Westchester County Airport: Small Plane Crash 4-29-08

[MELILLO719 30]

Whats going on at westchester county airport? i heard plane crash did it actually crash how big, how many people.

[Guest]

heard the same thing. confirmed??

[DaRock98 76]

Small air craft that flipped over with 1 pt with abrasions on ops 10. Just updated 2 minor injuries.

Edited April 28, 2008 by DaRock98

[x242Steve 1]

Plane crashes in Westchester, 2 injured

By Greg Clary

The Journal News • April 28, 2008

A small aircraft crashed on landing late last night at Westchester County Airport.

It appears the two people aboard the Cessna escaped serious injury. They were taken to Westchester Medical Center.

Full Story: http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008804280371

[Remember585 815]

PCFD Units: 2391, 2392, E59, E60, E62, L31, R40

AFD Units: 2021, 2022, 2023, E286, T9, 51B1

PFD Units: 2411, 2412, E240

HVAC Units: 61A3

PC/R/RB EMS: 77A6

NWALS: 4513, 45M1

WCDES: Car 1, B11, B15, B16, EMS10

WCPD

[Guest]

PCFD Units: 2391, 2392, E59, E60, E62, L31, R40

AFD Units: 2021, 2022, 2023, E286, T9, 51B1

PFD Units: 2411, 2412, E240

HVAC Units: 61A3

PC/R/RB EMS: 77A6

NWALS: 4513, 45M1

WCDES: Car 1, B11, B15, B16, EMS10

WCPD

I saw the plane on news 12. They are some lucky people.

[Bnechis 3,961]

PCFD Units: 2391, 2392, E59, E60, E62, L31, R40

AFD Units: 2021, 2022, 2023, E286, T9, 51B1

PFD Units: 2411, 2412, E240

HVAC Units: 61A3

PC/R/RB EMS: 77A6

NWALS: 4513, 45M1

WCDES: Car 1, B11, B15, B16, EMS10

WCPD

Always found the airport response to be amazing. One thing if its a large plane, but this was not.

I can fit more people and fuel into an FD suburban and if I roll it over on 684 at the airport exit do I get

5 Engines

2 Ladders

1 Rescue

1 BLS & 2 ALS Amulances

1 ALS Fly Car

8 Chiefs, & 4 Coordinators

Plus I suspect at least 1 ARFF unit.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Always found the airport response to be amazing. One thing if its a large plane, but this was not.

I can fit more people and fuel into an FD suburban and if I roll it over on 684 at the airport exit do I get

5 Engines

2 Ladders

1 Rescue

1 BLS & 2 ALS Amulances

1 ALS Fly Car

8 Chiefs, & 4 Coordinators

Plus I suspect at least 1 ARFF unit.

Its actually 5 engines, 1 ladder, 1 tanker and 1 rescue.

And no, you would not recieve that many apparatus for a roll over on I-684, frankly because as im sure you are well aware, there are many more hazards with a plane crash regardless of the size than an SUV on its roof, especially in the post 9/11 world.

Edited April 29, 2008 by bvfdjc316

[ny10570 745]

Stop it. You cannot put this on 9/11. The response is generated for any incoming aircraft emergency. Maybe someone from one those depts involved can explain why there isn't a tiered response.

[JM15 386]

Did all of these units operate on scene? Why wasn't a command set up immediately by ARFF, which I assume were the first on scene, and advise on the response. Just a thought. Unless this already does happen?

[DaRock98 76]

Another question why was there so many command transfers I believe I heard it being transfered 2 or 3 times?

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Stop it. You cannot put this on 9/11. The response is generated for any incoming aircraft emergency. Maybe someone from one those depts involved can explain why there isn't a tiered response.

Why can I not put this on 9/11. In the 6+ years since 9/11, emergency services have recieved billions of dollars for incidents much like this one. If a plane crashes anywhere, the increase in funding has allowed for departments to purchase apparatus and equipment. Look at New Jersey, the Urban Area Security rigs PAID for with Department of Homeland money allows for this kind of increased responce. While these rigs are not for crash rescue, the principles are the same. 9/11 has increased our awareness and responce to any threat that comes from a plane. And for good reason, a plane of that size can destribute and carry chemical, biological, nuclear or explosive devises. DHS pays for us to be prepared for an incident like this. The reason DHS was created in response to 9/11.

[helicopper 1,050]

Its actually 5 engines, 1 ladder, 1 tanker and 1 rescue.

And no, you would not recieve that many apparatus for a roll over on I-684, frankly because as im sure you are well aware, there are many more hazards with a plane crash regardless of the size than an SUV on its roof, especially in the post 9/11 world.

9/11 has nothing at all to do with the level of responses for an airplane crash at a regional airport. And there may not be any more hazards at a plane crash of this nature compared with an overturned SUV; in fact the SUV probably weighs twice as much as this particular airplane.

As for a tiered response, that is an excellent idea - one that the airport and local chiefs are finalizing right now.

While you're absolutely right that billions have been poured into emergency services since 9/11, the intent was not to bolster the response to this type of incident. It is just a positive side affect. As for a plane of this type being used to ferry a WMD, this type of plane can't carry much more than three adult passengers with a full fuel load so that's a plausible but unlikely scenario. Using your threat analysis, the SUV on 684 could carry 10 times the WMD that the airplane could. Why don't we respond to all rollovers on the interstate as a potential terrorist event? Simply because lacking a credible threat we have to temper our responses with a small dose of reality.

DHS is not paying us to prepare for incidents such as this. DHS subsidized departments' preparedness for terrorist events, something that was sorely lacking prior to 9/11. In fact, the attention to terrorism was so focused that DHS caused agencies' to lose focus on all the other hazards that they face. A problem being remedied with "all-hazards" preparedness programs.

Let's get off the DHS programs to thwart terrorism and go back to the original question - why such disparate responses to airport incidents when compared to highway incidents with equal or greater hazards?

[DaRock98 76]

Well my 2 cents is that in an airport there are many more hazards for example the plane missing the runway and possibly crashing into a building filled with either jet fuel or people where on a highway or interstate a SUV probably won't hit a building filled with that sort of stuff b/c there aren't to many buildings right on the highway if there are any at all. Yes this is only one example but if something like this happened the results could be catastrophic. I also believe when this call was initially dispatched the size of the plane was unknown so I think its better to be safe then sorry. Send them you can always turn them around!

Edited April 29, 2008 by DaRock98

[MoFire390 118]

9/11 didnt involve 4 planes running into a runway. instead it involved 3 planes hitting a buildings and 1 into a field.

I just got done taking the ARFF class with Fire Instructor Carroll. Very good class and very informitive. If you are intreasted in taking it I suggest you do. The class will answer all the questions you have about airport response and aircraft crashes. A good example we can all look at is what happened in Souix Falls. That is the one thing that FI Carroll uses. You never know where a plane is going to crash. It is always good to have apparatus in many different areas.

As far as IC should be the OPS guys at the Airport until they hand it off to anyone else. The OPS guys probably know that place better then anyone else, who responds there.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Well my 2 cents is that in an airport there are many more hazards for example the plane missing the runway and possibly crashing into a building filled with either jet fuel or people where on a highway or interstate a SUV probably won't hit a building filled with that sort of stuff b/c there aren't to many buildings right on the highway if there are any at all. Yes this is only one example but if something like this happened the results could be catastrophic. I also believe when this call was initially dispatched the size of the plane was unknown so I think its better to be safe then sorry. Send them you can always turn them around!

And the SUV on 684 can hit an MC306 Tanker with E85 Etanol. All the foam at the airport wont put this one out.

Not knowing the type of aircraft on dispatch is one thing (however the tower should know and advise). Being able to spread out makes sense, but the airport plan always had (dont know if it still does) all units stage on airport rd then procede in thru the same control gate (not spread out).

9/11 has had little effect on the response plan, since this is almost the same response they sent 15 years ago. And if memory serves the reason for sending so much was the airport is 1/3 in PC (now RB), 1/3 in P and a 1/3 in A's district and everyone wanted a piece of the action.

Edited April 29, 2008 by Bnechis

[JBE 328]

You can't lay this on the 11th. Crash alarms at an airport get a significant response. Granted JFK and LGA are apples and oranges compared to WCA, but we still turn out a full 2nd Alarm assignment with a host of special units on top of it. And that isn't even for a confirmed incident. This policy was in force long before the 11th. I think it would be safe to say that the response policy to WCA is comparable for an airport that size. The tiered response I can also presume is so no one department gets stripped of resources right off the bat, along with the airport bordering a number of departments.

As always, better to have and not need than need and not have.

[GOYANKEES 0]

This really amazes me. Maybe there should be an adult section and a under 18 section on the site.

Barry/Chris would you actually even talk to this 17 year old kid on the outside the way you debate him on here?

[X2321 133]

Maybe the large response is because the airport is spread out over 3 fire districts.

[nycemt728 49]

Wow, all this and still no one has actually answered the question at hand in good detail...why such a large response?? Is it just how its laid out, is simply a matter of people wanting to buff the job, or did somthing about this particular incident spark it (i.e. the plane had a large quantity of fuel on board etc ) I would be interested in some meaningful discussion about this, not going back and forth as to the reason behind the creation and function of DHS....b/c as we constantly say, why so many resources when it appears under control and small incident, or is the current plan of deployment effectice?

Edited April 29, 2008 by nycemt728

[helicopper 1,050]

This really amazes me. Maybe there should be an adult section and a under 18 section on the site.

Barry/Chris would you actually even talk to this 17 year old kid on the outside the way you debate him on here?

Some of the posts of younger members may be naive but I think for the most part they contribute as much as anyone over 18. As for spending time explaining something, yes I would try to talk to the 17 year old the same way I would anyone else. He's 17 today but will be tomorrow's EMT, probie or recruit so why not give him more perspective?

I give them credit for being on here and stating an opinion.

[helicopper 1,050]

Wow, all this and still no one has actually answered the question at hand in good detail...why such a large response?? Is it just how its laid out, is simply a matter of people wanting to buff the job, or did somthing about this particular incident spark it (i.e. the plane had a large quantity of fuel on board etc ) I would be interested in some meaningful discussion about this, not going back and forth as to the reason behind the creation and function of DHS....b/c as we constantly say, why so many resources when it appears under control and small incident, or is the current plan of deployment effectice?

This goes both ways. There have been incidents where the airport deemed an external response unncessary and did not call the three local departments. They were sharply criticized for that so the response went back to this one.

The three departments each send a couple of pieces of apparatus and we wind up with the rundown listed. Given that I've been criticized in the past for questioning responses, I have to ask why is everyone so riled up about this one?

Send them you can always turn them around!

Isn't that the mantra?

[hudson144 150]

Pre-plan, not much different than sending 3 engines,2 trucks a rescue and a chief to a reported possible fire within a structure. Over the years the response for the airport has not changed much, the airport ops staff respond accordingly with the ARFF apparatus and initiate the mutual aid plan. The mutual aid plan which has been recently reviewed and tweaked for the better of all involved has certainly involved all the depts assigned to the response in the event of an aircraft mishap. The Incident Commanders have more knowledge now than ever before as far as what additional resources might be needed for both small frame a/c to large frame a/c. This was all due to people coming together to build a plan. If a small frame or general aviation (GA) aircraft declares an emergency the response level is the same as a large frame a/c no different than the above mentioned possible structure fire. If the incident is downgraded then the response can be terminated or changed depending on the situation. The IC from airport ops or the surrounding depts. can make that call as to what is needed. It all comes down to being familiar with what you got. The siuox city IA crash which involved a DC-10 certainly showed how effective a pre-plan, training, and MCI drill can make your incident easier to handle. Instead of just winging it everything is written in a SOG or a guideline for the IC. This is not saying that you have to go by the SOG/guideline 100% because the situation might change. There is a drill on next weekend at the airport which will help all the responders who are assigned to the response to the airport understand the plan. I am sure there may be changes to the plan if anything does not benefit the response. This would most likely be done in the critique of the drill.

[ex-commish 490]

What would of been an appropriate response to this past incident?

[emt301 4]

Always found the airport response to be amazing. One thing if its a large plane, but this was not.

I can fit more people and fuel into an FD suburban and if I roll it over on 684 at the airport exit do I get

5 Engines

2 Ladders

1 Rescue

1 BLS & 2 ALS Amulances

1 ALS Fly Car

8 Chiefs, & 4 Coordinators

Plus I suspect at least 1 ARFF unit.

The plan has always been flawed since I worked at HPN back in 2001 - ya get the same mutual aid response whether it's for a Boeing 737 fully loaded, or a Cessna with 1 person on board. I understand the need for lots of equipment for a large aircraft with many souls on board and lots of fuel, but to strip the surrounding area on account of a Cessna with 1 or 2 passengers & limited fuel has always been ridiculous. A tiered response is the way to go, and should have been put in place a long time ago. The aiport's 2 crash trucks can handle the majority of small aircraft incidents, with just limited mutual aid fire assistance and an EMS/Law Enforcement response required. Just my 2 cents worth....

[PCFD ENG58 1,085]

Going to the airport is a joke and will allways be a joke, now add the fact that you have to change to ops 10 or 19 or whatever while driving to the airport who's I/C who's not, whos on first, I don;t know third base!!!!!!!!!. where there's smoke go there, but the gate is locked, who's the guy's on my back step, where did they come from, I left by my self and now I am three? back to bed good nite!

[firemoose827 324]

This really amazes me. Maybe there should be an adult section and a under 18 section on the site.

Barry/Chris would you actually even talk to this 17 year old kid on the outside the way you debate him on here?

How else are explorers supposed to learn? Isnt one of our jobs to train our younger members so they know what they are doing, or would you rather just let them charge in without any training? Educate our younger members so they know, thats why they are members of this site and I give them tons of credit for seeking the knowledge.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Pre-plan, not much different than sending 3 engines,2 trucks a rescue and a chief to a reported possible fire within a structure.

I think thats a poor comparison. If the tower knows what is coming in, id compare it more to sending 1 Engine & 1 Truck to a car fire vs. 3e,2t,r,c.

We send different fire response to different types of buildings, i.e high rise gets a different response than a shed...even though they are both "structure fires".

[DaRock98 76]

How else are explorers supposed to learn? Isnt one of our jobs to train our younger members so they know what they are doing, or would you rather just let them charge in without any training? Educate our younger members so they know, thats why they are members of this site and I give them tons of credit for seeking the knowledge.

Very well said moose I couldn't agree more with you. Teaching and talking with the younger guys gives them experience from first hand knowledge. I learned a lot from the Senior members of my department some of the stuff I will never forget and I am happy they actually took the time to teach me this stuff instead of the ignorant people who just don't give a flying f*** and don't realize that one day these kids will grow up and be standing right behind you in the line of fire and MAYBE b/c they didn't take time out of there precious day to talk to them it could get them and the probie hurt or even killed! That kind of attitude disgusts me!

Sorry end of rant I promise.

[hudson144 150]

There is a big difference for us Barry- we know that we are going to get a timely respose of 3 and 2 because we are in the house, as things go these days the reponse may not be a full response because some depts. may have a manpower issue depending on the time of day etc.(this is not saying that any of the depts do or not) In reality the airport IMO should have more manpower than what is presently assigned to them. The way it is set up-discharge agent and then wait for incoming mutual aid for assistance. We see this as a problem at Stewart. 7guys per shift as required but if a rescue or interior attack is needed you run into a real problem. What is the answer for all of the airports of this size? Good question! The same problem exists for all of us in any FD-Lack of manpower. If it is an in flight emergency you might have the time for the incoming units to stage etc but if its a un expected crash you work with what you got. ??? Barry- you failed to mention Greenwich Fd who will somewhere in the near future have a station right outside the airport grounds. What kind of a change will that have in the response? They are in another state, will that have anything to do with the response? There are alot of questions being answered by the people in charge of the response. Lets give it a chance and see how it works. Hopefully a mishap with a larger a/c does not happen. Only time will tell.

Edited April 29, 2008 by hudson144