JFLYNN

Sarcasm aside, I used the term lottery rather than test or exam because if you are drawing from your membership they are already in your system, not applying from outside your system. You could of course limit participation in the lottery to interior FF but how else does everyone get a fair shot if you have many more members than available slots to fill? You open up a bigger can of worms by adjusting the lottery (extra credit toward selection) based on seniority or higher levels of training since everyone will be required to go through the fire academy successfully regardless of past experience.

Keep an engine as a volunteer company and you're not shutting out your membership or the spirit of volunteerism in your community. You are just ensuring that your community is well protected.

The "some people" comment is because I find a lot of posts that are less constructive suggestion and too much 'I know best'. In Westchester the diversity in the make up of the fire service can be extreme. I have been on departments where the hospital was 5 minutes away and all our district had hydrants to other departments where the hospital was 30 minutes away and there were no hydrants. Then factor in population density and types of structures and commercial business to farming, land locked vs. River or Sound and Westchester offers a very diverse playing field and one departments unique circumstances can not necessarily be appreciated by anothers.

And, I find that many, not all, of the paid guys posts sometimes come with a condescending tone toward volunteers. That's my impression. Too much criticism and not enough constructive suggestion.

This post got its legs because someone felt it necessary to point out that the person behind the wheel was a volunteer, not a career and it was so important for the world to know that. Really, what was the point to that? Are all those youtube videos of crashing big paid department rigs all photo shopped? Paid or volunteer, accidents happen and each accident should be evaluated on its own merits as to the cause and the presumption that the biggest contributing factor to the accident was the firefighters level of compensation shouldn't really be a factor.

"the presumption that the biggest contributing factor to the accident was the firefighters level of compensation shouldn't really be a factor."-

This is absolutely correct! Compensation has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. As I have said previously, the huge differences between career and volunteer firefighters in New York State are ones of selection standards, training standards, physical fitness standards, accountability standards, promotion standards, etc. Basically we are talking about qualifications here. The overwhelming majority of career Firefighters who must by necessity live up to these standards should not suffer blows or be discredited by the actions of a volunteer firefighter or volunteer firefighters who are not required to live up to the same standards.

Particularly in these times, when career Firefighters are under attack in regard to levels of personnel, compensation and benefits, and whether or not we are worth the investment the community is making in our services, it is important that the vast differences between standards for volunteer and career firefighters be emphasized, especially in instances such as the one in Harrison, which are fairly common in the volunteer fire service, and extremely rare on the career side.

Volunteer Firefighters go to great lengths to emphasize to their communities that they are "VOLUNTEER", and are providing a vital service which saves the community oodles and oodles of money. OK, fair enough. Why then, would there be a problem when career Firefighters choose to say, "wait, first of all there are many hidden costs with volunteer fire departments- (pensions, health insurance, tax breaks and other perks and incentives, higher insurance premiums, annual solicitations), and furthermore, career Firefighers must live up to much more stringent standards than do volunteers?"

This is in no way advocating for careeer Firefighters everywhere, nor is it a bash on the many good, dedicated people who serve as volunteer Firefighters in their communities.

I realize I won't convince the poster I am responding to here, or certain other members of this site. They will most likely choose to make a personal attack, or to accuse me of making a personal attack. I expect and accept that. I do realize however, that continuing to calmly explain the differences between career and volunteer Firefighters in New York State, in this forum and elsewhere, will open up the eyes of many in our community. If people have this information, hopefully more will begin to realize the difference, and understand why, in certain communities, career Firefighters are a necessity and worth every penny spent. Perhaps many who read these postings and are open minded will also realize that in certain communities served by volunteers (not all) there are many hidden costs and inneficences. With this realization by the community, maybe, over time, through consolidation and regionalization, more stringent training standards and accountability, things everywhere in the fire service can get better.

Again, thank you for keeping this thread going and thus giving me additional opportunities to discuss these important issues in the Fire Service.

Oh lets just put this to rest once and for all. The solution is eliminate all volunteer departments and go career.

Create a list from the volunteer ranks of those who wish to become career members, hold a lottery and the selected members will attend the fire academy, graduate and become career members of their formerly volunteer departments.

Adjust the local property tax rate or create a new tax category to pay for it and everyone will be happy, except the taxpayer. But, its not important if it's a financial burden to the populace, what is important is that some people know what's best for everyone and we should listen to them.

Um, we don't hold lotteries or have popularity contests, we take tests...

And I for one really wouldn't want to see all volunteer departments go career. I'd be happy if we could all just acknowledge the many differences in selection, training, retention, accountability, selection of leaders, culture, etc. between career and volunteer, and admit that it is what it is, instead of just saying, "a Firefighter is a Firefighter..."

What was it in any post on this thread that makes you feel that someone on here feels that "some people know what's best for everyone and we should listen to them"?

Everything you've stated explains why I would expect volunteers to have substantially worse numbers. What you're discounting is that the accidents include personal and dept vehicles. With every volunteer driving to the station and only one career firefighter per rig driving, the volunteers have many more miles per response. Does this make up for the disparity in total responses? I have no idea.

I don't think I will convince you 10570 so I won't try. But to everyone else, what he fails to realize is that every one of the career Firefighters needed to drive to and from the station as well. A volunteer driving to the station should exercise equally as much care as an off duty career member would. Volunteer Firefighters in POV's are not allowed to disregard traffic regs, so why would they have such a high accident rate if there was not an issue with reckless driving? Also, aren't volunteers often already in the station? I thought that they spent a lot of time there training, cleaning, maintaining, etc.?

Career Fire Departmets statistically put many, many more miles on the road than volunteer Fire Departments so the other point is moot.

The reason there is such a high accident rate is that Volunteer Fire Departments refuse to meet the same selection, training, and accountability standards as do career departments.

Just a reminder...my point in chiming in on this thread was not to attack volunteers, just to point out that it is unfair and harmful to career departments and career Firefighters when news articles are written about a Volunteer or Volunteer Firefighters who really screwed up, and they are not clearly identified as Volunteers, meaning they do not meet the same standards as career Firefighters and their actions should not reflect on those of us who do by necessity live up to those standards and whose livelihoods are put in jeopardy by these articles which add guilt by association unless the author properly recognizes the differences between the career and volunteer fire service.

The same issue goes with the arson problem....

This is not in any way a shot at the large majority of volunteer firefighters who are dedicated, hardworking, honest, etc., people.

It just is what it is.....

I will continue to point these differences out in the appropriate forums to the appropraite people for as long as it is an issue but I will not be drawn in to petty, personal bickering.

Yes, I know this post was not my best work grammatically, etc. but I'm trying to cook dinner, etc. and I just felt the need to bang this out quickly, lol.

Please explain

Hi guys. I had a chance to pop back in here quickly and the responses have just about been what I expected. In response to those who state that my statistics are oversimplified or misleading, I would perhaps agree that stats can be used to mislead and that the stats I posted were not a comprehensive statistical analysis of the problem. However, they were not misleading.

When I post on here about obvious problems like reckless driving in the volunteer fire service, I am not posting to reach those of you whose heads are in the sand, who see this as a career vs. volunteer battle, and who take these things personally. I fully realize that you are not open minded and that you will feel that your best defense is a good offense and you will attack me personally or the career fire service in general. It is what it is.

The people I am trying to reach are the reasonable, open minded members of this forum- career, volunteer, and other. Any member of the fire service who has been paying attention over the course of several years or more would realize that this issue is what it is...there are reckless drivers in both the career and volunteer fire service. However, this is a minor issue on the career side, and a rampant one on the volunteer side.

Those who will dispute this, make excuses, or attack career Firefighters to deflect from the issue at hand, rather than make some attempt to solve this serious problem, do a disservice to those whom they are sworn to protect.

Lohud has corrected the article by adding "volunteer" before "Firefighter". Thank you for doing the right thing lohud. The article is now fair and accurate. I will send emails to the appropriate editors to thank them later today when I have access to their email addresses.

That's enough time on here on my day off today! Hopefully lessons will be learned from this thread and tragic incidents like the one in Harrison can be prevented. Please don't take my non- responsiveness to further posts as anything other than that I am busy. If time permits I will respond, but for today I have spent too much time on here already.

Be safe out there guys!

You said the overwhelming majority of these wrecks are on the volunteer side. Do you have the stats? With the sheer number of volunteer fire departments I would expect more volunteer accidents than paid. Add in that every volunteer is driving to the scene or station, are volunteers more reckless. I don't have any real info on this, but would be curious to see the breakdown of accidents per firefighter or even department. I doubt its out there, but per mile driven could also be really interesting. I'm sure the bias towards younger firefighters and older equipment bumps up the rate of accidents for volunteers. All in all a comprehensive review of this would be very interesting.

Thanks for asking!

NFPA U.S. Firefighter Deaths in Motor Vehicle Accidents 2000-2010 shows 112 deaths to Volunteer Firefighters and 26 to Career Firefighters.

NFPA Selected Special Analyses of Firefighter Fatalities 1992-2002 states "Among those killed in incidents that occured while responding to, or returning from, alarms, were 251 members of local Fire Departments. Of these, 226 were Volunteer Firefighters and 25 were Career Firefighters."

We can infer from these statistics that property damage, injuries and death caused to innocent civilains is far higher in crashes involving volunteer Firefighters than career.

A simple Google search for "Firefighter Vehicle Accident" will show very many dramatic accidents which have occured. The overwhelming majority of these are identified as volunteer firefighters (I guess most media outlets realize the importance in regard to fairness and accuracy in identifying these drivers as volunteer Firefighters).

These stats are particularly troubling when it is considered that the majority of alarms requiring Fire Department response in the United States are to career departments.

OK, excellent. I couldn't agree more. I merely asked your position, as a recent article you were quoted in failed to include the term "career", and I wasn't sure if you were working to have that corrected.

I am all for equality.

Great, thanks!

Does that work both ways? Should news articles pertaining to career personnel point out as much?

Yes, absolutely! We are talking about two entirely different things. For the sake of fairness and accuracy, I believe that all news articles should state the word "career" or "volunteer" in front of Firefighter.

On another note I hope that this thread will generate some discussion regarding safe driving practices for both career and volunteer Firefighters.

Keep in mind however that the issue of reckless driving causing property damage, injuries, and deaths has been documented to be vastly more prevalent in the volunteer fire service as opposed to the career side.

It is a shame that no where in this article is this individual identified as a VOLUNTEER Firefighter. I am working to have that corrected.

The issue of reckless driving is much more prevalent in the Volunteer Fire Service than on the career side. This is not to say that there haven't been instances of career Firefighters driving recklessly. However, the overwhelming majority of these instances are on the volunteer side. That is something that the public should be aware of so that those who are served by career departments are not overly concerned and so that perhaps pressure may be brought to resolve this recurring problem with volunteer firefighters which has cost many lives and injuries.

Palm Beach County is reducing its paramedic ambulance crews from 3 to 2 if the third member is a replacement and requires overtime to fill in the position. Their budget has been hit hard these last few years as property values have declined by up to 50%.

While other public workers underwent a wage freeze the last several years, that option was not available due to the union contract. Accordingly, Palm Beach County Fire Rescue has not hired anyone in about two years and plans to eliminate about 110 positions, simply by not filling them, in order to deal with their budget.

At this time, everyone involved, including the firefighters, are not anticipating a reduction in response times or service.

These are Palm Beach Fire-Rescue trucks,staffed by Firefighter-Paramedics, not ambulances. Not all of them are being reduced to a 2 man crew, but many are. The Firefighters union has publicly stated that service will suffer, which of course it will, so your statement about "everyone involved" is also incorrect.

How is it that you can be down there in Florida and get this so wrong, and I can be up here in New York, and learn all of this in a 3 minute Google search? Why did I strongly suspect after reading your post that it was factually incorrect and that if I did a Google search my suspicion would be verified? Why do you think the situation in Palm Beach is at all relevant to what is now happening in Yonkers?

The sense of entitlement and self importance expressed by many of the posters on this thread is, unfortunately, not surprising. We are public servants, not the other way around guys. A fair days pay for a fair days work. Or, in the case of volunteers- volunteer, which means to do something with no expectation of compensation.

In my opinion. if there is a clearly advertised "deal" or "discount" for Fire / EMS / Police, go ahead and take it. If you need to ask for it, or persuade (aka intimidate, embarass or coerce) someone to give it to you, you have demeaned yourself and discredited your profession.

It is heartening to see from reading this thread that I am not alone in my feelings on this.

Thank you to everyone on EMTBRAVO who supported E-306 and the YFD in the RescueRemodel Contest. Congratulations to Palos as I am assuming that they won. It won't be announced officially until the 15th. I haven't seen any evidence that Palos or anyone else did anything unethical or unfair. Give them credit for doing whatever they did to get the vote out, which is exactly what our guys accomplished very succesfully as well. Maybe IKEA will recognize that there was a legitimate issue with their technology which raised some suspicions and caused a bit of frustration and they will award two (or even 5) kitchen remodels- it would be even more great publicity for them...we'll see...

In any event, this contest has, I feel, been a needed morale booster for our guys. Also, although there is nothing official to announce yet, we have received several inquiries from both individuals and businesses who may wish to take on all or a part of a kitchen remodel for E-306. We will keep you all posted if any of that comes to fruition.

Thanks again to everyone who voted for E-306, and for your expressions of support.

You chose to use the word volunteer over local fire depts. I'm not the one making this into a career vs volunteer issue, just commenting on your post.

You are just not making any sense at all here????

There are those who believe career fire protection is the only "real" or effective fire protection, just as there are those who feel volunteers offer benefits in terms of cost saving and community involvement while offering the same quailty of service. As with everything each are entitled to their own views and are free to express them, but blanket statements are always wrong. Some dept.s are well run, well organized, professional and this ensures that they get the job done to the benefit of their communities, and some aren't and don't....and as much as many may want to dispute it this fact cuts right across the career/volunteer line. Paychecks do NOT guarantee anything other than people fighting fires as a job, just as volunteerism does not guarantee anything other than people having an association with a fire dept. In this case it seems that the cost to service ratio is way out of whack, but that in and of itself should not be an indictment of volunteer firefighting. Each department must be viewed independently to determine their value to those they serve and only those served have the right decide if their dept is indeed valuable to them.

Cogs

As usual Cogs a very articulate, thoughtful and respectful post. However, you may have misinterpreted my post...it was not a "blanket statement" and I do not feel that volunteers can not provide effective fire protection in all cases. I do believe that in some areas of the country volunteers are the only option and the protection they provide is effective.

However, my comment stands...in the area in which I live and work, the media allows many volunteer fire departments to operate completely ineffectively and wastefully with absolutely no hard questions being asked such as the ones which were asked in the article at the top of this thread.

JFLYNN its funny that the word volunteer comes out here. You and the media can be as critical of volunteers as you want but there are career departments that have called other career departments from far far away instead of the volunteers next door.

I challenge you to identify a specific example to prove that a career department has a policy of bypassing a nearby volunteer department which can guarantee that its members meet minimum training standards and personnel levels, and which has a better resonse time into the requesting career departments district.

By perpetuating this myth you do a diservice to the people we are sworn to protect. Why would you make such a statement? Surely you understand that the physical location of a fire station is irrelevant when that firehouse has no guarantee that an adequately sized crew of properly trained firefighters are inside of it?

Please don't make this a career vs. volunteer issue. This is an issue of being honest and realistic with ourselves and the public whom we are sworn to protect. Let's put ego and false pride aside and admit the realities here...

That could never happen here...because we .......... (fill in the blank)

...because we have the local media fooled and they would never risk running a story which is critical of volunteers...?

It seems to me that what you have emphatically declared is a "fact' is actually not a fact, but rather your opinion...

I actually think this forum is the appropriate place to state our opinions, such as my opinion that it is a real disgrace that the minimum standards for volunteer Firefighters in NYS are so inferior to the minimum standards for career Firefighters.

For the factual answer to your question, rather than asking on here, why not just call OFPC?

I have two comments.

1. Ironic that today firehouse.com has an article on firefighter obesity!

2. You guys, and you know who you are, tell me some more about the greater levels of training and competency of paid 'professional' departments.

Oh yea!!!

Are you really in the 50-60 age range? Judging by the # 2 comment as well as the "Oh yea!!!!" I would have guessed much younger???

I'm sorry if I got out of line. I'll admit that current issues involving personnel with regards to structure fire responses should be discussed. I was just wondering what apparatus departments will send to a structure fire, and I guess I didn't take into account personnel or issues involving personnel that would cause the thread to not be misleading. I will also admit that when I created this thread it didn't have any relevance to anything other than personal interest. I realize that on EMTBravo, a topic should not solely be based on personal interest, but the interests of everybody, and should discuss every point of the issue.

I am new in this field, and I should have taken into account manpower and issues departments are facing when I created this topic, in order to look at all sides of it. If I offended anyone, I appoligize.

Thank you for being openminded enough to reconsider your original position after being presented with a differing opinion. Your manly ability to not take these things personally and to acknowedge that others have correctly pointed out a flaw in your original reasoning is admirable and unfortunately, all too rare in these parts.

These are life and death issues to those of us who have dedicated our lives to the Fire Service profession. A young man such as yourself with passion and an open mind will likely go far and be a credit to our vocation.

Please be careful who you listen to in regard to these matters and don't fall for the typical false accusations of volunteer bashing, which is not at all what this is all about.

It is bashing though of course. It is bashing of misleading information, misplaced priorities, and failed leaders.

JFLYNN, this thread is mearly for interest sake, to see what certain fire departments dispatch to the scene of the fire. If it is a paid department, there is a certain staffing level in which it is obvious to tell how many personnel are o/s. If a career department staffs 3 per rig, adding together the number of rigs then multiplying by 3 gives you the number of personnel on scene. For volunteers, it varries.

However, that aside, this thread is not about manpower and it is not about assessing a department's capabilities in regards to manpower. It is solely to see what and how many pieces of fire apparatus are dispatched to the scene depending on the department. It is, again, for interest sake and not to make it look like fire trucks are in any way more important than the firefighters that ride and operate them.

Yes, firefighters put out fires and personnel on scene is important, but this thread is not meant to discuss manpower, but rather apparatus response to structure fires in Westchester County.

Hope this clears things up.

No it actually doesn't clear things up. Actually I'm curious...Why does this interest you? What relevance do you think it has?

This is an interesting thread. IMO it really does a lot to demonstrate the mindset held by many members of the Fire Service in this region which is such a disservice to those we are sworn to protect and to our own fellow Firefighters....with the exception of helicoppers question regarding manpower (and he is a cop, not a Firefighter), and one other question and answer in regard to White Plains manpower, the whole thread so far is all about how many apparatus respond, with no mention of personnel.

Guys, Firefighters put out fires...Firefighters who are adequately trained and certified for interior firefighting and physically capable. A certain amount and type of apparatus, of course, is necessary, however, listing how many apparatus respond to structure fires is not only worthless in terms of assessing a department's capabilities, it is misleading.

Christopher, hang in there buddy! My thoughts are with you!

John Flynn, Yonkers Fire Dept.

Has anyone looked in to the possibility of providing gas for members cars for volunteering? It seems like a no brainer to me as a retention tool. I would think the only hard part is managing the distribution. This program would give members gas or diesel at the price the AHJ pays for it, allowing members to have a nice savings over gas at the local pump. With prices not going any lower and the economic outlook not any better this would be a great program, kind of like that health care program that never materialized.

Maybe we could give volunteers tax breaks too! And pensions! Oh, and we can buy a couple of SUV's and let them take turns electing people to use them 24/7! Hey, we can give them a discount on things like a pool membership, breaks from local merchants, movie theatres, etc.! Maybe we can build a hall which they can use for family events and such? We can spend money to throw a big party every year! Oh yes, how about providing a gym? Perhaps we can invest some money on travel reimbursements for vacations, um, I mean training travel...We should also make sure we absolutely do not question any money spent on apparatus and equipment...after all, that is just a "drop in the bucket" and these guys are volunteers, right?

What do you guys think? Will any of these ideas help out with recruitment and retention?

It just seems like a lot compared to the cities up this way.

What cities "up your way" are similar in size and demographics to New Rochelle?

Are those cities adequately manned? If so, what are you basing your opinion on?

I would hope that as you offer your opinion on what constitutes proper manning for a profession you apparently know little about in a city you seem to know even less about that there are real Firefighters who are likely going to be losing their livelihood there and the rest will be left to pick up the slack.

You have 142 firefighters for the City of New Rochelle alone? Wow!

Please elaborate on this comment. Do you think that is a lot? A little?