helicopper

We got the News12 coverage! There were a whole lot of other cameras clicking and whirring though so I'm hoping that we can get some non-commercial footage. Thanks!

Correct. To all: If anyone has pictures and/or video of the operations yesterday, the Aviation Unit (and me) would very much like copies of them. Please PM me if you have them and we'll make arrangements to transfer them. THANKS!

Not exceptionally large, probably just several acres but totally inaccessible. They actually used boats to ferry firefighters across the lake to where it was and used ATV's and gators to drive around the perimeter of the lake to reach it. There was no way to hump a hoseline in from any roads. I would say that it is completely contained but not 100% extinguished. Aviation dropped 54 bucket loads of water (totally 9080 gallons) to help contain it. Air ops concluded due to darkness, will resume in the morning if necessary.

Given the heat and lack of shade at the site, does anyone know how busy EMS was on Saturday?

I don't think anyone criticized anyone about anything - on either side of the argument. Several comments were made and responded to, not critical or inflammatory at all. Quite the contrary, actually. I think everyone knows that there are three (or more) sides to every story only one of them being the truth. I stand by my comment that it is a shame that it is being discussed in the media instead of by agency heads behind closed doors but that's politics. What any of this has to do with Westchester specifically is beyond me!

The world doesn't revolve around us? Come on, of course it does! Seriously though, you're absolutely right!

I don't think this was a failure of unified command. I think this was a failure to USE incident command. Had accountability been established and readily apparent there would have been no cause to pull people off the line. If a Safety Officer was operating and appropriate PPE was being used by all, that would not have been a reason to pull people off the line. If accountability was in question and appropriate PPE was not in use, wouldn't it be the right thing to do to pull everyone off the line to fix those problems? Don't we always preach safety first? It's sad that this got so bad that the players started using the media to present their issues rather than working it out face to face.

Huh? What's this mean?

You're right cars have more horsepower but for the most part the roads are all the same. The speed limit on the Bronx River Parkway (north of the Sprain split) is 40 MPH - not because the road was built back in 1917 (completed in 1925) - but rather because of sight distances (hills/curves), intersections, etc. It's no Autobahn yet people treat it as one because they think they can. That style of driving simply continues once they're off the highways and on local roads unfortunately. Given all the driveways, side streets, and other things that could create a problem, 20 MPH is quite generous. That's what I used to give people on the parkways. Unless I was in a triple digit hunting mood.

Well that makes the issue moot. Thanks for the clarification.

Agreed. There is no hydrant next to the car and the hose goes beyond where it's parked so that wasn't it. I think the unprofessional remark was about the hose placement not the truck placement, at least that's the way I read it. What's "cool" about damaging someone's property? Aren't we in the business of trying to protect people's property? What "point" is being made by positioning the hose like that? It may not have been done to cause damage but it probably did cause damage and that isn't why we're here. Does anyone know if the FD spoke to the owner of the car? Are they going to foot the bill for any repairs?

Any hypothesis on the cause of this nightmare yet?

That is an unusual incident. Was this one of the active, in-use sections of aqueduct (with water?) or part of the older system that is no longer in use?

It is your right (pursuant to the 5th Amendment) to refuse to submit to a chemical test. However, it is also NY's right to suspend and/or revoke your privilege to drive in the state. Plus, the DMV will assess a civil penalty and your insurance company will bang you over the head with a substantial surcharge (if they'll even continue to insure you) for several years. This is all before you even resolve the criminal side of it. You can be convicted of common law DWI or driving while ability impaired without the results of a chemical test. The chemical test actually adds another misdemeanor charge (or felony for those with priors) based on the specific BAC. True, some courts are reluctant to pursue the highest charge without a chemical test but it can be done and is often done in some places. It all hinges on the officers observations and experience. As for instructing a client to refuse, that's a common tactic but it won't stop the officer from charging DWI or impaired. In extreme cases, such as a serious injury or fatality, the police can obtain a search warrant to secure evidence from a defendant regardless of the refusal. It's all part of the legal chess game, I guess.

Rollover with entrapment. Jeep on its side, apparently the vehicle was pinning or crushing the driver and passersby had to stabilize the vehicle to keep him from being crushed until the FD arrived. Southbound lanes of parkway still closed from Route 119 and I-87 for the AI.

I was looking forward to the pictures of the mule until I read that it wasn't the 4 legged kind. That would have been interesting!

That's a SAFETY CALL made by the IC in consultation with the Safety Officer. Would you want guys in a structure fire without structural PPE? Why is it any different for a wildfire? PPE is PPE. You need it, you need it. With regard to training, how many guys/departments have wildland fire training? That is a specialty unto itself. And you had to know I was going to ask this... any idea what agencies are doing the air ops? Is there a water source for the air operations to refill nearby? Apparently, a request is also being made for the full NYS Incident Management team. Thanks, Chris

The NYS incident management team is also sending command staff personnel to assist Ulster County officials. Does anyone know if the State Police or other agencies are doing bambi-bucket operations?

The State Police mobile command/communications vehicle will also be onsite, mainly to provide communications infrastructure for the SP operations.

It's not so much a matter of making sense as it is the insurance companies trying to reduce their liability and payouts. A parked car may be a little bit different - a vehicle being used to control/safeguard a scene with lights flashing is probably going to incur some liability. Once your insurance company learns of the incident - claim or not - they can increase your rates. They can increase your rates for traffic violations even where there is no accident. That's why they review DMV records. Insurance companies in New York State use no-fault to equalize the expense of insuring 17 million crazy drivers in the state.

It's no wonder that first responders continue to die in accidents - we don't modify our behavior to make ourselves safer! I recently had the opportunity to be a spectator at an incident. Unfortunately, this situation repeats itself everywhere, all the time. The incident occurred, an initial response arrived and determined that there was no fire, no injury, no bad-guy, no imminent hazard. Despite this assessment, for the next 15 minutes I watched a stream of emergency vehicles continued to respond with lights flashing and sirens blaring. Some of these vehicles had to pass traffic on the wrong side of the double yellow line and go through red lights in order to get to the scene - where they sat "in staging" with no assignment. Once a credible report indicates that an urgent response is not warranted, why do we continue to put ourselves out there by responding "hot" and aggressively? Haven't we learned our lesson from all the previous lives lost in avoidable accidents? Aren't supervisor's afraid of the liablity for allowing this to continue? Aren't they concerned about their personnel? If they are, why don't they correct this behavior? If you're sitting in that emergency vehicle, don't you want to go home after the call? Why do you tolerate such a response when you know the scene is secure? Do you really believe that your driver has magical skills that will make the moron who cuts you off or fails to yield disappear? Come on, we have to modify our behavior if we're going to reduce line of duty deaths from accidents!!!

The V&T law empowers an emergency vehicle to disregard certain regulations while responding to an emergency as long as they're using their lights and sirens. There is no obligation to exercise that privilege. Once the response is downgraded and they turn off the lights and siren, they just follow the rules of the road. If they get involved in an accident under those circumstances, they'd be treated just like any other vehicle. How is that any different than going to the shop for maintenance, the training center, being out to pick up food or perform field inspections?

1180-a, speed not reasonable or prudent is one of the most subjective tickets out there. Obviously the officer considered your speed unreasonable given the totality of the circumstances. By your own admission you were going 35 in a 30 so the officer obviously agreed with you.

I didn't hear that specifically. I heard the info about the scene being under control being broadcast. If it's under control why are we still screaming to the scene? Let me rephrase this... 15 minutes after the initial units arrived on scene, additional resources were still responding in with lights and siren.

There is definitely a conflict of interest when "on-duty" (that is not a paid/volunteer distinction) emergency services personnel engage in activities other than their agency mission, such as photography. That's not why we're out there. Does this mean that I've never shot a picture or two at an incident, of course not. But that's more to chronicle my career for me personally than for publication. Sage is absolutely right, technically any picture that I take while on duty is the property of my agency so I can't go publishing them or selling them. There is also the issue of access. If you're taking pictures from a location where the public and/or media is not permitted, there could be an issue. Are you using FD credentials to get somewhere as a free-lance photographer? What if your published (media or simply internet) photos are used to challenge the official evidentiary photos of the incident? Oops! If you're on private property do you have the consent of the owner to take photographs? The PD, FD, or EMS is on that property pursuant to an emergency - that's different! It doesn't grant you permission to take pictures/video. A property owner may not want you taking pictures on their property much less publishing them and that is their right. Is the guy in the jump seat of the apparatus supposed to be monitoring the radios, watching for cross traffic/hazards, etc. or shooting video for YouTube? I firmly believe that many drivers in such situations will drive faster and/or take more chances because of the camera being there. Finally, what about public perception? How does it look when there are 3-4 guys in turnout gear snapping photos of a raging fire and not fighting it? This is different than an official agency photographer who's gear says "photographer". If agencies don't have and enforce policies on the issue, they should! The digital age has made it possible for anyone to have a camera in their pocket and that will distract some from their primary mission! As for off-duty personnel - whole different ballgame! As long as they are where they're legally allowed to be and don't misrepresent themselves to gain access to secured areas, I don't care if they take 1000 pictures and publish them all.