Bnechis

Sorry, I left out Mohgan

It was great to see all of the Rockland county numbers to get a clear picture of the fire service in Rockland county. Since only 28% of the depts in Westchester had run #'s posted its hard to figure whats going on. So the challenge is to get the following depts to post there numbers (please include the break down of Fire vs. EMS calls or list no EMS) Thanks. Here's the missing depts: Archville Ardsley Armonk Banksville Beford Bedford Hills Briarcliff Buchanan Chappaqua Continental Village Croton Falls Eastchester Goldens Bridge Greenville Harrison Hartsdale Hastings Katonah Irvington Larchmont Mamaroneck Town Montrose Mt. Kisco North White Plains Peekskill Pelham Pelham Manor Pocantico Hills Pound Ridge Purchase Rye Rye Brook Sleepy Hollow Scarsdale South Salem Tarrytown Thornwood Valhalla Verplanck Vista White Plains Yonkers And finally if someone from Fairview could break down the fire vs EMS numbers (total was 2,745) Thank you

"New" = 2 years 100% on the Feds. No match from WP.

Since NFPA 1901 added an AED to the required equipment on all new rigs we have purchased a new engine and a new rescue from 2 different manufacturers. Both required signing a waiver that we would provide the AED and it did not need to be included in the basic equipment they provided. In other words they are making sure they can not be dragged into any lawsuit for not having an AED on the rig.

A fire commissioner hired by the board will not last long if he fights the board.

A few years back the TFD Fire Chief tried to bring Training and other OSHA mandaes to the Tarrytown Village Board and they asked for him to resign. The Fire Chief is the go between the FD & the Village. What makes anyone think that addinig a commissioner would improve this?

Not if you tie their pay to the number of words per minute......lol

Tuesday am. Bill, are you losing faith in me? NFPA 1221 (and ISO uses NFPA 1221 for this)covers this and while in previous versions they looked at call volume &/or population the current version is performance based and looks at how long it takes to process a call. I believe the volume could easily be handled by 1 dispatcher.

I guess you dont read the biggest thread on EMTBravo. No they have not

FFPCogs, on 13 January 2011 - 10:11 PM, said: Under the other plan considered by the Task Force I believe the paid staffing would be distributed as such TOR = 8: Sta.1 - one Quint, Sta. 2 - one Engine SFCo = 4: One Engine LRFCo = 8: One Engine in each station for a grand total of 20 guaranteed on duty FFs in Vollywood. You wrote GFD got 0/0 and based on the above math GFD gets 0. I understand that BFD is not part of the SVFD. If this is the case the mayors 2 dept plan is as follows: SFRD SVFD BFD GFD (covered by SFRD) Thats 4 So we now have 6 depts and the proposal is to merge and have the following: 1) 1 dept 2) 2 depts 3) 3 depts 4) 4 depts 5) None of the Above 6) All of the Above It does not matter what the answer is, as soon as this mayor runs for Gov. they will have to re do the entire program because based on the current math there is no correct answer.

Thanks. Whats unfortunate is that the "plans" are not based on "service" they are based on politics. I find it amazing that the VFD's that do not want to be under 1 dept have not commented on the fact that the mayors plan does not provide water. Kind of ironic that they have commented on SFRD's lack of understanding of tanker ops & "rural" firefighting. I normally do response plan studies in GIS (ArcView w/network analysis) but its time consumming. the map I put together was just a short project so I got the lay of the land (so to speak). The red lines are 1.5 miles to give reference for apparatus response. A formal study would most likely show the need for at least 2 additional engines and 1 additional trucks based on distance.

Thanks I find it amazing that a fire plan for a non hydranted area does not include water. I guess its doomed to fail.

Based on the above, SVFD would have 12 engines, 2 trucks, 2 rescues and 2 tankers out of 6 stations. If as suggested each station would have 4 FF's which means 12 rigs (66% are not staffed) even with the concept of cross staffing you can sell 6 rigs. More importantly what rigs are needed to respond? Particularly if this plan goes thru, I suspect SFRD will pull its units out of No. Stamford. So what rigs need to respond to a reported unknown fire in No. Stamford? I'll break it down into the northern and southern portions of No. Stamford. My understanding is the northern 1/2 is generally without a municipal water supply (read: no hydrants) and the southern 1/2 has hydrants. Stamford VFDs Map.pdf Northern SVFD: 2 engines (1 attack and 1 supply) 2 tankers (6,000 gallons minimum on wheels) 1 ladder 1 chief These 5 units would need to be dispatched from the 4 closest stations. Which if staffed as suggested cant be done. The other 2 stations are to far (based on ISO & NFPA) to respond in the initial response. They would each need to send 1 rig if declared a working fire (FAST & Source/fill site unit) To make up this staffing configuration: LRFD Sta#1: Tanker (2 ff) LRFD Sta#2: Engine (4 ff) TORFD Sta#1: Tanker (2 ff) Ladder (4 ff) TORFD Sta#2: Engine (4 ff) Southern SVFD: 2 engines (1 attack and 1 supply) 1 ladder 1 rescue 1 chief To make up this staffing configuration: TORFD Sta#1: Ladder (4 ff) TORFD Sta#2: Engine (4 ff) GFD: Engine (4 ff) SFD: Rescue (4 ff) Northern units would be needed for FAST. Note: these layouts only allow for a 1st alarm assignment. M/A and/or call back would be needed beyond that. So GFD goes empty? Based on this who brings the water?

George, Civil service testing is one way of testing/ranking candidates, but it is far from perfect. But whats to say that educational requirements should not be use along with that testing. Many depts require EMT or Paramedic certification or other training to be eligable for advancement. And most promotional exams require time in grade prior to testing. There are many fine fire ground officers, and firefighters, lts, capts, all learn through experience as they move up the ranks. But Chris is correct that the administrative positions also need experience and in most depts. there is no training progam for that. But a degree does provide the HR, Budget, Legal, planning and other managment background that is needed to administer a modern fire department. In municipal government most fire depts and police depts. had salary parity 20 years ago. then for a number of reasons police depts pulled ahead. All required some college prior to taking the civil service exam. Sargents or lt's need a BA and Capts need a masters. Is managing a fire dept that much simpler than a police dept.? I don't think so.

The info is available from the EEOC, and workplace violence info from OSHA. The course I was refering to is an inside "joke", it only qualifies personnel to run 1 dept. The reallity is most depts are multimillion dollar corporations (even the volunteer depts) and need qualified managers to operate them. A dept with 2 stations, 3 engines, 1 tower ladder & a rescue has an investment of at least $15,000,000 not including personnel (plus there time, training, etc.). How many corporations are run by unqualified managers? How many CEO's have a formal education? How many fire chiefs? I am not implying that those coming up thru the ranks can not make excellent fire chiefs, but do they make excellent managers?

I believe you have to take the 40 hour "how to manage your local fire dept" course to recieve that information.

Recheck that number, thats like every FDNY call

I understand, my point was that the financial liability will move forward onto any new dept. and it will include all volunteer hours for all paid employee's not just anyone how might complain.

The problem is the Mayor has already "committed" an amount of money for a set number of career positions. Changing the #'s is unlikely without "backpedeling". So that portion either means reducing the number of career positions (which appear to be insufficent to start with) or increasing the budget. My point was while a few depts have been very succsessful, over 30,000 depts have not and every major volunteer group is claiming that the VFD's are having critical shortages in personnel. So you believe that 24 volunteers or 12 career & 12 volunteers on-duty is enough to cover a district of this size? So 100's (my number) are doing well and 30,000 are not. Sounds like the challenge to do this are very steep. I can honestly say this was a great idea and was a very interesting. I did as you suggested (and thats why I took a few days to answer). What I found was the majority of the sites I found could be classified as follows: 1) General managment concepts of how to motivate volunteers and make them want to volunteer (great stuff, but these concepts are also true for motivating employees, sports teams, etc.). I did not find this referenced any particular depts, just general concept. 2) Depts that had had successful programs back in the 1980's and solved there manning. One of the reports talked about how depts in there area had turned it all around in 1989, but last week a fire in a 2.5 story P.D. without exposures required 27 FD's from 3 counties to get enough personnel to respond. 3) Many sites with info from 1998-2006 advising how to solve the problem with different programs. None referenced any depts that had found major success. I was expecting to find more, but I think the symptoms are pretty universal and those that have found the cure are more likely to have something unique to the community or dept. thats driving the success. No the same rules don't apply. If you have an engine and a truck (or rescue) in each house and they are both staffed and one goes on a call, you need one rig from another station to cover. If you only have one crew and 2 rigs, everytime you have a call you need one rig from another station to respond in its place and an additional rig to cover. In this case 1 engine + 1 truck does not = 2 rigs, it equals one rig that cost 2x but only does the work of one rig. You are correct that it cost much more to properly staff a dept. and no community can afford unlimmited personnel, but there are many ways to determine proper minimum staffing based on standards and none of them count on cross staffing as a way to do anything other than cut corners.

If the paid members are also volunteering in the same dept, the dept or the "new" consolidated VFD had better put some additional funds aside, so that after this legal action is resolved they will have the money to pay the additional OT that they will be slapped with. UNder the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act. Career personnel volunteering for the same employeer are entitled to compensation (ot) for all hours worked (including those as a volunteer). Montgomery County Maryland, found this out the hard way, when 1 member complained, they had to pay all of them and it was in the millions.

I thought it was either the periscope or snorkle for under water running.

It would be nice to see more departments properly staff their rigs during calls. Many up the personnel during storms to levels that are considered to be the minimums by most standards for every day response.

While this sounds great what happens if it does not work? Since the Mayors plan does not consider the potential for failure, if it does not work then everything he is claiming about costs and staffing are wrong and the taxpayers will then have to pay for both the incentive and the additional career staffing needed to cover the gap. There have been many posts on EMTBravo about how these programs have not improved manpower and have only hurt the depts. I have asked a number of companies that provide LOSAP if they can document even one case where this investment has actually worked....I'm still waiting. Please feel free to share it with the rest of the fire service. Currently there are over 34,000 VFD's that are looking for a proven record. I am not refuting it, just questioning the wisdom of a multi-million dollar plan to protect tens of thousands of people with the promise that this will work, because we know it will. But unable to show prof or even answer basic questions about how it will work. We have a cross trained crew that mans a tower ladder and a heavy rescue do to lack of manpower and many times we have delays because it is a system of robbing peter to pay paul. Either you need multiple rigs or you don't. This is why every standard looks at either response distance or response time (which is the same thing) and says you need X number of engines and x number of ladders (or service/rescue companies) to properly respond. Not one or the other and if we can only get one then we will srtrip another station (which is beyond the recommended distance) to make do. Is it cheaper...yes, does it work.....yes, until that call where it fails and thats not an option in emergency services. I thought how can I explain this one to my 10 year old? She wants to buy a candy and a drink. Each cost $1. I give her $1 and send her to the store. She can buy which ever one she wants most when she gets there, but can only have 1. Will she buy the drink (engine) or the candy (truck or rescue)?

I find that rarely do you hear us advising an expedite of FD units. Occasionally an expedite for ALS. But more common to hear an expidite for other agencies: PD, DPW, ConEd & Water dept. As previously mentioned that common expidite is not to have them drive faster, but to dispatch on a priority level. We do commonly hear on EMS calls; PD requests an expedite. Funny most of the time, when thats requested our ETA is less than a minute.

& no ETA given. Expedite with ConEd does not mean drive faster, it means this is a priority call.