FireMedic049

I seriously doubt it. The court action would involve more than just showing that the Engine crew left the patient's house. The patient would pretty much have to have died or suffered some sort of irreparable damage from them leaving for it to go anywhere. How do you prove that you were "harmed" if all that happened was that somebody didn't wait with you for the ambulance to arrive during a blizzard and an extreme backlog of requests for service? Given what the situation appears to be, there's a pretty good chance that a "state of emergency" was declared and that opens the door to doing some things that aren't permissible/acceptable under "normal" conditions. I know that under normal circumstances I can't start an IV on a patient and then send them to the hospital with a BLS crew. However, under (large) MCI conditions and limited ALS resources, I can do that.

No, you're pretty much wrong! Do some research on the history of labor and you will find that many of the things that employers do these days in terms of wages, benefits, sick days, vacation, work conditions, etc. no matter how "generous" the employer may seem to be, have their origins in the early days of organized labor.

FAPP (Pittsburgh) isn't as "squared away" as you may think they are. FAPP started as a local level Union for Pittsburgh EMS. Several years ago, FAPP "expanded" and started to organize the EMS workers in some other communities in the county. These groups were organized into their own "Locals" and not as part of FAPP Local 1 (Pittsburgh EMS). They organized something like 6, 7 or so suburban EMS agencies, however a few of them have since decertified. FAPP Local 1 has done pretty good for themselves when compared to most of the other EMS agencies in the County, but they are nowhere close to being on the same level as Pittsburgh Fire (IAFF Local 1). I work part-time for two of the suburban FAPP Locals and am very unimpressed with them regarding their involvement with both of these Locals. There's too much to detail effectively in this forum, but here's just one example of their unimpressive performance....... I've worked at the one Local for almost 9 years now, almost all as a "casual" employee. Non-full-time personnel are not included in the bargaining unit, probably due to the fact that when they organized they relied almost exclusively on full-time employees for their staffing and "casual" employees worked very infrequently. Several years ago, that changed and "regular" work opportunities became available to the "casual" employees. During that time, we have been trying to get the "casual staff" into the bargaining unit, but without success. I've been told several reasons why it hasn't happened at contract time. Last year I specifically asked the FAPP Local 1 reps at a meeting about the issue and was told basically that it "isn't allowed" or something of that nature. I couldn't get a straight answer from them because I know for a fact that "casual employees" can be included in bargaining units. I stated this and asked if there was a "FAPP rule" that prevented it. Again, no straight answer. Now here's the really ironic, confusing part. The 2nd Local that I've been working at for the last year or so, which neighbors the 1st Local, includes it's casual staff in the bargaining unit and now that I've completed my "probationary hours" requirement there, I'll be in the Union as soon as I submit the paperwork. That's right, I'll be working as a casual employee at two agencies represented by separate FAPP Locals, but can only be a FAPP member at one of them.

If I'm not mistaken, front-line apparatus are replaced by "spare" apparatus and the company has to move their equipment from the front-line unit to the spare in order to put it in service. The "reserve" apparatus are fully equipped units spread out across NYC and immediately ready for service if needed. I'd imagine this would be stuff like having multiple multi-alarm fires working and calling in off-duty personnel to provide additional coverage in case of more incidents and maybe even the need to have dedicated staffed fire apparatus for an event.

OK, but hasn't SFRD been staffing a few engines in the Northern areas for several years now? The Southern SFRD units have responding to calls in the North also, correct? So I wouldn't see that as "subsidizing", but rather "paying" for service. Now, it may not be an "equal" exchange, but I still find it hard to believe that the half of the city whose fire protection isn't going thru a major change and hiring new employees is the one who's taxes will be going up.

I could agree that this plan could be a reasonable step at this time given the much clearer explanation of the legal obstacles preventing a single department. However............ 1) Working towards eventual consolidation into a single department should be part of the plan. Not doing so is nothing more than just "kicking the can down the road". 2) How in the world does the half of the city whose fire service isn't changing see an increase in their taxes while the half of the city whose fire service is changing (including the addition of 50+ paid positions) see NO increase in their taxes?

According to Rescue 2's website, the first Ferrara rescue will be going to them. Maybe they're gonna share it?

Yes, my department has experienced a mixed response from our City government. We have been allowed to apply a number of times and been successful at least 3 times. However, we've also experienced some resistance at times, mainly regarding the matching fund end of things. We were turned down for applying in the current period.Personally, I think alot of our problem is that the Fire Chief doesn't do a good job at educating the city officials on why we should be allowed to apply for any grants we can. Basically, I don't think the city officials clearly understand that the stuff we want to apply for are things that WE NEED and that this is a way for them to potentially purchase the needed items at a substantial "discount". For example, most of our SCBA cylinders reach the end of their life next year and we need to purchase new SCBA units, yet we didn't apply for an AFG this year and probably aren't planning for a capital purchase either. Clearly a body weight in excess of 400 lbs is a much bigger factor than the lack of exercise equipment in the firehouse.I don't really mean this as bad as it sounds, but at 400+ lbs, they lost a member of their fire department to a heart attack, not a firefighter.

Not necessarily. Too an extent, I agree with the premise that this type of situation is "inflating" what we traditionally have viewed as a LODD. However, it's also possible that maybe we weren't including some deaths in the past that should have been considered LODDs because we didn't know then what we know now? It's kind of like the belief that the fire service isn't making much progress regarding LODDs because the annual rate continues to be around 100 per year. However, if you look at the details of the LODD stats, then you'll see that less firefighters appear to be dying as the result of "fire events". The annual number isn't improving much because the "rules" have changed and has thus skewed the stats when comparing the past few years with 10-15+ years ago. I believe if you were able to accurately apply the current LODD standards to prior recent decades, then you'd see higher LODD totals for those years and conversely, if the rules hadn't changed then the recent years would have had lower LODD totals. Now I don't have an issue with having an "easier" LODD standard since it is clearly to the benefit of the survivors in terms of "death benefits" that are available to them. I just wish we could more clearly distinguish between being "killed in the line of duty" and "dying while on duty or following duty" since many of the latter may be more attributable to underlying medical problems and just "happened" to occur while on duty.

According to the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act of 2003: "The law presumes that a heart attack or stroke are in the line of duty if the firefighter was engaged in nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity while on duty and the firefighter becomes ill while on duty or within 24 hours after engaging in such activity." http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/fatalities/statistics/index.shtm

I disagree. The fact that you have a policy to guide the "rate of response" (hot/warm/cold) does not diminish your officers' "responsibility and accountability". They are still very much responsible for ensuring a safe response by their apparatus. I agree that the officers should have the ability to "alter" the "rate of response" to account for all of those factors that you just can't "legislate" for. The EMS system I work in uses an EMD protocol to assign calls to one of 5 "priority" categories - 3 "ALS" and 2 "BLS". The County Dispatch policy has response "recommendations" for each, but the individual services decide if the response for each category should be hot or cold. However, at least at the service I work at, we have the ability to "upgrade" or "downgrade" our rate of response (hot vs cold) based on our experience, information provided, etc. For example, psych calls typically get put into the 2nd highest category which is normally a hot response, however we often handle them as a cold response due to the fact that they're typically not a life threatening matter. There are also times in which we will "upgrade" our response based on various factors, but that doesn't happen as much since calls typically get "over-prioritized" rather than "under-prioritized". Regardless, we are still responsible and accountable for the decisions that we make and whatever happens as a result.

I find it interesting that anytime this notion of responding and not using the red lights and sirens comes up, most people seem to have a bit of tunnel vision on the matter. It seems like they forget that we respond to more than just fires and life threatening situations. The fire service in general could easily respond non-emergently to a good number of calls without an adverse effect, other than not arriving as quickly that is.

I wouldn't say that at all based on these orders. First, Seagrave has not been building Rescues for the City. If I'm not mistaken, other than the current Rescue 1 and the "post 9/11 Rescue donations", the last several rounds of Rescues have been built by Saulsbury on various chassis. Ferrara was also the only bidder on this round. So, I think it's quite a reach to say that this has any reflection on Seagrave. Second, the rearmount order was only bid by Seagrave and Ferrara if I'm not mistaken. The Seagrave bid was deemed "non-compliant" or something of that sorts - based on the warranty issues and that left Ferrara as the only option. Again, doesn't sound like a "losing confidence" issue to me as much as it is a "bid process" matter.

I don't know if it's necessarily being blown out of proportion, but would agree that the "fuss" over it is predominately based in the "politics" of the situation in Stamford. In general, what happened for this specific call was reasonable and consistent with what takes place daily elsewhere. However, the problem with this specific situation vs what happens elsewhere is that this particular VFD's Fire Chief explicitly stated (in response to the poor handling of a prior incident) that his Fire Department would NEVER AGAIN cancel responding units without a unit/officer on scene of the incident. Granted this may have just been a simple mistake, but given the scrutiny of the prior incident and it only being a few months past, you'd think that they'd be more diligent on the matter. However, there's also the need to consider that if the Department's members can't follow something as simple as "don't cancel units with no one on scene", will the members be able to follow the "bigger" orders in the future? "Small picture" - not that big of a deal. "Big picture" - definitely a big deal.

My department happens to have an E-one 75' Quint that is now almost 9 years old and I don't think anybody in the department would be opposed to getting another when the time comes to replace it. I'd say a lot of people considering that E-one seems to have a large number of aerials in fire stations. Plus, Sutphen also builds aluminum ladders and has sold quite a few of them over the years. On top of that, Pierce got into the aluminum ladder market a few years ago because they felt enough departments were interested in aluminum ladders that they wanted the chance for that business. If you prefer steel, that's fine. However, from experience and observation, there's absolutely nothing wrong with aluminum ladders.

Call it a Devil's Advocate thing, but ultimately which is more important 1) Having the driver "dressed for success" upon arrival because "you never know...." or 2) Having the driver dressed in a fashion that doesn't restrict their ability to safely operate the apparatus and get everybody to the scene?

You're reading too far into what I posted. I was specifically addressing the poster's reference to 1720 and the 2 minutes to initiate the attack. Unless I'm way off, we're talking about the first arriving unit. During that initial 2 minute period, the MPO's primary responsibility will generally be getting water to the attack team and water supply. Unless that engine company is working grossly understaffed (less than 3 FFs), the driver should not be needed for the attack team to initiate the attack. As such, the driver not wearing TOG when driving should have no bearing on how fast the attack begins since his initial role really doesn't require him to be in TOG. If they need the driver to be a part of the initial attack team, then the "2 minute" thing may very well be irrelevant since you don't have sufficient manpower to initiate that attack - if you are following 2in/2out - and it may take more than 2 minutes for more manpower to arrive. Trust me, I know about what a "good MPO" should be doing. In my department, a driver does a lot more than just pull levers and establish a water supply. The engine I work on typically has only 2 FFs, sometimes 3 and a total of 5-7 FFs overall for our on-duty response. No opportunity to just pull some levers. I don't disagree with any of this, however as I stated I really wasn't discussing this.

A couple of thoughts regarding this: 1) The 2 minute time frame is the "standard", not the "requirement". 2) If your driver needs to be fully dressed in order to initiate that initial attack within the 2 minute time frame, then there's a pretty good chance that you will not be in compliance with the 2in/2out rule or you don't have enough properly trained personnel on the scene. With a crew of 4 (or more), there's no reason why the driver would need to get fully dressed before getting the attack underway since he shouldn't be on the line anyway unless you left the station without a sufficient number of "interior" personnel. Anything less than a crew of 4 means that you don't have 2in/2out unless additional personnel are on scene and if that's the case, you're right back at the driver not being on the attack line. If the driver needs to be fully dressed in order to pull some levers and hook up the water supply at the outset of the incident, then he probably parked too close to the fire.

Speaking as a career firefighter, who is assigned as an apparatus operator pretty much every regular shift I work, I think that the decision to wear or not wear TOG when driving the apparatus should be an individual decision. The ability to safely drive the apparatus is paramount and if a person feels that TOG hinders that for them, then they shouldn't wear it while driving. Personally, I frequently drive without any TOG on, but depending on the nature of the call (or during the overnight) I will drive with TOG pants on. I think that decision should be somewhat situational dependent.I'm not looking for any fighting, but opinions. It has been discussed dozens of times around our firehouse, and I want to see what others think.

Anytime. Absolutely!

I'm willing to agree that at this point, the layoffs are only speculation since it's been publicly stated that no layoffs are supposed to happen. However, the same can't be said about the tax increase since I've seen reference to a tax increase in multiple articles regarding this new plan. Yes, the lie of omission is still a lie. However, it's a lie because the person is attempting to deceive by omitting the "truth". I didn't see any omission of truth in his statement. The only thing I saw being omitted was the actual identity of the people being referenced and omitting their identity doesn't necessarily mean that the content of the message is not true.

What exactly does "truly integrate the VFDs and SFRD" mean? He's an elected official, isn't that reason enough to doubt his sincerity? Besides, if your city administration is anything like my city administration, then having the contract say something isn't supposed to happen doesn't mean that they won't try to do it anyway, even if there's an arbitration award supporting the contract.

If I recall correctly, I heard that this engine was a demo from ALF and was immediately purchased by FDNY following 9/11 in their efforts to replace the apparatus that was lost.

I'm not and you aren't this stupid either. The Mayor wants to implement a plan in which the primary impact on the Union at this point is the reassignment of some of their members and reduced responses into the Northern areas. So how are they a "major player" in this current chapter? I don't need to talk to them, I'm a proud member and Executive Officer of my Local and I think I have better understanding of their policy than you do. The International's stance ISN'T that volunteer FDs are "rival organizations" simply because they are volunteer FDs. I was also referring to your generalization that Union firefighters only regard other Union firefighters as "Brothers". This is blatantly false and many, many IAFF Local's members work in combination departments along side of volunteers every day. Many others in non-combination departments do so also. I will not deny that there are some members who have that view, but I'm sure it's a minority just as I'm sure that the majority of volunteers don't "hate" Union firefighters. How about changing the locks on the fire station to keep out the City career personnel assigned there? How about installing security cameras to monitor the career personnel assigned to the station? So, don't point fingers at only the Union. So, if a single department structure was an option in this process, then all paid personnel in a single department structure would be represented by Local 786. As such, why were they not afforded the opportunity to be an active participant in the meetings? Any restructuring of the department would involve matters that are subject to the collective bargaining process. So, as I've said before, the exclusion of Local 786 says to me that the single department structure was never a real consideration.

How is the Union the "major player" in this, but are not a participant in the proposed plan nor have a seat at the table? Nice generalization and mischaracterization of union firefighters. Given everything I've read about the fire service of Stamford, I can see why Local 786 may specifically view the Stamford VFDs as "rival organizations". However, from that same information, I can clearly see that the Stamford VFDs view Local 786 as a "rival organization". By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question to you. Was a single department structure ever on the table?