antiquefirelt

Best one I've heard was an APB put out by the State Police for two males: "Last seen at the York Toll Plaza northbound in the company of two large unattractive females".

I once thought it would be a good idea to sing over the PA to an attractive girl who was flagging at a construction site. My partner who was driving started laughing uncontrollably and I quickly (but not quick enough) realized as I followed the mike cord back to the radio, that I had indeed just serenaded the local ER. As soon as I stopped we got a called via radio by the hospital: "St.George Ambulance, are you singing into your radio?" Needless to say, I still hear about it once in a while from some of the older timers telling the new kids old stories. In fact for about a year, my paychecks had "the Crooner" in between my fist and last names. Anyway, I laughed at posted call, but I suspect appropriateness depends on the system, time, and circumstance.

What exactly are these FAST skills so many of you are talking about? I'd like to see a list of the types of skills required to be a FAST member. And should the lack of these skills prevent firefighters from attempting to assist other firefighters in need? Many years ago I attended a fireground survival/RIT program in Providence, RI. One of the rotations was a small group discussion about functional RIT with John Norman and Butch Cobb. They specifically asked what each persons' FD was doing about RIT. Of course being over 10 years ago the answers were all over the board and less than favorable. One career firefighter froma small FD noted his FD had no trust that the local VFD's could provide them with RIT trained personnel and therefore had no RIT program as career staff was too limited to have crews standing fast. Both Norman and Cobb, jumped in and asked if maybe any SCBA certified firefighter would be better than no one? A decent discussion followed to which most of us agreed that any firefighter with basic interior training would be far better than no one. Hard to disagree with. This should not be an excuse not to conduct more training, but instead should establish a baseline to build from. You need people ready to react, but requiring advanced training to the point that you cannot field a RIT in a reasonable amount of time is asking for trouble. So while you have highly certified and equipped FAST it does little good in the station or only on drill nights. For those of you with LE background, think of this as the "active shooter" scenario. Far too few PD's could field a SWAT team in time so procedures have changed to ensure routine LEO's can react rapidly to dynamic incidents.

I think 16fire 5 said it well that if you are using your RIT or FAST for other assignments, your first alarm is inadequate. That being said, some many tasks a on the fireground demand immediate action that having a crew doing a secondary task, while a primary one fails to be completed may create the need for the RIT. BNECHIS, again shines some light on the real issue. At some point FAST and RIT cannot be specialty duties. These things must be part of our basic training. In the above scenario, it sounds like the FD determined it did not have enough trained FAST FFer's to deploy. That means that potentially no one was readily standing by for rescue? What is worse, interior qualified guys with no RIT certs standing by or no one at all? Are we letting these non-RIT certified guys lead off a fire attack or perform search? Are some dept's keeping their best guys outside to rescue their own, while sending in the second string to look for citizens? WTF! Time for a check of priorities, training and reality. If I keep my best outside for RIT, I increase the chances they'll be needed. If I send them in, my RIT will be those firefighters who still are trained and qualified to rescue citizens which we are, except we have handles to grab on (SCBA harness). As my boss says,"Don't let perfect be the enemy of good". In other words something today is better than taking years to develop the perfect FAST that requires proper celestial alignment.

We got lucky and some guy in a neighboring town sent us 4 -55 gal. drums of "old" foam from an oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Turns out they are required to test the foam monthly or quarterly and if any tests off the standard they have to get rid of it all. This forced them to change from a 3000 gal. bladder system to multiple 250 gal. totes, thus our "luck" of receiving the foam. Oddly, we didn't know it was coming so when the freight truck showed up, there was some scrambling to track down the "donor". We have used more tested and failed foam in training than good foam in true incidents a proportion I'm happy to keep this way.

That's great on the policy! Funny change the names and places, but the similarities run deep almost everywhere you go. Was the policy designed to protect the apparatus or the guys not wanting to go out when it's cold? Our rules say truck checks are abbreviated (less run time while on exhaust system) and done inside when the outside temp is under 25F. But the reason was to keep the heat in the station.

With all the damn snow this past week has me hankering for a grilled spiny lobster down in the Caribbean! Don't tell anyone up this way though, the local lobstermen are hurting this year.

Our newest pumper has an enclosed side mount panel. It is also a rearmount pump and the pump enclosure does have a floor in it. This obviously cuts down on the amount of dirt and grit that coats the actuation controls (yes their all manual valves). It also features a 40,000 btu auxiliary heater in the pump enclosure. The operators have been praising it this winter as it is very warm in the pump compartment so they're fairly happy standing there when it's cold. All of our previous pumpers and two current top mounts have had removable "trays" under the pump for winter operations. This allowed a little more that retention in the pump enclosure and cut down on the dirt, slush and salt that got into the actuation mechanicals of the pump. In the spring these trays are removed too allow the pump to cool. ALS: Don't you love the wind chill factor? We seem to need to re-educate people a few times every winter that the windchill is not making their car start harder. It's great when you tell someone that the windchill only effects living creatures and they give you the "dog hearing a high pitched whistle" look! Joking aside, the wind has some limited effect on objects as it carries away the warmer air faster allowing the object to reach the ambient air temp quicker, but the object will never go below the actual temperature no matter how hard the wind blows.

We have an Infection Control Program. The program includes a full Infection Control Policy, annual refresher training and a designated infection Control Officer. Policies cover pre-employment screening, exposure procedures, handling of infectious waste, soiled and/or contaminated laundry, and proper disposal of red or yellow bagged materials. It further details who reports what to whom. What measures are specified for given hazards and how often the program is reviewed and refreshed on. So can I anticipate you asking if I can email you a copy?

I have to agree with everything here. Our people do change gloved frequently, do not wear glove in the cab of the ambulances and understand properly decontaminating everything that they contact while wearing gloves. The issue is reality. In reality we all understand the basics of infection control and cross-contamination, but for so many reasons (some nearly warranted even) fail to follow basic guidelines. So, like BNECHIS notes, we see the driver contaminating the wheel or anything else. So a policy as much as it covers our asses, probably really won't prevent the spread of wee beasties. Maybe it slows or stops most cases, but 100% compliance? And sorry but none of our personnel have direct contact with patients without gloves on 95% of the time. Most of our ambulance riding staff are young parents who prefer not to take any chances. Handwashing is great, but it can't happen frequently or quick enough as often as it should, therefore I'll stick to wearing multiple pairs of gloves per call. (OK so maybe I will only need one pair to stand there holding a radio trying to look important )

I forgot to mention that in our system we do no data entry during the call. All reports are generated on desktops using a web based program. The EMS crew has access to computers at the ER for this as well as all the desktops in the station. Our people use notepads or photocopies of the old paper reports to record data until they get to a desktop. Most EMS agencies around us (vol. or per diem) have laptops in their ambulances for generating reports, but after a few short months, most use the desktops in the ED or at their bases. I attribute the failure of the laptops use to a few things: First, the laptops are difficult to disinfect properly and are handled by persons wearing gloves used on multiple patients all day (gross) Second, the State in their infinite wisdom uses a different version of the software which is far less user friendly, though neither is all that easy to manipulate well. Third, people realized they were far less likely to pay proper attention to their pateints while struggling with data entry.

We've always used "thicker" zip lock baggies with favorable results. If the "throat" is hot enough it immediately melts the bag on its way through. Have you had issues with the thinner produce bags melting from the heat above the "throat" so the dry chem doesn't get down far enough? Also, any broken bags before deployment? I can't keep two apples from breaking one of those damn bags!

The risks of having members using their POV's for official business (responding with lights and/or sirens) is not worth the time gained in many cases. Here is the crux of the issue. If traffic is so bad that your caught in traffic for 20 minutes, maybe you need a paid staffed FD? The community is getting what they want, lower taxes and higher personal risk. At some point that balance will shift (usually after a tragedy or two) and changes to reduce response times will be enacted, either by building more stations, correcting traffic flow or hiring staff to respond in a timely manner.

This is the very starting point of truth in public service. Our department measures response time from the time the 911 center receives the call until the first unit arrives onscene. Very infrequently the first arriving unit could be other than a staffed fire apparatus (ambulance, Chief's SUV, Chief Officer's POV). We are somewhat hampered by the reporting software as in it's basic format it measures the first time entered until the first unit is documented on scene, so more accurate reporting is not as easily attained. Many FD's and EMS agencies around us measure the time from when they're paged out, still others mark themselves "enroute" when they're actually standing by at the station (they say, "enroute awaiting crew" on the radio!). Some arrive to fire calls in street clothes and gear up "as needed" which means never for MVA's or alarm investigations. Of course the only time that matters to the person experiencing the emergency is from the time they called until the time someone arrives and starts to mitigate the incident.

Brannigan's book is one of five on our reading list for testing for company officer. Many test questions come from this book as well as oral board review questions/situations that test building construction familiarity as it relates to tactical decision making. The hardest part is that guys and gals seem far busier than ever. Few take time to study constantly, and read only what they can cram when an opening arises. We stress this is a poor method as our promotion turn around time is shortened since we agreed (Staff/Union) to have a posted reading list. Not only can complacency kill you dead, it can kill our career path!

Response times are often an accurate barometer of what the community has collectively decided to pay for. It doesn't take knowing this job to understand that it will take volunteers longer to respond when they have to come from home. Now that that is understood, it's no stretch to understand that the longer the emergency goes without intervention, the greater the chance of serious injury, deaths and greater property loss. The problem is when "we" confuse what we are capable of with the resources we've been given. Not all of us can fulfill every aspect of emergency work 100%, yet we seem to falsely act as if we can, giving a flase sense of security to the citizens.

Exposed lightweight floor trusses. Failing to recognize a fire in the basement of new PD's with this construction can and has lead to firefighters ending up in the pit of the fire. Truss roof construction may have gotten all the attention, but in PD's I'm far more concerned with first floor collapse than the roof coming down. Usually the roof a much more compartmented area, like the second and third floors (unless it's single story). Roofs over bedrooms and bathrooms will be less prone to land directly on you as the presence of wall will be more protective. The basement though is often a large uncompartmentalized space, more often with no ceiling to protect the truss joists. When the floor fails, there is little stopping it from hitting the lowest level.

I've been of the opinion that PPV/PPA can be an effective tool when all the factors align like the stars and moon. Typically the proponents are from warmer climates where tighter homes/buildings are typical, construction is newer overall and controlling ventilation openings is fairly easy. For example, most homes in Florida have HVAC and rarely leave windows open, so controlling the vent openings is easier. Here in the Northeast, heat/cooling is very often regulated by opening and closing doors and windows, making it much more difficult to control the exhaust openings. We also suffer the sins of the past and deal with a lot of wood balloon frame construction, which has always been a contraindication to PPA in my book. Somehow pressurizing the space and potentially pushing fire/heat/smoke into voids doesn't seem like a good idea. Now, as I mentioned in the Chimney Fire thread, the guys from Slat Lake City have been big PPV/PPA proponents for awhile. Their latest article in Fire Engineering has me thinking maybe our experience was marred by poor training and understanding of the concepts and realities. They worked with NIST to study PPA/PPV in all types of situation and are confident that there shouldn't be a "push" of anything. Rather than blowing the fire like a bellows toward the vent, they propose we just pressurize the door we're entering and open the exhaust to create a low pressure for the higher pressurized air (smoke/heat) to flow towards. They note that the data shows that the fire and heat creates far more pressure than the fans. I know that those that use it successfully think that it's nearly a silver bullet. While I'm still skeptical, I'm looking to go to the FDIC and take their class and then try it out with a better understanding than the way my FD used in the 90's. Who knows, maybe we'll find it still isn't for us, but some of the latest info is very interesting.

I may be biased having spent many years in the building construction business, but I feel this is a very big part of the job. For the line firefighter it helps predict strong/weak points in buildings as safe areas. It helps predict potential layouts as you understand the reasons buildings are often constructed the way they are. Of course understanding how a building is built allows you to understand better fire/smoke/heat travel. All of these issues are raised a notch when you become an officer and your decisions have a greater impact on the lives of others. Failing to understand construction can/has lead to numerous firefighter deaths and injuries. Too often we hear of firefighters being "surprised" by conditions that were predictable due to construction features or lack thereof. We used to have a study group that went through Brannigan's book(among others) cover to cover. Having a few interested guys made what is fairly boring technical writing bearable and even fun. I can now see first hand some of that paid off as a few of the group are now officers and their understand of building construction is much better than others. I also like to use building construction as an impromptu tailboard training session. Once in a while when we're taking up after an alarm we'll discuss the construction, predicted fire travel, expected voids, features that help/hinder and collapse potential. This gives the crew chance to share their experience and apply it to actual buildings we are in and out of.

I was right there with you on PPV until this last month's Fire Engineering. The article about PPV/PPA written by the Salt Lake City guys addressed some of the more significant concerns I've always had with PPV/PPA. Much of their research was done in conjunction with NIST and the testing seems valid. I'm far from sold, but I'm much more interested in doing more research, taking their class and trying it out again. We used to attempt PPV and had very poor results, though I must admit the dept back then just did stuff with very little thought and quality training. Thankfully we abandoned the practice before someone was hurt. We still use the fans for after control ventilation.

We run the response to chimney fires one level under our structure fire assignment. A structure gets a full first alarm which calls in off duty and POC personnel, a chimney fire gets the same apparatus, but no call in unless short staffed. Tis was a change after a local FD got "schooled" by their ISO rater that a chimney fire was a fire with a structure and required the same response noting that they'd lose credit unless this was changed. Before my time, they sent just the Ladder, and amazingly never got burned (pun intended). While I have been to few chimney fires that have extended into the structure, not one was a fast moving fire with rescue concerns. Could it happen, certainly and we're prepared for it, but in most cases, they're more truck work intensive fires with lots of digging and ensuring we've found it all. TICs have saved a lot of work and property in this use. Normally, chimney fires are immediately investigated fro extension and finding none treated much more gingerly than a structure fire with regard to special care to not mess up the house, using runners, limiting smoke inside, and not wearing SCBA and leaving marks on the walls. Like almost all fire related calls, we require SCBA to be worn on all CO runs. If the hand detector goes into alarm (35 ppm) you must mask up. Levels over 9 ppm are considered abnormal and require some type of action, usually from furnace/boiler technician.

I've been to a fair share of chimney fires and we still find zip lock baggies of dry chem work best in most cases. We will put out the fire in the stove/fireplace, then drop the bags. We have a chimney chain we also use once the fire is extinguished. We also often use snowballs when available and find they work as well as dry chem bombs without being too much and cracking the liner like the booster reels. Last trick is the use of a cast iron pan of water in the stove: snuffs both the fire in the stove and the chimney. Thankfully our chimney runs have been way down in the last few years. I must say I've never stretched or seen a line stretched to the roof and would be slightly concerned with charging the line while being up there, and pushing guys off? We do carry a piece of 1.75" six feet long with a fog tip in the Tower bucket for whatever need that arises, but never seen it used or asked for it on a chimney. Really just there for clearing up eaves/soffit issues.

From the admin side of things I'd offer that EPCR's are not a good idea. Our dept. went to all EPCR's about three years ago, one year ahead of the rest of our state, who now all must submit electronically. The issue is that with our EPCR program there are drop downs and boxes that don't always fit the situation, with no way to edit. So the reporting gets a little less accurate. Next, as we all know (I hope) if you don't document it, it didn't happen. In the case of the EPCR, if there isn't a box or drop down, it must not be worth mentioning, so things go undocumented. Lastly, the narratives suffer greatly as you need only add things you did not already document, but that makes the narratives far harder to follow with accuracy. We require our personnel to do the same narrative they used on the paper reports and have not allowed the use of the "Narrative Generator". But in general we have found that the reports suffer overall in the accuracy of documenting the actual situations and patient. One my be inclined to think it's our personnel and lack of oversight, but I assure you we QA/QI 100% of our reports well above the state mandate hold regular training on documentation and discipline personnel for poor reporting. The same procedures that made our people excellent report writers on paper, have continued, but in all the "auto, easy, menu system" leads to degradation of documentation.

Rockland Fire/EMS: 2473

I've really failed to grasp any of the security measures that have been talked about after the plane has been boarded. So the terrorist (not suspect)can't go tot he little boys room to put together his bomb? Hell most flights I've been on they're hasn't been a guarantee you'd get a chance to use the toilet. This is like banning handguns. Murder is already illegal, those who want to kill others will not hesitate to illegally carry a firearm. Once the terrorist is on the plane with his materials, it's up to him or one of us to secure the final outcome. Preventing the bomb materials from being brought on board is the key, but can we do it without completely turning the air travel industry on its head? Arrive at the airport 4 hrs before schedule? Are you kidding, watch rail service and highways become far more popular. It's becoming far more expensive and a hassle to fly, now when the trip is less than 6-8 hours driving, why fly? Maybe we do need to require all flights into the US be screened like the ones that originate here? We'll be waiting 4 hrs in the airport to fly domestically, while some Jihadist can board a plane in Paris nearly unchecked? And this makes us safer how? Someone needs to inject the DHS and TSA with some reality.