helicopper

There's no single culprit in this nightmare but one great lesson learned is you can't ignore the forecasts and "hope" for the best. The northeast does this time and time again in winter and summer (tropical storms) and while usually they get away with it, this time the City took it on the chin. Let's sum up the causal factors: Political apathyDownsizing of emergency servicesFailure to mobilize additional resources based on forecastHeavier than forecast snow fall and blizzard conditions911 AbuseFailure to pre-plan and have additional resources ready with chains, etc.Not considering contingencies (like MTA shut-down)No declaration of a snow emergencyPublic stupidity (being on the road for no good reason)Inadequate Sanitation resources for storm of this sizeCity infrastructure doesn't make snow removal easyContinuing to operate "as normal" despite the storm (continuing to take low priority jobs and assign CFR companies reducing the fire suppression strength)Political apathyI think 1 and 13 sum up the majority of these pretty well.

It took them 10 hours to come up with the idea of transporting by alternate means?

The pilot is absolutely not being reckless. He's following the flight manual for the aircraft and so long as he is within it's limitations he is absolutely fine. He probably reported his engine out and was given expedited handling to HPN but it may not have constituted an "emergency". Our version of an emergency and the aviation industry's version of an emergency may not always be the same.

There are limitations and emergency procedures for each and every aircraft that guide you in situations like this. The loss of one engine, unaccompanied by any other problem (fire, structural damage, etc.) may not even be an "emergency". Consider that many planes making trans-oceanic flights have only two engines now and they're thousands of miles from an airport, not just 189 miles. If the loss of one engine was a critical consideration they probably wouldn't allow it and would require four engines or something. We sensationalize these types of events but to the flight crew, this "alert" was little more than a nuisance.

Another tragic loss for the EMS community in our area. Dawn was tireless in her support and advocacy of the Peekskill VAC. She and her efforts will be sorely missed. RIP

It's public information and there's probably no way to keep it from being released. If you don't like the numbers, there's only one thing to do - improve them.

Of course there are facts not included in the Journal article. The question posed was based upon the information available and nobody is judging the apparatus operator or commenting on what he should or should not have done. All that's being discussed is right of way and yielding requirements.

Truly a devastating loss to the pre-hospital care and emergency medicine world. He was a great advocate for EMS and a consummate professional. RIP

Date: 12-22-10 Time: 2030 Location: Highland Avenue at Stanley Avenue Frequency: YPD Units Operating: 3rd Pct Patrol Units, ESU, DD, Duty Captain, CIU, Empress EMS Weather Conditions: clear and cold Description Of Incident: Male shot. Non life-threatening leg injury, transported to Jacobi by EMS with PD accompanying. CIU and DD for crime scene. Reporters: helicopper Writer:

If the article is accurate and the fire truck stopped at the intersection and then started to proceed when it was hit, the driver of the civilian vehicle would be at fault. I'm sure this guy's lawyer will argue that the fire truck should have remained stopped because of cross traffic (his client) but there is a requirement to yield to emergency vehicles so its a pretty weak argument. Of course being a no-fault state, it probably won't make a darn bit of difference.

Just a word on the class sizes and locations/numbers of offerings. I am often asked the same questions with regard to courses that I'm involved with instructing. This has absolutely nothing to do with DES or Croton but is rather a general observation on the subject. It is absolutely essential that some standards be maintained for minimum numbers of students and locations where the course is to be held. I have been asked to teach in locations that are not handicapped accessible, do not adequate space or resources, are remotely located, etc. The responsible agency must insure that requirements like this are met. That is probably not a major issue in most firehouses but the numbers of students is a big issue. If a sponsoring agency (OFPC, County, SOEM, etc.) is asked to run a class in the ABC department or jurisdiction and they do it, they will then be asked to do it in DEF, GHI, JKL, etc. etc. etc. If they only send 6 students you could wind up with 50 classes for 6 people instead of 10 regional classes for 30 people each. Given our current economic state and budget limitations, it is unreasonable to even entertain running 50 classes instead of 10. Even where instructor salaries are not an issue, it is incredibly demanding on the individual teaching and to ask them to conduct the same course once a week instead of once a month is a huge imposition. It is almost always more desirable to have multi-agency or multi-disciplinary courses to promote networking and new approaches as well. Just because you can run a class for 6 people in your firehouse doesn't mean that its the best idea when considering the big picture.

On a related note, it would be really something if we could have better communications. Either centralized communications and/or a true trunked radio system so everyone going to the same job can talk to each other. We were first to arrive over the scene of an MVA tonight and we notified TWO different dispatch "centers" of the correct location. This information apparently didn't filter out to the majority of responders because I watched many of them going in the wrong direction. Information on the conditions at the scene were related by two different resources but there were still gaps/delays in the transmission of that information. This isn't the fault of any one dispatch "center" but rather one of the pitfalls we face in our area with so many different dispatchers, radio frequencies, and fiefdoms. It would have been really something to get assigned to the accident group in a trunked system and have all four of the involved PD's, all the FD's and EMS agencies on the same communications net so all this information was relayed in a timely fashion. Apparatus wouldn't have to fight its way through stopped traffic or drive in the wrong direction away from the accident scene if we could all talk to each other. But this will probably never happen during my career, hell it won't happen in my LIFETIME. /rant

Dude, I'm only going by what you wrote. You said "all" and went on to talk about the importance of a prompt response for our loved ones so it appeared that you did in fact mean ALL.

Some jurisdictions require the PD to complete a report on aided cases so there will be times that happens. Sometimes they'll go to the hosptial after transport is completed to get the info for their report. If you canceled the PD prior to their arrival, they should be able to disregard as well. I'm not saying its OK for PD to cancel FD but not the reverse. Quite the contrary, I think if resources aren't needed they should go home. I fail to understand the A can cancel me but not B. But that's just me, I guess.

I can think of one such incident in WESTCHESTER County. It predates my career but there was a threat in the headquarters of a Fortune 500 type company and the PD evacuated the building just before the device detonated. Some members of this forum probably remember that and can elaborate further.

Herein lies one of the fundamental issues with the way we all operate. If the FD isn't on scene yet, the PD is the IC and the general consensus is (from this and other threads) that this IC can't cancel resources that aren't needed. Only the FD can cancel FD resources, right? You'll trust us when we say the fire is fully involved but if we say it is unfounded, you're still coming? As for the food on stove example, I am only referring to car accidents - not fire calls - because there is definite merit to having the FD investigate a call where there was a fire or smoke condition. As for the accident, if there is no injury, just property damage, why wouldn't you go back? All auto accidents? Seriously? If the FD responded to all auto accidents they'd need a lot more companies because they'd all be committed to those responses all day long. On an average rainy day there may be 20 accidents in a given shift (sometimes way more) but only a fraction of them involve injuries. Using your rationale we should replace every HELP truck with an ambulance because the taxpayers are entitled to an EMS response to every accident. That just doesn't make sense. Almost every dispatch agency I'm aware of will err on the side of caution and assign EMS/FD based on the number of calls or information received but to send them on everything just doesn't make sense. I don't want anyone to die because of an inappropriate response but if we're going to start banging that drum we should focus on making sure every response is timely and with a professional and well-trained crew.

That's a good attitude. Now let's put the shoe on the other foot... You are dispatched and PD gets there and confirms that it's a minor fender bender with no injuries. Do you continue to respond or go back to quarters and whatever you were doing before the call? We have in our area some sections of roadway with a dual response so you get 2E and 1L from EACH direction. Sometimes the northbound apparatus will stop in the left lane and cross three lanes of traffic to access a scene on the southbound side or vice versa. In the rare instance that 4E and 2L are required that's nice but 99% of the time most of it is not required. I know there are many departments who don't think the police are "qualified" or "authorized" to cancel an FD response but sometimes its just a little bit crazy.

I do respectfully disagree. Who decides which regulations are important enough to comply with and which can be ignored? It appears that in this case a few rather important regulations were ignored and over a substantial period of time. This isn't a new rule that just came out that departments haven't caught up to yet. These are long-standing policies - for our safety - that have been ignored. If an agency was starting from scratch I'd agree that you have to start somewhere and adopt an implementation schedule so you'd ultimately be in compliance but it seems that the emergency services (police, fire, and EMS) and allied agencies (DPW, etc.) that have been around for decades and in some cases centuries just don't bother even trying to comply. You're right about the regulations being CYA. They're designed to protect us but time and time again we resist them as being too burdensome or expensive or the training isn't interesting enough and people blow it off. If somebody is not interested in protecting their own rear end maybe they should reconsider whether or not they can protect someone elses.

The distribution of DHS funds is a concern to me (and should be to everyone else) and there is definitely an issue when Idaho or North Dakota get as much money as Illinois or Florida. However, Westchester County (along with Nassau and Suffolk) is in the New York City urban area security initiative because there are potential targets here and for the reasons that bnechis already noted. As NYC becomes a "harder target" it is very possible that targets in outlying suburbs could become more desirable. Your inference that because we think the response was appropriate means we don't care about DHS funding is way off base. A couple more thoughts... "Reading a few websites" doesn't make anyone an authority on anything. Attending awareness classes doesn't either and I've seen too many "experts" talking about how to "handle" bombs after attending an awareness course. Didn't an NYPD cop get killed (or almost killed) kicking a "suspicious package" outside 1 PP some time ago? Wasn't it a fast food container designed to look inoccuous while it was really an IED? Hmm... let's not advocate kicking suspicious packages or even joke about it because one of these days somebody is going to kick the wrong package and pay for it dearly. Apathy and complacency are probably the top killers of us in emergency services and that is 100% preventable. Should we conduct an investigation into every suspicious incident - absolutely. Does that mean sometimes the trigger gets pulled and the FD and hazardous devices units get called out? Yup. So what? It's there job and hopefully it will be nonsense all the time but we've had pipe bombs and other IED's in Westchester County. We've had explosives stolen or misdirected. We've had people bring home "souvenirs" from the military that turn out to be live ordnance. Other times it will be a simple inquiry, logical and verifiable explanation, and nothing more. We can't lump all these things into the BS category. A steamer trunk could have contained a body, components of a drug lab, a big stash of ill gotten gains, or other "contraband" and been a great grab. Let's nof forget that Timothy McVeigh and Joel Rifkin were both caught because of traffic infractions. Sometimes its the little stuff that leads to much bigger stuff. Like the lottery, you gotta be in it to win it. Two more cents... Imagine the disruption to the lives of people if we ignore something and people (or us) get killed or injured. An hour of road closures is nothing in comparison.

Exactly! Sometimes we're our own worst enemies. Somebody saw something suspicious and reported it. They should be commended for getting involved not criticized for it.

The West Coast takes aviation very seriously and has a much different view on it. The CITY of LA has 25 helicopters, 17 in the PD, six in the FD, and two in the Department of Water and Power. On the PD side, they have mastered the use of aviation as a force multiplier and deterrent and their sucess is noted around the world. The use of helicopters is part of their culture and while budgets are tight even there, they justify their use with jobs such as this one. It should also be noted that every building over six stories in the City of LA is required by code to have a rooftop helipad. Remember, they are in earthquake country. I think everyone can take a lesson from the article and recognize the benefit of proactive, professional public relations.

In case you were curious (I was)...

Just to clarify, they ALL count so you definitely don't want to slack off on the fitness training between now and the last Cooper test. You can be put on probation or even dismissed for not meeting standards throughout the academy and nobody wants to see that happen.

There may be more or less than 60. Departments are making decisions and filling positions right up until the last minute and rumors abound until the class actually starts. Given that some of the bigger jobs didn't have anyone in this class, there is a possibility that they will put in a bunch but budgets are tight and there's no telling for sure. January 10 is the start date though. Academy classes run twice a year every year and have nothing to do with the testing cycle. Recruits are hired off of whatever list is current. If anyone is anticipating starting in the January class, start running now and make sure you can do the requisite number of push-ups/sit-ups for the Cooper standard. You don't want to be fat and happy from the holidays and get left puking on Dana Road during the first run.

Just a thought (and I may very well be wrong).... Very often valuable bills that would benefit many people are voted down initially to insure that other also important legislation can be passed as well. These are political tactics and while they did vote the bill down during this lame-duck session of Congress it will probably pass when reintroduced next year.