M' Ave

There are is a Captains Development course, I think it's a couple of weeks long. I believe there is a Chiefs Developmemt course as well, but they may go through that course before promotion or a little while after after, depending on course availablility.

Okay.....the concrete info: The 10-code is a Starfire code, but only for the dispatcher to input. There will be no change in how the Battalion/Division Aide reports control of the incident.

Where did you hear this? No one in the firehouse has heard this. That said.....old habits die hard and I think you'll hear this one in plain English for a long time/forever.

Every time the IC gives a progress report, they give a condition of the incident. "Doubtful will hold" is given if it is doubtful that the incident will be mitigated with the units on scene. "Probable will hold" means that units are making progress and this state precedes "under control".

We're still using those terms. If something is going to change, no ones let us know in the field.

I see all this talk about not responding to a request for mutual Aid.....stick it to City Hall and what not... Trouble is, City Hall and the mayor aren't requesting Mutual Aid. The incident commander is making the request and he's doing so because the brothers on the line, or the floor above (or wherever) need help. So....who are we hurting first and foremost. Personally, I feel a dept. should be able to handle a bread and butter room and contents fire alone. If you don't have the manpower to stretch/operate at least the first line AND simultaneously vent and perform a primary search, you're ineffective. I can handle a FAST unit request, that's understandable.

Ernie Davis is a crook. He's, perhaps not-so-shockingly, held that position for far too long.....too bad, that city should flourish, but it doesn't.

Correct.....however the way they are being used is both possibly illegal and most definitely not in keeping with the reason that the FDNY was granted subpoena powers.

This is the second instance of the FDNY subpoenaing phone records of an employee in 6 months. How is this okay? I didn't realize a subpoena could be used as a net, to be cast out and see what could be gotten..... The lesson? Speak out against an injustice and get slapped for it!

Sweeney is out already? Wow, seems like it was just yesterday he took that job. What happened?

Of the rigs on your list, those up to Eng. 89 have already been replaced with 2014 Seagrave engines. They were part of a post Sandy add-on order. Eng. 153 has a new KME in service and Eng. 97 may also have theirs in service as well. All companies through (at least) Eng. 52 have completed new apparatus training and expect thier new rig anyday. I've driven the KME (KP14001) a couple times and I thought it drove really well. Nicer cab set-up for the chauffeur than the Seagrave. Nothing major, just a couple little things. There were a few cab and body components that felt A LITTLE cheap, but we'll see.

I was just coming in from an ERS run when the 5-5-5-5 signal was transmitted around 3:30am. This is a sad day. My heart goes out to his wife and children.....

It also served in E283 before going back to the rock. The first KME engine is in service with several more to come this month.

I love the claim, "it's not just a regular wrench that you can buy at Home Depot, no one can get this wrench". You mean like the Custodian that we have all over the city........no one has that wrench, yet the locals open hydrants everyday......

Look, I'm an active and vocal member of Merit Matters, in the FDNY. I'm endlessly critical of the Vulcans, the judge in this case and the whole liberal agenda here. Guys got screwed and failures were rewarded. However..... Let's not allow the conversation about this article to focus on the negative here. There was little written about the lawsuit and the Priority Quota Hire. What the article did do is tell a really well worded story about a great save. It broke down the job of firefighting in a way that the general public can understand and it made us look good.....for a change. It highlighted the job, described it's difficulties and shed some light on our work ethic and devotion. If these days of pension and union hatred and a world of people forgetting what firemen do..... ....I'll take the positive press.

Well written, puts things into lay-mans terms nicely.

^^^^ I don't see how that applies. Okay, all members of the military can own weapons while serving and retired. Switzerland is a poor comparison.

Yup....pretty close. From the cab back they're essentially identical. From the cab forward.....some slight cosmetic differences. Very small stuff. Front windshield angle, crew cab doors, little stuff.

I couldn't agree more. Gun control, far from the only answer. However, you can't pass a law that shreds the first amendment while everyone else stands on the second. Freedom of the press and all..... Look, this turned into a referendum on the 2nd amendment, which was not my intention. The answer isn't simply gun control. However, to not address gun use and availability at all is similarly nearsighted. The numbers don't lie. Countries with stricter gun laws or little gun culture have far fewer mass casualty incidents and this incidents result in fewer deaths. I own a gun. I'm not on the sidelines, but I don't believe that the 2nd is all it's cracked up to be and I'm not worried that the gov't is going to take away my long gun. People just have to get real about some reasonable restrictions, and I'm not talking about nonsense like Cuomo put in place last year....... ......or we could all go out to lunch at Chillis with our AR's.....like O.C.T.?

Pretty terrible idea..... The obvious and already stated aside; FD and EMS typically enjoy an amicable relationship with the community. For the most part, everyone know's we're there to help. We're unarmed, walking in and out of troubled buildings and developments. This goes double for EMS, who typically ride only double. I'm not a cop, I don't carry a firearm or hand-cuffs. I have no interest in performing the task they perform, they're already proficient. All things considered, I'm not looking to jeopardize my safety to act as a physical deterrent, and a poor one at best. They wanna lower crime, they should hire more cops!

I think we've covered the few facts that are available so far. He has had a couple of surgeries, most urgently to restore circulation to his arm. We don't know exactly what happened and very well may never know. Those in command will certainly review the events and take any necessary action to insure that we learn from tragic mis-haps so that we can improve our operations in the future. If anyone has new, concrete information about the injured brother, please start a status thread.

Where does it say, "The People" are Law-abiding U.S. citizens? Is there a hidden glossary? You, and others interpreted it to mean that. How about, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."? We no longer have militia because they are no longer necessary to the security of a free state. Does that invalidate the whole amendment? Again....room for interpretation. As for, "no constitutional scholars can legitimately refute my statements", I beg to differ. One third of the federal Gov't, a body of nine people, is solely responsible for doing just that. You might say that we have 9 constitutional scholars who interpret that document and it's impact on today's society. You yourself say so in stating that, "non of the court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation". Again that word.....interpret. Perhaps we interpret the word arms to refer simply to the arms that existed in 1776....huh, who knows... You're opinions are not wrong, your views simply run contrary to mine. Your absolution-ist stance is where you lose. There is a great deal of gray, very little black and white.

Well....seeing as it's hotly debated, I don't see my understanding as misinformed at all. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say, "every law-abiding" or "In case you want to join a militia". I'm more than certain that people who are more than self-proclaimed constitutional scholars could refute your statements thoroughly. #2' the whole thing: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In U.S. vs. Cruikshank, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd didn't give the right to bear arms. In U.S. vs. Miller SCOTUS gave authorities the right to govern and restrict firearms not associated with a functioning regulated militia. In Miller vs. Chicago the court gave more latitude to the 2nd by applying the 14th and equal protections to citizens. And the debate rages on........but don't presume to take a position that I'm illinformed.

Gun control is certainly is certainly a "one solution" answer to a complex problem......but data certainly points to it being the most effective component. It shouldn't be the only answer to this issue, but it should at least be part of the solution. Anyone who suggests that restrictions on gun ownership would have no impact is lying to themselves and everyone they speak to. From 2000-2010 there were 26 shooting incidents with multiple casualties in the U.S.. Population approx. 310,000,000 Stacked against countries, with stricter gun laws, that comprise half the worlds population (England, China, India, France, Denmark, Israel and 30 more) there were only 27 equivelant events. In half of those countries there were no mass shooting events. Total population approx. 3,900,000,000 So, in the United States: 1/10th the population + lax gun laws (and a few things of minor significance) = 26 mass shootings in a decade. But let's not discuss gun laws.....because the 2nd amendment guarantees organized militia members may own them. How many militias are left in the U.S.? Oh, that's right......ZERO.

Yes yes..... Boy, sticklers!