res6cue

I've always had mixed feelings on the issue. Having been brought up on 3/4 boots and long coats before hoods were popular, I definitely know we push further and further into fires with all the encapsulation today's gear gives us. On the other hand, if you get caught up in a bad situation, it'll likely protect you better. My dept actually keeps a few sets of 3/4 boots, long coats and helmets on each truck. The general policy is that it's there only as backup gear for guys arriving at a scene or their non-primary firehouse without their personal gear. Everyone is strongly encouraged not to wear it in place of their issued turnouts, and if someone were to make a habit out of not wearing their own gear (especially for structure fires) they'd probably earn an invitation to the Chief's office for a sitdown.

Incidentally, for the record, I do not believe the person who complained to me and Seth was actually a member of Valley Cottage. Unfortunately, he is unverified and doesn't have a shred of info listed in his profile. I just don't want anyone thinking it was actually a member of Valley Cottage. Had that been the case, I would've tried to work it out with them, and would've had no problem deleting my thread so that they could post it. What do I care in the end who posts it?

That picture of the scarecrow... Talk about a full service 911 system...you take the calls AND respond! Nice pics and vids as always.

It's Morning Pride gear, same as ours. Also, at least according to someone from that area who was posting on the same topic at FH.com, their Morning Pride dealer specifically told them they were supposed to wear their gear that way. In all my years dealing with turnout gear dealers from Globe, Lion-Janesville and Morning Pride, I can safely say I've NEVER heard such a thing, nor have I ever read it in or on any manufacturer's literature or website.

I'd like to chime in here, if I may. I was actually the one who this complaint was lodged against. The member who complained also contacted me directly via PM to suggest that I not break the news regarding Valley Cottage's new ALF aerial. Here is the text of his message to me: And here is the text of my response back to the concerned member: I think my reply pretty well sums it all up. I've posted a few threads recently regarding new or anticipated deliveries from Rockland, and will continue to do so as I hear about them and as I see fit to do so. I only post the information I know to be accurate, and where I don't have all the details, I will clearly state as much. Most times I get this information firsthand from members or officers of the department itself who I know personally.

Absolutely. Sadly, my dept has had first had experience with this.

Sorry, but all the information I see posted here is absolutely publicly available knowledge and has been for years, if not decades. This and much more is published in the Scanner Master guides, and all the frequencies are readily available and easily accessible via the FCC website database. HDQTRSWP, I understand where you're coming from, and you do make some legitimate points. Maybe not specific to the information that was posted here, but in general. However, the widespread availability of "sensitive" information goes well beyond a few harmless posts at EMTBravo. There is a much larger amount of publicly available information that is much more sensitive than whether or not my engine has a police radio in it. Perhaps you'd be better off directing your efforts at lobbying state and federal officials to better conceal sensitive data. Maybe start with the ridiculous fact that NYS blurs out some "target" areas on their satellite imagery (see Google Earth for plenty of examples). Why not just overlay a big target instead? Great way to draw attention and interest to these areas that might otherwise not be noticed by someone intending to do harm. Not to mention, some of the blurring is just plain absurd. They used a higher degree of blurring for the Rockland County FTC than for Indian Point! I defy ANYONE to tell me just how that makes ANY sense whatsoever.

Thanks fellas. I'm here to help, so feel free to shoot me a PM or email if you need anything at all. Well, within reason that is!

JetBlue flies direct routes between JFK and Jacksonville. Price obviously depends on when you wanna fly and how soon you book. Tickets usually start at around $99 each way and go up to around $169 each way for that particular route. JetBlue is awesome, I wouldn't fly anyone else if given the choice. Their fleet of Airbus A320s are all new, modern and spacious. The Directv in each seat is great for people who don't like flying. Put the headphones on and you get so engrossed in the TV, next thing you know you're landing. I've flown back and forth between Tampa a few times, and it feels like 15 minutes. Matter of fact, I was upset because the plane landed before I got to finish watching the show I had on.

Sounds good. Our guys are flying out to Pierce tomorrow also to check out the rescue.

South Spring Valley is expecting delivery of their 2006 Pierce Lance Pumper next month. The rig features an enclosed top mount pump panel. More details to come.

Central Nyack is expecting delivery of their 2006 Seagrave Pumper by the end of the year. Unfortunately I don't have many more details on the truck, but I'm sure when Brian sees this thread, he'll update us.

Very cool idea. How about this to kick it up a notch: Find the same type of lettering, only reflective AND with the adhesive on the facing so you can put them on the inside. Even better visibility and they'll stay on the mask and stay cleaner much longer!

Holy crap...and here I thought I knew what over aggressive driving looked like. Guess I was wrong!

Our 1972 CF700 was even worse than the CF600s most depts ran. Those Mack V8s were notorious for pumping out TONS of heat. That's one of the reasons Mack didn't make many CF cabs with the V8, they would overheat too much, even with the open cab design.

I think he was kidding. The primary rig is probably just out of service for maintenance or repairs, so the shops assigned them one of the Macks for the time being. Not unusual at all.

I personally like the new layout. I find it much cleaner and with much less scrolling required to get to what you're looking for. That being said, I haven't been around here for very long nor do I really check that site often. Change can be a good thing though, and I have to say that if you're happy with the changes you made and you think going forward the site will be better off for it, then I say keep the new look.

I'm sure they'll keep it as a reserve unit, provided it doesn't fall apart!

It would be pretty neat to still have it. Actually it was just up for sale on eBay, but didn't meet the reserve. I assure you, those were NOT our doing! The truck does have a bit of sad history, however. In 1967 one of our members, Billy Steffens, touched the truck while the boom was in contact with overhead wires. He's one of only two LODDs in our dept's history.

Seth should've deleted Fonz's account ages ago, clearly he never has anything productive to add here. Ah yes, I see you suck at math as well. According to the poll results, 60% of the members "love it" or "like it", another 20% think it's "ok". That's 80% who seem to be in favor of the new page, 105 votes. Only 4 members "hate it" (3%) and 24 think the old page should come back (18%).

Any decision? 4 out of 13 posts liked my suggestion.

Excellent. Email notification + RSS feed = no more missed photo updates!

MUCH better. RSS feed = awesome.

New page looks great. Much cleaner interface. Yes, there's definitely an issue with what appears to be "masthead" DIV in the table. At 1024x748, it's pushing the "Work Together, Win Together" right out of the browser, causing a horizontal scrollbar to appear. Try reducing the width value in this line and see what happens <td width="145"><em><strong><span class="style7"> Work Together, Win Together </span></strong></em></td> Also, the page is practically non-viewable in 800x600, as everything gets pushed right to the bottom of the page. Such is the drawback of using a three column layout though. This is in both FF and IE, same results. You might wanna change the "Best viewed" advisory to "1024x768 or higher" instead. Aside from the minor bugs, which I'm sure you'll work out soon enough, I definitely like it a lot. Good job, brother.

The requirements for a quint have obviously varied throughout the decades, and today are set by the NFPA. Back in the day, just about any aerial truck that had a pump, some water and hose on it would've likely been considered a quint. Same goes for triple combination and quadruple combination engines. If they had a pump, tank and some hose, they would've been considered a triple combination...add some ground ladders and you'd have a quad. Our dept's first aerial was a 1962 International/Young/Pitman 65' Snorkel. It had a 750 GPM pump, 175 gallon tank, 1200' of 2.5" supply hose and 207' of ground ladders. It was also the very first quint Snorkel Young ever built (we seem to have a history with unique Young apparatus, also having owned the last Bison model they ever built, which was also a rare cross between a Crusader and Bison). We sold the Snorkel to the Harrisburg, IL FD in 1978. Here are some photos of the truck from a few weeks ago. Everything is still in perfect working order and the boom was actually just recently recertified!