antiquefirelt

Are you talking about taking an ambulance to an EMS call alone and leaving it and transporting with another service? Would seem to open up a huge issue? On the other had, my dept. routinely sends an ambulance to mutual aid request for ALS back-up, as often the VAC doesn't get a crew and we're left with our medic in the back of their bus with none of their licensed people, which is not allowed here. That said, we have three ALS ambulances and two vehicles available for transporting ALS personnel, so it's not often (extremely rare) that service suffers due to out of service equipment.

To the point of buying SCBA, are you looking at just SCBA or changing manufacturers and/or cylinder pressures, thereby requiring changing every SCBA plus all the spare bottles? Then if bumping to 4500 psi from 2216 could add additional expenses for cascade bottle upgrades, compressor replacement or air pressure boosters? IT doesn't take long for a wholesale change project to add up.

Good chance they cannot bill for helping people up from a fall unless they transport, at least not the patient. We have four large elderly care buildings and spend a lot of time doing the same calls. We're looking at billing facilities a nominal fee for the routine help an injured fall. Typically these places have "no list" policy for their staff driven by their workers comp insurer, so they call 911. We've heard of others doing this across the country and now here in our state, so we're investigating this to offset the overuse/abuse of a taxpayer funded emergency service.

At risk of unintentionally insulting volunteers, I might ask if the FASNY study took into account how much money would be saved in property/insurance losses if a paid staffed FD was there to effect more positive outcomes sooner? Not a knock on the potential quality of work that a VFD can accomplish, but a realistic view of how much different a fire looks at minute 4 vs. minute 12. Take the same firefighters put them in the station when the call comes in nearly every time, and see how that affects the outcomes.

With no other info I would just note that any one of us will pull off our mask when we run out of air. They listed the cause of death, not the circumstance that lead to it.

Awaiting more study o the idea. I'm not a fan of using compass bearings in any way. Noting to yourself in which direction you were travelling when you entered then requires you to correlate that direction with the known labelled side, I can see more trouble than good. A more advanced version that let you orient the "compass" to side Alpha or One before entering would then let you proceed in that direction with the labels in the unit being 1-4 or A-D?

I think this may be a tough situation, but there are so many variables at work in that fire that attributing the death of two Brother's to the poor thermal protection of their line is going to hard to show. While we have hoses fail, it's by far not a common occurrence that we plan for.

I find it pathetic when any municipal or government employee expects preferential treatment. If these are your friends, co-workers or fellow employees why would you expect them to not do their job when you make a mistake? If you get a pass, smile, privately thank the officer and then STFU about it. The more people hear about professional courtesy, the less professional the people involved look. If you get a ticket, smile, thank the officer for doing their job, STFU about it and take your lumps like anyone else.

Huh, here we have a Command SUV that is assigned to the ranking officer (Fire Chief). It has numerous pieces of equipment and information stored in it that could be very useful at most incidents, therefore it is always made available when the ranking officer is not to be available. If your Chief's don't give up the buggy, how do they justify the costs of all the equipment carried? At that point it's just a perk of the "job".

$5000 for 3000 SF isn't bad in the market, that's only $1.66 sqft. Which in our neck of the woods would be a great deal. Of course the bigger the house the better the per square foot price and the pipe and heads are the only added cost the basic system controls we all have to start with. In my eye if you're building a 3000 sqft house you can't argue the expense. Those people trying to erect 900 sqft homes on an FHA loan have a little more to complain about, but at some point people will not make the right decision when their financial situation is dire. Look at the people who choose cigarettes over their meds, or take the batteries from the smoke detectors to power the big screen TV remote. We see people put themselves and their families at much greater risk than others due to financial issues, there has to be a minimum established, and all the current codes say that includes residential sprinklers.

A big selling point for home fire sprinklers. We can't afford to let fires grow to the point where we need to escape them, as too often there won't be enough time to wake, orient and escape. Nothing we can do about existing homes, but it's time to start getting behind (or under) sprinklers.

That was our answer: no second patient. In fact it appears we have the higher price fold down seats that allow for the second patient, but no actual room to do so. The latest spec revealed we can downgrade to a different non-folding seat. Of course it helps our State EMS dropped the 2nd pt. requirement of ambulances.

Interesting. Not sure how revolutionary they are, as we have two (2009/2013) and just awarded the bid on a third that have significantly the same patient compartment. But, it would be nice to see more of these becoming the norm, if anything it should drive the cost down while improving safety. Seems our "custom" specs command premium pricing to account for "engineering".

So the option is to let your "buddy" suffer until he goes unconscious then drag him to safety? We share masks as a way of ensuring anyone, firefighter or civilian has fresh air to breathe, now we're so self centered we won't share our air? What else won't you do for your fellow firefighters? I hope I'm being over the top, but step back and read what some of you have written.

That's a pretty harsh view to take. We all take risks every day, some more than others. Would your family rather you not come home someday due to an apparatus accident? Or should we all travel with the flow of traffic? You can get yourself so worked up over the law and your own safety that the difference between a firefighter and a mailman is the uniform. How about using common sense about when to breathe air. So don't mask up, but stay out of the smoke plume, maybe put the mask up to your face to take that quick peek, even mask up if you have to crawl in. But let's be realistic about air use. I'd bet some/many/mot subject themselves to greater risk dying from an OJI from failure to train than contracting cancer from limited smoke sxposure. Of course we cannot pinpoint cancer causes, so I guess proof would be hard to come by. Presumption of cancer is somewhat tough when we got guys like the chief here, smoking? Who'll prove which smoke caused his cancer? We take risks, we should minimize risks wherever we can without sacrificing the principles of the job. While I'm with M'Ave, in not condemning these guys for lack of masks, I think they could have been better.

Interesting read, glad FF Dorner was able to walk away. Is it me or does it seem that a FD the size of Toledo could figure out a better shift assignment plan then have four FFers with less than 4 years on the job assigned to the same company? As I recall, one popular writer from Toledo a few years back published some ideas on search that basically had the searching crew doing search without any hand tools, as it sounds like was the case here? On re-read, it appears he had the irons, so? To that end Dorner notes he wished he'd brought a 4' hook to sound the floor. Unless their hooks are different than ours, I'd hope for a heavier tool to sound a floor, I wouldn't trust the weight of a hook, nevermind a 4 footer. He noted he had the irons, why not use the halligan to probe and sound ahead?

Luckily up here our Governor is taking the opposite approach. I'm not convinced it's the best thing for all of us, but we now have "Constitutional Carry": anyone who legally can possess a firearm may conceal one permit free. I personally like the permit system we had, it required some basic handling knowledge and basic legal issues instruction. It amazes me how few people understand the laws of self-defense in any given state or as a whole. It would suck to be the "good guy" that ends up imprisoned in a self-defense shooting. I guess being an unarmed victim could be worse, but...

I've participated in two tactical simulations for promotions in departments other than my own. One was to hire a career Fire Chief and the other for a lieutenants promotion process in a career FD. The aspect I thought was missing, that is a real factor, is the urgency of the situation. Candidates are very calm, collected and methodical in the simulation, almost algorithmic, whereas we know some people who are challenged on the fireground when faced with some many factors all at once. That being said, I like this better than not having any evaluation of practical tactical applications. One of the factors we use to evaluate leadership potential in firefighters is their ability to teach others. A hallmark of nearly every decent officer I've worked for or with, was their ability to pass on knowledge. Some don't have it, and that is generally reflected in how tight their crew is. Some crews have a few bright individuals that "get it", but others that don't, but where the officers are good, the baseline of the whole crew is raised.

I like a testing system that allows experience to show through but doesn't hurt an eager firefighters motivation. In as small FD like ours, this can easily be done, I'm sure it's not as easy for large metro departments to conduct a promotions process that's on the up and up, but allows for verification of a firefighters skills and abilities. I know of decent sized career FD's that stripped away so much of the experience and officer's input that the smart kids promote every time. Then there's the Detroit method: all seniority. I cannot see a no testing promotion fairly gauging one's abilities. I've seen years on the job and training certs do not equal the best candidate.

Time they start outlawing assault skid-steers. Painted green and with tracks, must be militarized, making it a much more effective killing machine! It's the Bushmaster of the earthwork industry!

Too much equipment could allow some inexperienced persons to lose sight of the big picture and become directly involved at the task level. Much like having booster reels, if it's there it can be misused where strict guidelines are not routinely followed. When the IC gets directly involved at the task level, other things get missed. And if you had it on board and did not deploy it, it could bite you. Anyone remember Dallas FD not maintaining the pumps on their quints yeas ago? Having equipment and failing to use it can become a legal nightmare when people are looking to pint the finger of blame, which is sadly becoming ever-more-present in public service.

One of the hang-ups I have is calling the "resetting the fire" exterior stream hit: "Transitional Attack". Transitional attack has been a term that far predates any of this recent UL/NIST research. many fire service authors have written text in many well worn books describing Transitional Attack as employing one mode of attack while preparing for another. Such as cautiously sending in the first line to the interior while preparing for it to be ineffective by deploying defensive lines should the need to retreat be necessary. Or, conversely, using a master stream to knockdown an appreciable amount of visible fire before committing to the interior. In fact, a quick search shows that NFPA and IAFC defined "Transitional Attack" long ago and the current recommendation of the exterior fire stream fails to meet their definition on a few fronts. In my view, the proper employment of the exterior stream should and will become just another step among those employed during a direct attack (offensive). Sometimes this step will be indicated, others times it will not, but it will not in and of itself, be a true mode of attack and thus should not be so named as to elevate its emphasis too greatly. Ultimately, I think this terminology leads to some of the skeptism as firefighters see us "abandoning the offensive attack for a transitional one", which really does not describe what is really indicated. We're merely indicating a "new" step along the way to the seat of the fire that will reduce temp's and speed our ability to get to the seat. At no time should this be taken to mean stop at the outside stream step and flow until the fire only needs mop up.

Sometimes, even in this scenario, putting water on the fire may be the best initial action. In our FD, we heavily refer to the 5 Basic Concepts laid out in Chapter 1 of the Fire Officer's Handbook of Tactics: 1. When proper manpower isn't available to do both rescue and extinguishment at the same time, rescue must be given priority. 2. When you don't have sufficient manpower to perform all the need tasks, perform those first that protect the greatest number of lives. 3. Remove those in greatest danger first. 4. When you have the staffing to do both rescue and fire attack at the same time, they must be coordinated. 5. Where there is no threat to occupants, firefighters lives should not be unduly endangered. Again, understanding the conditions you face, the actual time to effect the rescue and a the likely challenges facing a "rescue only" approach may indicate that controlling the fire is the most appropriate first action. How imminent is the threat to the know rescue? Will you be able to make it? Will your actions make conditions worse such that an unsuccessful attempt will seal the victims fate? There is no one answer, except hoping the person making the decision at that moment is at the top of their game.

I stand corrected, I should refrain from the use of the words "always, never, and only" as they often are too restrictive when applied to opinions and commentary. I guess I've not been exposed to very many firefighters who believe that "all defensive" is right or where we're heading. I have seen some arguments made that in some cases it is felt that new construction dictates a far less aggressive approach or almost a defensive unless rescue approach, but typically limited to new lightweight constructed unprotected residential structures. I think these also focus on too narrow a view of research. There is no way we can apply a one tactic fits all approach, not even to a particular structure. We need to instead be better at size-up, understanding how fire grows and spreads, appropriate tactics and the proper time and place for each tactic. Ultimately, I think we'll find that those who believe in the all one way or predominantly defensive approach will not prevail, as the American Fire Service still appears to attract mostly type "A" people who anticipate having to extend greater risk for others is part of the job. Not reckless risk, but more than the average person. Fires, buildings and human behavior is far too dynamic for a one size fits all approach.

I think that is the real crux of this. We're looking at a very small piece that came out of these research burns. The research really starts with scientifically (and importantly- repeatable methodology) showing the changes/clarifications in our fire environment on numerous fronts: building contents/fuel load that result in dramatically faster heat release rates (HRR), the building itself, and the effects of all ventilation (not just as a specifically employed tactic) on the fire and conditions within the structure. We're getting stuck on one small item that has been identified as a way to address these faster HRR's that cause untenable conditions sooner, in structures that due to new building practices may fail so much faster it almost coincides with FD arrival. Failure to understand that fires in buildings are changing as opposed to the ones that much of our previous tactics were born from. This is not in anyway to say we've got to start from scratch, this means we need to adjust where tactically necessary based on understanding our "workplace" better. There is a ton of information out there, and I've read, heard, discussed, seen, and tried a lot, of which was likely just a scratch on the surface. But in that time, I've yet to see anyone participating in the research advocate fighting all fires from the exterior. The only people saying this are really people immediately pushing back against change, anticipating the "Safety Sally's" are taking over and telling us interior attack is too dangerous. The only legitimate tactic that I've seen recommended by any credible source has been employing an exterior stream to quickly reduce the energy from a venting fire. This appears to have come from NIST's research showing that properly employed, the stream will not push fire or steam viable occupants to death, removing those concerns that often prevented us from doing this before. There are specific parameters for employing this tactic (when, where, how) and also very often noted that it should not cause noticeable delay in the initial interior stretch. Reducing the heat in the interior, where applicable, is not because firefighters are becoming "wimpy" but in fact, because they recognize that the risks to occupants and firefighters alike continue to grow as heat rises. We now know that if the temp is "X" right now, it will likely grow as soon as we open the front door to take that first line in, and continue to rise sharply until we get water on the fire. Having given the same fire a quick shot of water, we may be able to move in to the seat faster. This should be the goal, remove the energy to speed our path to the seat of the fire, not to extinguish the fire from the yard.