emt301

Actually, Dutchess 911 was known as KED-348 until the late 1990's, when the Dutchess County Bureau of Fire became Dutchess County 911.

For the record, it's radio identifier is actually Wassaic 6931, not tanker 228 (the rig has both on it...both 6931 & 228....but goes by 6931 - 69 is the department number, 31 indicates that the unit is a tanker).

In speaking with someone in county human resources back in March, he said that the county wants to go with CPAT within the next year or so...but that certain FD's are apparently against it (for reasons he either couldn't or wouldn't give). Don't know which departments are fighting it, but apparently there's a couple of them.

You're right....it does come down to money. I heard of a call recently (and I won't go into exactly where it was) where a hospital took an emergency call from an elderly person unfamiliar with the ems system...yes, these people DO exist, and unfortunately are easily taken advantage of. Instead of refering the caller directly to 911, the hospital told the patient to call that hospital's affiliated commercial ambulance service. 911 only became aware of the situation when the patient, in frustration over the response time, finally dialed 911, asking "where's my ambulance?" 911 then dispatched out the local paid FD ALS ambulance, and also contacted the commercial service to inquire about what was going on (the frustrated patient told 911 what had happened). This was a case of money first, patient care second on the part of the ambulance service...a principal that many of these commercial services sadly seem to live by these days. If the local FD ALS ambulance (for which the patient pays taxes) hadn't responded & transported, this patient would have been slapped with a nice big bill from the commercial service. I believe that the legislation being proposed is to help keep the 911 system working properly, not to say something stupid like "hey, we have ambulances". Unfortunately, these incidents occur more often than many people would think...there are lots of people, especially the elderly, who are taken advantage of all too easily.

They don't necessarily have anything to do with which ambulance the patient goes on (unless the FD operates the local ambulance)...I believe the point was that for an FD to provide that first responder care, they need to be made aware of the call...a.k.a. 911. When 911 is circumvented, the FD first response is also circumvented. The FD is not going to be toned out if a commercial agency gets the call, and then keeps the information to themselves & doesn't pass it along to 911. Depending on the situation, the commercial provider that got the call direct could be responding from a considerable distance away, and that FD first response could be important in rendering initial & possibly lifesaving care. In the event that the local FD operates the ambulance...by skipping 911, there's a chance that the commercial agency is sending a unit from a considerable distance away, when the local 911-dispatched ambulance would actually be closer...i.e. especially when talking about career or combo FD's that run their own ambulances and have good response times, such as Lagrange, Arlington, and Fairview up here in Dutchess. Bottom line, from a dispatching & patient care standpoint...commercial services have an obligation to notify 911 (except in the cases where the service already has a pre-established contract with a facility, such a prison or nursing home, where there is already nurse or physician care available by which to stabilize the patient until the ambulance arrives). The commercial agency can continue in if they want & work the details of the transport out with the other responders on scene, but don't deny the patient the possibility of a quicker FD first response or FD ambulance. Like everything else, this comes down to corporate greed....patient care should be coming first, not money.

What about the unofficial emtbravo meteorologist - 14-25 ?

You are correct my friend...should be partly sunny, with a high around 70 !!!

In Dutchess County, the Sheriff's Department serves as a County Police force (in other words, there's a Sheriff's Department and no County Police Department). The Sheriffs routinely patrol the county as a county force would, and the department also oversees the jail, civil matters, and I believe courthouse security. In some areas of the county the Sheriffs (and/or New York State Police) provide primary police coverage. In towns/villages that already have their own local police departments, both the Sheriffs and New York State Police provide supplemental police patrols and resources (such as crime scene investigation, canine, etc.). Overall, the system works well.

Red Flag Warning RED FLAG WARNING NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE 425 AM EDT MON APR 23 2007 ...RED FLAG WARNING FOR THIS AFTERNOON INTO THIS EVENING FOR THE MID-HUDSON VALLEY, INTERIOR PORTIONS OF THE LOWER HUDSON VALLEY AND SOUTHERN CONNECTICUT... .THE REGION WILL BE BETWEEN AN AREA OF HIGH PRESSURE OFF THE CAROLINA COAST AND AN AREA OF LOW PRESSURE IN THE SAINT LAWRENCE RIVER VALLEY MONDAY AFTERNOON. THIS WILL RESULT IN GUSTY SOUTH TO SOUTHWEST WINDS...COUPLED WITH LOW HUMIDITY AND DRY FUELS ACROSS THE WARNING AREA. 425 AM EDT MON APR 23 2007 ...RED FLAG WARNING IN EFFECT FROM THIS AFTERNOON INTO THIS EVENING... THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HAS ISSUED A RED FLAG WARNING...WHICH IS IN EFFECT THIS AFTERNOON INTO THIS EVENING. THE FIRE WEATHER WATCH IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. TEMPERATURES WILL WARM TO THE LOWER TO MID 80S THIS AFTERNOON ON SOUTH TO SOUTHWEST WINDS OF 15 TO 20 MPH WITH GUSTS UP TO 25 MPH. THE GUSTY WINDS...IN COMBINATION WITH RELATIVE HUMIDITIES BELOW 30 PERCENT AND LOW FUEL MOISTURES...WARRANT THE RED FLAG WARNING ACROSS INTERIOR PORTIONS OF THE LOWER HUDSON VALLEY...THE MID-HUDSON VALLEY, AND SOUTHERN CONNECTICUT FROM EARLY THIS AFTERNOON INTO THE EVENING. A RED FLAG WARNING MEANS THAT CRITICAL FIRE WEATHER CONDITIONS ARE EITHER OCCURRING NOW...OR WILL SHORTLY. A COMBINATION OF STRONG WINDS...LOW RELATIVE HUMIDITY...AND WARM TEMPERATURES WILL CREATE EXPLOSIVE FIRE GROWTH POTENTIAL.

Larchmont too !!!

I'm glad you agree it's not a dispatch failure. That's what I've been saying in my posts, but for some reason that point seems to be getting lost...as if I'm really just defending the overall system that the county has. EVERYONE in the county...both dispatchers and responders...knows that the system is SEVERELY flawed in terms of ICS. Everyone claims how they're compliant, and most agencies haven't the foggiest idea of how to truly implement ICS. I found the term "failure" objectionable, since when it was originally written it was pertaining to a particular closest engine not being DISPATCHED, and therefore, though apparently unintentional, seemed to imply that the dispatchers working at 60 that night didn't do the right thing or do their job properly. Were there mistakes made at the Mamaroneck command post by the IC ?....that remains to be seen. My point about water rescues or evacuations (whichever they were) was that resources apparently were committed in some way, shape, or form...I didn't in any way try start a debate over rescue v. evacuation...OBVIOUSLY an house fire with entrapment takes place over a water evacuation (as opposed to a rescue). I was just trying to say that unless you were there at 60 control or sitting at the Mamaroneck Command Post...& know where, why & how EACH and EVERY unit was committed, then it's pure speculation & second guessing for anybody to make judgment on what the exact structure fire assignment should have been - a full investigation needs to be completed. I just want to see the dispatchers get a fair shake...the use (or misuse) of the ICS system overall in the county can be ripped apart all you like, because yes, it is seriously flawed !!!!.

I agree - life safety is TOP PRIORITY, and why we're all in emergency services...not trying to send this thread in the wrong direction either...guess I would just rather wait for the facts to emerge than to engage in any potential speculation.

With all due respect, I'm really not sure what you're saying....are you implying that the dispatching was poorly done? Not being at 60-control at that moment, seems like it's kind of hard for anyone to second guess what was done until all of the facts come out. Maybe that "closest rig" was in a poor position to respond due to water/flood conditions in it's immediate area. Maybe it was involved in a water rescue & couldn't just pick up & leave. We really don't know. I'm sure the dispatchers did the best they could under the circumstances...the situation they faced during this was of an almost overwhelming magnitude, and from everything I've heard their performance & dedication were outstanding.

Man oh man...first we've got xfirefighter484x going after us, & now JBE...us meteorologists are taking a beating here !!!!

This is true...meteorologists & stock brokers (except stockbrokers make a lot more money !!!)

As a dispatcher I've seen this occur fairly often both in Westchester and Dutchess. To a large extent I'm sure that many members are just getting burned out by both their home/work commitments, and their obligations as a volunteer...therefore at least some tend to "pick & choose" the calls they will go on. I'm not bashing the volunteer service (of which I was a member for several years...and left due to my own time constraints)...but this points out one of the advantages of career/paid/combination fire departments & ems agencies that will respond whether the call is "boring" or "exciting". As has been brought up on emtbravo many times before, volunteer departments that are frequently in need of mutual aid really need to look themselves in the mirror, and decide if the time has come for the addition of some paid staff.

You're right....same everywhere. They think you can magically restore their power, and that you can magically end a traffic jam on Interstate 84 when snow & poor driving skills have caused numerous fender-benders. Gotta love it !!!

Speaking as a trained meteorologist (that's what I did for about 10 years prior to getting into ARFF and 911 dispatching) - I challenge you to sit in a forecast office someday before a storm of this magnitude & complexity hits, and see what actually goes on & all of the hard work involved - it's not nearly as easy as you & many other critics out there would think - the forecasts they make are only as good as the science & research behind them. We all know that weather research has a long way to go...considering the weather is something that in the end is controlled by God, the forecasters really don't do too bad.

Up here in Dutchess it's about turf. A couple of PD's (to remain un-named) have their 7 digit phone number on the patrol cars in BIG numbers, and then a little "dial 911" on the car as well. These 2 particular departments were against 911 when it was implemented. One of the departments, due to politics and the "old boys club" was allowed to continue self-dispatching...all pd related 911 calls are transfered directly to that PD's dispatcher for service. The other department in question has their units polled for by the 911 police dispatchers, but isn't happy about it and wants the same arrangement that the first department described here has. Fortunately in terms of the fire service & ems, everyone's on the same page and the 911 system works very well (i.e...we generally don't have the "check & advise" problem that sometimes occurs in Westchester).

That's not what I said. What I said is that a dedicated crew is a good idea...but that one option other than hiring fulltime employees whose only job was firefighting would be the continued use of operations staff (all members of IAFF Local I-62), but with MORE of them on duty at a time. Also, there continues to be talk in this thread of a "delayed response" at the airport. While I was there I never saw a delayed response to an Alert from operations personnel. The rigs responded as soon as we were contacted by the tower or the aircraft itself. Not sure where all of this "delay" talk is coming from. Sure there's a delay in terms of the supplemental volunteer/career rigs arriving on scene from mutual aid departments, but not in the first response from airport personnel & rigs.

I certainly don't think it's a bad idea. One other solution might be to have a 2 man crew consisting of airport ops staff DEDICATED to each ARFF rig per shift...i.e. 4 men per shift whose ONLY responsibility on that tour would be fire/ems (before anyone asks....ARFF apparatus generally can't hold the 4-6 firefighters that structural rigs will...frequently only will hold 2, maybe 3 firefighters)...in other words, hire some additional cross-trained coordinators/supervisors. This would give the airport an increase in manpower for first/primary response at the airport, and would provide flexibility for continued airport ARFF coverage if equipment were also required off airport grounds (there would be enough manpower to put the reserve rig in service). Also, by still using cross-trained airport ops staff, it would provide the airport extra flexibility in covering shifts when staff members take time off. Technically, all coordinators are already professional firefighters....members of IAFF Local I-62....while maybe this wouldn't be the fulltime force some are talking about, it could be a good compromise...additional staff would be hired to provide more fire/ems coverage in & around the airport....and the airport would keep flexibility in terms of their employees abilities to help out in all areas of airport operations such as snow removal, parking aircraft, weather observations, construction supervision. Staff members would basically just rotate which days/shifts they were the dedicated ARFF crew, with no other responsibilities.

Personally, I wouldn't be upset by having dedicated ARFF staffing...the opportunity to learn about ARFF was the main reason I took the job - and I would have loved to have had ARFF as my only job. However, whether you're using dedicated ARFF staffing or cross-trained ops personnel, you'll still have to deal with the issues of shifts, vacations, and sick days. I think the bottom line is are there enough personnel on shift (either cross-trained ops, or dedicated ARFF) to get the job done...and like Hudson was refering to...is the mutual aid plan a good one with adequately trained local FD's.

Hudson, you make some good points. The mutual aid companies need to train frequently with airport operations so they are familiar with the arff trucks, supplying them with water, and familiar with the aircraft using HPN. This was always one of our biggest worries...we knew we'd have adequate foam product, but what about a water supply? There are hydrants placed in various spots on the airfield....the mutual aid companies need to know exactly where these hydrants are, and they need to be comfortable stretching hose & connecting to the crash trucks to feed them with water. You are also correct in terms of aircraft familiarization for the mutual aid units...especially in the event of an off-airport incident - in this case the airport's mutual aid companies will be the first responders - awaiting the arrival of the airport units. HPN's mutual aid companies should have more training than merely NY State's 12-hour ARFF course - the course is a great introduction, but can't compare with the intensive class work & live fire training that HPN's ARFF personnel receive when they train with the career departments in Salt Lake City and Pittsburgh.

All airport operations coordinators and supervisors are trained in ARFF. They perform double duty...but I wouldn't say operations first, then fire-rescue. When an aircraft alert comes in from the tower, crash-fire-rescue becomes the MOST IMPORTANT JOB for operations personnel, and the response is immediate. The airport supervisors & coordinators staff 2 crash trucks, with a third truck in reserve. There's also a stock-pile of foam on hand to be used in the event of a major incident. When I was at the airport, our manpower during the day wasn't much of a problem...especially when factoring in the presence of upper management & maintenance personnel, some of whom also have firefighting & ARFF training...and also factoring in the massive (and at times excessive) response from the neighboring departments. I say excessive, because there were times when a 2 seat cessna came in with a problem, and we bascially stripped the entire surrounding community of its resources due to the set-up of the airport response plan. I believe that plan has been or is in the course of being corrected, giving a more "tiered" response based upon aircraft type. When I was there, airport operations manpower was really more of a problem during the evening & overnight hours when our staffing levels dropped down...and our first response capability therefore dropped way off as well. I believe that after 9-11 the evening & overnight staffing was bumped up at least slightly...but this problem still needs to be addressed further.

Dutchess hires part-timers - they are generally full-timers who have left for another job, but fully trained dispatchers whom the department wishes to hang on to help fill in for vacations, storm coverage, etc. They also hire hourly (up to 39 hrs/wk) dispatchers...these are hired off the civil service list and are eligible for pro-rated benefits based on hours worked. Hourly dispatchers sometimes become full-timers when slots open up. Westchester doesn't hire part-timers.