AFS1970

There has to be a fair amount of noise that close to the road. This seems to be the same basic concept as a tiller, just rearranged for a cargo load, and of course without the vantage point.

Remember when this sort of backfired on them? The same year they put that out there were a few high profiles cannibalism attacks across the country. The CDC actually had to release a statement that there was no such thing as Zombies. I have also heard there is a federal publication on how your fire department should handle a UFO invasion, but I have never seen that one first hand.

Cool pics. Did yonkers have any tillers before that one from Long Island?

Decoration Day is still listed in some places in CT state law, most notably on the list of holidays that have different hours for liquor sales.

Also remember that the information from the public while well intentioned may not be accurate. In this weeks news was an incident at a mall reported as an active shooter, because people heard the tires pop on a car fire outside the mall and stampeded out of the mall. Off the top of my head I can think of two times I got reports of fires with people trapped that were not the case (there are probably more). Once it was reported as multiple people trapped in an attic that was on fire. The actual scene was a small fire in the attic but by no means heavy fire conditions, and the report of people trapped from a homeowner who knew he had workers in the attic and thought they must be trapped. The foreman was on scene and had accounted for all his crew. The other one was a report of a house fire with the wife outside reporting her husband trapped inside. Again the actual fire was relatively small, lots of smoke but what amounted to a small electrical fire in equipment connected to a fish tank in the basement. As it turned out the wife came home, opened the door and saw the smoke, so she backed out and called 9-1-1. She based her report of her husband being trapped on the fact that his work van was in the driveway. He was no home at the time of the fire. In both of these cases they were well intentioned but inaccurate, I can't say that was the case with hearing pounding at a window, but I would not base a one man entry without a RIT on that little information. That is very far from a known hazard. Think about the reverse situation. Same call for the fire but this time the neighbor promises us that the resident is not home, although he doesn't know here she is. He is certain she is not inside. Would we use that as a basis to not perform a search? Of course not, because we understand that even first hand information is not always right. So if you don't take his word that she is outside, then you can't take it that she is inside. You can however do an aggressive and thorough search and hopefully save a life or two. Nice job by HFD!

Excellent ad, very moving.

Congrats! Having taken a post to that competition before, I know it can be a tough one.

This really isn't about drinking in the firehouse. It is about drinking responsibly. I have written before about a visit to a friend's FD in another state. He took me into his rec room which had a bar. I asked about it because the station I was a member of at the time did not have such a thing. He showed me the glass covering the bottles, the dual locks securing the glass. He told me how one key belonged to the line officers and the other to the bar committee,the bar committee all had to be certified bartenders which involved a class on when to cut people off. Both had to be present to unlock the bar. They had a strict no drinking and responding rule, and if you did and were caught the line officer who failed to stop you was also in trouble. This place managed to keep the tradition and add some responsibility. Many years ago when I took Fire Officer 1, one of our scenarios was a call comes in, you are in the station with some other FF's. As you are about to leave, another FF responding from elsewhere comes in the station and is visibly intoxicated. What do you do? Note that in this scenario there has been no drinking in the station, you are the only officer present, the crew is short and this firefighter if allowed would bring you up to a full crew. Granted it is designed as a no win situation, and I can tell you that no matter what answer each group gave the instructor showed us how there would be dire consequences, but the point is not all drinking has to happen at the station for it to be irresponsible. As an aside, I am glad the judges have rules that volunteers are in fact people. However I also wish that they had extrapolated from those statements that volunteers are in fact firefighters.

Well the mere possession of such a rig is probably not justification on it's own, but look at call volume, operations at scenes, ect. and you might just need a replacement rig. Is it great to get a brand new one, sure, but as the last one cost $1, really anything between that and the $400K is a step up. I can think of a few places where such a replacement tactic has worked. I have even advocated for it myself in a number of cases. Supposing there is a type of apparatus that you have the potential need for but few if any actual calls. Your department asks for it a few times and does not get it. Then the opportunity for one comes up from a reliable used source, so you take it. It does get used a few times, but not really all that much. It could actually be used a bit more but again not all that much. Now when asking for this apparatus, you are asking to replace the existing one which is old and lacks some features of a new one. This time you will probably get approved because the people controlling the funds know little if anything about fire apparatus. Does this work, yes. Is it ethical, probably not.

Even if you get around the RLS issue, the crews that respond are often regional and not coming from a nearby location. My city is relatively lucky in that we have a CL&P (Connecticut Light & Power) facility in town, but still the people coming for the trucks don't always live in town. One night we got a call from a foreman who wanted an escort down I95 as he was coming from several towns away. We referred him to the state police but in all reality the traffic was so bad on the highway that they were not going to be able to help him that much. A few years ago I was sent to a possible transformer "explosion", when we got there the lights were on in the neighborhood. As this was an odd intersection where 3 fire districts met, we decided to check the other two areas to determine who to call and we did find a power outage. As we were about to call for the other district and the power company a CL&P truck pulled up and the driver told us we could free up. When I asked how he got there so fast he said he lived across from the transformer, heard it pop and got up went and picked up a truck and came back to reset the power in his neighborhood.

I applaud NYPD for taking this step. As overdue as it it, they might be one of the few departments with a formal response SOP for this type of situation. Far too many agencies take this for granted. I took a class years ago that was designed for Fire & EMS personnel responding into crime scenes, that basically was a guide on how to not screw up evidence. From that I came away thinking that there should be a basic awareness level class about each service that the other services should take. PD often calls FD the Evidence Eradication Team and FD often calls PD Blue Canaries. Think about the last MVA scene you were on and how chaotic it was, let alone a structure fire or major assault. We should all be basically aware of what each other do and more to the point what we are limited in doing ourselves. I would also include EMS in this, as even with FD being EMT's most of the time there are always new things coming out, especially in ALS that we often don't get to hear about. Despite there being a large number of EMS personnel with some FD experience there is still the problem with canceling incoming units without evaluating their actual need. So I guess there should be three classes and everyone should take two of them.

Date: 04/13/2014 Time: 23:50 Incident Type: MVA w/ Motorcyclist down Location: I95 Northbound between Exit 8 & 9 District: SFRD Units: CT State Police, SFRD: E3, R1, SEMS: M4, SPD: Multiple units. Description: Mototcyclist struck on highway. CSP handling investigation. SPD units assisting with traffic control. I95 shut down N/B at Exit 8. Due to staggered ramps for Exit 7 & 8, this requires SPD to shut down highway at Exit 8 and divert cars off exit ramp, as well as shutting down entrance ramps at Exits 7 & 8. Due to low Railroad bridge on East Main St (US1) this also requires diverson of all N/B truck traffic through unfamiliar route of multiple surface roads to get around low clearance. SPD units from multiple areas of town utilized. Grenwich PD notified that they will also likely see increased traffic due to I95 being shut down. SPD deploying portable light trailer to assist at scene.

This is exactly the time for Monday morning quarterbacking, because if we wait for Tuesday, it might be too late. Sadly we have to learn from past experiences, especially the deadly ones, because those are the ones we remember the most. As for the fact that the officers are dispatched to the fire, yes this is so that they can perform police functions there. When we send EMS to an assault call it is not for investigation and apprehension, it is for patient treatment. That being said my fellow dispatchers need to understand when to send and not send certain agencies there, because the need to do something is always present in public safety personnel, it is why we do what we do. Nobody here became a police officer, firefighter, Paramedic to not respond to calls. No amount of training and no SOP will keep people from trying to help. In my city when a call comes in for a structure fire, it is sent to both he fire and police dispatchers. Sometimes I think it is almost a race to see who can dispatch it first. When I am working the police console, I generally try and wait until I hear the FD is en-route. We all know the jokes about the first PD unit blocking the hydrant, but it is sadly accidentally true. When I was a VFF I went to a fire in another district, it was a multiple alarm. We get to the street the fire is on, which was a small residential street with little to any traffic problem, and found an unattended police car blocking the road. Thankfully it was running and unlocked because one of our guys had to move it so we could get to the building. I don't think the PO thought he was hampering operations, he thought he was keeping onlookers away, although he then walked up a few hundred feet to look at the fire. I realize that we all have to work within our SOP's, but I have to wonder if we couldn't be more aware of certain situations and realize that we can help keep each other safe by better defining what we do. Could these officers have been sent to the building exterior to provide intelligence? Sure, and could that report of smoke from windows been relayed to the FD, sure. Might it have lead the FD to respond to what was otherwise a small fire, sure but I would rather have a full assignment for a mattress fire than a LODD. As for medals and promotions, someone once told me that nobody ever gets a medal for following the rules. EDIT: I should say that the police are not the only ones guilty of failing to stage. I dispatched a call for a Psych case one night. In this district at the time that got an Ambulance and an Engine along with the police. I told the FD & EMS to stage. After a while of not hearing any updates the Captain on the Engine called in and asked on the air if he could clear up. I told him to stand by and I would see if PD still needed EMS. His reply was they probably do I can see the patient being loaded into the ambulance from the staging point. EMS had decided they knew better and gone in. I called the EMS supervisor about this, and was told that his medics knew all about scene safety and were well qualified to decide if they needed to stage or not. A quote like that could someday become a eulogy.

Whatever happened to being discreet? OK, have your cooler of beers for after, although I would much rather go to whatever event is being held where you can be with everyone else and not be isolationist and then complain about the lack of brotherhood. However carrying a case of beer past the church is downright obscene. Here is a radical idea, how about remembering that you are attending a funeral and actually attend it. Even if the church if full they usually have speakers set up. If you went to a non fire service funeral, would it be acceptable to stand there while the family entered, then pop off to the pub or the parking lot, then be there when the family leaves? I can remember attending the national memorial service in Maryland and getting there to find one member did not bring a tie, because they didn't like to wear them normally so thought it would be OK to not wear one when serving as part of a color guard. Needless to say a quick trip to the store across the street and that member had a tie. I used to think that we had lost an understanding of traditions in the fire service, but i don't think that is it. New kids may not realize that pike poles were once a fishing tool, but I fail to see how you can not realize that a funeral, especially a LODD funeral is a place for reverence. Oh and as for the kid sitting on the memorial, after his injuries healed, I would personally like to see him thrown out of the department. I am not sure there is much we can do to fix that kind of stupidity, treating any monument like that is something that has to be learned at a young age.

I don't like replying to my own posts, but to keep things seperate and bring this back to the FAST/RIT idea, a couple of things. No matter what you call this team, they need to be there until the IDLH operations have ceased. Sadly I have seen purported safety officers walking around in incomplete PPE and no pack checking for IDLH and reminding the supression / overhaul crews that they needed to keep their masks on. In this case you might just need 2 FAST's one for the crews and the other for the Safety Officer. As for that defensive fire with the chimney still standing, while I probably don't technically need one, I would say that if I am going to have crews, even on master streams anywhere near the collapse zone of that chimney, then I want a RIT in place and ready to go. Too many guys have been hurt in areas that they least expected it. What's in a name, RIT or FAST or 2 In / 2 Out? I was in a class in another part of my state once and as we talked about various ICS topics, it became clear that in that area FAST was something different from 2 In / 2 Out. What I later found out was that this area had one career department in the area that they always called for a FAST, however they would start interior operations as soon as they satisfied the NFPA standard of 2 OUT, then let the FAST relieve those guys when they got there. I have no idea how that worked out for them, but I have never heard of an LODD in that area, and while unusual it might just be an innovative way to deal with low initial manpower. Sadly when you have a department that always is seen as a FAST they get a reputation and some chiefs get the idea that they can't have a fire without a certain FAST on scene. I was at a fire where my crew was initially assigned as RIT, my crew hated it but that was our assignment. I heard another unit sign on the air as responding as the RIT. I asked the IC if we had been reassigned and he said we would be when the other crew got there. I asked why he didn't just leave us as RIT and his reply was that "you have to have them as your RIT" meaning that company that was coming in. The funny thing is I was at a party talking with a friend from that company and he was laughing about being called in as a RIT because he said they didn't get any special training except once a year and relied mostly on the basics if activated. He was of the opinion that their reputation as a RIT was not earned. That brings up the final point of RIT training. It is out there, but it is largely optional. In CT I bet you could get at least 40 hours of RIT related training at the academy. I know they have a 2 day basic RIT, 2 day advanced RIT and a 1 day MAYDAY class. They may have more than that now. If you added in some of the other firefighter safety classes like Rehab Operations and some of the advanced SCBA classes that might help you not need to call the RIT, you might even be able to get two solid weeks of training in this area. That's not even getting into the really gung ho physical stuff. However you try and get your chief to send more than a couple of guys for all that optional training, and then you try and get more than a few guys to go to that training if it is offered. Sometimes staying safe is an uphill battle.

I wonder if the departments calling M/A for RIT/FAST are the only one abusing the system? Here is a controversial idea, what if the departments responding as M/A are depending on those numbers to defend certain manpower numbers? Instead of abuse, I think we have a more symbiotic relationship going on here. I don't think there is a single department anywhere on earth that finds their manpower adequate. However there are budget realities and regardless of paid or volunteer the fire service has to compete (often unfairly) with a number of other services for limited tax dollars. By responding on a large amount of M/A you can sometimes make a station look busier that it really needs to be. The department I used to be in ran quite a lot of M/A to neighboring districts, much of which was canceled en route. When we faced a staffing reduction the officers got together and realized that many of these runs were not really providing any actual service to our neighbors and ended up costing money. By making a couple of types of response reductions, our total runs were cut nearly in half. We only had reliable numbers on some of that so the reduction ended up being greater than anticipated. Yet think about your own department, if your runs were cut in half tomorrow, do you think any politician from any party would increase your manpower? Do you think some might just start pushing for a reduction in manpower?

This case will get interesting, especially since there is no age limit. I am not familiar with NY but is there a mandatory retirement age there? I know we do not have one in CT. One area where I think the commission may have a problem is that they advised the guy to join the VFD and get certified, then passed him over. So in essence they have a candidate that passed the test, who they then trained, certified and put to work for no money and now say that he isn't a good choice to hire. That seems like somewhat faulty logic to me. I had to laugh at the commissioner who thought he was just in it for the payday. Since this is an employment case, then yes that would have been the original goal. Everyone who applies for any job anywhere is looking for a payday, just a weekly one. Although the idea that the reason for not hiring him was a bad attitude that is shown by the fact that he sued after they did not hire him, seems odd. How did she know about this attitude if it is only demonstrated after he was turned down?

Coming in late to this, but I always thought that the difference (other than a branding difference) was that a ladder tower had a fully useable ladder with a bucket on the end. A Tower Ladder only had the escape ladder that is only used in the rare case where you can't get the bucket lowered and the emergency hydraulics are not working. I am not even sure if this has ever happened. As for the county only recognizing ladder and tower ladder, isn't that a bit like saying we will consider all engines as hose wagons, we don't care if they have pumps or not? A telesquirt is most definitely a type of engine but a snorkel is it's own thing with some unique features that might be nice to know about, instead of having to remember which number truck is a snorkel.

I am not familiar with that case, but why would you go after someone who was cleared in a court of law?

So is everybody ready to remove all religious symbols from apparatus? How about from uniform patches? Have we forgotten that symbol that comes to us from the Sovereign Military order of Saint John aka the Knights of Malta?

I took the Incident Response to Terrorist Bombing class in CT several years ago. I think those are two different classes. New Mexico Tech has several good classes in this area. I highly recomend this class to anyone who is on the fence about going. I learned a lot of interesting things that are not always covered in one place.

The need for the new station in Greenwich is not a new one. It has been around for years. At one point it was being called the Proposed King Street station because of the most likely location for any new station. However the lack of approval has spanned across many town and fire department administrations. I personally think that to some extent in our county, Greenwich is the low hanging fruit for the news media. You don't hear much about Westport FD, which has some nominal volunteers, 2 man career staffing and may still have a ladder and rescue that share a 2 man crew. Westport is also a "wealthy" town, although maybe not as full of celebrities as Greenwich. Resource management is probably the most important aspect of any department, especially when manpower is perceived to be short. However in New England, station locations are generally not in locations that make sense to the current community growth. Sometimes they are located based on a small district within a town, sometimes it was where land was available or appropriate. I am not sure that building stations is always the answer, but one has to look not only at fire potential but also call volume. Yes, lots of big houses in Greenwich. How many have burned to the ground in recent years? What is being done to cover the areas currently? I know there is a large section of Greenwich that is partially covered by Banksville, NY. Just like we have areas in Stamford that are dual responses with both Banksville and Greenwich. I don't want to totally depend on mutual aid, but it is a factor in resource management. Glad to see the other articles posted, as from what I got in this thread the main complaint was posting only a single article. As for how biased that is, well remember that the President of CBS has been quoted as saying there is no more unbiased news coverage. Like it or not the newspapers are going to take a side and that will extend into every article they write, not just their editorials.

The Olympics have run out of Stamford for years, for quite a while the NBC Sports control room was in a nondescript office at Landmark Square. It faced out onto Atlantic St above what is now Station Eats restaurant. As a matter of fact during the last Summer Olympics, the restaurant had to curtail their live outdoor music because it was interfering with the work being done above them. Now with the move to the old Clairol site, they have expanded their operations to cover other aspects of NBC sports.

As far as I know from a retired Trooper who used to work that area, general patrol is done by NYSP but CSP responds to all incidents there. There is an interstate compact between CT & NY that allows them to back each other up on both sides of the line as needed / requested however each state is still primary in their area. I am not sure about FD/EMS but I don't see Greenwich being able to respond up there in a timely manner.

While there are stark differences in the jobs, I don't believe any of these have ever been brought up in negotiations over pensions. If this were the case why does EMS not have all the same benefits that other field personnel does? It is all well and good to talk about respect, but when push comes to shove dispatchers get the table scraps left over after the "real" contracts are negotiated.