duties i don't have function of their jobs even though the officers performing desk assignments are primarily about even though indirectly in control time reduction in crime or fire like they have somebody sitting at a desk is