NoWestFF

You know the consolidation of volunteer departments without the addition of any paid personnel could be a significant improvement over the completely arcane system we have now. Everyone immediately assumes that consolidation implies paid but it doesn't! How about merging 4-5 districts that serve the same town? Or the countless villages that rely heavily on each other and are smaller than a postage stamp.
Imagine a River Towns or Sound Shore or North County Fire District with several former departments under one hierarchy. Economies of scale in purchasing, reduction of apparatus numbers (and the ability to have "spares", something virtually non-existent outside the big cities), higher personnel counts, standard training, administration and operations, to name a few.
A member department with strengths in one area can help one weak in that area and so on. Officers can be vetted from a larger pool of candidates improving the quality, competition, and ultimately performance. Chiefs will oversee a bigger department giving them more experience. Budgets can be consolidated perhaps reducing the overall cost to the taxpayer.
There's a lot to be said for consolidating and it doesn't mean adding ONE paid guy.

Yes, Golden's Bridge decided to keep the 1988 Volvo/White tanker so the Department now has two tankers available for responses.

I'll bite. I really don't correlate those who propose safe fireground practices with writing off civilians. Most fire service leaders who advocate these changes are doing their jobs and looking to protect their members. The thought that our attempt to be safe on the fireground is killing or going to kill more civilians in fires is backed up by what? They are dying because they don't have working smoke detectors. The fact is the vast majority of fireground traumatic fatalities occur when there was no legitimate civilian life hazard. Are there savable civilians who die in fires? Probably but I doubt the cause is a safety mindset in the fire service. If we could get some departments on scene faster and train all our members to be on their A game when they get off the rig we'd be better serving the civilians that count on us. When the homeowner meets you on the lawn and says everyone is out should get treated differently then when you pull up and 3AM and no one meets you. Those the preach things like aggressive search regardless of intelligence gathered during size-up are pandering to the group that wants to hear that. I get it we all want be aggressive and fight fires but being a professional is not about doing want we want to do but doing what we should be do.

Wrong!
"Nothing showing" clearly means that there is no obviously visible signs of a fire from the street.
I've been to a lot of fires in my 20+ years in the fire service and there have been very, very few instances in which there were absolutely no visible indicators of a fire of any significance upon the first unit's arrival. I would suspect that my experience is consistent with the vast majority of the fire service. I would submit that if 90+% of the time when you arrive, there is no visible indicators of a fire and subsequent investigation finds that there is in fact, no fire, then "nothing showing" clearly does mean something. The report of "nothing showing" would mean that there's a very high likelihood that there is not a fire of any significance in progress at that location.
Yes, there could be a fire hiding somewhere waiting to break out, particularly in a commercial building vs a SFD, but to take the stance that the lack of exterior visual clues is irrelevant is simply irresponsible.
The report of "nothing showing" or use of different terminology conveying a similar meaning is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with your personnel and leadership if they show up and are not ready for battle.

Before we worry about every FF being experienced and well skilled in RIT/FAST SOPs(which is truly important also) how about we make sure everyone can "Pump and Ventilate" properly, accurately and as quickly as possible, reducing the chances of having to put a RIT/FAST Team to work. After all these are the Basics right? Put the friggin fire out folks as quickly as possible and most your troubles will go away. Let's also stop assigning positions on Apparatus based on "Seniority" and more on "Ability!" I can guarantee you to if you look at most LODs, they are attributed to Complacency,Ignoring Dept. SOPs or maybe following piss poor SOPs that were implemented and were doomed to fail from the beginning and/or plain out Incompetence on an individual's ability to perform. In a nut shell I guess what Im trying to say is Im sure many LODs are cause by "Human Error" but nobody wants to admit it! There I said it! Let's always stop trying to point fingers and blame everybody but ourselves and our fellow so called 'Brother" FFs. Many guys die in our Profession because of stupid mistakes made on the fire ground, not because there were only 2 or 4 guys on a RIT/FAST Team instead of 10. Let's get out of the "Denial Phase" please and constantly blaming Management and the Administration! We at many times are our own worst enemy but don't want to admit it!

No argument from me about the order of #1 and #2, but putting gear that can be replaced above the safety/well-being of a patient who is in your care seems backwards.

No argument from me about the order of #1 and #2, but putting gear that can be replaced above the safety/well-being of a patient who is in your care seems backwards.

I see the booster reel as a convenience line, and as such the costs outweigh the benefits. Washdowns, trash cans, grass fires and like like can easily be handled with 1" single jacket hose that stores in a fraction the space and can be fitted nearly anywhere on a new truck, often in the bumper. A booster line requires space (some of the US's the most expensive real estate per square foot), piping and of course money. For what? Convenience? Not in this day, at least not here.
Now, banning their use? Silliness from those who refuse to maintain any kind of tactical discipline. If your guys are pulling a red-line into a commercial structure or any for that matter, it's not the equipment's fault, just like guns, they're inanimate and merely waiting for a human to misuse them.

Consolidation in southern Westchester is long overdue. It would eliminate duplication of services to some extent, but more importantly, it would boost the services that we are lacking such as NFPA compliant manower, better trained and better equipped special operations teams, organized and consistent multple alarm responses with assigned units up to a 5th alarm level, and on and on. About 8 or 9 Chiefs would have to be eliminated since there can only be one Chief, but in a larger department there is a need for more subordinate Chiefs (Training, resource management, personnel, prevention, communications,etc). There should be plenty of slots for existing DCs because the area would have to be broken down into divisions or Battalions with at least 4 DCs for each. In addition, there should be an overall tour commander.
I have become very familiar with the Virginia Beach FD, which only organized in 1963 out of many small departments in Princess Anne County. They have since become one of the premier departments in the country. If they can do it, so can southern Westchester. The Career Chiefs started on a good path to this end,with the proby school and special ops task force,but I have seen personalities almost put an end to our Proby school. "I'm going to do my own school this year" or "I'm sending my guys to Montour Falls" are a couple of Chief's answers to often minor problems with one or two classes. That's not progress. Other departments refused to participate in a consolidation feasibility study, when those departments were just as behind on manpower and money as anybody else
Unless we wake up and look outside Westchester we will become has beens in the fire service. We have to look at the good of all and stop with "my fd is better than yours." I don't think any one Westchester department is giving its best to its public. We all can do better.
As for northern Westchester, I'm not volunteer bashing. I like you guys and I know you are dedicated and often very professional, but like it or not you are underqualified when held up against the southern Westchester personnel. It's not the individual firefighter's fault. Every time somebody tries to get minimum qualifications, FASNY squashes it with the theory that the vol Depts will loose people. You have to do something about that.
"Just sayin"
JustSayin"

Let me be more clear since from the responses you're not getting my point. My point is why are we putting ourselves in harm's way and taking on the liability as officers by conducting operations that are simply unsafe?

Why are we performing interior operations when there is nobody outside to rescue our sorry asses when it goes sideways?
How come we don't have the balls to say "sorry, not on my watch" and STOP violating OSHA regulations or NFPA and ISO guidelines by having inadequate numbers of FF on scene? OSHA, NFPA, and ISO have all come out with regulations, standards, and guidance that says X is the right number and we consistently accept fractions of X instead of drawing a line in the sand. Where're the balls we all like to boast about having when it comes time to stand up to city hall or the commissioners or just our own conscience!!!

I remember when my department still had a fairly solid volunteer roster to join the career staff but those days are over. I don't think I could send two guys in on a line without more personnel outside to bail them out of a jam. Maybe I'm paranoid in my old age but I'd rather fight it from the outside than knock on someone's door to tell them that their loved one isn't coming home because I failed to do my job. If you're the chief and you've got three guys on scene at a real worker, how do you in clear conscience send them inside the building?

And another thing, after watching that video about the FDNY member bailing out and the issue of proper equipment, how does anyone permit operations without the right equipment? After reading about the Kingston job, how do we continue to operate without throwing ladders up on the outside and having a FAST/RIT ready to roll?
Most of the responses to this have focused on doing the job at all costs and by any means necessary. I think we have to start rethinking that mindset and start seriously considering how we're going to evolve the fire service before bnechis's predictions come true and we're regionalized and consolidated by someone else.

Any cop who gets sloppy or complains about having to hold a salute for half the time this kid did should be forced to watch this video.

In a sad twist the little girl was in an MVA on I-684 the next morning as her mother drove her home from the hospital. The girl and her mother had minor injuries I believe, but it added to a very traumatic time for the girl.

That's because firefighters put out fires. Trucks definatly don't Engines help.

I give the chief credit for recognizing a potential problem and wanting to address it. Too many firefighters are dying and getting injured each year responding to incidents in apparatus and POVs. The chief's plan is seriously flawed, however, and he should not put it into practice. If he wants to address speeding and possibly reckless driving by his firefighters there are better ways. He should start with a discussion of the plan with his assistant chiefs and company officers...what do they think? Are they part of the problem? They should be able to help enforce a safe response if they take their positions seriously and are respected by the firefighters. What about asking all members to sign a pledge to drive safely...similar to the pledge many firefighters have signed to wear a seat belt while responding to calls? One may say a pledge is only a piece of paper, but if the chief stood up at a meeting and asked all members to sign such a pledge he'd get their attention, maybe their signatures and hopefully their compliance.
No need for me to comment further on the need for the chief to respond to the scene and fulfill his duties as it's been said plainly by previous posters.
And I'm not a problem in my own department, I'm not a wacker and I don't have any blue lights. I'm a past chief and current officer who has his priorities in the right order.

I give the chief credit for recognizing a potential problem and wanting to address it. Too many firefighters are dying and getting injured each year responding to incidents in apparatus and POVs. The chief's plan is seriously flawed, however, and he should not put it into practice. If he wants to address speeding and possibly reckless driving by his firefighters there are better ways. He should start with a discussion of the plan with his assistant chiefs and company officers...what do they think? Are they part of the problem? They should be able to help enforce a safe response if they take their positions seriously and are respected by the firefighters. What about asking all members to sign a pledge to drive safely...similar to the pledge many firefighters have signed to wear a seat belt while responding to calls? One may say a pledge is only a piece of paper, but if the chief stood up at a meeting and asked all members to sign such a pledge he'd get their attention, maybe their signatures and hopefully their compliance.
No need for me to comment further on the need for the chief to respond to the scene and fulfill his duties as it's been said plainly by previous posters.
And I'm not a problem in my own department, I'm not a wacker and I don't have any blue lights. I'm a past chief and current officer who has his priorities in the right order.

I give the chief credit for recognizing a potential problem and wanting to address it. Too many firefighters are dying and getting injured each year responding to incidents in apparatus and POVs. The chief's plan is seriously flawed, however, and he should not put it into practice. If he wants to address speeding and possibly reckless driving by his firefighters there are better ways. He should start with a discussion of the plan with his assistant chiefs and company officers...what do they think? Are they part of the problem? They should be able to help enforce a safe response if they take their positions seriously and are respected by the firefighters. What about asking all members to sign a pledge to drive safely...similar to the pledge many firefighters have signed to wear a seat belt while responding to calls? One may say a pledge is only a piece of paper, but if the chief stood up at a meeting and asked all members to sign such a pledge he'd get their attention, maybe their signatures and hopefully their compliance.
No need for me to comment further on the need for the chief to respond to the scene and fulfill his duties as it's been said plainly by previous posters.
And I'm not a problem in my own department, I'm not a wacker and I don't have any blue lights. I'm a past chief and current officer who has his priorities in the right order.

This was a fire in San Bernardino, CA on February 28, 2012. Local reports said there were two occupants of the home: a woman who escaped the fire and a man who was trapped until rescued by the first-arriving engine crew. Unfortunately the man passed away according to local reports. The video was posted on Statter911 and there are quite a few comments about the rescue and the subsequent medical treatment.
Nice job by the first arriving crew to make the grab regardless of the outcome.
http://statter911.com/2012/03/27/helmet-cam-san-bernardino-firefighters-find-victim-in-house-fire/#comments

Given current events and this discussion thread, here's a timely article from today's New York Times about some of the difficulties Israel will have to overcome if it decides to launch an air attack on Iran's nuclear program:
NYT: Iran Raid Seen as Huge Task for Israeli Jets
While a U.S. led attack has a better chance of destroying Iran's technical pursuit of nuclear weapons, we can't lose sight of the difficulties our military would face and the many ramifications of an attack. Iran has prepared for an attack against its nuclear program by locating anti-aircraft systems near facilities, distributing the facilities across the country and hardening the facilities against an aerial assault. We have the best military in the world, but we should not under estimate the difficulty of knocking out the Iranian nuclear program. Don't take my word for it, listen to someone who knows a thing or two about such campaigns:
“All the pundits who talk about ‘Oh, yeah, bomb Iran,’ it ain’t going to be that easy,” said Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, who retired last year as the Air Force’s top intelligence official and who planned the American air campaigns in 2001 in Afghanistan and in the 1991 Gulf War.
I agree the time for an aerial assault against Iran's nuclear program will arrive one day, I just don't believe that day is today, tomorrow or later this week. I also don't think it's three years from now. As mentioned above "there's a different between patience and appeasement" and I think it's fair to say we're engaged in a multi-faceted campaign against Iran with a fair number of activities not even known to us.

What does it matter? It matters to those of us who are Yorktown taxpayers, or have family members who are Yorktown taxpayers. It matters to those of us who want to see a capable, streamlined, consolidated emergency service system here in Westchester County instead of the conglomerate of districts and agencies that currently exist. Perhaps they didn't obtain or use this money illegally, but if they were able to save this money from their regular operating budget, then did they really need that money in the first place? Plus the taxpayers already said "No", we don't want you spending millions on a new firehouse, and that's just what they're doing, spending millions of taxpayers dollars on a new firehouse.
Have they done their homework? If so, then what is the benefit? As far as we know, there are no members that live in the vicinity of this new proposed firehouse. There is an extremely minimal number of calls in the Southern end of town. Millwood FD is a mile away, and to get to parts of the Yorktown District, they have to drive through Millwood's District. Where's the benefit? I'm failing to see it unless someone can offer up a good arguement as to the benefit of this project.
With that line of thinking, maybe every department should train and equip a HazMat Team, a Dive Team, a USAR Team, etc., because maybe one day they will be able to save a life. It's simply not fiscally responsible, that's why we utilize mutual aid from the County's TRT, Career Departments that have these capabilities, and other agencies (such as Yorktown's well established Water Rescue Team)to supplement our responses to these incidents. No different then Yorktown and Millwood entering a mutual aid agreement for the Southern end of Yorktown. Now I don't know if that option was ever explored, but if it wasn't, that's being financially irresponsible.
It's not criticizing. In addition to being Firefighters, Paramedics, EMT's, Police Officers, etc., we all have one thing in common; We're all Taxyapers! I never understood the mentality some of us have when it comes to finances. Are our functions important to the community? Of course. Should be be properly trained and equipped to respond to emergencies? Of course. But just because we provide a vital function for the communities we serve doesn't give us carte blanche to be financially irresponsible and think that the ideologies of budgeting don't apply to us.
Most of us aren't just going to "get over it" simply because you dictate we should. We question and discuss things because in the end, we are all looking to improve the "system" that exists here in Westchester, and many of us want to see the "home rule" and "fiefdom" way of doing things start to dissolve a bit, and this project has not only isolated the department from the taxpayers, it also ignores other alternatives for Fire Departments to consolidate services and save money for the taxpayers, while still providing high quality service.
Simply because other firefighters on this board are being reasonable and questioning the necessity of this project? So, I guess in the fire service everyone should just go along with anything and everything the other "brothers" are doing, regardless of how irresponsible or unnecessary it may be?

Out of control and should be shut down? If you feel thats the case, hit the report button, thats what it is there for. This thread and it's posts have so far been professional, mature, and a lot of decent points have been made about other options that may have been available to YHFD instead of continuing to build a firehouse that the taxpayers said no to not once, but twice. Instead of stomping your feet that this thread is "out of control and should be shut down", how about providing an educated, well thought out rebuttal as to why the firehouse is a necessity. And please stop with the "people are against us cause we're volunteer" nonsense; quite frankly its getting really old. If someone from YHFD would like to provide some information as to this firehouse, I'm sure everyone would respect some insight. Personally I think it's silly to go forward with this build considering the close proximity of Millwood, and as my parents are taxpayers in Yorktown, I'm curious how many firefighters live in the south end of town to staff the apparatus. That opinion is based on facts provided by others... My opinion can be changed if someone can offer up a logical argument to convince me otherwise.

Heard during an EMS call in the middle of the night:
Unit: Rescue XX to 60 Control, responding to XXX.
Dispatcher: 60 Control to last unit responding, identify yourself.
Unit: Uh, this is Mike XXX, I’m with the XX Fire Department and I’m in Rescue XX responding for the EMS call.
Dispatcher: Ok, that’s Rescue XX responding.

Heard during an EMS call in the middle of the night:
Unit: Rescue XX to 60 Control, responding to XXX.
Dispatcher: 60 Control to last unit responding, identify yourself.
Unit: Uh, this is Mike XXX, I’m with the XX Fire Department and I’m in Rescue XX responding for the EMS call.
Dispatcher: Ok, that’s Rescue XX responding.

Heard during an EMS call in the middle of the night:
Unit: Rescue XX to 60 Control, responding to XXX.
Dispatcher: 60 Control to last unit responding, identify yourself.
Unit: Uh, this is Mike XXX, I’m with the XX Fire Department and I’m in Rescue XX responding for the EMS call.
Dispatcher: Ok, that’s Rescue XX responding.

Heard during an EMS call in the middle of the night:
Unit: Rescue XX to 60 Control, responding to XXX.
Dispatcher: 60 Control to last unit responding, identify yourself.
Unit: Uh, this is Mike XXX, I’m with the XX Fire Department and I’m in Rescue XX responding for the EMS call.
Dispatcher: Ok, that’s Rescue XX responding.

Heard during an EMS call in the middle of the night:
Unit: Rescue XX to 60 Control, responding to XXX.
Dispatcher: 60 Control to last unit responding, identify yourself.
Unit: Uh, this is Mike XXX, I’m with the XX Fire Department and I’m in Rescue XX responding for the EMS call.
Dispatcher: Ok, that’s Rescue XX responding.