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

[FirNaTine 370]

Maybe it's time for WPFD to look into acquiring FDMV's Crash Truck if they're not going to refurbish it and put it to some use. Hell they're right next door to the airport, centrally located to respond m/a anywhere in the County, not to mention it would be readily available to respond to any hazardous materials incident requiring Foam on I287 and I684, which are heavily traversed by vehicles carrying such haz mat products. Makes sense no? BTW, what is the story with FDMV's Crash Truck. How much longer is it going to sit and rust away behind Sta.#3 before it's finally put in service? What an eyesore for the residents. Once again, bad decision making on Managements part down there.

[joshlost818 6]

A lot of the time two departments are not advised what type of aircraft is involved at first. It can be a private plane, it could be a big airplane. Either it's better to have too much than not enough. First due units can always send back units that arent needed. They should at least be toned out so if they are needed they are on their way and not have to wait for members to go to the firehouse hop on the rig and head there when they could be needed desparetly. Just my thought.

[TL2L31 8]

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.

Did you ever think that a plane could crash into a structure or other planes that are stored off the runway? Or a 737 awaitng takeoff? I think that a man in your position shouldnt even think of having to ask this question.

[emt301 4]

Did you ever think that a plane could crash into a structure or other planes that are stored off the runway? Or a 737 awaitng takeoff? I think that a man in your position shouldnt even think of having to ask this question.

TL2L31,

No offense intended - but - if we follow this logic, then the standard "non-airport" initial 1st alarm assignment for smoke coming from a building or a possible structure fire should really be the equivalent of a 2nd or 3rd alarm assignment because the surrounding buildings, woods, cars, fields, outhouses, and any other exposures...might...be threatened. Really just doesn't make sense. The airport already responds with 2 crash trucks - with those units already enroute or on scene, I still think a tiered response from the surrounding departments is the way to go - there's no need to strip most of the fire protection from the areas surrounding the airport due to an inbound Cessna having problems. Obviously if it's a larger aircraft - i.e. more passengers & more fuel - then a larger response is certainly justified.

Edited April 30, 2008 by emt301

[Truckie31TL2 0]

first off wow, there is a lot of talk goin on in here, especially from people that are not from any of the departments that respond to the airport, the same dispatch goes to the airport at anytime for even if any plane has just a warning light on the control panel, i am not goin to speak for purchase or armonk who are the other depts dispatched 1st due on the airport but as for pc we send the same assignment all the time and we dont deplete our department of our resources or man power we still leave plenty of apparatus and manpower behind to handle any of our own calls, if DES or the airport thought there was a reason to make changes in the response then they would def be the people to make those decisions being they prob know a hell of a lot more then anybody in any of the surrounding depts which is why they are in charge. as far as knowing what to do or where to go and all that, thats why the depts involved in the response do staging drills and so on, so we know where to go when we get there and we will wait furhter instruction either when you arrive or over the fire ops channel, when you arrive your job may be to just sit there or you may get returned enroute, if you find that that is a waste of your time or sources then dont get on the rig or dont respond to the call. i am sure if you look in the preplan if there were to be some major incidnet 2nd,3rd,4th due and so on, maybe your dept or like someone said white plains may be involved. why not stick with the better safe then sorry, its true, you can be responding to the airport for the same thing light on the dash again damn, then all the sudden that plane crashes, and its chaos fires, injuries, extrications, plane parts all over the place, people in the woods bodies and so on, the point is you never know, it could be just the small 1 or 2 passenger plane that crashes in the trees now you need the manpower and personel to do a search for that person

everybody can criticize all they want if you really think some of these changes should be made and they bother you personally then you should do whatever you can to make your words heard maybe try to be one involved in the decisions made by DES and others involved paid to make these decisions

this is just my opinion i am not jumping on anyone or pointing fingers or singaling anybody out individually.

[Bnechis 3,961]

first off wow, there is a lot of talk goin on in here, especially from people that are not from any of the departments that respond to the airport,

Just because we do not respond to WC Airport, does not mean we do not have the background to be here.

the same dispatch goes to the airport at anytime for even if any plane has just a warning light on the control panel, i am not goin to speak for purchase or armonk who are the other depts dispatched 1st due on the airport but as for pc we send the same assignment all the time and we dont deplete our department of our resources or man power we still leave plenty of apparatus and manpower behind to handle any of our own calls,

PCFD has much better capabilities than most VFD's and this response does not strip the community to the same extent as others.

if DES or the airport thought there was a reason to make changes in the response then they would def be the people to make those decisions being they prob know a hell of a lot more then anybody in any of the surrounding depts which is why they are in charge.

Who is incharge? I thought it was the airport operator, until they pass command to the IC. DES always has claimed that they support that, but are not incharge. In the past the response plan was developed by the 3 fire depts that the airport falls within their districts plus airport ops and the MA coordinator for the airport. The last plan I saw (do not know if it is the current one or not) has only had minor changes over the years, and few had to do with the fire dept response.

why not stick with the better safe then sorry, its true, you can be responding to the airport for the same thing light on the dash again damn, then all the sudden that plane crashes, and its chaos fires, injuries, extrications, plane parts all over the place, people in the woods bodies and so on, the point is you never know, it could be just the small 1 or 2 passenger plane that crashes in the trees now you need the manpower and personel to do a search for that person

Besides my original question of should there be different levels of response based on the potential hazards, sending "additional" apparatus (if not needed) increases the risk to all members and the public. Another issue if everyone is staged in the airport, they are way out of position if the aircraft does not make it to the runway. I remember a small plane that landed (by mistake) on the grass at SUNY, right next door, but from the airport you need to go almost all the way back to PFD's house to get to SUNY. How many aircraft have gone down in the lake, or as someone pointed out what if the plane crashes into a building...my what if is they miss the building, but hit the staging area.

everybody can criticize all they want if you really think some of these changes should be made and they bother you personally then you should do whatever you can to make your words heard maybe try to be one involved in the decisions made by DES and others involved paid to make these decisions

About 13 years ago, I asked why the response plan only sent 1 BLS ambulance but 16 fire trucks and was told by the experts that they did not want to strip the communities of ambulances, I was also told the EMS never came to the meetings so they were not included in the plan (it was later determined that PC/R/RB & HVAC had never been invited). Much to the regrete of a number of people I made my concerns well known. And after "making my voice heard" The airport bought the MCI trailer, rewrote parts of the plan and held a number of training workshops then another drill. Major improvements were made. That does not mean it can be better.

I put my original post up to simply question the status quo. I'm not saying the plan is right or wrong, I'm saying keep evaluating and re-evaluating the way we are doing things. And asking the questions "why" (do we do it like this or not like that) and is there a better, faster, safer way?

And while the number of people who post here is small the readership is not. And I know that some of the people who can make changes activly read this and maybe they will consider what everyone says here.

[helicopper 1,050]

Just because we do not respond to WC Airport, does not mean we do not have the background to be here.

PCFD has much better capabilities than most VFD's and this response does not strip the community to the same extent as others.

Who is incharge? I thought it was the airport operator, until they pass command to the IC. DES always has claimed that they support that, but are not incharge. In the past the response plan was developed by the 3 fire depts that the airport falls within their districts plus airport ops and the MA coordinator for the airport. The last plan I saw (do not know if it is the current one or not) has only had minor changes over the years, and few had to do with the fire dept response.

Besides my original question of should there be different levels of response based on the potential hazards, sending "additional" apparatus (if not needed) increases the risk to all members and the public. Another issue if everyone is staged in the airport, they are way out of position if the aircraft does not make it to the runway. I remember a small plane that landed (by mistake) on the grass at SUNY, right next door, but from the airport you need to go almost all the way back to PFD's house to get to SUNY. How many aircraft have gone down in the lake, or as someone pointed out what if the plane crashes into a building...my what if is they miss the building, but hit the staging area.

About 13 years ago, I asked why the response plan only sent 1 BLS ambulance but 16 fire trucks and was told by the experts that they did not want to strip the communities of ambulances, I was also told the EMS never came to the meetings so they were not included in the plan (it was later determined that PC/R/RB & HVAC had never been invited). Much to the regrete of a number of people I made my concerns well known. And after "making my voice heard" The airport bought the MCI trailer, rewrote parts of the plan and held a number of training workshops then another drill. Major improvements were made. That does not mean it can be better.

I put my original post up to simply question the status quo. I'm not saying the plan is right or wrong, I'm saying keep evaluating and re-evaluating the way we are doing things. And asking the questions "why" (do we do it like this or not like that) and is there a better, faster, safer way?

And while the number of people who post here is small the readership is not. And I know that some of the people who can make changes activly read this and maybe they will consider what everyone says here.

And happily Barry, the exercise this Saturday should be a vast improvement over the ones from 13 years ago. Many of the comments made here are reflective of changes in the plan and I'd have to say that great strides have been taken since the days of one BLS ambulance responding to an alert.

The evolution in our business is a slow one but there is evolution!!!

We'll see how every feels after Saturday I guess!

[emt301 4]

And happily Barry, the exercise this Saturday should be a vast improvement over the ones from 13 years ago. Many of the comments made here are reflective of changes in the plan and I'd have to say that great strides have been taken since the days of one BLS ambulance responding to an alert.

The evolution in our business is a slow one but there is evolution!!!

We'll see how every feels after Saturday I guess!

Speaking as a former Westchester Cty Airport Ops/ARFF member, I wish everyone best of luck with the upcoming drill - hopefully the changes in the plan are proven effective !!

Edited May 2, 2008 by emt301