T. John

I agree with your assessment and you hit on a number of key points. The program, whether 3E or a version of it, is a significant shift in what we have been told and the way we have historically done business. Honestly, not everyone is up for it, especially in volunteer or on-call organizations. This requires effort and a shift in the way we engage our minds. Without going into great detail, most of the entry involves police and fire, primarily due to the resources that typically arrive quickly (fire, by its nature, often responds with the greatest numbers). The goal is to get patients out and onto an ambulance. Time is of the greatest importance, including getting patients to a hospital. Studies coming out of the war are showing a significant increase in survival with the application of a tourniquet, when needed (remember the day when we basically got rid of them?). There is not a lot, if any, triage. Get them out and to a hospital. EMS needs to be in a position to get in quick, load and go. Interestingly, the officers in CO realized this and, without any hesitation, loaded patients into police cars and drove them to the hospital.

Feel free to shoot me a private message here and I will try to get you some more details, or at least get you in touch with the program coordinator. They are in the final staging of receiving final DHS/FEMA approval for the program which will make it more readily available. It has been rolled out in the metro region (Minneapolis/St. Paul area) and we are starting to move it into the more suburban communities. I realize that benefit laws vary from state to state and even department to department. I agree with Dinosaur that this is something that should be lobbied for. I am sure that we all recognize that much of what we do today is governed by the way it was 100 years ago - we need to be brought into 2012 and look toward the future. The risks we face today have changed and the services we provide have increased. Agency Cooperation One thing I have noticed is that 3E (and similar multi-agency training programs) brings people together. While it may be training and a policy that, hopefully, we never have to put to use, it gets people in the same room working together. I was raised on the east coast and grew up in emergency services there, so I understand the silos and even, unfortunately, the turf wars that exist. To be frank, its time to get over it. These "hostile events" require cooperation and coordination. There isn't such a thing as "that's not my job" anymore. The public doesn't care and won't tolerate that excuse. The person that is bleeding inside an empty classroom and going into shock doesn't care; they want help. We are all trained to recognize and manage risk. It is part of our job and what we do. I have a very close working relationship with our local law enforcement here. The only reason that exists is because we work to make it be that way. In closing, agencies that begin to plan for these hostile events may find themselves developing a better day-to-day working relationships between each other. We, as emergency first responders, know that we are there to help support one another, regardless of what our badge or patch says.

This event is a reminder of how our jobs as emergency responders is changing. Hats off to all of the responders - police, fire and ems - in Aurora for the courageous acts that day, including that of the dispatchers. I am sure there will be lessons learned from our brother and sister responders that we all can take home. Until such time, I won't comment on the events there but rather some of the lessons we have learned from other events. Post analysis of the Columbine shooting and other high profile attacks revealed that first responders need to respond and react differently to hostile events. Hence new active shooter policies for police departments (i.e. rapid entry of patrol officers and not waiting for SWAT). One area that has been historically overlooked is how to treat/evacuate a mass number of victims from the "hot" zone. How do you reach and quickly extricate dozens, if not hundreds, of injured victims? Fire and EMS need to be included as part of a coordinated response to a hostile event. Police quickly become overwhelmed. We (non law-enforcement) have been trained to wait for an "all clear" or to know the scene is completely "safe." Post incident analysis' has showed that this approach doesn't work. In Columbine, victims were bleeding out but were unable to be reached. Realistically, it can take upwards of a few hours for an area to be deemed safe (by our traditional definition). There are efforts popping up across the county to address this issue. In Minnesota, for example, a program called 3E (3 Echo) is being rolled out that incorporates fire/ems into a coordinated response to a hostile event. The program is based on extensive research of past events both within the United States and across the world, taking best practices deploying in many countries (i.e. Israel) that see active terrorist activity, as well as research coming from the Iraq war. The program integrates police, fire and EMS into a coordinated, initial response with a goal to rapidly treat/evacuate massive numbers of patents within minutes (15-20 minutes or less) of a hostile event. From a fire/EMS perspective, it is a fairly significant shift in the paradigm of waiting blocks away for an "all clear" or for the scene to be 100% "safe." A collaborative approach will allow first responders to evaluate the risk/benefit, realizing that some risk will need to be taken. The key in this program is training, exercise and collaboration between first response agencies prior to an incident happening. Due to the sensitive and mission critical nature of the program, its training and policies, I can't go into much further detail online. Our jobs are changing. The fire service isn't what it used to be 30-40 years ago. While we can only hope that events such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Aurora will not happen in our own community, we cannot ignore the reality that, in 2012, we need to take a better look at how we (police, fire and ems) will respond to a hostile event. Its our job.

We regularly work alongside state and federal agencies at wildland fires. We have renamed all of our trucks to be typed according to the NIMS standard. In ICS, especially in large scale, multi-jurisdictional incidents, it is important that the right resources are ordered. If you order a tanker and you really want the one with wheels, it better be clear in the order. The entire purpose of NIMS typing is to standardize resources and capabilities. It may go against "tradition." As an IC, if I order a specific resource, I want to make sure I get what was ordered. There is a difference between a Type II and III engine, for instance. The same for a tender or tanker.

In MN, most Counties (if not all) have adopted a plain language system for naming/identifying apparatus and resources. {Department Name} + Resource Identifier. So, for Elk River, our first due engine is "Elk River Engine 1" and our heavy rescue is "Elk River Rescue 1". Command staff is the same. Chief of Department is Chief 1 (2, 3, 4 and so on for Assistant/Deputy Chiefs) and Captains and Lieutenants fall in line (i.e. Elk River Captain 1, etc). Makes it a lot easier when crossing county lines for mutual aid (we are situated in close proximity to four counties). Works well here!

I grew up in CT, volunteering in an organization that was governed by a set of bylaws and where Chief Officers were elected by the membership. I will defer my comments about this type of structure and focus on where I am now. I took a full-time Fire Chief's position with a combination/on-call Department in Minnesota. We have forty on-call (part-time) "employees". As a City department, all hiring (and firing) goes through Council. The Fire Chief is a department head, same as the Police Chief and other senior staff. I report directly to the City Administrator who in turn reports to the Council as a whole. All city employees are governed by City policy. While many fire departments "back in the day" used to be governed by bylaws, this is, largely, a thing of the past. Since the fire department is a City department and funded by tax dollars, it is operated just like any other City department. In fact, the League of Minnesota Cities has issued a number of white papers on the topic of "who's is in charge" that addresses the topics of hiring, promotions, firing, command and leadership. In short, any fire department in Minnesota that is funded through tax dollars is considered a public (City) entity. As such, the department must follow all applicable human resource laws. "Voting" on membership or hiring/firing, provisions that are typically found in traditional "by-laws", is thus discouraged - if not illegal. Ultimately, the Fire Chief (and the "city") is in charge. The City Council hired me and they are the only ones that can change that. I just sat through a neighboring Department's officer selection interviews with another outside Chief. This is an on-call Department similar to ours. Promotions are done objectively, often with an outside or third party assisting. We don't "vote" on employment matters including hiring, promotions, disciplinary matters or even firing. I do think that the answer to this question rests partly in the structure of your organization. Aside from the fact that we all ultimately "work" for the community, if officers or members are chosen by popular vote, I would argue they ultimately work for the membership. Hiring and promotional processes need to be blind and objective. While I am a firefighter first, I still have responsibilities of being a Fire Chief. Chief Officers need to know they can make decisions - even unpopular ones. Personally, I was hired by the City Council to serve the community and to lead my organization. Link: Fire Department Bylaws - Who's in Charge (League of Minnesota Cities)

Most Department's here in MN are paid on-call. Some of the larger department's operate 24/7 staffing using on-call firefighters (they bid for shifts and are paid). We have 40 on-call firefighters in addition to full-time command/admin staff.

In some situations, more is not always better and this, in my opinion, applies here. Just because a vendor comes out with a new type of light doesn't mean you have to install it. Effective lighting needs to be able to warn motorists from a distance and to mark where the emergency vehicle is parked and where crews might be operating. Looking at the video, the number of lights just makes the vehicle glow as if you are being blinded by a spotlight. At night, can a motorist see someone walking behind or near the vehicle with everything activated (or, can the first responders themselves working around the vehicle work without being blinded)? Will drivers become blinded by the sheer volume and brightness of the lights, unable to correct their vision to safely drive past an incident scene? What was wrong with just a lightbar and a few body mounted lights towards the rear? Has that been proven not to be effective? I am a strong supporter of creating a safe scene to work at, especially on limited access highways, but doing so itself has to be done safely. That is the reason we don't shine blinding lights into oncoming traffic. It is why we wear reflective vests at a scene. I can only imagine the amount of money invested into this vehicle. In times when the economy is still in the toilet and families are unable to make ends meet, investing in a needless amount of lights sends a wrong message to the community and to our elected officials. I also believe that vendors need to act responsibly when working with clients to determine what is actually required/recommended to do the job - nothing less, and maybe nothing more. It would be interesting to measure the amount of lumens put out by this vehicle at night - low or high power. Way too much, period.

Chris, Where in MN are you? I just moved to Elk River, MN in September and am the career chief for a 40 member paid-on-call Department. What specific questions do you have? Every department operates a little differently but I will be happy to answer any questions if I can. All of our members must reside within a 3 mile radius of the station and are required to respond to a minimum of 30% of all calls (this is strictly enforced) and mandatory training. All are considered "employees" of the City and are paid an hourly wage for each call they respond to (a minimum of a hour). Pay fluctuates depending on the person's position and there are step increases for additional training. All firefighters have regular day-time jobs and carry a pager. We have a number of City employees that are also on the Department so our day-time response is very good. The Department runs, on average, about 400 calls a year (no medical). The selection process is competitive and done through testing, interviews and passing a physical agility and background check. Unlike most volunteer departments, our officers are chosen through a selection process and not through popularity. In addition to a full time Chief, we have a full time Fire Marshal and Fire Prevention Specialist as well as a part time office assistant. We are also expanding a duty officer program which puts an officer on-call at all week nights and weekends with a City vehicle and they are paid on-call stipend. Although not a City agency or part of the fire department, the firefighters also operate the ambulance service which runs about 1,500 calls a year. All firefighters also collect benefits through a relief association. There is a variety of different models throughout the State. Some utilize paid-on-call positions to staff the department 24/7 (they rotate shifts) and some are still all volunteer. It all depends on where you are. It has been a very enjoyable experience to date. I have a very professional team of firefighters that are extremely talented and hard workers. John

A new website is now online, presented by Stamford Local 786. http://www.stamfordfiretruths.org/ "The purpose of this site is to help educate and inform Stamford residents on pertinent matters related to firefighting, technical fire science issues and responses to emergencies within the community. We encourage Stamfordites to utilize this site to increase your ability to participate in the current dialogue about fire protection." They are also on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FireTruths

The Town of Greenwich (CT) will be taking delivery of its new heavy rescue truck within the next few weeks. I will post more pictures and details once they are available. The truck is assigned to the Sound Beach station in Old Greenwich. The current Rescue 5 (Ford L9000 w/ E1 walkin body) is being converted for the SBVFD Dive Team.

There was a lot of discussion and consideration given to the type of doors to be included on the truck. There was concern with the committee that, due to the low height of the truck, that the rollups would take up too much compartment space. This also prompted the two Hurst pumps to be mounted in the upper compartments as well as reels. The rollups also cut down on the cost of the vehicle. The doors also provide a mounting platform for small tools and misc. equipment. Regarding the issue of apparatus placement, when the truck is being used, it is not the last truck in line at the incident. When functioning as a "rescue", it is typically the closest truck to the actual operation and additional protection is provided by other vehicles to include appropriate clearance on either side for personnel operating in/around the vehicle.

Just because a State is not an "OSHA state" doesn't mean OSHA doesn't apply. The States that you refer to as OSHA States have developed their own job safety and health program (either public, private or both). In these States, the minimum standards are what OSHA sets at the federal level. States may choose to have more stringent standards but can not do less. States that do not have their own safety and health programs still fall under the regulations of federal OSHA. More information can be found at: http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/faq.html#oshaprogram

Below is a link to my Editorial to a series of articles regarding the effort of the BET for the Town of Greenwich to essentially cut the Emergency Manager's position. Greenwich Time Articles: 03/17/2010 - In wake of deadly storm, Tesei pushes for emergency management funding03/12/2010 - Tesei to press BET to reinstate funds for emergency management post02/26/2010 - Tesei chides BET for recommended funding cut to emergency management post02/25/2010 - BET votes to slash emergency management funds

Attached is the CAD drawing of the new rescue along with a comparison drawing of the old truck that is going to be converted for the Dive Team. Also, the link I posed previously went bad. Here is a link to more pictures. http://picasaweb.google.com/SoundBeachFireRescue/ApparatusNewRescue5 13613 - SBVFD OLD RESCUE.pdf 22523 - SBVFD NEW RESCUE.pdf

More pictures are available at: http://picasaweb.google.com/SoundBeachFireRescue/Rescue5 I am not sure of the wheelbase as I can't seem to find the drawing on my laptop. The truck was modeled after the technical rescue truck from Port St. Lucie FL. The back compartment is designed to carry trench equipment and dimensional lumber. A lot of engineering was put into this truck. The purpose was to combine 3 trucks into one as a dedicated heavy rescue truck. I have since taken a new job outside of CT but will try to keep everyone posted.

I am a member of a number of forums, newsgroups, blogs and other interactive online resources. Today, I typically browse to see what the current discussions are about but rarely contribute as I just don't have the time. I do, however, enjoy the commentary and what people have to say. Compared to every site I visit, this forum has the highest number and most frequent posts concerning censorship, banning, what is appropriate/what is not and consistent reminding of the forum rules. Granted, I haven't run a statistical analysis but this is my observation. I realize rules are rules and the administration has made a strong effort to maintain a professional tone on this forum. Having worked in the technology/online field for over 12 years, I understand the complexities of running a site such as this. I applaud the administration for obviously devoting considerable time to this site. I do, however, want to encourage everyone to let the discussions flow. There will be times when there are disagreements, in-accurate information, hurt feelings (QTIP) and heated conversations. Don't forget, however, that this is the Internet. Unless it's a .gov or .edu address, don't rely on the information you read online as "source material". Take it for what it is worth. And, please, common sense should dictate what is posted and how you read it. Just my opinion.

I was at an airport about 3 months ago and witnessed someone doing the same thing. Needless to say, it was a little disconcerting not knowing exactly what the person was doing. After a quick Google search, I figured out exactly what it was the person was doing. It did cause a bit of a stir among the passengers in the terminal but no one said or did anything. Having had over 10 years of Catholic education, I don't recall ever hearing about this prayer method. Having witnessed it firsthand, it is quite an intense thing to watch. I can understand their concern.

One of the most frequently overlooked requirements is the ability of a member to actually swim. I am a strong believer that anyone operating on/near/in the water in an official capacity should be able to pass an annual swim test including boat operators. We developed two versions. The basic swim test is designed for anyone operating in an "operational" capacity including dive tenders, boat operators, etc. The advanced swim test (the IADRS version which NFPA adopted) is given to anyone operating at the technician level (swiftwater or SCUBA). The physical requirements required of members participating on a water rescue team are very different than many other tasks first responders encounter. Boat operators also need to go through proper training for the vessels that they will be operating - especially in a rescue mode. Rescue boat operations are extremely dangerous and personnel need to have the proper training/equipment to do the job. Just as no one should be driving a fire truck without the proper training, no one should be operating a boat without the proper training (regardless of size, design or horsepower). Just having a USCG safety certificate does not constitute proper training of a marine rescue boat (any recreational boater in CT is required to have one). I would also stress that Department's need to evaluate their specific capabilities. Just because you may have a boat and cold water suits doesn't necessarily make a water rescue team or marine unit. I see many Departments using the "ice commander" suits as a one-type-fits-all suit - they have very specific limitations and people need to be aware of them. If you are calling for mutual aid, be specific in what you need and know what you are getting.

It all depends on what you plan on doing with it. You need to make sure you have a "plan" if you are going to make the investment with the technology. Will it be integrating with CAD/dispatch? GPS enabled? Security considerations also need to be taken into consideration. Just mounting a computer in a truck with no software or shortcuts is not very useful. You also need to make sure you have someone keeping the computer updated/current. You also need to consider the type of computer and the use it will get. A Panasonic Toughbook (or similiar) will cost $4,000 plus. The newer CF30 computers also have an integrated modem (Gobi). I would also check with your State to see if you can get on a State contract (Verizon, AT&T, etc.) Before you select a Wireless carrier, I would check the signal strength in your rig. I would be sure to mount an external antenna given the amount of material that will be surrounding the cab of the truck/computer.

Article: http://www.greenwichtime.com/ci_13059181 Slideshow: http://theadvocatephotos.com/soundslides/20090812dive/

Rest in peace, Jordan. My thoughts and prayers are with your family and all of the members in North Madison. There is a network of people to help if you need it.

Members of the Sound Beach Volunteer Fire Department in Old Greenwich, CT completed a Swiftwater Rescue Level I training program this past weekend. The course involved classroom and hands-on exercises. The first day of hands-on training took place locally near one of the dams in Town and later on Long Island Sound. The second day was held in upstate CT on the Housatonic River. The course was funded by an Assistance to Firefighters Grant and was taught by Technical Rescue Consultants and Blackwater SCUBA and Water Rescue. Over the past year, Sound Beach has been working to expand the capabilities of the Water Rescue Team to be better equipped and trained to handle fast-moving water (mostly as the result of severe weather). The Department also has a dive team. Additional pictures are available online at: Pictures from Practical Exercises (Day 1) Pictures from Practical Exercises (Day 2)

Anytime! We are eagerly looking to get the ball rolling with production on the truck. It will be a 38' non-walkin heavy duty rescue designed specifically for technical rescue ops. It will be equipped for VMR, heavy metal cutting, confined space, rope, trench and collapse response. The truck will carry 6 fin-forms and various dimensional lumber for trench/collapse operations. The current plan is to move the Sound Beach Water Rescue & Recovery Team to what is the current rescue as it is more suitable for water operations (walk-in). We will keep everyone updated as we move closer to production and getting more details.

Pierce was the only bidder. We are still in the process of going through the bid so it hasn't been awarded as of yet.