antiquefirelt

Sounds like you guys had your hands full and made a good job of it. Not trying to criticize, but I' having a hard time understanding the above statement? Generally, LDH exceeds in low pressures situations where the smaller diameter creates far more friction loss to move the same amount of water?

We run an annual Countywide Ops refresher with 5 stations: Placard identification and ERG use, damming and diking, patient decon, Team Decon and one where crews go over a fuel delivery or gasoline tanker truck. This even takes about 6 hours and we run about 60 personnel through each time. With more people you need more stations and instructors. I've run the ERG/Placarding station for a few years and it proves to be necessary each time.

Not from Stamford, but our last two and likely all new apparatus will have roll-up doors. The overhead space taken up is about 14x14" on ours with a full height door(the taller the door the bigger the roll). In our case the space where this "drum" is, is not usable in much practical manner. The area is over 6 ft. from the ground and represents a shelf space that cannot be reached by all personnel. Using this space as part of the above coffin compartments is one possibility, but if the coffin floor is below the walking surface by much distance, it too becomes very hard to remove items from. So in our case, the benefits of the roll-ups were seen as far better than the swing outs that we've been damaging, not to mention the maintenance of hinges and latches, though time will tell on the roll ups.

Submit it to the insurance company. Computers, TV's, and most electronic devices do not fair well in smoke conditions, the time they'll work after being exposed to smoke it uncertain. My understanding is that the small particulate left behind messing with transistors/resistors/doodads/and thing-a-ma-bobs that making them work.

Exactly, we know arson and other deliberate or human element fires are difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as much of the evidence is often consumed and the many of the numerous other causes are not as easy to disprove depending on the amount of damage. I know many prosecutors up this far North are most often looking for plea deal as the final guilty verdict is a long shot. It's very frustrating when you know you have a guilty person by a hard time with physical evidence. Again, this in no way is a defense of the decision, but a rational reality view of our business.

I am by no means agreeing with the decision to throw out the verdict, but to answer Seth's question on what evidence was missing I'd offer this. Proving exactly how a fire occurred, traveled, and progressed to a jury or judge is difficult enough. We're not talking about most likely occurred, but exactly. Now enter in that they need to prove how the illegal renovations were directly responsible for the situation is a tall order. It shouldn't be, we know that the situation created made for conditions that could not be readily predicted, but the defense merely needs to show that another contributing factor may have helped cause the outcome? While I doubt anyone in our business would agree with the defense attorneys, I can see them making a case that fireground decisions led to the outcome or could have prevented the same. Most of the civilian population wouldn't understand why firefighters had to search when a tenant told them the building or units were unoccupied, and numerous other potential red flags to be thrown to create a diversion from the fact that the landlords illegal construction had a direct impact on the members situational awareness and ability to escape. Couple this with the potential case law that if buildings are that are not code complaint cause an injury or death the landlord/owner could be criminally responsible and it's almost a given that our liberal masters would let this slide.

We had a very similar experience. It seemed like a potential way of covering shortfalls, but it the end the amount recouped would not be worth the added paperwork and time. Our haz-mat responses are all billed for either directly or through the LEPC when the call is outside our municipal boundaries. Similarly we have billed for rescue services beyond the "routine". Two of these were for tech rescues in one industrial occupancy outside our municipal boundaries and the third was ordered by the court for criminal stupidity (for lack of the official charge)when a kid doing donuts drove into a quarry 80 feet down from the roadway and lived to pay the bill! Both responses to the industrial site ended up with significant issues to equipment that required replacement due to the materials present and their long term effects on on PPE, harnesses, rope gear, etc.

It may not be a specific line in your policy, but another anticipated cost that the carrier builds into their basic coverage. They are in the business of figuring the costs and charging an amount that ensures that they'll make a profit over the total number of claims per period. They seem to excel at this I might add.

This may be the biggest misnomer about billing for false calls. People seem to think it's revenue stream whereas it's all about correcting the problem. Too often it's cheaper and easier for the owner/super to just nod their head to the FD officer then go back to their lives without ever lifting a finger. The fees need to inflict a little sting to ensure they find keeping the system maintained and trouble free is cheaper than doing nothing. Our previous chief would not hear of billing for multiple false calls as he felt it might cause the same slumlords to disconnect the systems, and with no true inspection program or the staff to have one, these units and their occupants would be even less protected. Over time technology and true inspections driven by some of these false calls has lead our FD to eradicate most of the frequent fliers of this nature. Again, what happens when your FD does not get adequate funding? Do you decrease service levels? Probably you do without ever making it a big deal. Do you increase the risk to your personnel? Do you have another bake sale? Why not recoup some of the money insurance companies are billing for to cover anticipated costs from the responding services? While it's not the best option, it seems to be a valid way to cover the bases. Far better than doing even more with less, and increasing our risks, while never showing the public the loss.

Here's FD billing taken to the extreme: http://www.firehouse.com/topics/top-headlines/ind-family-billed-nearly-28k-fire One might ask what their taxes pay for in this instance. But again, the American public has accepted "pay to play" or "user fees' as a viable solution to declining tax revenue...

I can appreciate this sentiment, but I have found this same statement is usually made time and again in reference to ICS programs and NIMS. Anyone who's taught ICS in many areas will have heard,"We don't really need all this BS, because when the real Big Job" happens, we'll pull together and get it done. We always have."Time and again, far more areas all over the country run large scale incident drills only to have major holes found in their plans.Sadly, second and third exercises often reveal most of the previously identified issues have not been corrected. As BNECHIS pointed out, drills tend to show that it takes far longer to get the first critical patient to the appropriate facility that we'd ever consider. Time and again, unit to unit communication cannot take place off the main channels, many agencies fail to follow basic ICS principles and fail to understand them despite mandated training, and a failure of a true Unified Command system leading to multiple individual incident command systems. It seems all agencies have their hands out when the money and equipment is being passed out, but asking them to live up to the expectation that they can function in a 21st century IC system still alludes them. This is not the case everywhere, but I know we see it in the Northeast corner. Maybe our forefathers set us up for this by imposing a strong sense of "home rule", but we're finding that in emergency services failure to work together well will cause problems. The best thing you folks have going for you there is that a healthy number of people are interacting many times a week, discussing problems. I could only wish the people in our area would even admit there are issues with covering calls, second and third tones, training deficiencies and the silly number of apparatus as compared to the number of incidents.

Nice pump panel layout and use of handwheels. What's the "road/pump" style manual switch on the right side for? I've not seen one of these outside the cab before.

I find it interesting that a medic would not see the potential for an 11 min. difference to positively change some patient outcomes? My agency has been approached on numerous occasions about taking on EMS in a neighboring town. We are not interested because we could not arrive within what we consider a reasonable time frame to ensure the best outcomes possible.

Personally, I'd say that at a minimum your FD, Batt., or District, should be organized such that you can handle at least a one alarm call without any other agency assisting. This doesn't mean striking multiple alarms for a room and contents, it means being able to handle basic fire attack, search, vent and the subsequent apparatus and ICS needs in PD's. On multiple dwellings or commercial fires, the potential must be considered so a heightened response is may be necessary. Anything less means that your taxing outside agencies to help your problems, which has significant potential for negative impact. If you can't do it, then consolidate and make the agency bigger (regionalized FD). Auto aid is most often not close to as good as in-house aid. By this I mean companies that operate under the same command structure, SOGs, training and standards are far better than neighbors helping neighbors. Anything else is always slightly suspect (if not highly). It's not impossible for auto or mutual aid to be really good, it's just improbable.

Of the FD' I know of that "bill for service" it's only haz-mat response or the fluid recovery at MVA's. Cannot and should not are too far different things. Maybe in NY you "cannot" but in many places in the USA, you can and some do. I did read about a full subscription FD still in existence in Alaska in the Fairbanks area. You no pay, you no get nothing more than rescue or exposure protection of paying members property and stopping of wild fires. While I'm not a big fan of billing for services, it's not unlike billing for EMS where taxpayers foot the bill for the ambulance and staff. Every dollar taken in, is used to offset the actual cost of doing business, thereby reducing the tax burden. In no way should some dept's bill for services that they're adequately funded for and keep the money for "extras". The user fee concept is used in numerous facets or municipal government, as well as many other levels. Water usage fees, public sewage fees, pay-per-bag trash disposal, fees for copies at city hall, you name it. All things the taxpayer is paying for, and then paying extra again, except in most cases the user fee offsets the budget.

FD's billing for responses is very different from the EMS billing issues. The rules that pertain to EMS come directly from the Medicare program and only apply to those who bill Medicare. FD's all over the country can and do bill for certain responses, such as MVA's. It's almost a moral issue. Can you do your jobs effectively with the money the taxpayers provide? If the answer is no, then this is one option departments consider. Almost every FD that provides Haz-Mat response that I know, bills for it. Many FD's justify billing for MVA's due to the fact that a huge percentage of those involved likely don't pay taxes in their district. The problem is they do pay taxes at home and people from our town travel through theirs. But, I know my Chief was involved in an MVA and his insurance company expected to be billed for the response by the responding FD (they do not bill). It seems they anticipate a $500 bill for fluid loss recovery so it may be tied into DOT and haz-mat as well? The issue is looking at why you need to bill for responses and determine if you are trying to do too much for what you're given? Are you not explaining your funding needs to those who pass your budget? Or are the taxpayers so strapped for cash that anything that passes costs to the "system" users is palatable to the taxpayers?

Keep all your personal items/tools in the same place in your gear, all the time. You develop your senses to reach for the tools without having to paw around pocket to pocket. Once in a while at our morning shift brief we ask guys what they carry and where? Then we go see if they're right. As time goes on, it becomes instinct. Similarly, get used to masking up on the fly by always putting your helmet and gloves in the same spot as your kneeling down. Personally I put my helmet between my legs and gloves under my knee. This way if someone passes you on the steps, deck, or landing they won't accidentally kick your helmet or gloves away.

Try making it last! That would be different than most paramedics marriages that I know. Sorry could help myself, congratulations!

Not to toss a negative into an otherwise positive thread, but I feel this warrants a word of caution. I'd be highly skeptical of using a dog leash or anything "clipped" to another person. If something happens to the partner with the loop like falling into a hole the FF with the clipped on end will not be able to release it. Similarly if there was a localized collapse between the two of you. A similar tactic can be to use a piece of webbing/line that each of you holds the end of. I'd be very careful clipping anything that could not be immediately released, under emergency conditions. At 5-6 ft. I think I 'd prefer to verbally communicate, as anything of any weight, even a coffee table or kitchen chair, will slow you up as you are forced to come together and figure out how to pass. There are times when "buddy lines" should be used and others where they can be trouble.

The study is an interesting look into how people live. By using the medians in the study you can calculate the average mil rates. This shows that Westchester residents pay $3.00 less per $1000 of assessed value than where I work. Of course that's not the whole picture as clearly home values are not nearly as high, but then neither is the median household income (ours is less than half). But, I'm willing to bet the cost of groceries and other staple supplies is fairly comparable. Possibly looking at the Forbes numbers with an eye toward property tax vs. median income would make a better comparison region to region. Clearly Westchester tops this list as well, but oddly the area on the report with the lowest property taxes are not paying the least as compared to their income. But if you owned a house valued at the Westchester median value in my town, you'd pay more in taxes! Traffic isn't nearly as bad though! I guess my pint is that it's very difficult to compare yourself to other parts of the country without looking at huge numbers of variables which make it nearly impossible to compare apples to apples. Regionalization and consolidation make sense for more reasons than economics, and until people realize that raising the standard service quality is is a key goal, they'll keep getting bogged down in the numbers.

Oddly enough the first 285 years we didn't have FAST or RIT standards. Huh?My point of it being a tough question is what happens when no one can field the FAST quick enough to be onscene before the fire is under control? Seems to be a valid issue given some of the recent incidents here? Is an empty yard better than one with some firefighters in SCBA with limited training? How is it that rescuing our own isn't part of the very basics? You mean we'll let a new guy onto the company in place of an old hand, when the new guy can't assist his partner if he gets in a jam? Please don't take this as thinking the programs on FAST and RIT and experience aren't the right direction, but as my boss tells me, "Don't let perfection be the enemy of good!"

Tough question as the reality is that this situation likely can and does occur nationwide every day. The issue is what happens when no FD in the immediate M/A area can provide a FAST in short order? The assignment goes unfilled. Is this better? Maybe it is better to know up front you got no help than think you might have chance, when in fact the FAST is made up of crews with not functional experience? Who qualifies these guys as "Interior" and what does that mean?

Any insight into the use of the raised roof with the MM? It seems you guys have lost a bit of operational envelope using this cab, the box on top and the scene lights?

When we replaced our aging straight stick we knew we were going to get a tower. Hands down, no question we felt that the bucket offered increased safety on numerous operations. The next question was MM or RM. We looked very hard and found the MM to be better for our application for a few reasons: 1. We have a narrow downtown district that requires the aerial length to be as short as possible to out it on the sidewalk or for use on lower floors. Maybe not the end of the world, but the ability to use the aerial master stream on lower floors at an upward angle was a big plus for our aging district where attached ordinary construction with considerable breaches between buildings rules the day. An aggressive knockdown could be the difference between one building and the block. MM's have 4 or 5 sections whereas RM often are only 3, sometimes 4, making the off the side distance far greater. 2. While you only need the lower 2/3's of the windshield for most of the driving time, the RM bucket obstructs your vision for viewing the fire building and slows positioning. Also, on crowded streets with lighted intersections seeing the color of the light can be handy to say the least. BTW, these observation are not just ours, we talked to tons of FD's about their aerials, likes and dislikes. 3. Station size issues: We couldn't fit most RM's in our 12 foot doors due to a slight grade on the apron. This in fact keeps our MM out of two bays on one end now and it's only 9'10" tall. (IIRC) 4. We didn't like having to climb up the rear and walk the length of the aerial with tools to access the bucket. With the MM, one guy climbs up and directly into the bucket and the second passes the saws and tools from the compartment adjacent to the access ladder. Small detail, but nonetheless was discussed. 5. Scrub area. While a RM can work of the rear at a greater length, it must be close to 90 degrees to the body before it can be brought to the ground forward of the turntable itself. This reduces scrub area. Short of being in an open lot where you can back in, most of our downtown requires a set close to perpendicular to the building face. The MM with the shorter aerial length excels at close in sweeping of the lower floors. Most of the time turning the cab just 20 degrees off the centerline on arrival allows us to either get two sides of the building or one long face from sidewalk to roof line. This is not a knock of RM's merely pointing out the strengths we saw to the MM that effected our decision top buy one. Of course it helped that our hired consultant also suggested the aerial stick be replaced with a MM tower. But that was only the final nail in the coffin on other designs.

I know that quite often the "tailslap" of the MM can make driving them in tight streets a little tougher. The amount of body behind the rear wheels can be very long and it's not hard to smack a car or street signs as you make a tight turn. Having the majority of the excess in front of you at least lets you see where your putting it. I know other RM proponents like the ability to nose in and set up with little rotational movement, where a MM might require 90 degree or greater rotation if you can't pull past or take the time to back in. Also I think the OAL is shorter on RM's in general as the length of the cab is used to eat up some aerial length, whereas the MM starts behind the cab? Of course most MM's have one to two more sections than standard three section RM's. It would be easier for me to say what I don't like about RM's but of course I am biased, having a MM as my first due aerial.