AFS1970

I tried to go to the Toronto Ploice museum when I was there but it is only open by appointment and you have to e-mail or call someone's personal e-mail for an appointment a week in advance.

And then the technical errors were fixed with budget riders. Perhaps Government should not act so quickly anymore!

And why did JAG handle everything before the spin off but we now never see them work a single case?

Going back to the original article, I have to wonder how much Macaw paid for the product placement in an otherwise decent article? Out of all the options, even when bringing up CAFS no brand names were used, until Macaw, Don't get me wrong there are lots of neat tools out there and I get that innovation is generally a private commercial process, but we need to get away from manufacturers having too much say in discussions on training and tactics. Because without the manufactur specific input, the idea of a foam backpack just seems to be the same thing as a replacing the water can with a foam can. I went to a class at the CT Fire Academy that was called "Engine Company Operations". I would tell the long story but the gist of it is that the class was not what it said, there was no live fire training as advertised and it was little more than an infomercial for one specific brand of nozzle. The "instructor" was a salesman from the company. Another time I took a class on the State's foam trailers, that was at least 50% put on by the foam company that won the bid and was all about how great their foam was. So back to the engine / truck / quint debate, why is it that we are generally against quints, but we seem to love rescue pumpers? Why is it OK to cram water and hose onto a rescue but not a truck? Again I ask why it does not work the other way around, as in why are not all engines required to carry extrication equipment?

While this is primarily aimed at private security many of the lessons in this class can be of value to other public safety personnel. Especially the workplace violence section as more and more we see fire and EMS responses that involve this kind of incident. The seminar is free because Sound Training Group is Sponsoring this event as a service to and introduction to those we hope to train. The two day seminar will cover three areas: USE of FORCE ASSESSMENT and LIABILITY LETHAL and NON-LETHAL COMPLIANT and NON COMPLIANT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW This course is for unarmed and armed personnel! WORKPLACE VIOLENCE WHAT IS IT REALLY? HOW TO IDENTIFY ASSESSMENT and RESPONDING PREVENTION DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and BULLYING ACTIVE SHOOTER GENERAL OVERVIEW COURSE ASSESSMENT and RESPONDING COMMUNICATING WITH FIRST RESPONDERS RUN HIDE FIGHT Registration is entirely ON-LINE

Let's flip this around somewhat, should all apparatus have an aerial ladder? I mean what if you are on the road in your engine and you get a call and you pull up and you see a confirmed live victim in a high window? What will you do? This is the flaw in the process, no matter what you do you can come up with a scenario where you have not done enough. Should all tanks be 1,000 gallons or more? What if there is a water main break? What if you get called mutual aid to a rural area? While we all have to think of the "what if's" we also have to also think of the probabilities and really how many times have you pulled up first due in the truck at a working fire that you normally would have been in the engine for and had no close engine coming? In my old department we used to take the rescue on EMS calls. Now this dates back to the rescue being much smaller, but even with the current one it is smaller and lighter than the engines. The only time we took the engine was on reported burns. A few members wanted to start taking the engine on EMS runs instead of the rescue. In my opinion this was entirely based on the fact that the nearby career department did this, but let's face it the reasoning is completely different in the two settings. However the argument was made that we might be in the rescue when a fire came in. As an officer at the time, I ran the report on simultaneous runs. I discovered that sue to our busy automatic aid system that called for our truck on numerous boxes, we were statistically more likely to be on the road in the rescue and need the truck. I showed the chief the numbers and argued that we should put the EMS stuff on the truck as that was were call volume says it was needed. That went over like a fart in church, as nobody really wanted to take the truck out for EMS runs. The engine cult won and started taking the engine on runs, and due to space limitations now was responding with far less EMS gear than the rescue carried (although most of that was rarely used). As a side not it was not long before the same genius who brought up this issue advocated selling the rescue as it was not doing a lot of runs. I think he just hated the rescue.

I believe New Canaan is currently being dispatched by Southwest C-Med, so apparently they are committed to the contract outsourcing method, possibly switching every few years. If you feel comfortable knowing your dispatching goes to the lowest bidder, so be it. We have seen time and time again where this does not work in other aspects of the emergency services.

No fire TRUCK should carry water, that is what ENGINES are for.

I used the codes as an old example of scripting gone bad. However I know of a dispatcher that was so into her scripts that she had hand written ones she made in training and could not even do a nightly tone test without them. The rest of us figured that we could probably get her to order a pizza over the air if we inserted the words into her scripts. As for business names that is an uphill battle. We try to have business names stored in CAD but there is a big problem with a) names that change often or are never updated & alarms that give a different name than we have because the alarm lists the property owner and not the tenant. So going to ABC Real Estate is not at all helpful when you pull up to the local Burger King. The information is only as good as we get, and frankly we don't get very good information most of the time. In some districts they want the residence name for the same reason, some drivers know where the Smith's live as just that the Smith house, not as 1234 Farm Meadow Dr. We had a couple of issues with giving out cross streets a few years back. Now as one of the people that helped set up of street file, we got blocks down to the smallest segment possible. I had one FF complain that we were giving the wrong cross streets on several addresses, but every time we checked the map we were right. I finally asked him what he meant. He thought the cross streets should be specific to the side of the street the call was on, so if the only two streets on the left were a mile apart he wanted those instead of any of the six other streets on the right. We also had a service that was adamant about getting cross streets on every call, even when you had a business name or a well known building. They were so in the habit of requesting cross streets that when going to an incident on i-95 once they asked for cross streets. A very senior dispatch supervisor from the fire department got on the air and gave them cross streets of Maine and Florida. These are examples of why while admirable such drives for consistency often ends up removing the thinking / common sense form the process which is the exact opposite of helpful. By all means we should give out all location information we have on hand, however mandating that the map number be given before the apartment number of that the business name be given in between the cross streets is nothing more than micro managing.

Danbury is just the latest to be looking at this from entirely the wrong standpoint. With any job, but more so in the emergency services, financial concerns can not be the only factor looked at. However any time there is a move to civilianize a job, be it dispatcher, records clerk, parking enforcement or even jailer, it is always brought up that it will be cheaper. Very often the field units complain because the penny pinchers don't understand that you get what you pay for. You want cheap, you can get cheap, but don't look for qualiy also. At least in this setting it looks like the private staff will be in a Danbury owned center. I am generally against privitization because even when it saves money it often includes hidden cost increases and is often hard to switch back from if it does not work out. I have heard of cities privitizing and selling off all their equipment which makes it very hard to get rid of a bad contractor. As for the certification issue, the state has a class for dispatchers. It was originally an 80 hour class that they bought from A.P.C.O. but as times changed they dropped it to 60 hours and then I think down to just over 40. There was allot of stuff in it that you just didn't need, but in my opinion it isn't enough. Syaing that it is just answering a phone is pretty much like saying that being a cop is just walking around town and beign a firefighter is just spraying water. Each job has it's specific challenges and each job is diferent enough that there are few if any direct comparisons. How interesting that if this is just answering a phone and anyone can do it, that when it was field personnel they needed to get extra money to do it, but now that your wife / kid needs a job this should be done for half the money. I have an idea, why certify drivers as firefighters? I can hire a guy with a CDL for less than a firefighter, after all it's just driving a truck.

Here is the real problem with scripts (or what those who don't sit behind the console call consistency). Eventually you are saying words that you don't really understand. You get so used to reading the script that the words, like the example of 10-4, loose their actual meaning. For years before plain language Stamford had some signals that were generally used together. THe two most common were 5, 7 & 9 or 1 & 5. These were so common that most units stopped using the word signal in front of them. However here is what they meant. 1 - In Service / On Air 5 - Returning to Quarters 7 - False Alarm 9 - Recall However 1 & 5 was used so often as the generic signal that you were clear from a call that we started having EMS units who were not quartered at the hospital saying they were 1 & 5 out at the hospital. They can be 1 at the hospital but not 1 & 5. But they were being consistent. There are also fads depending on who is reading what book at the time. We had a senior dispatcher with no field experience yell at a junio dispatcher who had been a member of 2 local departments and 1 out of town department because he didn't ask the color of the smoke that a caller was reporting. Also on a call with a report of a fire with children in side she yelled that the ages of the children were imnportant. The junior dispatcher asked why, did they rescue 4 years olds diferently from 5 year olds? But both of these theories were because of incomplete information given to dispatchers so they would be consistent with field units. So if I dispatch a call and say attention all Turn of River Units and the next guy says attention Turn of River Fire Department, I don't see that is a problem. Trust me, we have lots of real problems to solve. We do not need to go making up more imaginary ones just so we can create a solution.

Date: 09/03/2014 Time: 00:18 Location: 29 Bittersweet Ln, Cross Streets District: Turn of River Units: Turn of River: E64, K68 (Tanker), V617 (LT) Long Ridge: E72, E74, K78 (Tanker) Stamford: E8, E9, E7, T1, R1, E5 (RIT), E3, T2 (2nd Alarm), E1 & LDH1, T3 (Reliefs), U4 (Command),U6 Safety, FM101, FM107, FM109 Belltown: T45, E41, E42, C411, V415 (LT) Pound Ridge: E112, Tanker 3 New Canaan: Tanker 8 Darien: Tanker 45 Vista: Tanker 4 Stamford EMS: M4, M901 (Supervisor), U94 (Rehab), U91 (Field Comm) Darien EMS: 312, 316 (Supervisor) Stamford PD: 8D (LT), 8S1 (SGT), 8S4 (SGT), 4D295, 4C58, 4E16, 4A43, 3D33, 3C29 CT State PD: Fire Marshal Unit Description: Multiple calls for house explosion with fire. 00:22 V415 on scene reporting fire in rear of a 2 1/2 story wood frame single family residence. 00:24 C411 Requesting Tanker Shuttle from Westchester. K68 Enroute special called Mutual Aid Tankers (Call for Round Hil & Banksville changed to Pound Ridge & Darien due to location). Initial call for Noroton Heights Tanker switched to Vista due to Tanker Out of Service. 00:51 U4 calls a Second Alarm 00:56 Red Cross Notified for victim relocation 01:02 2nd Floor has Collapsed - Exterior Operations. 01:06 CL&P requested Priority 1 02:14 Tanker Shuttle shutting down, most mutual aid units released except for E112. K68 remaining as sole tanker. 03:43 FM101 calling for State Fire Marshal 04:43 8S4 assuming Police Sector from 8S1 05:35 U4 requesting DPW with backhoe or payloader to assist with moving debris 06:40 T3 Responding for relief crew

I vaguely remember the T.V. show Firehouse, it was one of a few that tried to duplicate Emergency! but was unable to. There was a movie called Firehouse that took place in NYC and had Richard Roundtree as a firefighter fighting an arsonist.

It is also supposed to be the job of the fire service to be able to be that strength in the face of an emotional event. We have all heard the story, which I think is really an urban myth, of the woman telling you her baby is inside and needs to be rescued. The Firefighters go in and find that the baby is either a 35 year old who self rescued or a pet. However it is the emotional effect of the word baby that drives the immediate entry to go make that grab, even if that drive entails a pre RIT entry. Asking who or what baby is would solve this problem, but does anyone ever ask this? As a kid I was taught once a year in school (because fires only happen in October) about meeting places. When I started doing public education I pushed this and also told adults to make sure they knew if everyone who was supposed to eb there was there. But I also told them that we were still going to search the whole house anyway. We were all trained that we still do the primary, and I can't help but think that this is due to knowing that the escapees will not have a complete picture or will not give accurate information in a stressful state. These are exactly the reasons that the exemption for the known life hazard is in the standard, however I have always been told that the hazard has to be know to the rescuer (or at least the IC) and not the resident. So being told someone is in the house is a suspected rescue, seeing someone in a window is a known rescue. As for working without manpower, well in this we are our own worst enemy. However I don't think I would have it any other way. If you are in a department that say normally goes out with 3 man crews and your manpower is reduced to 2 man crews by something beyond your control what do you do? Yes there may be some increased mutual or automatic aid, but we all know that because of who firefighters are, they will work harder to get the job done with less resources. That reduced crew (or department as a whole) will push ahead, will figure out new ways to pack hose or carry ladders, they will redeploy apparatus in order to do more with less. We will even discuss on line how to make rescues without RIT teams in place.

I know that out of area ambulance sometimes get used for motorcades depending on what is available locally. Back during George H.W. Bush's term when he was in the area visiting his daughter there was a Stamford EMS unit assigned to New Canaan because NCVAC did not yet have full time paramedics. Not sure how this works with the various contract services in Westchester but it may have something to do with that.

Since we have been talking about RIT / FAST in another thread, I will bring up the obvious. In the YT video, it starts with still pics and radio traffic. When it get to the first video with all the guys standing in front of the garage doors, there is a PASS alarm going off. Nobody seems overly concerned that there is (at least in theory) a member in distress. So are we that desensitized to the sound of such an alarm that we don't even look around for the source?

I am going to pick these two because I saw them live at an incident. Here is the scenario. Coming from not to far away with another member, tones go off for automatic aid call, report of structure fire with person trapped. The fellow member I was with was probably one of only 2 drivers nearby at the time for the ladder truck that was being called for. I called the station by phone to let them know we were close and on the way. We get there suit up and join the other 3 members of the crew and go to the call. 2nd Driver stays behind to wait for more manpower and bring another rig if needed (rescue was special called very soon). We get to the scene, mix up between engines means we get there and the initial line is still being stretched to the door. light smoke and no visible flames. Resident on scene saying her husband is trapped inside. RIT en route but not there yet. Tanker is just arriving for supply. Chief is out front and send our crew inside. As much as I would have liked to go in, I assumed Safety Officer in front of building. All searches are negative. Fire turns out to be small electrical fire, not involving the structure. Still no sign of husband. When the homeowner / wife is questioned she tells us he has to be inside because his van is in the driveway. Then he calls her back on her cell phone and tells her he dropped off the van and went out with a friend. All information was based on faulty assumption of wife, but relayed to dispatcher then to responding units. Information was repeated to arriving units. Still proved to be based on wrong assumption. The bottom line with this call was THERE WAS NO KNOWN LIFE HAZARD PRESENT. Had this been a bigger fire of had water supply been the problem it was thought to be initially this might have ended much worse for the crews. A couple of simple questions of the wife by either the dispatcher or the IC could have changed the tactics. Those would be: When did you last see your husband? What part of the house was he in? When the answers proved to be earlier this morning before work and in the kitchen having breakfast, that would have either lead to further questioning to confirm time frame or delay of search until RIT* was on scene. *The Engine confusion would have actually added a small delay into who was supposed to be the RIT but that got worked out pretty quickly.

None of the rigs I was around for being new ever had a wet down. I have always kind of like the tradition of these but am not to sure on what they have begun. I notice the Chaplain using a bucket of water which is cool. I wish it were a leather bucket made to commemorate wither the department of the event, but that could get expensive. So if the idea is that the rig gets wet down by all the other companies, and as this has grown it has become regional, I guess I can see why it seems to take several sets of rigs to accomplish this. However why all the Chief's cars and Rescues if they are not bringing water to the wet down? And why is it nothing more than a water fight with more water getting on the older rigs and crews than the new rig that presumably needs it? Personally if one wanted to be traditional, and maybe give the young ones a sence of what was required when all this started, I would think doing the wet down with a real two line bucket brigade would be interesting.

Sort of related to this is a bit of a story. I heard of one department that had a somewhat secret way of letting members know how many were on board. This was not an official method and to the best of my knowledge the Chiefs were unaware. It was just a clue to other FF's to high tale it to the station if the secret code was not used. I thought it was an innovative way of doing this but the problem with any secret is that in order for it to work, people have to know what it means and if people know what it means those you are keeping the secret will eventually learn the truth. I don't think this is used any more in that department. This idea was when responding to a call and having less than 4 FF's or (as it was explained to me) less than 4 GOOD FF's the unit signed on the way everyone else did "Engine X responding" If the unit had a full crew of GOOD FF's the officer would simply insert the word company into the phrase and say "Engine Company X responding" To most people it would not sound odd and if it did would be taken as a buff thing, not a secret code. The members listening to pagers would know if they heard the word company they were probably not going to the scene.

I was going to bring this same idea up. I read an article and I think listened to a pod cast a few years ago about a concept called the Safety Engine. Other than adding a new title to the RIT / FAST debate, it outlines some basic not rescue duties of this crew. Interestingly enough it placed them under the Safety Officer in ICS and not directly under the IC. This was because this type of operation was seen as a safety issue and it took direct supervision of any single unit from the IC so as not to bog down the guy who has to look at the big picture. From what I can remember this crew would assemble all the required equipment for RIT operations, then instead of standing around waiting did 2 main things. 1 was to get at least one ground ladder to the second floor on each side of the building. This way they were either in place for a bail out or could be easily moved should a bail out or rescue at another point on that side be needed. 2 was in 2 teams of 2 (assuming a 4 man company) they did a secondary exposure size up to learn the building and any special rescue considerations that will be factors should a RIT operation start. One team does sides A/B or 1/2 and the other does sides 3/4 or C/d. They come back to the Safety Officer and report the findings before assuming the common stand by. I will say that the one time I was a RIT officer I tried the size up idea. I lost 2 of my 6 guys doing this because they were grabbed by a Chief on the other side of the building and sent inside the building. When I asked them what happened they said the Chief told them to do it so they followed his orders. To be fair they probably did not like being RIT and would take any excuse to get out of that assignment and that Chief was an old timer who did not fully understand RIT and frequently either reassigned a RIT or allowed a RIT to freelance. Which goes back to the original question of how we apply the concept.

I have only met one firefighter personally who admitted that he was in it for the tax credits. This was a guy who was a police officer, had a big blue light bar on his truck and told me that he only did it because he got a tax break. Interestingly enough this was before the state law was passed allowing cities to offer this kind of break, so it was some sort of local program. I haven't seen this guy in years, and I don't remember the town but it seems they were ahead of the curve on this sort of program.

I tried to put up a copy of the flyer, but the file attachment did not work and the site would not accept a pic stored on twitter. The flyer is on our linked in, facebook and twitter pages if anyone wants to see it, although the above post has more information than the flyer does. I hope some of the 200 + who read this register. @soundtraininggr

I wonder if this is still the case, given the current economy, the status of our failing social security system and the jealousy that much of the public has for pension plans. Might these begin to transition from retention benefits to recruitment tools? However I don't know about too many departments that go to great pains to advertise their LOSAP's.

Boston was a strange situation to say the least. I am not all that happy with ordering people to stay inside during that man hunt, but I do understand the safety sentiments behind it. Given the type of incident and the number of casualties and the fact that the killers had proven they were not only willing to attack the random public but to attack police and other responders in secondary incidents, I can see why the decisions that were made were made, even when I do not entirely agree with them. However I reject the idea that either the police or the equipment they were using turned the streets of Ferguson into any such thing. If in fact Ferguson resembled a war zone it was because of the criminals who refused to take part in civil discourse and instead felt that lynching a good cop was in order. They terrorized a community, committed multiple acts of larceny, burglary, vandalism and arson as well as intimidation, assault and possibly attempted murder. The police in Ferguson did not start the war.