Bnechis

If you start with an SOP, you are working backwards. THe law requires you 1st do a risk assessment, then after determining your needs based on the type of structures you need to purchase and train. The SOP needs to be developed after you have made your purchasing determination. But before it goes inservice, as you will need to include the SOP in the training.

That only stops the BLS clock. an ambulance and ALS unit still must be there in 8 min and the new Westchester one says the amb. must be on the road in 3 min.

Snooze button...I thought Chris calls it an Oberlander button.........184 clairmont.......10-4K They don't, but they pay a lot of attention to it and are always working on it. And yes CFR engines count.

Most urban and suburban areas that have rostered or onduty crews do. Thats covering 90% of the population of the country. No, because the standard is based on the medical needs of a patient. The standard is intended to make agencies plan how best to deal with issues like traffic. Depends on how it is set up. I know many communities that do it and it costs nothing more than what they are spending right now. Whats the cost to not providing that level of care? Very few places have the luxury of two 4 person ALS crews. So NYC has 1/2 the fire units as EMS and Westchester every town has 2-4 times more fire apparatus than EMS units, often in the same dept. Maybe thats part of the problem. Ok Lets look at a comparison of EMS response standards and fire response standards: EMS: BLS unit onscene in 4 minutes (90% of the time) not including 1 minute turn out and 1 minute call processing. ALS unit onscene in 8 minutes (90% of the time) not including 1 minute turn out and 1 minute call processing. Note: only 1 unit needs to be transport capable and if ALS covers the 4 minute, then BLS must arrive in 8 min. Fire: 1st Due Engine onscene in 4 minutes (90% of the time) not including 1 minute turn out and 1 minute call processing. Balance of 1st alarm assignment (minimum 2 engines, 1 ladder or service co. and IC. Minumim of 13-16 responders) onscene in 8 minutes (90% of the time) not including 1 minute turn out and 1 minute call processing.

Because if every dept. does not have at least one of everything, Westchester will be in danger of losing its status of highest taxed county in America. Most of the fires in northern Westchester have difficulty deploying a ladder fast enough to get into position ahead of the 1st due engine. Once blocked out it is useless. The main reason for this is that without inhouse staffed units the 1st priority is (and has to be) to get the 1st due engine out. In much of the non hydranted districts the next critical unit is the tanker. By the time enough members assemble to get the ladder out, its to late. I know some will then say, if they had a quint it would be the 1st unit and problem solved, except the comprimises needed to make a quint work, mean it will show up with too little hose, not enough water and not enough ground ladders. Its better to get a dedicated truck from another company on AUTOMATIC AID to every fire call. That way you get a proper engine response to attack the fire and a proper truck response to do truck work.

The nation standard for turnout time is 1 minute regardless of the pay status of the responders. Here they are talking about making a local requierment that is substandard to the national standard. The national response standard is BLS in 4 minutes (drive time) and ALS in 8 minutes, both with 1 min for call processing and 1 minute for "turnout time". Is it reasonable that someones grandparent having chest pain, or a spouse having been struck by a vehicle or someones child with an ubstructed airway can get a timely EMS response? There are many ways to provide EMS to ones community and in every case the local EMS agency has an obligation to provide a response that meets what the courts say are "reasonable standards".

Chief, it is clear that your career in Landlocked Hartsdale did not completely prepare you for boat fires. Boat Fire Tactics: 1. Allow fire to burn down to the waterline. 2. Then use copious amounts of water. (we find salt water works fine. 3. The burning vessel will be instantly extingushed. but, a fuel fire may exist on the surface, allow it to burn out.

Teaching drivers how to handle/recover from a skid

We have had 2 working fires in 2 different marinas this week. Both were on land and in one case over 300 feet from the water. Boat fires in drydock need to be fought very aggrssivly with master streams (particularly elevated streams) as the potential for massive spread is very high. You are correct the boat on R-4 is only for rescue and only on the 11 lakes and areas in and around the 2 harbors as beyond that is the responsability of the NRPD Harbor patrol. I would love to see a dedicated fire suppresion boat, we have many other priorities, like engines and trucks. For those who think a property tax cap cant hurt the FD......We were the only city in NY to have had one forced on us (for 15 years) by the NYS Legislature. We still have not made up for the loss. By the time Davids Island is developped any boat purchased will have been retired. The city started to attempt to develop Davids Island in 1969.......42 years later we have nothing planned.

The problem is that most depts are hurting for "bodies" and if someone comes along thats a "little over eager" and is available more than anyone else, they are going to grab them. I'm not saying depts would willingly take a risk, but many depts primary consideration in recruitment is: "do they have a pulse?".

You do not want the siren hooked up to it (other than maybe to kill it when the emergency master is off). You need to mount it somewhere.

100 years of tradition, unspoiled by progress. The fire service wants lots of things, it does not mean we need them or its in our best interest to have them. Simple....yes. Cheap.....yes. Effective.....maybe (but I will come back to that). AFD's operation puts them on the rig thats attacking the fire, not a 2nd unit that needs to deliver the members, then sit at the side of the road and watch. AFD put together a proposal that reduced property insurance premiums by 40% - 50% per year for 15+ years. The taxpayers understood the value of this proposal and voted 79% in favor of a tax increase to pay for it, since the tax increase was drimatically less than the insurance discount. Now they have a fleet that can tackle the brush fire problem and the community saved money in the long run. Since the FMTV chassis have now been inservice with the US Army for over 20 years, I suspect they may be available on surplus for local governments. I'm reminded of the quote "More is less and less is more". More vehicles that are less capable may not be the answer. Consider this, is 4 30ft ground ladders butter than 1 100ft arial? It depends whats being laddered, the 6th floor or the 2nd? This dept has 3 go anywhere "brush tankers" to cover the equivilant water would require 12-18 conventional units. that would require 36-54 firefighters vs. 9 to deliever a similar attack. Yes the front remote is expensive, but so are reels. I do not know if it actually uses more water/foam, but it does have 2x -3x the reach, so in theory that additional water is covering ground (or exposures). FMTV's unparalleled 98 percent U.S. Army operational readiness rate and 13,333 Mean Miles Between Hardware Mission Failure are testimony of the truck's quality and reliability. Over 34,000 of these trucks have been delivered to the US Military since 1991. The same pumps are used in these units. Earlier you mentioned effective and getting out to fight these tough fires. Here is a dept that does not get out, the can out drive the fire and carry enough water, foam, hose and other equipment to be classified by ISO as a structural pumper. Your entire justification is the reason to switch to this type of apparatus.

Your answer will not do well against Texas Lawyer Jim Juno who specializes in FD litigation. He often lectures about how lawyers use NFPA to afford new cars & pools (for the lawyer). Just because they are traveling slow, since its off road it is easy to hit a rut and dump the unit. If the "proper" seating in the cab is generally for 2, where are the 2 ff's on those whipline riding when responding? A more progressive approach was taken by the Annaville (Tx) VFD. They developped a "Brush Tanker" for grass fires. The unit can handle 40 degree grades (angle of approach is 40 deg., departure is 60 deg.)and up to 29 degree side hill. It has a drivers heads up Thermal Imaging and IR camera. The CAFS pump has its own engine with all controls in the cab. with bumper turret and deck gun controls in the officers seat. The chassis is rated by the US Army for 58 mph when towing a 21,000 pound trailer. It seats 3 ff's, has a 1,500 gal water tank and 40 gal foam, 500 gpm pump. 10kw PTO generator. 5 preconnected 1 3/4" hand lines, 200' 2 1/2" and 1,200' 5in supply. 40' hard suction (20' preconnected to the pump for 1 ff deployment). 24, 14 & 10 foot ladders. The cab is heated, air conditioned and has an in cab breathing air system. With 3 of these brush tankers and their inovative design and 6 pumper tankers that are equally unique, AFD has managed to place 19,200 gallons of water on wheels (and 360 gal of foam) in its 1st response area. Prior to purchasing this fleet in 2003, AFD had an ISO of 5 within 1,000' of hydrants and a 9 or 10 beyond that. Now they are an ISO 3 in both the hydranted and non-hydranted area. Last I heard, they were about to upgrade the hydrant area to ISO 2.

1910.120(q)(6)(iii) Hazardous materials technicians are individuals who respond to releases or potential releases for the purpose of stopping the release. They assume a more aggressive role than a first responder at the operations level in that they will approach the point of release in order to plug, patch or otherwise stop the release of a hazardous substance. They are allowed to rummage around in the material once liability waivers have been signed.* *New amendment added to the law based on testimony received from EmtBravo

I would think that the fire house "belongs" to the community. While legally the volunteer company might "own" it, the community paid for it (thru donations and/or taxes). Until everyone agees that the fire station "belongs" to the community, its just a private clubhouse and has never been, nor ever will be a firehouse.

I have a couple of questions about this design. 1. Doesn't having personnel standing up in the back violate, NFPA 1901 and every push for seatbelts and closed cabs the fire service has pushed for over the last 30 years? 2. What potential is thier for a member to be ejected or crushed if the unit overturns? 3. If the unit is overrun by fire, what systems are inplace to protect the firefighters?

So EMSer believes that the union is at fault for this? Or is it the employee at fault? I would bet that the union sat down with the Mayor and negociated a contract that both side thought was fair and included an education clause (because everyone thought it was a good idea). Did anyone consider that some one might get a degree that would have little value to the community (like ancient mongolian culture or basket weaving)? I guess not. Did the Union take advantage of the town with this? or did the Mayor not consider that their job was to investigate what other communities have allowed and include those safeties in the contract. Most contracts, include a requirement that the degree must be job related.

Interesting that this latest round started when a TOR Chief wrote a letter about hom much the career staff of SFRD make and tried to make it all about how they are taking advantage of the public. Now the plan supported by this chief is to hire paid personnel to work under the VFD control. Wouldn't these career people have a similar contract to SFRD? Would he have an issue with that? or is it ok if they had the same contract, but he gets to control the show. Was this chief or any other VFD chief at the 4/15/11 fire in No. Stamford? You could complain all day about SFRD, but to be incharge of an incident, you must respond to it 1st. And it appears that he nor any of the other VFD chiefs responded during this fire. I believe Volunteer Fire Chief Ben Franklin as Poor Richard, 1st wrote: "You get what you pay for"

Very common in CA. CDF uses inmate labor of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to assist with fire suppression and logistics. CDF crew carrier on International chassis of the Pine Grove Fire Crew, California (California Youth Authority). With trucks like this one agencies carries inmate fire crews from several prisons to the incident areas. CA Dept of Corrections ASSEMBLYMAN MARK LENO TO HONOR INMATE FIREFIGHTERS FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS More than 2,750 inmate firefighters, housed at one of 38 conservation camps in California, fought side-by-side with other firefighters during the fire season of 2003. CDC provides and supervises these inmates to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. These inmates worked more than 1.7 million hours on hundreds of fires, saving California taxpayers several million dollars on firefighting costs.

Here is another thought: 25 years ago we did 3,200 calls per year with 187 membrs doing the job. Today its about 9,000 calls with 151 members. So we are doing 3x the work with 20% fewer workers. There must be some merit in that. On second thought, its all my unions fault that congress gets a full pension after 1 term with no contribution or full medical. Its my unions fault that wall street gambled everyones retirement (including mine).

Can you give examples of how my union has not "fairly negotiated"? Can you explain why my employer takes money out of every one of my paychecks under the title: "medical"? While I do not have to pay into my "pension", I am paid less than when I was in the private sector and had to pay into my retirement. When I was debating switching jobs the issue was less pay, but more benefits. A hard choice when your single, no children and in your 20's, but I understood that as I got older it would be worth it. How did we get this pension system? Was it the greedy unions that developed it? We had a city pension system until the 1960s, when the Mayors in NY State determined it would be cheaper for the taxpayers to have one pension system (and they would look good reducing cost), instead of one in every municipality and they convinced the state legislature to develop it. Interesting way to look at it, I understand it very differently. All FF's are at similar risks of being hurt/killed at an incident, but after figuring out what a firefighter salary should be, the municipalities understand that if they lower the starting salary by up to 50% with a 5 year build up to "top" pay knowing there are still enough people willing to take the job and struggle to make ends meet for those 1st few years. It’s not non-merit, it is what they should have made in the 1st place, but the big bad unions dont have enough power to fight this reduction. My union contract allows all members to "share" in a college funding account. By contract the city must fund $20,000 per year (not per member) to cover the tuition of all union members. At its height that was 181 members sharing $20,000. If 20 of those union members went to college, each was able to get $1,000 toward their annual college education. Now to get this benefit, the union had to give up something and in the last few years more than $10,000 of the fund each year does not get used and is returned to the City's general fund. Over the last 25 years I think about a dozen members have participated and 3 or 4 have gotten degrees. And the tax payers benefit from all of this. We do, we do, we do and while I did benefit from the education, it taught me how to bring over $2.5 million back into my municipality and reducing the cost of property insurance by more than a million annually for the last 14 years. Over the last 25 years $450,000 has been made available to 175 employees, but only about 1/2 has been used. and the return on the investment has been over $16 million. You still have yet to show anyone how "they sold us out"? I have given you the history, to bad you missed it in your research. Its true, you are ignorant of all the facts and you make a lot of assumptions, that are not true. Then how come, for every gimme, we had to vote on giving something up? Or worst it was taken from us by an arbitrator.

In Volunteer & Combo depts they count the 6 by looking at the alarm records for who showed up. For career depts they look at the roster and dispatch policy to determine what is dispatched. Pelham has 2 ff's / 1 Lt on duty. The chief if available and they average only 1 volunteer per response. thats 5 at best (and the volunteer is most not likely interior trained, is not an MPO or IC so they do not count as 1 of the 6 anyway).

A. Not many, but if you get a 40% rate increase, in 1 year you might ask. B. Do you think the Union (who is fighting to maintain jobs) will not put this in the local paper? They have already send mailings to all the property owners about what is going on.

Having worked on this one, there was a major committment on the part of the municipality in preparing this grant. We had to invest money upfront just to be able to apply. So I think it was less the case of an opportunity. Knowing what the needs are in just a dozen cities, I'm sure, the rebuilding of 50-100 year old fire stations is very needed.

Lets throw another wrinkle into this. 1st its not that Pelham will not provide additional taxes, in reality they can't. Because the population is so small, the per capita costs to improve are never going to happen. The real issue for Pelham, Pelham Manor and any other small community FD or understaffed FD (career, combo or vol.) is ISO's plan to change the rating system this year. Under the new plan, any dept that responds to fire calls with fewer than 6 firefighters (2 in / 2 out, MPO & IC) will automatically become an ISO 9. What does this mean for Pelham? Annual insurance premiums for commercial and residential properties in Pelham is approximately $5.1 million. In Pelham Manor the premiums are approximately $5.9 million. Combined, the property owners in Pelham and Pelham Manor pay roughly $11 million per year in premiums. Both PFD & PMFD are ISO PPC 4's. If the 2 depts do not restructure the way the respond to fire so the have at least 4 interior qulified members + an MPO & IC, Both villages will see the ISO change them to 9 and the insurance premiums will go up by 40% per year. Thats a combined increas of $4.4 MILLION. This increase is more than the current combined budget of the 2 fire departments. Meanwhile the Pelham Village Mayor and Board are considering reducing manning. I suspect nothing will change until the ISO rating does and then the finger pointing at village hall will begin.