antiquefirelt

In the past these things were necessary to getting the ambulance and crew to the scene in a timely manner. The name was all but eliminated when proper 911 mapping and addressing was completed, but once in a while in the hinterlands they still use names for reference points. Until recently most fire and EMS agencies didn't have MDT's and handheld communications devices that were silent. So a case may be made, though again it speaks to the systems the caller is accessing ad their ability to put the patient and help together.

Interesting topic, certainly many points and it appears to me the general geography of your area could dictate. That being said, we don't run RLS to cover assignments, then again, none of the stations we cover are staffed, and the longest run I've seen in 19+ at my career job was 20 miles on 55 MPH road with only one light outside our own territory. For us the issue is not so much our own drivers being idiots (quality driver training+proactive disciplinary policies = predictable behaviors), but the civilian drivers whose reactions are unpredictable at best, can create the inevitable event. Every time you add lights and sirens you add risk above the normal persons commute for the same point A to point B trip. Herein lies the basic risk/benefit analysis. Will you arrive that much sooner to make a difference. How much time can be gained using RLS is dependent on your traffic situation. In our case, it's typically not more than 2-3 minutes (gain, not total trip). It takes a lot of MPH to overcome stopping at intersections (try outrunning your GPS's prediction based on the speed limits). But if you're stuck in traffic at a standstill, then it's likely a much different story. The one thing I know is that if had an apparatus involved in an accident, I'd much rather have had the RLS on for a "true emergency" than responding in case of a potential future emergency. I've heard numerous speakers say if you are running RLS, you'll be guilty until proven innocent.

From what I can tell, East Franklin is pretty close to setting the bar for volunteer training. We were fortunate enough to have spent a few hours with the Chief there about a year after Kevin Appuzio's LODD. As I recall they had a very strict schedule for their volunteers with mandatory "duty" time and minimum training done on each duty shift. I'm not sure what the base level training was, but by all appearances they were setting the ongoing training bar very high as compared to most VFD's I've been exposed to, and some career jobs.

This isn't the first place or time this discussion has come up (side port vs. kinked line or extraordinary effort) and it always seems that many have some aversion to using the 2.5" port? While we all understand that the large port offers the best flow, it seems that many equate the 2.5" port with the flow restrictions of a 2.5" line when it's not at all the case. You can use the lower coefficient of .7 to .9 vs. the .9-.99 for a smoothbore tip to figure out the ports capacity. With around 50 psi you can easily flow in the 1000 gpm range, again likely much better than a hard kinked LDH.

I've wondered why those who want/require front suction lines don't go back to the straight in inlets eliminating two 90 degree elbows from the very beginning? With this connection recessed in it could be substantially protected and likely have better results. Maybe not quite as easy without a swivel, but again, increasing the potential while allowing for pre-connected front suction?

Parking is a huge issue all over the place where there's any built up areas. The problem is the tax base cannot support building these garages using public funds, thus new buildings must be required to provide a requisite number of spaces, most of the time based on their impact. There are many examples of publicly funded parking garages that end up killing the municipal budget. Maybe ensuring the price of the ticket got these people's attention would prevent they're taking a gamble parking in front of a hydrant?

In both case show here the line appears that it will have significant friction loss from the kink. I wouldn't think twice about damaging the car, but I would hope for adequate water. The latest (first pics?) looks as if the kink might completely occlude the line. As said above, I'd expect a 2.5" to 5" storz adapter off a side port, then the line. Maybe not the best flow, but almost a guarantee to be better than the kinked lines. That said, is BFD's SOP that the Hydrant Assist Valve be placed every time? I'm lost on why they use it so close to the pumper? Typically used to lay in and have water before the next in can "boost" the pressure. Maybe it's an expensive shut off valve?

I'm by no means a fan of AEV, in fact I have little to do with speccing or using the buses most of the time. It does appear I'll have a part in the next one due to some staffing changes, so I'm interested in what's out there: safer, better, cheaper, and all that. We've been running 9 year replacement cycles for the last 4 and none have been reliable in year #9, but alas, mostly issues with the Ford chassis.

Not to throw stones, but how does one determine a particular brand is: Very Safe? Do they offer more safety features? Do more testing? Or have you experienced firsthand the safety? We have AEV's, specced heavily for provider safety with numerous non-standard features, but in the end we have no proof that they'll be any better or worse. I can conclusively say they cost more. But we're not looking to cut safety to save money, except that it appears the safer patient compartments are not as functional for patient care, which to me is not a place we can sacrifice.

Clearly these are some of the bigger issues. I agree and was thinking more that a true suspected Ebola case (not just flu-like symptoms) such as physical symptoms with travel to the affected region or other indicators would warrant the "special response units". Trying to use the physical symptoms alone won't work. To me it's like the "Suspicious Package" threat assessment: we can't treat every unattended back pack or box like a true bomb without some credible threat to corroborate it, otherwise the system would be crippled. If we had to treat every possible sign or symptom without credible corroborating information as to the threat, we'd still be working off our backlog of "white powder" incidents from 2001/2002. We need to ensure the persons who have the very first contact via telephone or in person have proper protocols to question and develop a risk assessment by which to then select the most appropriate response.

All the standard Monday Morning Quarterbacking aside, it always seems to be a vehicle fire that looks like a "Monkey F***** a Football".

Pretty interesting. Our guidance in Maine has been fairly lackluster, basically mirroring or referencing CDC Guidance. I could see issues developing and implementing policies in the 10 day window, though its unlikely many will have any "patients" within that time frame. The bigger issue is how we ensure our people know they may be dealing with suspected Ebola (we can still say it here!) before they make patient contact. This requires quality questioning and honest answers. It's not feasible to suit up for every call, nor warranted. I'm still of the mind that a suspected Ebola patient should not be transported in a public EMS bus. Isolate, plan the transport and care, then use designated assets who are proven to be trained equipped and compliant. Improper handling could result in a widespread public health crisis.

The issues surrounding the particular apparatus aside, the more interesting point is that it appears that there's no deviating from the treat or sign-off rules when faced with an MCI? We all should be very familiar with the need to document the crap out of everything, but at some point the legal liability must not overcome the system. While it's not an excuse to skate the rules, sometimes you have to evaluate the totality of the situation and trust that doing the right thing, is the right thing to do.

Their Lesson Learned mirrors much of what the fire service is talking about right now. As16fire5 noted, we've had to re-think VES to set the ladder and ascend before taking the window, as using the ladder to take the glass and "let it blow" was the norm. Also, the VBFD talking about using the transitional attack. While many of us have used a "blitz attack" when conditions were clearly untenable to start, we're now learning that using a solid or straight stream to get some water on the fire regardless is going to of more benefit than harm. The old theory that we'd push the fire with the stream has been all but dis-proven. And while they didn't address it, likely due to the amount of venting fire on arrival, flow path management may or may not have been a factor. With crews attempting entry and being forced out, the doors being open certainly would allow even more fresh oxygen to the fire. Heard reports from the Engine Capt. that they had heavy fire on the first floor, but no talk if they attempted to put water on it or were trying to get a position at the stairs without flowing? Well done production and timely as we reinforce some of the lessons UL/NIST and FDNY/Chicago have been putting out.

It also says the school failed to place her in a classroom that could be evacuated, while other parts of the ADA require that forcing those disabled persons into some spaces is prohibited and reasonable accommodations must be made to ensure they're given the same choices as fully mobile persons. It's a no win situation. No one wants to force someone to suffer greater injustice due to their disability, but there's a point where "reasonable" must be determined and this case seems to lead directly to the question of what's reasonable to expect of the school, the FD or any other building owner.

While I admit I've not read all the info provided, one must wonder what the end result will be if the FD can be sued for having any part of a "defend in place strategy". Many of us show up with far less resources than NRFD and when faced with a large high occupancy structure under evacuation, the tactics must address what can be done to with what is available right now. We often address the potential fire or issue, then as more personnel are available, respond to check on those who have sheltered in place. If we're going to be sued for not immediately going to the person, we're going to need a bunch more personnel on duty. Maybe we'll get three or four more personnel for dedicated search and rescue of those who are unable to escape on their own to comply with ADA?

Our apparatus committee is made up of 5 personnel of which in recent years three have gone on any factory trips. Typically the committee chair goes on all trips, the A/C in charge of maintenance goes on the pre-build and final trip and other holes are filled as can be by availability. The last two fire apparatus purchases were bid with three total trips each: pre-construction, pre-paint, final inspection/testing. Both of these trucks were "one-offs" and thus each trip proved valuable. I'm not sure we'd do the same number if we used the same builder or if we were buying another one of the same of either. I suepct the needs vary greatly from FD to FD and depending on the apparatus.

When I spoke of "Jack of all trades, Master of none" I was speaking of the personnel. Likely the majority of us don't have the luxury of members riding the same assigned piece for years at a time, but where that is possible, it's hard to dispute that the crew of that piece will be more effective. Guys that do nothing but work in engine companies will be better at engine ops that those of us who bounce around monthly or daily. The same thing with truck work. There are some shining examples in most departments of personnel who excel at everything they do, but likely that person who does a great job at any position would be phenomenal at just one if that was all he/she did. We have firefighter/paramedics, some are great medics, so are great firefighters, few are both. Not for lack of education or ability, but actual time and experience, as to excel at both disciplines takes time and work. I think quints certainly have an application and can be used wisely, but do I think all trucks should carry water? Hell no.

Maybe they thought it was better to close now rather than wait for the minimum wage hike to kill them?

Can anyone tell us what the rear bed carries? Given the "L" shape tank it's nice and deep, but I suspect fairly short in length?

To a quint is somewhat different than the rescue engine concept in that the role of the personnel is vastly different. When we arrive at a fire we need engine companies and truck companies doing their specific functions well. When we have a pin job we typically don't see the need for multiple different company types. Extrication is a fairly easy role for either a truck or engine, of course better with a dedicated company who spends even more time training and conducting these ops. The second issue I have is putting two primary systems on one truck-aerial and pump. Both systems can take the truck out of service killing both roles. To me a rescue engine with portable equipment works where there aren't other companies that can cover the assignment when the pumper is out for service or otherwise engaged. I see quints as perpetuating the "jack of all trades, master of none". So where multiple houses and companies are needed, I think the quint is an impediment to better quality apparatus and personnel. And as Chief Raftery points out, they are like the magic lantern the "lay off Genie" resides in.

Up this way, until recently all we had was candle pin bowling so the balls aren't much bigger than a softball.

The only thing I can think that might be somewhat related would be trash chute fire, but then I'd think the stakes would be high enough to warrant a hoseline or the bowling ball?

As for the original post and the article. We've seen what happens when a FD has a tank and pump on their aerial then fails to maintain them due to budget woes. Faced with major cuts, repairing pumps and leaking tanks on apparatus that functionally never used them didn't make sense, next thing you know you're Houston FD on 60 Minutes (mid 90's?) explaining why your truck company couldn't stretch a line. More primary systems require more upkeep and maintenance. Typically FD's aren't apparatus poor, their manpower poor. If there are holes in someone's response system that allow for long periods of time between a truck arriving and the next in engine, likely tossing a Quint in will create an even longer delay when that piece is tied up or out of service. This reminds me of the Louis CK clip about "Of course, but maybe". Of course, of course we have to make due with the funding and staffing the public gives us, but maybe when they cut and cut until we're riding twice as far with half the members to a fire the public should get what they paid for... Of course not, but... While I wholeheartedly believe we must provide the highest level of service we are capable of with the resources we're given, we must educate the public as to the limitations these cuts make. It is our job to to assume risk to address the emergency needs of our communities, but it's also our job to ensure that we take every measure possible to return to quarters with the same personnel we left with in the same condition. There is a balance between acceptable risk to our members and the amount of risk assumed to save life and property, if the public doesn't understand that scale we are partially to blame. We understand that it's impossible to provide the level of service many Metro FD's provide in rural America, yet how many citizens really understand the difference?

Chimney fires? Possible pre-cursor to the baggie of dry chem?