Bnechis

Nope. The study from The Edwin G. Michaelian Institute for Public Policy & Management of PACE University should be read and reread and questioned. I believe we have answered many of the tough questions, but one of the things that this greenburgh study mentioned is that financially it is hard to compare apples to oranges. For example one dept in our study has about 25 employees, but its budget is almost 2x that of a dept with 45 members, the larger dept.doesnot pay health insurance or pension or rig maintenance (its paid by the personnel dept or public works). The biggest difference between this study and the Michaelian study is we did not start with the concept of how do we save money. The goal was how do we meet NFPA 1710 and provide proper manning and response times. Most fire studies that I've reviewed are 50 to 75 pages.This study is 224 pages and its only the 1st step. After everyone (managment, labor&the communities)reviews the study and asks the hard questions they will have to determine if they want in or out. The next step would be an implimentation plan. So do not read the Michaelian study and "take it as gospel".........We expect it to be questioned. Why is Paul Feiner doing this study? I bet you will see a proposal at the next election to merge the greenburgh depts based on the new legislation that was just past. Based on Mondays conference at PACE Law, (managers & Mayors from around the region plus state officials and reps from the Gov.) the state is planning on forcing the reduction of governmental costs in NYS. ALL FD's will be affected. Hang on to your hats, the next 5 years are going to be bumpy. They made it clear that we will change.....the Michaelian study is pro fire and not a just cut costs no matter what the service effects are.

Then it must be true

The study of 10 career depts in southern westchester (including these 3) will be delievered to the career chiefs in 15 hours. It will be released to the political leaders, unions, media and others over the next week or 2. This study was performed by The Edwin G. Michaelian Institute for Public Policy & Management of PACE University

While I generally agree that the list should be followed, having the one in three rule also means that if the guy in #1 had a great day or is the smartest on the job, if his personnel folder is 6" thick because of all the charges, for late, fighting, etc. and he is borderline for dismisal, but #2 or 3 is clearly a leader, that knows the job and who would improve morale 1000%. the chief has the option.

I never realized how small the NRFD trucks & FF's are till I saw those pics. Thanks

Ok I will help bring it back. For those who said no way that Albany would do this, as of this afternoon, the legislative status is as follows: STATUS: A8501 Silver (MS) Same as S 5661 STEWART-COUSINS General Municipal Law TITLE....Enacts the NY government reorganization and citizen empowerment act; repealer 05/21/09 referred to local governments 05/26/09 reported referred to ways and means 05/27/09 reported referred to rules 06/01/09 reported 06/01/09 rules report cal.35 06/01/09 ordered to third reading rules cal.35 06/01/09 passed assembly 06/01/09 delivered to senate 06/01/09 REFERRED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT 06/03/09 SUBSTITUTED FOR S5661 06/03/09 3RD READING CAL.472 06/03/09 MOTION TO AMEND LOST 06/03/09 MOTION TO AMEND LOST 06/03/09 PASSED SENATE 06/03/09 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY (Note: to be sent to the Gov.) Now what does this mean...It means that its ready to be delievered to the govenor for his signature. And the state senators that wanted to ammend it to remove FD's and change the 10% minimum did not get the ammendments. Is Albany serious....can anyone ever remember anything passing thru in a grand total of 3 weeks..........? What it means is that if the Gov. signs it, we could see consolidation &/or disolution proposals on the fall election ballots. The clock is ticking. I strongly suggest that those that really care about the service that they provide start to consider that many people in the communities do not care and if you don't consider the consiquences of your actions (read budgets) then you may find yourselves voted out of existance.

Excellent website. Well done. Should be required reading for everyone without hydrants

I wanted to thank Chief Munson (Remember 585) for the invite. This was a well organized drill and it was impressive to see the turnout from about 11 departments. I know everyone learned something and this will help at the next fire. Most of the areas that can be improved were discussed at the hot wash back at CFD’s station. Issues for this drill are no different from any tanker operations in this region. They include; type and design of apparatus, the fill site(s), the dump site(s) and the system. Apparatus: Engine companies (used to fill tankers and to draft and supply the attack line/engine) and tankers. The biggest problem with the engines (at both the fill sites and the porta tanks) is they were designed as structural pumpers for hydrant areas and not to do what was being asked of them. This slowed the setup and required a fair amount of manpower that could then not be committed to firefighting. As I mentioned in my previous post the engine at the dump site should be equipped with squirrel tail suctions (as should those at the fill sites). The engines at the fill sites need to have a mix of outlets (multiple 2½” and 5”) in the front and rear of the apparatus, side discharges were difficult if not impossible to use, since they were on narrow roads that required traffic to pass (particularly tankers to pass to turn around). The reason for front and rear discharges is they allowed (at on site) for 2 tankers to fill simultaneously. More important was that one tanker could start to hook up without waiting for another to disconnect and drive away. Nationally (and internationally) I am starting to see some very specialized apparatus for use at the fill site. These units are smaller and designed to get multiple drafts and have faster fill times. The often have front, rear or even remote hydraulic pumps (similar to what I mentioned in the previous post. They can deliver 500-2000gpm up to 200 feet vertically &/or horizontally from the power supply). This is something to consider in ones long term planning. Another trend is top filling and has been done by both specially designed apparatus and portable systems that we could simply use here. Top filling dramatically reduces fill times and personnel needed at the fill site, since there are no hoses to connect to the tanker. Other issues at the fill site included hose set-ups to accommodate the many different tanker fill systems. Tankers Tankers are generally categorized as Tanker/Pumpers, Pumper/Tankers or Tankers (without pumps, none of which were used here). Tanker/Pumpers are defined as a vehicle that is primarily a tanker but does have a 750-1500gpm pump and some hose and generally only have seating for 2 or 3. I consider the following rigs to be Tanker/Pumpers: Croton FD (T10), Continental Village FD (T11), Pleasantville FD (T57), Somers FD (T16) and Yorktown FD (T14) Pumper/Tankers are defined as a vehicle that is primarily a pumper but generally has a 1,500 – 3,500 gallon tank and often (but not always on older tankers) large capacity dump valves. These units are designed to perform as either an attack engine or a tanker. I consider the following rigs to be Pumper/Tankers: Millwood FD (T15), Pocantico Hills FD (T12), and Bedford Hills FD (T5). Both types of units were used, but they do the job differently and we will consider their use under systems. Issues with all units: 1) Lack of adapters for filling. 2) Lack of large tank indicator lights (so everyone can see the status of the tank), consider retrofitting. 3) Consider adding back-up cameras and “reverse control” backup assist system (new product developed by LAFD). 4) Have policy that the driver stays in the drivers seat (at both fill & dump) to much time wasted. Dump Site An additional porta tank (minimum of 3) should be set up (if space permits. Consider using LDH supply line to move the drop site further from the attack if it will reduce the amount of maneuvering / backing up that the tankers have to do. Also adding large reflective numbers to all sides of the tank help identify them and reduce tanker driver delays. System First and most important issue is lack of standardization. While each rig maybe perfect for its department, effective tanker operations function much better when all tankers fill the same, dump the same and fill/dump at the same rate. These items speed up the process and reduce the amount of personnel needed on the water supply side (we have not dealt with the fire yet). Which size is better; 2,000, 3,000 or 3,500 gallon?...This is the usual debate. What we really need to consider is not size, but flow what is the GPM? If you have a 2,000 gallon tank that takes 10 minutes to fill, drive 1 mile then dump you have a 200gpm tanker, if you have a 4,000 gallon tank that takes 20 minutes to fill, drive 1 mile then dump you have a 200gpm tanker. If the 2,000 gallon tanker can do it faster or the 4,000 is slower, then the smaller tanker is better in the relay. Pumper/Tanker vs. Tanker/Pumper. Which is better? It depends on how they are used. I strongly believe and tests (particularly the ISO water supply test) have proven that going to dump operations too soon is a problem (and we saw that at this drill, when the attack engine lost water about 10-15 minutes into the drill). If you respond with 1-2 engines and 1-2 tankers to a fire alarm, you should arrive with 4,000 - 9,000 gallons of water, if you can’t knock down the fire with that much water, you probably have already lost the building. Using a pumper/tanker as your attack vehicle or an attack pumper that drops an LDH supply line with a clappered siamese and having the tanker pumper supply it (this works particularly well with long narrow driveways, where the tanker can stay out in/near the road). Put all of your resources into attacking the fire and have the next 1-2 tankers just feed the clapper. Have the 2nd Due Engine (supply) & mutual aid tankers respond and then set up the porta tanks for the long haul. I have also seen depts. use a manifold rig up the driveway with the clappered supply line. Having a GIS fire based (not commercial based) mapping would also be very helpful. Along with a written preplan for water supply locations. Preplan your drafting sites, number & sign them. Then place in a book (along with issues like how much hose is needed, draft height, fence or other obstacles, etc), that all mutual aid companies have. Then you simply have to tell them, go to draft site #26. Very simple and everyone can find it. It was also obvious that getting rigs on the correct radio channels is still an issue. I look forward to seeing the flow rates and times. Again a great effort by the Croton Fire Dept. and the mutual aid companies.

Close. The porta tank on the left (closest to the pumper) is the primary pond, the right is secondary. Generally they hold around 3,000 gallons. Ideally 3 or more ponds are set up. If you only had 1 and filled it with your 1st tanker (then it goes to get refilled) you would have about 5 minutes of attack @ 500gpm (the last 500 gal or so can not be drafted). Now the 2nd tanker is waiting for you to almost run out of water befor it dumps. The chances of running out of water are greatly reduced the more tanks you have. Also by emptying the ponds (except the primary) you have empty tanks for immediate drop when the next tanker arrives. Once you have multiple tanks you need to be able to transfer the water from them into the primary tank. This can be done a number of ways: 1) The hard suction has a ventury device added to the tank to be transfered from, a 2 1/2" charged line from the engine (or sometimes a portable pump) forces the water from one pond to the other (most common, and as seen in the photo). Ways to make this more efficent include using a special lowlevel strainer with a built in ventury (Kocheck makes it) and using a ball (beach ball or basket ball, as seen in the pic) to fill in the whirlpool and prevent the loss of suction. 2) 1-3 siphons can be used (6-8" PVC pipe shapped like an omega can be filled and used to move the water (cheap, but not as effective) 3) Some tanks have tubes on them that can connect together (at ground level) to move the water. Its hard to keep 1 full instead of 2 at 1/2 and also if 1 tank breaks you lose everything. A lot of places have tried this, but not generally dont use it. 4) Direct use. With a properly designed engine one can have up to two 6" and two 3" suctions (preferably preconnected as squarl tails) and drop a 6" in tanks 1 & 2 and both 3" in tank 3, then the pump operator just opens and closes valves. It works best if the strainers are designed for low level use and if they have foot valves on them to prevent loss of prime. Also then you are not "wasting" 250 gpm per tank of transfer; i.e. 1,500 gpm pumper in #1 above is using 250 gpm to move water from on pond to another , making it a 1,250 gpm pumper, add another tank and its now a 1,000 gpm pumper. (Very Very effective, best method for effective use of water and improved ISO rating). #4 is the way to go, but your rig needs to be set up to do it, and I have not seen that done in the north east. The south & west are decades ahead. 5) Another method is to use a hydraulic transfer pump. I'll have to remember to bring that to CFD next time. We have one that will move 800gpm down to 2" of water for 8 hours on a tank of gas.

Read JFlynn's post. I stopped teaching fire classes after being told that if the student didn't want to go into the mask confidence course they didn't have to, just sign the card that they were present. It was suggested that maybe they would do it if we left the lights on or let them try it without the mask on there face. I continued to teach the 15 hour hazmat ops course until I was told it had to fit into three 3 hour sessions and there was no need to test anyone. I am sorry, there are a lot of fine people out there, many have the desire, but there are a lot of people who do not even know what they need to know to protect themselves, and the worst part is they do not realize that we have cut it down because if its to long someone might not become a volunteer. What kind of committement are we asking? A good friend of mine was an active vol FF in westchester, was fully trained to FFII when he moved to another state. They told him that they would not accept NYS training as it was substandard. He just spent the last 5 months taking FFI in his new state.

58 Westchester Depts. 5 100% career (some still have vols, but they are no longer allowed to respond to calls) 7 primary career (most drimatically undermanned, but have even fewer vol responses) 5 primary vol w/ career "drivers" 41 100% volunteer you mentioned the two largest as being strong, that leaves 39 that cover the spectrum. Having worked as a medic in both communities I will agree that one of those depts has a very strong base, the other has a very large base. They are not the same.

Yes you can and should learn something new on each run, but learning the right thing and reinforcing the wrong ones is a big problem. Retraining is a lot harder to do and I've seen that issue many times. I'm not sure I want it to be an "adventure". I want it to be learning, some explaining what went right and what went wrong, even on a BS A/A. I didn't say he could not. You pointed out how much they learn before training and my point was we do the same. Long Island & Westchester are seperated by more than LI Sound. Westchester has not had a strong "system" in a long time and the "culture" needs to change. While it has in a few places, most are in deep trouble.

Not according to the state records and not from what I'm hearing from a lot of instructors.

Its not about hard feelings. Its about being competent and qualified. Who has your back? do you think a lawyer would have a paralegel represent him in court, what about a doctor...do you think they go to a PA for a personnel medical issue? Does the CEO of a corp. ask the mail clerk advise on running the company? Does a career ff with 500+ hours of probbie school plus EMT, plus inhouse training want someone with 50+ hours backing him up? Most career FF's have nothing against volunteers...and in most states they are equal. When FASNY fought against 229 and 1st line supervisors along with FFI-III they laid the ground work for this problem. If FASNY fought for training and funding for training much of the vol vs career in NYS would go away. Thats a lot more than NYS requires for a volunteer, but close to what is required for career.

When we have sent new employees to school, they get a week in-house before they go, they have alread worn SCBA, know about our job, and our equipment, etc. and those hours (40) don't count in their "training" either. I know a lot of things have changed from when I was a volunteer, but as a vollie probbie, I learned that "hey kid, you don't need to know much....don't waste your time going to fire school" and when the bell rings dont worry about getting on the rig you will lose your seat at the bar. I took every class available to volunteers and when I was hired and went to the career accademy I learned that I had barly scratched the surface and I was in the top 90% of training hours.

I think its a unrealistict to think the communities that have 1 - 2 career members currently on a rig will get volunteers to do shifts. Look at the current response from the volunteers in those communities now, they do not have enough to staff 1 rig during an emergency, much less 24/7 and most of those members do not meet the minimum standards for interior (for volunteers). The bigger issue is the unions would fight for is the same minimum training standard for volunteers as career members, otherwise what go is having a body on the rig that cant do the job. I would rather be understaffed than have to deal with crew members who put my life and their's in danger, that means I have to work even harder to get the job done. Until we have one standard for being a firefighter (like most states) it is unlikely you will see large combo depts.

Nice in concept, but I do not know of too many "strong volunteer systems" in Westchester. While many may have 60 - 75 on the roster, they are lucky to get a team on the field for a call.

Most if not all of the large combo depts. fully staff career rigs and utilize volunteers on volly rigs. Do you think the depts. in westchester that have career, but are under staffing are going to wait till the volunteers show up? Many of the combo depts in Westchester started as volunteer, added "paid" drivers, then as the volunteers dwindled add a 2nd ff. Now in many cases they no longer have any volunteers but are still responding with 1 or 2 career ff's. Also, if the volunteers are currently unwilling to do assigned shifts in the VFD, do you think they will want to do it when they are side by side with others who are getting paid to be there?

Interesting time frame. very few depts have the ability to apply 1,000 Gpm in an interior attack and what happens in 11-20 minutes if the flow is not maintained ? The ISO standard is 250 gpm for 3 hours. after the 1st 10 minutes they will credit each increase of 250 gpm, but must also maintain it for the 3 hours. Most depts fail the test in the 1st 15 minutes. if they get past that they do fine. In the real world if you fail the 1st 15 minutes you will need the flow for the net 3+ hours, because you are going to only save the fondation.

3. 17 If consolidation is approved by a majority of the electors voting 18 in each local government entity to be consolidated, certificates of such 19 result shall be immediately filed with the secretary of state and with 20 the clerks of the entities and county in which any part of the entities 21 is situated. It says majority, I could not find 50% in the bill.

R/M runs fire and/or ems systems the communities you listed have EMS only services by R/M. R/M was contracted to provide fire protection in Rye brook (late 1990's, early 2000's). After the 1st fire they had it was determined that the level of protection was very substandard and the village discontinued contracting with them. I was mistaken in stating that for profits were illegal, as I believed that had been past into NYS law. My research indicates that in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007 both houses of the NYS Legislature passed this legislation, but the Gov's (P & S) both vetoed it. It is this year again proposed as A00533 no S bill yet.

After Rye Brook's disaster with rural metro the state past a law prohibitting "for profit" FD's in NYS.

Good Morning America (ABC News) @ 7:15am today did a story on how Sotomayor's unsigned 1 paragraph (with no legal bases) decision in the New Haven 20 Case is now calling her nomination into question. They did an explination of the case and stated that the republicans in congress were calling her a racist based on her dealings with the case.

Candy gram

Land Shark