SRS131EMTFF

Has any one heard if they were accepted to attend or not?

Signed up about 5 years ago (15 Years old at the time) with Donate Life, New York States Organ Donation Network. Additionally I have indicated on my drivers license and to my family that I would like to be an organ donor.

A foam system demo was done in N. West over the summer. Your exact demonstration description is what took place. I can not recall what the name of the manufacturer was however.

Before JFLYNN or Bneiches takes this and as taught in FFII, no, no you dont. You may have enough foam for a car fire or two but if a 3,000 gallon tanker truck spills and goes up you are going to be calling in a great many surrounding friends to come play. E102, 103 and 105: 5 gallons per bucket x 3 buckets per truck x 3 trucks is 45 gallons of foam E104 and 106: 60 gallons per truck x 2 trucks is 120 gallons This creates a total of 165 gallons of foam carried. At a expansion ratio of 3:1 that is only 495 gallons of foam. Obviously different ratios can be used but I am simply trying to say that it is not enough. Other than the obvious hazards in YFDs district, there is a reason why they have an entire truck devoted simply to carrying foam from one location to another. Its because when you need some, odds are you will also need a lot.

Are you referring to A or B type foam cells on apparatus or CAFS? I have seen CAFS units that are not built into the pump but rather their own unit that show a lot of promise if you want foam capabilities if A. you do not want to add water to your apparatus B. you do not want to have the built in foam systems.

Because a WEMS medic is dispatched along with the local FD or VAC in the 45-Medic service area. So 60 Control to 45-Medic-X and XXX FD/VAC please respond to 123 main street is what gets toned out. The WEMS dispatchers in Somers are for Somers only and interWEMS communucation.

Good article, very informative. I am still curious how much they paid for the panels themselves. They already saved money and decreased emissions by switching chassis, but the cost of each solar panel will really determine if the panel pays for itself and reduces emissions even further. Honestly, a huge step in a less oil dependent and greener direction, if only we could increases those MPGs even further...

I was only referring to the reaction itself, not the principles behind the steel. But thank you for that information.

No offense to Commissioner Pilla but many of his comparisons are flat wrong. I dont work at 60 but I have been there enough times and know the Somers/WEMS area very well. 1. The residents of Somers already pay for in their county taxes the for 60. By having to then pay more again for WEMS (not a dig on WEMS) to do the same job that 60 is going is simply charging the residence twice for a service they receive once. 2. Regards 60 security. While I will not go into it completely. Yes the doors lock from the inside, yes their are cameras and how much venerable can it be with a WCPD literally a stones throw away. 3. Regards dispatching. Yes they provide past call history, yes they provide cross streets, yes they give special announcements, yes they dispatch mutual aid and yes they dispatch according to SOP/SOGs so long as you tell them what you want. I am curious what members of Somers think of their commissioner, his claims and his popularity.

Rust is nothing more than the oxidation side of an oxidation-reduction reaction. Oxidation-Reduction reactions occur between all materials; while it is theoretically possible for steel to oxidize, as posted above, that should take a very, very long time if the steel is manufactured correctly and not exposed to extreme environments. Think excessive road salt.

Never Forget. And the as the Albany Cold Storage fire showed, hopefully indeed we have not....

Agreed, having under gone in excess of 50hrs of certified training at the FTC with ALSfirefighter in the past year alone, not even mentioning all of the ff's I know he has trained I can truly say Tommy is one of the most knowledgeable, passionate and helpful instructors I have ever had the privilege of studying under. Having heard you discuss this board in class there is not much more I can add here other than adding thank you for the information exchanged both here and in the classroom.

Define Probie.

Captain, I was only really referring to the FFI/FFII classes where E194 can be used and shared with all of the on-site training classes thus eliminating the need have individual departments take an engine out of service out of district to be used by trainees. If any department schedules a department wide drill at the FTC, obviously that department should bring their own apparatus.

I was more referring to the various FFI, FFII, Engine Company Operations, etc classes that require a 1 pumper for various students from all over the county. If there are people from departments A, B, C, D, E, F, G in a FFI class they will not all be using their own departments engine for all of their live fire and hose advancement classes. Having a dedicated engine for training classes at the training center would mean the various firefighters in the class from Departments A, B, C, D, E, F, and G would have constant access to a functional engine to train with their while at the same time keeping an engine from one of those departments in-service in district to provide its services to the people who paid for it. For example, my FFI class at the WCFTC had an engine from Sleepy Hollow, Bedford, Somers and I believe Katonah come down and supply handlines for our use while training in the burn buildings. Having the former Rye engine at the FTC would eliminate the need to take any of these rigs out of service out of district for training the FFI class.

extremely unprofessional...

Hopefully this replaces the need for area departments to take a front line apparatus out of service to bring down to the FTC to train with engine company operations classes. Is E194 being replaced or is the designator being taken out of service?

lohud article http://www.lohud.com/article/20101129/NEWS02/11290355/

Having been in the yard this weekend, the top ambulance belonged to a rescue squad in PA, when it was bought by a VAC in TX that never got off the ground who sold it to its current owner. The bottom ambulance is a 2005 from North Bergen NJ EMS And the Californ Brush Truck drives like a dream for a '84.

What I meant by unequivocal was I got essentially the same answer from each one. I am sorry I was not more clear in my above post. My original post now reflects what I was told.

The opinion I posted above was given to me by three different malpractice attorneys all interview separately and independently. I presented them with the same situation. 45 YAO Male Patient. In care of ALS. Traumatic injuries-Unstable. Bird is on its way with 5 minutes until the bird lands but the local trauma center is 15 minutes away. I asked is it considered negligence or malpractice to wait for the bird despite the unstable patient and the trauma center 15 minutes away? The same answer I got from them was that it does not legally constitute malpractice nor negligence. Is it a good decision to make? No it is not, but it is not the wrong decision to make and the reasons why it is not are what I posted above. I understand you may disagree or your "firehouse" "lawyer" may have told you a different answer but the fact is 3 different lawyers with over 60 years of combined experience, including years arguing as prosecutors and before the NYS Supreme Court and the Federal Court said otherwise.

Having spoken to a malpractice lawyer I was given three reasons why it is not negligence: 1) As long as you can justify why you thought it was needed it is not negligence 2) If you are acting in the best interest of the patient it is not negligence 3) Waiting for the air ambulance and the higher trained provider is not an incorrect decision to make and there for not negligence. Waiting for the air ambulance even with a critical patient alone does not constitute the legal definition of negligence or malpractice. One actually has to do something wrong and violate the standard of care to be negligent.

rest in peace

While I may be slightly off topic, this discussion is still relevant. Remember the pool company fire in Stamford several years ago, that was a massive haz-mat incident, the entire first alarm assignment as well as several officers were sent to the hospital and deconed if I remember correctly. This incident sounds very similar and unfortunately could have been very similar to the incident in Stamford. Granted that was for airbourne exposure but think what if it was in the water? Why would we not treat the water we use to put out the hazardous material on fire as a hazardous material? We should be just as concerned about the water we let loose at a fire as we are of the vapor, fumes and smoke at fire. The airborne chemicals act fast but are not as long lived as the chemicals in water you drink. Luckily my choose career path lets me innately understand hydrologic and airborne particle science (Fickian or Brownian Transport, dispersion coefficents, octonal water coeffiencets, hydrodynamics and hydrology as well as plume dispersion and adiabatic cooling) . All the information that the ERG tells you, distance down wind, containment zones etc etc are all calculated and understood using equations to model these situations. Understanding these modeling equations as they apply to particles, materials and the environment is what I do both in school and for a living.

oh ok got it thanks, I looked but did not see it