x152

Really? I was planning on doing whatever the IAFF told me to do (I have problems thinking for myself....).

Wow, it is as if I have traveled back in time (summer of 2004) and was reading the "Fire Fighters for Bush" forums......... "MY (underlined and emphasized) union is not doing what I (underlined and emphasized) should be done......" I think Artie Lange would say....."wahh.....wahh.....wahh......" The last time that I checked, the IAFF has not endorsed any candidate at this time. From the bipartisan gathering of Presidential candidates in Washington last week, it appears that they (the IAFF) are attempting to try and be as diverse and democratic as possible. In speaking personally with the General President in January, he is VERY aware of the negative sentiment from those members that were opposed to the John Kerry endorsement in 2004. He is also very aware that there are more republican IAFF members than there are democratic members. Although many members believe there is a "rubber stamp" for democrats, it appears that the IAFF is moving in a new direction (different that the AFL-CIO as a whole) and open doors for republican candidates. However, it is real hard for a LABOR union to endorse a candidate (ex: Sam Brownback) that has always maintained an anti-labor record. Kind of like Red Sox fans voting for A-Rod as the MVP (although that is just a fantasy). All too often, many of the true "union" members (when convenient for themselves) are quick to denounce an IAFF candidate because their background does not equate to their own personal beliefs. "John Kerry in Vietnam......" "this guy's record on abortion........" "Candidate Jones is anti-gun......" Does it have anything to do with the mission of the IAFF? (sure if you think the Union revolves around YOU). In reality, the IAFF works for ALL 280,000 of its members. If you are not happy with the IAFF position on a candidate then I suggest that you get involved in YOUR union. Run for a Union office, attend a Legislative Conference of Biennial Convention, perhaps even run as President of your own local (truly an insane move). Sitting at a keyboard and venting because the democratically elected delegates of your Union are supporting candidates that you personally disagree with is far from productive. It is interesting that this thread is about the ovation for Hillary (almost like as if reported by Fox News). I guess it would be "unfair" and "unbalanced" to mention that on the same day that Ms. Clinton spoke to the IAFF delegation, there were also 4 other democratic candidates and 5 REPUBLICAN presidential candidates that also received an "ovation" from the IAFF delegates. I guess that bit of history was omitted from this tread in order to achieve a certain "taste"? PS - the author of this post is an UNAFFILIATED (aka as an independent) voter.

Images from the 2nd Alarm fire on Greenwich Avenue (3/5/07) are now posted on the Stamford Fire Fighter's Web Site Link to images page: http://local786.org/index.cfm?zone=/uniona...fm&HomeID=53337

FYI - Norwalk is going RED for all future deliveries. Although a Ferrara, it looks like an exact copy of a Hackney body. There are also 5 other similar rigs listed as being delivered to CT Departments (Wallingford, Torrington, Norwalk, and both Indian Casinos). It appears to be part of some regional/State initiative, but as Izzy mentioned, the State has already delivered the 34 Pierce Contenders with ACS Trailers as part of a statewide response plan. Perhaps someone can add other details.

Absolutely swear by mine..........would never consider a PC again. Good luck with it.

Long Ridge Fire fined $1K for safety violations By Natasha Lee Staff Writer Stamford Advocate - February 25, 2007 STAMFORD - The state has fined Long Ridge Fire Company $1,080 for violating worker safety, including failing to test firefighters for breathing masks and failing to provide annual hazardous materials training. In the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Feb. 9 report, a copy of which was obtained by The Advocate, OSHA deemed six of the nine violations serious, meaning they could threaten the lives and safety of firefighters. Long Ridge Fire, a private, nonprofit volunteer department, is separate from the city but largely funded with taxpayer money. The OSHA report found Long Ridge did not provide medical evaluations to determine whether firefighters could use breathing machines, did not ensure all breathing masks fit properly and could not prove firefighters attended refresher training in handling hazardous materials. Volunteer Fire Chief Robert Bennett said most of the state's citations stemmed from poor record-keeping. He said he relied on firefighters' word that they had completed medical examinations. Bennett acknowledged being lax on enforcing mandatory training. OSHA was "very fair, and we're making headway on correcting the problems," he said. The department's headquarters is on Old Long Ridge Road and staffs two paid firefighters during the day and one at night. A second station on High Ridge Road has one paid firefighter manning a 24-hour shift. The department also relies on volunteers and mutual aid from the Turn of River Fire Department to respond to calls. The department's 30 firefighters include 10 paid firefighters and 20 volunteers. OSHA investigated the department last month after paid firefighter Donald Berg filed a complaint containing 19 allegations, including issues of understaffing at the department's two stations, faulty fire engines, broken ladders on a fire engine, lack of hazardous materials training and drills, and mold and exposed wiring at a fire station. Berg, a 25-year veteran, said he feared for his and residents' safety. OSHA did not address the issue of staffing, injuries sustained on the job, and seven other allegations outside its jurisdiction. In the report, OSHA said it investigated Berg's claim of the failure of Long Ridge Fire Company to comply with "two-in, two-out" staffing, a federal standard that requires two equally trained and equipped firefighters at the scene for every two who enter a burning building or other hazardous situation. OSHA concluded the department did have a "written procedure for two-in, two-out operations" but did not comment on whether the standard was enforced. OSHA Program Manager Thomas Hozebin said it does not comment on open investigations and that the complaint will remain open until the fine is paid and OSHA has approved corrections to the violations. Long Ridge has until May 14 to resolve most of them, according to the complaint. Berg said he was disappointed in OSHA's findings and that more than quick fixes are needed. "My purpose for (filing the complaint) was to push the chief and to push the city to realize we're behind in training and all of the other things we're entitled to and by law are required to have to serve the people of North Stamford," he said. Bennett said he has addressed some of the violations, including citations for electrical hazards, and is drafting program manuals required for using breathing masks, and on exposure to blood-borne pathogens and other infectious materials OSHA cited as violations. Other violations will take more time to address. The report said: "The employer does not have a written respirator program, fit tests are not complete for all firefighters, and no records of medical evaluations were available." According to OSHA requirements, a firefighter using a respirator or breathing machine with a face mask must have the mask checked annually to ensure it fits properly. Firefighters must complete a medical examination before being fit-tested for the mask. The department has fit-tested 15 firefighters since last summer, Bennett said. Long Ridge Fire Company co-owns a fit-testing machine with Springdale Fire Company and Belltown Fire Department. "It's time consuming. Slowly but surely, we've been getting guys to go down there for a fit," Bennett said. "A year from now everyone will be 100 percent." OSHA requires that fire departments document whether a firefighter has passed a medical exam, and whether their training is up to date. It was unclear whether all 30 firefighters have completed medical exams. Bennett said he did not keep documentation of completed medical exams because of privacy concerns, but said OSHA advised him to create a form that would indicate a pass or fail on a medical examination. "I was pleased with OSHA's findings, and it educated me. For years, it was kind of a myth what OSHA expected," said Bennett, who has been chief for three years and is a 36-year veteran with the fire company. He said he will be stricter about recording hazmat training and drill participation. He provided OSHA with records back to 2005, Bennett said. Only one firefighter has not completed refresher training, he said. "I'm supposed to enforce the rules, or firefighters could lose their jobs," Bennett said. "When the announcement goes out that it is mandatory, you show up, or I guess you won't work here anymore." OSHA officials said fire departments are not required to turn in records of certification and training unless a complaint is filed. "Departments maintain their own records, and most operate in good faith and do the best jobs they can but occasionally can fall through the cracks," Hozebin said. "Generally the only way we find out is if an employee files a complaint, particularly incidents where the 'two-in and two-out' was required," he said. Despite OSHA's reprimand, Berg said the agency did not address his main concerns. He alleged that the department's inadequate staffing was violating the "two-in, two-out" rule. Berg said he works alone during his shift and drives a fire engine by himself to calls, sometimes having to wait 10 minutes for backup to arrive. "We cover a fair amount of territory. We're alone and we have inferior equipment," he said. Issues of staffing, faulty equipment and hazardous conditions also fall outside the city's jurisdiction, city officials said. The city Charter gives the volunteer fire chief sole authority over Long Ridge Fire Company, Stamford Public Safety Director William Callion said. The city is required only to provide funding to the five volunteer fire departments. Long Ridge receives about $1.3 million a year in city funding and supplements its operational expenses through federal and state grants, Bennett said. Callion said he assigned Phillip Cundiff, the city's safety and training officer, to advise the department. "They are a separate corporation, and they have to answer to the complaint," Callion said. "We don't have that responsibility."

A bit of history behind this: In 1996, the former Chief of this Department requested help from the City in order to staff the smaller of the Department's two Stations. The City and the Department agreed that in order to immediately rectify the (shortage of personnel) problems, a City (Stamford Fire and Rescue) Engine Company would be re-assigned to staff the Station in question. Overnight the Station went from having ONE Fire Fighter working an fragmented day/evening schedule to Stamford Fire and Rescue Engine #6 staffing the station 24/7. The minimum assigned staffing level for Engine 6 is one Officer and three Fire Fighters (4 shifts=16 total personnel). This was an obvious staffing improvement for the District (staffing reduction for the City District) and allowed the LRFD to eventually consolidate their own staff to the other Station (thus increasing staffing levels in that Station). However, the relationship was short-lived and within months, the LRFD began a series of lawsuits against the City/Mayor/Union/etc. City Fire Fighters were unfairly criticized on a daily basis in the local media (by representatives of the Fire Company) and accused of being incapable of handling the types of fires occurring in their unique rural/suburban district. Quote "they (City) Fire Fighters only know how to fight high-rise fires....." and reference to the 4 person (often referred to as the "16 person Engine Company" to bolster the confustion) crew of Engine 6 was TOO much staff for this District. etc..etc... In 1999, a Judge granted the LRFD a temporary injunction, which forced the City to remove Engine 6 and reassign it back to the City Fire Headquarters. (It remains at that assignment to this day). The LRFD was given funding by the City to add two more firefighters which allowed them to staff their second Station with ONE fire fighter 24/7. It is ironic that the some of the same people who led the charge AGAINST an adequately staffed and NFPA compliant Engine Company are now complaining about a lack of fire fighters (2 in/2 out) available to initiate an interior operation? Just my own PERSONAL opinion.

99

Not exactly. Stamford's Stations are staffed as follows: Turn of River FD - 18 career employees, paid by City, managed by Turn of River, represented by Local 786 under "District 2" Collective Bargaing Agreement (CBA). Glenbrook FD - 9 career employees, paid by City, managed by Glenbrook, represented by Local 786 under "District 2" CBA. Belltown FD - 9 career employees, paid by City, managed by Belltown, represented by Local 786 under "District 2" CBA. Springdale FD - All 16 career members (4 on Engine 7 - 4 groups), all are members of Stamford Fire and Rescue and work under the direction of the City Fire Chief, represented by Local 786 under the "Downtown" CBA. Long Ridge FD - 9 career employees, paid by Long Ridge and managed by Long Ridge. Not represented or affiliated with Local 786 or any other labor union. City of Stamford Fire and Rescue - 245 career employees, paid by the City, managed by the City Fire Chief, represented by Local 786 under the "Downtown" CBA. Stamford Fire and Rescue employees can only work in Stamford Fire and Rescue Companies. Glenbrook, Turn of River, and Belltown employees work for their respective Departments, but can cover OT shifts in neighboring stations if assigned personnel cannot cover shifts. They cannot work OT "downtown" and "downtown" cannot work OT in "District 2", but all belong to same union (Local 786), but there are 2 seperate Collective Bargaining Agreements, which are almost identical. Long Ridge employees work solely for Long Ridge and cannot work in other Departments due to labor issues. Confused yet? Hope this helps......

Date: Friday, February 9, 2007 Time: 04:08 Location: 77 Frank Street - East Side Frequency: 154.130 and 800 Mhz Units Operating: E4, E1, E6, E2 (RIT), E32 (Glenbrook FD), TL 1, R1, DC3, FM 103, SEMS M3 Description Of Incident: Fire in 2-story wood-frame residential dwelling Writer: x152 04:07 - Box 533 assignment for smell of smoke inside structure 04:12 - E4 on scene and reporting light smoke condition 04:15 - fire found in attic/roof areas 04:17 - E2 (RIT) and SEMS M3 responding 04:42 - under control, RIT released

Yes, if you are a "public employee" then your earned income from your "public employer" is public info. Jason - I am guessing that your name (on the top 100) will appear somewhere close to the "age range" listed on your profile............nice........

I was hoping to get some insight from the various members of this site as to what their Department's present policy is with regard to seat-belt use? (Mandatory, optional, not addressed?) As a proponent for apparatus seat belt usage (at all times), I am very critical of their design and the lack of consideration for the practical needs of the fire service. In short, we spend a tremendous amount of time and money to make apparatus safer (all good stuff), but we still have standard "automotive" type seat belts being installed on fire apparatus. The last time I checked, a fully outfitted fire fighter fills a far different space than John Q. riding in his Lexus. Yet, the seat belts are basically the same. Have any of the area Departments done anything unique to specify "better" seat belts on their new rigs or been able to find suitable belts for retrofit to existing apparatus? Thanks in advance.

Thanks everyone for the great feedback. 635 - thanks for adding the LAFD seats. I have also seen a similar approach in my travels through Phoenix and think the idea has a lot of merit (but a tremendous task to adopt in the "East Coast" culture). Pierce (and others now) offer air bags and rollover protection onto some of their lines, but given budgetary concerns of "admin types" and bid processes, I would still like to see a user-friendly "fire service" designed seat belt installed in every rig as a NFPA requirement. Mstrang - scolded for wearing your belt??!!!! Where on earth.......what??? Wait.......let me guess?..... "huh...waddya say kid? get rid of that stupid belt......" warm?

Sorry Boog, you know I love that CF, the last of a dying breed.......

Perhaps you should use the word "masheen"....that is far less confusing then "truck" or "ladder". PS - 4th due truck co.?

Nice......we have always said that Group 4 was backwards..........

What is with the "european" Chief's car responding?

Yes, give it up, good idea? Give up all safety considerations during the Holidays and allow your resident Department "clown" to dress up as Santa, jump atop your $600,000 Trophy Machine and have another half-wit drive the rig as you race through the district with the siren blaring. Ahh....Christmas.......The only thing missing was that ridiculous HESS truck conversion and a cute YouTube video choreographed to some overplayed metal song.

By the looks of the rear body (as shown in the picture), the upper (or coffin) area may actually be a detachable section that can be lowered using the crane attached at the rear. I am not familiar with this truck or Department, but it certainly appears that something is unique with the roof construction. This could be their version of a POD deployment for protracted rescue/USAR operations. If so, I would say that it is the first time that I have seen this type of deployable rescue-mounted roof-top (getting long) equipment tray. Unlike some of the "Giambi" style rescues of the East Coast with their super-cranes, this Department may have actually built a truck with a crane that actually has an intended purpose and not just for the "shock and awe" effect at the next State Convention.

The City of Stamford (CT) has taken delivery of a new mobile command center/field comm unit. The 37 foot command body was built by Laboit of Columbus, Ohio and is mounted on a GMC chassis. The body has a telescoping mast, generators, bathroom, kitchenette, conference room, and radio and computer work stations. Purchased by the Stamford Public Safety Office, the unit will be housed and staffed by Stamford Fire and Rescue. Specific details regarding staffing levels and response protocol are still being evaluated. Purchased by Public Safety using Homeland Security funds, the truck will be made available to for any emergency/large event occurring within the City. Link to picture (sorry for the poor lighting): Stamford Mobile Command Post

Another image of the new Stamford Unit: Stamford Mobile Command Image 2

YFD - nice point! It is about time someone mentioned those ridiculous "extra-salty??" taglines.

This is the second such "thread" that I have witnessed regarding this problem. Although I do not doubt that your Department's apparatus may not be ideal, I am having great difficulty in understand your choice of "process" here. I am not overly familiar with your Department, but I would guess it was run by a Chief/ Commissioner/Director. Below that individual, there probably are numerous other administration types, who also oversee the daily operations of the Department. I would also guess that you (as a career member of FDMV) are a member of Local 107 of the IAFF. The same organization that you state is not responding to your apparatus concerns. However, I cannot fathom why you would choose to find a remedy on a general fire service message board? A Union or Fire Department is not designed around any ONE person or their issues. Again, I am not saying that you do not have some merit to your concern. But, I do wonder why both Management and Labor might have a different priority with regard to the apparatus. It is possible that there are numerous factors beyond what you state or SEE on the surface. To run errantly onto a message board and vent your Department's problems might be construed by some as a bit petulant on your part. If you want action from your superiors or labor agent, I would speak with them directly (or try outlining your concerns in writing). All organizations have a chain of command (Labor and Management). Although, I am not an expert on this, but I would venture to guess that there are not too many organizations that have the EMTBravo Message Forums listed within their SOGs or By-Laws. To do so in any other way, lessens the credibility of your argument and can be very counterproductive to you and your Department.

J762- The Statute in CT was mentioned under a different topic. For those who are interested in learning more, they can refer to Connecticut General Statutes 7-313e (Authority of a Fire Chief or Fire Officer at the scene of an emergency). The law clearly gives the authority to control and maintain the scene to the Fire Chief or Fire Officer within the jurisdiction that the emergency occurs. (Ex: Accident occurring on I-84 in Newtown (the Newtown/Sandy Hook units would be in charge and not the CSP.) Although the law in Connecticut for many years, this is not to say that local or State Police officials have not always followed the law. I can remember an incident similar to the recent "Jersey" arrest occurring on I-95 in the town of Westbrook (CT) about 15 years ago. In our area of the State (Southwestern CT), we are fortunate to have a fairly well-run troop (G) that has a decent relationship with fire and this type of situation is usually avoided by mutual understanding of each other's responsibilities. 762 - Your other points about proper apparatus placement are noteworthy and valid, you must have been trained by a decent EVOC instructor.

For those of you who like the those bizarre colors, Branford (CT) still has a nice fleet of YELLOW rigs. However, the new E1 and M1 are now red/white and future orders will be as well. As a former career FF with the BFD, I grew to like those yellow rigs and will be sad to see them gone.......