antiquefirelt

I see the booster reel as a convenience line, and as such the costs outweigh the benefits. Washdowns, trash cans, grass fires and like like can easily be handled with 1" single jacket hose that stores in a fraction the space and can be fitted nearly anywhere on a new truck, often in the bumper. A booster line requires space (some of the US's the most expensive real estate per square foot), piping and of course money. For what? Convenience? Not in this day, at least not here. Now, banning their use? Silliness from those who refuse to maintain any kind of tactical discipline. If your guys are pulling a red-line into a commercial structure or any for that matter, it's not the equipment's fault, just like guns, they're inanimate and merely waiting for a human to misuse them.

Interestingly,wasn't AMR at one time owned by North America's largest busing contractor: Laidlaw? I know that it appeared that the old "business model" of AMR was to swoop in, lowball the bids then once a city had no resources ask for significant subsidies. That seemed to have caught up with them in New England and was at least causing some heartburn in Cali a few years back, I'm sure todays' fiscal crisis allows similar fears to arise in many municipal departments where EMS helps bolster staffing.

Can you speak to the perceived necessity of this bill? One might infer that this is an issue due to high tension between private EMS services and public or FD EMS in places where privates offer to come in for a fraction of the current price?

I guess I wouldn't go so far as to tell LEO's not to enter any structure, but in fact hope that they'd have or be receptive to some education as to what they can do that won't make things worse, much like us messing up crimes scenes or becoming potential victims when we arrive ahead of them at a shooting or similar crime. As a fire officer in a place where resources are scarce at the outset, having LEO's that bang on doors and can point us in the direction of which apartment door has the paint peeling off is nice. Thus far we've not had any try and open fire apartment doors or make a search under smoke. We are all here to serve the public and assume some risks as part of our sworn duty. The stop[ping point of one's actions should be where they can no longer make an informed risk/benefit analysis. Many LEO's are also firefighters or have been and may have greater understanding of these choices, much like many firefighters have experience that allows them better assessment skills at some crime scenes. Much like the Columbine massacre, if we choose to not allow another discipline to assume any risk more people may die as a result. These incidents should be the jumping off point for PD/FD/EMS discussions on how we might help each other while not becoming part of the problem.

I mean no disrespect to any current, former or future LEO's but what's the rationale behind this? Retired cops are more trustworthy than law abiding citizens? Have a right to more protections? If the allowance is so that LEO's have better protection, does this not acknowledge that 10 rounds or less can be viewed as inadequate for personal defense? I'm sorry but none of us are any better than the citizens we protect, these are jobs, and just because we pass an entrance background check there are few guarantees we'll continue down the straight and narrow path. This is more divide and conquer legislation, by ensuring LEO's are happy they'll be less likely to be opposed to other measures.

Well maybe those in our area are not so bad off... our dispatch center just started using the dispatch codes this past week, but had been using EMD for years (just not telling us the determinant codes). The local EMS agencies are all excited (in a bad way) but the arguments are over requiring M/A on C, D or E calls within 3 or 6 minutes of the initial tone (not a lot of volunteer medics in our area). Of course things are hard to compare when you don't look at the population density, travel times and receiving facility options.

Good article. Interestingly, while that was specific to Suffolk CO. NY, as noted the facts ring true in far more distant areas. In our Co. up here in Mid-coast Maine the same pains are being felt. The oldest and largest "volunteer" EMS agency just lost out it's coverage area to the State's largest "for profit" private company. The issue was the minuscule amount of money the incumbent agency charged the communities no longer covered the rising costs and loss of volunteer help. Some bad business decisions that forces some poor care decisions didn't help either.They sought the funds to "right the ship", but alas, change happened and the 77 year old non-profit company was handily voted out by each town it served. All around us the vol. ambulances are having a far harder time staffing crews, and they certainly aren't turning out in the rapid fashion that EMS has come to expect to maintain a standard of care. At least half now have per diem crews which is driving their costs up and still ignoring the issue that starts at about 3:00 am (lull between vol. turnout and per diem shift).

Interestingly, we had been buying F-350 4x4 ambulances until the last two. They were markedly cheaper then, the first one (2010-1 every 3 yrs or so) about half the bidders said they would no longer build the same box on the F350 due to how close it came to max weight for the chassis. The first F450 was more money, taller, required load/lift air ride system and some other items that really drove up the price on top of the chassis costs. This last bus not one bidder would build on an F350 citing the same things as the half were last time. I'm not sure how long ago you bought F350's but it may change or your boxes and equipment may be less weight enough not to crowd the margin. Apparently ours is too close or over. That being said, having just had our annual dirver recert course yesterday, the talk amongst the ambualance crews was that the F450 chassis's (2010,2012) seem to be more responsive, handle better, ride better, and turn much tighter than the single remaining F350 (2006). All three have identically sized boxes with very similar features all from AEV (not a recommendation of any sort by me!). Of course Ford has made some changes since 2006 I'm sure.

While I agree wholeheartedly that buying 4wd needs to make sense, we have yet to see the issues you speak of with any regularity. Our buses go down for Ford motor issues and lately some A/C issues but I can't remember one transmission or a front end problem. Even brakes don't seem to be a significant issue. Now of course mileage may vary significantly. Our trucks run about 5-600 calls each a year and are kept for 8.5 years rotating monthly between 1st, 2nd and 3rd due. Our average run is about 10 miles round trip, so the mileage is fairly low. To your original pint though: Do we need them? Need is kinda subjective, we've not been without 4wd on any ambulance since the early 90's so we're set in our ways. I know we've not got one stuck and have sent units to places where an ambulance couldn't make it, but se still get some decent snow every few years. Every replacement the "need" comes up and since we keep bringing them in under budget with the 4 wd. it stays, the day we can't it'll go away and we probably won't see much of a difference.

Find some more money? Joking aside we run Type I's and the last few have been right around $150k with 4wd (which is about an $7k option). We use the Ford F-450 which is what we've been told is the cheapest chassis? You may be able to save some money on the module is you use an off the rack style, our have become pretty customized, thus you may be closer to the right price? Good luck.

Here's a couple of pics from other apparatus that we'd taken the idea from. I will note that we use the method as it looks but with the exception that we do not lay hose over the couplings. They show a manner that you can load when the bed is not too deep but use the same concept by placing the first tier of couplings at the head of the bed, then another tier in the low spot just back from them. Another thing this does for the load is keep couplings from having to pass each other in the bed, which can be problematic if the load is tight side to side.

Sure, though we may have been behind and this might be obvious to some. We lay the LDH from the rear of the bed to a point 18-24" short of the head of the bed, laying one layer the width of the bed then starting back with the second and subsequent layers. The space left open at the head of the bed is used for couplings, anytime you have a coupling you move it to that open space and short lay or create a fold to ensure the coupling doesn't have to flip, they always pull straight out. then continue the lay as normal, but always placing the couplings up front. This removes any coupling "bumps" in the lay and typically ends up with a neater lay that takes up less space. This was a real help to us as our engines all have hard deck hose bed covers and the last few lengths often were tight to the cover if couplings ended up close to each other mid-bed. I'll look for pictures that we have that show this lay.

What'll happen the day after you have a fire 1500 ft from a hydrant? Why not just fill the bed at the outset, other than the obvious cost issue? We actually learned a newer method of laying LDH in the bed that allowed us to carry at least another 2 or 3 lengths to fit as much in without fear of it hanging up.

We carry 1300 ft. of 5" LDH on each of our engines. While most of our "in town" areas have decent hydrant spacing, other areas do not. Also, the beds are set up to be split so that dual lines may be laid if necessary. In those areas with decent hydrant density, it's not uncommon for the 2nd due engine to forward lay from a close hydrant to supply the first due engine then reverse lay to another hydrant to supply our tower. We spent a lot of time trying to design our newest engine to have low hose bed, relatively short wheelbase, all while requiring it to hold 750 gallons of water. Basically we could have any combination of 2 of the 3, but not all 3. In the end we found that the hosebed height was not as critical a factor because the bottom of the hose bed means very little, it's where the top of the hose lay ends that we needed to be kept low. We decided to allow the hose bed to be a little higher to maintain our tank size and apparatus length, and instead mounted the ends of the hose outside the bed where they could be grabbed without leaving the ground (for most). The thought process is that when your hurrying you should have to climb up to retrieve the hose, but when your reloading you have no excuse not to take the time to conduct the lay safely. That being said, I can't understand why you'd not want to fill the hosebed as much as you could regardless of your districts make up, short of having to purchase the hose. If you have the hose, at least on an engine it has the potential to help, in the station it's just replacement or spare hose.

Careful what you wish for, many City Councils would easily make cuts if they knew they'd get higher paid guys to take lower paid positions. Keep the experience and cut costs? That is just one reason Unions are still relevant.

Great example, I might add: The clues might be cars, but don't count on that being the final answer as it seems the latest economic woes have many more people reducing the number of cars or finding alternative transportation. I see people being picked up and dropped off at these types of stores in our area every day, whereas a decade ago the employee parking area was far more full.

We found when speccing out MM Tower that the tailslap and more importantly the angle of departure of many unit's was very close with a few small side streets and railroad crossings and none were as long as this one looks. I know our tailslap on the 93' ALF MM is not nearly as big as many and it has dinged a few signs and cars in the last 6 years, tight narrow streets with cars close to the intersections are problematic, thankfully that only describes about 20% of our downtown.

I guess I can't figure out "multi" quoting? I'll have to look for the how to at some point. So here's what I can do: Just because a tall cow is mentioned, calling it a "rural size-up" is udderly ridiculous. That's good! Now you're milking my rural joke They are good for test questions, but they also might help your fireground decision making if you train on them. I couldn't agree more, my comment speaks to those who don't study or understand but instead choose to use the tactical worksheet or worse, an App to tell them what to look for. I hope that while most of us don't tick off the letters in any of the mnemonics, the information we're seeking and using to make decisions is based on most of the same factors. While everyone gets that you rarely need to figure out the weather or time as these are "givens" at the incident, over time other factors similarly become part of the subconscious. Try putting up some slides or videos that show a building either pre-fire or on arrival. Then discuss them and size the picture up using your choice of Coal, Wallace, or Tall cows as a checklist. I like to do this about once a month for morning training. It helps see how people see things and what they're thinking about the conditions given the building and other factors in the pic. In fact tomorrow we'll be using an enhanced version of this to conduct an assessment for fire chief candidates for one of the VFD's adjacent to us that has a fulltime chief's opening.

That must be a rural size-up mnemonic? It's a new one by me, apparently we've come up will numerous anagrams of the same letters to get: COAL WAS WEALTH, WALLACE WAS HOT, and SHE WAS A TALL COW. All serve a purpose when studying and testing but hopefully aren't part of some officers' algorithm that is used to make the fire go out.

A common "solution" I've heard of is to ensure the underside is well rinsed off after any runs during the winter to reduce salt/sand caking that impairs the air release lowering mechanism? Our guys thinks it helps but isn't a "cure".

On the air ride issue: Our AEV/Ford 450's have the same problems. In speaking to others who have the same "Door activated tail lowering systems" it appears to be industry wide with a common thought being that road dirt and grime causes things to "stick" and not operate properly.

I agree about the two different parts, but when does your initial radio happen if you do your size-up first? Do officers complete their 360 before radioing that they're onscene? I think both are necessary, the first allowing for incoming units to have the heads up sooner, the latter being much more detailed and accurate, but taking a couple of minutes in many/most cases. If we make our initial IC give a full size-up report quickly, it will be rushed and likely contain more mistakes or miss more items, than if he/she gives the officer seat view report and is allowed a few minutes to do a decent size-up, make initial assignments and then get back on the air.

Can anyone comment of the actual frequency of EMS (and/or Fire) personnel being involved in a violent encounter as compared to the average citizen? Should we be better protected than those we serve and whom pay for our services? I understand that in general LEO's have much greater risk of violent encounter, but in the end do EMS or fire personnel see a significant risk increase of violence? I have a general bone to pick with EMS in that we tend to be truly risk averse, continually stressing scene safety (on it's own not a bad thing). The problem with stressing something to the Nth degree is that it moves it higher in the priority list. We've certainly seen EMS put an emphasis on "ourselves" before all others" by making scene safety and BSI the first thing every EMT must state on nearly every practical exam station. The issue is that EMS is not without risk. Any job where you need to routinely put on BSI equipment inherently involves a greater risk than that of the common worker. EMS puts their responders health and safety first, yet we have lights and sirens on the vehicles and kill an injure far more EMS personnel in accidents than other duty causes. I do not advocate running into anything headlong, but we as trained and often paid medical personnel must weigh our safety against the health of the patient in a standard rick-benefit model before making decisions. We do this everyday when we choose whether or not to activate our lights and sirens, why wouldn't we do the same for scene safety? Maybe I'm just ticked off after having my medical crew told to stage for PD for a Klonopin overdose call last shift. When the dispatcher was asked why we were told to stage she answered that she couldn't tell what was happening because the pt. was not alert and the caller was not the pt.? No threats, no domestic, just an assumption of suicide (not homicide). Nonetheless the pt. was truly in bad shape and thankfully there was no delay of care due to our upgrading the units response. In our case, we want our dispatchers to give us all the information they have for us to make an informed decision.

triple post? delete at will.