antiquefirelt

I know my Chief is heading down to DC Tuesday to represent our state's fire/EMS services and lobby for our Senator Snowe's vote.

I agree that the IA's tend to push good threads out of sight. And as we all know, out of sight out of mind. Once it leaves the front page, the likelihood it will return diminishes very quickly.

Thanks for the link. Nice to see someone taking notice. For years it's been said that the IAFF is one of the largest Democratic Party supporting unions, made up of mostly republicans. With much more of this war on our retirements and insurance benefits, they may find many more of us voting along the Union line.

Our thoughts were remounting the box on a brand new chassis. By far the reasons for our 8-9 year replacement plan is the chassis. We rarely put more than 75,000 miles on them, but the number of motor issues in years 7-9 make the units nearly unreliable, which is unacceptable in our minds. Of course we're running Ford type I chassis (F350's & F450's) exclusively. Some of the larger chassis made for commercial truck applications certainly are much more capable of higher mileages and ages.

Maybe that's the fire protection plan? Last person out pulls a lever and the place falls into the creek! Or maybe they don't insure it as the building is disposable?

We had one box remounted locally a few years back, and it turned out to be a disaster. Of course a professional remount would have been much better I'm sure. We've since looked into it a few times, but as others have said, there's not a huge savings and an 8-9 year old box typically doesn't have newer features either required or at least upgraded. Most of our boxes have interior issues at their retirement time: surfaces chipped, cracked or contaminating which becomes a contamination point for bodily fluids. Also door hinges and latches tend to be worn to the point of frequent adjustment, door seals need to be replaced, electrical issues start to crop up with more frequency, and most equipment warranties have lapsed. Now, I do know that many users of PL Custom ambulances claim their units have fewer of such issues and that the extra cost up front allows them better resale or a chance at remounting. Our units are typically lowest bid that meets spec. Like fire trucks, newer ambulances use miles upon miles of electrical wiring and "smarter" sensors and such, all of which seem to actually diminish the life expectancy vs. prolong it. Given chassis prices and full unit prices, I'm guessing our ambulance boxes are about $75-90K new. Given the 8-9 year life expectancy we use (and that's at least one year too long)that's about $5-10K a year per unit we could save by remounting (depending on remount costs)to have an old box? Hardly seems worth it as compared to providing our patients with a new up to date mobile emergency room. Taht also fails to consider the $7.5-10K we get at trade-in.

In all actuality commercial buildings, in this case a Business Occupancy (State Farm Insurance no less! per Google maps) quite often are allowed to have a single means of egress depending on occupant load, and that number can easily rise significantly with a sprinkler system. This being from NFPA 101, the Life Safety Code. In the case of this building, if the occupant load does not exceed 30 persons and the travel distance to the exit is less than 100 feet, they meet the allowance for a single exit. Or is the building is sprinklered and is a single tenant space with a travel distance of less than 100 ft, they can have an unlimited number of occupants.

Even experience can be wrong. We all have seen FD's getting it wrong over and over only to be unscathed by anyone. Continually getting away with something ends up being the justification for the poor tactics or policies and very often ends poorly for some poor firefighter(s). This guy is the poster boy of what is wrong in volunteer America.

Now I cannot speak to the rules/laws in your state, but in mine, these are EMS runs. A caller calls 911 and says I've fallen. The dispatcher asks if they're hurt. This immediately starts off as an EMS call with just that little. No one's first question is are you shot or were you struck? No: Are you on fire or slip on a haz-mat spill. So it's clearly an EMS call. SO the dispatcher send the most appropriate service to the call, the ambulance service. In my state once the calls is dispatched, the EMS service owns it. You'd better either get EMS personnel to the call yours or mutual aid or the patient better have cancelled you. BTW all of our dispatchers are all EMD certified and part of the State EMS system as EMD dispatchers.Now can a nice policeman come and help before EMS arrives, rendering their response unneeded? Sure. I suspect the same is true of the FD if they have no EMS authority, but they shouldn't typically be jumping EMS runs as having untrained and unsolicited responders arrive first routinely will lead to a problem at some point.

Not for nothing but "Doing the Right Thing" also means doing the right thing for the people we serve not just ourselves. Guys love using DRT, FTM, EGH and such with regard to taking care of each other, they are real cool on t-shirts too, but our purpose or mission is still to serve the public. So if the EMS service in town can't get out fast enough or with enough, step up and be there for the people in need instead of furthering the problem. Then take up the increased volume with the proper officials. As for my FD, I guess it's a non issue as we provide both fire and EMS, lift assists (assisting the EMS crew) is part of the job. And the "I've fallen and I can't get up calls" are ours too. Once in a while we assist the private transfer trucks when they need help, and while we hate helping them, we always will help our citizens.

The problem with them "wanting to" is that their employer could make them "want to". In fact the real purpose of FLSA is to protect the employee from being coerced or otherwise screwed by the employer. What if an employer only happened to hire firefighters who said they'd also "volunteer" after hours? Or the employer could stop having any overtime for certain work, only to ask the "volunteers" to do it after hours for free? I know one FD locally that hired two fulltimers for the first paid personnel. They hired two of their current POC members and were going to pay them after hours from the POC payroll, until they learned different! One was a Captain after hours and a FT Firefighter by day making for a real Goat &%#@. In the end they were properly compensated and both moved on to larger career FD's and local FD started hiring from abroad as the value in just hiring from their own ranks was severely diminished. And on the "freedom of choice" subject, these same employees have the right not to be members of the Union. They may have to pay dues but the Union does not have the power to fire them, only drop them from membership. So if you want to volunteer then drop out of the Union. Most organizations have membership rules and you have the freedom of choice to join and abide by the rules or not to join. In the end, most of us would like to have some say and voice in the CB process, thus Union membership provides us an opportunity to be heard on any number of issues.

I have to say that the fastest most appropriate and positively progressive way (enough adjectives?) for the Volunteer Fire Service to take the wind out of the IAFF's sails nationwide would be to fight for equal training standards for all volunteers. If you could soundly argue that all volunteers had the same training as most career firefighters and the same standards for promotion, you'd take away the biggest disparity. Then develop a staffing schedule to get staffed apparatus out in under 2 minutes. If you can accomplish those two things, there'd be no fighting. In fact, you'd see more communities fighting to have free or low cost VFD firefighters if the end result was the same. Some of you are consistently bashing the IAFF and locals and career firefighters to a degree, yet are arguing that the IAFF is making it harder on VFD's by prohibiting trained firefighters from volunteering? Why would anyone volunteer in a FD where the membership continually bashes their job? I know there's anti-volunteer sentiment in th e career ranks as well, but we're starting to get like the discrimination-reverse discrimination issue. VFD's provide a lower cost level of fire protection. In some places the product is poor, in others it's excellent and in most cases is something in between. The level of protection ultimately is determined by the taxpayers who weight the benefits of higher standards of training and better response times against what they're willing to pay. The real rub is that few taxpayers really know the difference between the levels of service. Most have little interaction with the FD and know(or think) in their time of need the red trucks will show up promptly. Beyond that, a fire is so dynamic that it's nearly impossible for the untrained witness to determine a quality response vs a crappy one. Thus many crappy responses go untouched. If the taxpayers were making a truly informed decision, then the IAFF and career firefighters really would have nothing to say, as we all understand the way the taxpayer/municipal services system works. If your FD has a problem opening the books to the general taxpayers or will not honestly answer questions regarding training and officership standards, response times, numbers of training responders per incident, etc. you are the problem! If your honestly trying to do the best for the community by providing a service for little or nothing, then more power to you, I wish I lived in your town, but I doubt I have a large field of communities to choose from that meet that standard.

Well, while I do think the VFD should cover the cost of the workers comp, in reality one of my guys just tore his ACL skiing, and is out 4-6 months with re-constructive surgery and PT, yet he retains full pay via sick leave. So while it's not a WC issue, there's not as much a chance of losing out on pay.

If you are working "mutual aid" then you are in essence working as an employee of your primary job, and thus must be compensated as such. I'd think the Union would certainly not allow it's members to basically make their own overtime schedule based on performing "mutual aid" to any dept. I'm sure the City's insurance company and budget hawks would be equally displeased. Our members never work M/A without an officer of our FD present. Sorry, not never, this does happen frequently for EMS which are typically non-officer incidents.

Many vehicles now feature a two stage airbag system. The two stages differ in the deployment volume depending on the seat position, weight of the seated occupant and probably other factors. This means that a bag may discharge more than once in many cars. It is likely very hard for us as responders to know the extent of an airbag deployment, thus we must treat them all with extreme caution. BTW- I'm not familiar with any vehicles that have a labelled air bag fuse or other disconnect? Do you know of any particular vehicles that feature this or perhaps a common assumption?

Not a good idea. The issue with cutting out bags, is that the inflation gas will then blow directly onto the patient and potentially personnel.

This is true with many systems. In fact reportedly there were some capacitors in some vehicles that could store enough energy for deployment up to 20 minutes! Clearly why everyone should always follow the stay clear rules when it comes to airbags, though this is becoming far harder as more and more bags are installed in more locations. Other energy sources such as anything connected to the accessory/cigarette lighter ports are also cited as potential trigger energy problems.

Some interesting points being made here. What's the thinking on airbags and passenger safety systems when discussing leaving the power connected and even moving seats? While extrication is a rapidly changing evolution, don't most trainers stress not moving seats while the power is connected due to the potentially damaged SRS or airbags? Many bags may deploy a lesser initial charge due to the seat proximity, but this leaves a second deployment possibility if the seat position is changed and the algorithm is met. Wile this very unlikely scenario, there are no guarantees of how the system has been affected after the crash? My FD has cut way down on the battery cutting over the last few years. Now we really only cut if there are viable patients within the vehicle, and disconnection is still the preferred method. We specifically do not cut if the only occupant(s) are fatals. For us the battery disconnection has less to do with ignition sources than increasing the odds the airbags and SRS systems are de-energized. BTW, how many LEO's warn motorists in minor accidents of the dangers of untriggered airbags where there's been damage to the sensor areas? A few body repair people have noted that untriggered or poorly reconstructed bumpers could create a "hair trigger" situation? Anyone actually heard of this happening?

MVF is a new one by me can you give me an "F"?

It really should not be a surprise that LPG can and will travel across the ground to lower areas as it is heavier than air. In fact that is why any outside leak results in our metering basements and first floors of houses in the immediate area. The gas "flows" into low areas where it builds up in concentration as it "fills" the area until mitigated or it finds an ignition source. Of course, when your meter reads no to low concentrations your guard certainly goes down, and one can hardly expect they'd have been on air, unless other signs indicated it. Another thing to remember is that you don't have to be in the IDLH atmosphere for the explosion to get you. The LEL is just that, but the outward force of the igniting gas can and will be far greater reaching than the area deemed "elevated concentration".

I cannot disagree with anything here. Having been part of the NIMS instructor staff for our region, I still find it merely check box filling for most of those attendees. As you noted 95% of attendees just take each class in succession and even then do poorly on the pre-test for the next level, which explains why 400 classes still have much review over 100/200 concepts. While the Unified Command concept will work even with disagreement, this is only where disagreements are minor. And while I've not experienced a true head-butting in a UCP situation, I have often seen UCP IC's take a back seat to the IC with the most at stake. Again, when it's a bomb scare, it's the PD that most everything defers to, with good reason. When it's an MVA with multiple victims, the Fire/EMS IC tends to be the sparkplug until all critical patients are transported. In neither case does it mean that the secondary players stop functioning, but as the professionals they are they realize with whom the current responsibility truly lies. Agreed. ICS has been around far longer than the 40 years the Wildland folks from out west would have you believe. ICS has never been in question to me, Unified Command itself has. ICS is really no more than the use of a rank structure to task out responsibilities, much like militaries and monarchies have used for centuries. Unified Command is a concept that can only been seen as someone's "fair" solution to who is in charge of what. I'll still have little trust in the concept given human nature. Very often the two or three IC's running the 2 or 3 different command posts at the same incident are where the actors cannot agree on a good day, nevermind in the field. I'm all for having one command post where the different entities are represented by personnel with decision making power, as it can only serve to form a more efficient response. But I'll always defer to the member with the most at stake. I know better than to waste everyone's time throwing my two cents in where I have no practical experience (LE, DPW, specialized medicine).

That's what the "Government" tells us. NIMS and the Presidential Directive be damned, but no one can change human nature. In reality, not everyone agrees. In fact, the proof is in the fact that this thread exists. Would the trooper have agreed to let the highway be closed if he was in the UCP? I doubt it. The Utopian theory that because we call it Unified Command everyone will agree and is equally responsible for the decision, is false. It doesn't happen. I've taken and taught many ICS 300 and 400 level programs and those who actually work in the command structure or in UCP's at always admit, that in the end, certain players have far more say than others. It's the reality of human nature, don't bother trying to change it. Now can a UCP work? Of course, and it takes planning and meeting long before the incident and knowing each others roles and limitations. But, show me a democratic command post and I'll show you an incident that has moved beyond true emergency to recovery.

I find it difficult to disagree with anything you've said on the subject, except to note that regardless of NIMS and unified command, ultimately in most cases one person will have the final say. Generally, the officer(fire/EMS/LE)with the most resources in the incident and the highest responsibility at the given moment, will generally have the final word. For example, regardless of Unified command the LE IC is not going to let others mess up a shooter at large call, even when EMS wants to treat patients. Similarly, a fire officer is hardly going to let PD open traffic at an accident if he/she feels it will endanger personnel. As has been noted, a forthright discussion before these incidents take place is the only rational way to handle this. There needs to be understanding amongst all the players as to the thought process behind these issues. I have yet to here from any LEO why keeping traffic flowing has benefits that outweigh the risks. Angry motorists? I also believe in using common sense in re-opening lanes and assessing the true risks vs. perceived. If sign offs can be done on the sidewalk then go there and open traffic. If the crews are in the bus, open traffic, but while personnel must be within 10 feet of a travel lane to do anything but watch the traffic? The lane should be closed. My FD shuts down traffic at almost every MVA. This is done until we know who is where and that we can safely manage the scene. Then and only then do we free up lanes of traffic. For the most part our PD goes along with this and understands. Though it often causes some minor tense moments when the PD officer thinks the no PI means we should just forget our safety. We takes some shots from PD about shutting down the road every call, but in general it's harmless banter. At a recent accident in a private parking lot, we left just enough room (unintentionally) for a car to squeeze between an ambulance and parked cars. Nest thing a Jeep pulls through very slowly (thankfully) and literally pushes an engine Capt into the stretcher he was assisting in loading! Needless to say I was free to slam my fist on the hood of the Jeep, startling the driver into reality and forcing him to back out. Luckily his slow speed and the position of the Capt. resulted in nothing more than dirty shorts. he PD Sgt. on scene noted that he'd slammed his maglite on a few hoods when this had happened and relayed a few stories of being struck! Duh, and they give us crap about blocking the road? Our hope is that the Sgt. who is also their shop steward will relay the story to his men and kill the mockery as he realized our point afterward.

As I replied in the FH forum, I'd bet that lawyers, reporters and whackjobs are the majority of this apps downloaders. Too many potential issues for this to be viable IMO.

Good points added here though, the OV is part of the outside team, thus the OV performs VES and any ladder rescues normally would see assistance from the OV FF.