antiquefirelt

OV=Outside Vent position. This is a very critical position given the task of venting ahead of the search or fire attack crews. Obviously, M'Ave or others can elaborate much more on the OV's duties for FDNY, but my understand of their duties is would make it very difficult to lose this seat on any tour. Given such detailed SOP's and the tactics based on these, losing any positions on the fireground would seem to really be damaging to overall safety for both FDNY personnel and the citizens they're protecting.

While I agree that we should have more integrated training, I find the prevailing sentiments in EMS to be much like yours, which typically differs from many firefighters who assume higher risk as part of saving life. While firefighters are specifically trained in the job (lots aren't well trained), no PPE or training eliminates all risk. Therefore I wonder how much risk can we take to ensure rapid care to GSW victims in such situations.

Interesting issues of risk-benefit analysis. Often PD wants/needs to secure the scene, but at what cost? Also, EMS preaches scene safety to the point of assume nearly no risk. At what point do the victims who are still endangered by a supposed second shooter become less valuable than incoming rescuers who could mean the difference between life and death? This is by no means a slam to LE in Tuscon or anywhere, but a question that sums up a few recent years worth of mass shooting where scene safety may have compromised lives. Are we doing the best we can? Should we assume greater levels of risk? Is there a need for more EMS units to be trained an integrated into initial shooting scenes?

My thoughts on this is that the City/Municipality or otherwise should test, interview and determine what it is they want and not necessarily use the sheepskin as a way of determining qualification. For example, a large metro area Fire Chief most likely will spend far less time on the fireground and much more time in meetings, budget hearings, and personnel issues. Whereas a smaller FD, may require the Fire Chief be the IC at most structure fires. Of course many Chief can do both well, but probably not as many as there are FD"s needing Chief's. Does a college degree automatically make you a better public speaker? No. Are you better at math than people without a degree? Not all. Very often the degree indicates a well rounded candidate, but often we need more acute knowledge. So while I'm by no means against higher education, I do feel candidates should be hired based on the abilities/skills they can prove, not those pieces of paper that say we spent a lot of money and achieved a minimum score. Let's not forget so many near illiterate sports figures have degrees!

Remember NFPA spec is just a minimum standard to follow. An $800 set of NFPA complaint gear is likely fairly close to the bare minimum anyone would suggest, and far from the protection most of would want for ourselves, brothers, sisters and loved ones. My FD has TO gear spec that we bid out or do RFP's to multiple vendors every few years and buy gear as needed. Since I've been here, we've had MP (most hated it, but it was pre-spec and Nomex w/ neoprene and bulky liners), Bristol (seams ripped out easy, but felt great on), Quest (great wearing, but a "pricing issue" occurred)and the latest has been Globe G-Extreme. Thus far, most everyone says the Globe is the best of what they've had, but we do have each set custom fitted by a company that is nearby the Globe factory so fit issues are always corrected quickly. In all it is slightly bulkier than my Quest(kept the old 9 yoa set for a spare). We've had a few "trial" sets in as well, but none made the cut for the larger purchases.

Run volume makes no difference. The personal protection of every member relies heavily on their gear. One flashover can kill you, regardless of the number count at your FD. LODD's and injuries happen in low run volume FD's. In fact, one could argue that those FD's with lower volume may find themselves in trouble due to a lack of actual fireground experience. PPE is not the place to save money. Buy the best you possibly can, members, members' families and those you protect are counting on you to return to quarters unharmed.

The only time "expedite" should mean anything is when you're travelling non-emergency with the flow of traffic and then the request means you upgrade. I've told dispatch upon the request to "expedite" that we're already travelling as fast as safely possible. Isn't that how we always respond when enroute to a true emergency? Requesting units "expedite" is the equivalent of yelling/screaming in the radio, basically giving those prone to excitement the adrenaline rush to throw caution to the wind as they're needed at the scene NOW!

Ah this certainly says a lot for requiring the higher level for promotion. Our system puts medics in training roles for most ALS classes and others are used for BLS training, of course on a far smaller scale, making training delivery far easier. I'll admit that the biggest issue we've had is with non-ranking medics QAing senior or higher ranking personnel, a hazard when not enough medics promote. I also agree that raising the bar, especially when you have a deep pool to choose from should only better the system. Sadly, no matter how the requirements stack up, the larger the number of personnel the more often you'll promote duds and overlook great leaders, or as most optimists would say, the more often you'll get it right!

The "National Standard" was designed to be an attainable goal for the whole country, not the gold star level of service that fits every hamlet and metro city specifically. The other thing to remember is that all NFPA standards are minimum standards, not optimal, but minimal standards meant to be achieved and built upon. I'm betting most of us have apparatus that far exceed the basic documented requirements in NFPA 1901, right? And we need the extra equipment to properly function, correct? You don't think that in a 10,000 plus firefighter sized FD, that maybe there are a few smart people looking at how best to deliver top-notched public safety with less money?

My boss reminds me almost daily that if it wasn't for the people this job would be easy! I don't know that I'd say my job was nearly as stressful as some others I know, but without a doubt some of the benefits of this job are also stressors. Most of us love coming to work knowing that we have no idea what the day will bring to a degree (as opposed to office/factory work, but on the other hand, the sudden wake-up to high stress response and highly physically demanding work under uncontrolled conditions certainly doesn't help. Add to this worried families, working holidays, missing birthdays and special events and suddenly you wonder why we do it. But, then once the bells ring, you remember why...

Guess I don't generally see the necessity of the EMS supervisor directing patient care. Fires, rescue ops and haz-mat calls tend to be multi-unit events requiring coordinated tactics involving multiple personnel to successfully mitigate an outcome. Most EMS calls require one person be in charge of one patients medical care. I'm admittedly not familiar with the specific job description of an FDNY EMS Supervisor, but in most cases EMS supervisors oversee multiple units and coordinate non-emergency stuff and once in a while supervise multi unit calls, directing units but not direct EMS patient care. Supervisors also run interference as a representative of the agency between providers and facility personnel or unhappy family members. I've never been a Paramedic and probably never will be, but I've supervised medics both under my immediate supervision and from further up, and too my knowledge not once have I had an issue where my lack of paramedicine training somehow had a negative effect on the incident or patient care. The only time it would have helped would be in cases where I was involved in direct patient care, not supervising anything but the patient. Far be it for me to say how FDNY should do it, certainly not my thought. No doubt that an organization that large must have tons of bright people looking at bettering the system for everyone (no doubt everyone has an opinion, something medics and firefighters are rarely short on) but I'm often interested in the "why" of how people do things when they seem to be out of character from what I know. What is it that FDNY Supervisors do in the field?

While we tend to embrace those that climb the ranks from bottom to top, very often a supervisor in almost any field, does not have to know everything about every facet of the field. In many Fire/EMS systems officers with lesser license levels command paramedics with no operational or supervisory issues. If an EMT cannot supervise a medic. the problem is his/her supervisory skills. Are all chief's Haz-mat tech's? How many worked in special operations? Yet they somehow can command an incident where resources area working that may have more expertise in certain areas. The same is true of EMS. If your EMT officers over step their bounds by going against a medics' patient care advice or direction, the issue is with the supervisory skill set and attitude.

For what it's worth, it appears that some EMS units from NJ did get called in and responded to NYC: http://www.firehouse.com/news/top-headlines/nj-ambulance-crews-assist-snowbound-fdnyOops! If I'd seen the other thread I'd know that it's very evident that multiple areas sent EMS crews to assist NYC, so it's appears that is not in question.

Many of the stranded skiers went on to ski the rest of the day after being rescued. Definitely a difficult incident to manage, but they do routinely drill on these rescue scenario, albeit without snow, thus everything must take a little longer.

Clearly there are times when the rules must be suspended within reason for the greater good of the masses. Most times MCI rules allow for different actions due to the overwhelming of immediate resources, I'd say this classically falls into this category unless someone can prove that NYC was negligent in not properly preparing and ramping up for the storm? As for abandoning CPR after 20 minutes? We routinely stop working codes after 20 minutes upon consult with medical control. That's with full ALS being provided, nevermind being only at the BLS level. Very rarely does a code last beyond that unless the circumstances dictate, such as a hypothermic patient. Long gone are the days when we did CPR onscene and then during the 20 minute trip to the ED (where I started).

I just purchased a copy a few years ago at a book sale for $3. Who knew it'd be an investment as well as culinary resource?

We utilize the "Urgent" message for all high priority transmissions, such as live lines down in the yard, collapse without entrapment, or other hazards to personnel on the fireground. It is taught o be used like a mayday in that you repeat it three times: "Urgent, urgent, urgent. There is a live power line laying in the yard on side 4." It is specifically not used for any member lost, trapped or otherwise as those are "Mayday" transmissions, but rather used for impending dangers. I agree that over use of the radio can complicate situations and it comes down to basic discipline and understanding what's necessary, what is not and whenever face to face is possible, using that.

I was wondering how long it'd take for someone to comment on cutting my response time in half! The insurance was cheaper buying a new home rather than a super charged buggy.

I understand the rural issue as our combo FD is still in a fairly rural area in the grand scheme of the U.S. We have outlying areas that the response time is over 12 minutes for the staffed apparatus, where the local M/A VFD responds and arrives first due for us. Our personnel are all subject to recall and due to woefully inadequate staffing, all first alarms require off duty personnel and call members respond from anywhere. My response time from home is 14 minutes (soon to be 7!). My point was just as you noted again, regardless of geography, we can all benefit from more information before arrival as opposed too less.

So few people really understand the fire service, and for that matter don't really care. As I said, 911 is called, and people show up and take care of the problem. Most of the time, they have no clue if they got good service or not. It often appears that just having the engine arrive quickly and the 1 or 2 firefighter looking busy is enough to satisfy the lay public that the FD had a "good response". Until now, most people didn't care, there were always the same few people that always complained municipal government overspent, but by in large, the public paid their taxes and accepted the service they got. Now, everyone is feeling the pinch far more than ever and many more people are demanding efficiencies. The same public who are seeing downsizing at work, re-evaluation of job classifications, pay freezes, insurance cuts, and layoffs are now saying "every dollar now counts far more than ever, I want to see efficiency for my tax dollars."

Is it possible they cannot fathom that for the amount they pay in taxes, the FD isn't ready to respond from the station 24/7 with a well trained and organized staff? Not necessarily your FD in particular, but to the general public, they only know they pay a lot and when they call 911 people all dressed similarly show up.

Sadly, the days of volunteerism in the truest sense seem to have passed us by. With more and more financial issues affected everyone, they really hit home with folks who work and then give their time for little or no pay to be members of the local FD or ambulance service. The public doesn't necessarily see that the same financial burden they feel pinches volunteer or POC firefighters/EMS personnel as well. With more people struggling to make ends meet, this scenario is only getting worse. At the same time, we've raised (rightfully) the standards for training and attendance to ensure a safer fireground. As we just saw with the Tarrytown tragedy, minimum training is a bare necessity. In appears that in many places, besides LI and Westchester, the VFD's spend exorbitant amounts of money making the FD attractive to people, using new stations, new high end apparatus, FD social clubs, etc. In the end they end up with higher numbers, but maybe not for the right reasons? Until the public understand where that money is going and can measure the results in tangible ways, they may continue to get bilked, even if it is unintentionally. One must ponder the question that most VFD's have more apparatus than they can staff, why not slim down and move active, trained personnel to fewer companies to gain a better response. Far too often we see lines of apparatus at fire scenes with all the personnel working off the same few apparatus. The days of individual fiefdoms is coming to a close and the FD's that embrace the change early will have a position much closer to the "driver" of the regionalized bus, than those who bury their heads and the sand and are dragged into the inevitable kicking and screaming, with no voice in the implementation. It amazes me when I see the Firehouse volunteer FD survey and so many VFD's have budgets far greater than that of my combo FD, and call volumes so far less. Seth's has a point that there may be other alternatives to all out paid firefighters, but the discussion needs to be with an independent public committee of citizens who have no bias, just a sense of community. Too many of us fear speaking candidly with the public about our shortcomings and service levels garnered for the money spent. I can only say, that if you fear opening the books (all of them: financial, training, incident numbers) to the public you protect, you're probably not doing anyone, but yourselves, a service. The term Public Safety indicates we're doing this for the public, be your agency municipal, private or otherwise.

While I agree that the first scenario, or both truly seem like heads up decision making, we do often have other reasons for not varying from protocols. Though it would seem the call was "obvious" sometimes and I imagine to a far greater extent in a much larger system, sticking to protocols validates them or shows the need for change. In our case, anytime the dispatcher has a "gray area" they can contact the duty officer or first due IC and tell them what they have, prompting them to make or authorize the decision. Is there no way the dispatcher could call the first due IC and say, "we're getting multiple calls and I have R3 in the area?" Again, I doubt that type of heads up call would get anyone spanked in my system, but the larger the system the more rigid the guidelines tend to be. Sometimes you have to take the rip and know you made the right call anyway, as long as humans are involved in the equation, no one will agree 100% of the time.

Our area has three dedicated mutual aid frequencies that all radios have in them (or are supposed to) aside from each FD's tactical freqs. Two are Fire/EMS channels and one is a LE freq. any can be assigned to any agency or incident by the comm center or upon the IC's request. For the day to day stuff these freqs are not used, and actually getting LE and Fire/EMS on the same is difficult. But, specifically for our dept, we have the PD's primary channel and they have ours, either can directly access each other with no permission from dispatch. We get direct info from LEO's at the scene very frequently, as well as give them info if we're requesting them to a scene where they're not present. Our state has had an interoperable comms plan for many years and all PS radios are supposed to have 5 CONOPS frequencies so that large incidents can be assigned channels that everyone has access to. Our only glitch is in the near future all State Police assets will move to the 700 mhz range, which none of the other dept's in the state are on.

We do it on all calls. For typical EMS calls we don't see the same "gawkers", traffic is barely inconvenienced, and the crew's time in the street is far less. We do send an engine on all calls in the street, such as fallen in the crosswalk, bicyclists injured in the roadway, etc. We're of course not trying to eliminate calls, being a combo career/POC staffed department, so no one is missing time from work for "needless" calls. Some days are hectic, but most days guys would rather be out doing something than in quarters.