antiquefirelt

While I don't agree with this specific rule, most voluntary membership organizations can impose rules upon their members at will. The IAFF is saying to be a member in good standing you must meet these rules. The issue is it seems that in some places a career member must be an IAFF member? I know our guys can choose not to join if they desire but if they want representation at a later date they have to pay back dues (though not much). When I spoke of PG and Montgomery Co. MD I was not intending that these were the only places the IAFF was trying to enforce this, yet two hotbeds of this type of activity in recent years. It would seem to cover any County type combo depts or other combo depts where FFers from other locals live and volunteer.

It looks good but what a PITA to keep clean! We just went this way and have four units black over red. The tower and new Sqaud (due 1/09) have unpainted roll up doors with black reflective striping. The strip shows up god in the dark and in most daylight pictures. We have no issue with visibility nevermind all the lighting BS. We did add a reflective stripe to the leading edges of all the shelves and roll outs on the new rescue pumper for visibility when the doors are up. The doors we have now are unpainted ROM and our only issue is with some of the weatherstripping coming off on one of 10 such doors.

This is the line makes me think this whole thing is about a few specific places (PG, Montgomery Co. etc.) Basically it only applies to members who volunteer or work in a jurisdiction covered by another IAFF shop or one that takes calls away or otherwise might cause staff reductions of an affiliate shop. These are hardly the case of most IAFF members who volunteer in a vollie or POC FD. Now if you live in PG and work for DCFD you will not be allowed to volunteer in any PG station as they are in a combo system that is represented by the IAFF. Clear as mud? Yup, just the way they want it!

I think you're right on the money why the IAFF cares. It's all about money. More unionized firefighters equals more money of the IAFF. Other than those who work in big shops (Boston, FDNY etc.) most of us can't get jack out of the IAFF come contract time. Then the back only democrats even though more than half of their membership are registered Republicans. Of course one can find the logic in their argument even if the true reason is masked. If it wasn't for our IAFF members running per diem EMS on their days off, we'd be doing a lot more mutual aid for paramedics, which would lead to more personnel who would be in the Union. Even if we got EMS only positions that would take a firefighter off the bus and put them on the on the engine.

Home Depot installs these individual rack heads in all their flammable product areas such as spray paint. I assume this is part of NFPA 13, but when HD came here they told us they would provide these heads and the state sprinkler plans review OK'd it. Thankfully I don't have to try to review sprinkler plans too!

What about Fire/EMS uniforms on personnel who work EMS or at scenes? How about volunteers? How does one guarantee the clothes someone is wearing has not been exposed to some sort of infectious disease? Not to mention those persons whom have the infectious issues and ride mass transit or stand in line with you at Quiznos. This is an interesting topic and one that our Union probably will successfully use to force the City into laundering our uniforms. I know my girlfriend works in a dentist office and her scrubs never leave the building. They change for lunch, errands and to/from work every time no exceptions.

The set up we have talked about for the supply engine would be a dual suction front mount where the bumper is still leading and has the recessed connections or above (and behind) connections for the suction. The downside is that this would likely be on a commerical chassis and that would limit the discharge piping size running to the main hosebed/ tailboard area.

We're considering a front mount for the replacement of our supply engine for the reasons you've listed: Shorter OAL, nose into the supply, keep the engine small while carrying a large amount of LDH. We may consider another rearmount as well as we rarely draft. This coupled with putting th expensive part out in front where we can bang it up brings them both to the table.

I've had considerable experience with both top and side pump panels on midship pumps, but our next engien will be of the rearmount design with a sidemount panel. Never used a front mount which seems to have largely fallen out of favor. Here's some observations of the three I'm familiar with: Midship Pump-Top mount panel: 1.Nice warm place to stand in the winter as the heat usaully comes up between the cab and walkway. 2.Best for allowing the MPO to observe the scene and operations. Depending on staffing,this could be a large factor. I know a neighbor FD that puts the initial IC on the panel until adequate staff allows a better position. 3. A real pain in hte a$$ when slippery. We've had more injuries due to slipping getting up and down on the top mounts than any other single injury cause. From bruised knees slipping well ascending to a reconstructive knee surgery due to "straight legging it" off the walkway steps. Our MPO's are up and down a lot with our limited staffing, so we have vowed to buy no more of these. 4. Not as easy to align with hydrants as front or rearmounts. An unfamiiar operator often has to stretch extra hydrant line to ensure no kinks if the park too close or too far from the hydrant. Mid-ship Side Mount: 1. They're the FD standard, almost everyone has used them and can. 2. The operator can lean on the feeder line to feel changes in supply (that's what some like I guess) 3. Not as easy to align with hydrants as front or rearmounts. An unfamiliar operator often has to stretch extra hydrant line to ensure no kinks if the park too close or too far from the hydrant. 4. Generally set up for hydrant on one side and draft on the other, slowing either operation when "off sides". Rearmount Pump Side Mount Panel: 1. All discharges and intakes away from the operator. 2. For hydrants you need only pull past, no getting the line caught between the truck and the curb or hydrant itself. 3. No issues with "off sides" when selecting draft vs. positive supply. 4. Exposes the expensive parts to traffic. This can be the same for the operator depneding on FD SOP on road control. 5. More expensive for engineering reasons only, there are less linear feet of pipe and better manifolds which decreases friction loss in piping. Probably many more on each, but I'm being called away.

Excellent point. Everyone should be intimately familiar with the 13 points of size-up, not just officers. Ultimately the fire may hold all of us accountable if we don't conduct a personal size-up properly.

I never really understood residency requirements for those who are not subject to recall. If you show up at work on time, how can they tell you where you can live? Some communities argue you must live "in-town" and share the tax burden of those who pay your salary, which makes more sense than allowing you to live outside city limits but within certain distance. Our FD requires you to be subject to recall. As a small combo FD we need personnel to respond from home quite frequently for fires or to cover the station during multiple calls (mostly EMS). This is all part of the hiring packet. Though there is no requirement to actually respond to a given number or percentage of call from off duty. Our residency requirement is within 8 air nautical miles of the station! This of course allows for much greater overtime dollars, which helps.

Another point to note on why the US comparatively sucks at civilian fire deaths, is the fact that throughout Europe and many other nations, you can be held "criminally" responsible for a fire in your home. Given the close proximity and the conflagration potential of old world cities they must take fire safety extremely seriously. I think they're not quite as on board with the "King of your own castle" concept like we are.

Like I said, I have mixed feelings about it. I see checklists as tools to ensure we're getting things done, but are they allowing us to be lax in our skills? At first glance I think one might think checklists are a good idea, but at some point some information must be committed to memory and become second nature. Size-up is one of these. I don't think stopping to peruse a checklist is better than knowing size-up cold. But better than missing something? Yes! Airline pilots do not have to face the same dynamic emergency that a fire officer faces. Sure pilots have high stress jobs, but if they stop and take a breath or two it's OK as it's built into a timeframe that allows for this. Rarely will a fire officer have the luxury of stopping to make sure a checklist is completed for size-up. A tactical worksheet yes, benchmark items, yes, but size-up is an initial action that takes place before any action in a very compressed timeframe. Maybe the secondary size-up report, like FDNY gives a few minutes in would fit the checklist, but rolling in? Not so much. Sadly I think this is sort of a sign of the times. We are forced to learn and remember far too much to ensure we know it all at the drop of a hat. With EMS, NIMS, Haz-Mat, Pathogen training, sexual harassment and all the other mandatory training, skills like performing a proper size-up are relagated to checklists to ensure we don't forget them. I know in my dept. every promotion process tests candidates knowledge of size-up. Not just knowing WALLACE WAS HOT or COAL WAS WEALTH, but determining occupncy, building construction, knowing all alarm responses including mutaul aid capabilites, water supply systems, and target hazards. I'm not trying to be anti-volunteer but promotions must be based on who can do the job the best, often in non-career settings this is not done.

It's still your FD's choice unless your state has specifically adopted the applicable NFPA standard(s). NFPA alone has no legal authority, each state must adopt their standards for them to become "law". To my knowledge Boston still allows the choice of bunkers, 3/4's and pants and shoes. This was after requiring bunker pants for years and then studying the increased number of heat related injuries. Chicago was the last large FD hold out to issue bunkers, and they all have them now.

I have mixed feelings about this sign. My first was anyone riding in the O seat better have committed this to memory and can recall any and all of the 13 points at any time. This is basic fundamental officer stuff. My second thoughts are actually preety much the same, so I lean toward this being a crutch for a broken promotion system.

ALS: Well said!! You've summed up my sentiment perfectly. I'm not happy about our political climate today, but I sure as hell am glad we didn't elect Kerry or Gore and won't have to worry about the Clinton's for a while.

As of late I have had a hard time remembering why I voted for him. This at least helps rationalize my decisions a few years back!

While not "law" many standards such as ICS and a very large part of NFPA stuff can be used in court to show that a national consensus of "experts" agrees that this the standard is a valid way of conducting an operation or other action. This means that while you may not have violated a law criminally, you could be found guilty of negligence if a member was hurt or killed. Said negligence could put you on the hook for civil penalties. As for the scenario: send 2 FFers and the CO in, with the IC and MPO as the 2 out until further units arrive. If something happens to the inside crew, what is the MPO doing on a single line fire that he can't drop? What about the IC? Delaying the initial stretch will raise the probabilities that firefighters entering at a later point will experience a negative event, as the fire grows and the structure weakens. And I agree with Benz, there'd be some ruffled feathers and raised eyebrows, but an order is an order. Ask the guys in Worcester how many more brother's might have perished if the DC hadn't stopped further rescue attempts. Got to be the hardest order he's ever had to give.

I agree, if it doesn't have outriggers it's barely a fire truck! OK, maybe the engine guys bring the water... What do you mean by your post? From the way I read it, if it's an E-One it's useful and all others aren't? Being that for all their other misgivings E-One has about the best jacking system on the market.

Good topic. First, with 5 onscene including the IC, the Co. Officer and one firefighter could enter while the MPO and other firefighter remain outside with full PPE as the 2 out. This allows you to be covered without the IC being part of the 2 out. As noted the standard does not disallow the IC from being part of the 2 out. In a single entry crew evolution I don't see a problem with the IC being part of the two out. While not ideal, the worst thing that the IC needs to command is the interior forces, and if they're in trouble and he has to help, what else will can to hell? Nothing of nearly the same consequence. Multiple companies working would be a different story.

I have to semi-disagree with you here. A TL allows for a much better platform from which to conduct many(Most) aerial operations. They offer the ability to lower victims to the ground using one firefighter vs. one firefighter per victim. They allow you to carry the roof crew and tools to the objective as a group easier than climbing single file to the 6th floor. Cutting a vent in a soft roof is much safer from the basket lip and allows for a larger cut. Venting windows and pulling trim is a breeze from a flat stable work surface vs. the rungs of a stick. The ability to work the aerial master stream from the safety of the bucket vs. the stick vastly improves the streams accuracy (not to mention the ability to manually sweep the nozzle). Not to mention being able to use the gun from the sidewalk on taxpayers.That's just some of the high points. On the other side, a stick is generally faster to set up and can take windows without sending a FF up, they're often more maneuverable, cheaper and not as heavy. These are all very significant factors. I would also agree that a MM is not the end all for positioning. Every truck has scrub areas and areas they can't get to. It's imperative that companies are very familiar with the proper positioning of their truck. We bought a MM TL and love it. We're a one aerial FD but the next closest TL is 45 miles away! So ours nicely compliments the two sticks in adjoining FD (105' stick and 75' quint).

I hear you on the limited water supply, but having come from rural water FD in the early years of my career, I'd say 3500-4000 gallons is a significant amount for a mobile home fire. I'm fairly confident we could put a big hurt on that fire with a 2.5". A little on exposure 4 and a bunch on the fire. Or a single 1 3/4" for the exposure and the deck gun for 60 seconds, followed up by exposure protection and limited attack until more water arrived. I've never been much for PR lines. I could see the limited exposure protection from the 500 gal tank only, but once that tanker was onscene, it was time for the big line. If you like you can always hold at a 1/2 tank of the engines water for further exposure protection.

Pretty interesting, I'm sure this could happen in my area any day. I'd have liked the 2 1/2" for this as well. If the timeline is unaltered the tanker came in pretty quick, though I'd rather he didn't block the road off in case other units were responding in. The single 2.5" is a better choice than two 1.75" lines as the two smaller lines were not sufficient to make a quick knockdown. The BTU's chewed up the streams before they reached the seat. Of course this was hampered by the fact that they went with a fog pattern and seemed to want to put the water on the top of the flames vs. at the base (a sad but often seen commentary on training). They also seemed to subscribe to the old water curtain theory of exposure protection. Unless they were stopping the grass from spreading the fire to the trailer next door the water would have been better used directly on the exposure and then directly at the base of the fire. The deckgun would have put a decent hurt on the fire fast. The only way this fire went out was when it burned down (consumed the fuel) to a level that the two small lines could handle.

But we can only control/train our own drivers. Many civilians make irrational moves when they finally see and/or hear an emergency apparatus approaching them. Minimizing these responses will reduce the risk. We tried this with negative results. When responding from the same station civilian traffic was very confused when only the lead apparatus used their lights and sirens and the others did not. Many drivers pulled over regardless, while others tried to pass the one pulling over. This would happen block after block when the lead engine was nearly out of sight, but it seemed drivers who pulled over for the first engine were waiting for more apparatus. I could see this concept and would implement it in a multi-station environment where only the closest apparatus used L&S. We always respond L&S to the scene of mutual aid calls unless otherwise instructed by the IC, and we never respond L&S for station coverage regardless of the receiving communities policies. Further we have instructed our mutual aid companies that they are not to use L&S to cover our station or they'll be taken off the alarm card. As was noted by another, it's usually the kids or wannabe heroes that balk the quiet response policies. As you mature and/or attain rank and responsibility your realize which risks are acceptable.

I would hope that once in awhile the AFA does report an actual fire, or we've been forcing a lot of people to waste their money. Our Dept. has been running this way (tiered responses) for many years. It really started for us with EMS runs and is evolving into more and more fire runs. Currently our fire runs are almost exactly as Bnechis's agree/disagree column. Non-emergency: Outside fire with no exposures (bark mulch, dumpster) CO alarms with no symptoms/victims stuck elevator spilled fuels-minor water salvage ops any medical where life or limb is not threatened wires down arcing electrical (outside) odor of smoke with nothing visible from occupants (may be upgraded by C.O.) The rest for the most part are Code 3 (emergency responses) We're trying to eliminate more of these, and AFA's and sprinkler bells are the big controversy. I think many points here show the relative infrequency of a working fire, yet we know the increased risk driving emergency can have. In our first due, the lights and sirens will save us maybe 60 sec. at most, so we have little issue going quiet. As for response times, our reporting system allows us to enter the type of response and does not calculate the response time for those reported as "non priority". Doing this we can show that anything we respond to with lights and sirens has a annual average of 4 min. 30 seconds, with 3 second margin between the last 3 or 4 years. Oh, and this is total time from the 911 operator picking up the phone to out first arriving unit (no POVs). A lot of this depends on your trust of the dispatch info. If you have a decent dispatcher who elicits good info, you should have little problems. In my time on the career job, I can think of only once we were burned by this policy. We had a report of a man with a laceration on his finger from a power tool. A 5 block run, with very little traffic and the crew went non-emergency to find the guy had stuck his hand in a snowblower and lost two fingers, and his family was pissed we didn't show up lights and sirens! Of course it would have sped our response time by all of 15-30 seconds, which would not have changed the fact that you cannot reattach hamburger.