antiquefirelt

Over the years I watched and read about both Fire and EMS departments merging or consolidation and come to the understanding that this rarely saves money (at least in the short term<10 yrs) and only functions well when it's well received by the "employees". It's easier where the employees are FT paid staff, as the details tend to get worked out. Volunteer organizations have a harder time unless they all want it. I'd think for any mainly volunteer or paid call departments a period of shared training and cooperative buying, along with standardization would set a more stable foundation. 
 
We have both fire and EMS departments "failing" around our area, and generally speaking the taxpayers are not given the whole story. Too often the EMS or Fire Chief and personnel are less forthcoming about their shortfalls with the public, as it seems to admit failure rather than a sign that times have changed and the between run volumes, call types and mandated training requirements have placed a significant burden on the all volunteer/paid call systems.

Over the years I watched and read about both Fire and EMS departments merging or consolidation and come to the understanding that this rarely saves money (at least in the short term<10 yrs) and only functions well when it's well received by the "employees". It's easier where the employees are FT paid staff, as the details tend to get worked out. Volunteer organizations have a harder time unless they all want it. I'd think for any mainly volunteer or paid call departments a period of shared training and cooperative buying, along with standardization would set a more stable foundation. 
 
We have both fire and EMS departments "failing" around our area, and generally speaking the taxpayers are not given the whole story. Too often the EMS or Fire Chief and personnel are less forthcoming about their shortfalls with the public, as it seems to admit failure rather than a sign that times have changed and the between run volumes, call types and mandated training requirements have placed a significant burden on the all volunteer/paid call systems.

I believe the general difference is that a ladder tower is a heavy duty aerial ladder with bucket on the end (mid or rearmount) and Tower ladder is used to describe those box beam aerials with buckets that have a ladder attached to the top of the aerial boom, neither being articulating? Using those loose definitions only Aerialscope and Sutphen produce "Tower Ladders" while the rest would be termed Ladder towers. That being said, why this would make a difference to anyone other than local jargon is beyond me.

So I'm pretty sure most or all of this comes from Priority Medical Dispatch, who have developed the phonetic response determinants based on the old four square risk model? Attached is the model from the EMD field guide. They note that the codes are given the same in every system, but the system users/admin determine the given response to the codes based on the local system.
 
For example, our system locally does not have ALS or BLS trucks, we have volunteers that may or may not have ALS in town or two career staffed EMS services that have ALS on duty. So if we're short  on medics, we send a medic on all calls that are Charlie, Delta or Echo, but hold them back on Alpha and Bravo calls to ensure their availability. Echo calls in our system have the dispatcher notifying the EMS, fire and PD resources in the dispatched area to ensure the fastest unit arrives as quickly as possible and can begin CPR or notify the others of the situation.

So I'm pretty sure most or all of this comes from Priority Medical Dispatch, who have developed the phonetic response determinants based on the old four square risk model? Attached is the model from the EMD field guide. They note that the codes are given the same in every system, but the system users/admin determine the given response to the codes based on the local system.
 
For example, our system locally does not have ALS or BLS trucks, we have volunteers that may or may not have ALS in town or two career staffed EMS services that have ALS on duty. So if we're short  on medics, we send a medic on all calls that are Charlie, Delta or Echo, but hold them back on Alpha and Bravo calls to ensure their availability. Echo calls in our system have the dispatcher notifying the EMS, fire and PD resources in the dispatched area to ensure the fastest unit arrives as quickly as possible and can begin CPR or notify the others of the situation.

Rumors abound about this major shift from Scott. There are few if any other brands on this job that I have a deep a loyalty to. I'v e switched helmets, boots, bunkers, hose, nozzle, apparatus and always felt fine, but a switch from Scott to anything else would be a hard pill to swallow. I'm not sure of any piece of equipment we invest so much time in being intimate with and rely on for so much. I can honestly say I've never had an issue that took air away from my mask with Scott, something I cannot say about previous uses with two other major brands. I hope this works out for BFD and isn't due to a foolish backlash.

Our dept. has 3 shifts of 6 and a very small "call division" of 8-10. Recalls occur fairly often about an average of 30 times a month but we can go days with none and have 6 another day.  These used to be by platoon a few decades ago when our call division was much larger, but now they are "all come" recalls. I track call payroll and FT recall attendance and on average we get 2.2 FT personnel per recall. We are paid a min. of 2 hrs OT for all recalls 0600-2300 and 3 hrs OT from 2300-0600 or anytime on holidays. Sadly only 3 of our career personnel live inside the city limits, so it does affect turnout and the speed at which the station is covered.  None of our call division personnel are EMS licensed, so that makes recalls a bit more difficult, as of course this is 75% of our work. Most are fully certified FF2 and driver operated certified annually, but alas, the call force is dwindling to the core group and there is very little outside interest to join.
 
I know that over the years recall attendance by career staff ebbs and flows. Younger guys tend to have other jobs off-duty, then there are guys with families that have childcare responsibilities during time off, those who get somewhat burned-out tend to not respond to routine recalls. On the plus side, we have one Lt. who lives in town who takes as much OT as possible come to most callbacks, and one or two other personnel who are pretty regular.  With structure fires being down, we get decent turnouts for most first alarms. My own personal situation is that I used to be 'Johnny on the spot" even though I lived about 15 min. away, but  as I've aged, I find getting back to sleep much more difficult and operating with less sleep much harder, thus I pass up more recalls at night than before even though I live closer. 
 
The one thing that seems to motivate career personnel  in our dept. is that your off-duty attendance of training and recalls can be a factor in promotions, as personnel who are "always" there tend to be favored when other things are on par between candidates. With a large percentage of our officers eligible to retire in the next 3 years this likely will result in some making a greater effort.  

Our dept. has 3 shifts of 6 and a very small "call division" of 8-10. Recalls occur fairly often about an average of 30 times a month but we can go days with none and have 6 another day.  These used to be by platoon a few decades ago when our call division was much larger, but now they are "all come" recalls. I track call payroll and FT recall attendance and on average we get 2.2 FT personnel per recall. We are paid a min. of 2 hrs OT for all recalls 0600-2300 and 3 hrs OT from 2300-0600 or anytime on holidays. Sadly only 3 of our career personnel live inside the city limits, so it does affect turnout and the speed at which the station is covered.  None of our call division personnel are EMS licensed, so that makes recalls a bit more difficult, as of course this is 75% of our work. Most are fully certified FF2 and driver operated certified annually, but alas, the call force is dwindling to the core group and there is very little outside interest to join.
 
I know that over the years recall attendance by career staff ebbs and flows. Younger guys tend to have other jobs off-duty, then there are guys with families that have childcare responsibilities during time off, those who get somewhat burned-out tend to not respond to routine recalls. On the plus side, we have one Lt. who lives in town who takes as much OT as possible come to most callbacks, and one or two other personnel who are pretty regular.  With structure fires being down, we get decent turnouts for most first alarms. My own personal situation is that I used to be 'Johnny on the spot" even though I lived about 15 min. away, but  as I've aged, I find getting back to sleep much more difficult and operating with less sleep much harder, thus I pass up more recalls at night than before even though I live closer. 
 
The one thing that seems to motivate career personnel  in our dept. is that your off-duty attendance of training and recalls can be a factor in promotions, as personnel who are "always" there tend to be favored when other things are on par between candidates. With a large percentage of our officers eligible to retire in the next 3 years this likely will result in some making a greater effort.  

Our dept. has 3 shifts of 6 and a very small "call division" of 8-10. Recalls occur fairly often about an average of 30 times a month but we can go days with none and have 6 another day.  These used to be by platoon a few decades ago when our call division was much larger, but now they are "all come" recalls. I track call payroll and FT recall attendance and on average we get 2.2 FT personnel per recall. We are paid a min. of 2 hrs OT for all recalls 0600-2300 and 3 hrs OT from 2300-0600 or anytime on holidays. Sadly only 3 of our career personnel live inside the city limits, so it does affect turnout and the speed at which the station is covered.  None of our call division personnel are EMS licensed, so that makes recalls a bit more difficult, as of course this is 75% of our work. Most are fully certified FF2 and driver operated certified annually, but alas, the call force is dwindling to the core group and there is very little outside interest to join.
 
I know that over the years recall attendance by career staff ebbs and flows. Younger guys tend to have other jobs off-duty, then there are guys with families that have childcare responsibilities during time off, those who get somewhat burned-out tend to not respond to routine recalls. On the plus side, we have one Lt. who lives in town who takes as much OT as possible come to most callbacks, and one or two other personnel who are pretty regular.  With structure fires being down, we get decent turnouts for most first alarms. My own personal situation is that I used to be 'Johnny on the spot" even though I lived about 15 min. away, but  as I've aged, I find getting back to sleep much more difficult and operating with less sleep much harder, thus I pass up more recalls at night than before even though I live closer. 
 
The one thing that seems to motivate career personnel  in our dept. is that your off-duty attendance of training and recalls can be a factor in promotions, as personnel who are "always" there tend to be favored when other things are on par between candidates. With a large percentage of our officers eligible to retire in the next 3 years this likely will result in some making a greater effort.  

LayTheLine: That's far more than I anticipated. I'll have to ask if we have a similar thing in our area. I never remember being part of or hearing about a bus evacuation drill, but alas, it's been a few years since I rode  in a yellow bus. 
 
 

I recall this fire-as it occurred on my shift. The fire happened in the early Am, and the only occupant in the bus at the time of the incident was the driver. The driver was also the person who called 911, and took the video.

While I think most would agree specialty tools like the Navy Nozzle, bayonet nozzles, or Bresdan Distributors have a place on apparatus, their uses are for a specific set of circumstances. In this case, even if you felt it was not safe to enter the bus, the rear door would have made an easy access point for a normal firestream. 
 
On evacuating the bus, does anyone know the procedure the drivers are taught (maybe not standard?). This looks like the perfect case for the driver to send kids out the back and check seat by seat on his way out the back as well? But, does the driver have to open the door, or can kids of any age do this in an emergency? If the driver has to go back and open the door, he may never get back to the front to check seat by seat... Something I'd never really given any consideration, but this discussion got me thinking. 

I have a friend who is a school bus driver and school bus driver instructor - that's what got me started with this thread.
 
antiquefirelt - As a point of interest, the back emergency door can be opened from outside. But you bring up a good point of how to manage everything when it's one adult and especially 30 grade school kids!! This is the biggest challenge for bus drivers and from what my friend tells me, a lot more time is spent in their training on walking through how to evacuate a bus full of grade school kids, although they still go over evacuation for middle school & high school in training. I've attached two videos, each about 5 minutes long. The first one is a video that she shows to new candidate drivers as an introduction to safety and evacuation. The second one is a video made for the kids. They show it every year to 5th, 7th and 9th graders early in the school year. They don't show it to grade school kids as they don't want to frighten the kids and a lot of the stuff they're talking about (reaching certain handles) the little kids couldn't reach anyhow. So it's been thought through and hopefully the kids have been executed should you pull up on any school bus emergency.
 
For new drivers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5aZwsGm8M
 
For students (a little corny but it could save lives!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNbld-7QJ7s
 

While I think most would agree specialty tools like the Navy Nozzle, bayonet nozzles, or Bresdan Distributors have a place on apparatus, their uses are for a specific set of circumstances. In this case, even if you felt it was not safe to enter the bus, the rear door would have made an easy access point for a normal firestream. 
 
On evacuating the bus, does anyone know the procedure the drivers are taught (maybe not standard?). This looks like the perfect case for the driver to send kids out the back and check seat by seat on his way out the back as well? But, does the driver have to open the door, or can kids of any age do this in an emergency? If the driver has to go back and open the door, he may never get back to the front to check seat by seat... Something I'd never really given any consideration, but this discussion got me thinking. 

So a few points that must be considered when using this video as a basis for comparison:
1. The nozzle was set to a narrow to medium fog pattern, something we know will entrain air and push heat, smoke and fire. A straight or solid stream would not have had the same result, or to the same degree.
2. The issue of pushing products of combustion onto trapped occupants outside the fire room has been shown to be nearly negated with a proper solid/straight stream and little movement. Inside the fire room with actual fire out the window, the probability of survivability is next to nothing. 
3. One of the reasons we have such a wide spread of results from the "reset" stream is the misapplication. When you say "at any angle", it's really a perversion of the research showing the smooth/straight stream should be aimed into the opening with the stream entering the opening low and aimed sharply upward at the ceiling and held there with little to no movement to minimize blocking the venting from the same opening.
4. Positioning  a line to attack from the unburned side can result in delayed water on the fire, which we know is the real key to success. The sooner we can cool the fire and stop the production/spread of heat, the better. Also, going to the rear in residential dwellings often doesn't allow for the line to be placed between the fire and the stairs. 
 
In my opinion, the "outside hit" is a tactic that can work very well as long the conditions are right: a) fire must be self-vented from the fire room, b) the opening cannot be out of the way of the first line stretched so that it causes a delay in getting inside (unless it's totally untenable), c) charging the line outside cannot delay the stretch inside (fire on the third floor or above where a dry lay up may be significantly faster).
 
Basically, why would we not want to cool the fire faster if it's possible? Again, done properly, utilizing a straight stream or solid bore properly applied when it doesn't significantly (60 seconds?) delay the stretch in? Again in my opinion this tactic should not be called "transitional attack".  Transitional indicates a movement from one mode to another, but in this case the outside stream is not a defensive move, it's a "new" option in the offensive attack, that like other tactics should be utilized when conditions indicate and allow. Conditions dictate tactics.
 
All of that said, that video went totally different than I anticipated, they made short work of that fire.  

So a few points that must be considered when using this video as a basis for comparison:
1. The nozzle was set to a narrow to medium fog pattern, something we know will entrain air and push heat, smoke and fire. A straight or solid stream would not have had the same result, or to the same degree.
2. The issue of pushing products of combustion onto trapped occupants outside the fire room has been shown to be nearly negated with a proper solid/straight stream and little movement. Inside the fire room with actual fire out the window, the probability of survivability is next to nothing. 
3. One of the reasons we have such a wide spread of results from the "reset" stream is the misapplication. When you say "at any angle", it's really a perversion of the research showing the smooth/straight stream should be aimed into the opening with the stream entering the opening low and aimed sharply upward at the ceiling and held there with little to no movement to minimize blocking the venting from the same opening.
4. Positioning  a line to attack from the unburned side can result in delayed water on the fire, which we know is the real key to success. The sooner we can cool the fire and stop the production/spread of heat, the better. Also, going to the rear in residential dwellings often doesn't allow for the line to be placed between the fire and the stairs. 
 
In my opinion, the "outside hit" is a tactic that can work very well as long the conditions are right: a) fire must be self-vented from the fire room, b) the opening cannot be out of the way of the first line stretched so that it causes a delay in getting inside (unless it's totally untenable), c) charging the line outside cannot delay the stretch inside (fire on the third floor or above where a dry lay up may be significantly faster).
 
Basically, why would we not want to cool the fire faster if it's possible? Again, done properly, utilizing a straight stream or solid bore properly applied when it doesn't significantly (60 seconds?) delay the stretch in? Again in my opinion this tactic should not be called "transitional attack".  Transitional indicates a movement from one mode to another, but in this case the outside stream is not a defensive move, it's a "new" option in the offensive attack, that like other tactics should be utilized when conditions indicate and allow. Conditions dictate tactics.
 
All of that said, that video went totally different than I anticipated, they made short work of that fire.  

So a few points that must be considered when using this video as a basis for comparison:
1. The nozzle was set to a narrow to medium fog pattern, something we know will entrain air and push heat, smoke and fire. A straight or solid stream would not have had the same result, or to the same degree.
2. The issue of pushing products of combustion onto trapped occupants outside the fire room has been shown to be nearly negated with a proper solid/straight stream and little movement. Inside the fire room with actual fire out the window, the probability of survivability is next to nothing. 
3. One of the reasons we have such a wide spread of results from the "reset" stream is the misapplication. When you say "at any angle", it's really a perversion of the research showing the smooth/straight stream should be aimed into the opening with the stream entering the opening low and aimed sharply upward at the ceiling and held there with little to no movement to minimize blocking the venting from the same opening.
4. Positioning  a line to attack from the unburned side can result in delayed water on the fire, which we know is the real key to success. The sooner we can cool the fire and stop the production/spread of heat, the better. Also, going to the rear in residential dwellings often doesn't allow for the line to be placed between the fire and the stairs. 
 
In my opinion, the "outside hit" is a tactic that can work very well as long the conditions are right: a) fire must be self-vented from the fire room, b) the opening cannot be out of the way of the first line stretched so that it causes a delay in getting inside (unless it's totally untenable), c) charging the line outside cannot delay the stretch inside (fire on the third floor or above where a dry lay up may be significantly faster).
 
Basically, why would we not want to cool the fire faster if it's possible? Again, done properly, utilizing a straight stream or solid bore properly applied when it doesn't significantly (60 seconds?) delay the stretch in? Again in my opinion this tactic should not be called "transitional attack".  Transitional indicates a movement from one mode to another, but in this case the outside stream is not a defensive move, it's a "new" option in the offensive attack, that like other tactics should be utilized when conditions indicate and allow. Conditions dictate tactics.
 
All of that said, that video went totally different than I anticipated, they made short work of that fire.  

Does it have CO detection built-in or that an option? 

Does it have CO detection built-in or that an option? 

If your staffed properly and everyone does their job you should be able to put the fire out and move before the ticket officer nabs you! Of course you'll have to leave all the overhaul to the truckies.

If your staffed properly and everyone does their job you should be able to put the fire out and move before the ticket officer nabs you! Of course you'll have to leave all the overhaul to the truckies.

If your staffed properly and everyone does their job you should be able to put the fire out and move before the ticket officer nabs you! Of course you'll have to leave all the overhaul to the truckies.

If your staffed properly and everyone does their job you should be able to put the fire out and move before the ticket officer nabs you! Of course you'll have to leave all the overhaul to the truckies.

If your staffed properly and everyone does their job you should be able to put the fire out and move before the ticket officer nabs you! Of course you'll have to leave all the overhaul to the truckies.

If your staffed properly and everyone does their job you should be able to put the fire out and move before the ticket officer nabs you! Of course you'll have to leave all the overhaul to the truckies.