antiquefirelt

Or in the real world, you could change the part that you have control over? Those kids are likely not stupid, but have no concept of fire and firefighting. Huh, who's fault might that be? Not to worry, the majority of us are in the same boat on educating the public. And why don't most of us go into politics and straighten out this country or go to Wall Street and fix the financial crisis? FD's and firefighters tend to be too quick to blame everyone one else. Maybe a little introspection is in order? Maybe even make a Youtube video that injects factual info into that guys original video and make it an educational video about the woes of most VFD's in daytime hours? To who? I think the public decides regardless of what reality is. While this may have been just a handful of kids to start, it's now out there along for all to see. Too bad that what many may know about their FD is what they'll learn from this source, which I'm betting has far more hits than most of our FD's static web pages.

Careful those are future town councilors! Joking aside, if you don't think the lay public has running commentary like this on a daily basis, you're kidding yourself, they expect a top notch professional response in 30 seconds to "huge fires" like this. Just looking professional in the eyes of the public actually can hide the inadequacies of the system and at least not damage your reputation. While we may know the VFD guy in the t-shirt had nothing to work with and no gear, clearly his actions and catching the fire on his phone didn't instill much confidence. The reality is that perception = reality to the public. Lesson learned here? Like playing golf, sometimes it isn't about winning or losing, it's how you look doing it.

The issue you're failing to address is that municipal and state retirement systems can and many case do, cost the taxpayers less money than SS. Our system in Maine is 98% funded (of course we pay half the pay-in), and costs the taxpayers less than if they offered nothing and had to pay the SS pay ins. That's today, but it saves the taxpayer later too, as those who retire with an actual pension are far less likely to need taxpayer funded assistance as most of those who only have SS do. You partisan political argument fails to show how much the alternatives cost. This argument is being had nationwide and seems to gain support from many people who can't believe the people that they pay get more than they do. It's as if they just want to make sure we know we're "the help". Funny thing is they're voting to pay more to look down their noses at us.

This is a little over the top as it requires that every member that "might" be called on to drive any apparatus be road tested on every apparatus. So if you area an assigned operator or could be assigned to drive in your company or through swaps, trades or fill ins, you have to be tested on every apparatus. For the Portland FD, this means upwards of 200 personnel will have to road test on every piece? I'm not arguing against making drivers test out on apparatus and be better drivers, but the DOL takes a hard line on things like this but can't help with things that really effect firefighter safety such as minimum staffing. The reference in the article about "Joyriding" likely comes from the Auburn Maine FD (small career FD) one of who's city councilor rode around following their apparatus "joyriding". Turns out he thought every time they were on the road without lights and sirens, it was a joyride, and made a video and a news story about it. I'd be happier jumping through all their hoops if they'd help us secure the proper staffing to make the fireground safer, but that's just not a politically viable position for them.

I believe we may have tried that to no avail...

Much of the "Big Stuff" capabilities (outside urban cities who had already been addressing them)have been funded by the Fed's as part of the knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 and compounded by Hurricane Katrina. The holes in our pre-9/11 systems were revealed and large monetary patches were thrown out, while not really assessing the actual capability of those "fixing the problem". My FD jumped in both feet when we saw that they'd basically fund and equip our existing haz-mat team. Basically we enhanced our existing capabilities for the price of responding anywhere in the state if requested. As small career FD that does Fire,EMS and is a state funded Haz-Mat/WMD team we're finding now that while we have lots of great gear and training keeping up all of it is difficult with little staff. We've hit max saturation, personnel already work 56 hr/wk then nearly all the OT anyone wants, plus countless mandatory training's to maintain certifications and skills. And every area of the mission demands more time and attention. The basic mission suffers for lack of time to spend on it. I think my FD would benefit from getting out of the Haz-mat business, but there is no other technician team deployment capability within 1-2 hrs of of us, thus leaving a hole in our region if we dissolve. Having the only career staff seems to make us the only show in town as very few volunteers have any interest in HM and I can't blame them there's little draw and very few call outs.

I find what you said hard to disagree with, my point is that I'd prefer new employees to have some work experience or other life experience that shows they can make it in the real world. Maybe we expect too much sometimes, but it seems that those who have not been out of the house for any time seem more inclined to take things for granted, are more likely to have a sense of entitlement and are harder to motivate. Given that we do still get motivated self starters that are highly effective, our only issue is to ensure we're screening better to ensure this success. Maybe I'm getting a bit crusty, but my shift seems to have been selected as the last stop before the door for a few individuals. We try and give them a fresh start, but it's up to them to erase any stigmas they carry with them. What I've heard from those leaving is that our expectations are too high, though the other 90% of employees seem to be quite happy. Those that fail tend to do so on EMS paperwork or problems determined in QA. All are given assistance, remedial training and any tools they need, but in the end we will not compromise on the quality of care or work done in the field. The other issues of entitlement and motivation usually are addressed by peers. The good ones tend to get all the peer help they need, those who want to kick back and blame everyone but themselves tend to be on their own. As for higher education? One can never have to much knowledge, but I've yet to see a case in our FD where the degree made the person a better employee. The individual personality traits are much more indicative of the quality work they'll provide. Now, when someone possesses great individual traits and a higher education, there's little stopping them.

Truthfully right now I'm apt to believe someone who worked at Subway for 4 years likely is more prepared than someone who's taken a 4 year degree program regardless of the field but never worked or lived outside of home. There's more to life experience than firefighting/EMS experience. In fact very often, those experiences can be harmful depending on where you gained it. Just being part of the American workforce, understanding why taxpayers often feel the way they do, not taking a job for granted are some of the things I'd like a new employee to understand. Often working in the private sector leads to an appreciation of some of the fundamentals of public service.

In our case this would leave you with working for a given number of years beyond school. Again this is an avenue we're studying to better serve our hiring processes in the future. We're not anti-education by any stretch, but have found over and over, especially as of late, that people with degrees and no work experience seem to not live up to our expectations, while those with a little work history or military time seem to make better employees. There's nothing like a stack of bills and no one to turn to, to make people appreciate having a job and showing some work ethic.

Given some of our recent hires, we're looking into a revamped hiring system that requires either military service or a number of years in the workforce. There's something to be said for being a well rounded individual who's worked to support themselves, not just to make a car payment while living with mom and dad. We've also noted that those with military experience tend to fit the FD organizational structure better and are less apt to work hard to get out of hard work, regardless of what the duty.

While I agree the "senior guys" will be replaced by new ones, it appears that in most cases we will still see a decline in experience. Due to the decline in actual fires, the newer senior men will not have the operational experience that some of our old and crusty's did. As of now, the senior men on our three tours have less than 15 years each, and the last 15 years saw far less fire than the 15 before that!

It would appear to me the issue noted above was not due to the TIC, but whoever said not to open when faced with "proof" that one bay was hotter than the others. Of course in nothing resulted from the decision (no "rekindle") it merely reinforces a potentially poor choice.

I'd have serious doubts that a 300 gal. gravity feed tank could meet the requirements of NFPA 101 and 13D. Again IIRC the flow is two heads for 20 minutes. (26 gpm x 20 = 520 gallons?)

Correct. Most of the systems use a tank or tanks in the basement. In our area we've found this adds about $1000 to the total system cost, but would save more money if a particular jurisdiction required a separate water entrance besides the domestic entrance. Fortunately for those in the municipal supply reach of our water company's area, the new entrances are all sized large enough for domestic water and residential sprinklers, those without sprinklers have a smaller meter, those with have the larger meter but are charged the lower rate for the smaller meter. They've agreed basically not to up-charge for the potential water use in residential homes (not the case in commercial systems with separate entrances). Back to the tank systems: Recently more purpose built tanks have started to be used, as opposed to the "multiple 275/330 gal. oil tanks that were previously re-purposed for sprinklers. The number of tanks/amount of on hand water depends a lot on the well. IIRC the 12D sprinkler systems must only meet one small design flow requirement, so the size of your house wouldn't be a factor like it is in commercial sprinkler design. So if you can meet the 20 minute water supply at the design flow with a single tank because you have a strong well, you're set or vice versa, poor well= more tank water. Before our adoption of the NFPA 101 Code with the sprinkler requirement for 1 and 2 family dwellings, we offered sprinklering house as an option to the water supply requirements for subdivisions, and in every case sprinklers were chosen over the other options.

You could have 40-50 firefighters with lines stretched in your home for the price of a scratch ticket win! Many subdivisions in the non-hydranted areas up this way are required to provide either a rateable cistern or pond or sprinkler all the homes as their built. Many developers found out many years ago the cisterns are a better alternative than ponds which are insurance nightmares and sprinklers are often better than the augmented water supply as the homeowner gets passed the costs and can directly relate it to the protection of their home and family. Of course there are plenty of naysayers too, but generally factual education wins them over.

I'd disagree, you can't give Sharpton any event. In so many cases only one side has to tell the truth, in this case, it won't be Sharpton. Give him a spotlight and he'll take it and people will believe him, because it's what they want to believe. Ever notice how it's easy to believe what you want and much more difficult when you strongly disagree?

Again, I don't think you'll find anyone advocating a "just do it" attitude or discussing the "how to" part. Instead this thread brings to light a topic that should be discussed amongst those whom will be called out and talk about who can and will do what, under what circumstances. In many, I dare say most communities, the police, fire and EMS have very little knowledge of the way the other operates, short of just seeing it in the field. Truly understanding why we don't take a LEO's word on "no injury" or just anyone saying there's no fire, is different than knowing it happens and developing your own story as to the "why". I spent a wek in Anniston AL a few years back in a multi-role ICS class and was incredulous to learn how little some very senior members of other PD's, FD's, SWAT personnel, etc. knew about each others roles. I had a patrol divission commander of a very large county in CA ask what exactly it is that a Haz-mat team does? @JJB531: Sorry I should have clarified I was envisioning dual role providers when I said Fire based EMS. It's the type of system my department operates and we tend to find our personnel are far more aggressive on nearly every front than those providers that operate under other systems, locally at least. Though the times are a changin'. Not necessarily for the better either. We used to respond to nearly every call and assess the scene ourselves (short of those involving firearms), now dispatch attempts to stage us for elderly overdose calls! Somewhere we lost common sense to liability.

I guess this is where a Fire based EMS system seems to show it's strength. The actual "active shooter scenario" aside, firefighters are typically used to working to make the scene safe, so standing around until someone else renders the scene safe goes against our grain. The EMS world's repeating the "Do nothing until the scene is safe" is part of the problem. The image in my minds is a bunch of EMT's in EMS pants and job shirts dancing around with their gloved hands int he air screaming: "Is the scene safe, BSI, Is the scene safe, BSI" over and over while someone actually comes in and makes the scene safe (PD or FD). Today some of us are smarter at calculating risk and understanding the actual benefits and risk vs blind assumption.The same people dancing with their gloved hands int he air awaiting a safe scene seem to have no trouble driving code three, blowing red lights and making their siren spew unnatural sounds...Sorry for the offensive rant, but there was a time where being part emergency services meant assuming some risk for the greater good.

Your opinion is likely spot on in those areas where ESU or tactical personnel are not more than 30 minutes away. But in large portions of this country tactical ops are generally barricaded subjects as the time to assemble is far too long. In an active shooter situation where there's a large population exposed (such as a school or office building)by the time can be too great. This reportedly was a factor int he deaths of one or more victims at Columbine. It has nothing to do with "being benched" or feeling insulted, it has to do with taking calculated risks where the reward is great. Again, none of this should take place without an actual pre-plan worked out between all those involved to understad the responsibilities, roles and liabilities. Your statement about liability, for lack of a better term as I mean no disrespect, is typical of much of the law enforcement community who when faced with a task, scenario or situation puts their liability questions in the priority one slot. It's not the fault of the individuals, yet a our culture who has put so much fear or legal reprisal that many key decision are based on liability. As those commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan who suffered under conditions that lawyers had to be consulted before making some key decisions.

I'm well Brother. Sorry to hear of your home being broken into, these types of crimes are becoming very prevalent around here. As an aside, one of our newest hire's wife is from Whitefield and my longtime GF's cousin is a Detective with Lincoln Co. SO and his brother works for our PD, but is currently assigned as the MDEA supervisor for this part of the state. So we seem to be quite current on our crime issue up this way. We have seen what appears to be a sharp increase in violent crime in Maine in hte last two years, shootings, home invasions and murder are now at the top of the news like most of the country, in years passed we used to be into the weather and sport by 6:03 pm, now crime takes us tot he first commercial of the evening news. Sadly, unlike days of old, remote areas and quiet rural spots are no longer the crime free havens they once were. Drugs have always been a problem on coastal fishing communities as the fishermen had more money (maybe less brains, too) and were constantly travelling between larger ports and here. Now, drugs of all types are in every community, the larger ones see more mainstream sales, while remote areas have become ripe for meth labs and prescription pills of course none were ever free of marijuana which is practically a nothing issue in smaller quantities. The burglary and home invasion crimes are concerning, as both are becoming far more common. There is a large population of the state that is hurting financially and aid and other help is being cut to the point that some of the people committing burglaries are far from who we'd anticipate. The home invasions on the other hand seem to reveal a far more brazen youth with a real disregard for human life or any shred of decency at all. Interestingly at least two separate home invasion ended with perps being shot (neither fatally) in the past 8 months or less. We never used to lock are cars at night at home or at the FD, now we lock the doors behind us when we enter our home (a few more seconds to place my hands on the grips) and have had vehicle broken into in the FD parking lot. These things many folks in NY or FL would think obvious, but we took for granted in "rural America" until this past decade. In all our country is in tough shape financially, which is no excuse for crime, but it is clearly a decent barometer. Hopefully things will turn around and we'll be able to reverse the trend of violent crime. On a positive note, glad the brothers up North have been able to help you out, we have some good friends at BFD, many of whom are from this area. If you're up this way drop me a note or stop by the station if you have a chance. even when I'm off duty I'm rarely further than my house which is less than 5 miles out.

To add to the tragedy of this story, MSP is now calling this a "Drug related homicide". I hope that they find Perdomo wasn't involved on drugs end, but the first few days there was a bit of speculation why he'd made 10 trips to Maine in the past 10 months. The question of trafficking prescription type pills was brought up a few days ago and now this headline. We of course should withhold judging him until the actual facts are released, but we do have to remember that even firefighters are human and as such are fallible. An all around sad story regardless of the facts. A man apparently has lost his life, a wife widowed and children left fatherless, no matter what the circumstances, we need to figure out the how/why of these people ending up in situation where this is the end result.

Local news is now reporting the State Police have made an arrest charging a suspect with murder. VS NewsLink New Link

The thinking on more rapid extrication of victims is not for the LEO's to do it alone, but instead to assemble some form of entry/clearing team that allows Fire/EMS to come in behind in the "cleared area" to begin care rather than acknowledge injured parties are inside but exclude them from immediate care. This takes a concerted effort for Fire/EMS and LE to sit down and discuss roles, responsibilities and risks. This is a classic risk/benefit analysis: The risk is putting personnel in danger of being shot, the reward is saving the lives of children. Remember we as Fire/EMS personnel assume a higher level of risk when we take these jobs. None of this should be taken as a "just do it" but a discussion that should be undertaken given the high potential for fatal wounds left untreated while smaller communities attempt to secure large facilitation without immediate resources. There were many things that came out of Columbine that speak to this topic. As an example of a similar school of thought I offer this:My community holds a large multi-day festival that culminates in a large parade in the beginning of August. The attendance in our downtown area is extremely high, with roads blocked and LE, Fire and EMS units staged all over. Last years event planning included an "active shooter" scenario taking place at a business on Main Street during the parade. The Trooper in charge of the tactical response refused to allow pre-staged Fire/EMS units to help move the crowd from the area of the shooter scenario while being severely understaffed to engage the shooter. The thinking was that they couldn't use anyone but LEO's to remove the citizens, yet the answer was to not move them as the shortage of officers required they address the shooter first. Our contention was that we have staged personnel in the immediate area who do assume a level of risk with regard to protecting human life and these personnel could in fact help rather than be sidelined while civilians were going to be left to fend for themselves. The point is we are not LEO's and should not do anything that would actually harm their efforts, but they also need to let us do our jobs even at some risk when the benefit is deemed high.

This has been identified as part of the problem. While we all understand the need to protect further persons from being in harms way, denying medical care to wounded has a serious consequence, tie that to school aged children and you have the recipe for tragic disaster with huge potential outfall. A more proactive response has been cited many times. Somehow LE must be more aggressive even with less personnel and allow or facilitate a rapid extrication of known victims.

The local news has been following this since early in the week and right from minute one it seemed that there were some issues that might point to foul play. Everyone is hoping for the best, but each day looks grimmer as more details and pieces of this puzzle are turned over.