FireMedic049

You are correct to a point. If he is the only EMT on the crew, then there is a clear "failure to act" issue anytime he returned to the engine prior to the arrival of the ambulance since the highest certification provider walked away from the patient. If the rest of the engine crew are EMTs, then there is absolutely no "failure to act" issue in regards to his certification and caring for the patient since other "equally trained/certified" personnel are appropriately caring for the patient. In that situation, the only issue in play is the internal matter of what appears to be a deriliction of duty based on racial factors.

If that's what you were trying to address, then you didn't do a good job doing so because it made no sense.

What numbers are you talking about? We aren't trying to "improve" your idea because it's so flawed that it really can't be improved upon. Sorry kid, but you don't know Jack about what being a unionized workforce is about. The problems with our healthcare system have very little to do with organized labor.

Sure, if money and/or space is an issue, not having the booster reel wouldn't be a huge hardship. However, if you have the space and can afford it, it's a very useful tool to have at your disposal IMO. It's really that simple.

I find the booster reel to be a very useful tool. It's certainly not adequate for a significant volume of fire, but it's a great option for other situations. In addition to and in support of the things Izzy listed as uses, ours has been used for the following: Cleaning of tools, equipment, hose and personnel on the scene.Final extinguishment of a smoldering engine compartment fire.Hitting some hot spots found during the investigation phase.Extinguishing nuisance fires.As a protection line for the engine for a short period of time while pumping a fire.We've used it in several situations where we previously would've used a can. A lot easier to put a little water back in the tank back at the station than servicing the can.It's a great option when you think you might need more than one can to fully extinguish a small fire.It's a lot quicker to clean up and put away than a trashline.We get called upon to "wash down" some public areas at times. Using regular handlines, we'd often have to refill at least once to complete the job. Just the other week my engine washed down the stage area of an outdoor "bandshell" style venue with less than 200 gallons of water.

Not always. Up to a point, it is actually more cost effective to cover vacancies using overtime. With 400 vacancies and people making more than $100K in OT, I'm pretty confident that they've past that point. Additionally, in today's economic and political environment you can't rule out the possibility that the City Administration is intentionally not filling the vacancies and running up the OT costs. OT costs soar, the fingers start pointing at the "greedy" (union) firefighters, the public gets worked up over the perception that it's the Union's fault and then the City tries to use this as leverage to make cuts in manpower, unit staffing, fire stations, benefits, etc.

The UFA may not specifically prohibit volunteering in departments outside of NYC, however the IAFF By-Laws DO prohibit it's members from volunteering in departments in which one of it's Locals exists. Stamford would be one of those places, however the IAFF does not actively monitor this. It doesn't get directly involved unless one of the Locals involved makes a "complaint". BTW, if the person mentioned in this thread is a FDNY officer (non-admin), then they would actually be a member of Local 854 - Uniformed Fire Officers Association.

And the answer will be "no" to increased (unit) staffing.

I wouldn't classify it as being "very interesting". I'd say it's more of a same old story, different department kind of thing.

IMO at least, the typical TeleSqurt unit is really nothing more than an enhanced engine. Although you could put some "truck" equipment on it and the personnel arriving on it could perform "truck work" at a scene, the apparatus isn't a "truck" or really even a "quint" for that matter. The typical TeleSqurt only carries a ground ladder compliment consistent with that of an engine. The aerial device is typically not designed for use in the same fashion that the typical aerial ladder is and tends to be shorter since it's pretty much intended to only be an elevated master stream and not a platform for working or rescue. Regardless of being rural, I think it would depend a lot on how the apparatus will be used as to whether a Quint or TeleSqurt is the better option. If all you want is the elevated master stream, then the TeleSqurt would probably be a better option in terms of cost, vehicle size and weight. If you want the ability to actually climb an aerial device to reach an upper floor or roof for rescue or to perform work, then the Quint would probably be the better option.

Yes, unfortunately that is the case in some places.

"Safe" can often be very subjective. What are you referring to as illegal? Some departments may be lying to themselves about this however, making do with what you have to work with and being successful with that doesn't automatically mean that we think everything is "okey dokey" with it or aren't trying to address that.

I think you may be misinterpreting some of the responses. I'm absolutely not saying that. I'm simply saying that we still have a job to do even if understaffed. We need to be smart about how we do that and sometimes that means doing things without all of the "safeguards" of the ideal modern fireground.

Right, that's kind of my point with some of these statements. There's simply too many variables from one fire to the next. What you consider the "proper amount of personnel" to be may not be the same as me or the next guy. Normal to me might be aggressive to you, but still not actually be "reckless".

The OP' s question was not about rewriting fireground tactics, but rather the idea of "creating" an alternate playbook for reduced manpower situations. What constitutes the "proper personnel" on scene? Is it meeting 2in/2out? Is it the 15-17 firefighters recommended by NFPA 1710? Is it more than that for a commercial building? What constitutes an "aggressive interior attack"? As I alluded to in my first post, sometimes getting after the fire while it's still a one line fire even though we may have less than optimal staffing can be "safer" in the long run than waiting for that optimal amount of personnel to arrive and allowing the fire to grow significantly.

What constitues an actual "aggressive interior attack"? To some people, merely going inside the burning building is being "aggressive". What some may view as "aggressive", others may view as being "reckless". What some may view as a standard fire attack, others may view as being "aggressive". It's such a subjective thing to define, it's hard to say yes or no to the question. Regardless, you absolutely have to adjust your tactics if you are working "short-handed". No. If you haven't seen it already, check out the link below to the Underwriters Laboratory research regarding ventilation and you should understand why the answer is no. http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/industries/buildingmaterials/fire/fireservice/verticalventilation/ There really isn't a one size fits all answer to this question. In some cases, we will clearly need to make adjustments based on the occupancy, level of involvement and other conditions. In other cases, it may not be necessary to do so. Sometimes stopping the "small" fire (R&C type) even though understaffed can be "safer" than waiting for backup and letting it become a "big" fire a be one that takes a lot of personnel and time to put out. It's already being done across this country and will continue until everybody always has adequate staffing. Well, a lot of how you'll feel would be based on what you know to be the knowledge and abilities of the guys on those trucks. If you have a solid group capable of getting after it, you may not feel all that bad. I work in a small career department that easily sees our share of working fires. I've been to numerous fires with the staffing you mention, but arriving with one engine and one quint. Our backup is orimarily our off-duty personnel and sometimes mutual aid companies too depending on the severity of the fire. We've knocked down many a good fire before the cavalry arrives. The key as I mentioned is everyone being experienced, well trained, knowing what their role is and executing to the best of their ability. In our case, at least on my shift, we know the play and the common audibles that might be called and can easily adjust to them on the fly. It's definitely more challenging than having the "right" amount of staffing and arguably "less safe", but at the same time I enjoy the "multi-tasking" we get to do. It isn't ideal, but you quickly learn how to prioritize the "normal" fireground tasks for the staffing you have and it sure as heck isn't "text book", but we're having good results.

Because for the most part, NFPA standards are not laws and can be ignored. The "funny" thing about the NFPA staffing standard discussion is that most people think that the minimum recommended staffing is 1 officer and 3 firefighters. While this is technically true, if you read the standard closely you will quickly see that the minimum recommended staffing for most departments would actually be 1 officer and 5 firefighters. The standard states that response areas with "high hazard" targets should have additional staffing and the examples cited are probably pretty common for all of our response areas. The primary reason NFPA staffing standards are typically ignored is likely because our local governments would rather spend the money on something else, like stuff the gets them votes or makes them look good. As already mentioned, a lot of the "trivial regs" are complied with largely because non-NFPA versions are not available or require that liability for non-compliance shift from the manufacturer to the department.

What fun would that be?

Good Luck.

I disagree that this is akin to signing a contract without knowing the terms. As I understand it, the Charter Question is about coming to a "fork in the road" and choosing which path to take. In this case, the decision is essentially "status quo" or "one department, one chief". I think you are looking at this Charter Question from too much of a personal perspective based on this response. The "details" you and those in opposition are concerned with appear to be more about where you would "fit" into the "one department, one chief" option. Although I'm sure that there would be some exceptions, the public probably has little concern with what sort of "seat at the table" the firefighters on both sides would have on this path. While your concern is valid, it is one that in my opinion should be addressed once the decision to go down that path has been made.

I thought these three comments of opposition were some of the more noteworthy. "I think it would be workable with one fire chief with representation from career, volunteers and the public," Belltown Fire Department Chief John Didelot said. "The bottom line with this whole situation is we want people to vote `no' so the opportunity is presented to bring all the stakeholders to the table and work this out in an amicable way rather than shoving it down everybody's throat." I see this statement as a matter of "putting the cart before the horse". From everything I've read on this situation, there seems to be support on both sides for the general concept of a single Fire Chief, single Fire Department model and the City Charter has been the primary hurdle for the creation of this "unified department". The purpose of the Charter Question as I understand it is to essentially remove that "road block" by asking the citizens if they want to maintain the status quo or "reorganize" the delivery of fire protection services into a single Fire Department with a single Fire Chief and consisting of both career and volunteer firefighters. To me, that's the logical first step in this process. As I understand it, even if all parties were 100% on board with creating this "new" Fire Department, the matter would still have to go before the citizens to approve changes to the Charter to allow it to happen. So, if the Charter has to be changed regardless in order to get to the end point, then why would you spend time "working out the details" when there's no guarantee that you'll have the legal authority to put that plan into action? Maounis said many volunteers would likely leave the departments if the referendum passes, forcing the city to hire more firefighters at a greater cost to taxpayers. "They are going to be pushed aside to be second-class citizens, so to speak," he said. "I think there's a very good chance that a good portion of the volunteers will leave if this passes. If the volunteers leave, the taxes will go up." Coppola said a system where an outside fire chief exerts control over the volunteer fire departments would never work. "The volunteers will go away," he said. "They won't be as motivated because they'll be reporting to someone else. You think we're going to take a backseat to anyone else after all these years of fighting fires? That's not going to happen. Not in Belltown." To me, these two statements clearly show where the volunteer side's focus is and brings into question their actual "committement" to the people that they have been serving. If they are so dedicated to protecting their districts, then why would they even entertain the notion of quiting over this Charter Question? If they are so worried about this change resulting in a tax increase, then why would they act in a fashion that would likely result in a significant tax increase in order to replace them? If they are so convinced that the union supports this only because they want to get rid of the volunteers and increase their membership numbers, then why would the volunteers quit and basically hand the union exactly what they supposedly are after? If they actually have no intention of quiting, then it's basically nothing more than fearmongering to try to influence the vote.

Typically the EMS refusal is about addressing potential future liability related to the patient's medical condition when the patient is not being passed off to another healthcare provider. Usually the patient has a medical issue/injury that should receive additional attention at the hospital, but the patient under specific conditions has the right to refuse transport. The purpose of the "refusal" form is to document that the patient was advised of potential risks associated with not going to the hospital via EMS, to document competency and understanding of that risk and to relieve the EMS provider/service of liability should the patient suffer any adverse impact from not going to the hospital and future legal action is initiated. Regardless, if the patient later calls 911 for the same issue, an EMS unit is sent and the patient can get the same services as if there hadn't been a prior encounter. What exactly would this "refusal" address? If the evacuation is "mandatory", then I would imaging the refusal to leave would be a matter for law enforcement to address. If the evacuation is voluntary/encouraged/recommended, would the person refusing to evacuate be signing away their right to have public safety units respond to assist them for the duration of the storm or whatever the evac is for? Unless that's the situation, I really don't see any benefit from doing something like a "refusal". However, do we really want to find ourselves in a situation where we're not responding to a request for assistance that we are capable of responding to? Just look at the backlash from the "pay to spray" subscription fire protection situations when the FD doesn't put out the non-subscriber's fire. Besides, our whole business is pretty much based on saving people from themselves and their bad decisions, actions and/or inactions even though doing so can often impose risk to ourselves. So, should we treat that situation any differently?