res6cue

I know of a company that allowed it well into the 90s on one of their apparatus that only seated two in the cab. They had a suicide bar and I believe ladder belts to strap on, but still. Thankfully it's a thing of the past now. I hated driving the snorkel and having guys stand up in the jump seats when they thought I wasn't paying attention to them. Rules are great, I'm all for them, but in the real world they're not so easy to enforce. I mean really, you're gonna stop the truck dead in its tracks going to a working fire until the guys sit down? It was an absolute no win situation. I'm glad our open cabs are gone, that's for sure. Almost as bad, or maybe moreso, is our walkin rescue where the guys leave the rear doors wide open and insist on sitting right at the end of the bench. Thankfully, that truck will also be gone in a few months, to be replaced with a non walkin.

That was great :angry: Speaking of the soundtrack, I loved when the series first started and they had the promo set to Under Pressure. That was classic.

I totally agree and wish they would make it a mandatory full criminal background check, with automatic exclusions for convicted felons. Misdemeanors should be judgement calls though, as you can get arrested and convicted of something really knuckleheaded as a youth and still be an outstanding person.

Correct, a background check for arson convictions is mandatory for volunteer firefighter applicants per NYS Executive Law Section 837-o. I believe it went into effect April 1, 2000. Unfortunately, it seems most of these firebugs get their start after already joining, or they just never got caught previously and wish to join to get a better high that I guess comes with being on both sides of the equation.

Yeah I saw that the other day on Firehouse.com. My first reaction was "good on him" but then I thought it over a bit. First off, a 12 minute response time is ridiculous, especially for a reported kitchen/structure fire. Secondly, I take some issue with the city manager's claim that a substation would cost $750,000 a year to operate. I call BS on that one. He stated the department is staffed by "unpaid professional firefighters", aka a fancy term for volunteers, so there shouldn't be any additional staffing costs (they may be a combo dept though, so I can't be 100% sure). You'd have to build the firehouse, possibly buy an additional piece of apparatus and pay the bills and maintenance, sure...but three quarters of a million dollars a YEAR? No way. Our department operates out of 3 stations with 16 pieces of apparatus and over 125 members to equip and maintain, and our entire annual budget for EVERYTHING is just over 1 million. That being said, I have a few issues with the way this guy is going about it. Unfortunately, the article isn't clear on whether he's actually a member of the department in question, it only states that he's a "20-year veteran firefighter" which could mean a lot of things. I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that he's not a member. If not, he should step up and join if he's going to go out and buy a truck on his own anyway. While it sounds noble what he's doing, in reality he's creating a liability as well as potentially setting a bad precedent. Granted, he's not just some yahoo buff, he was noted to be a certified firefighter, but still and all. We can't just have anyone going out and buying fire apparatus to protect their neighborhoods because they don't agree with our response time or policies. There are ways to petition for either increased protection or to form a new district. In the end, I don't completely disagree with what he's doing though. Sometimes you have to really push the issue to get results. Hopefully there's more to the story though, namely that he either is a member or has the fire department on his side. Also, from the way it sounds there is a real disparity between the coverage on either side of town. Having a substation in this area may attract more volunteers and bolster the ranks. More volunteers is never a bad thing. Well, I hope we see some follow up articles on whatever the outcome is. Incidentally, I searched eBay to try and find out what kind of truck he bought, but it must've been over a month ago because there's nothing matching in the completed listings.

I find it perplexing that the III and IV had WORSE sensitivity than the II. Supposedly the V has better sensitivity than the II had, but I haven't compared them side by side to test in the real world. The horrible lack of reception by the III and IV models are well documented though. Incidentally, the voice storage model, at least for low band, has less sensitivity (weaker reception) than the standard model. Here's a comparison chart (the lower the number, the better the reception)

We operate on UHF and primarily use HT1000s, although there are a few HT1250s in the mix, mostly for the officers. Both operate great on UHF, although I've always been partial to the HT1000 myself. They can take a pretty good beating. Then again, I'd still be using an old MT1000 brick if I had it my way.

The sad truth is, the vast majority of the public doesn't really care about the gadgets we buy. They only care that we show up when they need us. Of course, once there's anything negative brought to light, ala Long Island, well then of course there will be public outcry over the wasting of tax dollars. I don't mean to be cynical, but that's how it is in the real world. Most people take an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude of indifference. We have open houses annually as well as a year round fire prevention program. We try to educate the public as to what equipment we have, why we have it and how it works. Most times you get blank stares back from the few that do show up, and believe me, we try to keep the terminology simple and understandable. Now as far as the donations going to "extracurricular" activities, that's a whole other can of worms right there. My personal opinion is that in today's day and age, there is no place for booze in a fire company, I don't care if it is volunteer. We want to be seen as professional in every way, yet we still have the social club, back room bar getting liquored up attitude. I don't think they can coexist. It's one thing to go out as a group off premise and throw a few back, but to do it right in the firehouse is asking for trouble. These ain't the good ole days anymore.

As far as the Leatherman brand goes, the Crunch is definitely the best model for fire/rescue conditions because of the bigger, locking Vise Grip type jaws. The regular needlenose pliers on the other tools is all but useless for gripping the bigger things you'll need to grip in a fire/rescue situation, such as a gas service valves.

I have mixed feelings about wetdowns. Having helped plan and host a few of them in my day, as well as attending and participating in others, I've had good fun for sure. They are a great way to let of some steam and build morale. It's nice to have the public be able to see where their tax dollars are going, and why (meaning the rig, not the beer lol). Seriously though, the downside is when they get out of control. We stopped having them "wet" for a while in our county in the early 90s after an incident where some chuckleheads blew out the glass bay windows of a neighboring station while hitting the truck with a STRAIGHT STREAM, causing injury to bystanders. For a while, we couldn't even call them "wetdowns", they were "dedications". Since that time, almost all fliers that go out specifically state "FOG STREAM ONLY!" and it is enforced as much as it can be. As a matter of fact, during the ban in our county, a neighboring dept blew foam peanuts all over the two new trucks we got. Wow, what a god awful mess that was. By the way, regarding the foam issue...any foam we've ever done was always done with a $1.29 bottle of dish soap, not actual Class A or B foam. I'm sure some depts use real foam, hopefully if so they're using the cheap training crap or some old cans that are past their useful service date for actual firefighting application. Actually, foam is not great for the paint/clearcoat (especially on a new rig), so it's not such a great thing to use in the first place.

As the member of a dept that had one of our 10+ year members convicted of several counts of arson in our own district, I can tell you it's an absolutely sickening, embarrasing and angering thing to have happen. I won't go into much detail, but I will say that we had suspected this guy for years. Unfortunately, we never had the proof to nail him until he tripped himself up by going on a spree of sorts (had a new girlfriend, trying to impress her I suppose). Now, before anyone asks or accuses us of not doing anything even though we suspected him, I'll remind you that you can't just blindly accuse someone of something that serious without solid evidence. This guy was a cop upstate also. Real piece of sh!t.

Spent a while finding all the Rockland firehouses in Google Earth and placemarking them. I think I missed one of Haverstraw's and might be a bit off the mark with Piermont, kinda hard to tell from overhead. Anyway, enjoy! I can't attach the KMZ file, so here's the link to it on the Google Earth boards... http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=413876 or the thread if that doesn't work... http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=413876

Right, because YOUR dept or you have never responded lights and sirens to nuisance automatic alarms at the same locations on a consistant basis I presume? That is what I mean by "BS alarm", but until proven otherwise, we respond lights and sirens, just like 99% of all agencies. But, thanks for the pointers.

I was in fact referring to the critical ones, I should've specified that instead of saying "all applicable standards". In any case, my point stands. While it might be near impossible to meet ALL standards, that sure won't stop a lawsuit, nor is "well, find me an agency that does meet all NFPA standards" a very sound defense when you're on the hotseat. We live in a very litigious world these days. Incidentally, adherance to most NFPA standards is fairly easy since quite a bit of it refers to the design and use of equipment. There is no reason whatsoever for agencies to be purchasing or using equipment that doesn't meet the NFPA standards. Most nonconformity to the standards regarding training, staffing and other personnel issues usually comes down to the piss poor excuses of either "well, we've always done it this way" or "we don't have the manpower or resources to be able to enforce it." Neither should be acceptable in my opinion. Either do it right and keep your personnel and the community you serve safe, or close up shop.

The days of the NFPA standards being "suggested guidelines" are long gone. They are so widely accepted these days, that they are for all intents and purposes, all but accepted as THE standard and law. Agencies that don't meet or exceed all applicable NFPA standards are asking for big trouble, especially if they find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit for something related to noncompliance.

It doesn't mean a thing. The public is either completely oblivious to it or tries to take advantage of tailing us through traffic and lights. As someone who has had to mash on the brakes or make evasive manuevers more times than I could ever count, I sure wish the public would take those warning signs seriously. I can recall one or two incidents in my dept where someone has actually rear ended a truck while it was responding. No surprise the motorist was irate that we caused them to have an accident. And just when you thought they couldn't get any more pissed, it's classic when the PD issues them a ticket for following too close. Speaking of which, if I have someone on my tail too close, and it's a BS alarm, I'll slow down just enough to keep them there while I radio the PD to have a car intercept and pull them over.

Why would I ask an NYPD Sergeant? Are NYPD Sergeants privy to special knowledge the rest of us aren't? Once again, people continue to argue that this myth is true, but have provided zero proof. On the other hand, I have linked to both the NYS V&T laws as well as the NYS Driver's Manual, neither of which support any claim that a USPS vehicle has any right of way above and beyond the normal rules of the road, and certainly not above and beyond that of an authorized emergency vehicle engaged in an emergency response. This is directly from the USPS themselves: So again, find me any federal, state, county, city, town or village law that supports the argument that USPS vehicles have any priority right of way to support the myth many of you insist on propagating. Until someone can, all you're doing is repeating over and over again something that may have been true decades ago, but is no longer.

I should hope I understand how a starter works, considering I worked as an ASE certified mechanic for quite a few years. Who am I to make such a statement? I'm just like you or anyone else who forms an OPINION based on the article. Or just like you formed the opinion that I have no idea about vehicle starters and made the statement that you would "enlighten me", when obviously you don't know a thing about me, how many years of service I have or what my experience is. Do us a favor and stick to commenting on the article itself, not worrying about the opinions anyone else posts. It's bad enough some of you felt the need to tear down ECLEMENTE for not having a full understanding of hydraulic rescue tools THAT HIS COMPANY DOESN'T EVEN OWN OR OPERATE. I hope you guys feel much better about yourself now that you've shown the world your superior knowledge by "enlightening" us ignorant fools. Seriously people, let's tone it down a little with calling each other out. There's a right way and wrong way to address something that might be bothering you, and quite frankly, some of you appear to have horrible interpersonal skills.

The Strongarm is intended for mainly defensive operations, where you're not really going to salvage much of the primarily involved structure anyway. The key is to protect any exposures by preventing the spread of fire. Master streams (deck guns and ladder pipes) are often hard to position and aim directly at the seat of the fire, and often times can push fire into uninvolved sections of the structure. The Strongarm concept allows for much more pinpoint accuracy as well as the ability to penetrate into a structure. The multiple jets on the nozzle act just like a cellar nozzle, in that they cover a 360 degree area, and you will use less water because of that. When you combine all those factors, you will actually SAVE more property than it seems. A hole in a wall or roof in just one room is a LOT easier to repair than damage from fire spreading throughout the structure because you pushed it further with master streams, or all the water damage that results. I didn't like the opening funeral scenes and entire theme of needing one of these things in order to ensure firefighters won't die. That kind of marketing, while I'm sure effective on people who let their emotions guide their decisions, disgusts me.

He was an officer himself. A few things bother me about this story. First of all, that there's probably a lot more to it than can be known from a single newspaper article, yet we're freely passing judgment in both directions (which I'm about to add to lol). Secondly, that this dept seemingly has more problems they should be dealing with than reprimanding a veteran lieutenant for trying to do the right thing. How about some PM on your apparatus maybe? Thirdly, I'm a little curious if the other firefighters responded in an actual piece of apparatus or another POV. The article isn't clear on that. If it was another piece of apparatus, surely they could've taken the spreader, some hydraulic hose and the portable hydraulic pump with them. It might've been a tight fit, but more than likely it was possible. If it was a POV, then shouldn't they be just about equally as guilty as this guy for responding improperly? I would love to have all the facts on this, especially the on scene times of that mutual aid rescue vs. this guy in his pickup. It would be very interesting if this guy got to the scene first with the Jaws, and would lead me to believe the IC didn't really have a handle on the incident. All in all though, this story stinks of career vs. volly politics. The comment about "it's a health and safety issue" illustrates that pretty well. If that's the best reason the Captain could come up with, well. Incidentally, I'm not saying the guy was right for disobeying an order. No matter how inept the person giving that order might be, or how much you feel it might be personal, unless it clearly and overwhelmingly affects life or safety, you obey it. I just think it's terribly sad that a Captain and Lieutenant can't be on the same page here. My personal opinion is that I would not have turned him back if I was IC. I would've pulled him aside after the call to explain to him one on one that I didn't approve of his actions and in the future, that's not how a similar situation is to be handled. I also would've made sure an SOP or directive was issued outlining the proper procedure for dealing with such scenarios in the future.

It's been a while since I've been a member of a VAC, but we were having the same issues when I was a member back in the early and mid 90s. We had a paid crew on weekdays from 0700 to 1900. All paid EMTs had to be full members and were required to volunteer a certain amount of hours a week to retain their paid shifts. There was never an issue with that system, it worked out very well actually. Weeknights and weekends were covered by scheduled crews of volunteers. The length of the shifts might vary, depending on who liked to cover what time slot, but there was always at least a two person crew on duty. In any case, while that all but guaranteed a rig would be on the road for primary calls, the call volume was such that there was trouble getting backup crews on the road. Adding to that problem was having to cover quite a few mutual aid calls for struggling surrounding VACs. It was just after I left, but I know they added a second paid daytime crew to deal with this. I believe to this day they're still volunteer weeknights and weekends. But to your point, it's more or less the same situation in the fire departments. Membership is down, BS calls are up (which kills morale and interest) and therefore, response times are up and resources making it to the scene are at a bare minimum. I think the problem is a lot more noticeable and serious with EMS though, for a few reasons. At a false fire alarm run, even if only a Chief or one truck shows up with a skeleton crew, most people don't even notice the terrible response. Not so with EMS. You're usually dealing one on one and when someone is in pain, it seems like hours waiting for that ambulance. With a fire dept, when a hot job comes in, guys come out of the woodwork. Guys you haven't seen in years are all of a sudden fighting to get trucks out. Sure, there's some of that in EMS, but few and far between. EMS generally doesn't provide the same adrenaline rush firefighting does, save for maybe a trauma job. You'll probably even get a few firemen out of bed at 3am for an automatic alarm, but how many EMTs are going to get up to take in that stubbed toe at the local nursing home...for the 5th time that week? Not many. I agree though, I think the whole volunteer concept is in big trouble, both EMS and FD. For the reasons stated, I think it's more noticeable and potentially more serious with EMS though. Also, it's presumably quite a bit cheaper to pay 2 EMTs to staff an ambulance than it is to pay a whole fire department. That means there will be much less hesitation for the town or village to close the doors of the VAC and replace them with a paid service, unfortunately. You mentioned ego being a problem, especially when it comes to consolidation of services, and I would agree with that. Too much pride, too much worrying about "this is OUR turf" going on and it's only hurting, not helping. I see fire depts spending close to a million dollars on state of the art (and generally overkill) apparatus that gets flat spots in the tires from sitting on the apparatus floor. Hey, I'm all for having the best possible equipment, but what's the sense if you don't have the personnel to get it out of the station? Don't even get me started on duplication of services either. Do you really need 10 aerial ladders for 6 depts in an area of around 50 square miles where the actual usage of those trucks is probably less than 2% of combined annual call volume? Doubtful. I'm not sure how it is elsewhere, but here in Rockland, EMS and FD generally do not mix. Sure, you have guys and gals that vollie for both, but that's not what I mean. Of the county's 26 FDs and 13 VACs (Hatzolah and Rockland Paramedic Services not included) only 1 agency is one in the same, and that is Piermont FD which also has an ambulance and is primary EMS agency for the village (they cover less than 1 square mile, however). Spring Valley FD used to have an ambulance, but that went by the wayside in the 90s. Ironically, that very ambulance from Rockland Hook & Ladder was quite literally one of the first ambulances in the town of Ramapo, predating Spring Hill, Faist and I believe even Ramapo Valley. It was actually members of the Rocklands that got together with some firemen from Hillcrest that started Spring Hill VAC to cover the northern and western sections of Ramapo, rather than having the FD ambulance run all the way to the Haverstraw line. What is my point? Simple. The VACs and FDs have to start working together to ensure each others long term survival. The whole culture of the two agencies being mutually exclusive is getting old, and it's not benefiting anyone. Not to pick on the VACs, but I think the FDs in general have more resources to offer. More money from the fire districts, more manpower and more apparatus. Would it really be so horrible to start training firefighters as CFR-D or EMT? To recruit fire dept members to help staff ambulances? Perhaps work some sort of cross-agency mutual aid agreement out between EMS and FD? It stands to reason (and from personal experience) that there are usually a few guys hanging around the firehouse when EMS calls are going unanswered. Sure, maybe those guys aren't interested in being members of the VAC, but if you tone them out for an engine or rescue to respond to an EMS run, they'll get on the truck. At least that buys the VAC some time to get out, as the patient is being attended to and packaged for transport. I'm not suggesting the FD take over EMS, believe me. But I think it's time to help each other out. Having been in EMS for a while, having been in the FD for a long time and even having put myself in the middle MANY times by holding the very unpopular office of Fire Rescue Lieutenant and Captain of my FD (aka EMS Squad), I can say with confidence and certainty that we're not doing each other any good staying divided like we currently are. At the very least, there needs to be some real mutual aid agreements put in place. Maybe start a pilot program where the FD is toned out for serious EMS runs, similar to the way FDNY has the CFR-D engines. Yes, these opinions are usually extremely unpopular, but what's the alternative? Burying your head in the sand and hoping for the best? Ask some members of VACs or FDs whose doors have been permanently closed if they would've preferred the option to work together over not having a place to work at all, and see what THEIR opinion is now.

No, it's really not. Nowhere in the NYS Driver's Manual does it refer to yielding the right of way to postal vehicles, nor is there any such statute in the NYS V&T law (or ANY NYS laws for that matter). Unless someone can find otherwise and post proof? If not, then as I said, it's a longstanding myth/urban legend and obviously people will continue to insist it's true, even in the face of facts to the contrary. http://nysdmv.com/dmanual/chapter05-manual.htm http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf...OMMONQUERY=LAWS BUT, since you brought up the NYS Driving Test, here is an excerpt from the NYS Driver's Manual which definitively answers the original question: Directions given by traffic officers take precedence over signs, signals or pavement markings. If a traffic officer signals you to stop at a green light, for example, you must stop. If an officer signals you to drive through a red light or stop sign, you must do so. Among those authorized to direct traffic are police officers, peace officers such as on-duty auxiliary or fire police, highway work area flag persons, and school crossing guards.

We've had METL-X Class D extinguishers on our rigs for as long as I can remember, certainly going back to 1990. We have at least five 30 pound extinguishers on various apparatus, as well as spares in the station.

I can't believe some of you still buy into that old "The USPS has the right of way" myth/urban legend. Show me where it states that in any state V&T laws, or where any federal statute overrides the state. In the meanwhile, read this: http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/fourway.asp

Our county has always been progressive with stuff like this. Years ago, we were one of the first counties to have state legislation passed that allowed the county/towns to give a small break on property taxes to volunteers. It's nice to see they're not stopping there.