res6cue

There are six UHF frequencies licensed to Rockland County at 4 watts portable and they're part of the countywide radio plan: TAC-1 465.5875 Mobile Crossband Repeaters TAC-2 465.6375 Countywide UHF Fireground Ops TAC-3 460.6375 Countywide UHF Fireground Ops TAC-4 460.6125 Countywide UHF Fireground Ops TAC-5 465.6125 Countywide UHF Fireground Ops TAC-6 460.6875 Countywide UHF Fireground Ops Each dept has an assigned primary TAC channel they use for operations. Basically to minimize overlap with neighboring depts, the channel assignments are staggered somewhat. Any dept is technically free to use whatever channel they want to, but we all stick to our primaries for common sense reasons. Of course when responding mutual aid, we switch channels as needed. We are dispatched on low band, respond on low band and establish command on low band. Generally orders for incoming units are also given on low band, but if the truck is within range of the UHF radios, they might get their orders that way instead. All messages to 44-Control are on low band, as they have no UHF capability. That's the basic way it works, but there's a bit more to it. Quite a few depts are actually licensed on their own UHF frequencies in addition to the six listed above. New City (Dept 9), for example, uses their own channel with a DPL on it (instead of the normal countywide analog PL of 167.9). Most depts have UHF portables, some depts also have mobile UHF radios, and there may even be a handful that don't even have any UHF capability at all (although the Chiefs might have portables). There is no countywide mandate that you must use UHF for fireground ops, though. Depts are free to operate exclusively on low band if they wish. What happened was many years ago, a few depts went out and got the FCC to license them on UHF. Then they bought UHF portables. In our dept, for example, we've had UHF portables for almost two decades now. There were only a handful of them though, and their use was mainly limited to the officers. In the beginning, they weren't used so much for UHF to UHF communication as they were used with the PAC/RT mobile repeaters in the trucks to crossband to low band for increased range. That system eventually evolved into buying more and more UHF portables and going to a full time UHF fireground system. It started with a handful of us and caught on from there. The county had those six UHF channels and eventually as the system caught on, they figured they had better organize it to avoid conflict. So in a sense it is a countywide system, but in another sense it's really not. Here are a few of the TAC channels assignments that some of the depts operate on. Sorry for the incomplete list, I took these from the list we have of our dept's usual mutual aid companies. Dept 6 - Hillcrest TAC-2 Dept 7 - Monsey TAC-5 Dept. 9 - New City TAC-13 Dept 17 - Spring Valley TAC-3 Dept 18 - Stony Point TAC-2 Dept 20 - Tallman TAC-2 Dept 25 - South Spring Valley TAC-4 Dept 26 - Thiells TAC-2 Technical Rescue Team TAC-5 If I've confused you even more, I apologize. I probably didn't explain it very well, so if you have any questions, fire away and I'll try to clear things up.

Most parades I've marched in we weren't even allowed to have the lights on, much less sirens and airhorns. One notable exception was the Suffern July 4th parade where we were encouraged to have the lights on, but even then the sirens and airhorns weren't sounded until the very end of the parade route as the trucks went down the last bit of the route and filed into the staging area at the ballfields. It was always very reserved though, from what I recall at least. If parades were all lights and sirens and airhorns the whole time, I would never march again. That's just ridiculous.

Sure, if you say so. Very original post, by the way. I've heard the same thing a million times over the years. If you, or anyone else, thinks that I started volunteering back in the early 90s with the hope of one day maybe getting some kind of compensation for it, you could not be more wrong. When I started, we didn't have a LOSAP program, there were no tax breaks, no local retailers who generously gave discounts, and you would've been laughed out of the room if you suggested that maybe some apartment building and condo owners set aside a few units at lower cost for local volunteers as a means to keep them in the community. But if you feel the need to spew the same old tired crap about how we're not "real" volunteers anymore, or how we take jobs from union firefighters, go right ahead and sh!t my thread up, if it makes you feel better. *EDIT* - If that's not what you meant, or how you intended it to come off as, then I apologize. But I've just absolutely had enough of hearing career guys run their mouths all the time about the vollies.

I'll tell you what, Frank Hutton deserves a ton of credit for a lot of the progress in these areas. I remember back in the late 90s he was down at our firehouse and I was talking to him for a good long while about all this stuff. It was right when they first started the county recruitment and retention committee, and they wanted me to get a website up and running for them. Anyway, it's really nice to see that a guy like Frank put his money where his mouth was, and it's nice to be able to remember back to the beginning and think about how far they've come. A lot more can still be done I think, especially with the housing aspect of it, but the progress is undeniable. Kudos to Frank, Gordie and all the other guys for continuing to push the towns and builders to step up.

Yeah, I know. That's kind of why I was never really excited about it to begin with. We've been using UHF portables for years now, so aside from being dispatched, we're hardly ever on low band anyway. We always used to joke around about how isolated we were, especially back in beginning when the UHFs were the new trend. When Control would ask "can we switch you to another frequency?" we'd goof around that we should say "yeah sure, put us on channel 99 for all we care, we're on UHF anyway!" Now, if they can manage to improve the low band coverage with all these new antenna sites they're supposed to be constructing, that will help somewhat. All in all though, I'm really skeptical about the system. I don't really see how you're going to get an entire county's worth of fire, police and EMS on just 8 channels of a trunked system. Or how a 4 watt portable is supposed to be heard from the basement of a house in Hillburn or South Spring Valley or Congers without a radio tower every few miles or so. I guess we'll find out soon enough though if it's bust or not. I just hope all those millions of dollars worth of portables and mobiles are capable of falling back to conventional operation in case the whole trunking idea doesn't work out.

God willing, this system lives up to all the hype we've heard over the last few years about it. I'm a little skeptical, I have to admit. Hopeful, but skeptical all the same.

Progress like this is always worth noting. I have to say, with a fair amount of bias I suppose, that Rockland really seems to be pretty progressive with issues like this. Tax breaks, housing, discount programs with local retailers, etc.

Can you provide a link to the section of the US Code that states that? I searched through and read all of Title 18 and found nothing. Also searched the rest of the Codes and again, came up with nothing. Thanks.

Oh yeah, and this page with their fire apparatus... http://nycfire.net/gallery/album50

I missed that tonight, but here are some cool links about the island. http://members.aol.com/christy623/govisletour.html http://www.forgotten-ny.com/STREET%20SCENE...nd2/govisl.html http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/02/...nking_about.php http://www.satanslaundromat.com/sl/archives/000376.html http://www.satanslaundromat.com/sl/archives/000377.html http://www.satanslaundromat.com/sl/archives/000378.html http://www.satanslaundromat.com/sl/archives/000379.html

I have pretty strong feelings on this issues, having been on both sides of it. First off, our dept's apparatus committees consist of the line officers. The commissioners are also heavily involved in the process. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to contribute. Of course I'm not suggesting that the committee be wide open and have a ton of guys at the meetings, you'd get nothing done that way. What I do think should happen is a few things. First, aside from the officers themselves, there should be at least a few regular members on the committee. At least two drivers and one or two firefighters is a good start. If it's a specialized piece like a rescue, and you have an EMS or rescue squad, then someone should represent them as well. I think having some outside voices will often give a fresh perspective. Often times, guys that work together (the officers) on issues all the time tend to start thinking alike. The regular members should be encouraged to speak up, even if they're going against the grain. They may have a way of looking at it that the group isn't seeing. I also think there should be a suggestion box set up where anyone can contribute ideas. Doesn't matter if the idea comes from a probie or an old timer. A lot of the younger guys are enthusiastic and attend wetdowns, or have friends in other depts that they visit. They may see something that catches their eye, and they should have the opportunity to contribute that idea. Most of these trucks have to last us 20+ years. The very worst thing you can do is be shortsighted when spec'ing it, and in 10 years wonder "what were those guys thinking?" Equally as bad is sticking with something because that's how you've always done it. Don't get me wrong, if something has served you well, it's difficult to move away from it. Heck, it may even be foolish to in some circumstances. But you at least should explore it.

Sure, everyone squeezes in a nap here and there, but when it's time to go to work, you had better get your a** up. Clearly these two didn't. I honestly cannot understand how two guys miss repeated phone calls. Did they turn the ringers off or something? Even the commissioner was quoted as saying he "can understand if one of them has a problem", leading me to believe there would've been no issue had they napped in shifts and covered each other's backs. They didn't do that though. Now they have to deal with the consequences. As far as the cardiac arrest comment, c'mon now. Apples to oranges. When it's your time to go, it doesn't matter where it happens or who's around. The key difference here is that all the doctors and nurses aren't SLEEPING while patients are dying.

Aw, c'mon now. We all get complacent or unmotivated to varying degrees from time to time, even the best of us.

Yeah, I definitely agree with you. Some methods of displaying the flag of one's nation leave a lot to be desired. The irony, of course, being that while they're obviously well intentioned and trying to show national pride, they're basically being disrespectful in the process. That being said, I'm not really sure where or if there is a line here. And I've thought about it too, believe me. Does anything with even the image of a flag on it have to be treated with the utmost respect? If so, does that include t-shirts with the flag, decals of the flag, patches of the flag, etc? Does this mean that you have to constantly clean a rig with American flag grill or graphics on it so you're not disrespecting the colors? Should the flag even be represented like this in the first place? Here's another one for you, and I know this will once again stir the sh!t like my "patriotic graphics on rigs" thread did, but since you eluded to it already. What about flying those huge flags off the back of rigs? First off, they get pretty filthy pretty quickly, and that's certainly not treating it with any measure of respect. We all know the road dirt, grease, grime and crap that collects on the tailboards of our rigs. Secondly, there is just as much a chance of it flying off and obstructing someone's view as the yahoo with the flag on his roof. Again, well intentioned for sure, but maybe not the best means of showing pride. This was one of the points I was trying to make in my other thread.

Definitely. Even if the whole project is funded by private money and the fire company does own the "private" property, there still has to be tax dollars in the system somewhere. There is no way the entire operation of the fire dept is funded by fundraising or donations alone. So to come across with the "this is OUR sandbox, and you can't play in it!" attitude isn't the best idea. It's one thing to say something like that in private around the firehouse, but quite another to let yourself be quoted saying it.

You're right about the tattoo thing, I've seen them on TLC's show Miami Ink.

Red is port, green is starboard.

I read and enjoy them all, but Fire Engineering was always my favorite. I also like the ones that focus just on apparatus and equipment, like Fire Apparatus Magazine.

Just kidding Seriously though, FD7807 brings up good points. The key to motivating someone is to make them want to be there. Far too often I've seen people whose idea of motivation is to come from a negative angle. Meaning they'll put rules or penalties in place for guys that don't show up. While I'm sure they mean well, doing that generally has the exact opposite result. I'm not saying go so far as to bribe guys to be there with food or t-shirts or whatever, because that's unrealistic and questionable to begin with. I've found that a little bit of competition can go a long way. Guys usually respond when you light a fire under their butt and no one likes to think someone is better than they are. Like FD7807 eluded to, if you have multiple companies in your dept, you can have a friendly competition to see which company acrues the most training for the month. You can do the same thing even if you're one company but have multiple stations, or even among individual members if need be. The hard part is trying not to let it get out of hand. Friendly competition is fun, but you don't want it getting to the point of an unhealthy or mean spirited rivalry.

I understand where you're coming from JBE, and I agree the case isn't really cut and dry (what is in today's world anymore?). My gut feeling is that she probably was dead when she hit the floor, only God knows that for sure. It just really bothers me that the dispatchers wouldn't even have a tiny bit of doubt enough to send someone to check. That's why I don't have a problem with charges being filed against them. Whether I think they actually deserve to go to jail is a different story, I don't. But I think the mere filing of charges hopefully will send a signal to other people with this responsibility, that if faced with a similar situation they may think "you know, I better send someone just in case, I don't want to end up like those idiots in Michigan".

I'm also from Rockland, and I'm very familiar with both the incident in the article as well as a few others where cell calls were involved which delayed responses. My own dept was victim to it at no less than two calls which, naturally according to Murphy's Law, wound up being structure fires and the delay in routing and dispatch had a significant negative impact on the entire situation. In all cases, it had nothing to do with any fault or lack of training of the dispatchers in Rockland County. When you made this statement: it came off pretty clearly like you insinuated it was indeed the dispatchers in Rockland's fault. Again, it was not. The dispatchers at 44-Control are very familiar with the entire county. Once the call was finally routed from SP Monroe to 44-Control, they were able to get the right units dispatched. It should also be pointed out that right in the article itself it clearly states: so I'm really not sure how you can then go on to say: You just completely contradicted the documented facts of the incident in order to make your own point. That, my friend, is not "keeping it real". Let me give you a bit more background on this whole issue, having intimate first hand knowledge of it. As the article states, 911 calls in Rockland were usually routed to either NYSP Monroe, or worse to Bergen NJ or even Westchester, depending on what provider you had and what cell tower you managed to hit. One of the biggest culprits of this problem was, no surprise, the state itself. They didn't want to give up the 911 cell call taking because there was revenue involved in it (check your cell phone bill, that 911 tax is going to the state, not the local government). As it turns out, Rockland took the lead on this issue and was one of, if not the, first county in NYS to challenge the state and win control of the routing of 911 cell calls placed within its borders. Read this article for more info on the whole situation, notably the "Barriers" section, where it clearly states the following: http://www.its.dot.gov/pubsafety/new_york_...sons_learnd.htm

GAH, I've started to notice plot flaws and I swore I wouldn't do that. I should pay much less attention to the facts and just watch and enjoy the show for the over the top dark humour and violence like I used to. But anyway, some stuff I noticed in tonight's episode... 1. The opening scene shows a Seagrave ladder flying by, but all of a sudden we're in the crew cab of the Pierce and in the next exterior shot, the Seagrave has miraculously morphed into a brand new Pierce! 2. When the hell was the last time a school bus ran on gasoline??? I did find the extremely bald outer rear tire on it very realistic though, sadly. 3. As if anyone wouldn't have thrown their coat over the girl to protect her from the sparks from the Partner saw. Not to mention the explosion. It's bad enough he kept cutting against orders, but I don't get it...did he cut clean through the floor of the bus or something to allow the sparks to ignite the gas? And since when does a small puddle of gas explode like that? 4. Since when do ladders respond to EMS runs in the city? Last I checked, that was the job of the engine company to take in CFR runs. Well anyway, I really never nitpicked the details, as obviously it's just a show. But if they're gonna miss really obvious key stuff like this, then I don't understand what the point of paying a technical consultant is. Or more to the point, Leary should stop bragging how "realistic" they try to keep that crap, because they're starting to drift a bit too much. Into Third Watch territory, which is never a good thing. Other than that, it was a decent episode, some funny stuff. The scene between Tommy and Janet was pretty intense to say the least. But the line of the night goes to Johnny Gavin... "It started all the way back at junior prom when you brought her home so mom and dad could take pictures of her. She looked amazing in that dress Tommy."

By the way, there is probably no WORSE time to ride the outside of the apparatus than at a parade. Why? 1. There is generally alcohol being consumed, which increases reaction time while decreasing good judgment and common sense. 2. The apparatus are usually right on top of each other with guys marching in front and behind and bystanders crowding either side, which severely diminishes the space the driver has to make evasive maneuvers if necessary. 3. The driver has enough to worry about already (like kids running out from the crowd, not running over the guys marching in front of him, not hitting the truck in front of him, keeping the truck at a consistent slow speed, etc) without having to worry about his own yahoos hanging off the side or back of the truck where he generally can't even see them. 4. The surfaces of the truck are all freshly cleaned and polished with slick stuff such as Armor All and metal polish, which when coupled with hard soled parade shoes that have almost no traction, you're just asking for trouble. 5. Most uniforms are a very similar color as the pavement, which makes matters even worse. It would be very difficult for a driver to see a guy laying on the pavement from a quick glance in the mirror, especially if those mirrors are shaking as Series 60 equipped trucks have a tendency to do at low idle. I'd be very surprised if most parade rules and regulations don't specifically prohibit anyone from riding the outside of the apparatus. I know every parade I've ever been to or was hosted in Rockland, including the RCVFA and HVVFA parades my dept has hosted, expressly prohibited it before, during and after the parade. If you were caught, you were automatically disqualified, no questions asked. The old school "back in the day..." ignorant and indifferent attitudes really need to come to a grinding halt. Not just for this topic, but for many in the fire service.

The point that even at slow speeds people can be struck, run over, crushed or killed by vehicles and there may not be much time to react. Marching in a group where there is a buffer between you and the apparatus is a hell of a lot different than hanging on the side or rear of a truck, often times with other trucks following close behind. If you don't see the difference and wish to still argue that it's perfectly alright to do so at a parade, then you go right ahead. Go ahead and assume that someone who falls off the side of a truck can't hit their head on the pavement and black out just long enough for the 5 seconds it'll take for the rear wheels to crush them if they happened to roll inward towards the vehicle, or if they fell off during a turn. But please, spare us the tired old "bad sh!t happens" and "there's a risk in everything" cliches.

So, just because it has been ok in the past doesn't mean it should be addressed now? I've actually seen the picture of the dept in question over at firepics.net, and I too cringed when I saw it. This practice needs to end now. I don't care if the truck is going 50 MPH to a call or 5 MPH down main street in a straight line, it's still extremely dangerous. It's not too hard to slip off the side of a truck and fall under the rear wheels or right under the truck following behind. You can't assume the truck would be able to stop in time, or that the driver would even see what happened for that matter. I was at a parade in Spring Valley years ago where a Ladies Auxiliary member of Nanuet FD was killed along the route after being struck by a chief's truck and crushed against a telephone pole. Our dept was covering for SV that day and we responded to extricate the chief's vehicle off of her, but it was too late. It was the most horrible and tragic thing, and it happened in the blink of an eye. No, she was not riding outboard the apparatus, but the point stands.