FFPCogs

To the best of my knowledge there was no decision yesterday, so TRFD and the rest of us of will have to remain in limbo...hopefully for only a few more days. But if in fact Mr. Morganteen is correct, which I hope he is, there is one bright spot....the Judge will make his decision from the bench. If so then a precedent will be set right then and there and we can all get on with what has to be done based on that. Cogs

Lest we forget: Lexington-Concord, Valley Forge, New Orleans and the frontier, the Alamo, Bull Run, Gettysburg, San Juan Hill, Chateau Theirry, Pearl Harbor. Guadalcanal, Anzio, Omaha Beach, Bastogne Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Pork Chop Hill, Cho-sen, Khe Sahn, Hue, Beriut, Tehran rescue, Grenada, Desert Strom, Iraqi Freedom, Afghanistan and all the other battles large and small fought across the globe for this great nation, for they have taught us that Freedom is NOT free. Let us take take a moment out of our busy lives to honor the the fallen soldiers, sailors and airmen, those whose blood was shed for our future. Salute the flag, cast our eyes downward and thank them for their sacrifice and that of their families, thank them for our freedom and our future. My most heartfelt thanks to those who served and those who have died in defense of my liberty and the security of my country and my family. Rest in Peace, heroes all. 9/11 Never Forget Cogs

A welcomed step in the right direction. Of course if I had my way these construction methods would themselves be outlawed, but barring that a worthwile and hopefully successful step none the less. Kudos to the City, Building Dept and Fire Dept for making it happen. Cogs

There is much good information and ideas here. I believe it was/is Port Chester which had the duty engine concept in place for the town. Basically each engine company is assigned as duty engine for a month (I think). They respond to all calls, and the responsibility as duty engine rotates through each house. I don't believe it was a staffed rig though. Stamford's Big 5 attempted a similar concept some years ago calling it a squad. It was supposed to be staffed by volunteers and respond to all calls in the VFD districts at night, but I do believe problems arose and the idea died away. With any staffing concept there is one element that must be in place or it will surely fail, and that is the willingness of the memberships to make it happen. Without active participation by as many members as possible in the intial stages (until a mandatory requirement can be phased in), volunteer staffing is doomed to failure. It is good to see that the program has been a success in Deer Park as well as in numerous other jurisdictions around the nation. As with most any "new" idea every success only adds to the validity of the concept and proves that it can and does work. Success also makes it harder and harder for the naysayers to hold off the inevitable. This concept IS the future, and the future is now!! Cogs

Good post. I would put the minimum at 350 calls a year or on average one a day. Yes there would be many quiet "shifts", but the down time could be used for training, not to mention building comraderie and cohesion among the membership. A second family so to speak. Couldn't agree more!!! To me much of this lack of commitment stems from the societal attitude which now seems to place ME above WE. Some it seems have forgotten that their firehouses are not there for their personal reasons alone, but in fact are there for the public we serve above all else. When we in the fire service forget that and allow this ME first attitude to take root and flourish, everybody loses Cogs

Now we're cooking with gas... I definitely think that if a department uses some type of percentage or point system then shifts should be considered completion of one unit of the system. One idea that has been batted around between a few of us at my "house" would be to give points for the shift as well as a point for each call within the shift. I think that we will see the idea of volunteer "shifts" in some form grow as time goes on. Since all departments suffer from the 80/20 rule and numbers of members has steadily decreased over the years, it will be the only way to ensure coverage without burning out that 20%. To me this is a no brainer and while I fully understand that not everyone sees things as I do, public safety should always come first. What better way to keep volunteers while ensuring the public welfare than having people in place ready to go immediately? Cogs

Sure is lonely in here....that's ok I'm used to it....... .

I have long been an advocate of duty crews at volunteer firehouses. In this case it would appear that the validity of the concept was borne out by the decrease in response time to this particular incident. I have for many years put forth the idea of initiating guaranteed minimum volunteer staffing, with mixed results. This article to me is just another point tipping the scale to the positive aspects of the concept. While response times are of primary importance another factor (especially in these times of decreased volunteerism due to time constaints) is that duty crews allow members to schedule their lives around the times when they are "on duty" while still maintaining a minimum of participation. Here too duty crews help to distribute the participation or "work" equally amonst the membership while giving those who want to be more active the opportunity to remain so. There are those who believe that duty crews or minimum staffing takes away from or negates the term volunteer because it sets limits on participation. I do not, the same drive that brought someone in the door in the first place is still there, only the amount of time required may be different. At the very least as shown in the article from a public safety standpoint minimally staffed firehouses will always provide the public with a higher degree of safety, especially during the night time hours when they sleep. And with volunteers doing the staffing the cost savings to the community is well worth the effort. I could go on and on extolling the virtues of guaranteed volunteer staffing, but in a nutshell I believe that in 2009 the idea is one whose times has come. Hopefully other departments will follow suit, much to the benefit of their communities. Cogs

Great grab, kudos to all who were there. Cogs

I'm shocked this one hasn't made it here yet, so to get the ball rolling. What is your opinion of Lt. McCormacks remarks from the FDIC keynote speech? During a hard-hitting keynote speech to FDIC on Thursday, FDNY Lt. Ray McCormack criticized today's leadership as being too focused on firefighter safety. "Too much safety makes Johnny a poor leader and a terrible rescuer," he said full article and video @: http://www.firerescue1.com/firefighter-saf...ent-not-safety/ I would urge all of you to watch his address in full as it is to me right on the money in a number of aspects aside from the obvious call for the "culture of extinguishment not safety". I couldn't agree more with that statement and with his reasoning behind it. One more of many points in his speech which struck me, was his belief that we are "priviledged" to be a part of the fire service. Now while he may have been speaking specifically to those for whom firefighting is a career, I for one believe that it is indeed a priviledge to be a part of the fire service no matter what your status. Any thoughts? Cogs

All the responses thus far have been stellar in my book, and I must say I'm happy to see that everyone here still remembers what it means to be a fireman. I look forward to more insights. Keep up the good work! Cogs

Exactly!!!

Well, I would think that in many ways things would be as they were.....maybe we'd even still be riding the back step with long coats and 3/4 boots and manufacturers would still offer open cab designs. I think from a technology standpoint much of what we now consider commonplace or indispensable would still be with us. These came about because of innovative minds and the huge advancements in computer science...I do not believe that the fire service would have been able or would have chosen, to be immune to our technological age. From a tactical standpoint however....well being that we are bound by tradtion in many cases (we've all heard or experienced the motto "200 years of tradition unimpeded by progress")....I think we would still be an aggressive service using traditional methods where applicable. Modern construction having it's unique parameters I believe would have been addressed regardless of the alphabet of organizations that are here to protect us from ourselves. 2 in - 2 out may not have become a formalized "rule" and RIT (FAST) may not have taken on the preeeminent role it currently holds, but I am of the belief that we would be as safe without _______, (name your watchdog) as with them in place. This I believe for a few reasons: 1) Firefighter fatalities have remained relatively constant for decades. What has changed is the manner in which those fatalites are regularly occuring. All the encapsulation is seen by some (including me) to be a possible cause for some of the LODDs that most likely wouldn't have happened years ago...as we would have been unable to enter THAT far. (I know today's fires burn "hotter" and "quicker" but the fact remains we lose a steady stream of FF every year..so how much of an impact does all this personal safety really have)? 2) Civilian fire deaths have not dropped that dramatically due to our increased personal protection. The number of "saves" is about what it always has been, although the property loss rate may have actually gone up as some have chosen in many cases the "let it burn" stratedgy. 3) Tactically RIT and even 2 in - 2 out have always been with us, just not as formalized procedures. We have always had people available on scene to help a fallen comrade, or kept people outside when others are in battling the red devil. I have read and heard of over the years, instances of a firefighter becoming entrapped or injured and low and behold his colleagues WERE able to SAFELY and SUCCESFULLY remove him even without our "overseers" regulations. Why is that...because we were trained to fight our enemy without the safety net or excuse of regulations to bypass that training. It would seem that we are coming to rely far too much on a piece of paper and "special teams" to achieve safety, when hardcore practical training in initial fire tactics and stratedgies and their application on a personal level are what is in fact, needed. Safety is a personal responsibility and by extension the responsibility of those who are experienced (to whatever ever level that may be) within our departments to pass down to the "new" guys. No amount of alphabet soup can substitute for sound, practical and knowledgeable experienced based training if we are going to actually be proactive and confront and ultimately defeat fire. I still believe that training and it's application on the fireground must be based on what I have available, not a cookie cutter procedure that uniformly paints us all with the same brush. I also strongly believe that as a fireman I MUST do something when arriving on scene, no matter how limited my resources are. This I can do (at least on some level) by accepting the fact and training hard based on the fact, that my department may not fit the mold the alphabets want us to. I have always strived (hope that's a word.. ) to teach others that which was taught to me..that ultimately I am responsible for the decisions I make therefore I am responsible for learning how to make those decisions responsibily. Just as importantly it is also the responsibility of our departments to make available the means for that learning. Cogs

Never Never NEVER!!!!!! are any members considered expendable. We MUST always strive to be as safe as we possibly can, while providing the service we are here to provide. As has been oft stated in this thread the absolute best possible way to be safe is to be TRAINED and continue to train aggressively following the procedures used by YOUR department, based on what YOUR department has available. If your department relies on mutual aid, then you should be training with those mutual aid companies as much as is possible. It makse sense that companies that train hard together, work hard together. Training, experience and courage will always produce far better and safer firefighters than regulations ever will. To put it bluntly to be effective and "safe" on the fireground requires three things: Brains, Brawn and Balls in equal measure. Chris, I don't believe anyone is saying we should knowingly commit personnel to die, but firefighting was, is and always will be an inherently dangerous undertaking and in all frankness to think otherwise is somewhat absurd. But like most other segments of society it seems that we in the fire service are now trying to regulate or control our operations with rules and procedures instead of taking responsibility for our judgements and actions. Just as the IC is responsible for the decisions they make, so too are the firefighters for their actions on the fireground. If we cannot judge or do not know our own limitations, and how to read and understand the conditions we are facing, we are liable to make costly mistakes. That lack of judgement is OUR fault and that of our departments who have failed in training us properly. The only real way to ensure that the right choices are made is to TRAIN in making them every chance we get. But even with all the training in the world enhanced by years of hard experience fires sometimes do the unexpected and lives are lost. This is the reality of firefighting....people...firefighters DO die despite all the precautions under the sun, and as ignorant as this may seem to some this is something we all should know is the risk we ultimately face. Accepting this risk and doing our damnest in spite of it is what it means to be a fireman. Cogs

The following is a post from another site made by a friend of a friend. While a long read it to me brilliantly illustrates my beliefs. (The highlighting is mine). "I believe our duty to ourselves and our beloved fire service cannot be separated from our duty to the citizens we are sworn to and are obligated to protect. What is good for us is good for them. My question is, are we seeing this trend to "let it burn" because we have given-up the fight to provide our members with all of those things that are necessary to provide effective and efficient fire and rescue services? Have we rolled-over, bent-over and given up our hopes to provide excellent service and the ability to accurately assess risk? Have we allowed those that seek to undermine our mission to gain a foot-hold? Have we become complacent because we don't believe it can or will happen today? Are the enemies of the fire service going to be allowed to dismantle our combat readiness to the point where the easy or only option is to "let it burn"? When you have a few minutes, please view the FDIC keynote speech given by Lt. Ray McCormack. It was indeed an honor for me to be present as Lt. McCormack delivered a passionate plea to the fire service, to keep fire in our lives. I couldn't agree more and as the saying goes, Ray's speech spoke to me. Rather than commenting on or adding to Ray's speech, I'll let it stand on it's own as a clarion call to the American fire service. We can't allow the "safety experts" that promote the "let it burn" philosophy to convince firefighters that we should place our safety and our lives above the lives of our citizens. As I further pondered the question of safety as it relates to risk and our sworn duty and obligation, the reality of the situation has come into focus. The American fire service is divided into two camps. Both camps speak to their cause with passion and righteousness. In one camp are the "guardians" of safety, many of whom have decided that no building or the contents of that building are worth the life of a firefighter. The other camp seeks to direct the conversation toward our sworn duty to safeguard not only the lives of those we are sworn to protect, but their property as well. This camp of so called "reckless" firefighters is far more interested making sure that our members are competent, predictable, professional and combat ready. This camp believes that the best way to improve the safety of our members is to provide fire departments with the necessary manpower required to mount an aggressive, coordinated interior fire attack. This camp's approach requires that fire departments build battle ready fire suppression forces and dedicate the appropriate resources to demanding training programs, adherence to sound operational procedures and a constant attention to and a demand that firefighters respond to every call as if it was the real thing. And finally, we believe as Lt. Ray McCormack articulated, that the fire service is wrong to place the lives of firefighters above the lives of civilians. The guardians of safety are not shy about their distain for the other camp, the "reckless" holdovers of a long lost era in the fire service. They seek to discredit this camp by questioning our dedication to safety, saying that we are so bound by tradition and the mentality that we do things because "we always do it that way" that we are endangering our members. I'm growing weary of defending myself and like-minded firefighters against constant attacks from the disciples of the "let it burn" philosophy. It is impossible to have a reasoned, logical discussion with someone that will use the tragic loss of a firefighter in the line of duty to justify their philosophy. Their favorite arguments are fashioned following the tragic loss of a Brother or Sister in a building that was later determined to be unoccupied. After the fact, it's easy to ask, "was that building worth a firefighters life?" There is a fundamental difference between firefighters and the rest of the world. When we take the oath, with our right hands raised, we agree to certain things and these things become our solemn duty, our obligation. These duties include the understanding that a time may and likely will come when we have to be willing to risk everything…..to save the life of a stranger. We also have a duty and obligation to take risk for a stranger's property. That's the deal, this is what makes us different from everyone else, with the exception of the military. To be sure, we have other obligations as husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. We have still more obligations and duties to our friends and extended families. No one wants to die; however, our duty to perform our job and our obligation to the citizens we protect rightly takes precedence when faced with the saving of a life and given a fighting chance. When our citizens, in spite of all of our education and prevention efforts, end up needing to be rescued, we are all they have. No one else will come to save them, they will surely die alone if not for our efforts. We also have a duty and an obligation to protect their property. A person's home represents the bulk of their life's investment. Their home is filled with a lifetime of memories and priceless items that would be lost forever in an extensive fire. What is your home worth? My home remains "vacant" and "unoccupied" much of the time; however, if there was a fire in my home, I assure you that I would expect the fire department to mount an aggressive interior attack to save my property. I believe that we have that agreement that contract with our citizens. A recent fire in Chicago involved the Holy Name Cathedral. The Holy Name Cathedral was built in 1874 and it is the seat of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, one of the largest Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. What was the value of this "unoccupied" church? What level of risk is acceptable for this truly priceless property? I can tell you that the building was saved because the Chicago Fire Department mounted a aggressive, coordinated interior attack that was truly remarkable. The skill and courage displayed in extending large caliber handlines up to the attic from the interior, across narrow catwalks and through barriers to fight this fire and save this building that has so much meaning to the people of Chicago and beyond was only accomplished at great risk to the firefighters involved. If, God forbid, something had happened to any of those firefighters, we would have to answer the same questions….is there any building or property worth the life of a firefighter? I fear that the "let it burn" movement, under the guise of safety is gaining momentum. I fear that more members of our service are falling under their spell and being convinced that we should not commit our members to "vacant" or "unoccupied" structures because no building or property is worth a life. Of course no building or property is worth the life of a firefighter. If we could know that a life would be lost before we arrive instead of after the fire is out and the investigation is completed, who would commit their members to the fight? This is why it is difficult to have a reasoned, logical and thoughtful discussion, if this is where we start, how can we ever have open and honest dialog. I believe the safety of our members is dependant on our training, our experience and our ability to make sound decisions on the fireground, where it has always been. We must obtain and maintain a high level of proficiency in the fundamental company functions. Engine companies must be very good at quickly stretching the right size and length hose -line to the right location and getting water on the fire. Truck companies need to have excellent laddering, forcible entry and ventilation skills along with the courage and skill required to search under hostile conditions. Finally, we must have the manpower necessary to accomplish the mission. The "let it burn" approach is, in my estimation, the easy approach to safety. The far more difficult approach is for our fire service leaders to work with our elected and appointed officials and if necessary, take up the fight provide us with the necessary manpower required to mount an aggressive, coordinated interior attack. It's hard work and takes a great deal of perseverance for our leaders to demand a high level of consistent, predictable and professional performance. It's hard to provide the kind and amount of training we need to make good, sound decisions on the fireground and to recognize changing fire conditions. It takes guts to speak-out against the complacency and laziness that is having a devastating effect on our ability to safeguard the lives and property of the citizens we are sworn to protect. Letting it burn is the easy way. I ask you not to take the easy road, it doesn't take a great deal of skill, knowledge or training to "let it burn". I ask our leaders to dedicate yourselves to the difficult process of building properly manned, highly skilled, well trained, competent, professional firefighting forces. I ask the members to dedicate yourselves to the hard work of becoming craftsmen. Don't be satisfied to learn the basics or to maintain the minimum standard. By craftsmanship, I mean to seek out as much information on every conceivable topic by asking questions, conducting research, reading and doing. Learn the fundamentals and then go beyond the basics to create a depth of knowledge that allows you to be flexible enables you to improvise and gives you the ability to troubleshoot problems and fashion solutions." Ultimately we all have to make a choice when the time comes. To me taking what AJ calls the "easy" road will make that choice for us and leave our citizens without what may be their only hope. Cogs

As was stated by Lt McCormack when we place ourselves above those we are there to serve (which is what most safety policies can be perverted into meaning) it definitely "gets in the way" and does betray what it means to be a fireman. We ARE the last hope for many in peril, if we WON"T act because it is "unsafe" according to a procedure dreamt up in an office somewhere, the public, those we are here to protect, lose. Another aspect is that it is now common to regulate safety in place of personal and department experience or responsibility. It was/is that experience that allows us to operate safely. Experience gained not only at incidents but through thorough training in dealing with situations with what we had, not what we wanted. Over reliance on safety or should I say regulation has effectively said we CANNOT do much of what was commonplace not very long ago because it is "unsafe"..(things like entering a structure to search or initiate a fire attack alone, which by the way I have done on a few occasions successfully because I was TRAINED to do so if or when I HAD to). You know for all the blessings a "safe" culture is supposed to provide we still lose far to many FFs each year, maybe more than before absolute safety was all the rage. I stand by my convictions that Lt McCormack's views are the right ones and that when it comes down to it the risks we should be willing to take are what it means to be a fireman. Cogs

Joe, Good topic. I remember the horn alerting me on many occasions to a call up there in Ansonia, many times it allowed us to get rigs rolling before the tones dropped too. Eagles has that beautiful Gamewell control station upstairs. What a spectacular antique. As for Stamford if I remember correctly we took out the box system in the late 80's when the 911 center opened. In Belltown we had already made adjustments to our horn sounding because of a condo development that was built directly behind the firehouse and now it is only tested once a day at noon, sounded for a working fire or used if we are without power for a long duration. Being the dinosaur that I am I would love a return of the Gamewell box system because of it's reliability and believe it or not even with all the modern technology that red box on the corner does add a measure of security in the public's mind. And hey sometimes I just long for the "good ole days" because newer is not always better. Cogs

The pipe is there for the taking all one has to do is step up and take it. Yes it would be nice but unfortunately it won't be today. That being said failure to try guarantees only one thing....failure. Cogs

While I do believe that my ideas (which are simply successful alternatives from elsewhere) have merit I'm not so naive or arrogant as to think that they are the sole "fix"....the world will never be that ideal . As I've said all along it is incumbent upon the volunteers themselves to do a majority of the "work" in "fixing" their part of the system. A few simple yet unconventional (at least here) steps could begin the process of opening a new window of opportunity for renewed negotiation. As we now all know there will be a change in leadership at 888 come November, that is assured. How much negotiation will be possible with that new administration I happen to believe (with good reason) is still to be determined and can be in part influenced by the VFDs through their actions (or lack of them), that they undertake now. Forever the optimist I still see the possibilities for a solution that benefits all. Cogs

This is a post from a friend of a friend off another site. Makes alot of sense if you ask me. When it comes to Politics, Delaware is Number One, No Question. Vice President Joe Biden is fond of telling folks that Delaware is a Three Party State. The three that have to taken Seriously are the Democrats, The Republicans, and the Firefighters. The First State is just that when it comes to Fire Politics, it is rare when a Fire related issue doesn't go the way that the DFA wants. Maryland is Number Two, and, like Avis, Trying Harder. The Md. Legislature has just adjourned it's 2009 Session last week, and a quick look at the scorecard shows that of 12 things that we opposed, 11 were defeated. Of the things that we wanted, we got 14 out of 17. Most importantly, we didn't lose any money to budget cuts. So how do we do this?? Years ago, the State Fire Marshall got representatives of all of the State's Fire, Rescue, and EMS organizations together in a meeting room and told them that we MUST get together and stay together if we're going to win at Politics. That Day was a turning point, and we've moved forward ever since. Now, we meet every Friday Morning to review any and all pending Legislation and try to reach a consensus on a Fire Service Position. Rural and Urban, Career and Volunteer, Fire and EMS, you name it, All are there and working together. There are currently 13 members of the Maryland Legislature who are Fire/EMS people themselves, 5 career, others Volunteer, and they provide the Leadership on bills that we want passed or defeated. Success comes as a result of hard work, and we enjoy success..... Like I've been saying new challenges demand new thinking. What was is no more, what will be is up to us to make happen. No more us against us for someone elses success, how about us against them for OUR success. It would be far easier to move the mountain if all were pushing in the same direction. .........Yeah I know dream on. Cogs

Speaking for myself the "new guy" becomes a firefighter when he/she starts acting like one. 1) Knows the tools of the trade thoroughly 2) Knows how to carry out an order when given one 3) Doesn't panic everytime the tones drop 4) Doesn't need their hand held or disappear on the fireground 5) Acts as part of the team effort, even if they have to work alone 6) Follows my basic tenets of a becoming and staying a good firefighter 1) Dedication 2) Motivation 3) Education 7) Shows equal parts brains, brawn & balls and knows when each applies. Cogs

The whole issue of state cerrtifications was a huge cluster when I went over to Iraq. The degree of difference between states in terms of what is required to complete even the FF I level of certs is staggering. It only gets worse from there. Luckily I am from CT which has some of the toughest standards, but let me assure you those standards are not the same everywhere. In the end we all had to retake FF I, FF II and HAZ MAT Awareness and Ops. After our first year group all other incoming FFs had to take the classes in country before being assigned to a base. Cogs

OK this is NSPQ (ProBoard) certification. There is also IFSAC and DOD certification. All this does is state that you have met the requirements as set forth by the accrediting agency for your state in this case NSPQ. While you can get reciprocity for your certifications in another NSPQ state, this only allows you to challenge that state's certifcation tests without retaking the classes. Your state certification will not be valid in any other states that are NSPQ until you successfully pass that state's certification test. For any states that use IFSAC or DOD as their accreiting agency your certification will be invalid and you will have to retake the entire courses. Unfortunately there is no universal standard of FF certifications that are accepted nationally. Good luck and Stay Safe Cogs

I would also appreciate any further info on this as well. To be honest I've never heard of a nationally registered FF I. It has always been my understanding that there is no such thing since each state sets it's own standards and use differing accrediting agencies. Thanks Cogs

Could it be or is this just a dream? Is it possible that there is finally a crack of light visible at the end of this long disruptive and divisive tunnel? One way or the other let's hope so. Cogs