Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
x635

Goldens Bridge - 3rd Alarm 2-25-15

82 posts in this topic

I will grant you the weather. Weather is unpredictable and often unforgiving. However geography isn't changing so I have to ask what about geography made this a tough fire? Aren't most of the homes in that part of the county on one lane sometimes dirt roads with narrow driveways? That's nothing new and should be an insignificant issue.

Time of day? That the time of day is an issue for the effective response of any fire department is a travesty. More reason to regionalize and consolidate departments and maximize the limited resources we have. If it took 13 departments because it was a weekday and it would have taken only 6 on a weekend day, we have a major problem with the "system"!

Well, I would suggest that geography is ever changing. This house was reported to be more remote than most. Tougher access to the operating pumper, perhaps longer distances to a tanker fill site, ect. There are tons of variables here and we have to trust the IC's decision to request X number of tankers.

As for the "system" and time of day....

I agree completely, but that's a different discusion....and a much bigger one.

Dinosaur likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I was on scene. In the beginning when lines were getting stretched there was absolutely no one there. Interior crews stretched (2) 2.5's through the snow. Then the one I was on went into the basement that had heavy fire and full of "junk" , crews went through multiple bottles until additional resources arrived. I am not sure if many of the 8 or 11 tankers that were called actually dumped water. The additional alarms in essence were called for manpower but based on the location and the pre-planned run cards were tanker heavy.

Bnechis likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have been watching this thread for a couple of days and really don't like to Monday morning QB but can someone explain to me why you would stretch not one but two 2 1/2 in hand lines into a 1800 Sq Ft residential fire? There are 2 things that are most needed to make that choice of a hand line successful. The 2 critical factors were most likely not met here. They did not have the manpower nor the water to operate these hand lines. I would think that those lines would produce about 500 GPM combined. That would certainly not be my choice as the first due Engine company officer who is counting on a tanker shuttle. A couple of 1 3/4 or 2 in lines would be the right choice to start out with as they are a lot more maneuverable in the confined qtrs. of residential fires. Leave the 2 1/2's to commercial fires and depts. that have the manpower to move them unless you are making a giant circle with one and sitting on the front lawn with it. I won't talk about the lack of exposures at the fire which would negate the need for 7 Engine companies and a tower ladder that most likely never made it up the driveway and would have better served its community by staying in qtrs. So I will end this session for all you Engine company officers out there to refresh upon. ( paid or volley )

There are several fire flow formulas in use today, but for the sake of space, we’ll only touch on two: the National Fire Academy (NFA) formula and the Iowa Rate of Flow. Each has pros and cons.

The NFA formula is based on offensive interior operations where less than 50 percent of the building is involved. The formula is:

Needed fire flow = [(length x width) ÷ 3] x percent of involvement

Example: For a 30' x 50' building that’s 25 percent involved, the flow would be 30 x 50 = 1,500 square feet, divided by 3 = 500 x 0.25 = 125 gpm.

Based on that required fire flow, one handline pumped at the correct pressure should be able to produce the required gpm.

The Iowa Rate of Flow is based on work performed by Keith Royer and Bill Nelson while they were working for Iowa State University’s fire training program. While studying the effects of fog streams on interior fires, the pair demonstrated that all you need to do is put the right amount of water in the right place for the fire to go out—something that’s often overlooked by the modern fire service.

The Iowa formula is:
Required volume = (length x width x height) ÷ 100

Example: The same 30' x 50' building used in the first example is 10 feet high. 30 x 50 x 10 = 15,000, divided by 100 = 150 gpm.

The Iowa formula is based on science, while the NFA formula is based more on information gained from experienced fire officers from around the country. The Iowa formula is also based on a 30-second application rate, which is more applicable to today’s fireground, where application rates should be based on gallons per second, not gallons per minute.

I was on scene. In the beginning when lines were getting stretched there was absolutely no one there. Interior crews stretched (2) 2.5's through the snow. Then the one I was on went into the basement that had heavy fire and full of "junk" , crews went through multiple bottles until additional resources arrived. I am not sure if many of the 8 or 11 tankers that were called actually dumped water. The additional alarms in essence were called for manpower but based on the location and the pre-planned run cards were tanker heavy.

Edited by lad12derff
M' Ave and gss131 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you have never heard the old saying " so goes the first line so goes the fire "

BFD1054 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how consolidation fits into this discussion. Needing eight tankers is needing 8 tankers. True that a county department would (hopefully) allocate resources in a more even fashion so areas with the need for tankers would have them. But anyway...

For those of you not familiar with tanker operations, there is a formula that determines how many tankers you will need. For example, a 2000 gallon tanker driving a three mile loop can only supply 150 gallons per minute. Sooo, if they were flowing 1200 gallons a minute, they would need...8 tankers. Or if the three miles was over crappy roads, you just might need the 8 tankers to flow even less water. Having been a water supply officer on a similar fire, until all those tankers get in the right line, and into the flow, it seems like more, more, more is the answer.

Consolidation is all about getting the unions all exited about putting in more paid staff.

Bottom of Da Hill likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this topic goes to show why this website has gone down the tubes.

This discussion, and this website, will often include conversations about operations and tactics. If we can't critique (constructively) operations of our own, or other departments, we'll learn nothing.

Emergency operations from New York City to Peoria deserve analysis and critique. No event is without mistake or action that could be evaluated after the fact. What are we supposed to say? The fire went out, great job guys?

For my own part of this discussion; I was not there, I did not take part. That limits my ability to comment, but photos and resources called raised some points for discussion. I for one will ALMOST never question the request for additional resources. Call more than ya need and send'em home if you find your self in better position to manage the incident with units on scene. At this particular fire, it looks as though the first due department was faced with several adverse conditions and they summoned more resources to overcome them. Fine. I did question the need for members to be operating on a peaked roof, covered in snow, to facilitate vertical ventilation. Vert. Venting is not always particularly beneficial in a PD and the risk of putting members on the roof seems unnecessary. In my dept., peaked roof ventilation is accomplished from the bucket of a tower ladder while the member is belted in. Clearly there is decades of operational experience that calls for such caution. Chainsaws, additionally, are THE. MOST. DANGEROUS. TOOL. we use.

I hope this discussion continues with focus on an, over-all, job well done. However,we can all improve and this is how.

**Discussions on staffing, consolidation and general resources is one that needs a great deal more attention than it's getting, but lets focus here on a single operation, it's merit's and detraction's, and not something fundamental that effects the whole fire service.

X2321, BFD1054, x635 and 4 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consolidation.............................

I dont think comsolidation would matter in this case. The number of appratus needed, especially with regard to tankers would be the same. Manpower as well.

BIG difference would probably be the amount of apparatus just sitting in the firehouses not manned.

Instead of 11 deparments responding to the scene it would be 1. Same "stuff" though. In most consolidation plans I hear people talk about for the North part of the county the stations would remain, but the departments would be responsble for 1 or 2 rigs instead of a "fleet."

In this case each department for the most part respomded with 1 or 2 rigs. The same scenario if it were 1 consolidated Northern agency.

SageVigiles and AFS1970 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consolidation is all about getting the unions all exited about putting in more paid staff.

You know the consolidation of volunteer departments without the addition of any paid personnel could be a significant improvement over the completely arcane system we have now. Everyone immediately assumes that consolidation implies paid but it doesn't! How about merging 4-5 districts that serve the same town? Or the countless villages that rely heavily on each other and are smaller than a postage stamp.

Imagine a River Towns or Sound Shore or North County Fire District with several former departments under one hierarchy. Economies of scale in purchasing, reduction of apparatus numbers (and the ability to have "spares", something virtually non-existent outside the big cities), higher personnel counts, standard training, administration and operations, to name a few.

A member department with strengths in one area can help one weak in that area and so on. Officers can be vetted from a larger pool of candidates improving the quality, competition, and ultimately performance. Chiefs will oversee a bigger department giving them more experience. Budgets can be consolidated perhaps reducing the overall cost to the taxpayer.

There's a lot to be said for consolidating and it doesn't mean adding ONE paid guy.

NoWestFF, M' Ave, X2321 and 14 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the consolidation of volunteer departments without the addition of any paid personnel could be a significant improvement over the completely arcane system we have now. Everyone immediately assumes that consolidation implies paid but it doesn't! How about merging 4-5 districts that serve the same town? Or the countless villages that rely heavily on each other and are smaller than a postage stamp.

Imagine a River Towns or Sound Shore or North County Fire District with several former departments under one hierarchy. Economies of scale in purchasing, reduction of apparatus numbers (and the ability to have "spares", something virtually non-existent outside the big cities), higher personnel counts, standard training, administration and operations, to name a few.

A member department with strengths in one area can help one weak in that area and so on. Officers can be vetted from a larger pool of candidates improving the quality, competition, and ultimately performance. Chiefs will oversee a bigger department giving them more experience. Budgets can be consolidated perhaps reducing the overall cost to the taxpayer.

There's a lot to be said for consolidating and it doesn't mean adding ONE paid guy.

Spot on.

vwwh1, x635, M' Ave and 3 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I can see where consolidation might hurt an incident like this. This is because the principla reason for consolidation is saving money, which is generally a good thing.

Imagine a county with 25 Fire districts. Of those, 15 have Tankers. Now you consolidate and as part of teh reduction in apparatus, you go down to 10 Tankers. Now this fire that required 8 for a given flow, is using 80% of your Tanker fleet. Not only can't you fight another fire at the same time, you are severly limited in how much you can increase without going right back to using mutual aid.

fire2141 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I can see where consolidation might hurt an incident like this. This is because the principla reason for consolidation is saving money, which is generally a good thing.

Imagine a county with 25 Fire districts. Of those, 15 have Tankers. Now you consolidate and as part of teh reduction in apparatus, you go down to 10 Tankers. Now this fire that required 8 for a given flow, is using 80% of your Tanker fleet. Not only can't you fight another fire at the same time, you are severly limited in how much you can increase without going right back to using mutual aid.

That's the problem, you assume there would be a reduction in tankers. Frankly there would probably be an increase in tankers and a reduction in engines since the county already has more of them than all of NYC.

Properly analyzed and using real information not emotion or reliance on tradition, a regional, consolidated department would probably be far better equipped than we are today.

BFD1054, M' Ave, Bnechis and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Properly analyzed and using real information not emotion or reliance on tradition, a regional, consolidated department would probably be far better equipped than we are today.

I have to say I agree with this assessment. As proof I would say just look to departments that took action and consolidated 15 to 20 years ago to see how they've fared over the long term in this aspect. To the best of my knowledge (which I freely admit is somewhat limited) there has been a major improvement to the allocation and use of apparatus and other resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think comsolidation would matter in this case. The number of appratus needed, especially with regard to tankers would be the same. Manpower as well.

A single department would have 1 set of SOPs. The initial alarm would get a standard alarm assignment. Maybe for this area 3 engines 1 truck and 3 tankers on the reported fire. When all the responding chiefs are members of the same department they would get assigned necessary roles as they reported in (basement division, division 1, safety, water supply).

A key to success is getting enough help there when it can make a difference. Too often the volunteer fire service in this area waits for a confirmed fire to call for adequate resources or runs out of resources on the scene and then puts the FAST to work and then calls for more help. In my opinion if you have a real working fire you should have at least one company standing behind you ready for assignment in addition to the fast. My opinion is that ability to forecast the incident needs and call for additional alarms early on comes with experience that is lacking for most volunteer ICs since they get kicked out every 2 years so everyone can have a turn as chief. As a young company officer I often though wow do we really need the second alarm that the chief just gave? We did. One of my first days as a Captain a well respected deputy chief visited me to give a little advice when i worked as an acting battalion chief. His advice was if the though of giving a second alarm even entered my mind he wanted me to give it.

As for this incident the factors involved seemed like a loser from the get go (basement fire and Colliers conditions) pulling the plug was the right move here and probably prevented injuries or worse.

x635, BFD1054, SageVigiles and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have been watching this thread for a couple of days and really don't like to Monday morning QB but can someone explain to me why you would stretch not one but two 2 1/2 in hand lines into a 1800 Sq Ft residential fire? There are 2 things that are most needed to make that choice of a hand line successful. The 2 critical factors were most likely not met here. They did not have the manpower nor the water to operate these hand lines. I would think that those lines would produce about 500 GPM combined. That would certainly not be my choice as the first due Engine company officer who is counting on a tanker shuttle. A couple of 1 3/4 or 2 in lines would be the right choice to start out with as they are a lot more maneuverable in the confined qtrs. of residential fires. Leave the 2 1/2's to commercial fires and depts. that have the manpower to move them unless you are making a giant circle with one and sitting on the front lawn with it. I won't talk about the lack of exposures at the fire which would negate the need for 7 Engine companies and a tower ladder that most likely never made it up the driveway and would have better served its community by staying in qtrs. So I will end this session for all you Engine company officers out there to refresh upon. ( paid or volley )

There are several fire flow formulas in use today, but for the sake of space, we’ll only touch on two: the National Fire Academy (NFA) formula and the Iowa Rate of Flow. Each has pros and cons.

The NFA formula is based on offensive interior operations where less than 50 percent of the building is involved. The formula is:

Needed fire flow = [(length x width) ÷ 3] x percent of involvement

Example: For a 30' x 50' building that’s 25 percent involved, the flow would be 30 x 50 = 1,500 square feet, divided by 3 = 500 x 0.25 = 125 gpm.

Based on that required fire flow, one handline pumped at the correct pressure should be able to produce the required gpm.

The Iowa Rate of Flow is based on work performed by Keith Royer and Bill Nelson while they were working for Iowa State University’s fire training program. While studying the effects of fog streams on interior fires, the pair demonstrated that all you need to do is put the right amount of water in the right place for the fire to go out—something that’s often overlooked by the modern fire service.

The Iowa formula is:

Required volume = (length x width x height) ÷ 100

Example: The same 30' x 50' building used in the first example is 10 feet high. 30 x 50 x 10 = 15,000, divided by 100 = 150 gpm.

The Iowa formula is based on science, while the NFA formula is based more on information gained from experienced fire officers from around the country. The Iowa formula is also based on a 30-second application rate, which is more applicable to today’s fireground, where application rates should be based on gallons per second, not gallons per minute.

For someone not liking the monday morning quarterbacking, Sure seems thats exactly what your doing here questioning the decisions of the set pre plans, as well from the I.C who requested those companies there for man power. As well the tower ladder there was the original fast team until put to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the consolidation of volunteer departments without the addition of any paid personnel could be a significant improvement over the completely arcane system we have now. Everyone immediately assumes that consolidation implies paid but it doesn't! How about merging 4-5 districts that serve the same town? Or the countless villages that rely heavily on each other and are smaller than a postage stamp.

Imagine a River Towns or Sound Shore or North County Fire District with several former departments under one hierarchy. Economies of scale in purchasing, reduction of apparatus numbers (and the ability to have "spares", something virtually non-existent outside the big cities), higher personnel counts, standard training, administration and operations, to name a few.

A member department with strengths in one area can help one weak in that area and so on. Officers can be vetted from a larger pool of candidates improving the quality, competition, and ultimately performance. Chiefs will oversee a bigger department giving them more experience. Budgets can be consolidated perhaps reducing the overall cost to the taxpayer.

There's a lot to be said for consolidating and it doesn't mean adding ONE paid guy.

It seems like everyone is ignoring the side-by-side example of a consolidated volunteer department that sits right next door to the town in which this fire occurred. The town of Somers and the Town of Lewisboro have very similar constructs but have gone in opposite directions in terms of a consolidated department vs individual departments. Somers is about the same size as the Town of Lewisboro. They have 4 fire houses spread across town but operate as one department, with one chain of command, one set of SOPs, one fire district and consolidated resources. Conversely, in the Town of Lewisboro, they have the Golden's Bridge Fire Department, the South Salem Fire Department, and the Vista Fire Department (and the Lewisboro Ambulance Corps). Each of these departments are completely independent of one another and have their own chain of command, separate Fire District, separate equipment and their own set of SOGs.

In my opinion the consolidated volunteer department makes more sense for the following reasons:

  • The town of Lewisboro has 3 Mid-Heavy Rescue Units (Counting Rescue 24 may it rest in peace)...All of NYC has 5!
  • The town of Lewisboro has 7+ Chief Vehicles.
  • Each department in Lewisboro has at least 2 "Class A" engines so that they can stay in service when one goes out for maintenance. 90% of the time each engine rolls without a full crew anyway (thats if they can even get two engines out the door)
  • Shortage of Officers. When I joined the fire service 10 years ago Vista Fire Department had 3 chiefs and a multiple captains, Lieutenants and Foremen, etc...now they are down to 3 officers (a chief, a captain, and a lieutenant). I believe that GBFD currently operates with two of their Lt. positions vacant. Moreover, many departments' by-laws are constantly being set aside to allow people who don't meet the professional qualifications to hold office. In many instances, members are being promoted to officer positions after being a member for only a year and having never been first-due to a car fire let alone a structure fire.

What it all comes down to here is that you are ultimately going to get the same resources to a fire in both towns. In Somers you will probably get 20-30 members town-wide who will all respond to a daytime incident. In Lewisboro, you will get 10 members from the "host" department and 5-6 from each of the other 2 departments in town via mutual aid.

The differences however are major!

  • There will be a delay in resources because you have to wait for the host department to get on scene to dispatch mutual aid...they will have to operate with 4-6 people for at least the first 10-15 minutes until mutual aid can respond to their firehouses and then to the scene.
  • There will be way too many Chiefs on scene because there will be 3 from each of the other departments in town...and not enough indians because anyone who is even remotely good will be a chief already (side note...I think Croton Falls had command on this last Goldens Bridge fire and at their firehouse fire last year).
  • The manpower from the three independent departments will be less familiar with the equipment and personnel from the other departments than that of the one consolidated department.
  • 3 sets of SOGs vs one consolidated set.

I thought the side-by-side comparison may help clear up the confusion that a consolidated department would have to be paid. The Town of Somers could probably have ended up as the Granite Springs, Amawalk, Lincoldale, and Town of Somers fire departments had they wanted to go that route...for all I know they may have been at some point way back when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For someone not liking the monday morning quarterbacking, Sure seems thats exactly what your doing here questioning the decisions of the set pre plans, as well from the I.C who requested those companies there for man power. As well the tower ladder there was the original fast team until put to work.

You guys love to throw around that pre plan term but do you really know what it means. If I ask the COD of the Goldens Bridge FD for his pre plan of this house can he produce it? Please stop with BS terms you don't know nor use!

Dinosaur likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I think we're confusing "alarm assignments" with "pre-plans." Those are not the same thing.

Or training with pre plans. You can train on tanker shuttles, and I'm sure they do, but if your going to try and correct someone please don't make a fool of yourself. How about all you guys who state that manpower was needed come up with a plan on how to get the manpower there without wasting equipment needed at home. We can't outfit a small bus with 8 SCBA's to transport members of a mutual aid dept to the scene? I guess it's not as fun to respond in on a job on a bus as it is an engine!

x152 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no hydrants in this area. This particular road happens to be a dirt road which in the best of seasons can barely accomodate two way traffic. It's one of those areas in town that a chief would dread having to deal with a structure fire on even in the middle of summer.

Here is a pretty important piece of information needed for a pre plan in the winter. Piles of snow on the side of the road which most likely made this a one lane road would tell me as an IC that I don't need 31 pieces of equipment on scene. ( that's what the assignment shows in the first post ) If you had a down FF how far away was EMS? Were they blocked in or out by all the equipment? Once again it always ends up that people don't want to learn from others and they really do get their panties all in a bunch. I'm sure this was a downright snotty job and fire was everywhere and all companies made that push in as we all talk about after the fire. I know in the 20 years i'm doing this all my fires were described as down right nasty, snotty old school jobs!! Get Real, the house was lost before you arrived. We have all pulled up to a losing battle!!!!

Edited by lad12derff
x152, Dinosaur and velcroMedic1987 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone in this topic has said they would do it their way which is absolutely fine. None of you were the IC, and we've heard from members on scene even one in charge of operations, the IC did it how he thought he should run it. That's that. You guys didn't get the answers your looking for and have now jumped on the consolidation argument hoping that will work. I believe it was posted earlier in the topic, this is for discussion about the fire incident itself not consolidation. Feel free to make another topic about that so that can fade away like all the other consolidation topics. Like I said the pettiness and the unhappy with the answers you're getting is the reason this website has died.

Edited by mreis95
AFS1970 and highwaybuff like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone in this topic has said they would do it their way which is absolutely fine. None of you were the IC, and we've heard from members on scene even one in charge of operations, the IC did it how he thought he should run it. That's that. You guys didn't get the answers your looking for and have now jumped on the consolidation argument hoping that will work. I believe it was posted earlier in the topic, this is for discussion about the fire incident itself not consolidation. Feel free to make another topic about that so that can fade away like all the other consolidation topics. Like I said the pettiness and the unhappy with the answers you're getting is the reason this website has died.

I wasn't looking for answers when I posted about consolidation. It's just every time dozens of departments are needed for a single family dwelling on fire it highlights the need for it.

I'm not criticizing those involved in this fire nor am I being petty and unhappy. Sooner or later enough people will learn the truth about consolidation possibilities to make it happen. Won't be in my lifetime but still...

NOTE TO MODERATORS: Since the consolidation discussion has offended some, can you split it to another thread?

AFS1970 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or training with pre plans. You can train on tanker shuttles, and I'm sure they do, but if your going to try and correct someone please don't make a fool of yourself. How about all you guys who state that manpower was needed come up with a plan on how to get the manpower there without wasting equipment needed at home. We can't outfit a small bus with 8 SCBA's to transport members of a mutual aid dept to the scene? I guess it's not as fun to respond in on a job on a bus as it is an engine!

Point taken but not a bus...a squad type unit...you Westchester guys like to call them patrols...no?

With todays requirements you would need some sort of secure storage for the scba's if they are not built into a seat back and secure storage for a good assortment of tools. Never come empty handed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't outfit a small bus with 8 SCBA's to transport members of a mutual aid dept to the scene? I guess it's not as fun to respond in on a job on a bus as it is an engine!

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

fire2141 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't outfit a small bus with 8 SCBA's to transport members of a mutual aid dept to the scene? I guess it's not as fun to respond in on a job on a bus as it is an engine!

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

I guess it is not possible to build vehicles for transporting firefighters and their equipment then?

post-4072-0-61843400-1425733787.jpg

post-4072-0-44253200-1425733823.jpg

post-4072-0-22822900-1425733838.jpg

post-4072-0-79205200-1425733848.jpg

post-4072-0-05001600-1425733863.jpg

post-4072-0-55226700-1425733903.jpg

post-4072-0-93945800-1425733931.jpg

post-4072-0-00413500-1425733956.jpg

post-4072-0-72976800-1425733972.jpg

post-4072-0-85497600-1425734006.jpg

post-4072-0-75249500-1425734053.jpg

post-4072-0-85220400-1425734068.jpg

post-4072-0-18222200-1425734088.jpg

post-4072-0-10075300-1425734113.jpg

post-4072-0-34274900-1425734132.jpg

post-4072-0-91600800-1425734174.jpg

post-4072-0-30833400-1425734192.jpg

Thanks for the post, I never realized how many different designs for crew transport their were, I only considered a van or suburban. Now I need to go get a picture of NRFD's 2300 passenger van (that we use for transporting relief crews to fires) I cant find any pictures of it.

EmsFirePolice and lad12derff like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no question that there would be some benefits to consolidation. The benefits probably would outweigh the costs. However I reject the idea that there would be more tankers in a consolidated department. Sure the number of engines will probably decrease, but to say that Engines Trucks and Rescues will decrease but Tankers will increase is simply foolish.

As for the number of Rescues, like with all apparatus two things should be taken into consideration, call volume and geography. With Rescues you have one more factor to take in and that is duties. In most suburban departments the Rescue handles extrication. In NYC that is handled by the Ladder Co. How many Rescues would they need if all pin jobs got a Rescue? For that matter how many would they need if NYPD ESU stopped doing MVA's? Comparing FDNY to just about anywhere else is far too often a great example of apples and oranges.

fire2141 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are really good at using Google images, I will give you that. I'm aware that fire department buses and transport trucks exist. I am also acutely aware that space ships exist. Yes, it is still dumb. We're not talking USAR or wildland. It's not a crew of part time college kids with backpacks and rakes. You have a fire station with firemen and fire trucks and now you want everyone to buy a bus to take instead of the fire truck. You are advocating buying 8-24 duplicate SCBAs, hand tools, saws, flashlights etc. To put on a transport bus. To take to a routine fire. Yes. This is still very dumb. Also if all the firemen take the bus, who is going to be there for the fire engine anyway? I'm starting to see the writing on the wall of why to stop reading this site. I'm arguing with someone on the internet if firemen should take a bus or a fire engine. Time to find a new hobby.

x279, INIT915 and fire2141 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are really good at using Google images, I will give you that. I'm aware that fire department buses and transport trucks exist. I am also acutely aware that space ships exist. Yes, it is still dumb. We're not talking USAR or wildland. It's not a crew of part time college kids with backpacks and rakes. You have a fire station with firemen and fire trucks and now you want everyone to buy a bus to take instead of the fire truck. You are advocating buying 8-24 duplicate SCBAs, hand tools, saws, flashlights etc. To put on a transport bus. To take to a routine fire. Yes. This is still very dumb. Also if all the firemen take the bus, who is going to be there for the fire engine anyway? I'm starting to see the writing on the wall of why to stop reading this site. I'm arguing with someone on the internet if firemen should take a bus or a fire engine. Time to find a new hobby.

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.

Dinosaur likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.