IzzyEng4

I used the link, pretty cool. I still can't see them on this page using Firefox or IE7. Weird

where's the cans?? no pics came through.

Nice Job

You never assume that electrical lines that are not arcing are dead, first mistake make by all public safter officials. Having worked and knowing electricians, you can never assume that any electrical line (doesn't matter if it is a service or a transmission line) does not have any power to it. Any exposed power line must be monitored and people kept back from it (an electrical current once it is grounded can still travel several feet throught the ground and still shock you). Another problem is the "its only a cable / telephone line", who says that thes lines might not be touching an electrical power line? Are firefighters, chiefs or other public saftey personnel qualified enough to make this decision, the answer is no (even if you work for the local power company and are operating as a firefighter.) Now having said that, the liability of leaving the scene. Technically if the hazard is not mitigated and the units all cleared the scene, then the FD is liable for its actions for lack of mitigation. But wether you leave a truck and crew, the IC stays on scene or a fire-police member or police office, then you are covered so that the rest of the units can return to service. The problem is still being monitored. This way if you have atleast one public safety servant monitoring the problem, the fd can go still check other hazards, especially during a storm whemn we get the most calls for downed wires. The best bet for anyone is to have a the saftey team from your local power company come out and have a class with them, they are more than willing to do so. My department has a few guys that work for UI and they set up a training session since we have several transmission lines going through the town and also because of the way an incident was handled and the members needed to have a refresher.

If a room flashes, your gear is not going to fully protect you. This is a misconception. yes it will protect you as long as it can. With that tremendous heat, even the newest turnout gear will break down. Also with being full encaspulated, you are sweating and that high heat will make your sweat steam and burn you that way (a first degree bun is still a burn and will continue to burn). A lot of people think they can get out of a flashover alright. Just remember what a flashover is, everything in the room ignites when it reaches it ignition temperature. I have yet to see a full set of turnout gear, what ever the style or make up of it is, fully protect a firefighter and have him / her escape without any injuries. Yes full bunkers will give you added and extremly more protection and help save you're ###in the early stages from a flash as long as you can get out. If you are caught in a flash and can't get out, your bunkers will not protect you. All gear fails at some point. Bunkers obviously give you the best protection around, unarguable. But you can't use the example of a flashover because that is a whole different beast.

Actually Chief, that is who I was refering to in Eastern CT all those departments and thier designation of ETA's ect. Also too, well at least the apparatus in New Haven County, pumpers with 1000 gallons of water on them are engines (and there is at least 10 desgined like this around my area). I just can't see calling a unit a engine tanker if it has 2000 of less (since it is very rare seeing 1250, 1500 or 1750 gwts) and doesn't have a dump valve which most of those classified ETA's w/ 1000 gwt's do not. An engine tanker can double as an attack pumper and also a water hauler and dump its load. I just find that odd calling it something it isn't functioned to do. That just me though.

I saw the post for a new Engine-tanker on the forum and got me thinking what is a true Engine-Tanker (or pumper-tanker, engine-tank, tanker-pumper depending what a department calls it.) In CT there area several different departments with different pump sizes and tank sizes. For instance, a neigboring department to my town has 2 engine tankers. One has a 1250 gpm pump and a 3000 gallon water tank, while their other has a 1250 pump and 2000 gallon water tank. But what about departments, such as in eastern CT have 1000 gpm pumps and 1000 gallon tanks and call them Engine-Tanks. Should they? For me, I believe an Engine-tanker / Tanker pumper should be a truck on any chassis that is rated as a Class A (1000 gpm pump or greater) and have a minimum of 2000 of water with or without a dump valve and a folding drafting tank on board. Also to if the unit is considered an attack unit, then the desigantion in my mind should be "Engine-Tanker" or "Pumper-Tanker" where as if the primary function is to tansport water to a scene from a source then call it a Tanker-pumper or Tanker. I don't beleive that any truck with less than 2000 gallons of water in a tank on an attack pumper should be called and Engine Tanker / pumper tanker, its a pumper or Engine. Also too any tanker with a 500 to 750 pump should just be classified Tanker, which I have seen otherwise, but very few, under this designation (just like mini attack pumpers with no more than 750 pump on them being called an Engine) Just my thoughs, what do you all think? Now I'm not looking at any NFPA designations right now, just personal opinions.

Hey guys, not to be and @## of anything, but if this person is complaining about what infromation is being shared or not, we can actually get the information leagaly and we are protected under the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT in obtaining and sharing information (as long as the information is not used for slander). I mean come on! Do we really have to go that route? But then again I guess that people feel the need to complain is the only way they need to be heard. Let's not change. If we hear of a new delivery we should report it because new technologies are going to help the next neighbor. Also to if there area members that have new trucks comming in and they had corrected and additional information, they should share it. I just can't understand why this person complained to y'all.

I found the PDF of the study. Here is the link. It's a long but good read and proves what we all have been saying all along and how to safelty use any style of turnout gear. http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/pdf/efop/tr_02dm.pdf

There was a discussion in the threads about this before. Boston actually did a study on turnout gear during the 90's and proved the differences about turnouts and that all of them give you the adequate protection needed. Let me find the thread and also there was a link to the article. I like turnouts for going into a structure bu troof work I rather go with the 3/4 boots and long coat, but our department doesn't allow it.

I remember a story about my grandfather in the 50's running out the house door to the firehouse got his 3/4 boosts on and long coat and drove the truck to the call and couldn't understand why there was a draft up his pants. Then he realized at the 4am alarm he only had a t-shirt and boxers on. Does that count????

Just a note: Southport Volunteer Fire Department and Stratfield Volunteer Fire Department in Fairfeild are independent fire companies and are officially chartered through the State of Connecticut. Any members that are here from these departments please provide more info. (I personally know Chief Kopko)

Connecticut Firefighters Sue To Answer Calls **As printed on Firehouse.com** Updated: 10-25-2006 01:53:59 PM ANDREW BROPHY Connecticut Post Online (Bridgeport, Connecticut) FAIRFIELD -- The Southport Volunteer Fire Department, put out of service by the town's Fire Commission last month, is fighting back. Roberto T. Lucheme, the volunteer firefighters' lawyer, filed a lawsuit late last week asking a Bridgeport Superior Court judge to order the town to dispatch the volunteer firefighters on emergency calls. A hearing is scheduled in court Nov. 6. Lucheme said Monday that the town, through its Fire Commission, was trying to assert control over the volunteer fire department, which he said was recognized as an independent fire department by the federal government. Peter Kopko, chief of the Southport Volunteer Fire Department, is smart enough to know which of his volunteers can respond to calls and which can't, Lucheme said. "To second-guess his judgment is remarkable," he said. "I think what's going on currently is nothing more than a classic power struggle." The Fire Commission on Sept. 14 refused to allow the Southport volunteers to assist paid firefighters on emergency calls because the volunteers hadn't provided documents that proved they were up-to-date on training and fit to serve. But Fire Station 4 on Main Street, owned by the volunteer fire department, was never shut down because paid firefighters, and a firetruck used by them, are stationed there around-the-clock, according to Fire Chief Richard Felner. First Selectman Kenneth Flatto said he was "shocked and very disturbed" by the volunteers' lawsuit and that it was "an indication of a few people in that department who have run amok." Flatto said fire protection was controlled by the town under state law. "There's one Fairfield Fire Department under the Town Charter. The volunteers' role is to help in ways the town sees fit," he said. Town Attorney Richard Saxl said the town controls the 911 dispatch system. The Fire Commission on Oct. 12 also put the Stratfield Volunteer Fire Department out of service, but Felner said Thursday that its chief, Chris Burlant, had turned in the required paperwork on several of Stratfield's volunteers. Since only two firefighters are needed to man a firetruck, the Stratfield Volunteer Fire Department was put back in service last Thursday, Felner said. Saxl said Stratfield's volunteers had to meet the same requirements as Southport's volunteers. Saxl said last week that Southport's volunteers had been slow to turn in paperwork, and Flatto said the town would demonstrate in court that the volunteers had not been adequately trained. "Unfortunately, the evidence is going to show there are huge gaps and weaknesses in their organization and their training, and it's unfortunate," Flatto said. But Lucheme questioned why the Southport Volunteer Fire Department had to be put out of service until training records were provided. "You don't just go in there willy-nilly and say, 'We're in charge.' There has to be some kind of better mechanism worked out," Lucheme said. "This is doing it by edict." Lucheme also questioned whether paid firefighters should have to give documents to the Southport Volunteer Fire Department to prove paid firefighters were up-to-date on training. Andrew Brophy, who covers Fairfield, can be reached at 330-6255.

Sorry Andrew, services we this morning and I had to work last night. I didn't know Dan personally, but several of my friends knew him well. Sad lost.

How true, this disgusts me. I couldn't beleivie this when I read the paper this morning at work.

BAD EVIL MONKEY!!

Just FYI, this needs to be posted under the Apparatus forum. Hopefully one of the admins would eb able to moveit over there for us. To answer your question, a Sattellite in not an engine, it is a hose wagon that carries a total of 3000 feet of large diameter hose (dual beds of 1500 each for dual lays if needed), several 5 gallon buckets of foam and have a very high output "stinger" (rating of 1000 to 5250 depending on tip size and also how many pumpers are feeding it) and does not have a pump. It is also equipped with two smaller dek guns and has a high output manifol on a wheeled "hand-truck". There are six satellites and are currently paired up with a 2000 gpm pumper (Engines 9, 72, 159, 207, 284 and 324). The Satellite units were first used with the old super pumper and the Maxi Water system that replaced it, if I remember correctly. The are totally different than the JFK airport hose wagon (Engine 308) and the Manifold Hose Wagon (Engine 329 in the Rockaways) whihc just carry hose. I got most of my info from the FDNY operations guide. If anyone else has updated or better information on them please post.

Another question. Which Engine Companies ran the Mack / Tele's combo when they were in service?

CRIKEY!!! DID YA SEE THAT ONE ALMOST GIT AWAY?? (Sorry Steve)

Thanks for posting it. I heard about Dan's passing from a good friend of the family. I wasn't sure of the arrangments. A good frine do f mine was friends with Dan and said he was a great guy. I have heard of a couple of benifits to help his family out. As soon as I hear about them, I'll post them for y'all. Besides his wife, he has four children.

Department already went through that, but not intentionally. Back in 1969, the department devilvered a new 1969 Mack CF to one of the other companies in town and they went to the old fire school in the town over and got stuck trying to get in there, Needless to say it sunk. Oh boy.

Good luck with your new Seagrave. Res6cue same you, with your department's new Pierce. I haven't been out to Rockland in a while since me and the ex broke up, so let me know when the wet / dry downs (housings) are. Joe

... And not paying attention to the other rig in front of you. Duh!

Thanks JBE!

Just remember one of the oldest quints still existing is the one built by Smeal in the late 50's early 60's. www.smeal.com I was it while out at thier plant and I have to saw wow, for an old time truck needed it was functional. They recently restored it and it look sand runs great, plus I think it still pumps too.