antiquefirelt

Man that fourth guy must really have it easy now huh? You think he can be in two places at once?

Got it, I just wanted to chime in for those who are quick to grab on to the notion that it's up to each "individual system to decide what works best". It seems nowadays people are quick to point out how different their situation is and why they need their own special set of rules.

The key is, as others and BNECHIS has noted above, having a trained EMS provider to clear the patient before anything is done. This is why I believe that only those with an EMS responsibility should be the primary responders on these calls. The FD is absolutely the right place to call if they have trained personnel with the ability to properly (legally) evaluate and determine the patients' medical/injury status. In some places this might be the PD as they may have an EMS responsibility.

I believe there are specific allowances for specific areas, much like the Medicare bands that change the rules place to place. My understanding is that in our band/area we cannot balance bill or bill any one any differently than we bill MC. My understanding is that you must have one billing policy for all patients and it must conform to Medicare rules. I also know of places that violate this "unknowingly" and risk heavy penalties and loss of medicare reimbursement. As I recall the MC rules for may allow for the billing of consumables as long as your service buys them and they are not stocked by the hospital? Noetheless,yet another case where some services, often commercial types, are first interested in the bottom line and second interested in patient care. I speak of this in broad terms and less about the providers, the issue lies with the "for profit" model.

I know we are not allowed to bill for services that do not result in a patient transport, I believe by Medicare rules. This means any call that doesn't get a transport is paid for wholly by the taxpayers.

Why the FD? Why not DPW? Whose resources are not important enough to be tied up? Why would the FD, if they have no other EMS responsibilities automatically be the "go to" for a human assistance call? Is EMS not really the agency most appropriate to deal with individual's bodily needs? And in the end once you've sent the engine and they find EMS is indicated, you are then calling EMS. So two agencies are involved when only one can cover the broadest spectrum of services that may be called for.While I'm sure you have great dispatchers, there's a big difference between what they're told and what the case may really be. So if the dispatcher get's bad info from the elderly caller and care is delayed, I guess you call it "their fault"? Too bad the same people that seem to fall and need help also have a propensity toward weakening mental acuity. While I'm sure many of us might want to stay in bed or not have our meal interrupted, I'm betting far fewer Fire based EMS services would ditch these calls than any other service model. If your system is overtaxed to the point these calls routinely delay true emergency responses, maybe you're system is broke? If you aren't doubling and tripling calls routinely, you have little excuse to try and pass these runs off.

Up here "Lift assists are definitely EMS calls. I've never heard of PD or a FD doing a lift assist without EMS being called, it just doesn't happen. In my mind, EMS is the only trained people to properly evaluate a person for potential injuries (EMS trained LEO's and FFer's aside). What happens when the FD or PD arrives and finds the victim really should be evaluated? Now we send EMS, a greater delay and more resources tied up. We don't send EMS to activated smoke detectors so they can call the FD if there's actually smoke, why send anyone except the resource most appropriate to the situation. My FD as I've said before does both Fire and EMS and we run a ton of "lift assists" of which probably 1/3 turn out to be transports to the ED when the initial call gave no indication that transport was indicated. Those that say anyone but EMS should do these are really only thinking of this out of convenience. Do you tell PD or the FD to check out MVA's for injuries before responding?

Our PD's policy is not to call EMS unless there is another suspected injury, the Taser deployment alone does not constitute and injury requiring EMS. I'd think that if it was policy to send all "tased" suspects via ALS, it would be setting an example that their use has more potential for injury than they're marketed as. The only issue we come to now, in our case, is the new EDP protocols of which our dept. is a pilot program member, given the criteria used, nearly anyone the PD "tases" would fit the EDP criteria requiring ALS transport. If PD starts calling us for all of these incidents our Thurs-Sun nights will get a lot busier! To answer BNECHIS's question: We would not consider a innocent bystander being struck by the Taser any different, in that unless there was any other specific complaints, it wouldn't be an Emergency Transport (our 3 buses run with ALS, all the time). In fact the LEO's are instructed to remove Taser barbs unless their in the eyes or genitals.

I agree 100% that Tasers excellent tools and think they should be on every duty belt. My point being that when they're employed in a less than lethal situation, it's hard to hold the officer responsible for the perps death when he/she did not intend to use deadly force. While, as Hookandcanman notes, the perp is really responsible for the actions causing the Taser employment, it's unlikely that he/she'd be automatically considered suicidal, thus not responsible for his/her own death, leaving the device that unintentionally "caused" the death at fault. Of course this is countered by the argument that it's very possible the same suspect would have died in a physical struggle in the absence of a Taser given potential excited delirium causes?

If it was even once, it's once too many. Guns are inanimate objects and therefore require human interaction. The case may be different with Taser's though, as they are marketed as "non- or less than lethal force", thus if someone "proves" a death was the result of the Taser this would differ from the firearms which are known lethal force devices.

There are many ways that lightweight construction endangers human lives as opposed to "legacy" construction. Trusses: by now we should all be very familiar with the dangers of lightweight wood trusses. These along with sheathing act as a system to form roofs and/or floors. The trusses themselves by nature allow for fire travel and spread, are thinner and smaller dimensionally thus allowing for faster burn through/failure, and generally fail as a system. The truss holds up the sheathing, the sheathing holds the trusses together and in place, it's like a house of cards. Light weight carrying timbers: large dimensional wood is expensive, so we have engineer lumber using small chips and particles pressed and glued together to make large carrying timbers. Under normal loading conditions these allow for greater spans between walls and hold up very well. Under fire conditions their surface to mass ratio along with the glue allows them to fall apart and burn far more rapidly than dimensional lumber. Also since they can allow for larger spans, we're seeing larger rooms and less compartmentalization in far greater numbers, as what was once a sign of the rich is now affordable to far more homeowners. Cheap sheathing: OSB, chip board, particle board, you name it, it's cheaper to stick little pieces together with glue than use true boarding boards or even plywood. Money saved on sheathing which the homeowner never sees can be used to reduce costs or allow for upgrades. This stuff fails under heat faster than legacy materials again due to surface to mass and glue failure. Vinyl siding and worse yet, soffits. A very quick way for fire to get from floor to attic today is vinyl soffit covering. With modern construction knowledge demanding ventilation from soffit to ridge, the open air space in the soffit used to be plywood or boards with screening between to allow air travel, Now, to make that worse, we use vinyl covering as it's preformed, fast, doesn't need to be painted and cheap. This allows fire from failed windows or outside fire to rapidly extend into the attic space with some fuel at the entry point to speed the process! Energy efficiency. Tighter houses heat cheaper, which also means they heat faster and hold heat better leading to faster flashover if there's enough air to support the combustion, if not, it can lead to greater backdraft potential. And of course, while not part of the construction specifically, the fuel load of today is far more than ever before. Nearly everything we buy today is made of petroleum based plastics and far less natural materials, allow for far faster heat release rates and greater BTU's per pound. In all our stuff burns much hotter, much faster and in far less safe homes, than ever before. The only viable answer in sprinklers. I don't beleive the insurance lobby is against sprinklers, they protect them from much greater payouts and in our state they've found that 99% offer a reduction in fire insurance premiums(5-15%), though in the grand scheme it's not enough to be a selling point. The fact is, and I'm sure BNECHIS can speak far more eloquently on the subject, that insurance companies, crazy as it sounds are heavily regulated. That is to say they can't just start charging everyone more for not having sprinklers, they can offer reductions in cost, but that's taking money away from them. If they could charge more for those failing to build new with sprinklers, that'd be huge.

We started requiring sprinklers in one and two family dwellings using the Life Safety Code as the "driver". The training issue is nearly non-existent in my area. In the last 4 months I've gone to a local plumbing supply house where they've hosted two different system designers certification programs, in both cases the class was less than 4 hours and myself, our COD, the local Code Officer and his assistant have all become certified installers, along with a room full of plumbers. Both classes were free and gives the installer access to certified designers who get the home plans and design the system and give the installer a sprinkler plan, then make a single site visit to ensure you competed the work as they designed and the system is certified. As for homeowner maintenance, it's very limited. If you're on city water it's really maintenance free, unlike commericial systems with quarterly and annual inspections, testing etc. On a well/tank system you might need to verify your pump is working but that's about it. The new CPVC and PEX systems are far easier and quicker to install and the design is such to make them more attractive rather than onerous systems the homeowner need worry about. The two main impediments are misinformation on the part of the home builders/real estate brokers part and the fire service for not being educated enough ourselves to convince our own and the public that this is the best way to minimize injuries and deaths for everyone involved.

NFPA 1221: Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems It's been around for awhile as I know it was discussed when we moved to a Countywide dispatch system 11-12 years ago. Maybe some new revisions or a separate fireground comms standard?

Agreed, the issue is more often a poor installation with regard to type and location of the device. I must wonder how many company officers in many FD's know enough code and fire alarm information to properly educate the building owners and RP's when these alarms happen?In our case, the State followed MA's lead by enacting a law requiring photo-electric type sensors within 20 ft of any kitchen or bathroom. This technology greatly reduces false activations from cooking smoke and steam. In the past few years we've been able to educate many building owners to install the photo-electrics even if not required as while they cost more up front, far few are torn down and destroyed by tenants when they repeatedly arm for steam or cooking. One management company that owns the greatest number of units in the city changed all their detectors in one year and the results are evident by the decline in our responses to those properties. Unlike some places that have made headlines in recent years, we should be looking to make the building owners and fire alarm companies improve their systems rather than reduce our response in apparatus or personnel. A correctly functioning system is far safer for all involved, reduces owner liability and risk, and will reduce complacency on the part of occupants and firefighters.

Hey I can't edit my previous post? Anyway the line "In our case, while the AFA's most turn out to be fires, the systems are most often doing their job, detecting smoke, such as burnt popcorn or water flow from a water system pressure event." Should read: "In our case, while most AFA's do not turn out to be fires, the systems are most often doing their job, detecting smoke, such as burnt popcorn or water flow from a water system pressure event."

Can you differentiate those that were properly functioning alarms as opposed to actual system malfunctions? I understand your point, but on the surface it looks like we're doing ourselves more harm by requiring and supporting fire alarm systems in commercial occupancies. In our case, while the AFA's most turn out to be fires, the systems are most often doing their job, detecting smoke, such as burnt popcorn or water flow from a water system pressure event. It definitively behooves a FD to involve their code officials if they do not have direct violation writing capability. Those cases where the alarms are too frequent often are due to the alarm system not being properly serviced or maintained. We've required companies re-certify alarms to the code when time after time we respond for false alarms and find zones in "trouble" or worse, taken offline. Certainly with a little friendly explanation most building owners should not blame the FD for the fine, but go back to the alarm company and hold them accountable for the service they pay for.

No doubt about that! He's as anti-labor as they get. I can't disagree with him on everything, but the damage he's caused outweighs the few sensible measures.

Yes, we're certainly in the minority of FD's in the NE with a three platoon system. There were a few more that have slowly evolved and added a fourth as our plan is, but as of late changes like that are barely visible and only whispered. It's been a debate within the ranks as well, as while most would appreciate the extra time of and ability to have a few good days between tours, the majority also recognizes that adding more staff to each shift makes sense to make the job safer. While the latter seems a no brainer, the fact is that our people spend so much time here given OT, recalls, training and duty that attendance to non-mandatory drills and recalls for minor incidents is way down. Even upping minimum hours paid for recalls couldn't create a significant shift in this trend. At some point, contrary to many politicians and civilians beliefs, it's not all about money. Money doesn't buy time.

It appears that too would be incorrect as their work shifts as stated are 10 hrs or 14 hrs, depending on day or night tour.

I truly mean no offense to anyone, but do any people in these minorities feel like the people "trying to protect them" are using a very racial argument? Over and over they state that many minorities cannot be held to the same written exam scores as if these people have a physical or mental issue that will not allow them to score higher? How does this reflect on those that do score well? Are they statistical outlyers? Do the scores/ethnic lines reflect similarly in high school testing, ASVAB or SATs? It appears the argument brought by the DOJ is that some minorities are less intellectually inclined, so we have to capitalize on their other strengths, even when we understand that with promotion comes greater need for intellectual knowledge.

As I was thinking, thanks. We try and keep track of every 3 shift system scenario for future reference, though our goal is to add a shift, it's difficult when the daily shift is short staffed to start.

How does a 3 on 3 off work? Are these 12 hour tours, 3 days, 3 off, 3 nights, three off?

A few years ago (maybe 10-12?) there was a company out there that would "match you" to the advertiser. They'd basically take your requests for a vehicle and match you with advertisement to fund said purchase. The ads were supposedly to be matched to the dept and tasteful. Such as the suppliers of technology the dept used. They specifically said they'd not use Dunkin Donuts for the police or similar stereotypes that would be a mockery. I never saw a single unit that went through, but our County Dispatch Director was on the list for a communications vehicle. In a memorable speech to the local advisory board he noted "he didn't care if they painted it green and called it a pickle, as long as he got what they needed". To that end the comms vehicle project was known as the Pickle Truck, and never came to fruition. The concept will likely take off given the financial woes as of late and those dept's who'd drive a rainbow painted engine as long as it was staffed properly.

Another point on this point: if you have your shirts pressed by a laundry service, the military press will often get pressed flat in different directions, those that iron their own can make the sewn in ones look far more crisp. Our Flying Cross shirts are either glued or ironed, can't tell, but they're much flatter and take a laundry press better, but the Lions Stationwear 100% we used to get was sewn is and was far sharper when ironed than pressed.

Our department has been buying 100% cotton for the last 10 years or so. Before that we bought a mix of FR uniforms and at one time Dickies" pants! Over the years, as SageVigiles said, we have learned cotton in comfortable and cheaper, but needs to be replaced more often. We upped the number of allowable issued pieces to cover this as the FR stuff was far more expensive and uncomfortable. We too have FFer's in navy, Lts in light blue and Capt's and above in white shirts. The colorfast issues are a problem with the firefighters as the pants and shirts do not wear evenly, likely because we also allow -shirts and polos after hours, weekends and through the summer, while the same pants are worn and washed year round. As for brand issues. We've tried many and currently are issued Flying Cross, whose shirts stink IMO. The military press is cheesy and flattens out with ironing and the flaps under the buttons make ironing the front a PITA. Overall they are lighter weight fabric and don't last as long as the Lion brand we were getting before them. The pants aren't bad. Right now we make two orders a year and each member is allowed 5 pieces per order (shirts and pants). Wearing them every third day, I usually need 4 pants (but only get 3) every six months. I'd say you can get more life out of any color but white shirts, but the white ones don't take long to destroy wearing TO gear. Looking around I'm betting our guys could use a fewmore pair of pants each period to keep the shirt/pants matching better.