helicopper

There are no direct flights from LGA to LAS either, probably for the same reason. I doubt it is fuel availability. One FBO moved over 38,000 gallons of fuel just the other day so if they can do that in a day, fuel for single flights can't be the issue. The way they explained it to me, with the fuel load required to make it to Las Vegas they would be too heavy to use the runway at Westchester. Seems to make sense, especially since there are none going out of LGA either.

Three? That's essential? I'd say it's pathetic. OSHA / NFPA = 2 in 2 out ISO = 12 + an IC (career), 36 + an IC (volunteer) and THREE is their initial response. How is that being allowed to happen?

HPN to LAS was one of the routes I specifically asked JetBlue about and they said the runways not long enough for the run required with that fuel load so unless they extend the runway over 684 or knock down some very poorly located houses, we're not gonna see that.

I'm sure they're going to compete on the Florida routes but it would be great to see other destinations added to the HPN schedule. Unfortunately, this is limited mostly by Westchester's size and continued obstruction of growth and development. The runway length limits the types of aircraft and fuel loads so, at least according to some airline people I've spoken to, there is no option for longer distance flights. The terminal size, parking situation, "voluntary restraint from flying", and taxes/surcharges/fees all make future growth a tough sell to an airline. Hopefully the current administration looks more kindly at the airport and doesn't try to thwart growth and development.

Here it is just the 22nd day of January and we've already had 11 officers killed in the line of duty. If you look at the average age and length of service, these are not "inexperienced" "kids" and more than half were killed by gunfire - a very disturbing sign. We have to be vigilant, train the way we're going to fight, and fight complacency to keep these numbers from rising further. As Sgt. Esterhaus always said, "Let's be careful out there!".

With all due respect, I think you have a grave misunderstanding about the role of an agency officer and the responsibilities of an agency member. It also seems that you view "professional courtesy" as an entitlement. Let me address your comments one at a time... First off how do you know the police agencies and/or officers involved in this situation haven't gone to the offending agency in the past? Perhaps this is a pattern of behavior that needs to be resolved officially in the courts. The defendant in this case committed 21 violations (or perhaps more) and received 21 summonses. The number of violations is what should be viewed as excessive, not the number of charges filed against him. These summonses were issued in lieu of a custodial arrest so the officers did exercise discretion. Agency administrators, be they Chief, Captain, Commissioner, or whatever, are not parents and their members are not children (at least chronologically). There is definitely a time and a place for bringing a wayward child home to mommy or daddy but this is the case of an adult being held responsible for his actions. There's simply no reason for law enforcement to take an offender to his employer to resolve criminal acts (and reckless driving is a crime). That's like saying the State Police should take their findings in the fatal I-95 bus crash to the bus company for resolution. Where's the logic in that? I understand where you're coming from about dealing with an agency directly and sometimes that is the right thing to do. I once stopped a vehicle operating at an excessive speed with a blue light and learned that there was no fire, the driver was late for work. He got his speeding ticket and his chief (three towns over) got a phone call about the blue light. Had the guy been running people off the road the chief would have read about the arrest in the newspaper. It doesn't matter if it is a chief or member or civilian driving recklessly. They should be and are held responsible for their own actions. This case is noteworthy because it occurred while the offender was exercising the privilege of using red lights and siren. As the driver of any vehicle you're held responsible for the operation of that vehicle. It isn't the lights and siren that make the risk greater; it is the driver's tendency to go faster and take more chances while using them. Psychologically it may be a false sense of security or it may be just plain adrenaline. And, highlighting points from other threads, there is a lack of supervision in many volunteer agencies that exacerbates this problem. Finally, to receive professional courtesy one must be professional and courteous. This driver was neither. To expect preferential treatment or even infer that it is deserved in a case like this is why we hear stories of people getting tickets despite their membership in a fire or EMS agency. People get courtesy when they deserve it, not when they demand it.

Good grief, do you have any idea who you sound like???? What he said! +1!!!

The suspect was apparently in his personally owned EASV operating lights and siren responding to a property damage auto accident on Route 17. It was initially reported, apparently, as an accident with injuries hence the response. As for the disposition of the case, there are misdemeanors involved plus infractions totally 21 charges. Even an un-connected person would likely see that reduced so I'm sure it will be but even with connections it's going to be hard to make 21 go away. Something will probably stick.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you said. You should run for Congress. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Generally speaking... I'll say this about the issue of laws and the Constitution being thrown around in general and this forum specifically. It is very easy to misinterpret the applicaiton of laws and the bill of rights without formal training and experience working with them and within the criminal justice system. This is why we have lawyers, courts, appeals courts, federal courts, federal appeals courts and the Supreme Court. If it were so clear, there wouldn't be a Talking about laws and purported statements of fact concerning what is and isn't legal does suggest a greater knowledge of the subject than is often manifested in posts here. There should have been an application to have the suspect's passport surrendered to the court given that she was the subject of a major investigation. This happens often and would haven't be an infringement on anyone's rights. Had she refused, she could have been surveilled, arrested, or otherwise monitored to avoid this extradition nightmare. Her very cooperatirve attorney evidently wasn't quite so cooperative or honorable. Shocking.

42 local police departments now. Town of Ossining PD became part of the County PD just this year. I wouldn't count Life-Net in your EMS agencies as they're the only air ambulance asset and not a duplicative resource. If we started simply by focusing at the Town level we could reduce these numbers by more than a third. The seven PD's in Greenburgh and its villages could all become a single town PD (for example). This could be done with fire and EMS also until we have strong, solvent, reasonably sized departments that can meet the standards and provide the most cost-effective service to the taxpayer.

Sometimes these calls have two crews (4 people) on one vehicle. In that case why can't you stop and drop one or two of them off until other help arrives? The other point I made is that you need to have and follow agency policy on this subject. Your agency has a policy on the subject but I'm willing to bet there are many many more that don't. I agree that you can't stop and commit to treatment but you can stop and inform them that help is coming and at least inquire about the conditions. I just think driving by in a big billboard is bad public relations. Great idea!

This is a system problem and you have to consider why are all the ALS units tied up on BLS calls? Is it because there is no priority dispatching and medics go on everything? Is it because there aren't enough EMT's and the medic is serving as a BLS provider? Or is it because the system doesn't have enough ALS units for the call volume (if the existing medic units are tied up on BLS calls I'm guessing that this isn't the problem). Cops are first responders too and I would like to hear a discussion about whether or not you could triage a low-priority BLS patient to them to await transport so you can respond to a higher priority job (interesting premise). The EMT's "screaming for the medic" need to cut the umbilical cord and start being EMT's. Many of us remember when ALS was an urban novelty and not the standard of care. Back in those days EMT's took critical patients to the hospital and did... (wait for it)... BLS. Instead of screaming for a medic they should be an EMT and transport expeditiously. Hospitals are ALS providers too and the remotest part of Mount Pleasant isn't more than 10 minutes from 3 or 4 different ones.

In context, the author specifically states (emphasis added): So, if I get flagged down for call 2 while responding to call 1 but get on the radio and inform my dispatcher and they assign call 1 to another unit (even if mutual aid), it is probably not going to be an issue. Another situation highlighed by this article is if you're enroute to one call you can be redirected to a higher priority call. If we can (and should) do that according to priority dispatch systems you'll be hard pressed to make a case for abandonment or other wrong-doing when you encounter a patient while enroute to another.

What if you crashed enroute to the call? Could you be held liable for not getting there? I sincerely doubt it. If you're not there, you're not there and they're not your patient. On the subject of flagged down while transporting, I would say you have to follow your agency's policies on the subject (if you don't have policies on the subject it's a good time to get one). Unless your patient is critical (and that isn't the case 95% of the time), I would say stop. Driving by with that big orange and white billboard is bad advertising. If you have a crew of more than two you can always leave someone pending the arrival of additional help. If you're a crew of two you can simply inform them that you already have a patient but help is coming. In Westchester County an additional first responder is never more than a few minutes away.

I'm not sure I follow you. Yes, paramedics have higher standards of care as they relate to ALS interventions but they are still EMT's and if the call is BLS, an EMT is an EMT is an EMT. Paramedics in NYS are still (and this is definitely for another thread) just certified and not licensed as they are in CT. I don't know if that somehow figures in to your point but a paramedic doesn't have to accompany a BLS patient if there is an EMT present. If you're talking about a patient in that gray area of maybe there's something more going on but right now they're stable, that's a different story and not (I believe) the premise we're discussing. Using your logic a nurse or other licensed healthcare provider who is also an EMT would always have to accompany the patient by virtue of their advanced training but that isn't the case either.

That's pathetic and you should stick to your training and protocols. If it's BLS, it's BLS and a paramedic "riding with it" doesn't make an ALS call for billing purposes. Insurance companies are smarter than that and they look at admiiting diagnosis and treatment rendered before they pay. If it wasn't ALS it won't get paid for ALS (the same is being done for helicopter trips). I can't believe that the F&B and Unity Ambulance Services are still alive and well in the 21st Century.

I do know the outcome of one abandonment case from many years ago. A Chicago FD EMS crew was sued for abandonment and wrongful death after a pediatric asthmatic patient died and they "didn't" respond. In a nutshell, the call was in a housing project and the crew was harassed and menaced upon arriving. When they got to the building, rocks/bottles and other air mail were thrown at them from the rooftop. They retreated, got back to the ambulance and left the area to await PD support. They were sued (and if I remember correctly the city didn't indemnify them and terminated or suspended them). The court ruled that there was no abandonment because they had not made patient contact and there was no wrongful death because they retreated for their own safety and returned once the scene was safe. It was the child's pre-existing medical condition that resulted in his or her death, not the actions or inactions of the EMS crew. So, that's one case where the decision proves the point - they're not your patient until you make contact with them. How do you know the cardiac arrest is a cardiac arrest and not a sleeping drunk or a non-viable DOA? If you're flagged down for a patient, I think you have to tend to that patient and get the other job reassigned. Thanks, ny10570, very well said. alsfirefighter also made the point very well. Great thread!

Nowhere did I say that we couldn't discuss this again. I was pointing out that it has been discussed before and will try to find and link the prior threads on the same topic.

Search this topic for prior threads on the subject. It has been discussed in great detail and all sides of the argument have been presented.

Wow. That's a lot of money and apparatus. What about what the FD's are doing to taxpayers? Isn't it appropriate to focus on that? Good question. Is there an answer to this? What FD's aren't paying enough and which ones are paying too much? I bet there is no answer and I bet none of these departments can demonstrate how efficient the current system is. Is there any study to show that response times would be slowed by consolidation or regionalization? Of course they think it would be a bad idea, it's their sandbox being threatened with reorganization.

"Wilco" is the abbreviation for "will comply". When a pilot says "wilco" he's acknowledging a directive and stating that he (she) will comply with it. Two clicks of the microphone are often used to acknowledge something other than an ATC directive. Clicks don't cut it when ATC tells you to do something but if they say "have a nice day", two clicks says it back. There's a lot more discipline on ATC frequencies than on public safety radio frequencies.

Civil Defense is a government function and subject to other sections of law (Civil Defense Acts etc.) so I don't think this group can fall under that provision. It is an interesting question.

Just wondering what authority they have to operate with red lights and siren like on their trailer. There's no provision for it in the approved list of authorized emergency vehicles (below):

Military and aviation radios have always started the communications with the person BEING called to get their attention and then the unit calling. To this day on aviation radios this is proper etiquette. The notion that a dispatch center will ignore a unit that calls 911 instead of <<county name>> 911 is absurd. If I'm chasing someone or rolling with a suspect, 911 may be all they get. If they ignore people someone is going to get hurt. "K" was always used to signify the end of the transmission and is a holdover from old teletype days.

Nice dinner? Hmmm, I've seen that movie a lot and somehow I don't think it was dinner with the prom queen!!!