antiquefirelt

I'm not sure why anyone in 2014 isn't teaching RIT/FAST basics in FF I or rookie school. If you can be certified to be an interior firefighter, you should be given the basics to be a member of RIT/FAST. This minimal no/limited experience firefighter may be far from ideal as a RIT member, but in way too many cases, it's much better than what is currently present on the fireground. Like every other task taught in FF I, there are more classes and more drills out there for one to become more knowledgeable and confident. All are a benefit, though none replace actual experience. Treating RIT./FAST like a specialty has resulted in more FD's doing nothing instead of doing more. As is eloquently noted above, the best way to ensure Brothers and Sisters don't get injured or killed is for everyone to know their job, and do their job at the highest level possible. What a Metro FD can do as compared to what a small VFD can do will never be the same, but doing nothing/too little will always be wrong, regardless of what excuse you try and pin it on. Every firefighter who wears an SCBA today and everyday going forward must know how to rescue other firefighters and how to prevent his/her own MAYDAY, anything short of this is unconscionable. Please give me some excuses why this shouldn't or can't be done.

I get the need for the engines and midmounts, but with a rearmount tower, it would seem by the time the bucket was up out of the way, the cab-tilt height savings would be negated? Are you guys able to tilt a rearmount stick cab in-house? Though they're shorter in length, I'd think they'd raise the requisite ceiling height by at least the height of the bedded rails?

I see they'll offer to chassis types. I wonder why would anyone want a split tilt cab with a rearmount aerial?

Pray for the best, NECN showing someone they report as being a firefigther receiving chest compressions. 8 firefighters transported.

I understand and can't discount that many taxpayers would (rightfully) be angered that they subsidize fire protection for their neighbors. but there is also a large segment of the public that thinks that people must come first. It's not just a local issue, we seem to have enough people that care about helping others to fight on foreign soils regardless of the costs. Most may not agree the starting or stopping point, but they tend to want to help those in need. I do agree that abuse of the system cannot be tolerated and must be stopped, lest the whole system be destroyed. There appears to be no easy answer to the issue you're fighting right now. I'm fine disagreeing, but I think we're not as far apart as one might think.

I'm not saying abuse of the M/A system should be allowed, but I'll bet few places nationwide had the forethought to write in enforcement actions or ways to sanction those FD's that failed to live up to their end of the bargain. I know we had the same issue on EMS coverage and now charge for it. It would seem plainly obvious that to be in a "mutual aid agreement" you have to reciprocate. Maybe the other FD's should request the abusive FD more routinely and then be denied assistance routinely, showing the obvious one sided nature of the issue? In the end, the taxpayers far and wide will only see a refusal to assist as a bad thing for any FD who won't answer a call for help. We all know what stripping another towns resources could do, but we answer try and stop the loss that is happening currently, not the one that might happen in the future. Taxpayers at large will sympathize with the financial issue every day of the week as they understand that compared to what it takes to safely mitigate a fire.

Interestingly enough when we bought our ALF MM tower ('06), we went all over NY, NJ, and PA looking at TL's and we seriously reviewed the Mt. Vernon Scope that was somewhere in the build/delivery process. Our Seagrave rep relayed that the escape ladder was left of for a savings, we too sought that savings but alas they were still nearly $100k higher with a real stripped down model. One of the points touched on above that affected our decision to remove the escape ladder was the FDNY TL SOG's, where they note the escape ladder is the last method for leaving the bucket, if I recall after rappelling from the basket!

Wouldn't refusing to use M/A knowing the City would not call in or properly staff apparatus in the same period of time as a strike jeopardize the people and property a department was sworn to protect? Not to mention putting the lives of the on duty personnel at greater risk? There has to be a better way to pressure a city into proper staffing without directly increasing the danger to all involved. Media, legal grounds, IAFF assistance?

Why would anyone care? The basic functionality of each is nearly identical or at least as close as the differences between manufacturers recommendations. Breaking this down would be akin to further detailing what type of pump panel was on an engine.

I believe the general difference is that a ladder tower is a heavy duty aerial ladder with bucket on the end (mid or rearmount) and Tower ladder is used to describe those box beam aerials with buckets that have a ladder attached to the top of the aerial boom, neither being articulating? Using those loose definitions only Aerialscope and Sutphen produce "Tower Ladders" while the rest would be termed Ladder towers. That being said, why this would make a difference to anyone other than local jargon is beyond me.

My point is that the cab style won't encourage movement if movement is just not an option people think of. Do the company officers require their crews to be seated and belted before the apparatus moves until the brake is set? Why not? Does their chief require they ensure this? Is there are valid reason not to remain seated and belted while moving? Aren't responding/returning accidents still a leading casue of LODD's? While I understand tailoring your specs to fit your dept, over the years this is why we as the F.S. have had so many mandates, because at a local level people are rarely truly required to do the right thing. Now we have seatbelt alarm systems that have redundant safeties to ensure they can't be defeated, or compartment door alarms that are in alarm more than they work, becasue guys were not required to do their job, every single time, thus complacency crept in. We still have people falling out of apparatus and being run over. I'm hardly a Safety Nazi, but when we can show direct benefit with nearly no operational deficit, the safer option ought to rule, without question. As for it being a global insubordination issue? I look at it more as organizational complacency or weakening of rules. I find it hard to beleive that many FD's that have guys ignoring blatant rules such as seatbelting, not picking and choosing what other rules/policies they feel need to apply to them. While I am confident that moving about in the cab is not an issue at my FD, I'm not saying we're immune from the same type of issues, but when they rise to the level of modifying specs, I'd want to maybe ake an introspective assessement.

In any part of the world firefighters standing up during response is a disciplinary problem. I gaurantee that you have even deeper issues if this is routine in your FD and is against policy. Why have rules you don't intend on enforcing? Stupid unenforced rules result in undermining authority and respect. But I will say it's a lot easier when the rules must be followed to stay employed!

Without a doubt some of the characteristics Type V was known for have been eliminated or minimized by the proliferation of lightweight/engineered wood products.

I'd call it lightweight woodframe (likely protected at some point). Using the least desirable construction at least indicates your concern, but without a doubt, these are the kinds of things a decent building info plan can identify and flag. It's not uncommon for mixed construction types to be utilized, but this limits the allowances to the least common denominator. In all likelihood the occupancy type allows woodframe construction, but the open sides at the ground level require steel to carry the loads without continuous bearing walls.

At what point does the FD you'e requesting have an opportunity to see how they're being tasked? We ran into this a few years ago as mutual aid departments added our Tower to their alarms, but didn't move the engine they were already getting on the same alarm. This meant we needed to send two pieces with 10 personnel at once, when the daily staff was just six, nevermind any calls of our own. We had to decline offers for more than one apparatus in a single alarm so we could get personnel in to cover our own area and properly staff the second requested apparatus.

Is there a legal requirement for a FD to provide M/A? It appears that the admin of Mount Vernon have created a situation where it's no longer mutual, and therefore just aid. For many years in many places across the country, people have scrutinized outside aid, wondering if it was necessary their tax dollars paid for outside aid. In most cases, the FD providing aid can legitimately answer that there are times they recieve aid and even when it's not a 1 for 1 swap, when apparatus and manpower is needed, there's no other quick solution. When you have nothing to offer, it's hard to keep going back to the same well? I'm sure no one wants to see the people of Mt. Vernon suffer greater losses, but at somepoint those who provide aid will suffer losses back in there own community while out providing aid, by no fault of there own.

Is this just poor news writing or is there actually an issue with the Mt. Vernon FF Union? Nothing in the article ays FMV's union disagrees? I can't imagine the FDMV Union not agreeing with the Yonker's Union President in saying they don't have enough staffing and their reliance on mutual aid is proof thereof? This isn't (or shouldn't be) a fight between the two unions, but in fact a fight between the Union's and the administration(s).

So much variation in peoples opinions, but few have a true crystal ball. Specs can vary significantly place to place. A good manufacturer will build you a POS if you spec it and pay them for it. On the other hand, another builder not known for high quality can build a long last piece if it's specced right. I certainly wouldn't consider the success of KME in LA as proof they'll perform in NYC there's a world of difference in how and where their used. Now, comparing them to those KME's in Philly may be more accurate, but don't expect a lot of high praise from the guys that use the trucks in Philly. Most municipalities end up with the low bid that meet the spec, I'm sure LA isn't any different. That appears to be how KME end up getting the FDNY contract? There's a lot more to customer satisfaction than just delivering a shiny truck. Service after the sale,and continued responsiveness to the customers needs by the local dealer can make or break a companies rep with a FD. In KME's favor I'd say continued sales is quite a motivator to fix any issues and make good on the delivery, but the truth may not be known until a few years have passed. I'd be interested in hearing from any Boston guys on how their new KME's are, at least the street conditions are similar, but again the specs are likely extremely specific and considerably different between BFD, FDNY, LAFD and others. We can only hope for the best, not for KME's sake, but for those Brothers and citizens that'll be relying on those engines to put water on the fire.

Good points. I'd note that the radio signal benefits are just one part of their study that indicated the radio strap as the recommended way to carry a portable radio. Other benefits are not limited to: protecting the mike strap, reducing the paddle-ball speaker mike issue, and radio ejection.

Moose: if you look in the Montgomery Co. study, they found when it came to interior operations the radio strap under the coat (with radio outside) had greater signal strength. This doesn't account for standing upright and outside, but worn properly, the radio and it's antenna should be outside the coat at the waist line and its hard to imagine that when an antenna is oriented vertically the 12-24" between the waist and chest would have a significant impact on signal strength. The difference on the interior personnel is that the radio strap allows the radio to self-orient the antenna vertical, whereas the radio pocket places the antenna in a horizontal and reportedly less desirable position for signal strength. This is why members must fully understand anything before implementing the idea. Proper adjustment is necessary to ensure the benefits are realized.

Sadly this type of legislation can work against fire safety as well (as BNECHIS noted above in post #20). In many states this type of law prevents local officials from passing sprinkler ordinances when the state refuses to adopt NPFA 101 in it's entirety or other codes that require sprinklers in all one and two family dwellings. Builders and real estate people love it because the code is the code from town to town, city to city, you don't have to find out what the local rules are that affect the price of doing business. Communities love it because it prevents their neighbor from becoming more attractive to business/growth when their own rules are stricter than those nearby.

Our department for years preached under the coat, but with no actual policy many still wore them over. After reading the MoCo. study the Chief made it policy that all radios were to be worn on straps, under the coat. This doesn't cover officers who have to wear a second radio in their chest radio pocket for the dispatch freq., but the fireground tac channel is worn under the coat. We bought a strap/holder for every radio and ensure presonnel wore them properly.

OK. Up this way the water co. pumps out the hydrants in the fall and after any use, so they'd be pissed if we opened while out shovelling. Not too mention it would almost assure us they'd freeze with any water in the barrel this time of year. Sadly frozen hydrantsaren't uncommon. Town I live in had a fire in my neighborhood earlierthis week and found a frozen hydrant when attempting to set up a tanker fill site. Luckily there were two more in near proximety on the same shuttle route.

Our personnel clear hydrants after every storm. I've nto heard of a water dept. up this way that does it, and if they did, we'd likely not like the spped in which it was done. During lengthy storms we hire OT to ensure full staffing and oftenhire an extra member to man our Utility truck. This members job is to go on all EMS runs to plow a driveway if needed, shovel walks and assist the crew. On fire calls they dig out the nearby hydrants. Cogs: How do you guys test the hydrant to see if it's frozen?

That is the method out area has utilized when utilizing poor hydrants for fill ops. Sadly we have many hydrants that won't flow 1000 gpm, and of course these are most prevalent in the areas nearest the non-hydranted areas.