Goldens Bridge - 3rd Alarm 2-25-15

[spin_the_wheel 460]

I never bought the whole number of Rescue trucks argument. Back in the day, in most cases, separate companies were created, and dedicated Rescue rigs built for the lack of space on the rigs of the day. Every community and fire department wanted the latest rescue tools and extrication equipment and why not they should have them. A dedicated rig WAS needed back then. It was not about the amount of rescue trucks to serve a specific area. It was about the number of rescue trucks to serve and bring the needed equipment to the scene for that particular community and department. Mutual aid and manpower were not as big of an issue way back when. Every community deserved the newest equipment and why not.

Here's where the argument comes in and makes sense. Fast forward to todays fire service the need for a dedicated Rescue truck is really not needed today. UNLESS you have specialized equipment (confined, high angle, haz mat ) But the problem comes back to the "way we have always done things"...and tradition in some respect. For many departments the thought of eliminating a "company" or getting rid of rig is blasphemy. This is the problem.

Todays rigs have much more room to store extrication equipment, cutting torches, traditional rescue "stuff." Well planned Rescue Engines or Ladder trucks can serve both purposes and eliminate a separate Rescue truck.

I still feel every department owes it to the community it serves to have basic rescue equipment available and not have to wait for a neighboring agency to come to the scene. Does it need a dedicated rescue truck? No I do not think that is needed. The number of actual rescue rigs should be eliminated...the number of extrication tools should not. JMO

[spin_the_wheel 460]

No I am not suggesting we all go out and buy these. My point was there are times when it makes sense to use vehicles other than engines for transport. that's all.

I'll play devils advocate. Department A responds mutual aid with their 16 passenger bus. 6 guys just throw 6 scba's and an assortment of tools into the walkway between the rows of seats. On the way the bus has a terrible accident and the unsecured tools fly all over the interior of the bus hitting the members. What would OSHA and NIOSH say to this act?

OR

On the way back to their district they come across a car fire...or a structure fire. Cant do anything can they. OK ok chances of that are slim.

How about an alarm for a house fire comes in or other alarm in their district on the way back. Are they going to go lights and sirens back to the firehouse to play key stone cops and jump out of the bus with all the "stuff" and get on "hopefully" the second due rig to go to the scene?

How would this scenario look to OSHA and NIOSH if something goes bad.

How would this look on the 6 o'clock news.....hmmmm let me get this straight....they took a bus to the fire and left the fire truck in the station?

Hard to defend this. Just take a front line rig. Again JMO.

Edited March 7, 2015 by spin_the_wheel

[RES24CUE 168]

I don't have any stake in this argument at all whatsoever and have no opinion one way or the other. However, it does sound similar to something that already exists in our area. When you call Mount Kisco F.A.S.T. they have an ambulance/bus type vehicle that is outfitted with their F.A.S.T. equipment and air packs. To take the "bus" comparison a step further, I believe the rig leaves from IFCO with however many F.A.S.T. qualified members that they have, then stops by Hooks to pick up their F.A.S.T. qualified members, then stops by Mutuals to pick up their F.A.S.T. qualified members, then proceeds to the scene. Sounds like a bus to me...

[spin_the_wheel 460]

I don't have any stake in this argument at all whatsoever and have no opinion one way or the other. However, it does sound similar to something that already exists in our area. When you call Mount Kisco F.A.S.T. they have an ambulance/bus type vehicle that is outfitted with their F.A.S.T. equipment and air packs. To take the "bus" comparison a step further, I believe the rig leaves from IFCO with however many F.A.S.T. qualified members that they have, then stops by Hooks to pick up their F.A.S.T. qualified members, then stops by Mutuals to pick up their F.A.S.T. qualified members, then proceeds to the scene. Sounds like a bus to me...

Key here is "outfitted with their FAST equipment and air packs" A rig designed for transport of manpower and tools is fine. But some here are making it sound like you can just grab your department school bus and "throw" everything in.

I think Ossining has a special unit designed for their FAST/RIT responses as well. That's fine.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I'll play devils advocate. Department A responds mutual aid with their 16 passenger bus. 6 guys just throw 6 scba's and an assortment of tools into the walkway between the rows of seats. On the way the bus has a terrible accident and the unsecured tools fly all over the interior of the bus hitting the members. What would OSHA and NIOSH say to this act?

OR

On the way back to their district they come across a car fire...or a structure fire. Cant do anything can they. OK ok chances of that are slim.

How about an alarm for a house fire comes in or other alarm in their district on the way back. Are they going to go lights and sirens back to the firehouse to play key stone cops and jump out of the bus with all the "stuff" and get on "hopefully" the second due rig to go to the scene?

How would this scenario look to OSHA and NIOSH if something goes bad.

How would this look on the 6 o'clock news.....hmmmm let me get this straight....they took a bus to the fire and left the fire truck in the station?

Hard to defend this. Just take a front line rig. Again JMO.

Department A send 16 passenger bus to the fire training center for a FF1 class. 6 guys just throw 6 scba's and an assortment of tools into the walkway between the rows of seats. On the way the bus has a terrible accident and the unsecured tools fly all over the interior of the bus hitting the members. What would OSHA and NIOSH say to this act?

Maybe They should have a caged cargo area in the back or a policy that NO equipment be carried unsecured.

Now haw many departments have sent out this message: "Working fire - Additional manpower is needed" And a dozen additional private vehicles show up parked along the road leading to the scene. When they all go home, what if their is another call, what if they pass a car fire, what if?????

How do you defend when the fire in your district gets 1 engine and the other 2, 3 or 4 don't roll, because you no longer have the staffing? But the get replaced because we have to keep up the fleet.

[RES24CUE 168]

Key here is "outfitted with their FAST equipment and air packs" A rig designed for transport of manpower and tools is fine. But some here are making it sound like you can just grab your department school bus and "throw" everything in.

I think Ossining has a special unit designed for their FAST/RIT responses as well. That's fine.

In my opinion, if a department had an application where this would be very practical, then you would just have to do it right. If you removed all the seats in the bus and lined the sides with Jump Seats and mounted tools in the rear so they would not dislodge in a wreck, then why the hell not.

When you convert a soda delivery truck into a Haz-Mat rig, you modify it to best suit its new application; When you turn a bread truck into a dive truck, you turn the inside into a dive unit...I would assume that the same logic would apply when converting a passenger bus into a unit dedicated to carrying personnel to a structure fire. If this were a good idea for a department, I doubt anyone is advocating that it be done haphazardly. That's just my thought...

[spin_the_wheel 460]

Department A send 16 passenger bus to the fire training center for a FF1 class. 6 guys just throw 6 scba's and an assortment of tools into the walkway between the rows of seats. On the way the bus has a terrible accident and the unsecured tools fly all over the interior of the bus hitting the members. What would OSHA and NIOSH say to this act?

Maybe They should have a caged cargo area in the back or a policy that NO equipment be carried unsecured.

Now haw many departments have sent out this message: "Working fire - Additional manpower is needed" And a dozen additional private vehicles show up parked along the road leading to the scene. When they all go home, what if their is another call, what if they pass a car fire, what if?????

How do you defend when the fire in your district gets 1 engine and the other 2, 3 or 4 don't roll, because you no longer have the staffing? But the get replaced because we have to keep up the fleet.

Sending guys to school and sending them to an emergency response is two different things. If the mutual aid response is no lights and sirens with the bus or van or whatever that's ok.

A caged cargo area or planned out design to secure tools fine. My first post in this thread stated that a properly planned rig for transport is great. How about we take the hurst tools off the rescue rigs put them on the engines or ladders and turn all the rescue rigs into "Transports" don't even have to buy new rigs.

Going home in your personal vehicle and coming upon an emergency well....not much you can do I agree.

BUT coming home in a marked fire vehicle from an emergency where the 6 guys all get off with gear and some tools and cant do anything because they left the engine or ladder back home is another thing. Just looks bad. We will agree to disagree.

I agree the big problem is the rigs left behind unmanned. I never argued that. My first post in this thread stated that. That is one of the things consolidation would help in. Each department would now be responsible for 1 or 2 rigs (and a bus for transport) instead of a fleet of 6 rigs where 4 sit during working fires.

[RES24CUE 168]

BUT coming home in a marked fire vehicle from an emergency where the 6 guys all get off with gear and some tools and cant do anything because they left the engine or ladder back home is another thing. Just looks bad. We will agree to disagree.

First off, its a car fire...you're not saving it. Make it look good, and hit it with a couple of cans until the engine gets there.

Second, how is this any different then if they were in a utility, a ladder, a rescue, or those billboards called Chief's Cars. There is always going to be a situation where you may come upon an incident in a marked vehicle where the unit in which you are riding is not equipped to handle. Its just part of the job. What if your engine comes across a pin job and has to wait for the rescue? Or your engine comes upon a man hanging from a scaffold and has to wait for a ladder? Having guys always returning from fires in an engine isn't exactly an end-all-be-all to every situation that you may come across.

[dwcfireman 656]

I have an idea....bear with me here....

Department A responds to a 10-75 with three engines and a ladder, all staffed with 4 (including the drivers). The Chief strikes out a second alarm for manpower. Department B sends an engine and ladder with 3 each, and Department C only gets an engine out with 4. However, 12 firefighters are sitting in Dept A's HQ because there are no more rigs to roll. What if just ONE of these departments had a transport bus (with a compartment to secure tools and SCBA (or already equipped with said equipment)), and was used as a troop transport? Couldn't that bus go to Dept A and pick up those firefighters, bring them to the scene, then rotate around the area departments to bring in manpower?

See, not every department would need a bus, just the same as not everyone having a mobile cascade unit. This is why we have mutual aid! If I have the MSU, a neighbor has a 12 passenger van, another has a light truck, and another has an LDH vehicle, through mutual aid we can share our resources.

Now, if your scene is blocked in an no additional apparatus can get in anyway, why not have a department with a bus or van shuttle in more manpower? You could even use the bus/van to solely transport firefighters from a staging area to the scene. I really don't see why people are getting upset about any department responding with a bus. It's a usable resource.

[lad12derff 283]

Probably the dumbest thing I've read on this site in over ten years, impressive

Glad I made history. Guess it's not dumber than parking 7 Engines on a 1 lane rd to transport manpower.

[lad12derff 283]

I have an idea....bear with me here....

Department A responds to a 10-75 with three engines and a ladder, all staffed with 4 (including the drivers). The Chief strikes out a second alarm for manpower. Department B sends an engine and ladder with 3 each, and Department C only gets an engine out with 4. However, 12 firefighters are sitting in Dept A's HQ because there are no more rigs to roll. What if just ONE of these departments had a transport bus (with a compartment to secure tools and SCBA (or already equipped with said equipment)), and was used as a troop transport? Couldn't that bus go to Dept A and pick up those firefighters, bring them to the scene, then rotate around the area departments to bring in manpower?

See, not every department would need a bus, just the same as not everyone having a mobile cascade unit. This is why we have mutual aid! If I have the MSU, a neighbor has a 12 passenger van, another has a light truck, and another has an LDH vehicle, through mutual aid we can share our resources.

Now, if your scene is blocked in an no additional apparatus can get in anyway, why not have a department with a bus or van shuttle in more manpower? You could even use the bus/van to solely transport firefighters from a staging area to the scene. I really don't see why people are getting upset about any department responding with a bus. It's a usable resource.

Thanks for responding quite accurately on how to implement, and I will Quote " Probably the dumbest thing I've read on this site in over ten years, impressive " the use of a bus to transport. I will now just sit back and continue to read more great ideas on this site and add my dumbness to the conversations!!!!!

[dwcfireman 656]

Thanks for responding quite accurately on how to implement, and I will Quote " Probably the dumbest thing I've read on this site in over ten years, impressive " the use of a bus to transport. I will now just sit back and continue to read more great ideas on this site and add my dumbness to the conversations!!!!!

Hey, sometimes you have to think outside the box. Plus, I'm sure most of us would rather be critiqued for a different tactic than answer questions about an LODD.

It's terrible to think that some people are stuck with the "200 years of tradition" attitude.

[JM15 386]

Well since fires are down and most of our runs are EMS or false alarms why don't more departments just send a company in an SUV to everything? Wouldn't that save time and money? :rolleyes:

[mikeinet 37]

i feel like a lot of this thread is people grandstanding for their own opinions and feelings rather than looking at the facts / looking at what folks on hand had to deal with.

Well, on the bright side... at least there's an "active" thread again on this site :-) woohoo.

[dwcfireman 656]

i feel like a lot of this thread is people grandstanding for their own opinions and feelings rather than looking at the facts / looking at what folks on hand had to deal with.

Well, on the bright side... at least there's an "active" thread again on this site :-) woohoo.

I always feel like a Monday morning QB when typing in these types of threads, even when I have no intention to. I think it's great to hear constructive criticisms (from those on scene) and other ideas (from everyone), because it might have affect another IC's decision at a later fire.

And, YES, the masses are talking again!!!!!!

[Dinosaur 844]

i feel like a lot of this thread is people grandstanding for their own opinions and feelings rather than looking at the facts / looking at what folks on hand had to deal with.

Well, on the bright side... at least there's an "active" thread again on this site :-) woohoo.

Most of the people on this site don't want facts. They want to argue emotionally because that's the way we've been doing it for the past 90 years.

The reality is that the facts bear out that there is no "system" for fire or EMS in Westchester and we could do much better.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

First off, its a car fire...you're not saving it. Make it look good, and hit it with a couple of cans until the engine gets there.

Second, how is this any different then if they were in a utility, a ladder, a rescue, or those billboards called Chief's Cars. There is always going to be a situation where you may come upon an incident in a marked vehicle where the unit in which you are riding is not equipped to handle. Its just part of the job. What if your engine comes across a pin job and has to wait for the rescue? Or your engine comes upon a man hanging from a scaffold and has to wait for a ladder? Having guys always returning from fires in an engine isn't exactly an end-all-be-all to every situation that you may come across.

Your points are valid. But I still think we are firefighters...when the alarm comes in or we go mutual aid we take a fire truck.

I don't know where things got so twisted that this is now looked at as a bad idea. Again we will agree to disagree. Be safe everyone.

[robert benz 344]

Glad I made history. Guess it's not dumber than parking 7 Engines on a 1 lane rd to transport manpower.

Danger, on 06 Mar 2015 - 10:33 PM, said:

Probably the dumbest thing I've read on this site in over ten years, impressive

ok here goes, the fire service in Westchester is FINE!!!! responses are great, fire ground accountability is perfect, manpower is more than enough.

NOW THATS THE DUMBEST THING WRITTEN IN THE HISTORY OF THIS WEBSITE!!!

Sorry to take away your title lad12erff.

[RES24CUE 168]

Your points are valid. But I still think we are firefighters...when the alarm comes in or we go mutual aid we take a fire truck.

I don't know where things got so twisted that this is now looked at as a bad idea. Again we will agree to disagree. Be safe everyone.

Not trying to beat a dead horse here but I wanted to give my take on why we don't take a fire truck to every alarm (no disrespect spin-the-wheel as I think your posts are very knowledgeable and well thought out). This is my opinion on the matter....

When I was a fire officer I used to cringe when the department's large pieces would leave the firehouse. The tones would drop and a chauffeur (he could be 21 years old...could be 77 years old) who would drive a truck once a week (at best...some guys would only drive once a month, or even once every three months) a mile down the road to a bullshit call would hop out of his Honda Civic after being jolted from a sound sleep during a rain storm and get behind the wheel of a 30,000lb engine with 5 other souls on board.

Now, add a mutual aid situation to the mix. This guy is driving the rig under the same situation as previously stipulated (rain, being jolted from a sound sleep in the middle of the night, and only driving once a week at most...maybe even once a month if he is an occasional chauffeur) and add the stress of responding to a working fire, on unfamiliar roadways outside of district, and in close proximity to dozens of other large pieces of equipment who also have amateur chauffeurs. The potential for disaster or damage is huge here.

When I was Captain, our rescue was parked at a parade and the bucket of a neighboring town's ladder that was backing-in next to the rig went right through the front windows of the cab. It took the rig out of service of 3 months to get fixed. Over that time my life was extremely overcomplicated because our rescue was absent, our engine was overloaded with rescue/extrication equipment wherever it would fit, operations and training were extremely overcomplicated, and the quality of service that could be provided to the taxpayers was negatively impacted. I learned a valuable lesson here...if you can handle an EMS call with a utility, then there is no reason to take an engine.

The solution to the problem is training...but as well all know manpower is sparse and if you make it too hard to get qualified then the guys would get discouraged and just give up trying. So you just have to say, "this guy has put in as much effort as I think he is willing to put into this and he knows enough to not get anyone killed on the way to your everyday alarm. He can draft and put an attack line into operation so we will have to just give him our blessing." The department with which I was previously affiliated didn't even require drivers to take EVOC or Pump Ops to Chauffeur an engine because the members simply would choose not to drive and the trucks wouldn't get out.

Do I agree with this? HELL NO...

The problem is inherent to the volunteer fire service and cannot be adequately corrected as the involved factors are correlated...you can't have all three: knowledgeable, quality chauffeurs; happy, motivated and accomplished-feeling manpower (drivers); and apparatus that make it out the door for every alarm.

[lad12derff 283]

Danger, on 06 Mar 2015 - 10:33 PM, said:

ok here goes, the fire service in Westchester is FINE!!!! responses are great, fire ground accountability is perfect, manpower is more than enough.

NOW THATS THE DUMBEST THING WRITTEN IN THE HISTORY OF THIS WEBSITE!!!

Sorry to take away your title lad12erff.

No worries. You won't hold that title for long around here!!

[AFS1970 504]

I have a feeling that utilities on EMS calls will be a whole other discussion than utilities on RIT/FAST calls. However I like to think of it this way. Why do you choose between the Engine or the Truck on any given call? Because they each have specific equipment and functions. Now what equipment and functions will you need on the average EMS call? can the utility handle it? That being said in my old department we took the Tower Ladder to an EMS call once, because the call was for someone injured on the roof, and my department had a history of removing a patient by bucket a few years earlier. This was because the specific call needed specific equipment. For most of the EMS calls we were going on at the time, I needed a backpack.

As for the what if another call comes in argument, our statistics clearly showed that we were more likely to need the Rescue and the Truck at the same time than either of those and an Engine. My last term as an officer we set our utility up for EMS and it went well. Generally only if there was no driver for something bigger in house. The only thing we were not carrying on the utility was a backboard. For some reason I could not stop people from following behind in an Engine, because they thought I needed it, even if it was just a driver bringing the rig to me. Never once have I had to stretch a line at an EMS call.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

Not trying to beat a dead horse here but I wanted to give my take on why we don't take a fire truck to every alarm (no disrespect spin-the-wheel as I think your posts are very knowledgeable and well thought out). This is my opinion on the matter....

When I was a fire officer I used to cringe when the department's large pieces would leave the firehouse. The tones would drop and a chauffeur (he could be 21 years old...could be 77 years old) who would drive a truck once a week (at best...some guys would only drive once a month, or even once every three months) a mile down the road to a bullshit call would hop out of his Honda Civic after being jolted from a sound sleep during a rain storm and get behind the wheel of a 30,000lb engine with 5 other souls on board.

Now, add a mutual aid situation to the mix. This guy is driving the rig under the same situation as previously stipulated (rain, being jolted from a sound sleep in the middle of the night, and only driving once a week at most...maybe even once a month if he is an occasional chauffeur) and add the stress of responding to a working fire, on unfamiliar roadways outside of district, and in close proximity to dozens of other large pieces of equipment who also have amateur chauffeurs. The potential for disaster or damage is huge here.

When I was Captain, our rescue was parked at a parade and the bucket of a neighboring town's ladder that was backing-in next to the rig went right through the front windows of the cab. It took the rig out of service of 3 months to get fixed. Over that time my life was extremely overcomplicated because our rescue was absent, our engine was overloaded with rescue/extrication equipment wherever it would fit, operations and training were extremely overcomplicated, and the quality of service that could be provided to the taxpayers was negatively impacted. I learned a valuable lesson here...if you can handle an EMS call with a utility, then there is no reason to take an engine.

The solution to the problem is training...but as well all know manpower is sparse and if you make it too hard to get qualified then the guys would get discouraged and just give up trying. So you just have to say, "this guy has put in as much effort as I think he is willing to put into this and he knows enough to not get anyone killed on the way to your everyday alarm. He can draft and put an attack line into operation so we will have to just give him our blessing." The department with which I was previously affiliated didn't even require drivers to take EVOC or Pump Ops to Chauffeur an engine because the members simply would choose not to drive and the trucks wouldn't get out.

Do I agree with this? HELL NO...

The problem is inherent to the volunteer fire service and cannot be adequately corrected as the involved factors are correlated...you can't have all three: knowledgeable, quality chauffeurs; happy, motivated and accomplished-feeling manpower (drivers); and apparatus that make it out the door for every alarm.

If you had to cringe as an officer when the rigs go out the door then I really feel sorry for you. That is a bad, bad situation.