16fire5

Most people would accept the following The area in question is remote from the major population center of the district and where it appears ALL the staff livesThe response time to the area in question is too long from the main fire station even for rural standardsTo address this the Fire District has sought to build a station in the area in question. The problem pointed out by many already is Yorktown has either no or an inadequate staff in the area in question to make the station a practical solution. The practical solution is the area lies in close enough proximity to the Millwood district with an established department and staff out of 2 fire stations. Does this mean the area needs to annexed by Millwood? Not necessarily and probably politically not going to happen. But an easy solution can be automatic aid. It's used throughout the country to ensure the closest resource responds. Now I would argue that Millwood deserves something out of the arrangement. That can be payment (how much would the station cost over a 30 year period? Would a portion of that yearly amount be a fair payment to Millwood for the small increase in responses?) or some sort of reciprocal agreement (Maybe Yorktown auto responds to reported fires in the Millwood district with a tanker, engine, or FAST or on highway boxes). These sort of things benefit the taxpayers of both districts even if the number of responses don't exactly equal each other. While mfc2257 states that no Yorktown apparatus has been stationed in Millwood I seem to remember reading at one point that Millwood's district offered a bay for an engine. Maybe that's what Bnechis was referring to.

The article also said Turn of River had so much say because the 24 new guys are going to work in their firehouse. I'm guessing this is a mix up since no one would put 24 probies in the same firehouse at the same time. Wouldn't you spread them out?

Very true.

Should we really be that impressed? She's a female big deal there's plenty of great female firefighters. By now we should know firefighting has nothing to do with your gender or race or anything like that. She's obviously put in real time learning her trade. I am thoroughly impressed with the way that apparatus was set up to be run by one person. It's bad enough if there are no hydrants but requiring huge amounts of manpower to run the water supply part of the fire robs the fireground of the firefighters needed to put out the fire. I like the fact that tremendous amounts of energy were not needed to run around the rig and get things. She basically stays in a small area and accomplishes everything.

A factor in this is where this problem is. The heroin epidemic is effecting affluent areas more than the ghetto. Like it or not this gets lawmakers attention and something has to be done! It's no secret that the FDNY trained the Staten Island companies first because they were encountering it at a higher rate per capita. I'm not disagreeing with what most of the posters are saying just kinda weighing in on how we got to this legislative action. In reality Bnechis is probably right and most of the fatal overdoses are dead prior to the arrival of any first responders.

A couple of thoughts here. I really have no knowledge of how the HFD operates aside from what I read here. What it sounds like is the Chief turns out first since he doesn't dress and gets there first and does the 360 as the other apparatus is entering the block. So he or she isn't really a viable option for running in and making a grab. In the FDNY everywhere I have ever been the Chief lets the companies out and closes the doors for everyone and then trails all the apparatus. In fact if we are responding and come upon the chief 9 times out of 10 they pull over and let us by. As for the conundrum of what to do when faced with a known life hazard upon arrival with limited staffing I see no hard fast answer. Our procedures are quite clear that an engine should not abandon stretching a line to address life hazards aside from extreme conditions. Now this was one of those things I used to fight in my mind when I would first read it but along with many others I now come to realize the genius of those sharp lads who wrote this stuff back in the day. The reality is if there's a fire bad enough to trap someone the situation is probably getting worse by the second. If we forgo stretching the line the fire will get bigger. That's not to say that in some situations you may need to go for the life hazard but it's one of the ultimate judgement calls. Putting out the fire makes lots of problems go away while letting the fire grow makes new problems by the second. As for the 360 if you're not doing it you should start right now. Do it on everything to make it second nature (CO, Gas, AFAs). The amount of information that you can gain with it is immense. In that private dwelling fire a major part of it is ruling out the basement fire which is critical and not always apparent-think balloon frame. If you look back at a lot of LODD country wide over the last 20 years you see plenty of incidents where something that could easily have been determined by the 360 killed members.

Silly me I thought it was 2014 not 1974. Do you keep you own CD-14?

An initial 360 is a critical step and mandatory in most of the country. Most people would consider that action by the first arriving IC with the first alarm right behind them spot on. The members were confronted with a KNOWN life hazard. So individual searches were both permitted and called for in this situation. Looks like the HFD did a bang up job based on what they were confronted with and their limited staffing. Would you like the IC to drive like a nut half dress and sprint into the front door as the companies arrive to make the grab??? The search team to hold hands or tether themselves to the hose while a victims fights for every last breath? Many times in this form we are critical of highly risky tactics when they were not warranted. In this case it seems the members did exactly what they should have. The Chief should be understandably proud of his men. Nice work HFD.

Can't agree more about the BVM. It really bothers me that we'll have some police agencies who won't do CPR on grandma but are going to administer narcan to iv drug users.

Seth, You continue to post his propaganda when it suits your cause. So it's now interesting you distance yourself for him. How many times did you post promoting consolidation when you were a paid employee of Hartsdale? As much as you want to to say this makes no sense. Bnechis (who you took an unwarranted shot at when you were mad at my post) spell out the fact of the matter plain. One of the districts taxes will go up. How does a sworn Commissioner vote to do it and why would a taxpayer of the district vote to have their taxes raised? While I can see the big picture there's hardly any guarantee of long term results. The thought that you could just combine all the districts and be able to surplus a bunch of chiefs is a little off base. One would think that the enlarged district should have chief officers assigned to training and fire prevention.

Based on the fact that you were fired by one of the districts involved It's probably hard for most of us to believe this isn't personal.

Ok I don't want to seem like a mean guy here picking this article apart BUT. The author is a 23 year old Lieutenant and by every indication here is a motivated member of the fire service. That being said I agree there's a difference between leader and boss but in reality sometimes you have to be the boss. As a fire officer on the fire floor you need to be the boss. As I read the article I think the author in some ways is describing leading literally when I read these parts "white helmet bobbing through the smoke in front of you" and "leading the men and women around the firehouse and fireground,". To me leadership has nothing to do with physically being in front. Almost anyone can lead someone down a hallway but it takes a real officer being the BOSS to hold up the train if things are not right. It's been pointed out here before by some of those who's experience and rank exceed mine about how too many company officers are too worried about being friends with their guys instead of being their boss. To me a leader does the right thing even if it won't be popular. Funny enough I met the Chief of the author's county department last year and there was a leadership discussion and I remember this quote he made that day and it basically went like this. "Lead you people where they need to be, not where they want to go" It struck a chord with me hopefully I made some sense here.

It's not actually a day of it's 24 hours off. So if Tuesday is you third day you are due back in Wednesday night. That's not really 1 day off in my book.

The arbitration board is the DC arbitration board and seems to be pretty lopsided towards management. The current schedule is 24 on 72 off a 4 platoon system. The proposed system is 3-12 hour days followed by 3-12 hour nights followed by 3 days off which is a 3 platoon system. The average workweek will go from 42 hours a week to 56. I don't think DC intends to pay the members for the extra 14 hours. While it may seem that 12 hour shifts will better combat fatigue the reality is that is not true. A member working their 3rd consecutive night tour will be beyond exhaustion. In a perfect world people will believe that everyone is getting 8 hours sleep in between these tours but it's just not true. Our chart in the city is 9 hour days and 15 hour nights and members frequently trade to make them into 24s. From personal experience I am never more exhausted than when I'm working consecutive nights. In reality you will be late getting out of work (awaiting relief, fires near the end of the shift, and regular administrative duties) then you drive home how ever long in my case an hour and then your young kids never got them memo about daddy needing to sleep and you need to eat something....before you know it it's time to get back in the car. So in a practical sense 24s work better on the human body. Also they save money in that there are less times when overtime is incurred for calls overlapping the end of the shift. They result in fewer vehicle trips, less gas usage, and a lower carbon footprint. This whole thing is much more about thinly veiled racism and an political machine agenda.

They already have tillers so I'm not really sure how much better they can get. This stupid discussion comes up from time to time when a know it all planner or developer is sick of the fire department's comments. If the Fire Department was commenting on street width they were doing their job. I've been on both sides of this and have never debated the fire chief or marshals input. In fact at times I've helped them out.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/elmwood-park-fire-captain-charged-with-dwi-after-crashing-firetruck-on-return-from-call-1.997501 I'm not looking to get the normal "black eye for the fire service stuff here" The fact is there are no new lessons to be learned here; only old lessons that tragically went unheeded. If you're allowing this in your firehouse it's just a matter of time before this happens in your community. Why risk lives and the confidence of the public you serve. Get the beer out of the firehouse. I love a cold one as much as anyone else but as they say "there's a a time and a place for everything" and the firehouse and on duty are neither.

So far with all the deflection going on not one poster has supported allowing firefighters to drink in the firehouse. I guess there are no bars in firehouses anymore, which if true is a good thing.

More deflection. I guess the chief placed the temporary ban on drinking in the firehouse because he was drinking somewhere else. Maybe if we find out he was only drinking hard alcohol we could ban that but allow beer.

I guess if we just go back and forth about paid vs. volunteer and find one article about a career firefighter drinking and driving a rig we can ignore my point. We call it deflecting in the firehouse. Since there's no good reason to have drinking in the firehouse and it inevitably leads to cases like this.

Fire Rescue International 2014 in Indianapolis.???? I'm guessing that is a typo. FDIC was just held in Indy. FRI is in Dallas in August.

I think it's impractical to think officers will not attempt evacuations when first arriving at fires but I stand by my opinion that having them use elevators is not worth the risk. If they have the keys and want to bring the elevators down to the lobby that's a great idea since it will have them there for the first arriving companies and prevent occupants from using them and being trapped. The problem with having cops in elevators before FD arrival is 1. They are taking away an elevator that the FD will need and 2. Even in fireman service an elevator is still not safe. They are a necessary evil and we use them in a calculated manner. Firefighters who take elevators always have SCBA and forcible entry tools. If elevator car malfunctions and goes to or above the fire floor the firefighters can don SCBA. If the car stalls the firefighters can attempt to self extricate with their tools. And if the car fails to respond to commands prying open the doors stops the car. This is not some overly cautious rant I'm basing this on the experience of the FDNY and personally being at fires where elevators operated erratically.

You say 13 flights like it's a big deal. While I don't do it all the time I can say plenty of times I have done that many because the elevators were OOS, there was a backlog, or I was assigned to search the stairways. I would say no unequivocally to PD using the elevator in a building on fire prior to our arrival. One of our fundamentals when we use elevators during fires is that we always staff them with members with SCBA and forcible entry tools. Elevators malfunctioning during fires is not uncommon at all. The difference is firefighters presented with that situation can don their facepiece and make their way to the stairwell. If they end up in a stalled car they can don their facepiece and attempt to force their way out. Elevators are a necessary evil that we only use when the fire is above the 7th floor otherwise we walk up. The risk faced by a Police Officer of using the elevator is not worth the benefit in my opinion.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but my biggest issue is with their use of the elevator. I don't really think an SOP is needed to tell people not to use elevators during fires. It's common knowledge and it's posted next to elevators everywhere. If they had used the stairs we wouldn't be having this conversation.

We need to reach out to our counterparts and ensure we are giving them some good basic training to make informed decisions on the actions they take at fires if they are in before us. It's not like the old days the smoke today can overcome you in a few breaths as we see happened here. Also we are now learning more and more about fire behavior and it's critically important for us to control ventilation especially before water is applied. We have all seen the well meaning officers on arrival who have taken windows or held the door open. We know this will quickly increase the intensity of the fire. I can see that having them could come in handy for police matters but I think they should be forbidden from using them at fires. The responding companies need them to get to the fire floor quickly. At the very least you need to get 2 engines and 1 truck up to the fire floor to begin the attack. If PD arrives and takes one of the elevators to the upper floors that is one less for us to use to get upstairs. And lets face it in NYC's public housing it's pretty common for one elevator to be out of service.

The concept of mixing steel, masonry, and wood to make a structure is hardly new. The H types of the Bronx that probably started to be built about 100 years ago were able to surpass the size of their predecessors the old law tenements by using steel I beams both horizontally and vertically. The buildings consist of a masonry exterior, with steel I beams horizontally and vertically spaced supporting wood floor and roof joists. They are ordinary construction. The difference is the new buildings is today's wood. Notice I didn't just single out lightweight components because today's dimensional lumber has been shown to fail much earlier than the traditional lumber of the past. Dunn and Branigan implored us to realize the difference between a structure and a contents fire and calling all jobs a structure fire was incorrect. Once the fire is attacking the structural components we're on borrowed time. The operational window with today's lumber even dimensional is nil. The only way we should tolerate those materials today is if they are protected behind fire rated drywall and the structure is protected with automatic sprinklers. Seth's pictures illustrate a good and inexpensive drill. Take pictures of buildings under construction in your area and have a good discussion on how we will operate when it catches on fire. Many of today's recruits don't have the slightest idea what a building looks like underneath the sheathing and sheet rock.