Port Chester MCI 7-25-08

[ems-buff 81]

Nobody has questions about what happen?? What could of been done better? PICTURES!!!!!! OMG This is scary!! I think Commander Bergmen did a great job.... 61 Pt's transported wow..

[TL2L31 8]

From what I heard listening to this event on the radio , the EMS supervisor did a great job.

[helicopper 1,050]

You want questions, OK...

How many ambulances were ultimately involved??

The newspaper said that victims were transported as far south as Lawrence and Sound Shore. Did any go to Greenwich or Stamford?

Were any of the area MCI trailers needed or requested? If not I'm guessing that not alot of the victims were boarded???

Perhaps someone that was involved in the management of this scene can write a short "article" for their Bravo colleagues who would like to learn a little something from a local experience!

[vtach39680 23]

I happened to be at WMC when they got 23 or so patients almost all by a bus

[StOpGoBlUE 11]

You want questions, OK...

How many ambulances were ultimately involved??

The newspaper said that victims were transported as far south as Lawrence and Sound Shore. Did any go to Greenwich or Stamford?

Were any of the area MCI trailers needed or requested? If not I'm guessing that not alot of the victims were boarded???

Perhaps someone that was involved in the management of this scene can write a short "article" for their Bravo colleagues who would like to learn a little something from a local experience!

Well to anwser your question, I can't recall how many ambulances were there but there were alot. Everyone did an outstanding job and I would like to thank all who helped.

Many went to Greenwich Hospital also but I don't think Stamford.

Second Greenburgh came down with the MCI trailer. 40 pts were boarded and collared if I rember off the top of my head but I am sure othere people will provide info also.

Charlie

[huzzie59 75]

And all this with the roadway open to traffic?

NYSP didn't allow the road to be closed?

[ems-buff 81]

And all this with the roadway open to traffic?

NYSP didn't allow the road to be closed?

That is correct. IO request was made to have the road closed, denied by NYSP

[x635 4,066]

What was the Command Structure for this incident?

Did the first medic on scene have medical command?

[ems-buff 81]

What was the Command Structure for this incident?

Did the first medic on scene have medical command?

I would say it was NIMS ICS. Even thou A fire chief was there. I would belive that this was an EMS incident all the way.

I would assume that is correct, Because when I was the 5th bus in (66-A-1) when Portchester has two of there ambulances starting Triage.(Harrsion, Village of Mamaroneck- that makes 5 ) 60-Control adivse that 77-A-5 would be the contact person. I must say, this was my first real MCI, and even thou it wasn't as bad as some other's I heard about, or trained for. This was one that went smooth as silk....

To answer some other questions on here. We did go as far as Mt Vernon, Lawernce, White Plains, WMC, SSMC Greenwich. I think that WMC took a hit the most... I don't know how many, but everytime I hear the radio, it was someone transporting to WMC.

How many ambulances were ultimately involved.

Ok Chris this is what I heard and remember,

Portchester-3

Harrison -1 (Return trip)

Mamaroneck Village-1 (Return Trip)

Mamaroneck Town-1

Eastchester-1

Greenburg-1

Scarsdale-1

White Plains-1

Westchester EMS-2

New Rochelle-1

Yonkers-1

Greenwich-2 (W/ MCI Trailer)

[ny10570 745]

Was there any coordination with area hospitals concerning treatment capacity?

[ems-buff 81]

Was there any coordination with area hospitals concerning treatment capacity?

Yes there was. At the begining there was request for beds available, and though out the incident. All in all, This is was we trained for, and it ran great..

[abaduck 123]

That is correct. IO request was made to have the road closed, denied by NYSP

Not wanting to start a jurisdictional fight here, but we have the Big Red Trucks, if we need to close a road we close it...???

I could write everything I know about running an MCI on the back of a postage stamp, but even to me it doesn't seem a Good Idea to have dozens of injured kids and who knows how many first responders at the side of a major road without stopping the traffic...

Mike

[Oswegowind 17]

Did someone say Bergman was in charge? Of course he did a great job...while a dunce once in a while...he did learn from the best...LOL

[x635 4,066]

And The Journal News Photos

Based on the photo above, I have some more questions regarding the incident, especially in regards to scene safety.

1. Were the Incident Commanders removed/remote from the Incident? Where was the command post setup?

2. Were ambulances staged, and brought to the scene as needed?

3. Does Port Chester have a selective spinal immobilization protocol?

4. Why were they fire engines on the opposite end of the incident, instead of blocking the scene?

5. Ties into question 4, why were there ambulances located directly next to passing traffic?

6. Were the people involved in ICS wearing vests identifying their role?

7. Was everyone on scene wearing traffic safety vests?

8. Traffic was coming extremly close to the incident? How come the Help Truck, Fire Engines, Wreckers, and flares weren't placed farther away from the incident? Seems like all the traffic was merging awfully close to the incident.

9. Were ALS/BLS units brought into cover Port Chester-Rye-Rye Brook?

10. LOOK AT ALL THOSE PEOPLE "DIRECTING TRAFFIC"!! Block the scene using fire apparatus, DOT trucks, cones, and flares using proper protocol that DOT uses everyday to close lanes, etc. Let traffic sort itself out. In fact, where were the cones and flares? Why were the wreckers mixed in the incident? Use them as barricades until they are needed to removed the vehicles!!

11. I see a unit with safety chevrons on the rear in the photo above. Those are on the rear of the vehicle usually for a reason.

I'm sorry, I wasn't there and I'm sure logistically and clincically it ran smoothly. But from a scene safety standpoint, it just seems like it wasn't even a consideration that the incident was on a major interstate. "Shutting down the roadway", especially at that time of day and gicven the location of the incident and resources available, wasn't neccesary. I-95 is a major interstate and shutting it down for this incident would just jam local roads and causes problems for thousands of motorists and emergency services.

Just another incident we can all learn from for next time....

[WAS967 97]

IT would appear that multiple apparatus approached the scene initially AGAINST the flow of traffic and thus are parked with their nose up stream.

As far as selective spinal immobilization, NYS as a whole has selective spinal immobilization. It is unfortunately rule IN vs rule OUT, but it's better than having to immobilize everyone just because they were in a fender bender.

Sure it APPEARS that the scene could have more traffic safety and control measures put into place, but thankfully nobody was hurt in the process of operation on scene (to my knowledge) and that is at least a step in the right direction.

Even the smoothest piece of silk is bound to have a wrinkle or two. Those can be ironed out in debrief and use as a learning tool for future operations.

[PCFD ENG58 1,085]

Just a start to answer some . This picture was taken from about 1/3 a mile away. the tow trucks were futher away then they appered and were taken out the shoulder, right, and middle lane [ 3 tow trucks]. Traffic was stopped completly to allow the engines to get to the scene from the wrong direction. We have worked on I95 for 50 years and its very tough to even get to the location. any body that covers it knows. We use flares when we have them, sometimes we run out [take from state when not looking]. Rescue 40 and 2391 I/C first on scene not visable in photo [ next to bus on shoulder ] Vests when we can afford them, all members in gear of some sort. traffic moving at about 5 miles an hour past scene. can it be done better you bet it can . Maybe the photo my son took will help make inprovements. I95 in my opinion is the toughest road to work on. As for the medical questions not my field maybe somebody can help out. Ive talked to quite a few that were on location including driver of rescue 40 my other son and the scene worked very well with over 61 transported and agencies that we never worked with before.

[Unionport 0]

Just a start to answer some . This picture was taken from about 1/3 a mile away. the tow trucks were futher away then they appered and were taken out the shoulder, right, and middle lane [ 3 tow trucks]. Traffic was stopped completly to allow the engines to get to the scene from the wrong direction. We have worked on I95 for 50 years and its very tough to even get to the location. any body that covers it knows. We use flares when we have them, sometimes we run out [take from state when not looking]. Rescue 40 and 2391 I/C first on scene not visable in photo [ next to bus on shoulder ] Vests when we can afford them, all members in gear of some sort. traffic moving at about 5 miles an hour past scene. can it be done better you bet it can . Maybe the photo my son took will help make inprovements. I95 in my opinion is the toughest road to work on. As for the medical questions not my field maybe somebody can help out. Ive talked to quite a few that were on location including driver of rescue 40 my other son and the scene worked very well with over 61 transported and agencies that we never worked with before.

Vests when we can afford them is not going to be an option as of November 24 2008. ANSI 2007 will be federal law with consequences . I would spend a little less ona fancy fire truck and give my employees proper PPE.

See below for part of the rule. The full report goes in to greater detail.23 CFR Part 634

Bunker gear with a couple of Relexite stripes does not constitute high visibility apparel.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 634

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2005–23200]

RIN 2125–AF11

Worker Visibility

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 1402 of

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), this

final rule establishes a policy for the use

of high-visibility safety apparel. The

FHWA establishes a new Part in title 23,

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that

requires the use of high-visibility safety

apparel and provides guidance on its

application. This rulemaking applies

only to workers who are working within

the rights-of-way of Federal-aid

highways. The FHWA is taking this

action to decrease the likelihood of

fatalities or injuries to workers on foot

who are exposed either to traffic

(vehicles using the highway for

purposes of travel) or to construction

vehicles or equipment while working

within the rights-of-way of Federal-aid

highways.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is

effective November 24, 2008. The

incorporation by reference of the

publication listed in this regulation is

approved by the Director of the Office

of the Federal Register as of November

24, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

[PCFD ENG58 1,085]

Vests when we can afford them is not going to be an option as of November 24 2008. ANSI 2007 will be federal law with consequences . I would spend a little less ona fancy fire truck and give my employees proper PPE.

See below for part of the rule. The full report goes in to greater detail.23 CFR Part 634

Bunker gear with a couple of Relexite stripes does not constitute high visibility apparel.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 634

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2005–23200]

RIN 2125–AF11

Worker Visibility

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 1402 of

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), this

final rule establishes a policy for the use

of high-visibility safety apparel. The

FHWA establishes a new Part in title 23,

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that

requires the use of high-visibility safety

apparel and provides guidance on its

application. This rulemaking applies

only to workers who are working within

the rights-of-way of Federal-aid

highways. The FHWA is taking this

action to decrease the likelihood of

fatalities or injuries to workers on foot

who are exposed either to traffic

(vehicles using the highway for

purposes of travel) or to construction

vehicles or equipment while working

within the rights-of-way of Federal-aid

highways.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is

effective November 24, 2008. The

incorporation by reference of the

publication listed in this regulation is

approved by the Director of the Office

of the Federal Register as of November

24, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

That is very good info, hope it saves many lives!

[Goose 188]

PCRRB*EMS covered their own calls during the MCI.

[minivac 0]

PCRRB*EMS covered their own calls during the MCI.

what is an MCI?? and what caused this one??

[Goose 188]

mass casualty incident.

[x635 4,066]

Even the smoothest piece of silk is bound to have a wrinkle or two. Those can be ironed out in debrief and use as a learning tool for future operations.

EXACTLY!

[Goose 188]

It was never insinuated that this incident was flawless from start to finish. Debriefing is something that will happen, but it it won't happen here.

[helicopper 1,050]

It was never insinuated that this incident was flawless from start to finish. Debriefing is something that will happen, but it it won't happen here.

No it won't happen here but objective and reasonable discussion here can enable those not directly involved with the incident to learn from it anyway. That's one of the main reasons for this sites existence.

[minivac 0]

mass casualty incident.

thanks. but what caused this 1?

[Guest]

The IC is known on this forum as "x901". I'd like to hear from him what were the key points of this incident that we can learn from.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Commo

[FF402 133]

The IC is known on this forum as "x901". I'd like to hear from him what were the key points of this incident that we can learn from.

Good luck on that. I work and am friends with a couple of people who are involved there. It's my opinion that the people at PCRRB*EMS think that they're better then the rest. They really don't talk nicely about this site (or anyone that's not them). My opinion is that they think it is "buffy" and they are too "professional" for it. You have many people who used to be active on this site until they went to work there.

With that said, I don't think anyone who's not in the clique will get real information about this incident, except for 60 Control, which they are scapegoating for all the things that went wrong.

Maybe some EMTBravo members should FOIL information about this incident....

[Guest]

I'm sorry if this was asked previously, but why wasn't the MCI Supply Trailer from Westchester County Airport called? Considering Port Chester and WCA are so close to each other...