abaduck

???? What's the population? I didn't know it was possible for a town or village NOT to have interior FFs?! Mike

Not wanting to start a jurisdictional fight here, but we have the Big Red Trucks, if we need to close a road we close it...??? I could write everything I know about running an MCI on the back of a postage stamp, but even to me it doesn't seem a Good Idea to have dozens of injured kids and who knows how many first responders at the side of a major road without stopping the traffic... Mike

If the Chief decides not to commit men inside until additional resources are on scene... you obey orders. He's got the experience to make those calls, the authority to give the orders, and the responsibility to be held accountable for the outcome. That's what the white hat is for. Mike

1. I'd want a more through sizeup of structure, construction, weather - risk of it all going pear-shaped. (I'm thinking of latest very lightweight frame houses, vinyl siding, howling wind from the involved side - how much can you save, and how much will you risk?) 2. Structure fire? Own rigs delayed? Definitely time for mutual aid! 3. If the IC is in full PPE and ready to go I can't see why they couldn't function as one half of the 'two out' in this situation. Or perhaps the IC could take over from the engineer on the pump, and send the engineer in with the 2nd FF if required - I don't know if ICS allows for this, but perhaps it makes more sense - easier to maintain communications and the 'big picture' from that position. 4. Indirect attack through the window, Tom? Does the homeowner remember closing the kitchen door?! 5. I'm not long out of probation so take everything with a large pinch of salt. Mike

I wouldn't be too hard on them... they seemed to be short on manpower, maybe not enough to operate TWO 2 1/2" lines - in which case, as a highly inexperienced guy, it seems to me they went the right way, with two exposures to protect they needed two lines - they protected the exposures as their first priority. (right? there's no life safety issue, and the involved structure is a write-off...?) Then they did their best, working away from the exposures, darkening it down - at least that's how I read the video. I would agree the fire stream on the D side didn't look very effective. And yes of course, put out the fire and 99% of your problems go away - no fire, nothing to protect exposures from... As for lack of PPE, sure that's fine on an exterior job like this <sarcasm> - until you roll up to the job at the meth lab, or with the propane tank just where you least expect it... Oh and fire resistive, noncombustible, ordinary, heavy timber, wood frame... hell I didn't need to read Brannigan to get that Mike

Well I'm sure you would understand my point of view - if WE have to pay when 'passing through' THERE, THEY should have to pay when passing through HERE - even if everyone else passing through here doesn't have to pay. That's fair, surely - and anything else wouldn't be fair. It's reciprocal. Fair, but could get very complex. I don't think it's the way to go. Mike

Well I guess the difference is, you can haul your own refrigerator, garbage etc., and it doesn't threaten anyones life, health, or property. Do you *really* want people weighing-up insurance (or lack of it) and the likely cost, before they decide to call us (or not to call us)? Do you want people to delay alarms while trying to extinguish the damn fire or extricate the damn victim themselves to save *money*? The difference between fire/rescue and any other municipal based service is bloody obvious. The logical endpoint of this kind of thinking would be private fire companies, private fire insurance - you don't GET a response unless you're already paid-up. Oooops, we've tried that already and abandoned it a long time ago... Charging for repeated nuisance alarms, now THAT I can live with! Mike

Great point. I've never tried it, but I think the best way to go might turn out to be to use *both* - NVGs as the primary tool for navigation to get through the scenery and into the brush (since it gives better resolution and spatial awareness), then scan from time to time with the TIC to see if there's a heat source. If we ever do a drill on this topic I'd want to give it a try. Also remember the brush is *sometimes* clearer at ground level - just like in a fire building, remember to try looking low during a search in brush too. Mike

Or NVG. I used my NVG very successfully recently, blundering around the brush at a 4th July fireworks display, checking for embers. They're complimentary; TIC is (obviously) better at detecting a heat source (such as a still-warm body) and works in total darkness, but given a little light, NVG has much better resolution - it's much easier to walk when using NVG. Mike

Inappropriate for this thread bro, IMHO - the FF in the case being discussed was RETURNING from a call, as has already been pointed out, presumably at normal speeds. We don't know what the hell happened, but he wasn't trying to save 15 seconds getting anywhere. Mike

<snip to make the points I want to make> I kinda see where you're coming from - but it's the *state*. It collects taxes from everyone, and spends them (or returns them as rebates) wherever it sees fit. Some areas are net contributors, some are net beneficiaries - isn't there a long-running b**** about NYC bankrolling the rest of the state? Some areas inevitably get more money than others; that's called 'politics' - are you saying that whole system is wrong in principle? OK maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that's not nice. When someone puts something in quotes, like "volunteers" , I take that as perjorative - it's pretty much the same as saying 'so-called volunteers' or 'self-proclaimed volunteers'. You see where I'm coming from? Cut it out! Well quit making snide little comments like the above! Mike

Whoa there - we get free access to the pool and... that's about it. Free movies? Who gets free movies? And what discounts are you talking about? You think not turning up to something you volunteer to do, for a week or so, constitutes a 'vacation'? On this issue I can see both sides - I'm kinda like one of those cartoon characters with an angel on one shoulder, a devil on the other: Yes, it would be a nice form of recognition for the work we do, and more to the point... I give all this time freely, why should I be out of pocket to do it too? I don't expect any recompense but I don't see why I should effectively pay to do it... I don't have to pay for my turnouts, why should I pay for my gas? They're both needed to do the job. I'll do the job for nothing if you give me what I need to do it. Meanwhile, on the other shoulder... Why on earth should I get a gas credit for something I do, have done, and will continue to do, without a gas credit? I don't need the money, I sure as hell don't burn $5 of gas on every call Or any call, come to that. Let's face it, we love it (the fire service), we love it enough to do it for nothing but the satisfaction of serving the community, why should we expect NOT to have to pay our own gas? I think the bottom line is, why do we volunteer? Look in your heart and answer that question honestly and you'll find the answer to whether or not this gas credit is a good idea. Me? I'm with JFLYNN. How about that - a vollie agreeing with a career guy Mike

The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to own guns, and bans on handgun ownership are unconstitutional. How do people feel about this? Discuss! I'd be particularly interested to hear the views of our LE colleagues. (For the record, as someone who will shortly be celebrating the first anniversary of his becoming an American citizen, I have a strong attachment to the constitution, and I'm very pleased with the decision. I'm no gun nut, but the meaning of the 2nd amendment is as plain as the proverbial pikestaff and any other decision would have been a weasel-worded disgrace.) Mike

That's batshit... in the UK travelling at that speed would probably get charged as dangerous driving, not just speeding, and a month or two in jail would be a possiblity - would be a virtual certainty at just a few MPH more. Mike

It would not, it would die a death the day it passed into law when a judge ruled it blatantly unconstitutional and forbade its enforcement; the SC has just interpreted the 2nd definitively, and found that it encompasses an individual right to own a firearm and keep it in the home *for self-defence*, subject to reasonable regulation (e.g. EDPs and felons need not apply, guns can be registered). The court did NOT find that such a right hinged upon eligibility for milita service; self-defence was a good enough reason. At least that's my reading of the judgement; if you disagree feel free to explain why. Mike

Time for TCAS for helicopters? Mike

In some cases it can (in other cases it can't, of course). That gets you a *little* closer to figuring out who the poster *might have* been. Still not a hell of a lot to hold up in a court of law. Mike

Don't bury it quite yet. It's a VERY long way from getting a subpoena to getting an actual name! I suppose it's just possible that the posters might have (shock! horror!) used *false information* when creating their lohud.com accounts... Mike

Indeed. If you speed, and play fast & loose with traffic regulations... well as an instructor once put it to me... 'if you have no lights, people just think 'there goes another a******'. If you have blue lights, people think 'there goes another a****** vollie firefighter...' " Wise words. I do have a light, but use it sparingly. Mike

I would sincerely hope that being charged, in a case such as this, would be a hell of a long way from being *convicted*. I think you're over-egging the pudding. Mike

In California he would probably get a special award... http://www.moonamtrak.org/ Mike

Not the most 'buffy' perhaps, but quite possibly the fastest... Mike :-)

We had a wee bit of rain on Weaver Street: Mike

I can't believe that's not the law already. In the UK, the cops can require a test if they suspect someone of drinking, OR if they're involved in any kind of accident, injury or not. The one thing they can't do is random spot-checks where they test everyone. Mike

From the Gazette this morning: "Police did say that after cooperating with the field sobriety test, which includes use of an Intoxilyzer® (in photo at right) to sample alcohol on the breath, the driver declined to be tested with the more reliable Datamaster™ machine housed at the Larchmont Police Station. Police were able to obtain a warrant that compelled the driver to undergo a blood test. " Question for our LE colleagues out there. I don't get that - why would the driver decline to be tested? In the UK, refusing a test is an offence with exactly the same penalties (license suspended minimum 1 year) as giving a positive reading, presumably it's the same in NY? Anything else doesn't make sense, it just encourages intoxicated drivers to refuse the test and play for time, hoping that by the time a warrant for a compulsory test is issued they will be 'below the limit'. Or do you use a 'countback' system which allows evidence in court that 'if the driver tested x (legal) at such-and-such a time, they WOULD have been x+y (illegal) when arrested several hours earlier'? Mike