helicopper

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/fairfield_cty...0908181900_rev1 Kudos for trying to stay ahead of the curve!

Can you post a link to the article? It would be interesting to see a study, and not just conjecture, about whether or not this is accurate. I believe that many agencies discourage use of the MDT while driving for this very reason. Of course, police work being police work, it is difficult to elminate use while moving.

You're right, I probably did take it the wrong way because there is an anti-County lobby advocating the elimination of county government and I just think that's absurd when you do the math. Last I checked it was 43 PD's, 59 FDs (not counting independent EMS), and more than 40 school districts. You don't think that Westchester is the "big bad govt" but I'm sure someone else reading this thread does!

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the County procure the foam trailer and deploy it first to Fairview and now to White Plains? Kudos to White Plains for accepting it and for reaching ISO 1 rating but the foam trailer was the big bad County's creation. If you want to look at dysfunction in government let's look at the multiple layers below the County - how many political subdivisions are there in Westchester County? Over 150 would be my guess - but there's only one County and they're to blame for the dysfunction? I'll be the first to admit that the County screws a lot of things up but the duplicative layers of villages, school, fire, water, sewer districts throughout Westchester is more of an issue than the County itself. If we eliminated all the villages and fire districts in favor of town-wide service areas (Town FD, Town Government, etc.) we could eliminate at least 20 governments and 30 or so fire districts. Do the same with schools and we'll actually start seeing less government. Didn't your own FD do just that and service the town and two villages? Sorry for the rant, I just don't think the County is the culprit you make it out to be. Sure, it can do a lot better but the alternatives are downright scary!

How many foam trailers does Westchester County NEED? How many FD's have foam capabilities that can be used until this resource arrives? How many responses have there been (I saw Ossining and Hawthorne); has New Rochelle ever requested it for a car fire on I-95? Have there been any requests when it was not available because it was already on an assignment? How far is Danbury from Torrington? About 50 miles or so? There's nowhere in Westchester that is that far from White Plains. Is it the industrial/manufacturing in those cities that resulted in three trailers? Was there any cost to capability study or cost/benefit analysis that said three trailers are needed? Do they get any regular use or was it just three fire departments decided to get foam trailers? Just because somewhere else has three doesn't mean Westchester needs three also. Duplication of resources is a rampant problem and this is a resource that gets little (happily) use.

Who's searching where? What accountability do you have for these responders? You're an officer/chief - would you tolerate this? What would you do to resolve it and/or prevent it from happening in the future?

I've seen some very strong Type-A personalities make this work and I've seen some demand that it be done because they know it's better than the alternative. These were, however, educated leaders with experience using ICS so they weren't resistant because of fear of the unknown. I've also seen situations where it has failed miserably because the people running the show couldn't spell ICS but that's another story for another thread. I agree that absent a cohesive plan and training on implementing the plan it is hard to get organized during the initial response. My position is that we have enough responses to the same areas (Hudson River, Long Island Sound) involving the same agencies that we can/should have pre-plans that define who is doing what and with what preliminary organization. If it's structured as a task force or strike team to start, there should be less resistance to it. All it really needs is more people banging the drum and reminding others that we have to do it better before the next one. The people who go around patting each other on the back after every debacle do us all a great disservice.

Good in theory but practically there are lots of problems. First and foremost there aren't enough frequencies available for an effective trunked system for PD. I think PD communications should be regionalized and there should be communications zones so there are improved responses and at least a margin of added safety. Just putting County PD on trunked wouldn't really do a whole lot for anyone.

See, this is exactly my point. Unified command is one of the most misunderstood concepts in incident management and we need to remedy that so it can work for us when we need it. Nobody gives up operational control of their resources in unified command. No single person has final say about the plan. No there is no kumbya and vote on the plan but there is a common goal/mission and clearly defined objectives to be met. These are not necessarily voted upon but there is consensus building and strategies developed. Objectives are established and resources are assigned to meet them. This may be very parochial: fire does A, police does B or it may be a task force approach consisting of fire, police, EMS, utility does A, another task force does B, and so on. Resources are managed by objective and not strictly by discipline. A division or group supervisor will be the most qualified person and may have multiple kinds of resources assigned to him/her based upon the objectives. As for your example of the MVA above, we do have to worry about investigations concurrently with cleaning up spills and treating and transporting victims as these are all inter-related. Evidence may be lost if we fail to consider it early-on and contaminated victims may exacerbate the situation if we don't fully deal with such hazards first. In most cases we are capable of sustaining operations toward more than one objective at a time and I don't think it is ever so straight forward as do A, then B, then C. Most times we've got people working on A, B, and C all at the same time. Getting back to water jobs, we don't manage them as well as we should. There is no clear command, resources are not tasked with assignments based upon objectives, and safety is definitely not addressed as aggressively as it should. When there are five boats "conducting a search" and none of them are assigned an area or a search pattern we're not going to find things! When one "rescue" boat wakes another, safety is not being considered. When two aircraft are operating and one of the people claiming to be in command instructs aircraft A to operate where aircraft B is, that's simply unacceptable. And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about one person having final say about the plan. Where more than one entity has statutory or other responsibility at a scene, there will be more than one person with responsibility and in most cases it can not be abdicated. But that's OK, it's a good discussion. See, we're in complete agreement here. I think the assignments you describe can be managed through effective objectives and assignment of resources and maybe more imaginative strategies need to be considered earlier rather than later. We may not have the limited resources that you have up north but we certainly need to focus on sharing responsibilities more effectively and less defensively! You probably do that better out of necessity than we do. Thanks for taking the time to state your case! This is what's great about this forum. Intelligent discussions!

Agreed, I should have put that we do "OPERATIONS" pretty well. We don't do the whole ICS thing though. We don't set up logistics, we don't plan (at least not the way ICS defines it), we don't involve public information or liaisons as we should/could, and we certainly don't do command that well as evidenced by the miusnderstandings about unified command. Within a single department or discipline on non-complex incidents we do OK but I still say we could manage much better than we do.

Or just move the PD dispatch into the TMC where all the infrastructure already exists and SP dispatch takes place. Cellular 911 calls are received there, all the cameras on all the roads can be viewed there, etc. etc. etc. Let all the FD and EMS dispatching be done at 60-Control and let all the PD dispatching be done from the TMC. Hmmm...

The reason I need this info is because I do property insurance surveys in Westchester. One of the questions that is asked on the survey is what type of FD responds to the property. Rather than simply finding out the career/volunteer status, wouldn't it be more informative to find out which one's are NFPA compliant and respond with the 12+1 (career) or 36+1 (volunteer) as recommended by the standard (that is the standard right, bnechis?)? Personally, I don't think that a 'career response' is an impressive distinction when the engine and/or ladder are only staffed by 1-2 FF. Likewise, a VFD showing up with only 3-4 interior FF during the day is equally unimpressive.

I don't know what boat that was but the YPD boat has been operating in the Hudson all summer. Is the Yonkers fire boat over there? I haven't seen them this summer.

ALS and antique, I respectfully disagree with some of your points. Unified command absolutely can work, even early in an incident - if people actually know what their roles and responsibilities are and you preplan for it. One of the problems is that we don't do ICS well with single command on small incidents so we don't adapt well when the incident grows. I find the notion of transferring command more problematic than embracing unified command. Every time you transfer command you lose some continuity and consistency. So you could take two steps backward everytime you change command simply for the sake of changing it. There will only be one Operations Section Chief even with unified command and an enormous field response. Again, the participants are well schooled and experienced in their responsibilities. Imagine having Operations Section Chief training before assuming that role? Novel concept, I know. The span of control issue is a simple function of organization and you can have thousands of responders properly organized into a "NIMS compliant" (read effective) organizational model. I've seen it work for PD, utilities, wildfires, severe storms, and planned events. As for "every incident commander handling their responsibilities" that is the definition of unified command but practically speaking, if you don't put them together and coordinate the effort, how do you know you're being effective? In this example, if you don't coordinate a water-search and put resources in the right places you're not handling your responsibilities. And from a safety perspective, if you direct resources into the same area as another "IC" without coordinating them you're setting up a great environment for an accident. Here's another example where it should be unified command without question. Even if there is a detonation, law enforcement has responsibilties that can not be abdicated or ignored. Law enforcement can and should remain the lead agent in unified command and coordinate with the other responsible parties to insure that everything is done safely and effectively without compromising the investigative and evidentiary matters. I am not an advocate of these frequent transfers of command (as you can read). You imply that only "one" person/agency/jurisdiction will be responsible but that is absolutely not true. In our area, with overlappng jurisdictions, layers of agencies having jurisdiction, there are often many players with statutory responsibility and accountability. They're not going to let the fire chief off the hook for an incident going bad in his jurisdiction when he says that the police chief was in charge or vice versa. Our naivete and relative inexperience with basic applications of ICS is what holds us back from expanding our management capacity with simple concepts like unified command. Unified command has been around for more than a quarter century and yet we still act like it's some new and unproven concept. It is tried and true - we just haven't embraced it. It isn't just "who has the most dogs in the fight", it's about overall responsibility. There may be many more EMS resources involved in a public health emergency but the ultimate responsibility is still going to be vested in the Commissioner of Health. As for 99% of incidents not requiring unified command, I think the issue above of overlapping layers of different agencies having jurisdiction prove that we are actually operating with the need for unified command 99% of the time. It is the rare example where only one agency/jurisdiction is involved (at least in this state with its 1500 different "governments"). From my perspective it simply boils down to safety. Establishing unified command isn't touchy feely BS, its the only way to insure that we know where all the resources are and what they're doing in a large, multi-agency(county) response to prevent/avoid an accident. And from what I've seen, we've been lucky thus far but luck eventually runs out and I don't want to see someone get hurt or worse because we still can't manage an incident effectively. I think far too many people are trying to simplify ICS concepts instead of actually understanding them. You can't tell the PD or Public Health that they're not in command of an incident for which they have statutory authority and responsibility to their agency administrators simply because you think the FD should be in charge. This is so far beyond the old arcane arguments about who's in charge - things have changed and we have to catch up to them. Great points Cogs and you're absolutely right. It's time to be proactive rather than reactive. We've seen two major incidents in the Hudson River this year that thankfully were south of our border but I still don't hear people discussing how we'd handle it if it happened to us. Proactive, people, proactive!!!!!!

Hmmm... Let's see, Yonkers calls themselves Marine 1. Now Ossining calls themselves Marine 1. Perhaps the thread on resource numbering is applicable here too. According to the DES listing Verplanck is Marine 1. What is the response area for this boat?

A question in a thread on EMTBravoUpstate got me thinking about this so I decided to post it down here to see what our answer(s) are. What is a "Marine Unit"? Sure, you have a boat and CAD calls it "Marine 789" but what equipment do you carry, what training do you have (not just fire training but navigation, search, boat operations, etc.), what are your crew requirements, etc.? Are there weather/sea limits to what you'll go out in? Do you operate at night? What equipment do you have to make night operations safe and efficient? Does anyone require a Captain's license to operate the vessel? How do you coordinate your efforts with other vessels on the water or resources involved in the response? Do you have written SOP's for marine operations? What PPE do you require for personnel operating on the boat or in support of their operations?

So your boat can work the river even with ice present? What kind of boat is it?

Sadly this thread died a quick death but I have one more question. Does anyone have year round boats/response capabilities? What about dealing with ice?

Glad to see all the responses about the need for command and/or unified command, good accountability, a plan for operations, etc. but I have to say if we change the geography of this incident a little bit all those concepts are thrown out the window and it seems more like the wild wild west. Change our search scenario from a building search to one for a jumper down or an overturned boat in the Hudson River or Long Island Sound. "Rescue" boats from at least two counties and mulitiple jurisdictions including police, fire, and USCG/SeaTow/others, multiple boats responding from significant distances some dispatched and some not, absolutely no command and control, no organized search patterns, waking each other, ignoring each other, and no accountability. When someone does finally assert that they are "in command" it is often done without regard for statutory jurisdiction and without full knowledge of the resources assigned and their current operations. Just because it's on water doesn't mean we don't do all the things that we say we'll do for an incident on land. So, with this said, who's got a plan to fix it?

Yes that would be it. I don't know if it would be the "center median" as in the pavement itself but it is definitely the keep right sign at the end of the median and painted lines/markings on the road. If there were "do not enter" or "wrong way" signs they would apply too.

Yes that would be it. I don't know if it would be the "center median" as in the pavement itself but it is definitely the keep right sign at the end of the median and painted lines/markings on the road. If there were "do not enter" or "wrong way" signs they would apply too.

True, but I think this will be for another thread... The use of fly-cars has a more limited application then it used to. When agencies are having a hard time getting out the door with the ambulance, a fly-car is a waste of money. It is far more practical to put the personnel you have in a vehicle that can do the transport than put another vehicle on the scene to listen to multiple tones for an ambulance response. But, as I said, I'll start this discussion in another thread.

If you haven't already seen this is, it is a must read. For those who think they are compliant, perhaps it is time to make sure. For those who've been ignoring it, WAKE UP! For all of us it highlights the importance of having only ONE person (hopefully the most qualified person) in charge of the incident/event. For jobs where there is or can be confusion (Hudson River jobs come to mind) there needs to be a standard adopted for how those incidents are managed so we don't become a follow-up article. There can only be one person in charge and this needs to be clearly identified and clearly understood by all involved. A recent incident that highlights this point. Two helicopters were operating in two geographic areas on the same incident in accordance with a directive from "Command X". "Command Y" directed one of the helicopters to conduct operations in the same area as the other helicopter. Now, we all know that two aircraft in the same place at the same time is not a good plan but this was apparently not part of the thought process of the second "IC". The air crews were coordinating their movements so nothing untoward happened but what if... The same examples can be found in emergency operations on a regular basis when we fail to establish a single unified command post at an incident and operations are being conducted by different elements with no regard for each other. Perhaps now we'll all stop the petty nonsense that prevents ICS from developing as intended (and as it works in many places around the nation) and start doing it right. The article can be accessed here: http://www.fireengineering.com/display_art...s-and-Liability The article is quoted here with the permission of the author.

Alright, let's say the building is in more than one jurisdiction. How would you decide who's the command?

Gotta agree that the term "serious" means different things to different people. Was this a serious accident - depends on who you ask. I'll say this though, closing a road doesn't make it serious. I've had to close roads for disabled vehicles when they were in a bad location. The State Police saying it was serious means it was serious to them (and that could have been because it was a load of paperwork!). Mechanism of injury does not make a patient ALS - patient condition makes the patient ALS. You absolutely factor mechanism into the decision making process but it has to be based on the patient. Now back to the accident, can anyone confirm that this was indeed a wrong-way DWI accident?