antiquefirelt

It may have been rumor and I know nothing came of it if it wasn't, but I believe Ferrara and FDNY reps were seen touring the LTI plant in Ephrata, PA last year. My understanding was the FDNY contract demands sole source on major components? So Ferrara would have to have something up their sleeve or take a huge exception.

Actually while I'm a Scope fan at heart, I can't help but admire the E-One jacking system. On the midmount they too have only two "outriggers" just below the turntable, but instead of radial movement they come out at a low angle and end with a narrower stance. The other four down jacks are just that, lifting the unit completely off the suspension. Add in the "zero failure" rate for their aerials and it's a hard thing to beat. On the other side though, E-One is not all that excited to do anything outside their comfort zone. Maybe for a huge contract, but with the added headaches FDNY puts into (which I think are justified) few companies will ever truly try.

Good news for Seagrave. I wondered if Ferrara could pull off that radical a change in their aerials. My understanding is that the FDNY spec requires the waterway be either protected or not on the underside to ensure it won't be damaged on parapets. I'm sure there are other FDNY specifics, but that seems to be a big one compared to all others except Sutphen.

Chief? Not me, I can't afford the pay cut or the headaches! There are some truly volunteer FD's in Maine. I'm not sure of the one that received Thornwoods' pumper, but they're small enough that I've never heard of the town, and I get around the State a bit. Most VFD's in Maine are actually Paid on Call FD's that do receive tax money. Unlike NY, there are no fire districts nor any ability to collect monies by any means other than taxes or donations/fundraising.While I am familiar with Chief Pellerin, I'm not familiar with the Whitefield FD.

Another issue that's arisen in our state is the ability to amend or change reports after they've been given to the ED. Our system requires that our crews complete the report at the hospital 75-90% of the time (depends on how busy we are), then upon returning to quarters, final mileage and endig times must be entered. The report allows for additional amendments but the changes must be documents in a "reason for edit" line on every page changes are made on. This causes multiple reports with different data to be "in the system". From an admin standpoint, we're not too comfortable with the situation and it requires more extensive QA in house to ensure things are being properly documented.

Some of you really need to go back and review what's actually been posted. I've yet to see anyone say that there shouldn't be volunteer firefighters, that volunteer firefighter can't be professional, or that they shouldn't be considered equals of career firefighters when the training requirements are the same. The fact is that some of you are extremely touchy about the perception that all career firefighters look down their nose at volunteers. I have to say, while that is true in some cases, in most cases, career firefighters, like volunteers, judge based on actions and what they see. S Trust me, most career firefighters understand the financial issue facing their community and/or the one where they work. We know that there are many places where hiring career personnel is silly, still other places need to augment volunteers with paid positions, others still need volunteers to augment a career force and lastly we have all career jobs. The citizens decide what level of protection they can afford. Don't think for a minute that they don't want the most absolute best firefighters they can get, but they(we) decide via a risk/benefit analysis what they can afford to pay at the polls. Sometimes the career service does view a portion of the volunteer fire service as a degree of liability, in that when times are financially tough, some politician always points to the local VFD and says "hey they can do it for next to nothing" we need to cut jobs or stations. It's hard to argue against public perception, especially when they see what they want to see. The public doesn't see different training and hiring standards, responses times, calls unanswered until mutual aid, etc. And to top it off, there's no end to VFD guys ready to say "sure we can do it", "there's no difference", "we all fight what you fear". The problem is there is a difference, it doesn't have to be as drastic, but often it's larger than most will admit. It's not always training, or quality of work, it might be geographic mileage that harms response times, it might be the age of the membership, it might be a "good 'ole boys" network in the FD. As I've said in other threads here, I started on a VFD and worked with some great volunteer firefighters, some I'd sooner work with than some of the career guys we've had. One of the biggest advantages I see day to day of a career FD, is the crew integrity. The whole shift knows who's doing what long before the bells ring. They know each other well enough to not need to speak a lot on routine jobs, as they've been there done that so many times before, as a team. They all know the expectations of them, from the bosses to those of each other. They spend a significant portion of their lives together making them a close knit team. If nothing else, compared to equally trained and even experienced firefighters, the crew that works, plays, eats and sleeps together will be a more cohesive effective unit. The above being said, I'll leave you with this little ironic debate I had with our Union's VP. Our FD is a combination FD, we have about 65% career and 35% call firefighters. There is always some animosity, mostly petty, but without a doubt, many of the career guys feel the call guys don't help out with anything but the "fun" and see that they train much more than their counterparts. Some of the call folks feel like the career group doesn't have any respect for them. In fact it's mostly judgement from both sides on an individual basis until a group of either gets together and laments their problems. Anyway, the Union VP is on my crew and was really downing the call force one day. He thought the time of the volunteer was coming to an end and that maybe we should just stop bringing on new call members as they were not up to the same standard as the career force. After listening to him on his soap box I asked him and the rest of the crew how many career firefighter they thought we'd need per shift to cover up to just a second alarm before calling in outside aid? And as a second part, did they think this was an achievable goal in the next 10 years. The answer was unanimously "no way we could realistically do it". So my final question was, which volunteers do you trust more: the ones we train with and equip or the ones in the surrounding towns? I have not heard another word of dropping our call division since (about 4 years ago). The reality of our situation is that our taxpayers are already paying more than most in the area, and the call volume calls for more personnel but hardly enough to adequately staff three engines, a truck and run an ALS ambulance service. So volunteers will be fighting some fire, working some wrecks and helping here, be they ours or a mutual aid FD's. While I know some of the volunteers around us are good even great, still others are not, so I prefer our own. /rant

Please let me reiterate what I've actually said here: I cannot see why the municipal or other governmental body would provide indemnification when they have no control over hiring, training, and discipline. So to spell that out, it really only applies to truly private departments whom are not part of the taxing entity. As I see it, the community that "hires" you as paid call or otherwise compensated firefighters should provide you with the same protections as career guys. Now, if the state is going to grant this, I'd think they'd want to set a standard of minimum requirements, for both the entity(FD) and for the individuals(firefighters). Should the state indemnify candy stripers at the hospital? How about members of the Rotary and Kiwanis? They do good things for the community, no? Hell if they'd indemnify volunteer cops, I might join up to carry a gun. To me the issue is not whether volunteers have earned indemnification, but the responsibility to the citizens at large for such a responsibility. Clearly, requiring equal minimum requirements would go along way.

Ah there it is, the ugly truth. You seem to be one of those that considers himself a "have-not" and see career firefighters as the "haves"? Sadly the most common reason for this is that the individual was not hired somewhere when they clearly though should have been. You do realize that the benefits you don't wish to pay for were substantially negotiated in lieu of pay by your elected officials or the manager they hired? Some where along the line the government entity felt that these benefits were better deal for the citizenry as a whole then the alternatives. i suppose you could pay career firefighters convenience store wages and still fill the ranks? Anyone with a "I fight what you Fear" T-Shirt is in, huh? Maybe we could do the same for teachers or backhoe operators? Some one will come forward for whatever reason right? Heck as long as they want the job and understand the risks to themselves, screw it, hire em!? There are a lot of great volunteers out there, but guess what, they're more than likely great employees in other walks of life too. It's rare the greatness is specific to only one trade, it's more a mindset than a specific skill set.As a firefighter and fire instructor you're opposed to minimum staffing?

Ah yes, good point. I wasn't really considering the non-typical truss styles. It seems now you can order your trusses to meet just about any roof line or ceiling you'd like. When I worked in residential construction we used standard trusses over the "normal" attic areas but almost always used rafter and joists over cathedral ceilings. But then, that was 15+ years ago when trusses were far less customizable for the average consumer. The case can certainly be made that going forward we much take a far more progressive approach to pre-fire intelligence. Thankfully in our small community we work hand in hand with the code office to review all new construction plans, and note hazards as they're being built. We also have a residential sprinkler ordinance that requires all new one and two family dwellings to be sprinklered. Our state building code, now a "mini-max" state, has adopted a provision that all floor trusses must have either a one hour fire barrier or sprinklers protecting them. Sadly they failed to keep the residential sprinkler portion of the IBC or NFPA 101, and by rule no municipality can enact the requirement as part of the building code. Thankfully ours was adopted in the land use regulations and is allowed to remain. The case for more aggressive VES tactics would seem compelling, though it would seem a difficult task to undertake for many FD's who struggle with so many other basic operations. Without a doubt the job is getting far more dangerous, with new hazards, tighter buildings, hotter fires, but less overall jobs to gain experience at. In the past 10 years my own dept has trained and employed VES, but very few firefighters have actually employed the tactic under difficult conditions.

I couldn't agree more that today the building industry is using lightweight everything and I cannot disagree that we must know the construction of the building we're entering to be able to predict probable events. And knowing that trusses are present must be part of the risk/benefit analysis, it's how much weight do we place in the risk side when roof trusses are encountered in PD's? My question regarding roof trusses specifically in residential is that we as a fire service seem to be further distancing ourselves from our first priority when we encounter trusses. Given that residential homes are fairly compartmentalized I'm interested in the theory that while dangerous, residential roof truss failures will tend to be localized and have far less catastrophic failures than larger commercial occupancies. Given the fist scenario posted here, the very real possibility that this house or many similar ones would have extension into the truss attic is real. But, what are we to do if we become so risk averse to trusses, that an attic fire precludes us from searching the same when we have persons unaccounted for? And in an ever growing likely scenario, vacant SFD's certainly could have squatters that no one (neighbors) anticipates. I'm not thinking about tossing caution to the wind, but looking a the real possibility that we could be pulling bodies from a home some night after the roof has collapsed only to find that there is very little intrusion below the interior walls. Maybe a better approach is what type of tactics should we be considering when we anticipate a truss roof with fire attacking the trusses? Do we write it off? Open it up from a TL? Support a search and then go defensive? Going forward this problem is only going to multiply as the percentage of housing stock built with lightweight material slowly moves upward. Clearly residential sprinklers are needed to combat fires in these newer homes, but we'll still have a large chunk of lightweight unprotected for years to come.

I know this may be a little controversial as well, but this is a good place to get a feel for everyone's thought from a decent cross section of the fire service. Truss roofs in typical single family dwellings: how significant a concern? I think we all know to "Beware the truss", but how much do we allow truss roofs to affect our operations at private dwellings? I have some thoughts of my own, but I'd like to hear what some others think first. Obviously you can guess where I'm heading given the question is even being asked.

We've been using electronic reporting for about 3 years now, mandated at the state level. While I'd agree the useful information is much more accessible, I think the quality of the reports is far inferior.The reason for this is that easier is not always better. Drop down menus and pull boxes allow you to document most things, but rarely give an accurate presentation of the actual patient and incident. This is made worse by the use of "auto-narrative" generators. These auto-narratives take information from the rest of the report and magically tell the story. We determined the auto-narratives were not accurate enough for the protection of our personnel and shut-off this feature for our reports. Now, like with paper reports all must include a provider written narrative. I'd strongly encourage people to cover they asses by putting it in your own words. It's far too easy to leave things out or let the little nuances get left out, when they may be vital to your defense. After all it's not the everyday, routine stuff that will get you into hot water, but the awkward, out of the ordinary call the electronic report code writers never experienced. That's my two cents.

I'm not as concerned with the interior work, as I'd tend to try this with a 1.75" line while a 2.5" SB knocks down the fire in the garage. But I did want to comment about the 2 1/2" interior line. Maneuvering a 2 1/2" in a residential occupancy is nearly impractical, other than in the great rooms of some McMansions. The compartmentized nature of residential occupancies often make for far too many corners and quick turns for the big line.

I have not seen one thing here that would indicate anyone has called that into question. No one expects the volunteer fire service will not continue to provide excellent service in many areas, just as there will be some career FD's that continue to exist despite significant changes in the last century. Again, in todays litigious society how can we expect to grant blanket immunity to a group of persons without setting and enforcing some standards on them? If a full election elects a Board of Commissioners that serve the community, not the organization, I could see a direct line with their being hiring agents from the town. But in many cases, the VFD is a completely private entity that provides the service to a community via an indirect donation, fee, payment, allowing them to remain autonomous.

Cogs, again you've missed my point. I don't disagree with the premise or need to extend indemnification to volunteers, my hang up is how this occurs where the people who provide such protection have no input into the hiring, training and disciplinary process of those they indemnify. Set some strict rules as to whom qualifies and this would be a moot point on my part.

Just a quick aside, my FD does as you describe. The CS permit requires the rescue service be named on the permit. To my knowledge OSHA says that the rescue service must know they are the service on a permit. We require all CS permits using our FD to notify us, fax or deliver us a copy of the permit before entry and arrange with the duty officer the procedures for exiting if we determine our CS Tech staffing is below 4 available personnel. In most cases, this requires major work to be scheduled and the permittee to hire a detail to ensure adequate staffing, while minor work or emergency entries may proceed until staffing is below the minimum. In 95% of the cases, at least two Tech's will review the space during just prior to or at the time of entry to ensure we're prepared for the potential situation. This is great contrast to 10 years ago when one major industrial plant used to list us without our knowledge and us with barely any CS training beyond awareness levels. We were lucky that a former disgruntled employee called in the DOL and reported the situation that lead to adequate training and equipping of personnel as well as detailed policies. In that short 10 years we've made at least 5 significant CS rescues two that included high angle rappelling into confined spaces to rescue employees with serious injuries. Sadly, the first and most difficult went on to make a full recovery and kill his GF in a drunk driving accident within the same year.

While some of you seek to vilify Chief Flynn, please ask yourselves how you can expect anyone to indemnify persons of which they have no control over? With no way to ensure that the people they're covering have had adequate background checks, psyche profiles, medical screening, etc how can you ask to be wholly held harmless? The issue could have little to do with your actual fireground capabilities. Will the people not hold a career staffed FD to a higher standard than a small town VFD? Honestly, of course they will. The expectation for the dollars paid is that the level of service be better which includes expedient and capable. Are there VFD's capable of this? Sure, but when they aren't they have the fall back position of being "only volunteers". Too often volunteer outfits throw up the "only volunteers" argument to fend off training mandates, response time questions, failure to provide needed services such as EMS, first responder, medical assists, haz-mat response, haz-mat support, tech rescue, and the list goes on. While it may be unfair to paint all FD's with the same brush be they career or volunteer, you cannot ask for the same brush to be used to hold you harmless.

Maybe the signage is there to keep people out? You know, you need a confine space permit to retrieve anything from inside the cap? It has restricted/limited entry/exit, is large enough for entry and to perform work, yet not designed for continuous occupancy. Add in the CO poisoning issues inside caps and you now have a permit required confined space! Man I shoulda been a lawyer!

I cannot understand why anyone would want to accept the liability of having anyone in any employ if they could not have direct input into the hiring, training and disciplinary process of the employee? That being said, I don't see any issue with any municipal firefighters (paid, paid per call, or "volunteers") that are "working" with a tax based system as this requires meeting a hiring standard and following municipal work rules. But allowing a private entity to provide a service with no or little input in who it hires and how they conduct themselves and then indemnifying them? How is this a good idea?

I know our State has similar rules allowing medics to do LE draws. our depratment took a stance that we'll not allow on duty personnel to conduct blood draws for anything but medical reasons. Our basic premise is that we do not want of personnel viewed as agent of LE, as out in the street we deal with criminals frequently, and for the most part they still see us a there to help. Upsetting that image does not bode well for walking into an apartment with no PD presence where someone you've helped convict is there. Not that we don't want to keep criminals off the streets, but it becomes a safety issue. We're the good guys to everyone right now, and with no sidearms, I'd prefer to keep it that way.

I'd be surprised if a law such as that proposed would allow a privately owned public access property such as a stadium, deny entry to persons legally carrying. This can be viewed as either allowing persons with guns to enter or not allowing owners to deny entry to a person legally exercising their right to carry. Not that this isn't fraught with troubles, given that there are many people who have yet to break the law that are carrying. But the whole issue can be a matter of prospective: are we allowing them entry or protecting their right to entry?

Our regional comms center standard is 4 minutes, then the call is given to a M/A agency. Two tones to have a single unit sign on and begin making the decisions. EMS wise, as this really never happens on the FD side, our fulltime crew is tapped for six services as their primary back-up, so the patient does not have to endure yet more delay due to volunteers needing to get out. In the past each service could arrange it their own way, leading to 2-3 tones, then a M/A VAC with 1-2 more tones, then even a third service. It does take empowering the dispatch center to make the call. Again in our case, each agency gives the comm center a list in order of who responds first, second, third through fifth due. This is a recent change on the EMS side, while the FD's have had a mutual aid protocol for 40+ years.

Therein lies the issue with "offensive": you cannot tell people how or what to feel, if they're offended, it's up to them to decide the recourse. I don't agree with our becoming so overly sensitive, but on the other hand, there's a lot of history of people ignoring what should be as simple as knowing right from wrong, thus we're where we are today.

Guess it's just one of those things we condition ourselves to do in a certain manner and don't really consider the options. Other than the lack of pictures, it appears that the "current" content is the same? I guess I wouldn't complain if I was forced to use the .net vs. .com, I just set my "favorites" button up to start at .com thus it's the initial portal I enter through.

Interesting, I've known no other way. I guess you can go directly to the .net site and miss the front page? But isn't the list of recent topics at the top, the same as are in the left hand column on the .com site?