LayTheLine

I enjoy going through the incident posts for different fires. Between Internet sites, incident posts on this site, and listening to the scanner I have a pretty good idea of what most departments run. I have the basics on New Rochelle, Eastchester, Yonkers and White Plains. One department I can't quite nail down is Mt. Vernon. There's not a lot out there on the web and the incident posts seem to vary with what responds. Most of the other departments are pretty consistent, such as Yonkers 4E, 3L (1 is FAST), Rescue, Squad and 2 Battalions on a Working Fire. I realize there are no absolutes because things happen (multiple calls, mutual aid being out of town, extra manning for snow storms, etc.). But can anyone answer the following questions about Mt. Vernon, say on a Saturday at 2 pm in good weather and no calls in progress: 1) How many stations do they have open? 2) How many engines are staffed and what is the manning per piece? 3) How many ladders are staffed and what is the manning per piece? 4) I'm aware of a new rescue, does that have a dedicated crew? 5) What is their shift minimum for staffing? 6) What do they send on a reported building fire? 7) What do they send on a Working Fire? 8) What is their minimum mutual aid station coverage during fires? 9) Do they respond on first responder/EMS calls? 10) They have a chief of department and a battalion chief per shift. Do they have Assistant Chiefs or Deputy Chiefs?

Thanks for the info guys! I do have to say their (2014 ?) Rescue is a sharp looking truck.

Ha, ha, very funny. I really am not trying to critique them at all. There's just an empty vat on the Internet and that's surprising in this day and age. At least I got 1 answer though!!

Any idea of the rundown? Did Yonkers handle it themselves or were tech rescue pieces in from Westchester or FDNY?

That's a different set-up than I've ever seen. Very confusing to say the least. It sounds like a lot of parties have their fingers in the pie. I applaud your tenacity in trying to correct a problem which could have deadly consequences. From what I know of the Connecticut fire service, I would guess that the members of all 6 fire departments are adequately trained and give it their all. Unfortunately it just isn't a joint effort to organize things in a more efficient way. I guess it ultimately comes down to the voters to stand-up and make it a priority and make their voices heard. But to get that much support for anything (new school, new library, etc.) is difficult at best. Good luck in your efforts to at least try to coordinate a very complex situation!

Nfd2004 - I completely agree that the closest, properly trained fire station(s) should respond to the original call or a call for assistance (mutual aid) be it a career, volunteer, private industry, or military department. With that being said, I have a question which will help me to better understand the situation. What is the legal designation of the city fire department and the volunteer depatments? What I mean by that is who is the ultimate authority and has taxing power. Does the city oversee all these individual departments and pays each department to operate? Is the city fire department under the control of the mayor and their budget is part of the city's budget? Are the 5 volunteer departments actually fire districts, created by a legislative act and hence have a voted on Board of Fire Commissioners that are voted in by the residents in each district? If the volunteer departments answer to the mayor and get their budget from the city, then the city will have a lot of say over what goes on. If they are fire districts, then the Board of Fire Commissioners set the tax rate for their district and are the overall governing body. Each fire district answers only to its voters in their district. The city government has no control over the fire districts. In essence it is their (the voters) own little town. New England is well known for local control and not wanting big brother involved. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. But no matter how you slice it, I agree that a citywide approach should be taken when deciding what is the best service and response to emergency calls. If Fire District A's station is closer than Fire District B's station to a fire which is located in Fire District B, then both departments should respond. If additional help is needed and the next closest station is a city firehouse then they should respond. ADDED: I just went online looking for some of the answers and I found out about the CCD & TCD (City Consolidated District & Town CD). It's not clear as to whether the TCD is a board made up of people voted in from the voters of the TCD or is it run by the City? Please elaborate.

This is a difficult situation that doesn't seem to have a clear-cut answer. Obviously the best answer would be to hire 24 additional firefighters to make-up the six 4-man engine companies. But apparently that can't be afforded. I do not know the financial situation of Greenwich, but if Greenwich can't staff 4-man engine companies, I'm surprised any similar size town/city can staff 3-man companies!! It is one of the richest towns in the country. Be that as it may, here are some points to consider: 1) The town is approximately 50 square miles with a population of 63,000 plus people. 2) How many volunteers are active, and how many are on the scene of a fire within 2 to 3 minutes of the first due engine? I would think you'd need an 90% rate of at least one certified volunteer showing up within 2 to 3 minutes of the engine on "reported structure fires." It's not perfect, but it's something that should be tracked. Automatic Fire Alarms shouldn't be counted in this number, as many, many departments across the country send 2 or 3 firefighters to check on an AFA in a residential structure and maybe a second engine and a ladder for a high-life occupancy. Still, that's only 8 to 10 firefighters showing up for what is 95% of the time a false alarm, minor cooking incident, or an oil burner back-fire. Of course any 2nd source reporting anything like smoke or even an odor should be upgraded to a structural response. With that being said, what do the numbers show? If a 4th certified volunteer shows up only 33% of the time within 2 to 3 minutes then you've got a problem. Bottom Line: Nothing can be perfect and the word reasonable should fit into the equation. In other words, you could have two houses struck by lightning just 3 blocks away, but you don't staff two 4-man engines in each station to cover that. 3) As for the current situation, I agree that six 3-man engine companies make more sense than having 2 and 4 man engines. I would think this would be easier to set-up SOP's for the department. Otherwise you could have different sets of procedures to train on - if a 2-man company shows up and fire is showing then A,B,C. If a 4-man engine shows up and fire is showing then D,E,F. Consistency is the key and the less confusing the better. I wonder if the GFD training department has to train on two sets of fire attack depending on the manning? In addition, a 3 man crew can get a lot set up waiting for the 4th firefighter to arrive or the 2nd due engine to arrive. Stretching the line to the door, doing a 360 of the building, throwing a ladder for a secondary means of escape, ordering additional equipment, forcing the lock, darken down the fire from the outside to "reset" it (see SLICERS fire attack on You Tube). A lot can be done in those first 2 to 4 minutes. 4) If it is determined that a 4th firefighter (rather volunteer or the 2nd due engine) doesn't show up within 5 minutes more than 50% of the time, then a 4th person could be added to all 6 engines by hiring a total of 16 firefighters. How? The 16 additional would be spread out among the 4 groups (4 per group). This would cover 4 of the engines. Then take the 2 firefighters off the ladder to cover the other 2 engines; in essence, leaving the ladder company with a driver only. You would end up with 4 firefighters in 5 of the 6 manned stations and the new Headquarters (when finished) would have 6 on-duty (4 on Engine 1, 1 on Tower 1, the shift deputy). What about the ladder? The ladder isn't going to be on the scene the majority of the time within the first 8 to 10 minutes town-wide, considering it covers everywhere. Send 4 engines and the ladder to reported structure fires. First engine is rescue/fire attack, second engine is water supply/back-up line, third engine is assigned to the ladder company (you now have a 5-man ladder company with an officer!) and the 4th engine would stand-by a block away and await for assignment by the shift commander. Now, I will admit that none of my proposals are perfect, but I will restate there has to be some point of "reasonableness" and agreement when trying to come up with a solution. Accurate data must be gathered and then a proper plan could be put into effect, with the Training Department being able to teach and spread the program with the same information, town-wide. Total minimum shift staffing would go from 22 to 26. I hope that wouldn't break the bank and the increase in better service would be unmeasurable.

A couple of points: 1) This was actually a 2nd alarm, hence the amount of equipment. 1st Alarm: Scarsdale E54, E55, E56, L28, C2432 Working Fire: Hartsdale E170, Greenville L4, Eastchester E31, TL17 2nd Alarm: White Plains E66, Fairview L1 Total Response: 6 Engines, 4 Ladders 2) There were 2 engines & 2 ladders brought in to cover Scarsdale. New Rochelle E23 & Larchmont TL7 to Scarsdale HQ. Yonkers E314, L75, Battalion 2 to Scarsdale Sta. 2 3) I went on Google Maps and measured the house and it is/was 70 x 50 so it was a good size. If you look at the picture just below the picture of the Scarsdale ambulance, you'll see that the garage was turned into a living space and it appears to be a split level to begin with. So I'm guessing that there were 3 levels in the house to deal with. The windows don't match up going across the front. **** You are right PHIL78, E23 to the scene and there's even a picture to prove it! ****

BFD389RET - What exactly is your point? I couldn't follow your thought process at all - you're all over the place. ????

I agree that some very good points were brought up on what they could have done. Rope to pull the wire back, Inside hose lines at the window, apply water at the eaves and let it wash down the side, etc. It would be interesting to know the full story. Here's a similar story that happened to me when I was a rookie. I don't remember all the particulars because I was just trying not to get myself killed! Rainy night, high winds. Service wire to the house broke off and landed in the aluminum gutter, Arcing and sparking. Electric company was requested. We entered the house to search and check for extension. As everyone was doing their job, a couple people said they were getting static type shocks. Someone (a lot smarter than me) realized that all the metal surfaces (refrigerator, stove, washer, dryer, screen door) were charged with a low level of electricity. In essence, the whole house had electricity running through it, including the aluminum siding. The chief ordered everyone out of the building and to stand clear. The electric company was again requested - stat. The fire started smoldering under the roof shingles and smoke began coming from the eaves. The power company showed up and killed the power. We went back in and a crew was sent to the roof. We were able to extinguish the fire with minimal damage to the house. I never saw anything like that before and I've never seen it happen since. In retrospect, the chief probably could have ordered someone to throw a rope over the dangling line and stand back 50 feet and pull it out of the gutter. If I recall, he didn't want to put anyone in jeopardy by pulling the line down and then having it dance around on the wet ground and zapping someone. We probably could have extended the ladder to the peak of the roof and squirt water onto the peak and let it run down over the shingles. But with the high winds, the rain, and the electrically charged house, the chief was taking no chances whatsoever and backed everyone away. The owners weren't happy when the smoke began coming from the roof line, but the chief wasn't budging. I have never experienced the "burden of command", but he was holding his ground. He probably would have rather explained to the owners why their house burned down than to go to a firefighters house and tell the firefighter's spouse that he had been killed. With everything to be considered I would have to side with the (now retired) chief that night; but was there a Plan B available to us that we should have used? A tough call....

Yes, I agree if done in a constructive and nice way. Asking WTF? or is this amateur hour? is not constructive or nice. Using decency and respect should be paramount when talking to or about other firefighters & their actions. To do otherwise makes us look like a bunch of lunkheads.

We all get Monday morning quarterbacked to death. I prefer the standard answer of, "I don't know happened, I wasn't there. It's not place to criticize."

Just throwing in my two cents here. Many people have already made points that I was considering. I, too, went online to find out the population, square mileage, apparatus, etc. Going back to my fire science college days (many moons ago) I recall something about taking your biggest building in the district and figuring out what you should have for GPM's and that's what you should shoot for. I believe that has something to do with your ISO rating but my memory is vague. Would eliminating the ladder drop their GPM's below an acceptable amount? Here's my idea: They appear to be in a non-hydrant area. If they sell the ladder truck, I believe it would be prudent to replace it with a tanker. The tanker could have a 1,000 GPM pump on it and it could serve as a reserve engine as well if one of their primary pieces went out-of-service long term. If they bought a tanker with 2,000 gallons on board they should be able to mount it on a single rear axle and hence, make it easier to drive and more people may be willing to drive it. The positives at the fire scene are obvious as they would roll-in to the scene with 1,750 + 1,000 + 2,000 = 4,750 gallons of water on board. If they are going to save a structure, the 4,750 should give them the fire power to knock down a fire in a savable structure. Another added benefit is that with the lack of manpower, you're probably not going to get 4 people for the ladder. But if they got a driver for the tanker, it could respond and the driver could stretch a supply line up to the working pumper and then become a firefighter. The pump operator would have to be on his game, but if they park the pieces close enough, there's no reason a pump operator couldn't handle both pumps until help arrives. If you've got limited manpower it's better than nothing and that one extra set of hands may make a difference in advancing a hoseline or performing outside ventilation. I know of one department in a rural area that had a ladder truck and a tanker. The ladder got little use and they had limited drivers for it. When it came time to replace the ladder, they decided to sell it and buy another tanker. Now they have two tankers in the station and both tankers get a heck of a lot more work than the ladder ever did. There are pros and cons to every decision, but in my opinion the selling of the ladder and addition of a tanker would seem like a smart move to me.

Fair enough... thanks!

Ok, maybe I did miss your point and perhaps I don't understand standards and compliance & non-compliance. But if one call reports a fire in a high-rise building and the city sends everything it's got (say four 4 man engines, two 4 man ladders, and a chief for a total of 25) and they get to the location and find a room and contents fire in a hotel room on the 14th floor. They stretch a line and knock down the fire, vent and do a primary search. They find an occupant who was in the bathroom dead from smoke inhilation. Now in the court of law the department is sued because the lawyer argues that you were non-compliant with a national standard and if you had been comliant his plaintiff may have lived. Probably not a winable case because whether you sent 1 or 100 FF's to the scene the occupant was most likely dead before the first engine came to a stop at the curb. But how do these standards apply once the fire is out and lawyers get involved?

Nfd2004, I am in agreement with you about the standard for both of the first two scenarios, but perhaps I didn't clearly state my point: They are suggesting sending 43 out the door on the initial call - period. I think the type and quantity of calls should be taken into account. I don't know how Bridgeport runs, but I'm guessing they don't send 6 engines, 3 ladders, the rescue & a chief to every reported structure fire in a building over 7 stories. That would leave 2 engines to cover the city. I understand how mutual aid works and if fire dispatch starts receiving additional calls then by all means transmit a 2nd or 3rd alarm for that call in order to get your 43 firefighters. I believe NFPA should include that qualifier in there. I would also doubt that cities around Bridgeport roll apparatus to help cover the city on 1 report of a high rise fire because Bridgeport is sending 6/3/1 right out the door. If I am wrong, please correct me. FireMedic049 - as to your expanding on my line of thinking, the majority of career fire deparments send 1 engine or 2 & 1 at best to residential AFA's and that doesn't meet the 15 person standard. That doesn't mean your not going to need 15 when there is a fire. Again, reasonableness is the key. If a 2nd source comes in for the AFA then upgrade the assigment to a structural response. So does sending 10 FF's to a residential AFA seem reasonable based on what we know about frequency of fires through AFA's? I would think so. At the same time, does responding 43 FF's to single report of a fire in a building ovet 7 stories seem reasonable - even if it means starting along 2 other departments? In my opinion it is not. If additional reports start coming in that the whole floor is on fire then strike however many alarms you need to to get to 43. That's what runcards are for. Heck strike a 4th alarm if you know that is the minimum to get your 43. That can be pre-determined by knowing which each alarm brings.

The video is very well put together and easy to follow. I agree with the first two points about manning, but not the third. To dispatch 43 personnel to a reported fire in any building above 7 stories is just not realistic. If a call comes in for a fire in Room 802 in a 12 story hotel, or a call comes in for a fire in the laundry room on the 7th floor of the same hotel, it is unrealistic to expect to dispatch 43 firefighters. It may be scientifically the best thing to do, but think about how many career departments could roll 43 firefighters out the door on the report of a structure fire? In the tri-state area I would venture to say that only a handful of departments have 43 people on a shift. Just think about it, if an average city has 7 engines with 4 on a piece, 3 ladders with 4 on a piece, 1 rescue with 4 and 1 chief with 2, it would mean you would need to dispatch 6 engines, 3 ladders, 1 rescue and the chief to that reported fire. (and they'd still be 1 person short!). Basically you would leave 1 engine to cover the city. If there was a CO call going on along with a medical assist call, you wouldn't have the manpower to respond to the fire and you would have nothing left to cover the city. There are many cities, take New Rochelle, White Plains, or Mt. Vernon that don't even have 43 on a shift. If a report of a fire came in at a high rise in White Plains, they would have to dispatch the whole on-duty shift and call for an automatic response of 2 or 3 outside departments with an engine. Is that realistic? FDNY sends 3 & 2 with a battalion on a reported fire. If they receive multiple calls they may "load up the box" and send 4 & 2, rescue, squad and the battalion, which adds up to 46 personnel. They are probably one of the only departments in the area that can supply that manpower without totally stripping their city of fire protection and without having to call the neighboring department(s) to start an engine along. Can you imagine a fire chief trying to justify this response based on one call? If multiple reports are received and people are trapped, then by all means transmit the 2nd alarm while en route. I think the NFPA does great work, but a video like this does nothing but portray the fire service as unrealistic to the city fathers and puts in the mind of many firefighters that they are asked to respond to calls severely under-manned (which is true in many cases). So why recommend a standard that many cities, with only 3 on a piece, cannot even come close to meeting? It becomes a document that is destined to collect dust on a shelf.

About a month ago, Detroit was being pounded by heavy rains. I put them on Broadcastify to listen in. They were running trees down, wires down and cars stuck in the flooding underpasses. I looked on the Internet for Detroit Fire to get an idea of what they run. What I found is astounding. Detroit is the arson capital of the world! It's almost like "The Bronx is Burning" back in the '70's & 80's. In a nutshell they have about 5,000 Working Fires or greater each year (that's about 13 a day). That's more than FDNY!! I couldn't believe it. Granted many of their fires are already burned buildings, but I've been listening the last month and they get their share of occupied structure fires & commercial fires. I am not exaggerating when I say that if turn on Broadcastify and listen in, there is either a Working Fire in progress, just ending, or one being dispatched. It's continuous. If this interests you, then read on. The city has 28 Engines, 13 Ladders, 6 Squads, and 8 Battalion Chiefs. Within the city limits the cities of Hamtramck & Highland Park reside. These are two very small cities, both surrounded by Detroit and each is only about 2 square miles. Each city runs an engine and a ladder. They work in conjunction with Detroit and are even dispatched by Detroit. So adding in those two cities, Detroit is covered by 30 Engines, 15 Ladders, 6 Squads & 8 Battalions. I have NO idea how they have so many fires with such a relatively small department. In addition to the structure fires they have daily car fires, dumpster fires and also run first responder on medical calls. I am not sure what their mutual aid agreement is with surrounding cities. The firefighters in Detroit must go to work and expect to be working their whole shift on a daily basis. I'm just guessing but I assume they must rotate people from the quieter companies to the busier companies to keep them fresh. It sounds like everyday would be the equivalent of playing a football game. Again, only a guess, but the average Detroit firefighter probably lasts 20 years and then is completely broken-down and has to retire. I like what they have for radio communications. They have fire dispatch on one frequency and then 8 fireground channels. They assign them by which chief is assigned first due to the box. If Battalion 4 is assigned, they assign Fireground 4. If there is another fire in Battalion 4's area, they just assign a fireground channel to whichever chief is coming in. "Companies responding to Main & Elm switch to Fireground 8 for Battalion 8." In just a month I've heard numerous Working Fires going on at the same time. There response, from what I can figure out is as follows: Box Alarm 3 Engines, 1 Ladder, 1 Squad, 1 Battalion Commercial Box Alarm: 4 Engines, 2 Ladders, 2 Squads, 2 Battalions 2nd Alarm: 3 Engines, 1 Ladder, 1 Squad, 1 Battalion (If it came is as a Box Alarm and they go to a 2nd it sounds like they round out the Commercial Box assignment along with the 2nd Alarm assignment.) Their manning appears to be 4 on an Engine, Ladder, and Squad; however, all those units will drop to 3. So on any given shift Squad 1 may have 4 and Squad 2 may have 3. When they sign on location they'll declared their PAR. "Engine 9 on location, PAR 4." Here's what I don't understand, about 50 percent of the time a unit will sign off and say PAR 3 plus 1 or PAR 2 plus 1 or it may just be PAR 3 or PAR 4. So I don't think it's the number of firefighters plus the officer. All I can think of is that it must be Probies on the rig, which means about 20% of the department must be probies. The whole thing is just mind-boggling and I really can't wrap my brain around it. At busy times they must have 3 or 4 Workers at a time! I'm sure many have heard about Devil's Night in Detroit (Oct. 30th). At one point they were averaging 80 structure fires on that night. I believe last year it was cut down to about 40. Well, Devil's Night is fast approaching and I will be sure to listen in. God Bless the Detroit firefighters and stay safe!

MTD7, let me try to answer the previous question even though I have no knowledge of Ossinning. From looking at the 1 & 2 series boxes, you can figure out the area of town where the engines are located. Example: E97 & E100 are in the south end; E96 & E99 are in the north end. So if you had an MVA in the southern part of the village, you'd probably here Box 7-2 OR Box 7-5 transmitted for the closest engine & the rescue. The 8 boxes are also geographic based on the information provided. So if you needed 1 engine for a trash can fire in the park in the north end of the village you would probably hear Box 8-1 OR Box 8-4 for either E96 or E99 to respond. How's that for an educated guess?

I came across a series of articles in Firehouse Magazine that date back to 2001-2002. Dennis Ruben did a 7-part detailed series on Crew Resource Management and how it relates to the fire service. The articles aren't together in one place. You have to search the Internet with keywords like Firehouse Magazine, Dennis Ruben, Crew Resource Management, 2001, 2002 and you should be able to find most of them.

I believe the fire service can learn a lot from the airline industry. With that being said, I don't really think we're comparing apples to apples here. The airline industry goes out of it's way to prevent accidents before they happen. If a wing flap is showing the slightest problem during pre-flight checks they won't take off. If the weather is not good, they won't take off. If the co-pilot feels ill and can't make the flight, they wait for another co-pilot and just don't allow the pilot to fly solo. The airline industry does have emergency procedures for when something goes wrong, be it engine failure, smoke in the aircraft, or deploying the emergency chutes after landing. But their response to emergencies is about 1% of what they do. The majority of flights go off without a hitch, as airline travel is the safest means of transport in the country. Now compare the fire service. We have our fire prevention personnel and our public education programs, but when we get called it's because an emergency has already happened. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't use safe and effective procedures, nor am I implying we should go "all out" to get to the fire and the rest of the world be damned. What I am saying is that (just like in the military) there has to be a certain acceptable levels of casualties. If the military wanted to eliminate all casualties, they would never attack. But they plan for, practice for, and then implement a plan that will hopefully obtain a positive outcome with the least amount of casualties. The fire service should be looked at in the same light. Plan, practice, train, educate and then respond and implement a reasonable action that will hopefully mitigate the situation without casualties, but they are going to happen. THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY DOES EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO STAY OUT OF HARMS WAY, THE FIRE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO GO INTO HARMS WAY. The police are much in the same situation as the fire department. Prior to Columbine, police responded to the scene of a shooting and secured the scene and waited for SWAT. Now they are trained for and expected to confront the shooter/s. If two police officers arrive at a school shooting and shots are being fired, they are trained to enter the school and try to at least "pin down" the shooter so he/she can't continue to move and inflict harm. The officers are to hold their position until help arrives and the shooter/s can be neutralized. Not for me! I believe that being safe is of utmost importance, but if you dot every "I" and cross every "T" before you begin operating, you will suffer "paralysis by analysis." At some point educated and calculated risks must be taken. Here is an example: I agree with doing a 360, but it's not always possible or practical. You're the Captain on a 3-man engine. Let's say you pull up on a 4 story multiple dwelling contained in a block long length of multiple dwellings. You see fire in a first floor room and it's just starting to extend to the public hallway. To complete a 360 you'd have go through exposure B, perhaps by breaking in the public door, go out the back door and into the rear yard. You then encounter a chain-link fence blocking you from the rear of the fire building's yard. You decide to pull a garbage can over and jump the fence. You look at the back of the fire building and can see the glow of fire in the public hallway. You then come across a wooden stockade fence blocking you to the backyard of exposure D. You take your tool and break through. Now you have to break into the rear of exposure D and go through and out the front. By this time, the driver has hooked up to the hydrant and your firefighter is finishing up stretching a 1 3/4" line to the front door. You look up and see that the fire has grown in size and now has control of the public stairway and is almost to the 2nd floor landing. By now you're thinking you better go back to the engine for the 2 1/2". Now, would it be better if you pulled up and saw the situation at hand. You see there are attached exposures on Side B & D. You can't even see wants behind the fire building (Side C). You evaluate that 1 room is burning and the occupant left the door open and it's starting to spread into the public hallway. You make an educated decision based on the factors at hand. You and the firefighter stretch a 1 3/4" right away while the driver is hooking up to the hydrant. You immediately stretch the line to the front door and call for water. You flow water and extinguish the fire in the public hallway. You crawl down the hall and give a burst into the apartment to darken down the fire but not totally extinguish it. You use your tool and pull the apartment door shut. You instruct the firefighter to stay at the door with the line and keep the door closed but be ready with the hoseline to drive the fire back. You race up the stairs to do a quick primary of the public hallway. You stop at the door of the second floor apartment over the fire and bang on the door. The door opens and two people are standing there. There is no smoke or fire apparent in the apartment. You direct them to follow you and shut the door. You direct them into the neighbor's apartment across the hall and shut the door. You continue up the stairs. There is a moderate smoke condition going up to the fourth floor. You meet a couple people entering the hallway and advise them to go back into their apartments and close the door. You make it to the top floor and there are no people anywhere in the public hallway. You hear other sirens coming and you race back down the stairs. You meet up with your firefighter, still protecting the door, and advise him to back out onto the stoop. You meet up with the chief. Two more engines and a ladder arrive and go to work finishing off the fire, evacuating the building and doing a complete search. To sum it up, you broke the 2 in / 2 out rule. You left your partner and two members worked by themselves in a building. You went above a fire without a hoseline. You made a conscious decision to do a quick knock down of the fire, then confine it by closing the door, doing a quick primary search of the public hallway, and decided to employ the tactic of "defending the occupants in place." You were aware that help was on the way and would arrive in 5 minutes. But instead of following the book and doing a complete 360 of the building, you put your judgment, training and experience to use by taking a reasonable risk by confining the fire and hence, saving the people in the building. This is much like Sully did when he decided to land his plane on the Hudson River. His experience, training and education told him he couldn't make it to any airport and the smoothest place to try to land the plane was in the river. He calculated and won.

I was looking through the FDNY vital stats and something caught my attention I never gave much thought to. According to the site, Serious Incidents are classified as All-Hands or greater. It then defines All-Hands as any incident where four primary units are used to control an incident. So the following scenario would be classified as an All-Hands and would be reflected in the year-end stats: MVA on a highway. 2 & 2 with a Battalion are dispatched. The Battalion arrives and reports a 3 car MVA with one car on its roof but no entrapment. He advises there are 7 patients (1 Red & 6 Yellow). He requests all unis to continue in & to update EMS. His next report advises that the engines are assisting EMS and the trucks are securing the cars & cleaning up a minor fluids spill. His final report is that he's going to drop it down to a 10-18 for E207 & L110, other units are in process, the 31 is 10-8. Am I correct that this is an All-Hands and will count toward the serious incidents in the end of year totals?

Thanks guys, glad I asked the question and it doesn't sound like either one of you is 100% sure. The other night Manhattan had a large water main break and a sink whole was opening up. Smell of gas developed. They never stretched a line (they had too much water!!!) They were checking all surrounding properties for gas & electric. The battalion delared "using all hands" and the dispatcher dropped a tone and announced the all-hands in Manhattan. Can anyone else add their 2 cents? Does fire need to be involved to add a number to the All-Hands total for the year. I realize this is only a "bookkeeping" question, but I am curious!

Hi. First time I've posted here. I used to live in the area and know the workings of the, then, Stamford Fire Departments. The "Big Five" and all. City took care of downtown and volunteers took care of the north section. Worked pretty well. But the world has changed and it's time for the Stamford Fire Department to make a change to a full-time Fire Division and a volunteer Support Division. Two separate divisions within the same department that work together to achieve a common goal. Let me explain.... The Fire Division would be made up of career firefighters (black coats) and their job is to put the fires out, respond to accidents and run EMS calls. I don't know the exact numbers needed, but let's say the City Fathers and the citizens vote on and put into service a full-time fire force of 11 Engines, 4 Ladders, 1 Heavy Rescue & 1 Deputy Chief. All units would be staffed with 4, except the Deputy would have 2. That's 16 pieces with 4 and 1 piece (deputy) with 2 for a total of 66 on-duty. The Support Division would be made up of volunteer firefighters (yellow coats) and would be activated anytime there was a "Working Fire" in the whole city or upon request by the IC. They would man an Air/Light Vehicle, a Rehab/Canteen Vehicle, a Large Diameter Hose Wagon (no pump), and a Salvage Unit. Ideally, the volunteers would have one or two of their own stations to call "home" and the career staff would have their stations to call "home". The volunteers would need to be FFI & First Responder trained. Drivers would have to be EVOC certified. An incentive for the volunteers would be they earn one point per year toward the city's firefighter exam, up to five points. A lot of the old-timers volunteers wouldn't go for this and drop out. True dedicated volunteer firefighters and one's who want to become full-timers would stick with the program. Now give this some real thought: The full-timers are the ones that put the fires out and do the frontline work. However, how could they have any animosity toward the volunteers if they: 1) Handed them water and set up misting fans at a fire. 2) Set up lighting at the scene of a fire or accident. 3) Covered and preserved property that the career firefighters pull out of a burning structure. 4) Helped roll-up the hose after a fire. 5) Refilled their air bottles and got them ready for return to duty after rehab. 6) Laid out 3,500 feet of 5 inch hose for the career department to use at a large fire (and then helped pick it up). 7) Carried air bottles, hose and tools to the 15th floor of a high-rise building fire that's on the 18th floor (basically mules). High-rise firefighter is very manpower intensive! 8) Help to pull apart and overhaul a deep seated brush fire out in the woods. The career chain-of-command would be: Chief Assistant Chief Deputy Chief Captain Lieutenant Firefighter The volunteer chain-of -command would be: Senior Crew Chief (Is the administrative and operational person who reports to the fire chief) Crew Chief (1 per unit) Assistant Crew Chief (1 per unit) Support Firefighter Of course at the scene of a fire the highest ranking volunteer would report to the command post and report to the IC for assignments. The orders are then given to the units by the volunteer representative at the command post. Three examples: (1) Deputy Chief running an incident, an Assistant Crew Chief is the highest ranking volunteer. He/she goes to command post. (2) An Assistant Chief shows up at a greater alarm fire and the Senior Crew Chief is there. He/she goes to the command post. (3) Two engines are wrapping up, overhauling a deep-seated brush fire under the command of a Captain. A Crew Chief is there and reports to the Captain, who asks, "Can you set up some misting fans, a tent, and get some bottles of water ready? If you have the manpower, would you mind helping us pull the hose out of the woods." "Sure, Cap, no problem." "Thanks" This is the only solution I can see working. Within 5 years a lot of the animosity would go away. New blood would come in and be taught how things run. At large-scale incidents the volunteers could supply 20 or 25 firefighters to assist the career staff. Let's face it, like most cities, Stamford isn't rich enough or busy enough to have 100 firefighters on-duty. But if the city decides that 66 on-duty can handle the majority of the calls, then how can anyone argue having all these trained, extra sets of hands show up? Of course this would not preclude the recall of off-duty staff to man reserve pieces to respond to the scene or cover the city. Hey, if I were a career firefighter who just got "the snot kicked out of me" on a 3rd alarm fire and people volunteer to come and give you water and towels, help roll your hose, and set up lights enough for a ballgame to start up, I'd be the happiest guy in the world. Come on in, we can use you. Give it some thought, LayTheLine

New member here. I posted a paragraph and it didn't save. Now testing but I can't delete this post. Sorry!