abaduck

I just watched News 12's story where they are discussing how Officer Stretz has worked for four different departments.
WHAT DOES IT MATTER?
Haven't most of us worked at a job or two we didn't like?
I am so sick of how they keep making it look like he was the bad guy. A low-life with multiple priors whom has spent more than 10 years in prison, who was running from the police risking the lives of others, who than tried taking the Officer's gun is not a stand-up person!!!!
Stop turning this around. I for one fully support Officer Stretz and think more people need to speak up on his behalf!

Well said Cap, the situation in London is pretty bad:
LFB Support page on Facebook
Yep no Taylor Law in UK; the only people banned from striking by law are police and armed forces; they're Crown Servants who have taken an oath. Which is as it should be in a free country; if you want a no-strike deal, negotiate a contract that includes one - don't impose it by law!
The assetco guys don't operate the rigs day-to-day as far as I can figure, that's all done by the regular crews. They're just civilians trained as reserve FFs.
And it's not just the 700 scabs, the management will probably attempt to crew rigs themselves. Which could be more entertaining than useful...

This is a very complicated situation at London Fire Brigade. They obviously don't have anything like the "Taylor Law." From what I've been able to learn piecing together newspaper stories, and reading other firefighting websites, The 27 pieces of fire apparatus were taken to a secret location to be readied and staffed by this company:
http://www.assetco.com/Our-Clients/London-Fire-Brigade.aspx
As best as I can explain the situation:
Back in August EVERY SINGLE London Fire Brigade member (over 5,000 Uniformed employees) was given a 90 day notice of termination. The City plans on "sacking" (firing) the entire uniformed department, then rehiring back those who will come back to the job; abolishing the preexisting contract with the FBU and enacting a new work schedule, new pension rules and over a 20 percent pay cut.
This has been planned for some time, as LFB contracted with "assetco" a couple of years ago, who now with a strike on the horizon will provide 700 civilian personnel to staff those 27 hidden rigs. Currently in the strangest of worlds, assetco provides rigs and operators to the LFB, yet they are a separate, private entity within the London Fire Brigade! Imagine having to work in a union/non-union shop! But that's what London Fire Brigade has become.
Now that the union has voted to strike, if and when they do, these 700 civilian members will cross picket lines, and try to do the entire job of the London Fire Brigade. Of course, there won't be anything like "interior attack" by "assetco" members; they just operate the rigs now, so fires will be fought "defensively." That means protecting the surrounding buildings that aren't burning. 700 scabs, divided into shifts, trying to do the work of the third largest fire organization in the world. The work of over 5,000 firefighters. While management goes about firing the entire workforce, busting the union, and decimating the job. What a bloody disgrace.
If the parties don't reach a settlement before the November firing deadline, and the Uniformed Brigade members strike, it's going to be extremely ugly for the City of London. People will die needlessly at the very least, as well as fires will burn with skeleton scab crews I guess trying to flow some lines to try and protect exposures.
London is about to burn.
Edit: 27 rigs. Currently London Fire Brigade staffs over 160 stations.

Firebuff, I'm comparing a rural area with an even more rural area. And I'm comparing two very different systems. You say that the in the Highlands, people have 'chosen to tax themselves'. That's not correct, the question and the choice doesn't arise. It's *absurd* that people can chose to be without fire service - or so it would be viewed in the UK, and pretty much any other first-world country. To me, it's as basic as police or ambulance. You wouldn't call 911 and ever hear the responses 'I'm sorry, the police won't come - the law isn't enforced in your area, but we hope you'll be OK' or 'I'm sorry, there is no EMS service, but I hope you don't bleed out...'. Why on earth should fire be any different?
I'm sure there are quite a few people who would LIKE to opt-out - for there to be no law enforcement in their areas, other than the law of their own guns. I'm sure there are people who would love to know that their county doesn't provide child protection services, and they can raise their kids as abusively as they like. But that should NOT happen in a civilised country! All these arguments about tax and jurisdictional boundaries and so on are just BS in my view - it's someones responsibility to provide the basic emergency services, or if it isn't it damn well should be.
Look, my politics are basically libertarian - I *like* small government, I like government not overstepping their bounds - but fire, police, and EMS are among the basic essential services EVERY government (at whatever level is dictated by national law) needs to provide for their citizens.

Cap, on the farm I quite agree; whether you're way out in the sticks, or just in a small town, you will be 'on your own' until the cops show up - may be minutes, may be hours, but you're on your own. So I fully support armed self-defence; that's common sense.
But at least your farming inlaws HAVE a local sheriff. My point was concerning crime in general - rape, burglary, murder, the farming of illegal crops - hell even speeding. If there are areas where there's no fire service because people don't want to pay for it, aren't there areas where there's no law enforcement, because people won't pay for that? If you call 911 to report a rape, will you ever be told 'sorry, we can't help - your area isn't covered by any law enforcement' or even 'sorry, you haven't paid your $75 to the city PD, we can't send anyone'. No? Then why is LE considered more important than fire & rescue? How exactly does that work? If there's some law that mandates a law enforcement service exists, why isn't that extended to fire & rescue service?
If EMS service is inadequate, it needs to be improved. As with fire or police, a longer response time is to be expected in rural areas - that's a trade-off you make when you move there. Having NO service at all is not a trade-off that should ever exist.

Well here's some more facts. I was born and raised in the Scottish Highlands. Fire protection there is provided by the Highlands & Islands Fire & Rescue Service. The main city, Inverness, has a population of around 50,000. The remaining 300,000 population is spread over 12,000 square miles of mainland, mountains, and dozens of Islands, big and small, more like Alaska than rural Tennessee!
Now a lot of the area won't get a response within 8 minutes, but a good percentage will, and they ALL have fire protection. See: http://www.hifrs.org/Home/About-Us
All UK fire protection is organised at the county or even regional level; there ARE no town, city, or village fire departments or fire districts. Oh and property taxes? Low - I have a small house up there and pay around $800 a year. Most of the cost of fire protection is paid from the equivalent of state & federal grants, because it's a basic government service - in a civilized country every citizen has fire protection.
A serious question: are there areas in the USA where police will not respond to reports of a crime, because no law enforcement organization covers them?
Another serious question: what happens to non-residents of a rural county such as we're discussing? Would no-one respond to a MVF if it happened to a visitor passing through, who hadn't paid their $75? Or extricate a non-resident involved in an MVA?
I'm still astonished I'm having to ask such questions.

John, I will develope a officers course and provide it at the county level.

This is an issue that should be examined closely. This could very nearly have been a tremendous disaster. No one can tell exactly how many people would have been killed had this bomb functioned properly and the psychological ramifications would be extensive, bringing a fear that lurks in the back of our minds to the surface very violently. The police officer who responded to the vehicle was peering through the windows before realizing what was contained within. That's a little closer to a bomb than I can imagine most of us ever wanting to be. Supposedly did a great job at moving people away and bringing the necessary NYPD Bomb Squad and FDNY units.
As terrible a reality as it is, this is something that we, as emergency responders, need to be very aware of today. Furthermore, there has been some scuttle about the intended method of detonation and whether or not the smoke was intentional as a device to lure responders. If there is any validity to that theory, imagine the process. Device creates smoke, brings responders and then the primary device detonates. What a terrible event....
The reality is, there are very sick people who come up with intricate ways to kill lots of people and specific people. Be safe and cautious and try not to let ever present complacency effect your level of preparedness.

I have read your reply, sorry i am going to disagree on a couple of points. A firefighter isnt as good as the tools he has on his back or in his hands it is the tool on his shoulders. This member who did this act of entering the structure, I would hope, as a firefighter, used all his training in evaluating the situation, judged the risk vs benefit, and did what his firefighting background allowed him to do. Turnout gear doesnt make you a firefighter, it is whats inside that makes you a firefighter. This member of the fire service / ems did a hell of a job. And thats what separates us from the rest of the world.
GOOD JOB AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING A POSITIVE STORY ABOUT EMERGENCY SERVICES.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=111125538907957
The Village of Mamaroneck and Town of Mamaroneck Fire Department will be hosting a charity hockey game on the 16th of April at 7:45 pm at Hommocks Ice Rink. Benefits of the game were initially going to the Firemans Burn Center, however, after the loss of our close friend Rich Rasor, a dedicated father of four and a die hard hockey fan, the two departments have decided to donate all proceeds to his family. ( Rasor Family Trust Fund 2010 ).
There will be a Silent auction, Raffles, Bake Sales and Chuck a puck.
Please Come support our Team and the cause.

Much can be learned about the transition in rank/supervisory duties at any level of size by taking a look at the military. As most already pointed out it can be very challenging when you transition in smaller departments when most of the persons you are going to now be supervising are your friends and even saw you do some of the smaller things that might not have fit so snug within the rules, regs or appropriate means of the fire service.
As with the military the rank structure does carry some weight and also changes the way in which persons speak to you by title. The only major difference is enlisted personal (at least in the Marine Corps) are also prohibited from calling each other by first name, last name only was appropriate. Once you reached NCO status, everyone called you by your title and last name, even if you were the same rank. Hence, Corporal Smith. Not just "Smith" by another corporal. This instills that the title is something of significance and demands the respect of such. I also feel that this holds true within the fire service where a Lt. should reference another Lt. as Lieutenant. Not Lieu..not "L.T.". Same things holds true with Captain. Obviously anyone of higher rank should always be called by title and last name. ALWAYS. To take it another step, I rarely if ever refer to a fire instructor who I am working with by their first name with students, I do not allow students to call instructors by their first name and I reference them either by Instructor XX or by the title they earned if they are on the job, Captain XX. I find it sets the example for students, particularly probies in the academy and demands respect of the service, the title and the discipline the fire service should have. Bottom line is this also, while you may be friends with some of them, those that are truly your friends and respect our job will give you the respect you deserve and if not they will quickly not be a friend and you will do your job as needed.
On a personal level when promoted in the service and assigned a team, squad or whatever the assignment, I generally had a meeting of just my personnel under my supervision. This often included guys who I was friends with and was going to stay friends with as I had bonds with outside of the tight comaraderie that occurs in operational military units. In the meeting, I would make it semi formal as I would take a position of authority either by having them sit, and me standing or having them directly in front of me as I would sit alone in front of them. I would lay out what my expectations are and in smaller unit levels would remind them that I am also not just there to supervise them, to get a job done, but also there for them when they have problems or concerns and that I would carry them to the appropriate level to get assistance or an answer and that I will be honest with them, but I demand honesty with them. Then once that was done, for the first couple of weeks, if any hiccups would occur I would do personal verbal counseling sessions to attempt to correct any issues that I had or were violations of rules and regs. From that moment on any additional would get the appropriate disciplinarian action. If there is one thing that I have learned that gains huge respect from your men is this:
1. They're not stupid. They knew who and what you were in the ranks. Come on too strong or holier then thou, they will become defiant. Also under this..there is a difference between leadership and management. Balance the 2 well they will go to war with you (in some cases for me that was literally).
2. Stand up for them and they will respond very well. Often another person of equal rank but of a different group or of a higher rank will want to take something on or go after a member of or your group directly. I would always, pull that person to the side and discuss it, even with higher rank, stay respectful of their title, but if they get it, they will realize that it costs you face and sometimes they need to be reminded that chain of command goes both ways and with same rank you are responsible for your people. I would then go back to them, reinforce that if they did something wrong, they were wrong, but that I spoke to the individual and that if that were to occur again that they were to report it to me, and not take it up with the other person. This builds face for you, shows you are involved in your group cohesiveness and shows other rank that you will not be walked on. The problem is you have to make sure you're people are up to snuff and doing their jobs or this is all for not. The only thing I ever found acceptable was to correct safety issues immediately but then those persons should come to me not only out of respect but to ensure I can supervise correctly and make sure it doesn't occur again. I also forgot that if your member was disrespectful..to ensure you deal with that immediately and sternly.
3. Let them do their jobs..and let them invest in what you need to get done. If your not afraid of how you will look by delegating they will like it and helps them build into getting promoted and the skills necessary to do so the right way. Maximize your people with their potential and pair those up with them who are not so they learn a new skill/process. It will come around full fold if that 1 person who is good at something isn't there when you need them.
4. Know how to identify when its time to be your rank/last name and when its time to be joe blow. I always looked at it this way. In uniform or official FD function in plain clothes...title. Non FD function, first name. Again friends who have respect will get this also.
Just a few and I could go on...but some probably stopped reading already.

I'm not quite clear how far your objections go. Are you suggesting that there should be some kind of Chinese wall between career and volunteer funding? Take the Valhalla FTC, for instance. Who pays for that? Are some of the taxes being used to provide the facilities and train volunteers there being paid by people who have already paid for a career department to protect them? Is that fair? How far should we go in stopping the redistribution of the proceeds of taxation beyond the community where the taxpayer lives? Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, Chief, but I detect a certain parochialism in your thinking here.
Having said that, on the original question... I'm a vollie, and I don't need or want a dime from anybody for what I do; I don't *personally* support this bill. The occasional 'thank you' from the people we serve is enough for me - as the Runrig song says, "we don't play for fame, we don't play for cash". But I speak only for myself there.

Well this is a topic that can't be adequetely covered in a couple hundred words on here. Here are some things that come off the top of my head.
1. Risk Management-The whole thing will depend on if the place is opened or closed. If it's open some sort of interior attack will probably be necessary to attempt a primary search. After the joint has closed the only life hazard becomes us and any advanced fire the risk may very well outweight the benifit of interior attack.
2. Water supply- Lay in (don't count on somebody else to do it for you). 2 1/2 with a smooth bore is an excellent choice in commercial for a number of reasons. Great reach, absorbs lots of btu's, and is powerful so that is blows those ceiling tiles apart and penetrates to the fire.
3. Thermal Imaging Camera- The TIC is always important but at a commercial building where you have high ceilings it may be your first warning of heat build up above your head. A good tactic is to lift up a ceiling tile on entry and check the plenum for fire before you venture in too far below it. The TIC will help you stay orientated, find victims, keep track of your crew, and locating the fire).
4. In many cases we will be dealing with truss roofs so roof ops is out.
5. Consider using the search rope if you are entering without a handline.
6. A middle of the night fire in one of these buildings is a good canidate for a backdraft.
Most of the fires you will encounter in these buildings are duct fires which have different tactics. Lastly here is the link to a LODD report about a fire in a McDonald's in Houston Texas that occured in 2000. This tragic fire took the lives of two firefighters.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face200013.html

"disposable structures" about sums it up; the site will be cleared and a new one thrown up in a month. Or they'll take the insurance and run. Think: do you want your lasting memorial to be a plaque in memory of Firefighter XXXX on the wall of an <expletive deleted> *McDonalds*???!!!
As for specific hazards, I'll throw one in: liquid nitrogen, anyone?

Hello.
Im from Florida. I'm in the military. I'm also part of a volunteer fire company. I was wondering can I get my own VFF badge without having to worry about the laws and what not ? I'll really appreciate the input.
Thanks.

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!

Unless it's something which is truly actionable, in which case moderators may have to take a firm stand (as in direct threats to a member, for instance), I'm firmly in the 'man up and get on with it' camp. This is a fire/EMS (primarily) discussion board, not a knitting circle. Some strong language and forthright expression of opinions is to be expected. I've said before, you shouldn't go locking threads when things get hot, you should be dealing with members individually when they cross the line. Saying things that would get you yelled at if said face-to-face is fine. Saying things that would get your lights punched out in bar, or get you arrested, isn't.
As for respect... well that is not a given, it has to be earned - here or in the firehouse. Chief Flynn, for example... I don't like some of what he says, or the way he says it, but he often has a point, and he's a Chief in a department with a very solid rep., and is due respect for that rank and experience. At the other extreme, if some know-it-all kid starts spouting off in the firehouse he's going to get little respect for that, and I wouldn't expect too much different here.
I've participated in many internet fora on many topics over the years, and this place is pretty tame compared to many!

This would be a tough call for an IC. We all, or most of us, love animals. Your people are chomping (no pun intended) at the bit to help the dog and use their training and equipment. If you pull it off, it is good PR. If you decide not to go for it, your own people as well as the public are probably all pretty pissed off at you. I will not Monday morning quarterback this incident because I wasn't there and I don't have all the details. However, if I were the IC at a similar incident, I would not place my members at any significant risk to save an animal.
Anyone who may at some point in their career be faced with a similar go or no go decision would be well advised to think now about what decision they might make, and to realize the pressure that will be put on you if you decide to stand by and do nothing. Sometimes, though, it takes the most courage to make the decision that you will do nothing. I'd rather stand by 1,000 times and watch animals die, than have to live with the fact that someone under my command was killed or suffered a serious injury attempting to save a non-human life.

I've previously posted this elsewhere, and I make no apology for repeating it here:
Now I'm a relatively recent immigrant to the USA (a transplanted Scotsman), I don't really 'get' American racial politics or American attitudes to race at all. And I'm fairly new to the fire service. But:
"Last July, the judge ruled that the exams used to screen applicants between 1999 and 2007 were slanted against blacks."
Could someone please explain to me how, in the 21st century, a judge can say that with a straight face? Last time I checked, all brain matter was grey, not white, black, or anything else. How do you 'slant' an exam against someone who has black skin? I don't believe it's possible.
Either you're smart, or dumb as a brick.
Either you're fit, or you're not.
Either you work hard, or you're lazy.
Either you give 110%, or you're on cruise control.
But... either you're black, or you're white?
To even suggest that it's POSSIBLE to 'slant' exams in such a way that black candidates will do worse than white candidates seems to me to be a profoundly racist statement. I do not, and fear/hope I never will, understand it.