AFS1970

I think allot of departments have informal codes of conduct, in the form of By-Laws and SOP's/SOG's. I know that my fire department's By-Laws say what do do in cases of bad conduct, but don't directly define good conduct. We then have different section in both the By-Laws and various SOP's that are conduct related. I out together a proposal for a Code of Conduct once, but it died in committee. I will be the first one to admit that it was a knee jerk reaction to a single incident, and I hate rules that come out that way. I think everyone realized that it wasn't the solution we, as a department, were really looking for. While looking for something else, I actually came across that proposal, and some of the sections in it, have since been made into SOP's. While I was researching the proposal, I found the best sources to be school athletic programs, they had some of the best common sense & reasonable rules of conduct. No matter what the rule is, it has to be something that people can actually live with (and up to) and it has to be easily enforcible. In my opinion if the rule is not both of those, then you are better off without the rule.

The best way to start something like this would be to look at it from a positive point of view. It is not about finding out what is wrong, it is about finding out what is good. Basically this could take the form of an accredidation program. A voluntary standard is set, and because of the pride/honor/joy of being an accredited agency, departments actually want to be inspected. This has been going on in the Law Enforcement world for quite a while now. Some of the accredited agencies are quite small in size and focus, others are large in major metropolitan areas. If a reasonable standard is set this could work. The biggest thing to me would be that whatever standard is finally agreed upon has to be up to date. ISO is very much behind the times in terms of equipment requirements. It also would have to be a single standard, not split like NFPA 1710 & 1720, so the wording of the standard would have to be something reachable by everyone, but still meaningful from a safety standpoint.

A-1 Ambulance (Stamford) Ace Ambulance (Fairfield) Glenbrook FD Ambulance (Stamford) Springdale FD Ambulance (Stamford) Bridgeport Ambulance And if we really want to take a trip in the wayback machine: Stamford Hospital Ambulance (disbanded around the 1930's I think)

Yes, allot of the time we have to do the 90 mile run (from Stamford) to the state academy, but CT does have a regional fire school system, that is roughly done by county. There is no county government and the various schools are largely independent, but they work well for local area departments. Fairfield County now has two, one in Fairfield and one in Stamford. Stamford is new as a regional school, but they have been bringing in some good classes, from instructors both in and out of state. Individual departments are able to bring in state classes two ways. You can always contract a class, pay the cost to the state and charge attendees to reclaim the cost. You can also apply to host a State class on the regular calendar, but you don't always get all the classes you want that way.

I actually had a post on another board get quoted in a newspaper article, but the reporter accused me of hiding behind what I thought was my well known nickname. That is one of the reasons why I make no effort to hide who I am here or on the other Fire Service related boards I post to. But that honesty does come with a price, the price is that we must always be aware of what we are saying and how it will be perceived by our departments. However, everyone on this board should be able to realize that we are a collection of individuals and thus our posts are made as individuals. I know there are more than a few Chiefs who post here, but I try to read their posts as just one of the guys, because that’s what a forum like this is all about. The internet has allowed us to converse and debate with many more people than we likely would have otherwise. Just as everything we do here reflects on our department(s), nothing we do here should be accepted as our department’s official viewpoint unless specifically stated as such. We need to be able to say where we are from as a matter of credibility. Just as rank, age, & experience factor into this, so does affiliation. Whatever you think about me from reading my posts here, you'd probably think about me if you met me in person.

Very well done, nice choice in music, and a great touch at the end with the dedication.

It seems like a lot of this discussion is NY State specific, so being from CT my perspective may be a little off. But as for the original question, is FF1 enough? I don’t think there can ever be such a thing as enough training. Too much changes in life (especially in the fire service) to ever stop learning. Is FF1 enough to give you the basic skills to perform on most fire grounds? I think so, but there is a reason that the same NFPA 1001 standard includes FF2, because you need them both to complete the training cycle. In CT our FF1 is around 120 hours, and FF2 is the same length, so I guess 240 is not bad compared to some classes. Our State Fire Academy, Probie School which is used by many cities as their career fire academy, is 12 weeks long and about to go up to 14 weeks long. So it is moving from 480 to 560 hours. Would I like to see everyone trained to the same level, with the same number of hours, sure. But remember that it is easy to require an employee that must be there for 40 (or more) hours a week to do something that long. Most classes I have taken have been held 1 or 2 nights a week with some weekend days. If we assume 2 nights and 1 day each week, for 16 hours per week, we have 35 weeks or approximately 8 months to complete the same hours of training. This is why classes in the Volunteer Fire Departments are split up into more manageable blocks of time. I would love to see Firefighter Safety & Survival (16 Hours), Rapid Intervention Team (16 Hours), Structural Firefighting (16 Hours of additional practical work), and Flashover Survival (8 Hours) become part of FF1 or FF2, but some of this also depends on training site cost, location and availability. The best Instructors I have had, or worked with, do their best to get brief introductions of these topics included within their FF1 & FF2 classes, but the more information that is not test related you include, you run the risk of people failing because they remember the wrong part of the class. It is a catch 22 for certain.

While I posted before that I think the best uniforms are the ones that have their own identity, I also am in favor of certain things to tie us all in. On the Lighthouse Uniform page they had a set of sleeve stripes for different ranks, that were different from the ones I have seen on most every police and fire uniform. Here is something where we could all get together on and have similar rank markings. Even if the actual titles aren't the same, where they fall in the structure is usually evident that way.

The article on pranks was very good. I liked the fact that there is even a sample policy included. Then I got to thinking, what does this say about us as a society when we have to have a policy on humor? I know there is such a thing as taking a joke too far, but at some point, we are going to have to get back to dealing with each other like human beings and stop running to the courthouse because our coffee is too hot.

Does anyone know of a good reputable company that still repairs Motorola Minitor II's? The company we have been using now says they are all unrepairable. We did find one place but it has a flat rate of $70 for all diagnosis and repairs. The old company was $10 to diagnose and repairs billed at the actual work rate, but rarely above $60. IT would be a shame to get rid of pagers that still have some life in them, and really have monor problems with them, just because companies are in a rush to sell newer ones.

Self dispatching is just another word for freelancing. Most of us have rules against that, don't we? I can think of a few incidents both when I was in Dispatch, and when I was responding with the FD that relate well to these. I don't think any of them were strictly speaking, acceptible, but most had acceptible outcomes. 1) At the house fire, additional units were requested from a neighboring department. The dispatcher sent those units. A unit that was out of service but likely would have been sent if it had been in service, went back in service and responded to the call. That unit did get put to work, and there was no real problem other than they should have asked if they were needed not just assumed they could go. 2) A reported house fire in a blizard, just before noon time. Due to a lot of factors, there was an above average initial response. The normal response included an Engine from a neighboring department and thier tanker due to the weather. They in fact sent at least two engines and the tanker, and I believe a rescue, many of which were on the road shoveling out hydrants and called out as "in the area and responding" despite all these units the IC still called for an aditional engine and RIT from another dept. This lead to more people than could be put to work, because the fire was not as big as initially reported. 3) A Chief from one department, happens to be in the area when another department gets a report of a fire. He arrives before any first due units, but never says ont he radio that he is responding or on the scene. He calls by phone to have an Engine and Rescue from his dept respond because he thinks the first due companies might need the help. First due companies found out they were getting help when they heard more units being dispatched over the radio, which cause some confusion. 4) A fire is reported in an area of town where the 1st due units are out on an alarm call. The 2nd & 3rd due units are sent and report a fire. 1 1st due unit announces that they are redirecting themselves to the scene of the fire. When the alarm call is finished another 1st due unit says they are in the area and responding in case they are needed. With these two extra units going, a 3rd realizes that noone has been assigned over the radio as the RIT and asks if they are needed for that, which they are since if there is one, it hasn't been announced. Each of these involved self dispatching to some extent. I think that most of these were well intentioned. I will make the bold statement that none of us has ever maliciously responded to a call. But the same argument can be made about on scene freelancing. Well chief I thought I was doing something good. As hard as it is, we need to take a step back and see what is happening and what is needed before jumping in head first. This is where standing tactics are a great idea. It is not freelancing to follow preplanned tactics without waiting for specific orders from the IC.

I like the idea of opening up the LE forum as well. As for sensitive information, well we really shouldn't be posting that in any of the forums. I think self-censorship is a good idea, it is really the solution to many of the problems faced on forums or all types over the years. As for the Special Operations forum, I like that idea also, but so many things there will have crossover between Fire, EMS & Law Enforcement, that it may be difficult to seperate those areas from some of the existing areas.

I think that Class A's for EMS are a good idea. The best ones I have seen have been the ones that didn't look like PD or FD because of the color. I remember the old NYC EMS green class A's, it really set them apart. Of course NYC Sanitation wears a slightly different green for their Class A's. I have never seen Boston's but I know their duty uniforms are Brown & Tan and I can see that working for a unique Class A. I think that EMS lost a bit of uniform identity when they merged with FDNY and started wearing the blue uniforms. As for some uniforms being either PD or FD, the main difference in Jackets is the breast pockets. I have a friend who is a past Chief at a VAC in Queens and his Class A looks exactly like a PD Class A. Same color, same badge shape, very similar colar brass. The patch is the only readily visible difference. When I was trying to find a variation on our FD's class A for our Fire Police unit, the main difference was the 8 pointed hat instead of the bell cap. Since we are limited as to uniform componants, I'm sure that someone will wear a uniform that might be confused with another servivce or agency. I don't think anyone is really trying for this effect, I think it just happens.

Not having any klind of a LOSAP, I have always thought that one of the best punishments would be to restrict the social aspect of the members participation. Go through the normal process of verbal and written warnings, but when suspension comes up, instead of taking an otherwise useful firefighter away (which is really just like giving them a vacation anyway) restrict their attendance at the next social function, be it a picnic, muster, Christmas party or such. Since these social functions are, in a way, kind of like our benefits package as a volunteer, it seems to me that such restrictions are as close as you can get to a financial penalty.

One of the best arguments for the driver staying with the rig, is that fire scenes are (to say the least) dynamic. Things can change very fast, and that rig we didn't need at first may be needed now. At least the driver can get into a better position if he is with the rig. Manpower being what it is, especially on truck companies, sometimes the driver is an integral part of the crew, and staying with the rig is not feasible. As for the front of the building, even though we do not always want that postion it is the most common for a first due truck. There are places we go where we have preplanned to put the truck in the rear on on a particular side. There are others where we go to the front, and we really should be somewhere else. Either way, unless there is a good reason not to be in front of the building, that spot should be left open for the truck, just like the hydrant should be left open for an engine.

I guess that Sadam is #3.

This is something we really should look into adding. As for the neighborhood, we had a coat and helmet stolen out of our engine while the crew was on an EMS call, on a quiet side street. It can and will happen.

Since this seans to be all about safety, let me play devils advocate for a bit. Yes we could probably figure out a safety system for Santa. They slay in that picture looks to be tied down to the rig. We could likely make some type of harness for the rider, and in all probability we could keep Santa alive for at least one more Christmas. However, those sections from NYS Vehicle law seem to be the deciding factor. regardless of how many injuries have occured in the past or even hom many may occur in the future, it appears that such riding is illegal in New York. I have been a part of Fire Engine rides for the public, and I know the lengthy steps that we had to go through with our insurance company to be permitted to do such a ride. The big factor there was safety of all pasengers, both public and firefighters. I also know how popular this kind of event can be. I for one think it would be great if we could find a way to keep these traditions going, while being compliant with all the applicable laws, standards and regulations. I will be the first to say that I don't know the solution, but finding one would be better than arguing over if there is even a problem to solve or not.

While agree that a criver should be a part of the crew if the vehicle is not needed, the key is to park it out of the way. This discussion came up the other night in my station as we have drivers that will leave a Truck in the middle of a commercial driveway and walk away, in at least one instance preventing all other units (including the IC) from driving in any further towards the building. Then again we also have drivers that will stage the 1st due truck outside on the street unless they get a personal invitation to go to the front of the building. So a little bit of thought as to placement, and the whole crew can go in and work together. Jason, thanks for mentioning the 4th due truck, by the way. X152, you must remember it, white, red stripe, quartered a little north of 1 Co?

I am not so sure it is possible to ever beat a topic to death. If the discussion is still active, then it is still important to someone or a few someones. As for the same old rhetoric, well that is a misnomer. If I make a statement and someone else post that they agree or makes a similar post in support of mine, I don't think that is a case of the same old rhetoric. Especially with the 5,000 plus members on this site, the likelyhood of some of us agreeing with someone else seems pretty high. If someone post a disagreement with me, even if the conflicting argument is well known, it is certainly not the same old rhetoric either. The only time I can see this getting to be a problem, is if a single poster begins to put identical or nearly identical posts up in the same topic, and really adds nothing new to the discussion. That would I guess be just the same old rhetoric. I agree with EMTBravo, that the topic is relevant until a solution has been achieved. I also would add that as long as it is relevant to one member of these forums, it should be at leased considered as valid for discussion by the rest of us. If someone doesn't have anything to add to a topic, then simply ignore it. There is no rule that says one has to reply to every post. Some topics are of interest to only a small number of the general membership, so be it. Once again, I am a big proponant of taking whatever action needs to be taken against abusive posters, but letting discussions live as long as the do and die a natural death on their own. Since topics are automatically locked after a period with no replies, this should really take care of itself. If noone considers it relevant enough to post, it will go away.

The solution to this problem is best left to local rule, simply because while the fire service is certainly a single service, we are far from unified. The reasons that there are so many answers to this debate, is that solutions are as varied as the departments that are seeking them. But as someone else has said, the problem is not drinking. The problem is drinking and responding. We already have rules about driving under the influence, what the fire service needs is a regulation on responding under the influence. We do need to solve this, because if we do not tackle this from within, it will be settled from outside and none of us really wants that. I visited a friend’s firehouse in Long Island once and saw they had a bar. I was surprised because we have no bar in my station and I haven’t seen an active bar locally. The rules for the bar were explained to me, and I have to say I was impressed with the safety precautions they had in place. Chief among them was no one responds when they have been drinking. The case in Wisconsin was even worse, that posted here. The driver had multiple DUI arrests and was sentenced to weekends in jail during the incident. He did not inform the Chief or the Department of this, and they had no idea why he wasn’t around on the weekends. Obviously this sort of thing can’t be left up to the honor system, if people won’t tell a Chief. The Chief can’t be expected to restrict a member if he doesn’t know what’s really going on. I have long heard stories of the days when there was always a keg on tap at my fire station. Times have changed. We no longer have that keg on tap. But the problem is not drinking in the firehouse, because I can get just as drunk in a local bar or right here at home, and respond when the tones go off. The problem in my opinion is all in the response. I don’t care one way or another if a member drinks when they are not planning on responding to calls. While lawyers do have the legal expertise, and we should count on their advise. The fire service should not rely to heavily on lawyers, as they will but such sever restriction on everything that it will both be hard to do our jobs and attract other to become firefighters in the future. The IAFC addressed this problem, without regard to payroll status. The IAFC standard says no responding or being on duty within six hours of drinking. Obvious impairment will make itself known to any officer who cares to notice. If there is no impairment, then there really is no issue.

If that is the one out of the Bronx, I know it responded mutual aid to assist our canteen at the Canal St fire in Stamford. There were three Salvation Army Canteens there, Stamford's, The Bronx, and I believe Bridgeport. On a side note, Stamford's canteen which is new to us (only a couple of years in town) is a 1978 truck that formerly served in Providence, RI and Philladelphia, PA. It is quartered at the Salvation Army Corps, outside in the rear parking lot. I will try to find out about the NYC one, and see if I can get you a phot shoot. I know I have a picture of the Canteens together on Canal St, I will have to look for it.

I like the theme. Nice job with the decorations...lol

I think having certain requirements for a mutual aid crew over and above your regular crew is really missing the point. If you are saying you will only send your best out of district, are you saying that your own distrcit can settle for second best? Unless the request is for a specialized skill or team, it should not matter. You should be advocating your highest standard on all your crews. I realize this doesn't always happen, but it should remain the goal none the less. If I have someone I can't take out of district with me, then I probably don't want to take them with me in district either. As for coverage remaining back in district, this is an interesting debate that goes on in my station. One school of thought is to handle one call at a time, go whereever you are sent and if mutual aid is needed for any other calls then so be it. The other school of thought is of course, that we should always send a small crew out and hold back the remainder of the department, just in case a second call comes in. Here is a related question....when called to relocate to another station for coverage, should you bring as big a crew as your apparatus can safely hold, or should you only send a minimal crew? For years we have sent a 4 man crew if we relocated, but as apparatus has changed all of our first due rigs now seat six. My feeling, although I am in the minority, is that if you are relocating then the department you are covering is already shorthanded. Bringing extra manpower when avalible can't be anything other than beneficial. I wouldn't delay a response waiting for a larger crew, but if they were avalible, I would certainly bring them with me. Just a thought.

I remember the old EMERGENCY! airpack. They don't make toys like that anymore.