antiquefirelt

I think I can wrap my head around this. Would this also mean that if you were filling slower than the hydrant could supply, you'd not be drafting? Now it's coming to me, this is akin to tandem pumping- something I read about long ago, yet never had the opportunity to see in practice.

Forgive my probable senior moment, but can you explain how the supply pumper changes back to reflling the the dump tank after a fill? Is this done just with the recirculate line, as my brain is saying that if you don't lose the prime, the suction lone will remain pulling even if it's not moving any where except through the pump and tank?

That's a little differnt than I'd interpreted the previous posts. The "can make a claim" would indicate that it's not compulsory and likely be only for uninsured or underinsured issues or those where damage was a direct result of the incident. Also, is that wholly under the "Volunteer Firefighters Benefit Law" or does it apply to career FD's as well?

Because when you call me I'll come and cover my own too? Mutual aid implies we both need each other, so when I come to your aid, I anticipate you'll return the favor. If you break your truck on my call, who's too say it wouldn't have broken on your own next call? Can my insurance company review your training and maintenance records and contest the claim? Again, hey if it works in NY, I've got no issue with how you guys do your thing, but as someone who has to look at amending mutual aid agreements and the value of any agency providing assistance to my own area, I'd have a concern being required to cover the costs of things I have little control over. Given the rate we go out of town vs. receive aid, I might go to Town A 10 times with a fully staffed company of fully qualified firefighters, yet the 1 time they repay me, a guy with very little training and experience could crash their overloaded tanker and we'd be responsible for their accident costs? I know our driver training policies and how the enforcement of rules goes within my FD, but I have little control or knowledge of the mutual aid depts. I know the maintenance issues, policies and upkeep of our apparatus, I certainly question those of some of the FD's around us. As an IC, I'm responsible therefore I fear anything I can't control but am liable for. It appears not to have bitten you folks, so maybe it's a non-issue, but being in a place that requires everyone be responsible for their equipment and costs eliminates any financial liability from the equation. I still have to worry about ensuring the safety of those whose training and experience I can't truly verify.

I see the point, but I'd think controlling your own risks is a better overall scenario. But short of a situation that blows up in someones face, it appears to be a non-issue. Just another interesting thing I get to learn along the way. As a student of the fire service as a whole, I enjoy seeing how things are done everywhere, right, wrong or indifferent.

Are these apparatuses not insured? I'd think smaller towns would be forced to carry insurance so they didn't have to suddenly find big bucks when first due apparatus is damaged regardless of where the incident occurred? Does the insurance only go to the town line? If so, what about vehicle insurance covering personnel while out of district? Here's another wrinkle: Who pays if you crash the engine at a parade in another town? Seriously? Parade host?

No doubt another "risk minimization" decision, I fully understand and would do the same coupled with other issues. This is not a pot shot at volunteers, but the system breeds this inequality when the standards departments are held to differ so greatly.

I guess I'm seeing it through my local view. We respond mutual aid and cover our personnel and apparatus/equipment as do our mutual aid partners. When you come to our 'burg you cover your assets. If mutual aid is mutual, it all works out over the stretch of time. I'd be concerned having to cover the costs of equipment operated by persons who I cannot verify are capable and qualified to operate and of the equipment that may or not be properly maintained. Up here the insurance costs are already being covered by the FD that owns the equipment, I doubt our policy writers would cover a mutual aid piece that they have no knowledge of and cannot impose their requirements on. I know today if my city council had to cough up $500k to cover an engine from outside, we'd lose a firefighter per shift. The budget wire is as close as it can be without losing personnel.

I agree with your sentiment on alcohol, but it's also a case of our inability to get that right is another reason not to add to the list of things we fail to properly regulate. I fully understand the war on drugs hasn't been won, and don't have answers, but i know without it many more would have died.

That's an interesting law, as it puts the responsibility for damage with those who have the least amount of control over preventing it, short of not calling for assistance. I know I'd certainly limit the amount of time I'd be calling FD's that didn't have a minimum standard I could verify. I suspect this may be one decent justification for those times when people here complain that career FD's don't utilize closer VFD's.

I think it's a little more difficult to compare Fire and EMS when it come to a "staffed" response capability. I fully agree the an adequate response time of the FD side requires a company of firefighters that can begin actual mitigation, not a chief's vehicle (which can/should begin some important activities such as size-up and response modification). But on the EMS side, an adequately trained and equipped first responder can begin actual care, while the transport unit comes from a greater, but reasonable distance. This is why sending EMS personnel of fire apparatus works in so many places. As far as claiming response times based on first arriving units, my thought is that this should be limited to units with actual incident stabilizing capability ie: an engine company or equipped medic (or BLS if it's a BLS call) unit. In the long run if we could utilize an incident stabilaztion time as the true measure of response time, we'd have a more accurate depiction of actual capability. Thus the true measure would be from the time 911 answers until the time the fire is contained or the patient is stabilized (of course some don't get better ever...) On the EMS side, the town where I live just contracted with a new EMS provider after decades of a local service providing EMS. One of the things many of us asked for was a measure of the time from 911 to the time the most appropriate level of care arrived at the patient. This was a significant measure during the bidding process as a few bidders (including the previous service) were utilizing BLS trucks and on call ALS. Very often the response time for the ambulance was OK, but the actual time to get a medic to an MI call or other ALS call was far longer if at all. Thankfully the service that got the contract is an all ALS service, thus their response time places a medic on the call when the ambulance arrives.

I will part ways with a few here (and many nationwide) on the legalization/regulation of many drugs. First, I think we've done a terrible job regulating prescription medication which is legally sold but still abused at exceedingly alarming rates. Access to those who shouldn't have access to prescription meds is far easier than most illegal drugs. The same proof holds true with firearms ownership, we regulate it, but still have almost no control over those who abuse the right or intend on illegal use. Our history of regulating things that have a negative impact on the users or those around them is not stellar. Secondly, we cannot compare the U.S. to nearly any other country. We have a widely diverse population, more so than most and we have far more freedom than many/most of the countries who've "successfully" legalized drugs. Third, we're not prepared to ensure the workforce is drug free, again too many freedoms and rights for mandatory test at all employee levels and the costs would be significant to employers or taxpayers. We do not have a national healthcare system to help abusers, like in many other countries. Anyone who thinks there isn't a huge segment of the population that doesn't abuse drugs because their illegal is fooling themselves. If it's legal, there is little to no deterrent to those who might just try it, right ow the threat of becoming a criminal works on many. Sadly it's far easier to poke holes in plans than figure out the solution, but I'm far from convinced we'll be better off with legalization.

Your Mutual Aid agreements require the requesting FD cover the insurance or cost of damaged equipment (and personnel)? I've never heard of this. How would a member know if he/she was adequately covered when responding out of district? If this were the case, I'd think everyone would use a spare or reserve piece as their mutual aid apparatus, and I'd think few personnel would risk their lives and livelihoods for an unknown if they were injured or worse.

I'm not sure a preconnected system even saves a full minute, 60 seconds is pretty long when your talking about just making connections.Nonetheless I will say that in the overall operations from the brake being applied to the actual victim removal time vary so much in terms of number of personnel, tools working at once, complexity of the situation and the extrication tactics employed that two crews facing the same wreck could easily lose 1 minute or two. Our FD was one of only two sets of "Jaws" in our region for a few decades, now almost every FD has a set. THose that are not integrated with EMS tend to treat extrications like drills, while those who are part of EMS treat them like EMS calls: all about the victim. Many FD's go far overboard with their tools, when simpler methods could free the victim, but they tend to: fail to see this and fail to work with the EMS people on scene. Even EMS people do this too when it's an uncommon occurence and "tool" time represents the most fun they'll have this week.

One of the biggest reasons that many short staffed units (3 man engine and 2 man rescues) can be as effective or more than many VFD's with a larger turn-out is the daily routines that the crews work together. Having a crew know their assignments at the time of dispatch, a distinct clear chain of command and a history of working together to accomplish tasks (on and off the fireground) allows them to work more efficiently in many cases. I've worked with some great volunteer firefighters who were excellent in training, but were not as effective on a real fireground as some fairly green career companies. Some VFD's have great policies and structure that allow them to operate very effectively, while many others require the IC to make order out of the chaos of the personnel responding as well as the incident. Typically the IC is also a volunteer who has less time commanding the chaos of a tough incident and is also forced to work through which personnel are up to the tasks. We have both scenarios in my FD, with both career staff and a small (dwindling fast) core of paid/call firefighters.

ALF had it? We visited the Refurb plant in Lebenon when we were there in 06, but I'd heard they'd sold that off and brought work back in to the main plant? That was an apparatus buff's dream, tons of apparatus under the roof and a yard full as well. It was a great place to get ideas from so many different types and styles of apparatus. Again, too bad for the employees, the guys we met throughout our visits were all extremely knowledgeable and seemed to take pride in what they were doing.

As I noted before, we found that Fireline Equipment was extremely knowledgeable, well stocked with parts and very willing to help us. When we couldn't get things through ALF, Fireline had them on the shelf. When we had issues that needed ALF job specific programming for, ALF couldn't help, Fireline did. Fireline is pretty close to Ephrata and has mobile service (they've been here in Rockland, Maine twice) and we just sent our Tower there for 3 days this fall. If you find yourselves struggling for parts or service on an ALF or LTI issue, these guys are great.

Could they be the employees of Spartan ERV that previously were using a portion of the same Ephrata plant?

1 Chief Officer, 1 Company Officer, 1 or 2 career firefighters (ensures every shift is represented) and one member of the call company. The only person that serves on every apparatus committee (ambulance, engine, aerial, etc) is our call rep, who is a retired Cummins Engine trainer, thus his knowledge of all facets of the industry helps immensely.

Ditto! We've used Fireline Equipment a company nearby to Ephrata and comprised of many prior ALF employees who lost their jobs during the first bankruptcy period. They have been able to get part and service to us, both quicker and cheaper than ALF since shortly after we took delivery back in 2006.

Never heard of that or even thought of it, is that worldwide?

Pretty valid point. I just took an interesting class this fall where they showed some of the reasons for these types of 'feelings" shifts as well as the sense of entitlement. People went from loyal long time employees, to wanting equality in the workplace, then no ones' a loser, everyone gets a trophy and now those kids that got the trophy even though they just participated are no joining the workforce. They expect equal pay for doing nothing while another person busts their hump. I might be able to find the demographics chart that actually shows the progression so that even us public servants can understand it.

Having just completed our annual refresher on ice rescue this past Saturday I'll add what our discussion about the risks led to. Generally speaking with the proper training and maintenance of the equipment, the greatest risk of a surface ice/water rescue was the Code 3 response getting there. Using full Ice Commander Suits, helmets and 'creepers" as needed and operating in a safe manner consistent with the training and SOG's, the risks to the rescuers is pretty low. This is one area where the proper PPE really can have a huge impact on the risk.

Sorry, I wanted to be clear that when I stated 4 was better than 3, that if that 4th man had to come from shutting down houses, I'd question it. Wasn't trying to imply that was your sentiment, quite the opposite in fact, I had the idea from your original post or second post that you thought to get a fourth man you'd end up losing other companies. Again, my comments were in response to your few lines about seeing 3 man companies do as well as four. My issue is that we continually see Fire Chiefs and Commissioners sanction drastic manpower reductions while stating public safety will not be affected. In my mind anything that furthers these lies are a true injustice to the rest of the fire service. While many FD's routinely do outstanding work with crap staffing, we need to continually beat the drum for more staff to ensure the safety of our members and the public we serve.

That was my point. Clearly you're indicating that a change in how things are done might better serve your department in the short term. Arguing that a fourth firefighter would do "no good" or implying it would be of little help is foolhardy regardless of which way you lay your supply. Closing companies to spread firefighter around to attain the staffing level may not be the answer, but 4 will beat 3 every day of the week.