FFPCogs

Well it's been awhile since this thread had any input so I thought I'd take a look at where we are now by asking the following question: What is everyone who's involved here opinions on our new Director of Public Safety, Health and Welfare? I had the honor of meeting the man last week and must say that I was impressed with his knowledge, experience and desire to see a successful resolution to this situation. Hopefully we can all get behind any initiatives he proposes to finally move forward. How about you? Cogs

While we were definitely not angels in regards to our support of the Shah, there are reason why the support was given besides just oil. For any who may not know here's a bit of history on the subject: Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi (Persian: محمدرضاشاه پهلوی, [mohæmˈmæd reˈzɒː ˈʃɒːhe pæhlæˈviː]; 26 October 1919 – 27 July 1980) was The last Shah of Iran who ruled from 16 September 1941 until his overthrow by theIranian Revolution on 11 February 1979. He was the second and last monarch of the House of Pahlavi of the Iranian monarchy. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi held several titles: His Imperial Majesty, Shahanshah (King of Kings, Emperor), Aryamehr, (Light of the Aryans) and Bozorg Arteshtārān (Head of the Warriors, Persian: بزرگ ارتشتاران). Mohammad Reza came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father Reza Shah. During his reign, the Iranian oil industry was nationalized under Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh and Iran marked the anniversary of 2,500 years of continous monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. The Shah's White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources, and extending sufferage to women. A secular Muslim himself, Mohammad Reza gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of modernization, secularization, conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, and recognition of Israel. Various additional controversial policies were enacted, including the banning of the communist Tudeh Party, and a general suppression of political dissent by Iran'sintelligence agency, SAVAK, Amnesty International reported that in 1978 Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners, a number which multiplied rapidly as a result of the revolution. Several other factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah among certain groups within Iran, the most notable of which were the U.S. and UK backed coup d'etat against Mosaddegh in 1953, clashes with Islamists, and increased communist activity. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which, on 16 January, forced the Shah to leave Iran. Soon thereafter, the Iranian monarchy was formally abolished, and Iran was declared an Islamic republic . Facing likely execution should he return to Iran, he died in exile in Egypt, whose President, Anwar Sadat, had granted him asylum. In the 1990s and the decade following 2000, the Shah's reputation has staged something of a revival, with many Iranians looking back on his era as a time when Iran was more prosperous and the government less oppressive. Journalist Ashfin Molavi reports even members of the uneducated poor - traditionally core supporters of the revolution that overthrew the Shah - making remarks such as 'God bless the Shah's soul, the economy was better then;' and finds that "books about the former Shah (even censored ones) sell briskly," while "books of the Rightly Guided Path sit idle I am fully aware that Iranians are the descendents of the great Persian Empire, one of if not the, longest lasting Empire of the ancient world. This fact is not lost on Ahmadenejad either, in fact he often references the past glories of that Empire and the Iranian "right" to their place in the sun because of it. This too is a very familar rhetorical ploy used by dictators, despots and tyrants to justify the actions of their regimes...again a look back a mere 79 years shows how easily well educated and cultured people can be seduced by the notion they are superior by virtue of their ancient past and made to pay for it by us, the inferior races. Aryan or Persian, the name doesn't matter, it's the mentality behind it that does. On top of that, and even though Iran is not an Arab country, it is a State dominated by the Shiite sect of Islam (90% of the population). Now this sect, being the major minority within that religion, has carried a feeling of persecution and revenge since it was founded upon the death by assasination of their leader Hussien ibn Ali, Muhammeds successor, at the hands of the Sunni majority in 632 . All of this contributes to Iran's collective seige mentality in how they view their place in the world and how they relate in it. If history has shown us nothing else it is that propaganda and tightly controlled media can be the most useful tools in molding a population to accept the excesses of their regime...and the Iranians have been fed a steady diet of a resurgent Persian greatness and anti-American, anti-Jewish and anti-Christian fodder since their "revolution". I will reiterate that this is not about a spitting match but more so about taking active and unmistakable action to prevent a radical, criminal and clearly aggressive regime from aquiring nuclear weapons with which they can blackmail the world or worse unleash them upon it to achieve their aims. Cogs

With all due respect I'm not at all of the opinion we owe the Iranian people or their rabid dog regime anything other than our condemnation. Installing and supporting the Shah does not justify taking American citizens hostage for 444 days and trying to use them as pawns to extort concessions from us. They could have and should have just kicked all Americans out of their country back in 1979, but they chose to pursue a government sponsored criminal act instead. And that mentatlity of resorting to criminal behavior and terror as a means of "defending" themselves has continued unabated since. Add to that their avowed mission to spead the "Islamic Revolution" regardless of whether or not anyone else wants to be party to it and that further exemplifies just how much of a danger they are in this world. Countless lives have been lost or ruined due to their actions in support of jihadist terrorists far beyond their own borders and their own "freedom from tyranny". A freedom by the way which they do not offer their own people and would happily take from others as well given the chance. And aquiring nuclear weapons will give them that chance. I too wish for a non violent solution, just as I'm sure any sane person does, but as history amply demonstrates appeasement doesn't work...just ask the 50+ million killed in WW 2 after Hitler was appeased. The blood of those 50 million is on the hands of those who sought to accomadate Hitler and his criminal regime in an effort to prevent bloodshed, but which in the end cost far more in blood and genocide than a firmer stand ever would have. As the saying goes "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" and with the potential for a nuclear holocaust causing bloodshed on a scale far beyond that of even WW 2, IMO that quote holds true no more so than in this case. Cogs

Thanks all for the input thus far. SECTMB has answered the questions almost verbatim to my own views. Thats said I think there are variables here that expand the situation from the political to the geopolitical. Both Russia and China have vested interests in Iran, not the least of which being weapons sales. Added to that is the fact that both Russia and China have become more bellicose in their dealing with us recently. Now of course the risk to China in terms of losing it's primary trading partner are enormous, but as in times past a costly war in terms of lives and money can bring new powers to the forefront....think the U.S. after WW I as the European empires started to crumble or go bankrupt. And of course the vast majority of the products we rely on now come from China thanks to those who sold out our manufacturing base to line their own pockets. When push comes to shove the risks may be viewed as acceptable if it causes a retreat of American influence and power around the world, leaving a vacuum that both China and Russia would be more than happy to fill. So much so that they may view direct involvement as in their best interest. But far more likely I think would be either Russia, China or both using Iran as a proxy to drag us into a long, costly war unlike anything we've seen since WW2 opening the door for them to pursue their own geopolitical aims without our interference. Then of course there is the spectre of jihad that would undoubtedly be called as the major supporter and sponsor of Islamic fundamentalist groups comes under attack by the "Great Satan" or our "lackey" Israel. It is almost assured that whether Israel is directly involved or not they will be a target just as they were in the first Gulf war. Except this time the enemy is far larger than Iraq and has it's tentacles firmly pulling the puppet strings of the myriad of terrorist groups operating in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon...all of whom want to see Israel wiped from the face of the earth. This also leads to my question about a 9/11 type attack here at home. It may not be the Iranians themselves, but more likely their proxies that plan and try to carry out massive terrorist acts on our soil to help their benefactor. What we must also remember is that as far as Iran is concerned a de facto state of war already exists between us. They may soon find themselve more alienated and going broke and thus becoming more desperate and reckless as their options dwindle. As a student of history I can see that although very different this situation does bear more than a passing similarity to the state of the our relations with Japan prior to Pearl Harbor...and it was oil then too that was the catalyst for war. I do not advocate war as the first means to resolve the crisis, but I do support entering into it to protect ourselves or prevent attacks against us. Should Iran aquire nuclear weapons, how long do you think it would be before a terror group got hold of a bomb, put it on small boat and eradicated southern Manhattan? IMO a nuclear armed regime in Iran that has called for the extermination of Israel, denies the Holocaust, and is a sponsor of worldwide terrorist activities, of which we are the main target, is an unacceptable alternative....even if that means war. Cogs

Since I believe this is one of the major issues confronting our nation as the 2012 election approaches and I work in a part of the world that would most likely feel the immediate effect of any preemptory strike, I was just curious as to what the consensus of those at home is to the situation with Iran and it's nuclear weapons program. Here's some questions on the subject. Do you think this situation is a threat to us at home? Do you think that you as an emergency responder here at home face the possibility of another 9/11 type asasault due to our or our allies actions or lack of them regarding Iran? Do you think sanctions and an oil embargo will prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons? Do you think we should return to the negotiating table with an openly hostile and traditionally dishonest regime? If so do we trust them to fulfill any agreements reached? Do yo think we should strike unilaterally and destroy their facilities and means of production before a weapon is produced? Do you think we should encourage and/or support Israel (or other allies) in that type of operation? Do you think we should engage in covert operations such as sabotage of Iran's nuclear facilities and sources of funding? Do you think we should engage in the assasination of Iran's nuclear scientists? Do you think we should encourage our allies to engage in such covert actions on our behalf? Do you think we should engage in open hostilities or even declare war should they close the Strait of Hormuz? If not then how about if they do indeed build the bomb? Do you think we should just leave it alone and insist our allies do the same to prevent a war? Do you believe there is another option or options? If so what are they? Cogs

Bingo!! From Fire Apparatus Journal: great find thanks!! Cogs ps. Love the wheel chocks...now that's when men were men.

In a society where your value as a person has become more intertwined and dependent upon your bank account and credit rating than ever before it is not suprising that suicides are on the rise. Being human emergency responders are not immune to this, as such working to serve others may have a more palapable and visceral impact on some since we see ourselves as the "good guys" that shouldn't face such troubles...we're the ones that help people. History is full of times where hopelessness and despair have set in with tragic results and no more so than in times of economic trouble. We have all heard stories of the stockbrokers leaping out windows on Wall Street after the '29 crash. During the Great Depression suicides increased to unprecedented numbers around the world as people's lives descended into poverty. Going back even further in history Egyptians, Roman's, Greeks, Mayans, Incas, Aztecs...in fact all civilizations...have faced increases in suicides as the world as they knew it and the economy on which they thrived collapsed...which is the direction many feel we are headed in today. And it has always been the ones who serve that are hit hardest. In the times of those great empires it was the military that saw their ranks decimated by suicides, especially among the leadership. Maybe because as the pillars of those civilizations they felt responsible for their decline, or maybe because try as they might they could not prevent it. I think a similar "guilt" coupled with the unparelled dehuminization of society today have created a "perfect storm" of despair and darkness that some just cannot seem to persevere through. And in this too it is an almost unwritten rule that we, as first responders...as the pillars of our civilization...deal with adversity, trauma and tradgedy in a stoic manner. We don't share our troubles, we solve the troubles of others. I suppose that for some that huge weight on their shoulders becomes a burden they can no longer bear as their lives spiral downward with their dwindling bank accounts, credit ratings and even addictions brought on by these troubles. And unfortunately in our closed world many feel they "can't" show weakness by asking for help. We in the fire service pride ourselves on the brotherhood forged through our collective effort that is unique, and it is this brotherhood that offers the best chance of help to those in need of it. Although sometimes suicides are completely unexpected, signs of trouble often emerge long before a trigger is pulled or noose tightened, so as brothers and our brothers keepers it is incumbent upon all of us to watch for them and act. The world is a hard place and one could argue getting harder and that affects everyone, but because of the unique bonds and shared experences that we as emergency workers confront daily, we alone have the insight necessary to spot a wayward or lost comrade before it's too late. When push comes to shove it is far better to act and be wrong than to leave these brothers alone in ther misery, despair and hopelessness. Cogs

Even career FFs have a social aspect to their involvement in the fire service. Union sponsored Christmas and retirement parties, golf outings, conventions and yes even dances, so let's not get caught up pointing fingers. Social life is a part of the brotherhood we as firefighters...all of us...share, in fact it is what helps that brotherhood flourish. It is when the social takes precedence over operations that problems arise and in all fairness that problem is far more prevalent, but by no means exclusive, to the volunteer sector. As has been said already there are "good" and "bad" FDs on both sides of the divide and one bad apple shouldn't and doesn't spoil the bunch...no matter what bunch, career or vollie, we're talking about. We all need to put the paintbrushes and blankets away and steer clear of generalizations that lump groups together when talking FDs. Better to deal with the specifics for individual departments or districts in relation to their performance and what impact that performance has in the community or region. Be an FD career or volunteer there is no one size fits all that applies across the board in the fire service, especially the fire service here in the Northeast. I respect all FFs, departments and organizations that represent them until such time as I have reason not to, I would simply ask to be given that same respect in return until I or my department give reason to lose it. Cogs

There are those who believe career fire protection is the only "real" or effective fire protection, just as there are those who feel volunteers offer benefits in terms of cost saving and community involvement while offering the same quailty of service. As with everything each are entitled to their own views and are free to express them, but blanket statements are always wrong. Some dept.s are well run, well organized, professional and this ensures that they get the job done to the benefit of their communities, and some aren't and don't....and as much as many may want to dispute it this fact cuts right across the career/volunteer line. Paychecks do NOT guarantee anything other than people fighting fires as a job, just as volunteerism does not guarantee anything other than people having an association with a fire dept. In this case it seems that the cost to service ratio is way out of whack, but that in and of itself should not be an indictment of volunteer firefighting. Each department must be viewed independently to determine their value to those they serve and only those served have the right decide if their dept is indeed valuable to them. Cogs

Although not impossible BFD is a tough job to get on if not from Beantown because unless the policy has changed very recently..yes they are strict on residency and generally have plenty of residents taking the test. If memory serves residency and an upper age limit of 32 are standards. In fact many cities and towns in Mass hold pretty firm on residency as a requirement, but even most of those that don't will give preference to residents over out of towners or worse out of Staters with higher scores. When taking the Mass Statewide civil service test you will have to chose an FD as your primary and then 3 more that you will accept employment with. If a department is hiring and you haven't chosen it you will most likely be passed over regardless of score. For all thinking of taking the test...Good Luck!! Cogs

Technology and "progress" are great and unavoidable but as I've often said newer is not always better. The Gamewell systems many of us are familiar with were (are for those fortunate enough to still have them), simple to use, simple to maintain and above all reliable. It's a shame they have become extinct in most areas. Cogs

Although limited at best, thankfully to the best of my knowledge what State standards we do have in CT apply across the board. There is no distiction made between career and volunteer.

Let me begin by stating that I know very little about the Aviation VFD and I will have to take the word of those on here who do in regards to their issues. That said and sorry to divert too far away from the topic at hand, but this particular post caught my attention and I would like to respond to it. I must respectfully disagree with the assesment that training in the volunteer sector is not "sufficient". I know of many VFDs that have excellent training programs, run by experienced, knowledgeable and dedicated training officers and members that produce superb firefighters...and this I know because I am one of those training officers. Blanket statements rarely if ever tell the whole story, in fact the usually do more harm than good. Are there VFDs that provide substandard training? Yes of course there are, and guess what there are career departments guilty of the same offense...and if anyone actually believes volunteers have a monopoly on pencil whipping training reports, who is it that's being naive? So while it may be true in many States that career FFs are required to meet standards which are often more stringent than their volunteer counterparts, (which indeed does usually lead to better trained, but not necessarily more experienced FFs), it does not by any means mean that volunteers are, as a rule, un or insufficiently trained. Another point on which I hold a different view is that of the place of State training. For me I think State training should supplement in house training, not the other way around. Yes all FFs should go and fill their heads with all the requisite knowledge certification classes offer, but once done it should become the responsibility of the FD and the members themselves to train regularly in house to meet the needs of their community...and that just can't be accomplished at a State level. No State academy or curriculum can tailor training for each jurisdiction, so until such time as there are universal SOP/Gs and such, the bulk of training must happen in house and be built around how your FD operates. State classes taught by certified instructors is a wonderful and necessary tool in producing great FFs, but IMO it is just that a tool, not a crutch or substitute for real world department based training. Stay Safe Cogs

The current direction in this thread got me to thinking...(yes I know a dangerous scenario). Now yes I know Westchester is slightly different than my area next door in CT, but there is more similarities than differences which extend far beyond just our neck of the woods. A few of us have observed that we'd be better off with a smaller number of motivated and well trained FFs working a scene, than all the kings men that are not quite on their A game. Numbers do not ensure a successful outcome by any means and in light of that I think it's safe to say that quality far outpaces quantity when it comes down to the crunch. But with each passing year it becomes more and more apparent that the experience many of us took for granted as a learning tool to bring the quality up is just not there anymore. Fire duty is down everywhere and along with that decline comes the decline in the availibilty of practical hands on experience that makes one a good fireman, for there is no better teacher in our field than "doing the job". Like any skill the more often you do it the better the vast majority become at doing it as time passes. So this leads us back to a fireground with a staging area chock full of eager FFs, there ready to go in a flash, but members now more often than not with far less experience and hence ability than their predecessors to draw on when they need it most. A vicious circle if ever there was one. For all the talk of consolidation or mutual aid, which are a part of the solution without doubt, what I think this comes down to in the end is the quality of the people we are relying on to do the work. Firemen put out fires and the better trained and more experienced they are, the better they will be at doing it which can then lead to requiring less of them if necessary to do it. Does this mean we should put ourselves in a siutation where only the bare minimum or less in terms of manpower is expected to effectively work a scene, with no reserve? Of course not. It means that we should be looking at ways to give our people the tools necessary to do their jobs safely, but still do them with the resources they have. And one of the prime tools in acheiving that is experience, which if it isn't happening as frequently in the "real world" as it used to, we should be doing our damnest to provide in the training one. For us OSHA, and CT is an OSHA State, requires one live fire excercise a year...one. How much will your troops gain from that one excercise? My bet...not much. So then what. Well for my FD back home I have always tried to do as many live burns a year as we can, in years past usually around 6 to 8 but often more since our district is not a fire factory, and revolve our training around actual fireground scenarios...by and large running drills as incidents. This keeps members "in practice" as they do in drill what they do on the fireground, in real time as if they are actually at a job, thus adhering to what is for me a basic philosophy...train as you will work. I run my training sessions at work much the same way and in the last 6 months we've seen a marked improvement in both the abilities and motivation of the crews here both on and off the fireground. They are learning or reinforcing by doing and gaining what I'll be the first to admit is limited but still extremely valuable experience in fireground operations. Believe it or not I am a certified Health and Safety Officer, and my "old school" beliefs, while seemingly "anti-safety" to some, are anything but. I take our safety and that of the fireground very seriously, but I believe that the safest fireground is one populated by FFs that actually know what they are doing...because they've done it. My UK colleagues have taken a different approach to training and in fact fireground operations, and it is one I see us heading towards. Safety above all else is their approach, so much so that the things that in the past allowed members to gain experience have become "too danerous" to do in training and thus on the scene. Firefighting is a hot, smoky, filthy and exhausting business and so too should it be with our training. We should be training in much the same, albeit far more controlled, environment as we deal with "out there" as a matter of course without the overemphasis on worrying if someone might get a boo boo. I happened to be looking through my old FF I book when I was moving on my last R&R. That book is from 1982 and what struck me most about it was that for the most part the firefighting part of it is the same 100 or so pages as the curent one, but we now have an additional 200 or more which deal with the "safe" way to do our job. More time is sometimes spent in drill covering the safe or proper way to do things than actually doing them and this leads back to experience..or more precisely the lack of it..and how that affects the fireground. I think we are doing members a great disservice by reducing their exposure in training to the realities of the job for their "safety". The answer to effective manpower usage does not lie in a book or video or even in SOPs that call for an army for a bedroom fire, it lies in the capabilities of those who will perform the job. It is up to us to build our FFs into the resource we need them to be, both individually and as a team, to meet the challenges faced. By doing so we will ensure, as much as is possible, not only that the job gets done even with limited manpower, but that it gets done and everyone goes home. Cogs

Since this made the papers security has been verified. Not trying to sensationalize what we do here but this article is just a reminder for those that might be interested in coming over that this is a war zone and we are never too far from the violence. KABUL, Afghanistan — At least 20 people have been killed in suicide attacks in southern Afghanistan, authorities said Thursday, including seven civilians who died when a bomber blew himself up near an airport used by the U.S.-led coalition. The attack near the entrance to the airfield in Kandahar — Afghanistan's second-largest city and the traditional heartland of the Taliban insurgency — occurred Thursday afternoon when a suicide bomber detonated a white Toyota Corolla, said Zalmai Ayubi, a spokesman for the provincial governor. Two children were among the dead, authorities said. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement on its website. The insurgents said the target was a convoy of foreign nationals who were leaving the airfield, which is one of the largest bases used by the NATO coalition. Many civilians use the busy entrance as well, however. An additional eight civilians, including a woman and two children, were reported wounded. The explosion destroyed four civilian vehicles and two fuel tankers, Ayubi said, but it couldn't be determined whether the tankers belonged to NATO forces. The picture below was taken shortly after the blast and we are working in the area behind the two soldiers in the background (as indicated by the black arrow I've added to the pic [pardon it's crudeness]). As you can imagine the scene was gruesome with body parts and shredded and burned vehicles strewn a good distance from the epicenter. While we try to be professional,...and well dispassionate, in doing our duty out here I have to admit that for all of us there this particular scene was also extremely infuriating. What kind of degenerate animals target kids? The wounded were in rough shape and included 2 more children, but thankfully our quick response got them to the staff at Role 3 (the base trauma hospital) who worked their magic and all will survive. Here's a pic from a Canadian newspaper and it's caption: A U.S. soldier keeps watch at the site of an explosion in Kandahar Jan. 19. A suicide bomber killed seven civilians, including two children, and wounded eight in an attack on the main gate of the Kandahar Air Field used by international and Afghan troops in southern Afghanistan, Kandahar governor's spokesman Zalmai Ayobi said. Photograph by: AHMAD NADEEM, REUTERS

Excellent point/counterpoint discussion thus far. "Consolidation" the infamous and much maligned dirty word of Northeast firefighting. For a very long time stretching back to the early 80's, my first few years in the fire service, I have been a proponent of a consolidated service, looking first only at the local level in Stamford, but now extending well beyond the City limits. Often ridiculed or dismissed at best, I have nonetheless maintained that belief to this day and most likely will carry it with me to the grave. Why? Well if for no other reason than because as time has passed and my experiences have become varied I have come to see that consolidating offers the best answer on so many levels. As "progressive" or "enlightened" as such a view may be it has also been tempered over time by the realities of the world in which we, in our little corner of it, live and operate. It may well be that consolidation offers many answers but those answers come at a price that, right or wrong, many are just not willing to pay. My current employment has given me the opportunity to work along side a group of UK firemen for whom consolidation and standardization have long since been a fact of life. Many times heads shake and eyes roll when the complexities of how our region operates are explained. What does all this have to do with the topic? Well for starters the very nature of the questions asked beg for consolidation as the answer. But as we all know it is not quite so simple for a number of reasons, one of which I will try to address, in as objective a way as I possibly can. I stated that it seems to me it takes more resources now than to used to to handle fires. That is not quite right. It is not the numbers thrown at incidents so much, as they have stayed relatively the same, it is more the make-up of those numbers. Huh? Ok let me try to explain. As Barry pointed out staffing for his department has been reduced per rig, so therefore more rigs are required to bring the same number of FFs to a scene. This change in staffing is quite common in our region as Departments have either had to reduce an all career force or, in many more instances I think, career personnel have been added to or replaced volunteers. And it is this change that has caused friction that, when coupled with the more traditional impediments such as the independent mindset of home rule and unchecked egos, have led us to ignore the obvious..consolidation. No one wants to share or worse give up their "power" and that unwillingness casts it's very long shadow over both career and volunteer departments in our part of the world. As was pointed out, we in the NY metro area are literally awash in apparatus and members, so why then is the idea of having enough manpower even an issue? Because some traditions die hard, some grudges are not easily forgotten and maybe most of all, a divide which as always existed has become an almost unbridgable chasm. Yes I think you know where this is going, but rest assured it will be a non partisan rant since both "sides' share the blame for that chasm's existence in equal measure. Manpower shortages and consolidating resources to resolve them have a very large and very well entrenched nemesis...the career vs volunteer conundrum. If you don't think that is so just look at the posts that have graced these pages. That division is like the scourge of the plague clouding the ability of intelligent and rational FFs to do what's right..think of the public we serve first. The idea that consolidating would be the right move is almost universal here, yet there are always caveats attached. "Volunteers must be better trained" or "career members must let us maintain control" and so on and so on, the debates are endless. All these views have merit and are based in facts, but all neglect the prime objective..serving the public first. Ok this may seem a stretch and way off base to the topic at hand, but it is not. We all know manpower shortages exist and that those shortages put us all at risk. There is not enough money to staff every City, town and hamlet with enough career FFs to effectively do the job, on a countywide basis or not. Nor is there enough volunteers in a time when numbers continue to drop to provide the levels necessary either. Hmm what then could possibly be the answer..how about combine the two. But alas that division, that almost insurmoutable chasm which we all know exists prevents us from combining because one "side" or the other will have to give...and neither one is prepared to. In my County we have the Fairfield County Chiefs Association made up of career and volunteer departments. They hold monthly meetings at which they have guest speakers, mingle, talk alot, visit with friends and enjoy a good meal, fun, fun, fun. But what they don't do..and in my experience what most similar organizations don't do...is devise a common strategy to work together in spite of our differences. In 2012 it is almost incomprehensible to me that every FD in my County and maybe yours as well is not fully prepared to deploy anywhere within the County or even across State lines at a moments notice..and be able to do so fully within the confines of a standardized set of procedures, guidelines and objectives. Why can't we do this? Because as this site so often shows we can't even agee that we're all FFs to begin with. And why is that so? Because an animosity that began years ago as a trickle has now become a flood. So yeah maybe this rant is a bit of a stretch but in the end we face manpower issues because we are our own worst enemy. We let what are in reality small and solveable differences overshadow the one prime similarity..we are ALL firemen here to serve. A pointless rant? Maybe. But before anyone gets the wrong idea and thinks I'm reducing this to a simple career vs volunteer "thing" maybe take it for what it is...a look at one small yet very destructive piece of the larger picture and one which we alone CAN fix. Stay safe Cogs

Great response, thanks You make very valid and prudent points, all of which should be on the mind of any IC. But unfortunately most departments do not have that kind of manpower reserve on which to draw without negatively affecting addtional resources. Yes we'd all like to have a number of crews staging ready to go at the drop of a hat to deal with the unexpected, but where did they come from? Another in town Company or Dept thus depleting their response area. Mutual aid thereby affecting that town or city's capabilites to handle their own incidents, not to mention taking resources away from those taxpayers who have paid for them to ensure their own protection. At some point we must draw the line between safety and reality. All resources are finite and we can only prepare as best we can with what we have for the unexpected, which is where preplanning and automatic mutual aid come in to play. In most circumstances for a bread and butter job a crew held in reserve in addition to FAST to take on the challenges you describe would be ideal, and not only from a safety standpoint. But beyond that for most bread and butters any more becomes overkill IMHO. And if resources do not allow for additional on scene crews above and beyond FAST from the start well then that's too damn bad, we have a job to do and the sooner we go about doing it the less we will need those additional resources in the end. As I said I'm something of a dinosaur in many respects and make no apologies for it. So while it may not be popular to buck the safety trends by disagreeing with many "modern" and "enlightened" views on the nature of our work in the 21st century IMO safety on the fireground starts with the individual and extends to the department. 50 inexperienced and untrained FFs thrown at a house fire will not make that fire go out any faster or safer, in fact it will make the situation worse. A smaller number of dedicated, highly motivated, well trained and experienced FFs can do a hell of alot of work...safely and effectively... without undo risk or punishment. As with all things balance is the key including balancing what we need, what we have and what we want. Take care Cogs

This is rare in my experience although there have been incidents where personnel were called in to relieve exhausted crews or replace those on scene, often FAST crews, if they become committed. In my experience this hasn't made a big impact, but I know there are dept's that will not use certain other depts for mutual aid...and this is career not wanting vollies, vollies not wanting career and vollies not wanting other vollies Here again in most instances I'm familiar with the only real "staged" crews are FAST and they are not there as relief personnel In my FD at home it would if that situation were ever to arise. Here at work it's a non sequiter..there's only 10 of us structural boys and we're it inside the wire. I have to say that for me calling mutual aid in for station coverage is perfectly acceptable so long as the units sent don't compromise the effectiveness of the department sending them and the scene is operating. While the chances of a 2nd fire may be remote it is by no means unthinkable and should be planned for. I also think that there are times when it makes far more sense to call in a mutual aid company to the scene rather than wait for one from your own department to travel all the way across town to get there. As I said and it has been my experience that mutual aid should only be sent if the sender can continue to provide for their own area either with their own non committed resources or through the use of the automatic redistribution of resources from neighboring districts/towns. One need not have a county wide FD to have automatic regional mutual aid for on scene resources/station coverage. This of course leads to the "qualifications" of that mutual aid, but that's another discussion. And now I will be soundly trounced upon: I happen to be one of those dinosaurs that thinks that sometimes..not always by any means...but sometimes we have reached the point of overkill with the number of personnel on a scene. Now yes we must have FAST, and safety officers, and so on, but I can remember a time not so very long ago when fires were handled with far less than what is considered the norm today. What was once a single alarm job has now become a multi alarm situation as a matter of course in many instances. I'm not advocating being unsafe, but alot of fires I go to or buff seem to have an awful lot of people standing around looking important, but doing very little and that cuts across all lines young and old, career and vollie, jeez even red trucks and white trucks. It just seems to me that maybe, at times, we are overloading fire scenes with rigs and manpower and thus stretching our resources unnecessarily. Good topic, thanks B. I look forward to reading everyone else's opinons. Cogs

Gary, IN is a pretty busy and poor surburb of Chicago, similar I'm told to say Camden, NJ or similar city call and fire volume wise. That said they are notorious for being the "what not to do" Dept in many a video. Anyone remember the overloaded portable ladder collapse a few years ago? As for the IN standards and certifications, like any other state's they're all well and good but useless if not applied. Paper doesn't put fires out, much less do it safely and no matter how much of it you have it still won't. Watch and learn not to make the same mistakes is the best advice you an take away from these types of videos. Stay Safe Cogs

Professionalism takes many forms and one of them is the ability to engage in open discourse with those who hold differing views without taking it personally. Professionals realize that difference exist and that even when not in agreement with those diferent views they afford them their due respect while maintaining the commitment to their own. I think this has been shown by the majority of contributors here by a wide margin in the face of some huge differnces. That is a testament to the commitment we all share to our craft, career and volunteer alike. Cogs

True. I'm fairly cetain no one from Stamford will be completely objective on the subject. Not out of spite but more so because everyone has a horse in the race. At present no. The City Charter grants each VFD autonomy and therefore operating money. Until that changes it would be hard to imagine any of them simply turning over the keys and for all intents and purposes disbanding. Cogs

Not sure if this is the right heading for this topic but here goes. Here's a hypothetical that came up during a drill in which there was some "disagreement" between the American and British contingents here at work. OK so the scenario is thus: On a scene with limited manpower and no operational radios with one line in position and operating to contain a rapidly spreading fire in an adjacent area, you and a partner are the search team. You have found and are starting to remove an unconcientous but viable victim from the IDLH to the only available exit and safety, when it becomes apparent that niether of you have enough air to make it out while exerting yourselves to bring the victim, What do you do? 1) Leave the victim, make your way out and report their location to command upon exiting the structure so they can send in the next available search team to retrieve them. 2) Continue on as far as you can go with the victim trying to manage your remaining air, while alerting command and others of trouble via your PASS 3) Remain in place with the victim to conserve the air you do have and use your PASS to alert others of your plight 4) Another option...explain. I know we shoudn't get into this position in the first place but for the puposes of this query please just stick to the scenario. I will refrain from putting forth my answer for the moment but anyone who knows me knows what it is. Thanks all Stay Safe Cogs

As I stated for me it's a case of activating our PASS alarms while continuing towards the exit. It comes down to the "morality" I touched on earlier. Many may not agree with it but then again many might. Ultimately it becomes the choice of those actually in the predicament to make on the spot. And I don't think there is a simple right or wrong answer, there is only what we feel to be the right one for us at that time we make it. Maybe we don't and the fact is leaving a victim to die is not a very good outcome either. All of our training and experience are supposed to help guide us in making life and death decisions, espcially when the unexpected or unplanned happens. The arguments raised for leaving a victim seem to me to be ones that will easily transfer into a policy of doing nothing. Ultimately there is always a risk every time we enter a burning building that something may go wrong or a miscalculation might be made....and the only way to prevent that is to not enter it in the first place. Cogs

You are retracing the path you took getting to the victim with the only exit being the door you came in (a fairly common structural anomaly here) and you won't have enough air to make it. I find it very enlightening in that regardless of the specifics (of which there are none anyway) some say keep going and others say leave the victim. Each view is supported by what I think are valid reasons for following through with the decision made. Thanks all for the contributions so far. Cogs

No disrespect intended, but while I do agree that we are dealing with an evolution in the math of risk vs reward, as I see it that math is becoming more and more skewed in favor of us taking less risk to achieve the same reward of saving a viable human life than it has been in the past...much IMHO to the detriment of those we are here to serve. We all face the potential to be in a situation where we will have to make a decision as to what we are willing and, (based on our experience, training and knowledge of the situation) capable of doing to save a life or if that life is even able to be saved. Alone with a partner searching in the heat and smoke if it comes to be that we have chosen to go and get a victim because as far as we can tell conditions warrant and support that decision, then once we have found and are removing them it becomes a matter of "pushing the envelope" as far as is possible if need be to ensure they and we get out alive. Unlike the victim and most civilians we are trained and equipped to work in conditions that other can't, and that includes dealing with unforseen "problems" such as the one presented in the scenario. There are always options and as far as I'm concerned every one of them should be pursued if it means you save that life. In my ledger that reward is worth the risk. Cogs