efdcapt115

I know cell phones are not really for the nouveau riche anymore. I was just saying that just because he assumes everyone has them, does not make it true. Besides, what happens when the entire northeast region loses power like it did 7 or 8 years ago? What are you going to do, use the flash of your camera to "bat-signal" you emergency in?

Larchmont Fire Department featured in my own copy from Fire Engineering Magazine. Also listed are other Westchester County NY Fire Departments proudly using Mack Fire Apparatus to protect residents.

I was scanning through the latest round of AFG grant announcements and I am pleasantly surprised that five departments from Westchester have been awarded federal money so far this year. I may have missed some, but the departments from Westchester I see are:
Banksville
Larchmont
Millwood
New Rochelle
Ossining
I wrote the Ossining grant, so I know how much work went into these. Congratulations to everyone so far.

I KNEW this was going to happen here, that members were going to "take the bait" that the City of Buffalo threw out to see where it would stick. Well if you bit into this ALCOHOL arguement, you've been BUFFALOED.
First, it is disgraceful that news organizations do not even do the DUE DLIGENCE to find out what happens after a LODD funeral; it's called a COLLATION, not a "reception", not a "party", nothing other than a collation, which is a religious term meaning "light meal." The term reception is reserved for happy occassions; like a wedding reception.
THOUSANDS of firefighters, career and volunteer alike, some from as far away as Australia attended two LODD funerals. The Union did the right thing in providing those members with a Collation, where brother firefighters, law enforcement, ems, all came together to commiserate, after standing at attention for TWO LODD funerals.
Ever been to a LODD funeral? Ever stand at attention for three or four hours? Then imagine this day, and doing it TWICE. Think you might want a bite and a brew, drink, soda, coffee afterward? Of course you would, so let's stop being ridiculous about this issue.
This is a simple case of a CONTRACT VIOLATION. The union has an ironclad, protected by LAW agreement with the C.O.B. which states, the city will pay the union $12,500 for a LODD funeral for expenses incured. Period. It doesn't say, "well, we'll pay for this line item or that line item", it says will pay for expenses. The City has violated the contract, the union has probably grieved the issue, this will be mediated, arbitrated, wind up in court, and the city will LOSE...and THEN PAY.
There are difficult and protracted contract negotiations between the city and the union right now. The firefighters and cops have marched on city hall, and many believe bringing ALCOHOL into the disscusion was merely an attempt to smear the union.
Let's please not get into who drinks what and where with who's 2% money or fundraising, etc. If you engage in that, you have been Buffaloed in this case.
No on-duty members imbibe at colations, period. The insinuation is thrown out to see where it will stick, and it landed right here on emtbravo, and you guys are missing the issue of a contract violation, and making judgements that you should not be making; whether "taxpayer's money" should be used for alcohol is a bogus disscusion. Corruption in gov't is rampant. Governors spend millions of dollars decorating their offices. Legislators are bought by lobbyists. Our tax money by the billions has been thrown at large corporations, who in turn have handed out RECORD BONUSES to their incompetent CEOs. YOUR money at work fellas. Where is the uproar about that?
Let us remember what we are talking about here, and if some locals like INIT's pay for their own expenses for an LODD funeral, well they obviously don't have a LODD funeral expenses line in THEIR contract, or they'd be getting reimbursed for it.
http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/84990367.html?video=YHI&t=a

In a lot of ways properly run fire based EMS has many benifits. The medics usually have more experience. Because of the better salary and working conditions fire based medics remain medics for a longer time. By rotating assignments (ride the truck one day an engine another and bus another) burnout can be prevented. Fire based EMS usually has better response time because of firehouse placement and ability to cross staff.
If EMS was a part of the fire department the providers would be paid a better wage, have better benifits, retirement, and would not have to worry about the contract changing every few years threating their livelyhood. I'm sure MLSS will do a good job but on the human side I hope all the providers land on their feet.

Some older pictures of Millerton's new tanker, 51-31. It is slated for arrival on the 15th of this month, more pictures are due soon and I will post them when I can.

Islamorada (pronounced Isle-ah-more-ah-dah) is a chain of islands in the Upper Keys of Florida. The fire department has three stations, 19-20-21. The 23 brothers on the job are members of IAFF Local 4374. They work 24/48. It is a combo department with approx. 50 volunteer members on the rolls. They have a career chief. In 2009 they did about 2,500 runs; approx. 80% EMS. They have four frontline apparatus, and three ALS buses (Rescues). The department works closely with Medivac choppers, as the closest Level One Trauma Center is Jackson Medical Center up on the mainland.

Lower Matecumbe Key is home to Station 19. Here they run a 2000 Sutphen Snozzle, Hale, 1500 GPM, 500 gallon booster, and one ALS Rescue unit:

On duty this day are Firefighter/Paramedic Chris Staton(L), and Firefighter/EMT Bret Frankel:

Station 20 is located on Upper Matecumbe Key. It houses a 2008 Sutphen 75' mid-mount, Hale pump, 1500 GPM, 500 gallon booster:

Tour Commander, Captain Geo(Joe) Toth(L), Firefighter/EMT James Griffeth®:

Each firehouse has an ALS Rescue. Station 20 houses this 2006 Sterling, body by ALF:

They have a hydrant system in the Keys, and supplement their water supply with this 1999 Pierce Quantum tanker, Waterous, 1500 GPM, 3000 gallon tank:

Up to the new Headquarters building, located in Founders Park, north-eastern Upper Matecumbe:

1998 Pierce Saber, top-mount pump panel, Waterous, 1250 gpm, 500 gallon booster, CAFS system:


Station 21 Firefighter/Paramedic Andrew Gamil(L), and FF/EMT Ron Jacobs:



Many thanks to the brothers of Local 4374. Stay safe!

I have, in reading this thread, identified what I consider to be a serious problem. It seems that in the Dutchess County area there is an awful lot of misinformation regarding FAST (RIT, MAI, RIC). The basics of the requirements for FAST have to be known from top to bottom (Chief to proby) in every FD. When you pull up to a job, a FAST Plan has to be established, to follow the 2 in 2 out requirement. You are not following the rule if your plan is something like "8 in 1 out and call for a qualified FAST team who will take 20 minutes to get there.
I see too many problems in this thread to be corrected by a few paragraphs by well knowledged people in this thread. It will require some formal training for most of the Depts whose people posted in this thread. The best advice I can give you is this; If you posted in thiis thread or your dept is mentioned in this thread, your Dept may have some serious problems with FAST requirement. Note that I said MAY. I sugggest you get in touch with OFPC,State Chiefs or Dave Walsh of Dutchess CC. Show them this thread. I'm sure they can come up with something to get you squared away.
I saw that efdcapt115 edited his post because of unnecessary harshness. Sorry you did that, Cap. This thread calls for a littlle roughing the kicker and piling on.

The driveway is long, windy and uphill. Luckily E118 had their chains on, because even though the driveway was plowed to fit a car, the width of the apparatus was larger, so the tires were digging in the snow to climb the hill. E118 stopped about 700' up the driveway and stretched their lines (rougly 200 - 300' each) to the fire building. One line went on to the roof of the large garage to hit the 2nd floor, the other to the front door. The fire appeared to have started on the first floor and went up the stairwell to the second floor. The first floor had holes just inside the front door, the stairs were almost gone, the second floor was fully involved and the roof was gone on my arrival. To add to it, there was a BBQ grill on the garage roof, which was used like a patio area, and one of the tanks let go on my arrival, thus why I said the fire was gas fed. It wasn't until we knocked down the bulk of the fire that I realized what it actually was.
All of the hydrants in the area were buried in snow, which had to be dug out. To add to things, the pressure was so low (the tanks are below this location and it's the end of the system) that we couldn't rely on our 5" LDH so 3" had to be used. I called for our "Tanker Task Force" to bring more water, which greatly assisted us by way of nursing. The first two lines made a big impact using just tank water, and the established water supplies aided in the overall extinguishment of this fire. While the water supply was being worked on, tank water from the Engines was used. We used between 50 - 75 gallons of foam to ensure all was extinguished as well at the end. Even though we had over 40 members on scene, plus another 30 or so from Mutual Aid, we were behind on this fire before we even got called. We heard from people that this fire was visible on the Tappan Zee Bridge, and many Mutual Aid units (and our own) saw it from miles away because of where it was located. I saw it from a distance and gave the "10-75."
Unfortunately, the family dog perished.
Units on scene:
Croton FD: 2082, E118, E119, E120, TL44, T10 (R18 OOS)
Ossining FD: 2332, 2334, E98, U51 FAST
Buchanan FD: 2551, 2553, U12 CASCADE
Millwood FD: 2252, T15
Yorktown FD: T14
Continental Village FD: 2131, 2133, T11
Croton EMS: 5513, 55B2
Cortlandt VAC: 88B3
Ossining EMS: 36M1, 7405
Pleasantville VAC: Rehab Unit
WCDES: Battalion 10, EMS 11, C&O Zone 4
Relocated to Croton Station 3: Montrose E123, Briarcliff TL40
And yeah, I said "Castle looking structure." I wasn't sure how else to describe it...
I tried attaching a Bing image, but I'm having no luck...

I don't understand why chiefs and coordinators have to worry about what department to call upon to provide a FAST crew. When I was still on the job, all of the firefighters in my career department were trained in FAST procedures and all ladder companies were fully equipped for that mission. In addition, all interior firefighters in my volunteer company were FAST trained and our apparatus were fully equipped for the task. FAST is a vital part of keeping our firefighters safe, it should not be treated as some kind of specialty such as Haz Mat, dive or high angle rescue. FAST training should be a part of basic firefighter training just like engine and ladder company operations are.

This is one of the things that makes this site interesting and useful. Thank you, Chief, for taking the time to answer when clearly you didn't have to.
It also speaks volumes about knowing what you're getting and not assuming! Caveat Emptor! Is the resource you're requesting going to be able to do the job you want it to or isn't it?
Kudos to you and your department for using the right resources for the right job!

Regarding your comments about the technical terminology of the OSHA Standard, and your legal interpretation of same; you are putting forth one of the most regressive arguements I've seen in quite some time. Are you quite sure that your legal knowledge is correct? You seem to have left out a few very key words in your deconstruction of the Standard; "provide EFFECTIVE EMERGENCY RESCUE." Do you understand how much weight those simple four words legally carry?
I'll tell you who does, FEMA for starters. They granted millions of dollars in AFG awards based on the proper application of the Standard you quoted. I've alluded to the fact that my job was a recipient of said AFG award. I will tell you, in the narrative, the term RIT or RIC (Rapid Intervention Crew is one which consists of fewer than four members) was used numerous times in justifying our need to be able to effectively perform the intent of 1910.134. FEMA agreed. I'm sure PESH would agree. I'm sure a judge would agree.
Many in the fire service have fought extremely hard to make this Standard just that; a Standard.
Please don't start telling all these members that there really is no "technical" requirement for FAST or RIT.
To all the younger guys that interpret your comments that there are technicalities, and ways to wiggle around with 1910.134, follow the progressive line of thought here fellas. FAST/RIT is one of the best improvements we have been able to establish in our lifetimes regarding firefighter safety. An IC that disregards the INTENT of the Standard, and trust me an attorney would be better able to explain the ramifications of the Standard in a lawsuit against a negligent IC; exposes him/herself to major liability. Aside from the catastrophy that might occur.
Stay progressive in your thoughts and actions out there guys. Please, for your own safety.
Edit: for unnecessary harshness.

Regarding your comments about the technical terminology of the OSHA Standard, and your legal interpretation of same; you are putting forth one of the most regressive arguements I've seen in quite some time. Are you quite sure that your legal knowledge is correct? You seem to have left out a few very key words in your deconstruction of the Standard; "provide EFFECTIVE EMERGENCY RESCUE." Do you understand how much weight those simple four words legally carry?
I'll tell you who does, FEMA for starters. They granted millions of dollars in AFG awards based on the proper application of the Standard you quoted. I've alluded to the fact that my job was a recipient of said AFG award. I will tell you, in the narrative, the term RIT or RIC (Rapid Intervention Crew is one which consists of fewer than four members) was used numerous times in justifying our need to be able to effectively perform the intent of 1910.134. FEMA agreed. I'm sure PESH would agree. I'm sure a judge would agree.
Many in the fire service have fought extremely hard to make this Standard just that; a Standard.
Please don't start telling all these members that there really is no "technical" requirement for FAST or RIT.
To all the younger guys that interpret your comments that there are technicalities, and ways to wiggle around with 1910.134, follow the progressive line of thought here fellas. FAST/RIT is one of the best improvements we have been able to establish in our lifetimes regarding firefighter safety. An IC that disregards the INTENT of the Standard, and trust me an attorney would be better able to explain the ramifications of the Standard in a lawsuit against a negligent IC; exposes him/herself to major liability. Aside from the catastrophy that might occur.
Stay progressive in your thoughts and actions out there guys. Please, for your own safety.
Edit: for unnecessary harshness.

Regarding your comments about the technical terminology of the OSHA Standard, and your legal interpretation of same; you are putting forth one of the most regressive arguements I've seen in quite some time. Are you quite sure that your legal knowledge is correct? You seem to have left out a few very key words in your deconstruction of the Standard; "provide EFFECTIVE EMERGENCY RESCUE." Do you understand how much weight those simple four words legally carry?
I'll tell you who does, FEMA for starters. They granted millions of dollars in AFG awards based on the proper application of the Standard you quoted. I've alluded to the fact that my job was a recipient of said AFG award. I will tell you, in the narrative, the term RIT or RIC (Rapid Intervention Crew is one which consists of fewer than four members) was used numerous times in justifying our need to be able to effectively perform the intent of 1910.134. FEMA agreed. I'm sure PESH would agree. I'm sure a judge would agree.
Many in the fire service have fought extremely hard to make this Standard just that; a Standard.
Please don't start telling all these members that there really is no "technical" requirement for FAST or RIT.
To all the younger guys that interpret your comments that there are technicalities, and ways to wiggle around with 1910.134, follow the progressive line of thought here fellas. FAST/RIT is one of the best improvements we have been able to establish in our lifetimes regarding firefighter safety. An IC that disregards the INTENT of the Standard, and trust me an attorney would be better able to explain the ramifications of the Standard in a lawsuit against a negligent IC; exposes him/herself to major liability. Aside from the catastrophy that might occur.
Stay progressive in your thoughts and actions out there guys. Please, for your own safety.
Edit: for unnecessary harshness.

A. Did they get there?
B. Did they serve the purpose that they were called for?
C. Did they have adequate manpower/ equipment?
D. Was there untoward effect (loss of life/ increased risk) secondary to their delayed response under extreme circumstances (ie. 3 extra alarm fires in the same Battalion)?
E. Did that response/ utilization of resources/ specific department preplan save or spend manpower from a department that otherwise dedicates limited manpower to high volume areas?
F. Would it be different if it was 1100 hrs on a weekday?
These are questions that when answered will lead to a productive conversation, otherwise there is a lot of scanner listening - armchair quarterbacking in this discussion which seems to be an increasing trend in this forum. This is extremely counterproductive,leads to overall misinformation, and threads being locked.
Albeit there are a few with tride and true fireground experience speaking of this call, most partaking in this thread (including myself and 90% of the membership here on EMTBravo) have somewhat limited fireground experience (just from age and profile information) in comparison to the scopes of decision making that is required in such unique situations (ie. practical preplans for multiple extra alarm fires in the same area with limited manpower/ resources and water supply coordination for a hydranted city during a state of emergency that essentially puts all of your hydrants out of service). Perhaps before we break out the "jump to conclusion mats" we could base our $h!t talking on some valid information. Perhaps "senior members", UC 911/ DC 911 Dispatchers, Emergency Management professionals, or a Chief of an involved Department would care to elaborate prior to this becoming a "blue light argument".

The latest- we are still waiting for the decision on our motion for a summary judgement. Also there is a question about person's within Mount Vernon City Hall being neglectful in the decision to terminate the Lieutenants list 2 weeks before it expired. The forged letter submitted by the Vulcans and the letter by the Attorney for the Vulcans was withdrawn by the Vulcan Atty 2 days after being submitted because according to him the complaint filed by the Vulcans had no merit. Did someone in city hall who was in a position of authority and was ordered to investigate the Vulcans claims drop the ball? It would be great to see an investigation launched to disclose the corruption in my case. Public Corruption as always in City Hall!

You guys are hung up on the "Took a class on how to run a Fire Department" quote.
This quote originally appeared in the Journal noNews quite a while ago, and I believe it had a typographical error that was never retracted by the newspaper.
The misspelled word was "ruin"

CTS= Chauffuer Training School, these rigs are used to train Chauffeurs at school they do not get assigned for field use. This is the first Seagrave Marauder Pumpers received, this was used to train the units that received these new units. The Newest Tower Ladders are coming in and the first is also marked CTS. It will be used for training chauffeurs and units that receive this type apparatus.

TV, RADIO, INTERNET, REVERSE 911. SEMAPHORE, SMOKE SIGNALS, OR FREE ONE-DAY PASS TO DISNEYWORLD. It doesn't matter how you ask. Only a small percentage of people will shovel out their hydrant. About the same percentage will shovel their snow onto the hydrant because it's a convenient place to put it.

The newer units, which are considered "Discovery Cove" have sprinklers. They also have lightweight truss construction, in case anyone on here ever finds themselves responding to a fire in this complex.

Please review this site and join if you so wish!
http://meritmattersusa.blogspot.com/
This is a very serious issue. The standards that define our job are in serious peril. We're going to see the degradation of our profession in the hands of left leaning politicians who would rather hand this job out to anyone to achieve a racial balance instead of putting in the time to educate and better everyone. STAND-UP!

Fire #1
87 Brook Street "Nappy Auto Collision & Repair"
Croton FD Units: 2082, 2083, E118, E119, E120, TL44, R18
Montrose FD Units: 2271, TL8
Ossining FD Units: 2332, 2334, E98, U51 (FAST)
Buchanan FD Units: 2553, U12 (Cascade)
Croton EMS: 5511, 55B2
Cortlandt EMS: 88B2
Ossining EMS: 36M1, 7405
WCDES: Battalion 10, C&O Zone 4
RELOCATED TO CROTON: Montrose E123, Yorktown L51
Info: CFD full assignment dispatched at 16:09 for heavy smoke coming from the building. CPD (who could see it from their HQ) updated as working fire right after dispatch. Fire in rear of 100 x 150 two story autobody shop with apartment above. Cars 2082 & 2083, E118 on location within 3 minutes, E119 & TL44 one minute after, E120 & R18 two minutes after that. Crews made entry and put two 2 1/2" lines to work, while simultaneously opened up the roof on the single story shop garage, conducted searches and laddered the building with portable ladders. (Truck had no access due to downed wires and trees). A 2nd Truck was requested (Montrose TL8) to position in the rear on Terrace Place and to assist opening up. Main body of fire knocked down 20 minutes after arrival, under control 40 minutes after arrival. Mutual Aid companies picked up at 17:25, all units off the scene at 18:52. One occupant to the hospital with smoke inhalation.
Fire #2
702 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton FD Units: 2084, E120
Montrose FD Units: 2271, 2274, E123 (Cancelled en route & sent back to CFD for coverage)
Yorktown FD Units: 2534, L51
Ossining FD Units: 2332, 2334, E97, E98, U51 (FAST) (Cancelled en route)
Croton EMS: 55B2
Cortlandt EMS: Cancelled en route
WCDES: Battalion 10 (AKA 2084) & C&O Zone 4
Info: CFD, E123 and L51 dispatched for a basement fire at 18:11. E120 & L51 on location at 18:16 with smoke showing and sprinkler activated. Initial crews found fire in basement level being contained by sprinkler, 10-75 requested. 2084 had the command, L51 had the aerial to the roof as a precaution. The 10-75 assignment was cancelled enroute as the fire was knocked down quick. 1 L/S/O - fire contained to basement level storage room. All units up at 19:45.
On behalf of the Croton FD, THANK YOU to Ossining FD, Montrose FD, Yorktown FD, Buchanan FD, Croton EMS, Croton PD, Croton DPW, Cortlandt VAC, Ossining EMS and of course - 60 Control - for an awesome job! Thanks for the continued support.

Seth, good question.
Jim, nice points.
I must say that not enough people care. Hell, if I owned a house I'd make damn sure the hydrants were cleared. When I was growing up, I'd always shovel out the hydrants on my street.
I feel that it should be up to the property owner. After all, aren't there discounts on home insurance when you have a hydrant on your property (Bnechis am I correct)?
In the past during big storms, my FD has gone out and dug out hydrants.
Working in and for the Village, I'm fortunate enough to know where most hydrants are. If you know their locations, the snow shouldn't matter.
We have maltese crosses painted on the pavement pointing out hydrant locations. In my opinion, this is useless, especially during the snow. But even when the streets are clear, you can not see these until you're on top of them.

John, well stated bro. I couldnt imagine losing 2 brothers in the line of duty and then have the City reneg (sp?) on the locals contract.
Also, im also interested if the IAFF sets aside funds for these times? I would assume they do, possibly funds from union dues?
As always, well said Capt. Way to include facts and get to the point! If the City of Buffalo violated a union contract, which seems to be the case, then they should be responsible and pay. The issue should not be booze, as this was included in the overall catering cost.
Side note - The bar tab at my wedding was over $4,000 and that was just 130 guests . I wont even go into how much the rest of it cost.

Quit it , City officials are upset because the money could have been used on a weekend bender with hookers. All government agencies misappropriate money and this is going to honor two of Buffalo's bravest, its a slap in the face that this wasn't just paid then a new policy or agreement drawn up between the city and the union. shame on the city.