antiquefirelt

While I see what you're saying, I think you might be over looking some the benefits of using a "custom" (purpose built cab over) chassis for most large apparatus applications. Custom (for the purpose of this discussion) chassis offer much better occupant safety in accidents. The frequency of accidents is greater, making this valuable point to consider spending the extra money. As you said, the FD's using tankers often have a smaller run volume and thus less operator experience, and even still a generally less rigorous driver training program. Add in some adrenaline and you have a recipe for a tanker involved accident. Why not at least acknowledge the increased risks and enhance the safety of the personnel on the rig? Also as Bnechis noted, the cabover design tends to be more maneuverable which is typically advantageous in rural settings. Of course there are ways to minimize the risks of tanker accidents that should be undertaken as well, given the amount of potential from the weight of tanker apparatus. It has always been my belief tankers over 1200 gal. should not have emergency lights or audibles, but utilize yellow lights and respond with the flow of traffic minimizing some of the greater risks. But even if everything else was perfect I'd still prefer the apparatus that was most likely to protect the occupants best.

I not saying you shouldn't but at the top of the why not list would be: Expense. Followed closely by complexity of operations (under the hood so to speak). I must say, we're biased using the CORE hose system, I wouldn't have wanted to run our old twin line Hurst system without the reels, as the hoses were far less manageable. I understand that the preconnected stuff works well and can be easier, but we found many places we could enhance using the money we saved going totally portable. Again, as I think back the twin hoses may have been the issue, as we needed to make two connections at each and man the dump valve to swap tools. Now two connections and a single pull (Honda engine) and your tool is ready to go, at the side of the truck, in the woods or inside a metal fabrication plant.

Just my opinion, but what's the real advantage to having the tools preconnected? How much time is saved, and do we really step off the truck and start working tools immediately? We used to do that pre-air bags, SRS and ROPS, now we tend to get off, secure the power, ensure the vehicle is stable and sizing up the "job". Maybe a lot of you are arriving after other first due units and can get right to work, but we've found that we now take a more methodical approach, exposing what's to be cut and ensuring that we're working in concert with the EMS provider in charge of the patient(s).

Just as Meat441 noted above we found that we could have more redundancy for less money and less concerns by utilizing two portable power packs than if we went with our original plan of multiple "plug and play" locations. Utilizing the Holmatro CORE system one FF can easily carry one tool, the hose and a power pack to any location. The power packs can run two tools at a time. We run two power packs, 6 various length hoses, spread cutter, and rams all for much less than the onboard system alone to which we'd still need a portable unit for in the woods or industrial accidents (of which we've done both since the new unit went in service a few years ago).

As noted it's the "Battenburg Beast" from Hubbardston, MA. IIRC the tilt option was thrown in as a "show special" by Crimson and not specced by the FD.

I don't see the criticisms brought forth here as saying not to try and figure out how the system can be improved, but you must understand the system that you're trying to fix in the first place and the detailed underpinnings. It appears that regardless of what other issues are brought to light with a plan that tries to integrate volunteers into an all paid system you fail to move on to another solution that might have more merit? I mean no disrespect, but are you truly looking for solutions to the City's problem or looking for a solution to your own?

I hate to tell you but your overall view is far to simplistic to the vast complexity of providing mass scale EMS. The system we operate in is dramatically smaller and some of the same issues are prevalent. In a municipal system the taxpayer ultimately decides what level of service they desire. Through the election process and voting on bonds, budgets, etc. they ensure that the level of service is no less than they are willing to pay for and most recently no more that the minimum they're willing to pay for as well. Calls must be triaged in almost every system because the taxpayers don't want to pay people to sit around and do nothing. So there becomes a balancing point that a system has enough units available to answer true emergencies most days but know that the system will begin to fail (below stated response times, care levels) when the system is truly taxed. This is the same with all public services and actually most privates (they have to throw profit margin in as well int he decision process). EMS systems are pushed to failure daily nationwide, many time is places far less problematic than NYC. Hell can you imagine how easy the guys who plan NYC EMS would find a western city with flat well laid out (engineered) streets properly named and numbered? Few if any systems are without flaws, diminishing the quality of the employees is not the answer to long response times and/or inadequate advanced care resources.

This would just be used as another cost savings tool to cut down the number of staffed units.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here, but in the end the verdict came down to a matter of law. None of the "poor choices" Zimmerman made were against the law according to the only story known. As I said before, that the cause and affect of him leaving the vehicle to follow Martin resulted the outcome, but cause and affect is not law, as in essence it's aligned with "what if".

Maybe it's less clear to some that the way the dispatcher worded it, was in no way instruction. The phrase was "you don't need to do that", basically an acknowledgement that he was following and that it may increase the level of danger. While the difference may seem trivial I submit that it is in fact very distinct and is why there is little to no scrutiny of the dispatchers' role.

I just had a similar situation on vacation in PA where we witnessed a drunk driver hit the car in front of us head-on (glancing blow) then leave the scene. The girl popped right out of her car and the driver stopped watched then took off, so we followed and called 911. I told the the dispatcher I was following and he told me that I did not have to do that if I didn't feel it was safe. I noted we were travelling at a routine traffic speed and the subject didn't appear to notice me, but was very erratic. In the end about 4 miles of city driving with multiple turns and route changes they got him. At no time did I feel obligated to either follow or stop following, of course my actions were weighed against the safety of the "chase", to which I believe the subject remained totally clueless until the traffic stop.

Huh? So you are basically saying that Zimmerman is guilty of something, anything? SYG and profiling have next to nothing to do with one another, so trying to say if it's not one it's the other, shows that you're trying to find some reason, any reason that Zimmerman is guilty. To continue to fight this verdict is to take exception to our system of justice. At it's most basic core, the prosecution could not prove that George Zimmerman killed Martin in a manner other than self-defense, beyond a reasonable doubt. The "beyond a reasonable doubt", is the only place this case has wiggle room, and I doubt in the long run that most Americans would think changing that clause would be in our best interests?

I take the way the dispatcher worded it to be more of a release of liability for the dispatch center, thankfully too, as they'd certainly be on the hook in civil trial.When Zimmerman said he was leaving his vehicle to follow the suspect, the dispatcher said, "you don't need to do that". Unless things are a lot different there, the dispatcher has no legal authority to give orders to anyone.

Well 3/4 and 7/8 are both fractions. Lately it appears that refurbing Scopes has become quite a spendy project. While I'd agree that if you have one aerial make it a tower makes sense, depending on what other aerials are coming from outside I'd want to consider versatility. Most towers are slower on set up and moves and take up more footprint. It appears that a lot of the justification for new towers is lightweight construction. The ability to work of a platform allows us to consider vertical ventilation for those pesky trusses, but then how many are still routinely cutting roofs in PD's?

Definitely looking like the engineer is now bearing the brunt of this. Right or wrong I have no idea, but some of what is being said makes sense regarding hand brakes as an industry standard. http://bangordailynews.com/2013/07/11/news/state/quebec-train-set-too-few-brakes-with-deadly-result/

It is very difficult to get full credit for any apparatus if you don't own it. This is why a true review of the impact should be performed before diminishing the service level you have direct control of.

Sadly it appears that most of the MMA Rail Road principals are not Canadians at all. Burkhardt is a principal of many railroads worldwide according to his company bio.He's certainly not getting a pass from the people of Lac Megantic.

Local news up this way, is now reporting that Burkhardt is now placing the blame squarely on the engineer who left the train and failed to properly set the hand brakes. I'm not sure how the Niantic VFD handles things, but I know that our FD would have no expertise in securing a locomotive and trains post-fire and would expect to hand the incident over to a rail road representative like any other incident. Leaving a scene without properly handing over the property to an RP allows for you to be on the hook, if even only in perception and not legally. In this case the finger was certainly pointing at the FD for a few days, in my opinion erroneously. http://bangordailynews.com/2013/07/10/news/state/montreal-maine-and-atlantic-railways-chairman-says-brakes-on-train-in-lac-magantic-quebec-may-not-have-been-set-properly/

I have no idea if they need a truck or not, but this issue of height seems to confuse a large part of the general public and some of the fire service. I can imagine how many geometry teachers are rolling their eyes when they read this. On the other hand, if your FD can't easily educate the public of setbacks vs. height, etc...

One line comes to mind here: Some appear to be letting perfect be the enemy of good. Meaning,striving to make the perfect RIT and meet perceived expectations we've decided that it's too much and therefore, nothing is done. I've not really understood the special certification for RIT in some places. It's part of our basic firefighter 1&2 programs now (has been since 1999). Isn't anyone wearing an SCBA (legitimately) whose available better than nothing? If you can hold two SCBA firefighters outside with SCBA on, you have the beginning of your RIT. The only things we add to this equation is the specific set of tools designated for the RIT and more firefighters and an officer. Short of RIT packs, the rest of the tools are all things that are used routinely by properly trained firefighters. Many FD's struggle and want to keep their best guys for RIT to ensure that if the brown stuff hits the spinny thing their better prepared, but doing so increases the chance of the same scenario by putting lesser experienced people inside in the first place. If you can rescue a civilian you have the basics of firefighter rescue. Higher risks due to circumstances? Probably, but all risks that you should be prepared for (trained) before you enter your first building fire. Also if your RIT isn't doing something proactive you're either resource heavy or wasting the use of the crew. Our RIT assignments include many tasks that reduce the risks to interior firefighters. As long as they remain available to act, are not heavily taxed and do not breath air, they carry out tasks. Some tasks: laddering upper floors, removing locked doors (no bars on windows or shutter gates up here), monitoring conditions, assessing progress, and generally ensuring familiarity with the building.

Reality shows have us sinking to the lowest levels of all time, sadly this disrespectful garbage gives them publicity and nowadays to these wannabe stars any publicity is good publicity. Some links to Bravo execs and sponsors would be nice so we can hammer them for supporting this trash.

I know the 3-D fire props we went through at the University of Reno-Carlin and the old "Ranger Insurance" LPG fire trainer both would easily reach out and touch you if any part of your gear broke the plane of the fog lines. I assume they are concerned with same? Bourke (pretty much decorative) and goggles are designed for eye protection against flying debris, typically exterior firefighting won't involve direct flame contact unless your packed up and in close, thus eye protection for most exterior ops is suitable. Gases under pressure present a different issue. I know for a while Maine BLS wanted firefighters to wear facepeices or oversized face shields when doing mechanical extrication! Thanks to cooler heads that didn't become widespread.

I hooked you up.

I love calls to expedite! Upon this request we've asked dispatch to tell them we're travelling as fast as safely possible! This happens to us quite often providing ALS back-up to outside agencies.

I think sending the PD is great, it's what some do when they arrive we need to work on (the reverse is likely true for FD/EMS units reporting crimes in progress). Upon arrival a person with a direct link to dispatch and no emotional attachment can assess the situation, suddenly "fully involved" becomes light smoke from 1 or 2 windows or "reported fire" becomes fire from the top floor of a 3 story apartment building." Anytime we get more accurate information before we arrive, we are better off.The PD certainly can clear the block of cars stopping to see what's going on, hep evacuate persons from threatened structures and yes, in many cases the fire building. Of course the larger your PD, the less chance you can have a positive effect on their fireground senses and what helps/hurts, unless you can get an hour of their academy time (good luck). I would anticipate the common taxpayer would like to see a city employee arrive and at least appear to be taking action as early as possible, rather than sitting a few blocks away oblivious to it all? Similarly, while fire and EMS is not usually sent ahead of the PD to crimes, when we're at a scene for some reason we can be looking for and noting things, radioing in pertinent developments and generally being better witnesses than the average citizen. Jumping in is obviously not smart unless no other choice exists and someone's life is in danger without immediate intervention.