helicopper

He didn't because it didn't. Anyway, alot of large aircraft going into LGA fly over the southern part of the county depending on the wind. Aircraft going in and out of other regional airports may also be flying over the county so everyone needs to be prepared. We've had this discussion before but since we're not really well prepared for any MCI, focusing on aircraft incidents specifically may not be prudent. What about buses, trains, boats, etc.? Considering that most agencies have some degree of staffing problem that affects their ability to cover routine calls, we're going to have big problems at an MCI.

The point that was being made, number of gallons notwithstanding, is that this was a fairly routine incident in a unusual vehicle and location. If this was a head-on collision of two cars on Route 120 with four fatalities it would not have garnered this type of response. There've been several other fatal plane crashes in the region this year. Just out of curiosity, were the upstate responses (Orange and Dutchess Counties) similar or did Westchester send a lot more resources by comparison?

The airport does have an approved plan in place but this accident wasn't on the airport property so it really didn't apply. It sounds like the plan was implemented early on but the jurisdictions involved had final authority over the scene, not the county airport. The airport response and FAA regulations that they're based on have absolutely nothing to do with this tragic accident.

The helicopter radio is capable of trunking and we've been working to have it set up properly to communicate on the trunked system. There are some software issues with having the trunking system coexist with our existing UHF system but those are being worked on. I don't consider it an especially big problem because of all the other methods that do allow us to communicate with fire and EMS units. I'm not sure if you're asking if we can communicate with other PD's or if the PD's have trunking capability. We can communicate with every PD in Westchester County if that was the question. And to clarify what happened on Saturday, we were told all operations were on Trunked Ops 5 and we informed them that we don't have trunked capabilities. We were never told that the Deputy Coordinator wanted any visual picture. First, we shouldn't be on the same tactical channel as fire suppression (unless we're involved with the fire suppression operation) or other ground ops. Second, we were providing video via downlink to the command post so the visual picture to which you refer was readily available. Both 60-Control and the coordinators know that we can communicate with them on any of the fire ground channels, the OEM repeater, and a multitude of others so I suspect that there wasn't really all that much of an issue. Yes, the helicopter can (and often does) communicate with fire and EMS units without the field comm and without "grabbing a county officer". In this case it really wasn't an issue as we were able to talk to a county PD officer who was standing at the command post with both a radio and downlink receiver. Once the field comm showed up they were able to view the video also. The helicopter radio is even capable of patching different frequencies together if necessary but that is not usually what's requested or even required. Trunking capabilities, yes. Downlinking was done to a portable receiver at the ICP, the field comm, and our headquarters. If the EOC had been open, they could have viewed it also. Interoperability does exist and is used on a regular basis. If there was a need for us to communicate with the FD on Saturday it could have been accomplished. We were communicating with the ICP so I'm not aware that there was any issue.

What exactly is the "village's Director of Emergency Services"? What are his duties?

As stated one of the CFR trucks was there for a short time but returned to the airport pretty quickly once it was determined where the crash was and that it wouldn't be useful. Pity other resources don't return as quickly when they're not needed. I understand that is the policy but I've seen them respond to many off-field crashes over the years - all very close to the airport. Given the capabilities of one of those trucks, I personally think it is a good idea to let it go to an off-field crash that is in close proximity. It used to be a part of the airport plan years ago when it was broken up differently than today. There was a section for crash off-site - proximal (or words to that effect).

Almost exactly the same location (at least the same section of woods). Right off the approach end of Runway 16. Last time though it was foul weather and a student being taught how to fly in such conditions. Today, weather was certainly not a factor.

Not just Canadians. Happens in LA after Lakers games and other events at the Staples Center too. Any excuse...

This is a four year old article. Have there been any studies using actual research and data rather than opinion? Without some real research all we're going to do is speculate.

I don't think it is a clear cut yes or no answer. I think it depends on the location, circumstances of the encounter, conduct of the recorder, and other variables.

Crimes against children can be prosecuted for a long time. I'd have to look it up again but they allow for a child victim to report the crime as an adult and the offender can still be prosecuted even after the traditional statute of limitations has run out.

There's no crime of "torture", at least in NYS. There's unlawful imprisonment, assault, attempted murder, and other sections that may apply to a scenario being called "torture" but they all have statutes of limitations. The only crimes that don't have a statute of limitations (again in NY) are murder and kidnapping.

I respectfully disagree. Very few resources there were "first due" or "front line" and those that are first due were covered for the afternoon. Many of the resources were still available, including the vehicle that I was there with, and could (did) respond from Playland. Given that many of the vehicles there were support vehicles or specialty response vehicles, I think your logic is flawed and you're attempting to stir a pot that doesn't need to get stirred.

Yet! There're some other charges that could (should?) be leveled against them based just on the article. It is hard to believe that in 2011 people still condone and engage in this type of behavior. The FD as a whole and the Town do have responsibility and I would argue vicarious liability to allow such conduct to take place. It is disgusting!

Please forgive the disruption of this thread and the posts that were allowed to remain for entirely too long. Many of the improper posts have been removed as have some of the posts quoting them. My apologies on behalf of the staff for not addressing this problem more expeditously. Please resume the professional discussion.

And if un- or under-insured, you're also billing them (if you're doing it legally). If the net result is a tax savings to all the town residents because the actual users of the service start paying their share it is a win-win.

In a word: consolidation! 50 FD's having personnel issues consolidated into 5 regional departments will have additional personnel to draw from and greater economies of scale to consider different alternatives.

You'd think that the coast guard would have a greater range of available assets at such a prominent location. 55 degree water is extremely cold and rescuers would have been at risk without proper equipment. Maybe one of our rescue types can indicate if this is dry-suit weather or what?) Highlights the point made by jjb531. Hmmm... A firefighter severely injured doing a rescue for which he was not properly trained or equipped. Sounds like the comments we've made so far. 20 years ago I went into the water to rescue an old man and in hindsight I was wrong and should never have done it. Confronted with the same scenario today, knowing what I've since learned about moving water, I'd never repeat that mistake. I can't believe the Coast Guard doesn't have a rescue aircraft ready to go, pre-flighted and fueled, at an active Coast Guard Station. I really thought they were a first response agency but this sounds like they make no provisions for a rapid response. Definitely not what I've seen from the USCG on this side of the country. Well said!

Even if the training was last week are you suggesting that they should defy their orders and do it anyway? As soon as the order was communicated by this policy, that type of operation had to stop. Then what happens when a rescuer gets killed or injured? The city says, nope, we're not covering him because he was doing something he wasn't supposed to do and the surviving family gets nothing. Don't tell me that it's unlikely because water rescues have to be one of the most dangerous types of rescues and all to often we hear about even properly trained and equipped responders getting hurt or killed.

While the suicide is sad, it would have been even more tragic if additional people, especially rescuers, lost their lives trying to do something for which they are neither trained or equipped. It's more than department politics and it's more than the lack of training and equipment. It's the classic municipal gamble - we'll take our changes that nothing bad will happen rather than properly preparing for it. Now they're stuck with it. What is the rescue plan for the San Francisco bay? Is there a plan? Is there any nearby department that has rescue capabilities for shallow water settings (the Coast Guard apparently couldn't get in because of the water depth). Where were the air assets from the bay area? If they get sued they'll have a variety of defenses including that they can not be expected to do something for which they are not trained or equipped exposing themselves to the risk of death or injury. The city may have liability but I doubt it will extend to the individual responders - at least I hope it will not extend to them. As we come into our "water season" and the rescue calls/drownings have already begun, it's a good time to ask what the plan is in your agency.

I'm not in our fleet management so I am not 100% certain. But, what I do know is that all the blue/white cars are brand new and were just placed in service this month. The only repaint that I know of was a car that was returning from the body shop and had to be repainted anyway. Our department has also been doing repainting of retired patrol cars so they can be used by our detectives or other units. So instead of buying new unmarked cars, when a patrol car is removed from front line patrol service, it may be repainted and reassigned. I'm told that by doing this they're extending the useful life of cars and saving money on new ones. This may be the repainting that everyone is buzzing about.

(In a reply to a post made not visible) Is your message that the police shouldn't have vehicles to drive because of a fiscal crisis? If you're a cop as your profile suggests you know that vehicles are purchased regularly to maintain the fleet and that money usually comes from a different pool of money (capital vs. operating). Our members haven't had a contract in two years but vehicle replacement continues because it has to. That doesn't mean there's no fiscal crisis. It's a necessity or we'd be unable to respond to a lot of calls. As for this whole debate over painting of cars, why are we concerned about a couple of hundred dollars for paint and not the duplicative costs of seven PD's in a single town or 42 PSAPs instead of a real 911 center and communications system. I "hear" that Ford is providing two tone or white cars for nearly the same cost (I say nearly because I "hear" this and have no personal knowledge of it). I'm all for talking about saving money but there are much bigger fish to fry than this one.

MODERATOR NOTE: It may be a response (or lack of response) from one specific department that started this thread but virtually every comment contributes to a discussion about the systemic problems in the volunteer fire service and potential solutions. It is true that there are many problems in many agencies and we should all look inward before outward but this has been a productive, intelligent discussion. There is no need to start jabbing at each other. Let's just keep discussing the systemic problem and how it may be remedied during our lifetimes. Thank you.

The Sgt. alone with an armed subject showed remarkable restraint and was calm and professional. What you heard was an eventual escalation in the use of force and that force included verbal orders that were not being complied with. I'm not a big fan of the use of expletives but there are times when it is appropriate and the only thing that is understood. Mark Fiorino was stupid and failed to comply with the lawful instructions of a uniformed Sgt. in the PPD. He was not law-abiding and his refusal to follow the orders of a police officer who was concerned for his safety and the safety of others is neither polite or respectful. As Axe said, sometimes the high road doesn't work and you have to speak in a manner that is understood by the subject to whom you are speaking. A suspension for that does seem excessive unless there is more to the story than we know about. Sounds like progressive discipline doesn't exist in Seattle.

If an impact to public safety is found what is the remedy?