antiquefirelt

While you certainly have a point, many career firefighters I know who volunteer on days off have no desire to hold any rank in the VFD. Sometimes it's nice to make a stretch, feel some heat and narrow your focus... Of course most of the people I know haven't had any real issues and often are "consulted" onscene vs. bossed around, which I'd be fine with as long as people understand their actual responsibilities. I personally don't volunteer on the side, as I could not hope to make the local VFD's training's enough. It was suggested the "rules would be relaxed" which was all the more reason to decline the offer. Great bunch of guys, I live across the street from the FH, took many training classes from their chief, taught many of their firefighters/officers and live with the D/C's daughter . Still I'm opposed to any special deals, treatments or considerations. We wouldn't do them at work, I wouldn't want to compromise someone else's integrity even if they didn't care themselves. Since they border our municipal lines we are the first M/A units called anyway.

Years ago we were told that all MVA's are considered potential haz-mat incidents, so you can see where that would take you... Up here in the Northeastern corner state, this is an old argument with little resolution. Most VFD's argue that nothing over awareness is mandated, while most career FD's, DEP and EMS folks say Ops is the minimum to respond for PD, Fire and EMS. Of course not even 75% have Ops, so the argument has yet to be successfully answered despite years of battle between the State Fire Chief's and the DOL.

I'd agree there. Passing on knowledge is probably one of the most important roles an officer has. Nothing like an officer who takes the time to ensure his/her people understand their jobs (and his). To be a Fire Officer 1 per NFPA standards you must have Fire Instructor 1. There are plenty of great firefighters who promoted only to realize they weren't good officers, if you can't help your firefighters be great too, who will?

Cisterns are a great option as often fire ponds are hard (read expensive) to insure for private owners. In may area if you want a subdivision where there's no city water the three options are: fire pond, cistern or sprinklers. In our City the only option is sprinklers as we passed full adoption of the current Life Safety Code requiring new one and two family dwellings be sprinklered.

Interesting issue as two things seem to be significant factors. One the available water to fill the LDH is a concern if you're trying to get water to the scene engine who's tank is emptying. But once the tankers start supplying the supply engine, the friction loss is far less in LDH. We can send more water further with LDH. Knowing your system's limitations would be the key.

While we all seem to know the election of officers is outdated at best, dangerous at worst, there's still a large segment that believes this is a valid process. Similarly, the two standards in combo dept's really is the only realistic way for the volunteer/POC guys to have any officers. I'm not saying I agree with two standards, as I do not, but I do understand reality, which says a guy that works 40-50 hours a week and has to meet the same standards as our career officers will not find time for anything else. Reality says it's far "easier" to attend training, gain more experience and study when it's your primary job. The issue is that we've collectively raised the standards of officership of the fire service and exist in a far more aware world where we know that not only is it safer for our personnel to be lead by better qualified officer, but legally we'll be held to the higher (highest?) standards. Higher standards are better for us as a whole and the public.

Our Combo FD is changing from a mixed bag of POC officers and career officers to all career. As of now we have one POC captain and three POC Safety Officers. Two of the three SO's are retired Asst Chief from the career division. Career officers include three lieutenants, three assistant chiefs and the Chief of Department. All career officers are chosen after meeting the minimum requirements and taking written and oral board exams. In the past POC officers had to meet different minimum criteria and are appointed. The issue for us is that rank is rank and having POC captain's outranking career lieutenants who have far more training, testing and OJT puts them in a difficult position. While they all understand their rank, they also are very aware that they area also responsible, so pulling rank is never an issue and generally the best person for the IC's job, is the one who has command. Anything above a still alarm gets a career chief officer even if it from off duty. Our system is functional, but less than ideal. It's tough having two divisions period. Integration is very problematic when it nearly impossible to hold both to the same criteria. While many of our Union would like to see the POC's go away, it would only mean relying on mutual aid POC's that we have far less control over...Not a good solution.

Not trying to infer anything Brother, just stating that apparatus costs can obviously be all over the board, depending on who is doing the speccing. I'd say in 99% of the cases the apparatus committee is most responsible for the final price of the apparatus relative to the actual prices of products, materials, and build costs. The problem I see is that purchases like this can haunt you later with taxpayers as they start to feel the pinch of the economy. Kicking and screaming over the engine forced upon the FD, at the cost of over $600K will only add salt to the wound. Situations being as different as they are, we'd be repairing our apparatus with duct tape if it would ensure we'd keep our staffing at the understaffed level we are today. We have the faith of the majority of our tax base, owed to working hard to keep their trust with reasonable capital requests, cost cutting efforts and a truly transparent budget and spending policies. I wouldn't trade that trust for any shiny trucks no matter who's badge was on the grill. Sometimes you just have to take a page from our brothers across the pond and keep a stiff upper lip!

It's really not a big concern or mine, but it shows the typical thought process of many taxpayers may not be far off. First are you sure it wasn't Bill Peter's? Second, the paint alone probably costs an additional $15K as I recall this is special metallic flake paint? And was the final cost not $1.2 million or more? What ever, hopefully it works out well and your have enough people to man it in a timely manner. But it's not hard to see why there'd be some questions about the fire district's spending. BTW consultants are not necessarily hired to save you money. In fact if you have it, they'll gladly help you spend it. Most really help you with the things you have little or no clue about, but rearely would discourage adding things regardless of cost, unless your budget was shot. So unless you handed Peter's a real short list of what you wanted and said design us a TL, I doubt the cost has much to do with him. Look at what his FD buys, and I bet they run a few more fires than TFD?

Interestingly, we were at ALF speccing our tower right after Tarrytown got their's and one of the engineers was getting ready to work with representatives of the Saudi Arabian delegation to build two towers and he noted that they'd have to really work to spend more money than Tarrytown per truck!

Amen.

Of course the answer is clearly part of a well designed apparatus plan which comes as no surprise. Given that we have a 2006 ALF Eagle/LTI tower that's had minor issues this had piqued my interest.

I'm interested to know if their were issues with the 2006 Squad 11 or if the replacement unit will add specific equipment and capabilities that the other didn't have? We actually looked and used verbiage from the ALF SQ11 specs when we were speccing our SQ3 but we had it built by Toyne.

In looking at the photo series on FH.com, I didn't think it looked all that compact. Sure it's slightly less in depth, but minimally compared to a 4500 psi 30 min. cylinder. Anyone know this one's rated capacity? Pics compare it to 45 min 4.5 bottles. Also, It looks like it covers your back like a backpack, which will be much hotter for the 75% of time you're not actually in the real heat of the fire. Also it's fairly long overall. On the plus side, it looks like there's not much to get hung up on with falling cables, wires and drop ceiling grid. It's certainly a step in making the next generation, but I'm skeptical. I've yet to see anything that would make me switch from the wire frame Scott 4.5, maybe I'm showing my age?

I'll guarantee there's very little in a $620K engine vs. a $320K engine that will greatly help it's service life. Anyone who's planning on a new apparatus being a 20-25 year investment, regardless of the cost, is going to be sadly disappointed. The new trucks will need major electrical overhauls much sooner than years past, and most body materials are inferior to years past. The difference between the 15 year replacement and the 30 year plan is almost always the end users and their PM program.

Damn, whining about a $620K engine? Get a real problem. While many of us wouldn't want a Beta model engine, Crimson has built plenty of apparatus to be a significant contender. Having looked into them a bit for our last purchase, the only downside I ever heard of was regarding local dealers, nothing about the builder.

While we're being realistic, we must not lose sight of having higher goals and standards for ourselves. Many communities do what's easiest, not what's best for them. These means excuses of multiple tones, over-reliance on mutual aid (taxing other communities resources) and failing to properly train and equip their firefighters. A good part of the time, it's the FD leadership who has failed to fight for what was needed. When the new guy comes in and tells the community that they're all F'ed up and need to spend some money, they resent him/her and want the old Chief back. Cheaper is usually easier.But to agree with you I'd say that many of us cannot do anymore than the taxpayers will allow, the real question is are you (your FD) being honest with the taxpayers, town councilors and your own personnel? There's an excellent article in April's FE on staffing and how it relates to nearly every fireground death. I've said it before, I'm certain we can link staffing issues to most LODD's and injuries, very often directly.

I agree 100%, and my comment was directed specifically at the poster of the "Like it or not" scenarios. Whatever the system is vol. or career, it must put a greater number of adequately trained firefighters at the job sooner than the average out there today.

Saving libraries is not uncommon. Those that directly support the libraries tend to be a close knit group who turn out to town meetings and bring their voters. These aren't employees but donors, supporters and volunteers that tend to carry some favor with town councils. The library in our town seems to be way over funded when Fire and Police jobs are on the line. no one wants to hear how irrelevant the internet has made the libraries. And try getting statistics on how often their used... It always amazes me to see the turnout in communities when the library is threatened, but the near empty room as emergency services get drained.

Once you give up, all is lost. Maybe it's time to hang it up? Like it or not, better staffing of trained firefighters will save more lives and property. But I guess that isn't what it's really about eveywhere or to everyone now is it?

I have to agree with JFLYNN, speculation will not help us. I'd even go further to say, that while all texts, programs and training are quick to point out secondary devices and warn first responders of ongoing dangers, our risk is likely still no greater than the typical American. We are informed responders, we should never be unsuspecting victims. This obviously is an across the board statement, as the dangers of this job do not start nor end with things that go boom. Those who think they know it all should leave emergency work now and stop burdeneing us with their complacency. Causing death to emergency forces will strike no more fear into the country as a whole, than hurting civilians. We're still considered by many to have assumed heighten risks that accompany running toward emergencies when the public runs away. So while it's smart or even required to be fully aware situationally, I hesitate to consider us actual premeditated targets.

Not to take anything away from anyone involved, but there does seem to be differing stories on how this call was taken. There's at least one civilian who's stating he saw smoke coming from the vehicle and heard popping noises? Maybe he reported it to the officer who then took the appropriate actions to get units mobilized and civilians away. Nonetheless, a great response by NYC's emergency forces and I dare say the follow-up is likely to be better than had this been nearly anywhere else.

I'm still baffled by the guys that argue that they can't mask up while seatbelted and the time saved is truly too valuable to wait until they arrive to pull on the straps. This is sort of like the argument that masking up in the cab saves valuable time. All BS! We assume a bit of risk for people we ask no questions about on a routine basis (some more routine than others!)but I consider the time belted in and the time I take to mask up, MY TIME! This is my commitment to myself, my brothers and my family. Sorry if I take 15 seconds more than some hot shot in some city to come to your aid. I don't see many arguing we should drive faster to calls or blow intersections to save time, as I think the general population understands the risks. But for some reason we can argue that either waiting for guys to strap in first or don SCBA on arrival is jeopardizing lives? And masking up before seeing hte building with an unfettered view? Nonsense. I was being quite conservative when I said 80% compliance. I'm convinced that I have 99% compliance with no ill feelings on my tour and I'm betting it doesn't dip much on the other two if at all. It is part of our culture. Our people know they must wear their seatbelts 100% of the time or face disciplinary actions. All officers know that they face stiffer disciplinary actions if they fail to enforce the seatbelt rule. Then maybe we're just lucky, 'cause I've yet to hear anyone even disagree in the slightest manner. Try to get them to wear motorcycle helmets on their days off though... Like asking them to give up their first born.

Interesting that they'd need a different law? Doesn't MA have a seatbelt law for all vehicles like the rest of us? If there's a seatbelt exemption, could it not be removed? This is why there no common sense left in government, because we'll wait until it's absolutely the law, when we actually know we should just do it anyway. I mean no disrespect to any FD but if you can't get 80%+ compliance with seatbelts you have a leadership problem. Either the leadership doesn't care enough about the issue, when they should or they lack the ability to ensure compliance with the rules.

I'd say if you did he same thing with no fire training or experience, you'd not be taking a calculated risk, but just a risk. You cannot know enough of the variables if you've not had prior training and experience. While you may "calculate" the risks, your math would be far further off than someone who understands the variables better.It may be no less a selfless act, possibly more as you would have nothing but the pure balance of your life for another. Understanding smoke travel, speed, velocity, intensity, smells, sounds, building construction and having seen these situations before allows a trained firefighter far greater chances of successfully analyzing the risk/benefits vs. just "someone's in there".