antiquefirelt

It appears from Seth's original post that he's looking for the initial radio report (that's what we call it here). For us it's windshield view report of the incident before anyone exits the apparatus and makes a 360 or talks to anyone on scene. We require the the following: Corrected address if other than initially dispatched Number of stories Type of occupancy conditions showing assumption of a "named" command additional alarms or requests as needed Examples: "Tower 3 is onscene at 3-2-8 Main St. with a 4 story multiple occupancy with nothing showing, Unit 7 has Main St. Command". " Rescue 3 is onscene at North main and Broadway with a two car head-on with severe damage, multiple victims probable, Unit 14 has North Main Command, start a two more rescues and recall a company." " Squad 3 is onscene at 34 Talbot Ave. with heavy fire showing from single story unattached garage with close exposures. Unit #2 has Talbot Ave . make this a first alarm." We did away with requiring the construction type in the initial radio report as today discerning this from the seat is much harder and everyone agreed that how they responded upon hearing this information didn't change things for them. We also rarely state our mode of operation, except that when it's defensive, it's declared defensive. Anything with nothing showing or limited showing implies an investigation mode, anything with smoke or fire implies an offensive attack unless defensive is declared. Upon exiting the apparatus, the initial IC will conduct his/her full size-up and make a radio update as necessary. Everyone else who arrives must do their own personal size-up and those who are company officers must be looking at the issues relative to their assignment as well.

double post.

Damn that's one hell of a tailslap!

Interestingly, all three of the above "chores"/activities are track-able in the MyFitnessPal program. This shows how many calories you burned for the time entered for any of the items. Of course you have to understand that like all other programs and basic formulas, they are broadbased and likely not acutely accurate, given our bodies are not all equally efficient. I will say that a year ago on my list of things to buy for our "new" house was a riding lawnmower, a snowblower, and I used to borrow a leaf blower. I'm now putting that money to better uses and using the push mower, shovel and rake and enjoying it. Truth be known, I might still borrow the leaf blower, raking is too tedious to enjoy.

I'll second the MyFitnessPal tracker, I've used it for just days over one year now and have lost weight and become much more fit than I was. I'm pretty sure I first got the link here on EMTBravo (thanks!) The general concept is as I noted above: burn more calories than you consume. It allows you to select the amount you want and the time frame and sets caloric (and other factors) goals, allowing you to track your progress through the day, week, etc. I used their recommendation of 1 pound a week, as this was easier t accomplish in the beginning and the relative ease makes this a true lifestyle change rather than a crash diet. The key being if you don't make a true change in your overall eating and exercise, you're likely destined to lose-gain-lose-gain until you decide to make a true change. Now, in week 53 I've lost just under a full pound a week and easily eat less than my daily calories without feeling hungry or that I had to cut out any particular foods. In the early stages I chose to just eat my normal way and watch and learn which foods were better and which were higher in calories, this helped me evolve my habits choosing better snacks, reduce portions and find those low calorie things I really liked. In the meantime our FD has always had fitness trained come twice a week to conduct a "tailored" fiitness program that works for most of the small group, I'd been part of that group for 4 or 5 years and not seen a huge change, my overall endurance increased, but I was still fairly soft around the edges and less fit than I should have been. Now with the inclusion of MyFitnessPal, I've become much more fit and have started actually enjoy the exercise and am looking forward to better weather to bike and run. As for Crossfit, in the same time frame I've been using MyFitnessPal, about half of the personnel who I've seen start Crossfit stopped as the intensity was too great to start (my observation), the other who still do it are much better for it. It works, there's no doubt, but it has to fit your personality, limitations and goals, like nearly everything. Along with what Chief Flynn noted above, having lost some pounds and become more active, I now am considering Crossfit as well. I am certain that it would have been very hard for me to do a year ago, but now...

Any program or motivation that makes you burn more calories than you consume will work to take off the pounds. It really depends on the person how well any particular program will work, as it must keep you motivated and willing to pay the money, make the time and get off the couch or away from your desk. As far as being fit, really only physical movement can do that, the more you put into it, the more you'll get back.

Didn't Syracuse do this years ago with their "Midi's"? The key is that the company must remain as functional at all of it's primary tasks, when this can be accomplished, I see the added value, but I don't buy make "small sacrifices" in effectiveness as the results can cost firefighters or civilian lives and property. Less hose means a chance at slower continuous water supply or chances of stretching short. Less water on board means less time before the sustained water must available or loss of water. Shorter ladders? Fewer tools? All equal less capability while the crew is on a "lesser" apparatus. Unless other apparatus are added to the area, others are forced to cover new functionality gaps, causing a ripple effect when just one company is reduced in capability. Sure we do this many times a day when crews are on an assignment and unavailable, but that doesn't go away, it just gets piled on to.

If their functionally "very capable" why not replace the larger engines with these smaller units? The same reason that cannot be done, is why these units reduce the company's overall effeciveness when they're in the Ford and not the Spartan.

I guess I don't see the point? This article claims that the new units cost about $200k and a full engine about $600k, the smaller units could extend the life of teh full engine by 2-3 years? Is the annual cost of a full sized engine $75-100K? What about housing and maintining the new units? What does that cost? More space is required to house another peice, more training, more equipment, more maintenance and it takes the same crew off a more functional peice reducing their effectiveness while their between calls. Maybe I'm totally off base as it seems the midwest and southwest have trended this way for a while, but I can't see how it can be chearper or more effective. Oh and my original thought: The firefighters want this? Or does the adminstration/beancounters want this? Amazing how sometimes spending more money to make it look like your cutting expenses appeases City Hall.

This would at least be a decent investment opportunity, but alas, I have all I need (and likely then some) and I don't want the hassle of having to sell them to a FFL in the future. Same goes for buying an potentially banned firearms, except those I've wanted to own. many places are still advertising magazines but for most firearms, those with capacities over 10 rounds are sold out and back-ordered into the distant (post ban) future. The whole thing frustrates me to no end, common sense has gone by the way of knee jerk reaction. The website above (www.assaultweapon.info) provides very legitimate and basic facts, now if only it was put on national TV 20-30 times a day. The new bans are going to convert me from an independent thinking, independent voter to a party line voter. Those people I used to scoff at for voting party lines apparently were right, once they have the power look out.

Can anyone find an actual link to this claim? I've seen it many times but never anywhere except forum style boards. This of course would be a huge deal if the media and officials kept pushing the Bushmaster carbine as the weapon when it was not.

@SRS131EMTFF You and so many others fail to realize that magazine capacity had little to do with most of these cases, considering the shooters carried multiple loaded weapons, thus making a reload "under pressure" unnecessary. Mag reloads can be conducted in mere seconds with very little training, and dropping one gun while reaching for a second is pretty fast too. On the other hand, in the case in GA last week where the mother backed her kids into a crawlspace and had to shoot the intruder as he opened the space coming for them, she fired all 6 of her rounds hitting the perp 5 times (way better than most armed confrontation stats on hits/shots) and he still drove away, thankfully there wasn't more than one assailant. The number of rounds does matter, likely more to someone forced into self defense than a killer executing a planned assault on innocent people. When fighting for your life it has been noted that most people lose their fine motor skills, thus accuracy is less likely, but in the case of cold killers seeking to execute innocent people one should not expect they're having the same physiological "fight or flight" reaction, thus they're more liklely to be far more deadly.

I guess I'll pile on the Naysayer wagon as well. My biggest issue, aside from needless cost, would be yet another device that takes away from human interaction in the firehouse. Part of learning is discussing all aspect of the particular subject, and the fire service tends to employ personnel from a wide variety of backgrounds, moving away from classroom/kitchen table/tailboard lessons for more IT based learning merely provides the basic lesson plan to the individuals vs. a setting where multiple ideas can be discussed, incorrect assumptions or answers may be corrected and personnel learn the topic as well as what their peers know and understand. While I don't think we should go backwards, it's hard to deny that we were a much closer knit team/family before the internet and cellphones. Or it could just be that I'm old.

You say that like it;s a bad thing? Wouldn't a regionalized FD with adequate resources and staffing best serve the communities and the firefighters who are at risk? I couldn't agree more with everything else you've said. I suspect your being part of a regionalization/consolidation discussion would benefit your own FD and firefighters. Go to the "dark side".

My point (and possibly what you're saying too) is that selecting type of firearms to ban is not really going to fix anything. Using adjectives that illicit and elevated response is basically grandstanding, the same people wouldn't get the same response if they said all semi-automatic firearms or all guns, so they pick away at it. The actual bills being sponsored by some are much further reaching than military looking firearms. One need not understand ballistics or firearms in general to work on solutions or even gun control measures, but if you are going to attack specific types you'd better have your facts straight. The Bushmaster's effectiveness over any other similar firearms would be indiscernible in a single event. Nearly the exact rifle is produced by hundreds of manufacturers to the same exacting specifications, the choice to buy a Bushmaster may be in the final retail cost, but certainly hasn't anything to do with effectiveness (maybe it's named in GTA?) I cannot speak on behalf of the NRA in any fashion as I've never been a member, on purpose. I've never agreed with their stances regarding gun control. They've tried (and succeeded in many cases) to convince their membership that at some point if our guns are registered it will make it easy for the government (the one we elect) to send agents to take them away. This silly conspiracy theory is almost laughable and is detrimental as a whole as it casts a dim view of gun owners given their notoriety as the largest gun owner membership organization. The suggestion that all schools have armed guards is just more knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk reaction. I thought more of them in the few days after Newtown that they kept quiet than ever before, only to be hit with the reality stick when they came up with that suggestion. I have to say, the video above is spot on with regard to our culture of violence. Time will tell if any of those celebrities have any spine and will turn down work based on the amount of gratuitous violence in the script or if they'll continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths. My guess is Jamie Foxx will be in the next sequel of the Expendables.

I understand your sentiment and respect your feelings, but until those who seek to eliminate firearms or restrict certain type or magazines can speak with some knowledge on the subject, it's hard not to be frustrated. The Bushmaster rifle used in Newtown is by no means a high power firearm, this and the term "military grade" are merely buzz words used to illicit a fearful response. There is nothing more deadly about a military grade firearms (one built to mil-spec?) or the caliber common to these firearms. In fact most hunting rifles are far more powerful in terms of "knockdown power" and range. The anti-gun pro-ban media, politicians and celebrities have latched onto a "look" and have whipped it up into a frenzy of fear amongst those who do not understand firearms and/or ballistics. Once all the embellishments and grandstanding is stripped away, we may be able to have a rational discussion on making the US safer, which likely should include forms of tighter gun control along with many other things.

This is the problem with all these "tack ons". What may have started out as a true necessity quickly becomes a place for pet project funding, they tack stuff on because they no no one would say no tot he bill, but in fact now we have a few people in government that are willing to say no when they smell a rat (until it's their rat).

As I sort or noted, the "alternate" playbook in a written form will likely only come back to haunt us all. The playbook is here for all to read, we just need to utilize it differently, Instead of tackling two or three tactical objectives at once, we must begin them sequentially. There have been so great time and manpower saving ideas come up with from some firefighters in FD's that are severely understaffed. But at some point, placing a ground ladder on an extension ladder, then hooking your tools to it, so you can drag it to side #3 and then go work is not saving manpower, it's likely putting that single firefighter at increased risk. It's likely that places where these tactics are required the same FF will VES or vent, complete that assignment then get another, and probably another after that. The same tasks in a properly staffed FD will be done by 5 or 6 guys, who can fight another fire later in their tour. At my job, that same guy may have just shoveled hydrants for four hours. Now, just like 12-15 years ago wen "Two in Two Out" was coming out, we the personnel that it was designed to protect are complaining that won't allow us to do our jobs as effectively. Back in it's inception we all tossed around the half joke of "hearing someone calling for help or sounds that indicated a trapped victim" so we could immediately violate the rule. Instead had we all been collectively thinking we may have made this into a minimum staffing issue. The rules say we can't make entry to search for people unless we have clear indication of their presence and have enough people on the fireground to save our own. This should have been parlayed into a requirement that all FD's ensured that one way or another the requisite staffing was immediately dispatched. For many career FD's this would set minimum staffing goals; for volunteer FD's this likely would have meant automatic aid. Instead we ignored the rule or worked around it, increasing the risks to our selves while assuming far more liability if one of our own was hurt or killed. Fast forward to now, and we still are struggling to meet 2 in / 2 out in many places, we're struggling to complete searches during the time victims are viable and we're allowing more dangerous construction and failing at ensuring sprinklers in all residential housing. I guess I'm of the mind that we need more firefighters and that's where our focus should lie. We shouldn't don't need an alternative plan, but in fact just have on scene decision makers that know how to prioritize the assignments and can be realistic about what a single FF or company can do in terms of single assignments or consecutive assignments. Developing a written plan on how to safely engage the fire with fewer personnel will certainly assure you of fewer personnel, and widepsread publishing of the same will result in another document for the beancounters to use to reduce staffing. Instead we should focus on what singular tasks a limited number allows us to do safely (given our occupation) and show the beancounters why we must do this, and what the outcome will be (increased fire damage or losses). In no case is anyone (I hope) abdandoning rescues or standing around doing nothing until more personnel arrive.

The reality is that the more narrow your scope of work the better you'll be at the specific duties you're assigned. Every time we add duties or roles, we reduce the amount of time spent on the previous specific one. Sure there are plenty of good firefighter paramedics, though this is likely more to do with the individual than the department or system. One can hardly argue that the a guy that rides a truck and is assigned primarily as the OVM won't be better at it than a guy that rotates through all the positions, just based on the ability to develop experience. Those that do both fire and EMS now must split their time, duties and subsequently experiences, thus result in a wider range of lesser experience in each discipline. Adding another wholly different discipline will only yet again water down personnel experience. So while it can be done, and is done, it is not done without some negative results. In our department where every career person is an advanced EMT or paramedic as well as a firefighter I can easily see the results of this. If our personnel as a whole we as good at their firefighting duties as they are their EMS ones, we'd be great, but when 75-80% of your responses are EMS, you develop a significant amount of experience but miss out on a number of fire related calls, reducing your experience bank. While there are specific exceptions to this, like anything, they're fewer and further between. Toss in a family life and some outside commitments and it's damn near impossible.

Our situation very nearly parallels FireMedic 049's. Our approach in a nutshell is to aggressively put the first line into operation with on dty staff short of an obvious rescue. I'm somewhat hesitant to the notion of rewriting tactics based on staffing. Rewriting SOG's and very clearly explaining the reality of short staffing to the public and politicians is IMO a better plan. Of course a FD would have to admit up front that they're less effective than others and admitt o themselves the reality of the situation. Those priorities and tactics that a properly staffed FD does simultaneously, we must do in a linear fashion. This demands officers with sound decision making ability.

The issue is little to do with "training" and nearly everythingto do with densensitization of feelings regarding the lives of other humans, especially during the most formative years of those minds. The fact that kids are allowed by anyone (we know there are tons of crappy parents out there) to play games (top of the market no less) that reward the player for killing or injuring innocent people is a true issue. Kids grow up with a greater acceptance of death outside their immediate family, as they see it everyday. Seeing innocent people die and the aftermath is so routine in our daily lives that I fear that most of us likley take it all in stride unless it somehow strikes a personal chord or is just so heinous (Newtown, Columbine, etc) that we cannot help but stop and reflect. But the other 14 times we'll hear about someone dying in a day we feel nothing. The more often the more heinous things are in our face, the more likley we're going to to acclimate to them as well. Like so many things in life, they get easier with each passing incidence, there's no reasont o think that feeelings regarding the death of those not close to us are any different.

Making "assault weapons" legal? First, perhaps you could define this term? Many or most of the firearms that most banners are looking for are currently legal to own. In the most accurate means, a true assualt weapon is a selctive fire firearm, that is legal for some to own, with proper background checks, registration and a $200 stamp, the rest are merely semi-automatic firearms that look like many full auto military weapons, but are in fact the action system as many common hunting rifles. The true assault weapons are rarely the ones used in crimes, and the legally owned ones ha ve a nearly perfect record of not being involved in crimes, proof that some registration rules do work, likley requiring the extensive paperwork and an extra $200 per firearm limits the buyers considerably, not to mention the actual fiream itself is far more expensive. As for an ATF database of all pistols ballistics markings? I doubt that very much, I think you may be confusing this with the UK's system? I can fairly easily agree with registering all firerms, I and anyone else who legally owns and have no ill intentions should have no reason to feear the US government. This would limit the sale between private parties where the seller can easily be duped if they even carea at all. As for bans of any type? I see that as yet again punishing law abiding citizens while failing to recognize that those intent on murder will not adhere to other lesser laws. In the end, those who want another or others dead can, will and do find many other ways. I live a few miles from the town proper and police response to a shooting on my road (self-inficted) just today was over 10 minutes. I for one like the odds my firearms provide my GF while I'm on my 24 hour shift. She could probably take out a many adult males with her hands and sheer determination, but an alert Black Lab and a magazine full of 5.56mm makes it a nearly sure thing.

Pretty spot on, though getting rid of violent video games, media and putting God back in schools is likely less realistic than disarming all of America. Statistically violent crime is down, but at the same time we are so overstimulated with media that those tens of thousands of crimes we never heard about outside our own localities just a few years ago are now literally in everyone's face, via personal electronic devices, scrolling TV banners, 24/7/365 news channels, etc ad nauseum. It appears we as a whole cannot handle the truth. There are no single silver bullets to the problem, millions of tiny strands that can enhance the safety of everyone, most of which starts right in our own homes.

Really, is Santa big enough to justify violation of traffic laws? Regardless of policies originally ensuring members were not travelling outside the apparatus on runs, is there any state that does not have mandatory seatbelt laws? Let Santa ride in a sleigh and if you just can't live without the PR, escort his parade.

We looked into this for our area and had a decent discussion with Mike Wilbur regarding these systems. It appears that while they may reduce some higher speed apparatus accidents, they often lead to more passenger car minor accidents at the controlled intersections. People who travel the same route think they can anticipate the light change only to be "fooled" by the light controls an emergency vehicle approaches Wilbur's thought, IIRC, was that all apparatus should proceed safely enough to come to a complete stop if other drivers do not behave. Of course this puts all the responsibility back on the driver (and officer), but really isn't that where it should lie anyway? We have seen a number of significant apparatus accidents at controlled intersections where both operators maintained speed as they were convinced they had the control of the light. Nonetheless, we did not proceed any further. Just our research, of course we have far fewer intersections than most, but a pretty decent traffic issue on the warm months.