dwcfireman

So, I forgot I started this thread so many moons ago, and I seem to have failed to keep it updated. Well, it popped into my head today while talking about another possible consolidation (with EMS agencies). I apologize in advance for the long post. The updates out of Victor, NY as as follows: On March 20, 2018 the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Fishers Fire District voted against consolidation. One of the main reasons was that it move two of the career firefighters to the Victor fire house and could potentially effect response times to the busier Fishers area. The Victor Fire Department, which is a department under the Village of Victor, convinced the Village Board in June 2018 to pursue separation from the village and becoming a fire district. This would pave the way for the VFD to hire, at the least, part time paid firefighters to supplement its volunteers. I don't have any further updates on this, unfortunately, as the process to create the fire district takes approximately two years, and there doesn't seem to be any other news on this subject. BUT, what is happening, and it's big new in the EMS world up here in Rochester, is the continued growth of CHS Mobile Integrated Healthcare. Originally operating as Henrietta Ambulance, they merged with Chili Ambulance and contracted with the Scottsville Fire Department, all within Monroe County, to become CHS. About two years ago they expanded once again to cover Caledonia (Livingston County) and the Mumford Fire District (Monroe County). And, just yesterday, they announced the approval from Greece Volunteer Ambulance (northwest of Rochester) to merge into the CHS system. Now, this is going on at the same time that Livingston County EMS, located south of Rochester, is growing rapidly and now covering the majority of the county for both BLS and ALS. Both CHS's and LCEMS's expansion is primarily in response to the closing of volunteer EMS agencies or in savior of closing other EMS agencies. At any rate, both expanding systems seem to be eluding to a common theme; County Based EMS Systems. Albeit, CHS is a not-for-profit company, they still continue down the road to creating a county-wide system. I bring up these upstate EMS mergers namely to state that consolidation is happening, and at a rate that will continue to increase. It seems to be working fairly well with EMS. Yes, they still have their shortfalls, especially when it comes to staffing, but there is nothing to say that these agencies are going to fail. So, why is it (consolidation) working so well with EMS but is so feigned when we talk about it at the fire department level? I mentioned before that it was successful with the North East Joint Fire District in Webster, NY, and I can name another local example with the Hamlin Morton Walker Fire District whose consolidation occurred in 2013 (Western Monroe County). Why aren't fire departments talking about the "C word" more? Why aren't we talking about it more? If fire departments are being requested to do more with less, wouldn't consolidation at least be an option or worth looking into? There is solid proof that consolidation can be a good thing and have a positive outcome for the emergency services in our communities. I'm glad that both the Victor and Fishers fire departments at least looked into it. I may be disappointed about the outcome, but at least there was a motion of well intent.

Buffal Airport is putting specs together for a quint to replace a 2004 International/ALF engine and a 2004 International rescue.

Are those siren speakers in the corners of the bumper?

The reason explained to me many moons ago was to prevent the double collection of workman's compensation and/or disability in the event of a line of duty injury or death.

I volunteered with one department that allowed mutual aid members. To begin, all of those members had to meet the requirements for regular membership, as in they had to work within the district 40 hours per week, and meet the required percentages for training and emergency responses. They could attend company meetings, but they couldn't vote on certain topics or in certain elections. The mutual aid members, if I recall correctly, were not required to help with fundraising activities, but they were encouraged to help out. This was set up essentially to gain a few extra members during the daytime, when turnout is generally low during the work week. The down side was that these members weren't always capable of leaving their jobs to respond to a call, which defeated the purpose. But we did gain a few good members out of the program, and one of the mutual aid members was even allowed to become an EMS lieutenant (I don't recall what bylaw changes were made to allow that). All in all, if your department is going to build such a program that allows firefighters from other departments to ride as mutual aid/assistance members, make sure you research the laws and statutes that pertain to fire department membership. It's illegal in NYS to be an active volunteer firefighter with two different departments, and the mutual aid membership is a grey area: Are they a member of two departments? Or are they simply riding on another department's apparatus? Get your department's legal counsel involved in the research and planning phases to ensure your T's are crossed and I's are dotted before accepting mutual aid members, that is if you r able to launch such a program. Talk to departments that have these programs, including the bunk-in programs for college students and young firefighters. Hawthorne and Purchase come to my mind as departments to reach out to. IMHO, the bunk-in programs for college students and young firefighters, which can involve mutual aid members, is a great way to gain and retain young membership and get them involved in a rewarding career, whether they remain a volunteer or advance later into a paid position. This would be a great route to take if you're looking to fill some seats with dedicated personnel.

Tough to say. I know a lot of departments like to add the American Flag to the sleeve. Then again, adding patches to the sleeves reduces options like pen pockets. Figure out what your members want (like through a survey), then go from there. My opinion: No patches on the sleeves. They get caught on edges and corners and get worn down after time.

I came to this thread to see what happened...I don't need to ask.

Sorry for the absence, but I finally decided to check back in on EMTB after too long.... Up here in Western NY a squad is generally a pickup chassis with some sort of utility body on it (think brush truck without a pump or hose, or a utility for those of you in Westchester). Usually, these trucks are equipped with EMS, pump-out, and salvage equipment. Most departments throw in a couple of SCBA and extra brush fire gear. Some departments will throw on eDraulics or spare hydraulic tools. And almost every department just throws a bunch of random crap on them when they can't find another or useful spot for it. These "squads" come to be extremely useful for the mass of EMS runs and the BS calls that we don't want to burn an engine or ladder for. They're also useful for when you need a few extra people on scene or need to get yourself a distance from the paved road.

Yes, the PPE is going to collect far more carcinogens than any of our tools and SCBA ever will. At least removing the SCBA from the passenger compartment is a start. I think this is more of firefighter safety concern than it is a carcinogen concern, though. Obviously, keeping firefighters seated and secured while the rig is in motion is good thing so that we can all make it to the scene safely. Removing the action of trying to don the SCBA pack while the rig is moving reduces injury in the even of an accident (even if it is just the FF losing balance and falling out the seat during a hard turn). Yes, proper gear cleaning will solve a lot of the issues of cleanliness, especially when it comes to firefighter health and safety. Period. You can't argue against that. I just wish more firefighters would take better care of their gear and wash it on a regular basis. Yes, the rig is going to be longer with this configuration. Of course, a side mount pump panel helps reduce the overall length...BUT, the overall length and turning radius should be considered during the spec phase. We're never going to be able to spec a truck to fit in every driveway in our districts, but we can at least consider most of them. Heck, one of the trucks can be spec'ed for the tighter driveways, just so that there is something to make it to the front door!

I did notice that there were a lot of boxes inside the other compartments. I'll throw out the assumption that they may have some special made covering for the SCBA compartments (I'm just guessing this since the slide-outs don't have the brackets yet, so there's still some work left). But that's about as much benefit I can give them as far as the cab/SCBA interface. And, indeed, this is well thought out rig!

The Community VFD is just outside of Houston, TX. Their new Engine 91 looks like it was thoroughly thought out, especially when it comes to the health and safety of its firefighters. I thought I'd share the video walk-around: **This video was originally posted by Churchville Fire Equipment of Churchville, NY through Pierce Manufacturing** Never mind the use of space in the compartments, there are few other things that really stuck out to me as I watched the video. The first is the painted bumper edges, giving firefighters extra grip when stepping up on the bumper and tailboard. The next is the stepped tailboard, allowing easier access to the roof and hosebed. The last, and the major point of the video, is placing the SCBA in an exterior compartment, keeping firefighters seated and belted while the rig is in motion, and keeping the dirty packs outside of the passenger compartment. Oh, did I mention the air conditioning that runs while the rig is plugged into shore power?

I remember something either from the New Apparatus thread or through word-of-mouth that Scarsdale is replacing L28 with a quint of similar size. I've also heard that SFD was going to take an engine out of service (to use as a reserve) and transfer the staffing to the quint to have 4 or 5 FFs on the rig. The latter is definitely hearsay in my opinion as I've never seen anything official about that.

My department also carries a 6' Navy nozzle. Since I've been here, we've used it a total of 0 times. Quite honestly, the only person I know who has used it in an actual fire is my brother-in-law, and he was a fireman in the US Navy. I'm not going to say that the Navy nozzle doesn't have it's place in structural or vehicular firefighting because it can be used with dramatic results. Unfortunately, I think that most firefighters would rather use the combination nozzles that we have become accustom to due to the fact that they are more adjustable and more maneuverable. I prefer the combination nozzle because of the adjustability because fire behavior can change quickly on you. I especially prefer it in a vehicle fire since you can attack the main body of fire with a straight stream and then go to a fog when stuffing the nozzle under a hood or into a trunk.

You're going to have to go inside at some point, namely for overhaul. And, since it's a metal tube full of plastic with a ton of windows, it's safe to say that you can enter a bus fire with minimal risk. It's self-vented and there's just a bit of heat. As long as all of the occupants are out and accounted for, the worst of your fears should be getting some melted plastic on your gear.

I remember as a young lad riding the school bus that EVERY student thought that the fire drills were a waste of time (and, secretly the bus drivers would take bets on who could evacuate their buses the fastest!). But, in all seriousness, those plastic seats will take off once there's enough heat energy in that bus. One of the suggested videos at the end this one was a 12 minute video; it starts right after ignition (in the middle of the bus) and is fully involved by the 4 minute mark. 6 minutes in the situation is no longer tenable to life inside. 6 minutes is the mark that NFPA suggests that we arrive on scene. Though the video above shows a bus fire where the point of origin is probably the engine compartment, depending on the situation we have to come up with a different plan of attack. Pertaining to a bus fire, I would like to say that those fire drills pay off and everyone is off the bus and accounted for, that way we can just put the fire out like it was a shed or a sedan on fire. LayTheLine, I understand what you're saying from a structural point of view. I want to point out that NIST, the ATF, and FDNY have done complex studies with each other to identify the strengths and weakness for different attacks, including the semi-controversial transitional attack, for structure fires. The studies, from what I've seen, don't really touch on vehicles fires, let alone mass transport. The point I'm getting at here is that this is a vehicle fire, where we expect the vehicle to be totaled and cannot be saved, very much unlike a house or apartment building where we can save property. Vehicle fires tend to be a complete loss of property, and we just put out the fire. As for bus fires, we have to treat it as if someone is inside, but there are two important questions that have to be asked before we conduct an interior attack on a bus fire: We have to ask the bus driver if everyone is off the bus, and is everyone accounted for. If the answer to both questions is yes, then we attack the fire in a manner that is safest for us. If either answer is no, then we take the calculated risk of saving a life (but keep it in the back of your mind of how fast that fire has spread and the toxic environment those victims have been exposed to prior to your arrival). Bus fires are always going to be tricky, just as any vehicle fire. Just remember that we, as firefighters, have three priorities: LIFE safety, PROPERTY loss prevention, and scene STABILITY, in that order!