dwcfireman

We recorded 13 inches at the airport. That's what she said! I crack myself up haha

So, if a FF/EMT-P makes $250k in a year after overtime, the OT cost is $162,300. The regular salary is at just over $40/hour (assuming a 4 platoon schedule for math purposes), which correlates to about $60/hr for OT. This comes out to 2,700 HOURS of overtime!!! That's more hours than the regular schedule (2,183 hours)! Now, this also means that these firefighters are working 4,883 hours per year, when there is 8,760 hours in a year. They are literally working MORE THAN HALF THE YEAR!!! I don't know about you, but I would want some free time and some extra hours off, especially since this business is extremely stressful, both physically and mentally. The math doesn't seem to work out right. If police and fire are making the unusually substantial overtime earnings, it might actually be cheaper to hire a few more people to alleviate the amount of overtime, as there is a tipping point where overtime does cost more than hiring more personnel (that point is different for individual agencies based on pay rates and benefits). But, then there is this... If everyone is working this extraordinary amount of overtime, what is it doing to the personnel? Are they getting enough sleep? Are they becoming mentally and physically deprived of basic needs because they are at work more than they are at home? Are injury and accident rates rising? Are they setting themselves up for that preventable injury or accident? Working that much, as I've said before in another thread, is that this much work will inevitably wear out the personnel to a point where cognitive abilities will not be fast enough to stop an injury or accident from happening. Why kill ourselves in the process of not trying to kill ourselves. I'm fairly sure we all want to make it to retirement.

Just an interesting idea that my hometown's department is doing: My friend just became chief, and he is truly concerned about the current condition and future of the department. So, he sat down with the company's membership committee and built a 12 question survey to ask FORMER members what they liked about the company, what they disliked, what drove them to leave the company, and whether certain incentives would have made them stay longer or bring them back or entice new members to the organization. I filled both sides of both sheets of paper detailing MY positive and negative experiences with the company (he already knows my story, but the membership committee doesn't know who I am). Both of my parents filled it out, and several of my friends have as well. I think this is a cool idea because you can evaluate the common problems that past members had with the organization, see what practices worked the best, and determine what the best recruiting and retention efforts will work the best based off suggestions. Like I said, just an interesting idea.

This is extremely interesting to me. In my experience with a village fire department, the VILLAGE owned the property, building, AND all equipment and apparatus. It's strange to me to think that a specific fire company would have ownership of the equipment. The other fact that confuses me in this paragraph is that the Village Board of Trustees APPOINTS a Board of Fire Commissioners. My experience was that the Village Board WAS the BOC. I guess when the article states that it's a "convoluted relationship," it's not lying! But, back to the matter of the cost: Option A definitely sounds the most feasible, and is the most economically fiscal situation. It is much cheaper to renovate a fire house than it is to replace a fire house. Then again, as the article further details, the citizens of Chappaqua voted down a fire house expansion last year. Albeit, the Chappaqua situation is a bit different, as it called for a $15M renovation, $10M to expand and renovate three fire houses isn't too shabby. I think it's a swell idea. But, Option B is a pretty good option, too. Put all four fire companies under one roof. This is exactly what Peekskill is doing. Put everyone in a central location. Yes, Peekskill is a different dynamic than Mount Kisco, as PFD incorporates both paid and volunteer personnel, but the idea of having all of the fire companies under a single roof can promote better synergy among the companies. If you can get them together in one place, and get their training schedules to match up, then you can have the multi-company training that you need to succeed! The point I'm getting to here is that you can train as an engine company all you want, or a ladder or rescue company, but an actual fire requires the teamwork of all of the companies working as a cohesive group. Being together in the same building, sharing the same space, sharing the same training tools/props can overwhelmingly provide the cohesiveness that every department needs. Option C just sounds sill to me. Would it be lovely to have three brand new firehouses with all of the latest technology? Heck, yeah! But it is really worth it to the taxpayers? Is it fair to the taxpayers? My own department desperately needs a new fire house, but it wouldn't be fair to our taxpayers, the people that we protect, to build a whole new building. The cost is too astronomical for what we have and what the public needs. So, why spend more money than you really have to? I understand that departments have to think about fire house design and functionality for the future, but we're talking about tens of millions of dollars that could be utilized elsewhere. I trust that the Village of Mount Kisco is going to be fiscally responsible with which ever decision they make, but it's going to be with a keen and watchful eye from the public.

This is what I meant about time requirement. You have to make a certain number of meetings, certain number of drills, and make a certain number of calls to stay as an "active" firefighter. I've heard of some volunteer departments that have actual time requirements, such as a duty night where a specific crew is on call and hangs out at the fire house. It's a cool concept because this time at the fire house can be used for training AND you have a fully staffed apparatus out of the door immediately should an alarm arise. Unfortunately, it's not a model that could work for everyone (especially smaller departments).

I couldn't remember if the norm in NYS was 48 off or 72 off. Thank you for clarifying that. The only thing that would change from my original post is that it would be 9 FF/shift extra

There is so much going against volunteer fire departments these days that it's insane to think that any VFD could recruit more volunteers. There's the time commitment, between training, classes, and alarms that it eats at everyone's personal time to have a social life and spend time with our families. The stress of working a full time job then being a firefighter on the side doesn't help either. It's not a wonder why a lot of us have high blood pressure. But, some departments get lucky and gain a few firefighters here and there. Unfortunately, a lot of those recruits wash out. They don't have the time. They realize that they can't make the commitment. Heck, some realize that fire is scary! I've seen a few people over my career leave because they were either afraid of fire, heights, or were scared away by the stress of the job. Then, there are people out there that say that can't do it. These are the people that are happy you got a new truck, and want to take a ride on it, but never fill out the application. There are so many citizens that could be great firefighters, but they already have themselves in the mindset that they can't do it. OR, they think that the department is paid and they don't want to "switch careers" at this point in their lives. But, there is another evil working against the volunteer firefighter that always seems to be left un-discussed. The volunteer fire company. VFC's always have some sort of minimum time commitment that's associated with their memberships. Generally speaking, probationary firefighters have to put in the largest commitment, and as your career progresses the less of a commitment you have to make. A lot of companies make the minimum commitment so high at the beginning that there is a large washout rate. It's almost like some companies don't want to bring in new firefighters because in this day and age it is far too difficult to keep up with the training and time commitments (never mind that too many people require second and third incomes to survive). There is too much working against the volunteer firefighter. Yes, time commitments are important, especially with newer firefighters that need the training and the experience. Yes, it's a thankless job to bust you butt for free. Yes, you lose time in your personal life where you have to leave a party or a family function for the big one. For those of us who stick through it we show that the volunteer firefighter can prevail. We show that we do mean something. We just have to find a way to show everybody else that they can do the same and start handing them applications.

I've talked to WP firefighters many times over the years, and they've all told me they work 24's.

Got it now! I definitely misread the RFP thefirst time (I blame a lack of sleep lol). And I didn't know Cedar St. was NYS property (I learn something new every day!). Thanks, Barry!

I don't understand why the city doesn't require a developer that would take the space of a firehouse to build a new firehouse either on the property or nearby. If the city decides to de-map Cedar St. to give developers another 36,000 sqft, why not build a new firehouse there? **I understand that money and politics come into play on this, but I personally feel that taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook to build a new firehouse because someone wants to build another high-rise.**

170? So, over 22 years WP has cut 36 positions? (The current number was found here) That equates to 12 firefighters per shift, assuming a 24 on/48 off schedule. I know this would probable cost about $5 million per year to cover these firefighters (pay/benefits/overtime), but wouldn't the end result be worth it? The article stated that the LODD (in 1993) was the first since 1954. Why should there be any? Yes, we can train harder and learn more about how to do our jobs, but you still need manpower on the scene to safely conduct our jobs.

I'm a bit confused as to why the City of Peekskill would consider a volunteer fire chief as city official/employee under their nepotism clause, mainly because I am not familiar with any law regarding volunteer firefighters in cities. So, I tried to look up the NYS laws regarding volunteer fire officers as local officials/employees in cities....but, alas, I can't find it. Hopefully someone can clear up some information here. I remember from my days back home with a village department, all of the fire officers were legally considered village officials, and everyone in the volunteer fire department was considered an employee of the village. This meant that we were bound to village law as well as state law pertaining to village employees and officials. Everything I saw tonight in my searches was vague, so I'm leaning to think that this boils down to individual villages and their respectful codes. I understand that town law generally pertains to fire districts, to the manner that towns cannot have fire departments and the fire districts are separate tax entities. This is covered under Town Law § 176-b of the New York State Code (DHSES - OFPC). But what about city fire departments with volunteers? This is the area of the law where that I can find absolutely nothing on. Would it be similar to villages? Or would it be a whole other set of regulations?

The Officer is still in the shotgun seat. A TDA just requires a second driver in the rear, and usually the drivers and officer are connected through headsets so they can communicate about upcoming turns/traffic/directions.

The PA is its own monster machine. It does its own thing. No one tells it what to do. No one asks what it is doing. However, the PA is supposed to be watched over by the States of New York and New Jersey. I don't know to what degree, if any, the states actually oversee the PA, but I personally believe that there should be more (especially when it comes to the airports!). If you let a regional authority run unchecked, it will grow like a weed but with the strength of a tree.

I understand that mutual aid plans around the county (heck, around the state) are either broken or just strange, but there are some good plans out there. The airport has an overkill plan for an Alert 1 (Light General Aviation Aircraft, generally carrying 4-6 souls): 3 engines, 1 ladder, 2 rescues, 3 ambulances, and 1 tanker, all from the overlapping districts surrounding the aiport. I only point this out because there is a way to make mutual aid work. It involves working with your neighboring departments and determining what you can do for each other in a myriad of incidents. Department A has a heavy rescue, Department B has a boat, Department C has a tower ladder....you get the picture. If you plan your "what if" moments appropriately, you won't get the "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" from everyone else, AND you get the job done! The above airport response for light GA is because some serious sh#t can happen with what seemingly could be a simple crash but is actually something quite significant (think a single engine Cessna rolls off the end of the runway and hits a fuel truck filled with 9,000 gallons of JetA). I am by no means saying that we should activate the cavalry on every call or directly upgrading every structure fire to a second alarm to get extra resources, rather just to say to plan appropriately. **Yes, I know the airport does not give mutual aid back to the county, but that is a discussion for another day.**

Barry, I love these two points because one leads to the next. I remember from my Physiology of Flight class (one of my aviation electives) that it's the same ordeal in the airline industry. The drop in the number of pilots requires the crews to fly additional legs each day, which leads to fatigue, a lack of spatial orientation, and confusion. These are the three most common reasons that planes crash/deviate/etc. when the determination is pilot error. The same is happening to the fire service, where a drop in the number of firefighters is making us fatigued and frustrated. We end up overwhelmed trying to pick up the slack of not having the extra help on scene, and we get caught up in some sort of incident . But I want to jump back to the OT portion. When I took my economics classes there were a few points that brought out the fact that in many cases overtime costs are less expensive than hiring additional manpower (this wasn't fire service related, but just a general overlook into budgeting for personnel overhead, as overtime reduces the need to pay for another employee's benefits, healthcare, etc.). Would paying firefighters overtime to fill a few extra seats during peak hours be effective enough to help mitigate incidents and prevent injuries? Or do you think it may result in more injuries because firefighters will end up working more hours? I know it's hard to say one way or the other because every department is different, but I'm just looking to pick peoples' brains to see what you and other may think of adding overtime shifts to help cover the busier hours of the day.

As a resident of the city, it would be fabulous to have a third ladder company staffed at all times. Unfortunately, given the times of doing more with less, I don't see it happening on a full time basis. Having adequately crewed apparatus these days seems to be an anomaly. Heck, even FDNY only has an extra person on a handful of engines! As a union rep myself, and as a concerned citizen, and as one to have some sort of common sense, I advocate every department to have the proper staffing for what "could happen." I just don't see it happening as governments continually slash emergency services budgets to fill woeful gaps. To pay the firefighters you have to cut money from somewhere else or run a deficit, and we all know budgetary deficits are bad. So where is the money going to come from? All too often the people siting at the desks crunching numbers forget that there are grants (SAFER is a prime one) that get more people on the rigs to get qualified personnel to the scene of an incident. It just irks me as a professional in this service and as a citizen that we can't put enough firefighters on the front line! Yes, we can do the job with three firefighters per rig....But we can do a heck of a lot better with just one more person apparatus. We can do even more with a whole other truck!

I'm a little unsure about the wording of the $200/day fines. Des that mean $200 per day total or $200 per violation per day? Anyway... ...MATH TIME! Looking at it at $200/day, if the violations were not abated the fines amount to $1200 (6 days have passed since the deadline). In a traditional 2 week pay period, the sum comes to $2800. In one year this becomes $73,000. This could cover an new firefighter (salary and benefits) for the year (assuming that FF accrued no overtime). Looking at it as $200/day per violation, and (maybe) assuming 10 violations aren't corrected, this could be $730,000 per year. This could cover 5 or 6 firefighters (salary and benefits) with extra money to cover accumulated overtime. NOTE: I could not find information on the current pay scale of the City of Rye Fire Department, nor could I find a specific list of the violations that have not been abated, so the number of firefighters that could be hired with said funds is a ballpark figure. The bottom line that I'm getting to is whether an agency would rather pay fines and let the problem persist, or use the money wisely to mitigate the problem. If the problem is staffing, instead of paying fines hire some more firefighters. If money was the issue in the first place, find some. If New Rochelle can justify a SAFER grant for 8 firefighters, I'm sure Rye can justify the same or more. The money is out there. You just have to go get it!

That is the OLD old alarm.

It seems with each new iteration of the PASS alarm receives a higher pitch. The old school alarm is definitely at a much lower octave with more bass. I was told that new alarm sounds are higher pitched due to a higher percentage of low frequency hearing loss among firefighters....Has anyone heard or know of any truth behind this? Or is the higher pitch just easier to hear in a noisy environment?

My guess is that the PA will transfer a couple of rigs that are in good condition to TEB once the new order arrives.

I saw this article a little while ago, and this reminded that I saw a bunch of the PAPD firefighters not so long ago (a bunch of them came to Westchester to tour the airport). They're pretty excited about this purchase. The Strikers they have now are definitely starting to show their age, as the PANYNJ received the first large batch of Strikers when the product unveiled (HPN's Airport 17, a 2003 4x4 was built in the midst of this order as well).

My father, who is a battalion chief/investigator for a county upstate, just got issued a Scott 5.5 AirPak with a Sight mask. I only mention this because the county he works for is completely MSA. It's a complete reversal from where this topic is discussing. This kind of shows that depending on what you're looking for and what you need out of your SCBA, there's definitely different options to achieve what your goals are. I foresee that upstate county switching over to Scott 5.5 packs in the near future. Is it best for them? Who knows. We'll see how it plays out.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't know how many of these calls I've taken over the years, but it drives the point home! It's the same thing. "Let me move to this quiet neighborhood with the small fire department nearby." The point of the siren for a volunteer agency is the redundancy of notifying personnel that an alarm has been charged. That department has been assigned to an incident in their district or has been summoned as mutual aid to one of their neighboring districts. Someone needs help, and this in one way to get the volunteers to get up and to the fire house. It's funny how private citizens just either forget or are ignorant to the way it used to be. There used to be no text messages, pagers, or electronic devices to wake you up in the middle of the night for a call. The good old siren did the work for years. Before that, people had to run down the street screaming "FIRE!" at the top of their lungs! Yes, technology has done wonders in communicating to us that there is an emergency. But, the downside to technology is the simple fact that it can fail. Some hilly districts have dead spots for cell phones and/or pagers. Some districts cannot afford pagers. Some districts have almost no cell service. So, what is the backup? the good old siren. I would also like to add that the siren is good indicator to motorists in busy downtown areas to prepare them for the looming fire apparatus response.

Apparently Mr. Arturi doesn't realize that once drivers start being cited for the infraction, the supposed intent of the law will shortly follow. And, it seems that he believes that laws have an adverse effect on drivers, a thought that I believe is untrue. Albeit, many sanitation trucks generally consume more than the lane they are traveling or stopped in, which is out of an abundance of safety to slow traffic down, the law will only take full effect when motorists start being cited for the infractions. This will be the same effect from when the "Move Over" law was first enacted in 2012. It will take some time before everyone starts to slow down and move to the other side, but it will work.