x635

The systems rack:

Interior foward workstation:

Left side slide outs, which give a ton of room inside......

The "conference room":

I can't argue with you really, Barry. I don't like top mount pump panels, because there is too much up and down, I just really like the vantage point, compact and easy operators panel, being out of the way of hoselines, mud, puddles, etc, and especially traffic. Although it may not be suitable for everyone, I think there are features of the PUC that are great for some fire companies. Not all PUC's have the top mount panel. And, it flows 2 2.5" handlines and a deckgun pretty well from a low pressure hydrant. Also to note, it's a PTO pump which has it's benefits and it's drawbacks. It's also got a ton of compartment space and a short wheelbase.

Last I heard it was going to be Ladder 79. With all the new Ladders placed in service, and spares reassigned, does anyone know which truck is currently assigned as Ladder 79??

Although I agree with your points about the drawbacks, I'm just curious if you feel the same about a traditional top mount pump, in regards to climbing up and down? The main benefit I see to mounting the pump on the top side is that the operator is out of traffic, which is great for an Engine comany that spends a good deal of time out on an interstate. That's one of the main reasons why I like the PUC. There are several things I don't like, but it can be spec'd differently then the demo.

Since I believe the Texas quote was directed at me, I'm offended and insulted. I worked in Mount Vernon for several years, for Empress on Mount Vernon Ambulance 1. I also have many friends in the Mount Vernon Fire Department, several of whom I went to probie school with or were my instructors in probie school. I also worked for 60 Control and dispatched several multiple alarm fires into Mount Vernon. Additionally, I'm from NY, and lived in Westchester for 28 years of my life. I moved away to a place where fire protection, firefighter safety, and proper staffing is actually taken seriously, meanwhile the cost of living much less. These issues have been ignored for years, and I'm glad that this forum can shed some light on them. This forum is for the sharing of information, ideas, and opinions....whether you agree with them or not. There is absolutely NO bashing, only discussion of the facts, which aren't pretty. I'm sure when you watch a football game that's not going the way you had hoped, you don't complain about those commenting on the game? I think the other members who responded to your post have covered the rest of what I want to say. P.S.: I will show my support for the Mount Vernon Firefighters in any way I can, as I believe I always have. I'm concerned and I firmly believe that with the attention these issues will get, things will snowball and eventually get better.....that is my hope. I NEVER want to hear about a tragedy, and know it could have been prevented......

I stand corrected on the Fairview response. Fairview originally went down to Mount Vernon on 11/26 to stand by. While they backed into Station 3 they were called to the scene. Response time no lights and sirens for stand by 17-21 mins, hitting all traffic lights in Mt. Vernon but got into the city 15-17 mins (non emergency). Fairview ended up going to scene as they were dispatched from Station 3 and they were on scene into 2 mins.

Just some additional information: This fire went to exterior operations really quickly. If it wasn't for Fairview's truck (supplied by Pelham Engine 5) and a 2.5 handline, the #4 exposure would have also burned down. All the exposures were about 3 feet apart on all sides. Mount Vernon Engine 6 also supplied Eastchester's ladder pipe. I believe that, even in emergency mode, it takes Fairview's truck, with an officer and 3 firefighters, at least 1/2 hour to get to Mount Vernon and get set up to operate. Although I would normally complain that it strips Fairview of truck and engine company coverage since they use Engine company staff to cross floor staff the truck beyond the driver, Fairview has several ladder companies nearby. Fairview also has numerous members who live nearby, and are recalled in to staff the engine- and that's what Fairview should be reimbursed for. However, if Mount Vernon has all their trucks up and running, it may have been a completly different story with apparatus response.

As of 11-17-08, the EMTBravo.net Central Intelligence Unit is reporting based on credible leads: FDMV is down to 1 truck for the entire city. Ladder 2 (1998 Seagrave 100' RM) failed its ladder test Ladder 3 (1993 E-One Hurricane 95' RM Tower) failed it's ladder test The Mack/Baker Aerialscope (Former West Harrison) is dead. The only truck running in the city right now, and barely, is the 2004 Seagrave 95' Aerialscope Ladder 1. No plans to repair or replace any of the OOS trucks at this time due to "funding issues". Also please note other thread on MVFD's mutual aid issues. A DENSELY POPULATED CITY WITH 80,000+ PEOPLE IN 4 SQUARE MILES, MANY IN PACKED OCCUPIED MULTIPLE WOOD FRAME AND MULTI LEVEL DWELLINGS HAS ONLY ONE TRUCK COMPANY!!!! At least the ladders failed during testing and not during a fire....

Thanks for the spy shots! WEMS has come a LONG way with their fleet since I worked there in 2003-2005, although they've always been a great place to work. I hope Medibart will have some better photos of this awesome new bus with his new camera!! BTW, the was our only "box" when I worked at WEMS back in 2003-2005 (a leftover from the "Westchester Ambulance" days)......ah, memories....... Once again, hint hint, I hope Medibart will have some better photos of this awesome new bus with his new camera!!

City Of Yonkers Fire-Rescue Special Operations Water Tender (Ex-Military tanker) Can be towed either by the Freightliner USAR Tractor, Mack Granite Special Operations Tractor, Ford L8000 Tractor, or any DPW tractor. Photo by JJPINTO for EMTBravo.net (Photo by and © Joe Pinto)

Here's a close up shot of the tanker. Again, photo by Joe Pinto and posted with permission. Thanks Joe, and also thanks to Chief Fitzpatrick for the details...much appreciated! (Photo by and © Joe Pinto)

This USED to be a 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe Police Package....... At the request of the agency, and terms of taking the photos, I am not going to release any details. The cause of the fire is under investigation with the manufacturer involved.

I am now informed the cause was the cat converter caused brush (not even dry brush) to ignite the car....(much like on a recent episode of "Cops")

Interesting! It was time they "freshened" up their scheme a little. I like it! Thanks for posting the photo!

Very impressive Engine, it really packs a punch! Small, carrys a lot of water and hose, powerful pump, and has an easy to deploy aerial and elevated waterway if needed. Stamford Fire-Rescue has a really great fleet with these new HME-Ahren Foxes, especially the versatilty the Quints give them in some neighborhoods. BTW, great shots Pat!!

A valiant attempt by Stamford FF's.....as someone who cares about animals, I appreciate the compassion displayed to this living creature by these FF's. As we know, despite our best efforts, the outcome is out of our hands, but it's good to know that every effort was made....especially when some departments wouldn't have even cared. It's also good practice for the upcoming winter. BTW, awesome shots Jerry!!

With the right operator, it can basically recover any type of vehicle from just about any type of situation. The 365 foot (fully extended) boom rotates a full 360 degrees. Minimum angle of 0 degress with a maxium angle of 51 degrees. When the boom is retracted, it can pull 129,000lbs. Fully extended, the boom can pull 44,000lbs. It can pull 68,000lbs. from the side. The truck has an awesome outrigger spread. For towing, it can handle a vehicle up to 80,000lbs. Some of the features can be operated by remote control. It's powered by a Cummins ITX 550HP. Full specs: http://www.jerr-dan.com/wreckers/rotator/index.asp?pCatID=4

Or, a little bit before the FD could get out there......vehicle was way, way out in a rural area.

And one more.... (Photo submitted by Stiltow, posted with permission)

Another shot: (Photo submitted by Stiltow, posted with permission)

The former Engine 176, at least as I remember it about 2 years ago, was in decent shape. It was refurbed around 1996, I believe? It's good to see EFD is being fiscally prudent at least when purchasing a spare. I remember a few years ago, when I dispatched for 60 (around 99/00) their fleet was really hurting, especially the truck companies. Then they got all the ALF's, and the Seagrave. And it's not the first time Eastchester has bought a truck from another department. I think at one point someone said that they had purchased an aerial from Mount Vernon! Someone please post a photo when it's been lettered for Eastchester!!

I'm just pondering about the Ford Crown Vic. It really is a workhorse car, fleet departments have grown used to them and ammassed spare parts, and they're easy to "swapover" when the vehicle is taken out of service. In my opinion, it still looks good, but could probaly look a little bolder and more modern. Also, it probaly could be outfitted with a new drivetrain for better fuel economy. Does anyone know if Ford plans on updating the Crown Vic anytime soon? I've heard the stories, seen the concepts, but last I heard nothing until 2011. But, is change really needed for the Crown Vic?