AJU

Really? It wouldn't have escalated if the victim was carrying a gun? You're saying that he would have felt more confident and secure against the 200 peaceful, law abiding citizens that were trying to gently get him to slow down for his own safety? Of course they wouldn't have guns themselves - not a single one of them had a prior, right? I'm not going to argue the gun rights issue, but I think the idea that a solitary person might be safer against a gang of any substantial size because they are carrying is ludicrous and can certainly increase the risk of and severity of any injuries sustained and/or dished out.

The training itself wouldn't necessarily cause him to make different choices, but the simple fact that one opts for this sort of training may be correlated with a higher likelihood of them making more mature decisions (it demonstrates maturity and a sense of responsibility). We seem to have a group of people in our society that think whenever there is a problem that training is the answer, that it will change behavior (get caught DWI and the remedy is often to take a course and pay a fine). There is also a clear attitude that this is BS and the whole concept is thrown out because of this. Both sides fail to address the impact of the individual's will in it. People who take things seriously have no problem drawing from professional training in their personal lives and vice-versa (isn't this part of what makes the volunteer system work well? The fact that there is a large body of knowledge within a department due to a varied professional knowledge-base?). On the other hand, people who know it all and don't care will take very little out of training and draw from it in their real lives even less. The message I take away from this is how egotistical, selfish, and self important this guy's actions were. The guy was hell-bent on making the truck and he was going to do whatever he had to do to get there in time. I'm sure it wasn't the first time. And how many guys like this are there out there?

I thought so at first too, but I really don't think that's it. I think some people have their identity wrapped up in being something or other and whenever someone encroaches on this (by doing something that should fall under their job description) it becomes a personal insult because it's somehow taking away from the ego-stroking value of their identity. It's not a cop thing, it's not a firefighter thing, not an EMT thing or a medic thing. It's a human thing. I always try and check myself when reading stuff like this to ensure I don't take it personally or use it as a basis for my own prejudice. Absolutely. These guys went above and beyond in their efforts to serve the community and deserve the recognition.

This whole situation is disturbing from several angles: First, and most obviously, the fact that someone in a position of authority would show such disregard for the lives and property he's sworn to protect. This really says something about human nature and what happens when people are granted role power - something to be very aware of in our lives as we move through them. Nobody is immune to this, though their judgment may prevent something as egregious as this incident from occurring. Second, the fact that the volunteer side of the service, by nature, is potentially (e.g., has the capacity to be - NOT saying that it might be) more permissive of, and acts as less of a deterrent for, this behavior. That coupled with the fact that there are vastly more volunteers than career members makes the likelihood of the bad apples being on the volunteer side higher. But the thing that really disturbs me here is that some people take this opportunity to makes this a volunteer vs. career issue and paint it all with a broad brush that completely ignores the fact that people, especially firefighters (type A personalities), often take the path of least resistance by using shortcuts (usually very creative, efficient and effective on the fireground) to get the job done. Human nature. My last point is that we still, as a community, seem to adhere to the idea that punitive measures will correct issues like this and training will prevent it. Did this individual know what he was doing was wrong? I'd be shocked if someone could prove otherwise. He just thought he could get away with it. How many people change lanes without signaling? Is that allowed? Nope, but nobody cares because they can get away with it. Turn signals prevent accidents, save lives, etc. Yet people ignore them, refuse to use them. I'd bet some of the same people that come down on this guy for his recklessness don't use them - whether they earn a living in the fire service or not. We should all hold ourselves to a higher standard, regardless of the legal consequences. The human consequences of life safety are much more significant and should be our first concern and highest priority responsibility.

A few possibilities in my mind: - Breach the exterior wall near victim (probably not enough air to do this) - Hasty harness drag to minimize exertion and extract victim. With two firefighters dragging, exertion should be minimized and may be possible. - Tie utility rope to victim and stretch to exit, tying two ropes in serial if need be. Exit and return with either fresh resources or new bottles. This option allows for speed in extracting the victim (quick exit and very quickly guiding the fresh resources both to the victim and then the exit again) where trying to remove the victim while conserving air would be excruciatingly slow. Probably the best option.

http://www.kfor.com/news/kfor-blanchard-woman-shoots-and-kills-intruder-20120101,0,2752550.story I didn't actually watch the video - I was going by the above article which stated: "She says two of her dogs turned up dead recently and a couple other suspicious things have happened around her home." My intention was not to disparage the response in any way but to empathize with a woman experiencing a terrifying ordeal. Was this a case of predators who read the obituary or otherwise learned of the death who saw an easy victim? I hope the other perp gets convicted of this guy's murder.

Dead under mysterious circumstances only shortly before the shooting. A 21 minute 911 call with no police response - that had to be terrifying.

I said nothing about crossing fingers and hoping - JFLYNN said that, not me. I was simply examining the risks of responding mutual aid and leaving the home village with less manpower. And maybe I'm being simpleminded about this, but I think the weighing of odds is a critical part of size up and incident command (not to mention basic fireground operation), don't you? For example, does your department have a hard and fast policy of entering every structure on fire or is it discretionary based on the odds of survival and other factors? I never suggested ignoring responsibility for the home village in order to respond mutual aid. In fact, I made a point of mentioning that the severity of the risk is mitigated by several factors. I think it goes without saying that a department wouldn't send a piece of apparatus on MA without a plan in place - whether it's an automatic assignment through county control for a mutual aid assignment on particular calls or other internal procedures - for dealing with the situation. Please don't make my analysis of risks and benefits into a strawman argument stating that it's safe for a department to abandon their village. I don't know about you, but I took an oath to protect a particular village. That, obviously, comes first. This responsibility, however, can be fulfilled and simultaneously resources can be sent on mutual aid.

Hope for the best and plan for the worst. There's always a contingency plan in place, isn't there?

If I look at this using a cost/benefit analysis it seems pretty clear that the benefits of these mutual aid runs outweigh the risks. The risks we're dealing with are that a fire will occur at home while units are operating on the MA fire. How many fires does any village in Westchester get per year? One, maybe two? Maybe even double that? So the odds of a fire happening at home are very low on any given day. Same is true of a neighboring village. Now, the odds of them happening simultaneously in the home and neighboring villages is tiny. So the mutual aid engine and chiefs can respond with a fair degree of certainty that there won't be a fire at home. If there happens to be an incident there are other apparatus and deputy chiefs to handle it, and one of the chiefs at the MA fire can always respond (if it's mutual aid, their response time is likely to be fast). The risk score here is quite low because the likelyhood is very low and the severity is mitigated by many factors. As for benefits, there are many: developing a good relationship with MA departments, improving cooperation, training personnel, giving incident commanders more exposure to large scale incidents (training), potentially impacting recruitment and providing a boost regarding retention (firefighters might be becoming bored and spending their time elsewhere), and most importantly, saving lives and property that might not have been saved if fewer personnel responded. This particular MA fire might double the number of fires a village firefighter has worked! Doesn't this OTJ training make for better trained firefighters? This makes the village money better spent, doesn't it? The benefits clearly outweigh the cost. There's a plan in place to deal with reduced personnel in case something happens - even without a MA fire to blame for the less than ideal response, the reality is that the volunteer fire service is an environment where you never know if you'll get a sufficient response for any given incident. What if an incident occurred while the department was at the county training center? Should there be no departmental training? It seems to me that the benefits of sending members on MA calls significantly outweighs the risks.

Who's responsible for putting lives at risk here? The bank or the people that entered into an agreement that they're having trouble living with? The bank is already contributing to the funding of that truck through taxes. They didn't agree to contribute more funds through charity and then renege. I hate when the media spins these things to make the bank look like the bad guy for collecting debts according to the contract. It's simple, really. If you borrow money, you're responsible for repaying it. Ultimately, the FD IS taking responsibility and paying the bill out of their savings. The issue really seems to be that the ESD budget isn't covering the FD operating expenses and the two organizations have communication issues that have stymied negotiations. That this ended up in the media with this sort of spin to it is kind of sad. You've got to wonder how this attitude plays out on the fireground. "That cop made the grab when FD was on scene so I'm going to sit here in the yard and do nothing. Let them put the fire out." And of course the headlines the next day: "Police Interfere with FD Operations. Building Lost."

We're getting into the territory of probability again. Just because there are examples of exceptions to the rule doesn't negate the rule. The FDNY has determined that there is a higher probability of the characteristics and attributes they want in their officers present in firefighters that have completed a college education. Does this mean they are all qualified for the position? No, but it certainly makes the assessment and evaluation process much easier. It's not the only qualification by a long shot, but the fact that it is one simplifies the process and attempts to ensure a certain level of quality. As difficult as it may be to accept this concept, the fact is that the fire industry is a highly romanticized customer service business. The larger the business the more it must rely on standard practices and qualifications to maintain a certain level of quality in its resources. This is simply because the larger the business gets the more decentralized things like hiring and personnel management become. A small department in Westchester with a career department can probably stand to weigh each candidate for an officer position based on their individual merits (and without regard to education), but should Westchester consolidate this practice may not be possible because of the need to ensure all officers county-wide meet certain minimum standards.

The most valuable part of getting a college degree has almost nothing to do with what is studied. It's about learning HOW to learn. These are valuable skills that can be applied to the fire service, and they can put someone with a college degree well ahead of those without. Sure, drive and determination are important in any industry, but without certain skills all that drive and determination will lead to simply spinning your wheels. Some people acquire skills in unconventional ways, but when you look at groups of people you have to look at patterns of behavior and the correlations that can be used to draw conclusions about the likelyhood of causality. You can't make a rule out of the exceptions (and there always will be exceptions). This is like the thread about teen drivers where the teens all thought the rules should be changed because they themselves were capable. I think a college education also increases the ability of the firefighter to operate safely on scene. For example, take two firefighters who encounter a scenario that has been studied by a governing body, say NFPA. Both have read the NFPA reports but one has been through college and the other hasn't. The insight, or lack thereof, into the methods of studying these scenarios and aggregating statistics about it may lead the two to different conclusions and a different level of understanding. The person who has a deeper understanding of what was being studied has a much better chance of being mentally flexible than the person who takes the report at face value when it comes to dealing with the situation themselves. I think being mentally flexible, adaptive and able to improvise are some of the most important abilities a good firefighter must possess. And a college education can certainly help this.

Ah, ok, thanks

What's the pouch on the back of a lot of these guys' helmets got in it? I've never seen this before.

Driving is more about judgment and executive function than anything else. The simple fact is that the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain responsible for executive function) is still developing up until hit our 30s, so there's the physiological backing to these age limits. Does it mean a "kid" can't do it? Anyone can be taught the basics as long as they are able to reach all of the controls. However, conceptually, a mature and safe driver is at odds with an 18-25 year old (especially male) as we are generally pushing limits and greatly overconfident at that age. @melillo719: Just because you've done something without incident doesn't make it safe. Can you get lucky 5/6 times playing Russian Roulette? General rules and standards are in place for a reason. If you look to understand the rules and their reasons for existing, you will, when the time is right, be a great driver. This is because behind good judgment is a good understanding of consequences - basic cause and effect. Rules are generally put in place to mitigate situations that resulted in incidents with significant damage to people or property in the past. It's far better to learn from others' mistakes as you can't make them all yourself.

How often are motorcyclists killed by a driver turning left in front of them without any charges being filed? It happens all too often, and with little more than a "whoops, my bad, I didn't see him" as a defense. Should those drivers be stripped of their licenses? Or is it simply the fact that the victim is "one of us" that is driving your desire for blood? Accidents happen.

I disagree - nine times out of ten (maybe more) a driver's available but there's no EMT.

So often these things are done in the name of "safety", which to me is a real misnomer. I think risk management is more appropriate as there's no guarantee of safety no matter what you do. The chevron, by the nature of its shape does seem, at least in abstract theory, to mitigate some of the risk of operating in traffic. And all of the equipment we wear in the name of safety will mitigate a certain type of risk. Target fixation is a phenomena that I believe is often responsible for crashes. You see this in action when riding a bike (especially as a new rider) - you tend to run over that object that you were trying to avoid because you were so focused on avoiding it. Quite simply, you steer towards whatever it is that you're looking at. This is especially true when a driver is impaired, be it drink, drugs, sleep deprivation, texting, or otherwise distracted. Having the presence of mind to focus on an escape path in an emergency can often mean the difference between succumbing to an accident and avoiding it. The shape of the chevron directs your eyes away from the vehicle and you are less likely to fixate on it. In theory it takes your focus away from the vehicle and places it exactly where you want it - on the way around it. However, the execution in the photo in this thread looks like there is SO much reflective material used that the chevron isn't even visible when lit up. This seems to counter the benefits and may even cause drivers to fixate on the vehicle. Placing the apparatus properly is important, but once this is done, and the vehicle is completely out of traffic, being LESS visible would probably be more beneficial. Because rigs are used in such a wide variety of situations it's tough to find the right balance for most situations. I think the idea, when executed properly, is an effective risk mitigation tool. It won't prevent all accidents, but it could divert an impaired driver that otherwise might have seen the apparatus and driven into it. I think the marketing part of the question is a good one, but to me it's more about competition than marketing. Whose truck shines brightest when a headlight hits it? Who's got the most bling? That's the execution of the strategy and it has nothing to do with the strategy itself. Lines, numbering, lights, etc can all be overdone.

OT is almost always cheaper than a full time person because the employer saves on benefits and R&R costs.

I recently lost the recent topics from the mobile formatted page (Blackberry). I miss this feature - actually always go to the full site (which doesn't work well on the BB) in order to get this.

I thought I gave some insight into my reasoning in the next paragraph of that post, but I'll try and be more clear: In my opinion, if you have a good relationship with your employer then even without the law you will most likely be met with understanding if you call out because you were out all night at a fire, or if you ask to come in late. And this is without the backing of any law. So, based on the assumption that most people can get time off to go to a parent-teacher conference, or to close on a house or go to the doctor, etc., it stands to reason that there should only be difficulty being excused for missing work because of fire duties in the event that the employee (note I said employee, not FF – because that’s what you are first as a volunteer FF) has a track record of abusing time off to the point where another hour or three is putting that employee in jeopardy. Taking time off because of fire duties is taking time off for personal reasons. Maybe back in the day when people didn’t leave their communities the argument could be made that everyone in a town had a personal stake in fire suppression activities (actually they did: every household had a leather bucket with their name printed on it and if your bucket wasn’t at the scene of a fire your property often wouldn’t be protected as a result). Now there are very few business owners who would look at it that way. You just can’t make the argument that it’s not personal time anymore. Let's face it, the "protections" of this law are nominal at best. I would bet every one of us exceeds the time allowed in this law for various personal reasons (of which anything having to do with volunteering most certainly is) already, hopefully with their employer's blessing. It doesn’t protect anyone but the jobs of the politicians who passed it and FASNY. I don’t go to my boss and say “I’m not feeling well today [no long term illness implied], I need to go to the doctor and FMLA says you have to let me go”, do you?

The only people this law is likely to make a difference for are those who would likely seek to abuse the supposed protections it grants. It provides a cause for entitlement and defiance. If I'm working a job all night and can't make it to work I can always call in sick. Maybe it's a luxury in my profession, but I'd be surprised if most people didn't have sick time. And if I couldn't, I'd have to make it through the day somehow. I think this law will only come up when someone is using it to essentially tell their employer to suck it, that they're going to do what they want whether it works for the company or not. If attendance and promptness are so important that I needed to use this law to justify being late or absent then volunteering and my career choices are not really compatible and maybe some aspect of my choices needs to change. The employer shouldn't have to make any concessions for an employee because of the employee's choices, however I've found that when you're an asset to whoever you work for they are always, without exception, willing to work with you to accommodate your needs in some way.

Resources are resources. This Chief turned away both vollies and pros (resources he ultimately needed but didn't wait to size-up the situation before making the call). It was clearly very poor judgment. We know this. And he's accountable for it and I can't imagine he won't be held responsible for it. What we don't really know are any of the whys behind this call being made. Could it have had its roots in the volly/pro struggle? Maybe. But because we don't know we are making assumptions. We're projecting our opinions onto the story and calling it fact. I have to ask the question that's been asked many times before and that is what's the sense in us continuing to lay this hotly debated issue over everything that happens out there? Can't this story (and most others) be used to drive home points that have much more value to everyone in the fire service? Here are a few that come to mind: The importance of: Size up Resource management Apparatus placement Access to the scene Knowing your first due

In my opinion, this is the biggest concern of all. Screening is important, but it's a reactive method and only looks for means that have been employed in the past. Profiling the terrorists themselves is something that's done tentatively, because of the obvious civil rights concerns, but if (as I think is made clear in the Christmas example) the intelligence is there and is acted upon we could avert these situations. There is a pretty clear mold that these suicide bombers fit into, and after that fact it always turns out that we have had many peices of the puzzle all along. Why not consolidate or at least interface all the databases held by various government bodies and design software to identify people who fit the profile? Any business running multiple systems would do this to protect their financial exposure - isn't human life more important? Maybe doing this on the world stage rather than in some hidden secure location will deter would-be terrorists or converts. I don't really think the gamble is worth the enormous cost, but maybe that's a motivating factor.