Raz

In that case, please accept my apologies. Have a Merry Christmas.

And I think that the two of you should take a second to reflect on your storied exploits in the fire service in the scant few years since you've been 18. You know, the ones that allow you to call academy graduates who are 25 years into their career "just drivers." Perhaps those guys transferred because they were sick of 20 year old kids fresh out of FF1 who, in a mockery of the service, wear captain's bars, passing judgment on their profession.

Before this thread spirals down into a back and forth argument (that deserves to be heard), we should all be clear on a point. Mohegan VAC has been augmented for years by The Cortlandt Regional Paramedics, The Peekskill FD Medics, and The LMFD career guys. They haven't been 100% volunteer for as far as I can remember. That's not a mark against them, it's just a fact that should be included when we're making our points in this discussion. From my short time working in that area, I remember an awful lot of grunt work being done by guys from agencies that had no affiliation with the VAC, but they were depended on all the same, and this changeover would've come years ago if they hadn't been there to take up the slack.

They will open the door of a moving vehicle to check for safety. Yes, someone found logic in this.

You're right. I was trying to hastily illustrate the differences in the "before and after" positioning, but I seem to have overlooked the tree. Good thing I'm not working on the Zapruder film. I think there's a larger discussion to be had here. We've all beaten "leave room for the truck" into our heads since probie school, but here's an example where "leave room for the truck" might be a mutually exclusive idea as opposed to "put water on the fire." Now, Hartsdale is a rather proactive department when it comes to mapping and testing the flows of their hydrants. The officer on the first rig probably knew that there was a hydrant in front of the house, he also probably knew that (being on a dead end and up a hill), that he might only be able to flow one or two 1 3/4" lines (again, I point you to the size of the building and the potential fire load). The second or third due engine was going to have to grab a water source from a pretty far distance and stretch LDH. You need this water source to mount any kind of meaningful attack on the fire. Do you, as an officer, delay the attack to wait for a truck that is not even an optimal piece of equipment for the situation? I'm genuinely asking, not trying to defend anyone. The roof was fully sheathed.

I've never had to bail out, and hopefully never will, but if things are so bad that I have to consider jumping out of a window and sliding down a rope...then things are probably bad enough that I wouldn't take the time to doff my airpack in the process. For what it's worth, I've used the Petzl and RIT systems. Go with Petzl.

It doesn't come across in the Google map overhead view, but the driveway is at an incline. Coupled with the retaining wall between the driveway and the front yard, and the guardrail at the end of the street, it would be a tight fit. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, I'm just not sure. A lot of guys' boots were sinking into the lawn while going back and forth from the rigs to the house, so if it couldn't support 200 lbs, I'm sure 60,000 lbs wasn't an option. No doubt the TL could've helped with this. Regardless of the response time question, I feel this is a prime example of a house (slate roof, steep pitch, elevated master streams needed) that would benefit from having a tower ladder in operation. White Plains did have a bucket on scene, but attempting to put it to work would've proven a logistical impossibility, as it would've needed to get past 4 rigs, 3 of which were actively engaged in fire suppression; as well as roughly 500 feet of LDH.

I wasn't there for the first hour or so of the incident, so unfortunately I can't answer some of those questions, and I'm not going to speculate as to the origin. I will say that the building, while obviously type III construction, was pretty unique in layout. The width of space between the stone exterior walls or slate roof, and wood/sheetrock interior walls was much larger than usual. At many spots, finish carpentry was used to install cabinets, closets, and rather deep shelving recessed into this void space. It is possible that the fire spread rather quickly throughout these voids. This would correlate with the description I was given by guys on the first attack lines.

So I'm an idiot, I drew in 171 instead of 174. Substitute accordingly. To better demonstrate my answer about the ladder positioning: This is the positioning in the posted pictures. They were taken relatively early on in the course of the incident. This is the positioning I was referring to in my response. The MPO's (and many spotters) made use of every square inch of asphalt to position L4's turntable almost directly in front of the building (I still refuse to call that thing a "house"). The was literally not an inch of road to spare at the end of it. Webbing was used to slide LDH into positions that that allowed the rigs better access. Also, I'd like to second the thank you to Scarsdale FD for the ground ladders. That's textbook Fast work.

That's pretty much what happened. At the beginning of the incident, L4 made the best spot they could under the circumstances. They had two engines in front of them, and multiple LDH lines, on a very narrow street that reached a dead end directly in front of the fire building. Later in the incident, rigs and lines were repositioned and L4 was able to get to a more viable position. I'm still amazed at how the MPO's operated three rigs in such a tight space.

You're not alone, I thought the same thing when I first saw it. Especially because the jacks have to be manually pinned in place after they're dropped. I had never worked with a ladder like that, and assumed that they had to be manually dropped.

I'm not sure that there has even been another name on the ballot in some of the elections that he's won. Also, I find it funny that he continually talks about abolishing this or that government entity, yet never talks about getting rid of his own job.

Feiner has continually showed that he has next to no understanding of how emergency services actually work. As far as his governance in other areas, he continually passes the buck, blaming everyone but himself for the shortcomings of government. This is par for the course for him, unfortunately.

Manpower is allowed to drop to 6 (between the two engines and the ladder) before OT is used to fill vacancies. Someone is always supposed to be present to help the driver back up the rig. Whether that person is a rider on the truck, or a firefighter from another rig, will vary. The front and rear jacks, like the outriggers, are hydraulically powered. It does have a lot of strength, but I couldn't tell you any specifics and be confident about the numbers.

Depending on the tour commander, TL-15 has either one or two firefighters assigned to it. The staffing level of a given tour doesn't fluctuate, it's just left to the tour commander's discretion as to how he wants the men assigned. Some commanders like three FF's on Engine 169, with one on the ladder; some like the two and two approach. Regardless of the staffing configuration between E169 and TL15, E170 always has three FF's and an officer. These numbers assume that no one is out sick/injured/on vacation. Fairview has been covering while the ladder is OOS, with Scarsdale covering while Fairview's own ladder was down shortly. Greenville already provides automatic mutual aid in the form of an engine, therefore their ladder wasn't factored in as a viable coverage apparatus.

All jokes aside, this actually brings up a valid point. Don't wear your class A to Peekskill, it's an informal parade.

My apologies, that was a sarcastic question posed to the poster who claimed that all FD's use "private money" to pay for certain things. Your situation is exactly what I was referencing. Just because it's "private funding" now, doesn't mean it wasn't tax money before someone moved it to the another page on the ledger. Though I'm glad that you spelled that out, as you would have a greater understanding than most in this thread. I'm guessing that you vollied for a municipal fire dept, and not a fire district like many people that posted (JimmyPFD being the other exception). It all goes back to the fact that 1) this happens all the time for events much less deserving of public monetary backing, and 2) a contract is a contract.

That's Firefighter 1 & 2, plus Haz Mat Ops Awareness. Not Firefighter 1, as the article said. Thanks for posting that, I was wondering how they were coming up with double the hours of the class.

Another one would be the part where it states that Firefighter 1 can be considered a 200 hour course.

^^^Excellent post, really sums everything up perfectly. Yes, it's class time on EMTBravo, which always seems to be given by the members who are eager to share the wealth of knowledge from their 3 years in the volunteer fire service. You can argue semantics all you want, but at the end of the day, fire departments are funded by tax money (and EMS billing if they're savvy/sketchy enough to split that portion off into a separate entity like some districts). If you honestly believe that every single non-firematic expense of a district, professional or volunteer, is paid for solely through 2% money or fundraising, then you're being purposefully obtuse. Furthermore, I would argue that an overwhelming majority of the public has absolutely no idea of the differences implied by signs that read "Support X Fire District", versus "Support X Fire Company." You can argue that that's not your problem, but then it veers into the murky area of misleading the public. Either way, this is a simple contract dispute that will be settled by a grievance, and rather quickly.

Private funds that magically appear from where?

Not editing your posts after the fact also makes for a better thread.

I never understood how people can say this out loud and think that it sounds like a logical argument in defense of their position. I'd rather be without the extra yahoos that show up for the "big game" as they generally tend to: -Get in the way of people who are properly trained and practiced. -Make the situation worse by making the wrong decisions. -Use resources that would be put to better use in more capable hands. -Complicate the chain and scope of command. I'm not denying that big games draw big crowds, but to hear people put that forth as a positive thing is ridiculous. Give me a small army over a large armed mob anyday.

That's actually not what mutual aid plans are drawn up for, at all.

This guy is his own worst enemy when it comes to being taken seriously. "Firefighting attracts a lot of immature people, who feel they don't need to grow up." OK, that's fair. Hell, I might even be inclined to agree. Then he goes on to list a few examples that back up his point, but what's with the rest of that list? A fill the boot to benefit Muscular Dystrophy? It sounds like conditions might not have been optimal (where I live, excessive fill the boot events caused the city to put an end to them altogether), but to count that as a "childish act?" Really? Also, that "loose change" that's "shaken down from motorists" adds up. I think my union cleared 5 figures for a few hours worth of effort. As for some of the other examples, they're despicable acts that go way beyond immaturity. This guy needs to go back to journalism school.