antiquefirelt

I agree you can call the accountability tag taker the RUL or Sally or Joe, but it will still be someone's specific role unless it goes unassigned. In our case, the S.O. (all Capt.'s) is this person unless he assigns an accountability person. In my mind, and I guess that of those before our current admin, accountability is paramount to safety. It does not relieve the company officers, the IC or other officers of their responsibility to keep track of their personnel and stick to their assignments.I said 98% because 99.9% seemed almost a cliche. In fact we might use the planning section 1 or 2 times a year counting any full scale WMD/Haz-mat exercises we participate in. Our team covers 3-4 counties plus overlapping another 3 or so, allowing for an above average number of NIMS compliant drills. It's a wonder our guys remember what to do when there's smoke showing, but that's a different problem all together. My only disagreement is your last statement about 98% of runs not needing ICS. Maybe not ICS as we've been teaching it with NIMS, but both FD's I've been a member of have always believed in clear leadership and any form of rank structure and accountability to a higher rank to me, smacks of ICS. You may not call your day to day operations ICS, but I'm betting they fit nicely into the ICS principles. Upon arrival is not one person incharge? Maybe a higher ranking officer comes in and may or may not take control? Do members follow assigned task and report to their officer and not end run to the IC? Contrary to what guys from the Left Coast say, ICS didn't begin with FIRESCOPE or any wildfires. We have all seen Currier and Ives pictures proving that ICS was around before the turn of the last century. And no offense taken on the Maine to Hawaii.IDTIP In fact I wondered how you knew I'd be going to Hawaii next month for vacation?

Due to semantics or lack of detailed questioning we maybe aren't talking about the same "whole picture" accountability that you and Barry note. Without a doubt, the tags, which are inanimate objects do not make for a system, it takes training, personal responsibility, discipline and leadership for true accountability to be realized. A few of us have shown the equipment and basic premise of our accountability systems. It should go without saying, though I know full well it isn't across the board, that knowing where your personnel are is a huge part of actual accountability. Freelancing is not the fault of an accountability system, not knowing who's assigned to what task is not a failure of the accountability system, they're both failures of the incident command system. Please forgive the lack of 100% buy in to NIMS for all incidents. The use of ICS is automatic on every incident and has been long before NIMS. Regardless of who is responsible for resources at a Type III or greater incident, 98% of our runs do not involve a planning section, so the RUL will not be specifically designated. But as with any ICS/NIMS system, the structure is modular and based on span of control, will grow as needed with those positions needed filled. I doubt any of us are really thinking the RUL in the planning section will every be directly responsible for know who is in what corner of a building at any moment. A safety officer or call him, accountability officer will. As with anything in ICS, if it falls under your area of responsibility and you don't delegate it, it's yours. As for Barry's scenario: if we overlay the normal ICS structure and responsibilities onto a well implemented tag system, and ensure the dept has instilled discipline at all levels, then you can have a decent total accountability system. We don't rely on tags to keep track of where people are, this is the function of each company officer, assigned sector officers (now group/division)and the IC. There are electronic systems that provide more information, but we still will need a back-up to the electronics as we see failures every day that have life altering implications (see Toyota) I've yet to see an electronic solution to freelancing or ensuring members follow the rules, though since I'm going out to dig up my dog's underground fence for yet another repair, I'm starting to hatch an idea! PASS?PAR systems with elecrtic behavior modification!

Two tag system. Tag has Rockland FD on one side, your name on the other. First tag is placed on either the apparatus you ride in on or for off duty and call members coming to second alarm+ incidents, they tag the attack engine or tower ladder. This tag shows you're on the fireground. If your on a hydrant engine, your tag is there. Second tag is placed on a traffic cone at the point of entry to the building. This cone is placed by either the first in officer or the Safety Officer if the cone had not been placed (slight hole in the system. If you enter any door without a cone, you have a third tag which is larger, Orange and says "TAG IN" on it. It features a loop of cord and a draw-tite on one end and a metal key loop on the other. This allows it to be hung on door knobs, ladders, porch railings, etc and leaves the metal key loop to clip onto. We've found the key to making it work, is doing it all the time. Alarms, MVA's, you name it, we need to tag the truck and place the cone if going inside. Without doing it routinely, we fail to do it when it's real! I must admit, this is one of our biggest weaknesses. This system replaced a common one I see, which is after a fireground catastrophe, you send a member back to the station to see who's gear is one the wall, and figure they're likely OK!

Yankees?!? The last picture I believe is Metz showing off how their turntable leveling system works. Go Sox!

I think if L4 is only a 75 footer, they may not have gained all that much. When taking into account both height and setback, aerial length gets shortened up quickly. Trust me, you can't imagine how many times I had to school citizens and sadly a few firefighters, on the Pythagoreum Theorem when we were speccing our TL. "But we don't have any 95 foot tall buildings?"

Here's where the Metz tends to miss the mark from an american firefighting standpoint. The waterway runs up he inside of the already narrow ladder, the bucket doesn't have a gun such that we are used to on most towers, I think it attaches below the bucket through the rungs? So you do not have the same control as you would from the bucket. The bucket is exactly like a shopping cart, very small and getting one victim in with two firefighters in the bucket would be about max. So you take the bucket off to perform "continuous rescue" down the stick, but the side rails are short and the ladder is narrow and anyone not used to climbing an aerial might take exception to this. It is fast to set up and the aerial can be on the ground and back up like no other aerial device I've seen. Here's a couple of pics from the 2008 NE Fire Chief's Show

If my "Google-Foo" and HS geometry doesn't fail me, it looks like a 95-100 aerial anywhere on the street beyond "the tree" would have allowed for access to the peak of the roof. I know it seems easy to say on the computer from miles away, but I like to see a large empty spot where a ladder should be regardless if you own one or have one on your first due assignment. It's just good practice to always be thinking "I need to leave room for a ladder". So, not to pick apart any one, we should all look at the pictures and think could this happen to us if our first due ladder was OOS or delayed? I know one of our crews blocked out a mutual aid ladder just last week, while ours was OOS, excrement happens. I also know it will not happen again on that shift! And I agree a TL on late roofs would be a real benefit. I'm not a big fan of venting from a stick as I rarely see a decent hole unless the pitch allows the roofman to be on the surface itself. Was this roof fully sheathed or skip sheathed?

Good stuff. It's truly important to have guys on the fireground or enroute who know the issues that can and will arise. This is why all our aerial operators must spend "extra" time on the road getting used to making sets and seeing the places where they can anticipate difficulty. On my job we run the tower out first (one house town)followed by the first due engine and the ambulance. This ensures we get the best set possible. There are also places we stage the tower back to ensure we get an up close read on the building before committing to a certain entrance or narrow street. Same goes for one ways where turning around or backing out would be the only option to get to a parallel street.

No doubt sometimes the cards just don't deal in our favor. It certainly looks like this went as well as could have been "played". Is there a chance that the OOS TL would have been in sooner to get a better position if it had been in service? It looks like it would have taken getting in the driveway to eat up some of that setback? I assume your lawns are like our right now and wouldn't allow a truck off the pavement? This begs another question: can or could you put the aerial on the lawn if that's what it took? Some FD's do not allow this, others seem to do this with relative frequency.

Not to be the wet blanket, but it doesn't look like L4 got a very good spot to me? Looks like it's well off the incoming corner and the pics look as if the aerial wasn't able to place the FFer's where they needed to be to effect any real vent? Maybe there's some time missing in the pics where the aerial went closer to the ridge and the vent is part of what's burning in later shots?I'm not saying it wasn't a good job, and the ground laddering is a refreshing sight, but I'm skeptical on the aerial. No good deed goes unpunished. Sorry, I'm an ordained minister in the Church of the Painful Truth.

I'm personally not a big fan of Metz aerials for most places, but from what I know of Spring Valley, it's as close to a perfect fit as any in a non-rural setting. The Metz excels at maneuverability due to it's size and weight. Couple this with an ALF MM tower down the street just a few blocks, some sort of aerial a few more blocks from that and at least another MM Peirce tower on the other end of town, and you have a truck that can get a position where the other can't. Nice to have that ability even if the actual functionality is somewhat limited.

OK after reveiwing the NFPA standards is appears these suits are designed specifically for CBRN response and geared toward LE ops. NFPA 1994 covers this and the suits are Class 2 meaning their targeted for rapid operations like immediate rescues or SWAT ops, etc. They specifically do not certify these for typical incidents requiring vapor protection. It looks like the vapor protection these suits provide will allow for the quick assessment, immediate rescue or rapid mitigation action all which can be done in a limited time. This is haz-mat risk/benefit. Typically suiting out in Level A to make rescues will most likely result in more deaths if they were at all imminent to begin with. My old fire investigation partner is now the regional DEA supervisor, I'll have to ask him about their Meth lab take down team using these. We embrace the 3/30 principle with regard to immediate actions. Basically if a victim is conscious and breathing in the atmosphere, it is safe enough to don SCBA tape the gloves and boots to your bunkers and make the rescue. This to the consternation of many WMD/Haz-mat drill evaluators who want to "kill" our people, while the "victims" remain viable with no SCBA? We usually win the argument and tell the evaluators to have a reality check.

SageVigiles: Thanks, the HZ9420 Multi-Threat Suit certainly looks as though it meets the parameters outlined by 16Fire5. I've never seen a non-encapsulating suit that met the Level "A" standards, but it looks as though this does, albeit it may be limited to specific materials. I'm going to have to pass this on to the Haz-mat gurus, who'll probably look at me like I've been freeze dried or doing hard time for not knowing about these. But who knows, it may be new by them as well.

I'd be interested if anyone could find out who makes this? Typically Level A means total encapsulation, no moving parts or body parts outside the suit. In fact, it almost seems impossible as then the SCBA mask would have to be tested and certified for particular chemicals as the suits are? Non-encapsulating level "B", no problem! Got some, though nothing with turnout material exterior? Must be heavier?

Unless something has changed, you cannot take the WMD Technician program unless you are a Tech (which you are). It maybe that you can now take a "soup to nuts" course there that makes you a tech, then puts you through the WMD class and live agent training? There are a whole host of programs there that benefit from persons from multiple fields attending. The IC program works much better when you have actual people from all the supporting agencies to "play out" that role. It's amazing how little many of us know about the others capabilities and responsibilities. This education alone is worth the trip for those with daily command staff responsibilities. Needless to say I learned how different the Red Cross is large urban areas as opposed to those we deal with up in the NE corner!

While I hadn't taken this as pointed at me or my dept directly I will at least respond for those who may be in the same boat as us.Our FD cannot comply in full with NFPA 1710/1720 as of yet, as is the case with at least 85% of career FD's, never mind combo's or volunteer outfits. This does not mean in anyway that we're any less committed to the job, our citizens or our personnel. In our case we are slowly showing the public and politicians what it takes to ensure a safe adequate response, as we cannot "force" change to happen before the taxpayers can and will pay for it. We still do the best with what we have, knowing full well we undermine our arguments as we prove that doing more with less is often possible. We don't hesitate to show failures or less successful outcomes where staffing increases would have lead to greater success either. Specific to this thread, we have considered walking away from the WMD/Haz-mat "business" given the time spent maintaining this capability. Trust me I've tried! My boss says I'm too anti-haz mat, to which I say I'm not but I'm far more "pro-fire" and would rather spend the valuable training time there. But even I must acknowledge that the problem is we have no other response agency within 60 minutes of us. With a few large industrial operations in town, we'll always have to have a haz-mat response capability, so we're in it, whether we like it or not. Even if we thought we could get out, Haz-mat is in our department's mission as required by City charter, so it's not our choice alone. I cannot apologize for trying to provide the best training and equipment to our FD and service functionality to our citizens for a mission we've been tasked with by the community. While I'd personally like to ditch haz-mat, I certainly won't condone doing it half-baked.

I certainly didn't take Chief Fitz's comments personally or even directed as such. I just considered my first comments and wanted to be sure no one thought I was advocating for a free vacation. We have changed a a lot of our Haz-Mat program from what our personnel have learned through these schools. Without a doubt, we question the WMD end of things up here, but without the funding most haz-mat teams couldn't hope to be as functional as they now are with added resources and training. All of this training and equipment of course assists us on "normal" haz-mat jobs which do happen even up here. I'd be lying if I didn't admit that our Chief's have often discussed not taking some of the available funding as we don't see oursleves as the tip of the WMD saber, but alas, we've had a few locals (in our Haz-mat first due) that were on their way to at least arming themselves as domestic terrorists. Recently a guy 20 miles north of us in Belfast was arrested with "dirty bomb" materials after his estranged wife turned him in. What his intentions were I do not recall, but I'm certain it's not gone to court yet. We were just discussing the terrorists yesterday with a Lt. from Portland who was conducting our annual airport response refresher program. Being a first due mutual aid responder to our regional airport requires this. Anyway, Portland jetport has undergone, as have all airports, a significant change in security measures. We had an A/C who swore he saw Mohammed Atta at the grocery store on 9/10/01 . While it was actually possible given his travel from Canada to the Portland Super 8, it became a great source of amusement here! We had a comic sketched of this particular A/C with Atta, Hitler,and Osama all in line behind him at the checkout.

Thankfully as I posted above, this has not been our experience in most of these programs. Only one that I attended had a few people that had no business being there and they were basically treated as such (to the point that it was uncomfortable). Granted this may have changed in the last couple of years as with many programs they need to fill slots to keep their funding. I have seen plea's from our State coordinator for qualified applicants to sign up for programs. But the courses and instructors are pretty top notched, and no one want them wasting their time on guys looking for a buff vacation. The whole "free" thing is great for agencies that are cash poor. It is not meant to attract every firefighter out there. Most of us do not have training budgets to sustain sending many personnel away in the middle of a budget year. Add to that contractually required incentives and it's not just the days off paid that need to be factored. While having been to these programs we are advocates, we could never have given these opportunities to as many of our personnel with only our city budget.

This is a great point. Our personnel have had this opportunity as we are one of 13 State recognized WMD/Haz-mat teams. This entails signing an MOU that we'll go anywhere the state requests us at any time. Every member is at least a Haz-mat tech/FF2/EMT or higher. Most of the guys in any of the classes I've attended were not buffs or "I fight what you fear" t-shirt vollies, but were in fact members of actual response teams or entities that had a true stake in emergency ops. These course are definitely not all expenses paid weekend fire attack schools!

About four of our guys have been to Nevada and another 2 or 3 to New Mexico. Nearly all of our career personnel have been to Anniston at least once, half twice and a few three times. I've to Carlin/Elko NV for the flammable fuels program. All schools are top notch and fully paid by Uncle Sam (you and me!)

They seem to be the latest name in looking to acquire LTI. In the last few years it's been speculated that Rosenbaurer would like to have LTI, as well as even a few that currently produce their own. LTI regardless of their later ALF affiliation, has typically been held in high regard. Owning them takes away a sought after aerial from other builders as well as gives the winning company a solid aerial reputation to work with. There has also been speculation that Zimmerman may buy the business back and become a third party aerial company again, offering better options for some of the other "regional" builders. Many smaller companies are not happy that RK is pretty much the only aerial they have to offer given a widespread low confidence in the product.

"Company Staffing" is really not a reality for us. Our shifts run 6 on duty during the day and 5 at night. First due apparatus for the shift are our Squad, Tower and one rescue (ambulance). Call members and off duty personnel respond a second engine on all first alarms. All duty personnel are assigned duties per their seating assignment which includes tool assignment and fireground function. Basically the first arriving personnel focus on stretching the first line and making the primary search. Of course the difficulty is prioritizing functions, which most often has to be done by the initial IC. Rescue and and fire confinement are at the top of the list and the IC must determine if he can complete both at once or needs to focus on one or the other. We'd be fooling ourselves to think we could meet 1710/1720 but that is of course the goal of all our personnel from the call division to the Union through the Chief of Dept. Right now, keeping what we have is the best we can do with some slight hope for the future. We've had 4 personnel leave in the past 12 months and we've been very relieved that we were allowed to fill those slots without to much hassle. On Wed. I worked an OT slot and the shift consisted of myself, one lieutenant, one EMS only medic(4 months on), one firefighter (with 4 months on here)and a guy working his first day as a firefighter. After a few BS runs, we had a cardiac arrest that we all ran on. While working the code, we got tapped for structure fire. In the meantime another of our newbie's had arrived at the EMS run to assist, and the Lt and I had to take the fire alone, with the recalled crew who had just be toned out to report to the station. Long story bearable, 1st floor room and contents fire in brand new 1400 foot modular cape, searched and extinguished with 6 personnel onscene. Meanwhile our four newest personnel missed their first working fire, but actually had a code save so all wasn't lost. Problem was the City Council loves that crap. Talk about more with less! They won't understand the little girl who discovered the fire and closed the door to the bedroom before grabbing her little brother and getting out had more to do with saving the house and occupants than we did. Without that door closed we'd have needed a lot more help of which was not within 8 minutes of arrival!

So you're committing between 6-8 firefighters to the first line? Huh, must be pretty important to get water on the fire! I like to use you guys (FDNY) as an example when teaching/speaking about the importance of the first line. If FDNY uses the first two engines to ensure placement of the first line, why are much less staffed FD's stretching multiple lines before the first is even flowing? Far too often we see small career, combo or volunteer FD's assign two firefighters to the the first line. These guys beat themselves up in good shape if the fire is above the first floor and around ore than one corner from the entrance door, yet helping this line becomes secondary to the "all important" back-up line, who by now is more likely to be needed.

We subscribe to the same theory of two lines from the one engine max, but it has little to do with pump capacity. Our 1250 gpm pumps could supply 5-6 1.75" handlines where the hydrant system supports it. The issue is over reliance on one hydrant, one hydrant line, one pump, and one pump operator. A failure of any of these things will affect everyone connected to that pump. While it would be nice to always stretch the second line from a separate engine (in case two lines are needed) in reality the first two invariably end up off the first due 95% of the time. Subsequent lines require a separate source.

I figured there was a better explanation, that certainly seems to be a well thought out plan. Today you never know, it seems laying lines can even become a "lost art", and laying dual lines just makes some folks heads spin!