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.

Why does it matter aside from maybe helping figure out what is wrong with the patient? Forget about how its just wrong to treat someone differently based upon a medical condition, what if they don't know they're carrying some disease. Everyone gets treated the same unless I suspect an infection requiring droplet precautions.
Moderator note: This was the very last post made by Lenny, before he left us for keeps. RIP.

New 12 was just reporting that the son woke up to his father yelling the the house was on fire. The son crawled down the stairs, made it into the garage where he pulled a string to open the garage door. Then the father was trying to get everyone else out, they were trapped when the house collapsed. It was previously reported that the collapse occured within 10 minutes of the FD's arrival.
The timeline does not quite make sense...but the investigation may determine that.
My big question is, did the detectors work and why did the family have so little time?
The bigest concern, you can clearly see on news 12 footage the damaged lightweight truss floors. These assemblies fall apart in minutes, everyone in the fire service knows this, but we did not fight hard to stop them and the developpers fought to get them. In codes class we were taught that 90% of them are not installled to code (making it even worst). But the fire service has only pushed to get so signs.
This was a relativly new home (built since the state code was passed in 1984) And the code still does not require home sprinklers. This house would still be standing with them and when they built it, the added cost would have only been a few thousand dollars.
The fire service needs to put its money where its mouth is and fight for sprinklers and against light weight construction.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tough day for so many today. Rest in peace John heard many good things about you. Condolences to the family.
The BFD brothers and sisters showed great heart and strength in not only attending thier own fallen brothers wake but also Lt.Tyler Rush of Elmsford. That spoke tremendously of the Briarcliff FD and their resolve and support.

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.

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.

Date: 1/2/2012
Time: 1150hrs
Location: 22 Eastern Ave (Between Linden and Churchill St.) - across from St. Ann's School
Frequency: 46.26, Fire 12, EMS 12, Fire 11, EMS 11, FG 3, 154.115 (OPD), 460.6125 (Fire-Police), 453.075 (OVAC), 156.225 (TFD), 453.200 (BMFD)
Units Operating on Scene: [Ossining FD: 2331 (IC), 2332, 2334, E96, E97, E98, E99, E100, E101, L41, TL42, R14], [Croton FD: 2081, E119 (FASTeam)], [briarcliff FD: 2052, R37 (Cascade)], [Ossining VAC: 74A1, 74B1, 36M1, 74-05 (EMS Command)], [Croton EMS: 55B1], [WCDES: Bat 12, Bat 11], Ossining PD, Con Ed (Electric and Gas)
Unints on Standby at OFD HQ: [Millwood FD: 2251, 2253, E247], [sleep Hollow FD: 2311, 2313, TL38]
Unints on Standby at SHFD HQ: [Tarrytown FD: 2461, 2462, L37]
Units on Stanby at OVAC HQ: [briarcliff FD: 53B1]
Description Of Incident: Working Fire in residential Structure. 4 L/S/O, 2 story wood frame
Reporters: Bigbuff, peterose313
Writer: firedude
Ossining Patch Article
Lohud Article
1146hrs: Ossining dispatched to a reported structure fire
1150hrs: Ossiing Command confirming 10-75, requesting Croton FAST to sceve via 60 control
1152hrs: Croton FAST Dispatched
1153hrs: 2081 reporting crew is assembling
1159hrs: Bat 12 Dispatched
1202hrs: 2081, E119 responding
1205hrs: Bat 11 dispatched
1206hrs: Ossining Command requesting E119 set up in St. Ann’s School Parking lot
1208hrs: 2081, E199 on scene
1210hrs: 74A1 and 36M1 reporting they are treating homeowner, requesting Croton ambulance to standby in OVAC HQ
1212hrs: Croton EMS dispatched for 1 Ambulance to standby at OVAC HQ
1218hrs: Ossining Command requesting Millwood Engine, Sleepy Hollow Ladder to Standby at OFD HQ, Con Ed to scene
1220hrs: Millwood Engine, Sleepy Hollow Ladder dispatched
1223hrs: 74-05 requesting Croton EMS to respond to scene, Briarcliff EMS to standby at OVAC HQ, 74A1 transporting homeowner ALS to Phelps Hospital
1224hrs: 55B1 responding to scene
1225hrs: Briarcliff Dispatched for 1 Ambulance to standby at OVAC HQ
1226hrs: 55B1 on scne
1225hrs: TL38 relocating to OFD HQ
1227hrs: E247 awaitng crew, retone for additional manpower
1228hrs: Bat 12 requesting Con ed Gas
1230hrs: 2253 out at OFD HQ
1220hrs: 2311 relocating to OFD HQ
1231hrs: Bat 12 reports 4lines, all units operating, 2 story wood frame, continuing to operate
1231hrs: 2461, L27 responding to Sleepy Hollow to standby
1239hrs: TL38 out at OFD HQ
1241hrs: E247 out at OFD HQ
1241hrs: Bat 11 reporting fire under control, checking for extension
1243hrs: 2461, L37 out at SHFD HQ
1245hrs: Bat 12 reporting Con Ed Gas on scene, requesting ETA on electric, 60 reports they are enroute from Yorktown
1254hrs: Bat 12 reporting IC requesting Briarcliff rescue-cascade (R37) to scene, set up in St. Ann’s School Parking lot
1300hrs: R37 awaiting crew
1302hrs: R37 responding
1304hrs: 2313 responding
1311hrs: 2312 out at OFD HQ
1359hrs: 74-05 reporting Briarcliff ambulance can go back in service
1400hrs: 53B1 back in service
1401hrs: 2081 reporting all Croton FD units back in service, FASTeam released
1424hrs: Bat 11 reporting Croton EMS ambulance can go back in service from scene
1427hrs: 55B1 back in serice, returning to croton
1428hrs: 74B1 back in service, 74-05 still on scene with 74A1
1429hrs: Bat 11 reporting Briarcliff R37 released from scene
1434hrs: 2052, R37 clear from scene. R37 going to St. 2 Millwood to fill up
1435hrs: Bat 11 requesting Red Cross, 1 family displaced
1436hrs: Bat 11 reports IC releasing SHFD & MFD units from standby
1437hrs: 2311, 2312, TL38 back in service
1440hrs: 2251, 2253, E247 back in service
1442hrs: Bat 11 back in service
1447hrs: 2311 reporting TL38 back in Sleepy Hollow, releasing tarrytown from standby
1447hrs: 2461, 2462, L37 back in service
1448hrs: E97 back in service
1449hrs: E98 back in service
1452hrs: TL42 back in service
1452hrs: 74-05, 74A1 back in service, all EMS units clear
1453hrs: E98 back in quarters
Please PM me if you have any info to add. Happy New Year!

Sounds to me like the Brothers did one hell of a job here. Could we get a little more info? This is the type of incident where the Brothers truly earn their mettle. "Multiple reports of people trapped on floors above", yet as the old saying goes, putting water on a fire saves the most lives. You're talking a multi-million dollar property here, around the holidays, possible deaths if the proper action isn't taken, residents' displacement, we've all seen the worse of it.
I just don't think a good job like this should go the wayside of a simple (yet excellent) I.A. so if there's input from any of the HFD companies, or their union Brothers of GFD, FFD, with help from SFD, I'd sure love to hear it.
Congrats Brothers. Great job.

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.

I didn't even see JFLYNN had wrote that at the time, as I had been typing this out for a while since I'm at work. I wont speak for the Chief, but I interpreted what you were saying as a "we're not going to have a written plan in place, we'll just wing it as the incident progresses and hope it works."
I totally agree that sizing up an incident is imperative to a positive outcome. If we look back at the initial posters statement/question, I think that we can both agree that filling an engine with 8 guys and a chief's car with another 6 and sending them to another fire is a little ridiculous. There are so many different paths that we can go down with this, such as minimum/maximum staffing for M/A, % of available manpower required to remain at home to respond M/A, etc etc. Biggest thing I hope we can both agree on is that, if you dont' have a ratio in favor of your department to that going M/A at the time, you stay back and protect your town.
And yes, if conditions warrant an aggressive interior attack, we will make that push.
I should have been more clear, but that last part was not aimed directly at you. It was more of a broad statement for departments in general. Listen to a scanner on a daily basis and you can easily tell who has their stuff together, and who does not.

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.

I respectfully disagree. The vehicle collision was survivable. The outcome was a result of the doctor being struck by a vehicle; an exponentially more dangerous scenario than being the occupant of a vehicle with airbags, seatbelts, and crumple zones.
This is a tragic accident but the speeds in this case were not excessive.

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."

Lets take the passion out of this for a minute.
At best the City handled this latest development poorly. What did the NJ Daily News quote as the number for responders to the WTC....roughly 91,000. Even if you halfed that number that's 45,000 people. There is no way the area around the WTC could currently handle 45,000 people and have it not be a logistical nightmare. I was at the WTC on 9/11 and in the two weeks following, had collegues that died and rarely discuss or mention it. I have never had a desire to feel I needed to be there every 9/11 and I don't have a burning desire to be there this September 11. Hopefully when the Memorial opens to will provide a suitable setting for remembrance but basically the WTC area is what it is intended to be, a construction site for now. Let the date be for the family members of those killed on 9/11. With 343 FDNY, 23 NYPD, and 37 PANYNJPD and those from the other public safety agencies, those families should be the representatives of the uniformed services. I can go to the WTC any time of th day or night to make my peace.

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.

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.

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.