dwcfireman

From what I understand it's based on the municipality and it's "open burn" policies. Some allow it, some don't. It depends on what your municipality's definition of an open burn is and whether they allow it. But, if someone out here knows a little more than I do on this, this is not a bad question to ask.

http://www.firehouse.com/article/12249720/the-fire-service-and-the-aviation-industry-firefighter-safety-crew-resource-management I found this article while perusing around the interwebs. It's not long or drawn out, but it kind of drives home a few points amongst the conversations of crew management, safety checklists, and how we act on the fire scene. But there is one excerpt that I thought was particular that can be applied to firefighter safety: “I am trained to be intolerant of anything less than the highest standards of my profession. I believe air travel is as safe as it is because tens of thousands of my fellow airline and aviation workers feel a shared sense of duty to make safety a reality every day. I call it a daily devotion to duty. It’s serving a cause greater than ourselves.” Captain Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger. I like this quote because we can assimilate it to the fire service. The fire service is safer than it has ever been, thanks to the advancements in technology within our PPE, health and safety standards, our equipment, and our own well being. We make it safer by adding the extra hours of training, going to seminars, and by learning from the best of the best before us. But, still, we accept the inevitable that some of us are going to pay the ultimate sacrifice; a sacrifice that many of us will accept. My question is, can we make the fire service safer for us? Can we take the extra steps and add in the extra redundancy, to make our job safer? Can we apply what has been learned from a completely different industry to do what we do safer and more reliable? If anything, I think it's an interesting read.

This is definitely interesting. It makes sense that the PANY&NJ would be among the first organizations to utilize the Scott Sight enforce, but it will be more interesting to see how the Sight works for them. Speaking on the ARFF side of the business, I can see where the Sight will assist with evacuation and rescue operations, as well as assisting with locating small fires within an aircraft (there are more void spaces in a plane than you would ever think). I can't wait to hear what they think.

Imagine if American police cruisers looked like this, with fairly standardized color patterns to identify them as police vehicles with high visibility markings for safety. Should there be a standard police vehicle color scheme or pattern? A pro would be that the public would always be able to identify the vehicle, where a con would be the lack of local identity (which is highly prevalent in the United States).

I was a junior in high school when this happened, sitting in my American History class. That day forever changed our history. I never knew any of the brave ones who perished that day, but I will never forget what happened. I will never forget those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. But, we will move on, and we will move forward. We shall remember our past to ensure that our brothers and sisters in the future go home.

The aviation industry has made great success in their crew resource management programs due to the ever increasing shortage of crew members. However, crew resource management practices have evolved tremendously to make sure that every crew is ready to complete a safe flight; this includes proper rest time, crew essentials, and maximum hours allowed on the clock (which varies per airline). Applying this to our jobs can further make our tasks safer by allowing extra rest, extra personnel, or just making sure we have what we need to fight a fire. This is something the fire service can definitely learn from. I've seen the investigations first hand of accidents that have happened at HPN over the last nine years. The FAA and NTSB pick at every little detail to find out what went wrong, and then they take to the lab to try and fix the problem. This should absolutely be the same for the fire service! We can save a few more firefighters every year by better understanding the conditions that cost them their lives, whether it be fire conditions, construction failure, or equipment failure. Another 100% true statement. If we were looked at with the same oversight as aviation, I bet the number of firefighter "close calls," injuries, and fatalities would drop drastically.

My thoughts, exactly. I mean, it kind of makes sense that the DEP police should have a similar scheme to the NYPD, as the DEP police are also protecting the citizens of NYC (in a way). I personally still like the old white and green color scheme (similar to NYS DEC police and Parks police).

You are 100% correct on that 'maybe' response. I know, at least, in my department we are doing everything we can to train everyone to higher standards, take accountability for everything that happens, and continue to grow in a strong direction. I posted this because I am a member of both industries. I am a firefighter as both a volunteer and as a member of an airport fire brigade. The aviation industry, which has a much shorter history than the fire service, has made leaps and bounds when it comes to personal accountability and safety. Every day at work I see pilots doing their A checks (aircraft walk-arounds) before they fly. This is just one simple step in making sure the aircraft is ready and able to fly. On the fire service side, we should be doing a similar walk around to make sure the rig is in a condition to respond to and operate at a fire (yes, we do our truck checks at the beginning of the shift, but are we actually taking the checks to the full ten yards?). It's actually quite amazing how far a simple check our double-check of a tiny item can go. Pilots have to see if the cotter pins are in place on the ailerons; Are we making sure the pins are in place on the steering rods of the rig (maybe a little over dramatic here, but the point is whether we are truly checking our equipment or not). But our safety is what is paramount. We tend to take a lot of things for granted. Seatbelts? We tend to not wear them. PPE? We tend to break the rules about wearing it properly. Visually inspecting a building on fire? We tend to look around and get an "idea" of what is going on. To tell the truth, we are our own worst enemy. " Captain Sullenberger had a fortune from a fortune cookie taped neatly in his Jeppesen Airway manual for years. It read: “Better a delay than a disaster.” In trying to meet the response guidelines of NFPA 1710 and 1720, some firefighters do not wear seatbelts or complete PPE and figure they don’t have time to do a 360. Would it make you feel secure if the captain of your flight skipped checklists in order to maintain an on-time schedule?"

https://www.outdoored.com/blogs/big-pharma-making-killing-epinephrine This helps explain a little bit about the price hikes.

http://www.firehouse.com/video/12249195/brooklyn-blaze-battled-by-fdny **THERE IS SOME NAUGHTY LANGUAGE IN THIS VIDEO!** I'm not sharing this to pick on anyone, but as a general reminder to keep your cool and choose your language wisely on the radio. Some colorful language is used at the beginning of this video, using some strong words that should NEVER be transmitted over any frequency!

I've heard the same thing. I'm just wondering how many more of us are going to end up with accidental sticks of this were to happen. Heck, I don't trust myself with many sharp objects!

I guess I was just raised to get all those naughty words out through the course of fire house banter (ask anyone, I swear like a F-ing sailor), and to not use them while active on the scene.

My view of radio etiquette may be different from others. I prefer a quick, concise, informational radio call that can transmit the appropriate information to assign a task or get a job done. I get frustrated when pertinent information is not transmitted or when a transmission is garbled with misinformation or non-important media. The use of curse words does not accomplish a goal or task faster, rather that is stimulates the receivers mind in a manner that it causes fear and confusion. Fear and confusion can then lead the receiver of the information to panic, thus creating an adverse effect in the operation of the goal/task at hand. Essentially, it causes an effect in the receiver's brain where he/she believes that they are being yelled at, and have a moment of clarity that makes him/her believe that they are doing something wrong, and induces a mini panic attack where they continue to do something wrong. By the way, this is something I learned in my psych courses over ten years ago, long before the BS millennial "safe places" and "political correctness" were such a thing. This reasoning is in psychological text books still today. As for the professionalism side of the argument I was originally going for is the sake that there are people watching and listening. I'm sure the majority of the public doesn't care, but some people do. I care. If we, as a service, want to appear as the professional life savers of the public that we always do, we need to conduct ourselves in a professional manner in every facet of the job, including talking on the radio. My point here is that the more professional we are in every little detail while conducting our job, the more professional and the public perceives us as. Sometimes it's little things that carry a person a long way.

It's not about being offended or upset about the language; It's about being professional. And, though the FCC probably will never hear you curse on a tac or fire ground frequency, someone in the public realm will. It's just as unprofessional being caught cursing on the radio as it is being caught cursing on camera.

This statement is truer by 10 fold for specialized equipment. Whether it's a heavy rescue rotator, ARFF, a tower ladder with an articulating boom, a chemical truck (purple K unit or such), or any thing else that's not an ordinary piece of equipment (by ordinary I mean engines, ladders, and rescues). Specialized equipment is built for a special purpose, which requires specific training for the apparatus and it's operation, and specific training on the equipment it carries for the very specific role that it plays on the scene. The alliteration of the word "specific" is excruciatingly important due to the fact that some pieces of apparatus are designed and built for one very reason. I can speak on behalf of ARFF apparatus, which is designed to respond and spray foam with 3 minutes of a crash...It takes a lot of training to remain proficient with the operation of the vehicle, the location of certain buttons and switches, where important equipment is located, and usage of the correct equipment for particular situations.

The privilege of driving fire department apparatus, including command vehicles, vans, and utility style trucks, is often abused because a deep thought that, "Oh, I can do what I want," or, "The cops won't stop this vehicle." The abuse then leads to the public seeing us acting as morons, and occasionally we screw ourselves in the end by crashing (or severely damaging) the vehicle, never mind killing someone due to carelessness! And, the privilege is abused by both paid and volunteer firefighters alike. I've even seen a large FD owned van fly by me on Rt. 17 up near Roscoe (it belonged to a large city FD with BIG unmistakable markings on it). But, this isn't about the type of firefighter who's driving the vehicle, because this kind of crap happens every where! Rigs rolled over while out for a joy ride, command vehicles crashed resulting from DUI, apparatus wrecked de to a lack of situational awareness. It happens all of the time, and it needs to stop! The bottom line is, if you are given the privilege to drive any type of fire apparatus, remember that you are representing your department the entire time you are in control of that vehicle. It has your markings, your patch, and your colors on it. The public knows who that vehicle belongs to. Drive in a manner that the public knows that you are safer than them. Drive defensively. When responding to alarms, drive like someone's life depends on it (because it may), but do it in a safe manner (remember the term "due regard" before you blow through that red light with red lights and siren blaring). And, most of all, just use common sense! Keep your eyes peeled and your ears tuned for traffic and pedestrians. Stay alert to changing road conditions. Stay in the moment and focus on what you are doing. If we stay safe, the public stays safe. If the public is safe, we have nothing to worry about.

That is pretty cool!

I've never watched "Boston EMS," but I do recall that "Emergency!" has some scenes where you see the beginning of the abuse of the EMS system! bwahahaha!

I've noticed a bunch of EMS agencies switching to the van style (Type II) ambulances, particularly the Mercedes and Dodge Sprint. They look nice and I'm sure their functionality is great, especially in cities with tight roads and fuel consumption. I'm sure the cost of these is a little better, too. Can anyone clear up for me some of the larger decision factors for Type II ambulances versus I or III?

If you're trying to win the internet, you're doing a swell job! If you didn't want to share information in the first place, then why say anything at all? The situation probably isn't about the actual flag itself, rather safety or regulation issues that the commissioners were addressing. If it's a safety issue, like blocking warning/hazard lights or getting in the way of hosebeds and ladders, then there's plenty of reason to remove the flag from the rear of the apparatus. If it's a regulation issue, then read Title 4 of the United States Code. It's the entire LAW pertaining to the Flag, and it does state how it WILL be attached to a motor vehicle if the owner (the commissioners) choose to do so.

Thank you for clearing that up. I can see where the policy has it's necessity, where you don't want non-EMS workers o touch a patient due to a different level of training. But, as far as the concern of chronic lift assists at particular locations, if there is no injury, then is it really an EMS run? Generally speaking, as per this thread, we're not enlisting medical protocol, per se, for most lift assists, so why are we treating every person that falls down as a patient rather than a person in need? I completely understand if the person falls and breaks an arm or a hip (EMS is needed), but what about the old lady who fell and just can't get back up on her own (as in she is not going to the hospital and just needs to get off the floor)?

What about if you are a CFR? Or first-aid/CPR certified? It would be kind of silly to show up to a cardiac arrest and not conduct CPR just because an EMT or medic isn't present (IMO). If you don't mind, could you clarify if your department's policy pertains to certain situations like the topic in this thread, or if it is a broad policy for all medical calls.

I actually prefer smaller flags that are on the right bumper indicator posts. Large flags off the rear or the rig are generally in the way, and like Barry said, tend to get filthy.

Speaking for the volunteer realm, these chronic lift assist calls are no different that the chronic automatic alarms. They keep coming in day after day, week after week, and eventually you'll find that fewer and fewer responders are showing up for these calls. The underlying problem here is volunteer burnout. One can only respond to the same alarm so many times before they can no longer put up with it. I'm not condoning a volunteer's action by not responding to these situations, but it's a reality that fewer firefighters and EMT's tend to respond to the "BS" calls as they become more and more frequent. I've seen this first hand in ALL of the volunteer agencies that I have been involved with, whether it's the same old auto alarm at a given location, or the same old call to the doctor's office for an EMS assist, or even the same old lift assist at the same address. Within the the career realm, it's just a little bit different. We're already on shift. We respond with the whole crew as we always do, whether you're on an ambulance or on a fire engine. But, the same burnout is there. You go to the same alarm time after time, you respond to the same call again and again. But, this is where the complacency starts. And complacency isn't just within the realm of the paid personnel. Just look at the last paragraph. The volunteers have the same problem. So what's the fix to the problem? I don't know. But I really do like what SECTMB said: This is totally a possibility! Or... Wouldn't it be nice if the Affordable Healthcare Act provided a system to take care of the people who really, really need it? The bottom line is there is no immediate fix. We can dwell on what is the right answer all day, but we're still responding to these alarms. I think it would be great if there was a system or service to essentially deal with non-emergency medical calls. But then again, what do you define as emergency and non-emergency? What if the 99th lift assist call is actually the same person in cardiac arrest? What if that 99th auto alarm is a working fire? THAT'S WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO! We dwell on the "what if" to ensure that people and their property can be saved. Are there remedies to make our jobs easier? Of course! Unfortunately, it's just not up to us at this point of how those remedies are placed (at least on the EMS side).

Dammit, Seth, you made me hit the blue button again! hahaha