helicopper

Why is that a con? Don't you WANT to detect and remediate errant drivers?

That is a matter of training and department policy. Many departments large and small are trained for active shooter encounters and that does mean seeking out the shooter as soon as the first couple of units arrive - patrol, DD, ESU, whatever. It's fast becoming the standard for law enforcement all over the country. The reality is that most jurisdictions don't have an ESU and even jobs that do it is usually patrol that is there first. The hotline and mutual aid is great but how do you explain to the families of the victims that you sat outside and waited 8-10 minutes for ESU or SWAT to arrive while listening to shooting. I'm all for a coordinated response and centralized dispatching but I'm also for rapid intervention by cops, any cops! Regardless of the availability of ESU, all cops should be trained for this type of intervention!

We may need a lawyer but unless I'm mistaken, an information must be personally served upon the defendant (as per NYS CPL) so mailing it is not legal service. Vehicle and traffic offenses are also issued to the operator of the vehicle and not the owner unless it is a charge such as facilitating aggravated unlicenesed operation or weight violations. Sounds like you should take mass transit to work or maybe subsribe to anger management courses. It's not personal and we're badly outnumbered by those kinds of drivers!!!

I am out of my mind but that had nothing at all to do with the post. My suggestion about TSA and DHS was sarcasm pure and simple. You're absolutely right that they're poorly run and inefficient. The part about changing the licensing process was sincere though. It's a joke!

This has been a fascinating discussion. It's interesting to see how polarizing the topic has become. Now for another two cents... You can't run for President of the United States until you are at least 35 years of age - why? To insure that they have experience. Is this to say that a 25 year old wouldn't be a good president? No, but the simple fact is that a 35 year old will have 10 more years of life experience. One of the fundamental problems here is not the chronological age of the chief, it is the vague or non-existent requirements for the office of chief. If you look at the requirements to become qualified as a Type 1 Incident Commander, the "fire chief" of the wildfire world, (gotta use the wildfire model, it's the best for this point) you'll see what I mean. What do most departments require to qualify for chief? FF1, FF2, some officer training? What about all the non-firematic obligations of the job? To become a Type 1 IC you must first be a firefighter (trained and qualified), then move up through the following management positions: Crew Boss Task Force/Strike Team Leader Division Supervisor Operations Section Chief (Type 2) Operations Section Chief (Type 1) IC (Type 2) Planning/Logistics/Finance Admin Section Chief (to be an IC, you gotta have TWO section chief quals, ops plus one other) Then and only then can you screen for Type 1 IC. It is impossible to achieve all this at the ripe old age of 21. I'm told by those in this field that it takes at least about 15 years to reach that level of training and experience. So, with that said - age shouldn't matter too much, training and experience should be the determining factors. The comments above about the non-fire side of the job is critical too! It is far more demanding and requires a whole different perspective than the actual operations side of things. Look at the requirements for most civil service management jobs - they all require more experience than a 21 year old can have. It's not strictly about the age - it's about the EXPERIENCE! I've worked with plenty of mature 20-somethings and an equal number of 40-ish juvenile delinquents!!!

Amen, brother! Never forget any of the sacrifices made by our armed forces!

Santa barely represents any holiday other than commercialism these days! To those who would oppose a visit from good ol' St. Nick, I would ask - "who else do you want to see on the firetruck?" (Then of course I'd add Bah Humbug!) Then next year you put them all on the ladder truck - one for each of the 95 steps on the 95' aerial 'cause that's how many special interests are gonna pop up. If done safely, and in the spirit of the community (not a holiday or religion per se) go for it!

Admirable goal but that would best be served at the state level. Many states already have some form of this, albeit through the fire service, but there should be a career path for non-FF EMS'ers even in FD's. New York is the reason we're so backwards. It's because the decisions about EMS are not made with the best interests of the public at heart - they're made by and for whoever lobbies the hardest.

True enough - the shooting was probably over in less than 90 seconds (just a scientific wild-youknowhwat guess). Fortunately, the whacko turned the gun on himself rather than reloading and moving through the mall. I'm sure we'll be hearing about the actual timeline and the pundits will be spewing their, well they could've, would've, should've nonsense on every news outlet available but unless there was a cop (on duty or off - remember the mall shooting in Utah a year or two ago? It was stopped by an off-duty cop) right there when the shooting started, the outcome wouldn't be much different. Ironic that Bush was in town - that must have driven the Secret Service absolutely bonkers!

No, really, please tell us what you think!!! You could always go back to communications! Really laughing now!!! I've seen plenty of g-men (J Edgar Hoover is rolling over in his grave right now since we stole the handle for his boys in fedoras) walking along the street instead of climbing up and down every 30-50 feet, too. "Going 20-30 to a call" - where in the driveway of the firehouse??? Try 40-50 if not more! It's apples and oranges. Plain and simple. Thanks for the two cents!

I hope you don't have an emergency lights on at all times in snow policy!!! 1. It's illegal - no emergency, no lights. (Seems simple enough to me!) 2. Yes it will increase people's insensitivity further than it already is! 3. People slam into emergency vehicles at scenes already - how is this going to make you safer in the snow? 4. Are you going to sit at a red traffic light with your emergency lights on? That's just going to confuse our already challenged driving population and very likely cause an accident or two. 5. The lights, especially at night, are going to blind the driver (and others) when reflected off the snow and back into the vehicle. Clear strobes especially should be used very carefully in snow. 6. I don't know of any study or credible report suggesting that this practice would improve safety at all. So, if it wasn't abundantly clear, I'm not a fan of the idea. If you really want to improve safety, get EMS drivers out on the road in the snow so they see how much different it is to handle an ambulance (vs their Nissan Sentra) in those conditions.

To quote ALSfirefighter: "Easy on the caps, bro! They're hard to read!" If you're going to cite patient advocacy as a concern, why don't you staff your ambulance to reduce response times? I don't care where you provide your EMS, if you have to drop what you're doing at home, drive to the station to pick up the ambulance (blue/green lights flickering and flashing or not), wait for your crew to assemble, and then drive to the scene the infarct your "cardiac" was suffering from is worse and the extrication is still waiting. "Every second counts" but you don't staff your ambulance to save minutes. Hmm... I could see this being used to counter your argument. It may be courteous but there is absolutely no requirement - nor are people educated on what they actually are for - for someone to move over to let someone with a blue/green light to pass. Since they don't yield to actual emergency vehicles, what makes you think they give a teeny tiny rat's tail about a blue or green light? People don't know or care if you're going to a cardiac/extrication/grandma can't get up call! Back to the original topic (soapbox put away for now)... Here's the real problem and abaduck does a great job pointing it out. We don't educate drivers or insure competency in anything. If you can navigate without crashing into something for less than 10 minutes, you're going to receive a license to drive anywhere, anytime, in any conditions, and on any type of roadway. Wanna fix the problem? Have the DHS or TSA take over driver's licensing to improve our homeland security... There'll be different tests for: city driving, suburban driving, rural driving, paved roads, unpaved roads, daytime clear/dry, nighttime clear/dry, daytime rain, nighttime rain, daytime snow, nighttime snow, highway/interestate, merging, passing, alone in the car, passengers in the car, mall parking lots at Christmastime, did I miss any???? Sorry, but I pulled you over because you don't have your rush hour endorsement displayed on the car!!! And it will take years for someone to actually get a license because they'll be so busy taking tests!!! I thought the graduated licensing process that NY adopted a while back was going to fix things but sadly it has not. Wasn't that supposed to insure that new drivers had to drive x number of hours at night, etc. ????

Quite the contrary actually. Without going to deep into the tactics here, suffice it to say the initial responding officers would have entered the mall in an attempt to locate and neutralize the shooter. Let's remember how abstract that time is - do they mean it took six minutes for the first arriving unit(s) to arrive at the mall? Did it take 2 minutes get into the parking lot but another 4 minutes to traverse the mall and locate the victims/shooter? Was it the opposite? Does that really tell us anything at all about the response? It's like calculating EMS response times. What stops the clock - pulling up in front of the apartment building, knocking on the apartment door (after a 5 floor walk-up 'cause the elevator is broken), or actually making contact with the patient? Everybody does something different and nobody really knows what the time from 911 call to patient contact is so what does that tell us about our service - nothing! Unless we're going to start putting heavily armed PD on every level of every shopping mall and at every entrance to every large venue, it is virtually impossible to prevent an attack like this one.

Try going to the Senate website and search for the actual legislation. Then you'll see exactly what the legislation includes... ALS - the Senator highlighted fuel costs as one of their incentives for introducing the legislation, it is unlikely that they would prohibit staffing improvements with the added reimbursement. Medibart - thanks for going and lobbying for us! HFD - methinks you are out of luck as Fire Districts can not bill for services now. Let's hope it actually passes and isn't just a pie in the sky, use for self promotion and media attention, bill.

Does that mean you made the illegal u-turn also? Can I see you license and registration, please? Just scan them in and e-mail them over!!!

Emergency vehicles are defined and emergency responders are not. All the other signs I've seen anywhere in the state say "Authorized Emergency Vehicles Only" so I was wondering what Dutchess did to get the special signage. Being that DOT is a state agency, I can't imagine they did it out of the goodness of their hearts.

Unless they change the rules and allow ambulance companies/EMS agencies to refuse service in instances where there is 'no medical necessity', I think the insurance providers should be compelled (by law if necessary) to pay for the service rendered - even if it was only transportation (reimbursed at an appropriate rate for simply transportation). To resort to completing a form essentially pleading for payment reduces us to high end panhandlers. The insurance industry will not go broke paying for transportation and medical intervention when necessary. It's a shame that this is allowed to persist - it's the same as it was when I first started in the transport game many moons ago.

OK, I can understand that. Does this mean that these agencies have memorandums of understanding with these other assets to insure that they are available to them or is part of a specialized mutual aid agreement? Cause thinking about the mutual aid agreements that I've seen around here, it is not spelled out.

OK, you're now part of the lesser known special membership level B - for BUFFY!!!

Judging by the pedestrian traffic, it looks like (and this is nothing more than a guess - a SWAG) the cross traffic had just gotten the green. I say that because of all the pedestrian traffic immediately after the truck cleared. All the more reason to SLOW DOWN when approaching any controlled interesection and not assuming that anyone is going to yield to you! A happy ending for once!

There you go making sense! Don't you see - the FDNY wants to buy a toy that they don't have. (Before everyone jumps on me for that statement read this: SARCASM and maybe a little cynicism!!!) If response times and air recon are so critical, first of all they would have started doing it before 2002 and they would have embedded someone at aviation to respond immediately. Second of all, the fire is being fought without the aid of the "recon battallion". How urgent is their response in the first place? If the weather prohibits flight - they're not going to stop the fight, they're just going to do it without the air component. For that matter, why does a Battallion Chief have to be the recon officer? Assign an officer (Captain or Lt.) to the Aviation Unit and voila, you're done. And one more thing since I'm properly caffeinated and on a roll... I don't buy the "waiting for the helicopter to warm up" statement. It only takes a couple minutes to go through the start-up procedure and the NYPD is one of the few jobs that I've seen that actually makes their guys hustle to get in the air for a call.

While I'm all for the establishment of more jobs for pilots - I need something to do when I grow up after all - I'm uncertain that the benefits outweigh the risk and expense. FACT: NYC has SEVEN helicopters including three that are equipped for search and rescue and firefighting (eight if you count the NYC DEP helicopter based at Stewart). Just because it says PD on the side is not enough of a reason to spend millions on more aircraft and the requisite costs to equip, train, maintain proficiency, and staff it/them. I defy you to find anyone who will donate a 12 MILLION dollar helicopter to the FD (or PD for that matter) of any city. FACT: The FD helicopters won't be able to fly in bad weather any more than the PD ships will. Instrument weather is instrument weather. FACT: If the city wants the FD to have better access to the aircraft (or a more expeditious response time) all the mayor has to do is issue an Executive Order as has been done in the past to hammer out interagency rivalries. FACT: Search and rescue flying is a science - it is not something you just pick up and do. The NYPD has been providing this service to the NYC area for years and has developed pilots, divers, and crew chiefs with extensive experience and skill. This is not something that can just be duplicated overnight. Sure, you can put a helicopter in a hangar, but the reality is the crew completes the mission. QUESTION: How many times does the FDNY have a 3 alarm (or greater) fire where an air recon battalion is requested/required? 3-4 times a month? QUESTION: How many "large brush fires" does the FDNY respond to a year? 6? Not all brush fires are conducive to air suppression - if there's no water nearby or if the area is too densely populated, it is too hazardous to perform bambi-bucket operations. Nobody is going to hang a ton of water off the bottom of an aircraft and fly over people to get to a fire - there are safety guidelines about this issue. QUESTION: How many times has the NYPD actually turned down a request from the FD for a recon flight? They NYPD isn't turning the FD down for SAR flights because that is their mission already. So, we have maybe three-four calls per month where an FD helicopter would be utilized? At a cost of at least 12 million to purchase and at least 2.5 million a year to staff and fly, you're talking about a lot of money for MAYBE 3-4 calls per month. It's not that the service ISN'T being provided. It's that the asset doesn't belong to the FD - to that I say WHO CARES??? NYC can improve the response times and coordination for a lot less than the expense of a new aviation unit. In closing, I say if the SOMERS FD can use the NYPD for a firefighting operation, I think the FDNY can use them a whole lot more easily!!!

I also wondered how those guys were able to sit there and talk about it as they did. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" - that was stupidity plain and simple. And the tragedy is they probably all pat themselves on the back for their heroics.

Interesting, and somewhat disturbing, facts in the NFPA report. OK, enlighten me, if it is not the local FD's responsibility whose responsibility is it? And you guys are OK with this?

Except for the depressed T-wave I'd have to agree...