Putnam Valley Fatal Accident

[Guest]

Date: 04/10/08

Time: approximately 1900 hours (?)

Location: TSP northbound lanes MM 24.9 (between Bryant Pond and Peekskill Hollow Roads)

Frequency: numerous

Units Operating: NY State Police, Putnam Valley FD and VAC, DOT HELP Trucks

Description Of Incident: Fatal MVA - more to follow

Writer: Chris192

This is Putnam Valleys second fatal in a little over a week. My neighbor was killed on the second of this month in a car accident in Putnam Valley on the Taconic.

[helicopper 1,050]

Does anyone know if any of the other bikes traveling with the deceased bothered to stop after the crash?

It won't be Put Valley's last either the way they drive on the TSP!

[brian19fd 22]

I drove past the scene last night- 2 cars and 2 bikes were involved in the accident. From what i heard from the fd crew there were a couple other bikes with the group, whether they stopped or not, I dont know.

Some other details- 1 pt was transported to WMC via Put Valley 34-7-2, 1 pt was transported by Put Valley 34-7-1 to the LZ which was transported to WMC via Air 1

If I hear anymore, Ill let you all know...

[JetPhoto 626]

I heard the road was closed for over 6 hours, true?

[JRS2817 1]

its really bad around that part of the TSP

[JRS2817 1]

at what time did this happen?

[helicopper 1,050]

The IC at the accident scene was 24-1-1.

Yes--2 motorcycles & 2 vehicles.

I don't recall 34-7-2 transporting anyone. They were put on standby and then released by the IC and Medic. 34-7-1 transported 1 male to the LZ (secured by 24-4-2 and 24-1-2) where Stat Air One was waiting for them.

Putnam County Fire Police were NOT on the scene. Traffic control was handled by Putnam Valley's Fire Police. 24-2-1 was set up at the Bryant Pond Rd exit ramp for the road closure. After the sun set, 2-1 was reloacted to the scene for lighting and 24-8-1 and 24-1-2 handled the road closure. The road was closed until sometime after midnight-- lost track of time to be honest. So the 5-6 hour range is about right. NYSP along with PVFD Fire Police got all the Northbound vehicles that were "trapped" turned around so they could exit at BPR.

The Fire Police did an outstanding job controlling traffic as did everyone involved in the latest tragedy on the TSP.

On a side note--for those who travel the parkway--of you ever get off an exit in the Valley and see those alternate route signs guiding motorists back to the parkway (past the incident) -- I must say--they have been such a great help.

The stretch we cover is probably one of the worst around. It would not be as bad if people just slowed down and payed attention but we cannot control that.

I think I touched on most of the details. It was a long night for all of us up there.

I heard the road was closed for over 6 hours, true?

Given the nature of the accident there was a lot to investigate so six hours is not all that uncommon - unfortunately. The scene needs to be photographed, everything measured, including tire marks and they can be hundreds of feet long sometimes (times 4 per vehicle). Sadly, as much as technology improves to make the job easier, it still takes time.

On the subject of who the IC was, I'm teeing this up for DISCUSSION! It has nothing to do with the Put Valley FD, its chief or anyone else involved in last night's incident. The question was simply brought on by a post about last night but it could be asked anywhere at any time. If you take my post personally and get defensive you're missing the point!

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the fire chief is the IC at this incident? Once the hazards were mitigated and victims removed, the scene properly belonged to the State Police for investigation. In reality, the fire chief could have left once those issues were resolved. Scenes such as this can often become or at least be considered crime scenes so why jump to the conclusion that the fire chief is the IC?

I don't understand why we cling to the perception that the fire chief is the IC at every scene he/she shows up at? We perpetuate the myth that the fire chief is in charge of everything exacerbating the rift between the disciplines when there are times that the FD is clearly a supporting agency and not a lead agency. Why do we do that?

The State Police clearly had a responsibility at this incident, they have jurisdiction, they decided what roads/lanes would be closed and for how long, they determined when vehicles could be towed, etc. If these are not the actions of the IC what are they?

Let me again state that this has nothing to do with last night specifically or the Put Valley FD! As another member likes to say, don't take it personally! Alright, let the discussion commence! But please don't just tell me that it's this way because it's always been this way. That's getting pretty old!

Finally, a question that will undoubtedly have a much more simple answer. What's 24-8-1?

[EJS1810 7]

24-8-1 i believe is the former Chief's pickup with an utilty body installed on it

[helicopper 1,050]

24-8-1 i believe is the former Chief's pickup with an utilty body installed on it

Thanks, I was informed by another member that 8's are utility units.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Good post Chris. I seem to remember having this conversation in the basement of a certain hospital we are familiar with after some incidents arose at a MVA in the area we operated in together.

To further strengthen Chris192's input...what he is referring to is how there was more than "1" IC operating on that scene.

Fire = IC

EMS= IC

PD= IC

Unified command....it works!

[PVFD113 6]

On the subject of who the IC was, I'm teeing this up for DISCUSSION! It has nothing to do with the Put Valley FD, its chief or anyone else involved in last night's incident. The question was simply brought on by a post about last night but it could be asked anywhere at any time. If you take my post personally and get defensive you're missing the point!

Well--in a way it does sound that way--but if you say so.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the fire chief is the IC at this incident? Once the hazards were mitigated and victims removed, the scene properly belonged to the State Police for investigation. In reality, the fire chief could have left once those issues were resolved. Scenes such as this can often become or at least be considered crime scenes so why jump to the conclusion that the fire chief is the IC?

The IC was listed at the beginning because he was the IC. As you said--after the "emergency" was over, the FD was there for support operations--so command was turned over to SP and 24-1-1 became the FD ops command.

I don't understand why we cling to the perception that the fire chief is the IC at every scene he/she shows up at? We perpetuate the myth that the fire chief is in charge of everything exacerbating the rift between the disciplines when there are times that the FD is clearly a supporting agency and not a lead agency. Why do we do that?

The State Police clearly had a responsibility at this incident, they have jurisdiction, they decided what roads/lanes would be closed and for how long, they determined when vehicles could be towed, etc. If these are not the actions of the IC what are they?

And although the NYSP may have jurisdiction--I will close the lane, road or what ever for the safety of my crew--if someone has a beef with that then--well too bad. My people come first. After the incident--and the FD is finished with their ops. then the SP can do what they want with the road. That is my opinion--you can agree or not--just my opinion.

Let me again state that this has nothing to do with last night specifically or the Put Valley FD! As another member likes to say, don't take it personally! Alright, let the discussion commence! But please don't just tell me that it's this way because it's always been this way. That's getting pretty old!

Like I said--not taken totally personally--but in some ways--maybe a bit. I was simply trying to add and/or clarify some details.

Finally, a question that will undoubtedly have a much more simple answer. What's 24-8-1?

I believe the county numbering system is on the pcbes web site. If not I can always post it here.

Thanks for not taking my response personally.

[FirNaTine 370]

That's what happens unfortunately Chris when your a member of a Dept. that doesn't see much work, whether it be Career, Combo or Volunteer. Everybody want's to be in charge or at least get their fair share of work to say they at least did something. If your not needed, GO HOME! Get ready for the next BIG ONE!

[brian19fd 22]

The IC at the accident scene was 24-1-1.

Yes--2 motorcycles & 2 vehicles.

I don't recall 34-7-2 transporting anyone. They were put on standby and then released by the IC and Medic. 34-7-1 transported 1 male to the LZ (secured by 24-4-2 and 24-1-2) where Stat Air One was waiting for them.

Putnam County Fire Police were NOT on the scene. Traffic control was handled by Putnam Valley's Fire Police. 24-2-1 was set up at the Bryant Pond Rd exit ramp for the road closure. After the sun set, 2-1 was reloacted to the scene for lighting and 24-8-1 and 24-1-2 handled the road closure. The road was closed until sometime after midnight-- lost track of time to be honest. So the 5-6 hour range is about right. NYSP along with PVFD Fire Police got all the Northbound vehicles that were "trapped" turned around so they could exit at BPR.

The Fire Police did an outstanding job controlling traffic as did everyone involved in the latest tragedy on the TSP.

On a side note--for those who travel the parkway--of you ever get off an exit in the Valley and see those alternate route signs guiding motorists back to the parkway (past the incident) -- I must say--they have been such a great help.

The stretch we cover is probably one of the worst around. It would not be as bad if people just slowed down and payed attention but we cannot control that.

I think I touched on most of the details. It was a long night for all of us up there.

I may be incorrect with my post, but when i first arrived on the scene, well passing it- one of your ambulances had a pt being packaged and continued southbond on the TSP, then your 2nd rig arrived after the southbound lane was closed to transport one to the LZ... Maybe i was mistaken, but just throwin out there what i honestly thought i saw...

Also in regards to the Utility question- for Putnam county 24-8-1 falls under the utility category...

Edited April 12, 2008 by brian19fd

[JJB531 652]

That's what happens unfortunately Chris when your a member of a Dept. that doesn't see much work, whether it be Career, Combo or Volunteer. Everybody want's to be in charge or at least get their fair share of work to say they at least did something. If your not needed, GO HOME! Get ready for the next BIG ONE!

Agreed 100%... unforutnately for some individuals it's all about pounding their chests and throwing their perceived importance around...

[PVFD113 6]

Why does everything here seem to get personal. I was simply trying to get so things straightened out and people are getting offended and making personal attacks--more indirect ones but still.

Like I said--I was only trying to give the correct or updated info since I was there. If personal attacks were not meant then why was the issues brought up by Chris moved to a separate thread not related to this incident. If I am looking for info on the accident--I would choose this thread. If I was looking to converse about IC and so on--I would look for a thread related to that.

Not to say valid points were not brought up--they were--but seemed to be an indirect shot and maybe better suited in another thread.

Brian--wasn't trying to ruffle your feathers, I gave the short version of the ambulance situation. Yes one transported to the lz, and the other was released from the scene and did a "drive by" so to speak in route back to quarters.

And since we are all adults here--if someone has a problem with me or what I say, please feel free to contact ME so we can constructively discuss the issue.

Thank You and have a good night

[helicopper 1,050]

On the subject of who the IC was, I'm teeing this up for DISCUSSION! It has nothing to do with the Put Valley FD, its chief or anyone else involved in last night's incident. The question was simply brought on by a post about last night but it could be asked anywhere at any time. If you take my post personally and get defensive you're missing the point!

Well--in a way it does sound that way--but if you say so.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the fire chief is the IC at this incident? Once the hazards were mitigated and victims removed, the scene properly belonged to the State Police for investigation. In reality, the fire chief could have left once those issues were resolved. Scenes such as this can often become or at least be considered crime scenes so why jump to the conclusion that the fire chief is the IC?

The IC was listed at the beginning because he was the IC. As you said--after the "emergency" was over, the FD was there for support operations--so command was turned over to SP and 24-1-1 became the FD ops command.

I don't understand why we cling to the perception that the fire chief is the IC at every scene he/she shows up at? We perpetuate the myth that the fire chief is in charge of everything exacerbating the rift between the disciplines when there are times that the FD is clearly a supporting agency and not a lead agency. Why do we do that?

The State Police clearly had a responsibility at this incident, they have jurisdiction, they decided what roads/lanes would be closed and for how long, they determined when vehicles could be towed, etc. If these are not the actions of the IC what are they?

And although the NYSP may have jurisdiction--I will close the lane, road or what ever for the safety of my crew--if someone has a beef with that then--well too bad. My people come first. After the incident--and the FD is finished with their ops. then the SP can do what they want with the road. That is my opinion--you can agree or not--just my opinion.

Let me again state that this has nothing to do with last night specifically or the Put Valley FD! As another member likes to say, don't take it personally! Alright, let the discussion commence! But please don't just tell me that it's this way because it's always been this way. That's getting pretty old!

Like I said--not taken totally personally--but in some ways--maybe a bit. I was simply trying to add and/or clarify some details.

Finally, a question that will undoubtedly have a much more simple answer. What's 24-8-1?

I believe the county numbering system is on the pcbes web site. If not I can always post it here.

Thanks for not taking my response personally.

ALSfirefighter made the point but I'll reaffirm it here. The fire chief at an incident like this was one of the IC's. The State Police supervisor was also an IC as was the ranking member of EMS, DOT if they were there, etc. The fire chief had no authority over the State Police, DOT, or EMS (in a non-FD based EMS area) so it really was unified command. When properly using ICS, the IC is in charge of all the resources operating and that's clearly not the case in NY where PD, FD, EMS, and other agencies all have responsibility and authority.

As for closing lanes or whatever else for safety, anyone can do that - the HELP truck, the tow truck, the PD, the FD, whomever. That doesn't make them the IC!

We need to start using ICS in the manner intended instead of sticking blindly to single command.

Still not taking or making anything personal!

[Medic137 6]

As the first medic on the scene I was technically "EMS IC". However, given the limited size of this particular incident, there was no need for me to stand back and coordinate numerous EMS resources. After assessing the patients I told 24-1-1 what I wanted and left it up to him to provided scene safety, set up an LZ, and get an ambulance through traffic to the scene. I was then free to treat the patients without having to worry about getting tire tracks up the back of my neck, or deal with radio communications (always a challenge in Putnam County).

The type of command structure used should be dictated by the scope of the incident.

[helicopper 1,050]

As the first medic on the scene I was technically "EMS IC". However, given the limited size of this particular incident, there was no need for me to stand back and coordinate numerous EMS resources. After assessing the patients I told 24-1-1 what I wanted and left it up to him to provided scene safety, set up an LZ, and get an ambulance through traffic to the scene. I was then free to treat the patients without having to worry about getting tire tracks up the back of my neck, or deal with radio communications (always a challenge in Putnam County).

The type of command structure used should be dictated by the scope of the incident.

Excellent points! The one fallacy in our traditional approach is that the fire chief is "in charge" of non-fire resources. That is simply not the case making unified command the best alternative. True, you don't need EMS in unified command if they're only using a couple of single resources.

Just out of curiosity, where was the LZ for this particular accident?

[PVFD113 6]

Northbound exit ramp to Peekskill Hollow Road

[ckroll 101]

Are we perhaps confusing incident command and unified command? Unified command is not single command but various resources coming together. What is unified is the goal. Every 'incident', be it a 17 car pile up or spilled milk on the kitchen floor needs a responsible party. Too much is made of command structure, especially at small incidents. Anyone serving in any emergency capacity needs to know what their job is and should be doing it with or without a person in a white hat. Any situation that can be resolved in a couple of hours by three agencies does not need command super structure if the individuals involved are acting like adults.

An incident that will take several days and involves 50 people needs command super structure, but I would have called it a Coordinator. Fewer people would have their short hairs up over who's coordinator than they do over who's the commander. You heard it here first...NIMS is a total crock and a waste of time.