NWFDMedic

They should arrest every one of the protesters that allowed this unsafe situation to happen. They can then start a new occupy movement at Rikers Island.
Speedy recovery to the MOS injured.

They should arrest every one of the protesters that allowed this unsafe situation to happen. They can then start a new occupy movement at Rikers Island.
Speedy recovery to the MOS injured.

They should arrest every one of the protesters that allowed this unsafe situation to happen. They can then start a new occupy movement at Rikers Island.
Speedy recovery to the MOS injured.

They should arrest every one of the protesters that allowed this unsafe situation to happen. They can then start a new occupy movement at Rikers Island.
Speedy recovery to the MOS injured.

I think a lot of the concern is that Joe Firefighter may not know exactly what is sensitive information and what isn't. In this day and age where everyone has a lawyer on retainer, a simple comment may put a FD at risk. While FD's should be at risk if they're doing things wrong, they don't need the legal hassle of a nonsense lawsuit caused by someone's comment on Facebook. Also, some fire scenes are also crime scenes and an innocent comment may hinder prosecution of those responsible for the incident. Even response tactics should probably be kept "in the industry" today due to the threat of terrorism and not discussed on an open forum. General training issues brought forth as hypothetical situations can be a great benefit to the fire service and our continuing education but the discussion of a particular incident in a public forum can be very dangerous.

An amber arrow stick will do a lot more than any of the stuff that departments are putting on the backs of vehicles these days. Not only will motorists see it, it will actually guide them on which way to go. I work all nights and I can't tell you the number of times I've pulled up to a scene barely able to see thanks to the lights some of these agencies have.

I think there's a big difference in the requirements placed on a volunteer firefighter versus a career firefighter in a department like FDNY. It is entirely possible that a person could be disability retired from FDNY and still able to perform as an interior firefighter in a small community like mine. There are several injuries or work related illnesses that might cause a doctor to say that a person cannot meet the demands of the FDNY job but could still do it in a department that does 150 calls per year, only a couple of which are actually fire-related. An FDNY firefighter might be expected to routinely climb 20 flights of stairs in full gear and be able to perform his full functions whereas my department may only expect a firefighter to be able to climb 3 flights of stairs and do the job. A small department may only require you to be able to perform firefighting functions for an hour at a clip while FDNY might require you to be on your feet for 12 hours running calls.
Many people have complained both on here and even on the state level about "different qualifications" and that firefighter is a single job description. Different communities have different needs and thus different requirements for their firefighters. I don't claim for a second that I could go down to FDNY and do the job but I'm pretty damn sure I can do it in my community. Saying that it's only "one job" is like requiring any car mechanic to have the ability of a NASCAR pit crew member.

Hopefully this tax cap will force communities to take a look at how much money they are wasting and start to fix it. For too many years, governments in New York have continued to spend money just to justify their existence.

EZ Pass is a different story. You can choose not to have EZ Pass, so if you're cheating on your wife on the other side of the bridge, she won't be able to use that information in divorce court. However, there is no option other than to drive (in most non-urban cases). P.S. I'm not married, so this example doesn't apply to me.
I don't buy the idea that "if you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to worry about". If my license plate data were grabbed by someone, maybe an unscrupulous cop or someone who was able to hack the database, they would be able to tell that my house was empty between 2 certain times every day or week and rob it.
As a nation, we were willing to give up a lot of freedom after 9/11 with the Patriot Acts (which should also be challenged for constitutionality). People are starting to realize that their liberties are being stripped from them by government and technology one by one and are fighting to get them back. Just this week, Texas has passed a law to make the "pat downs" of airline customers illegal. Good for them!

Every system is designed a little differently. These articles don't provide enough information to make any judgment about the need for the FD service or if it is fiscally prudent. I just hope that the decision was made using real analysis instead of the unilateral decision of a politician with other motives.

Every system is designed a little differently. These articles don't provide enough information to make any judgment about the need for the FD service or if it is fiscally prudent. I just hope that the decision was made using real analysis instead of the unilateral decision of a politician with other motives.

Every system is designed a little differently. These articles don't provide enough information to make any judgment about the need for the FD service or if it is fiscally prudent. I just hope that the decision was made using real analysis instead of the unilateral decision of a politician with other motives.

Why the inflammatory response to people who are just asking questions? From what I've heard, FDNY did a great job managing the incident. However, to insinuate that us "upstaters" would be blowing chow if we came upon a similar incident is just ridiculous. I can remember as far back as 1989 when a bunch of volunteers assisted by a small (at the time) commercial EMS service, managed a school collapse and had all the patients to definitive care within 60 minutes. FDNY is very well trained, but they don't hold the patent on capable responders.

I find it very hard to believe that you have any concept of what goes on in the real world. The only thing you've done on this forum is sound off for career firefighters and ridicule volunteers. What you don't seem to understand is a single thing about how the law really works. When people have told you within this thread, all you have done is continue with your anti-volunteer rhetoric.
The Board of Fire Commissioners holds the responsibility for setting the standard within their district. If they wanted background checks, psych evals (which are not required of any career FD that I know of), and a full length fire academy, they COULD set that as their standard. Most volunteer or combo departments have commissioners that understand the sense of fiscal responsibility and realize that they can provide a certain level of fire protection at the least burdensome cost to the taxpayer.
The Board of Fire Commissioners has the final say on all membership applications and all officers of the department. They have the final say on all training and continuing education requirements. The taxpayers sign on to the standards required by the Board of Fire Commissioners by electing them. As such, the taxpayers should bear the burden of indemnification of the firefighters and officers that are acting within the standards that are completely in control of the municipality. The commissioners are responsible for providing a level of fire protection that a reasonable district of the same size would offer and they hold the sole responsibility to make changes if that standard is not being met.
In the event of gross negligence, indemnification does not apply. All of the cases you mention are gross negligence and the firefighter(s) would be on their own.

I find it very hard to believe that you have any concept of what goes on in the real world. The only thing you've done on this forum is sound off for career firefighters and ridicule volunteers. What you don't seem to understand is a single thing about how the law really works. When people have told you within this thread, all you have done is continue with your anti-volunteer rhetoric.
The Board of Fire Commissioners holds the responsibility for setting the standard within their district. If they wanted background checks, psych evals (which are not required of any career FD that I know of), and a full length fire academy, they COULD set that as their standard. Most volunteer or combo departments have commissioners that understand the sense of fiscal responsibility and realize that they can provide a certain level of fire protection at the least burdensome cost to the taxpayer.
The Board of Fire Commissioners has the final say on all membership applications and all officers of the department. They have the final say on all training and continuing education requirements. The taxpayers sign on to the standards required by the Board of Fire Commissioners by electing them. As such, the taxpayers should bear the burden of indemnification of the firefighters and officers that are acting within the standards that are completely in control of the municipality. The commissioners are responsible for providing a level of fire protection that a reasonable district of the same size would offer and they hold the sole responsibility to make changes if that standard is not being met.
In the event of gross negligence, indemnification does not apply. All of the cases you mention are gross negligence and the firefighter(s) would be on their own.

I find it very hard to believe that you have any concept of what goes on in the real world. The only thing you've done on this forum is sound off for career firefighters and ridicule volunteers. What you don't seem to understand is a single thing about how the law really works. When people have told you within this thread, all you have done is continue with your anti-volunteer rhetoric.
The Board of Fire Commissioners holds the responsibility for setting the standard within their district. If they wanted background checks, psych evals (which are not required of any career FD that I know of), and a full length fire academy, they COULD set that as their standard. Most volunteer or combo departments have commissioners that understand the sense of fiscal responsibility and realize that they can provide a certain level of fire protection at the least burdensome cost to the taxpayer.
The Board of Fire Commissioners has the final say on all membership applications and all officers of the department. They have the final say on all training and continuing education requirements. The taxpayers sign on to the standards required by the Board of Fire Commissioners by electing them. As such, the taxpayers should bear the burden of indemnification of the firefighters and officers that are acting within the standards that are completely in control of the municipality. The commissioners are responsible for providing a level of fire protection that a reasonable district of the same size would offer and they hold the sole responsibility to make changes if that standard is not being met.
In the event of gross negligence, indemnification does not apply. All of the cases you mention are gross negligence and the firefighter(s) would be on their own.

Volunteer firefighters are under the control of the local government (in my case, the Board of Fire Commissioners). If a firefighter meets the requirements set forth by the Board of Fire Commissioners, he should be protected just as a career firefighter would be. If your municipality's volunteers are not "under the control" of the Board or governing agency, it is the fault of the municipality.

Volunteer firefighters are under the control of the local government (in my case, the Board of Fire Commissioners). If a firefighter meets the requirements set forth by the Board of Fire Commissioners, he should be protected just as a career firefighter would be. If your municipality's volunteers are not "under the control" of the Board or governing agency, it is the fault of the municipality.

The franchise agreements that towns have with the cable companies are ridiculous. In some instances, the competitor (like Verizon FiOS) has to be able provide services to the entire town before they can apply to be allowed into the market. The cable company, however, had years to develop their infrastructure. I can toss a stone (or could when I was in prime baseball shape) from my house to a county highway, yet I still can't get FiOS at my house.

The line officer is in charge, period. There should never be deviation from this unless the officer yields his command for whatever purpose. Also, departments that take an ex-chief and make him a "deputy chief" are doing their younger officers a disservice. The first chief that I worked under would let me maintain command of a scene, even as a junior lieutenant, so long as I had the incident in hand. It is that experience you gather as a junior officer that can make you a better chief.
As far as "Ex" whatever on your turnout coat. All of it is nothing but ego. I know all of the ex-chiefs in all of our area departments and could allocate them as needed in a significant incident. Also, the ex-chief from 10 years ago that only comes out for the "big one" shouldn't necessarily be used in an important assignment. The ex-chiefs that maintain their activity in the department are recognized by both department members and mutual aid departments; they don't need a marker on their jacket to stand out.
Finally, as an "ex-captain", I don't think any office should be recognized except for ex-chief on the Class-A uniform. The only thing Ex-Captain or Ex-Lieutenant means in a volunteer department means is that you didn't take the time to stick it out and move up the ranks. I would never wear an "ex-captain" badge. I have my shields and am proud of my service, but I don't want 30 badges at a parade. I'm just one of the guys.

The line officer is in charge, period. There should never be deviation from this unless the officer yields his command for whatever purpose. Also, departments that take an ex-chief and make him a "deputy chief" are doing their younger officers a disservice. The first chief that I worked under would let me maintain command of a scene, even as a junior lieutenant, so long as I had the incident in hand. It is that experience you gather as a junior officer that can make you a better chief.
As far as "Ex" whatever on your turnout coat. All of it is nothing but ego. I know all of the ex-chiefs in all of our area departments and could allocate them as needed in a significant incident. Also, the ex-chief from 10 years ago that only comes out for the "big one" shouldn't necessarily be used in an important assignment. The ex-chiefs that maintain their activity in the department are recognized by both department members and mutual aid departments; they don't need a marker on their jacket to stand out.
Finally, as an "ex-captain", I don't think any office should be recognized except for ex-chief on the Class-A uniform. The only thing Ex-Captain or Ex-Lieutenant means in a volunteer department means is that you didn't take the time to stick it out and move up the ranks. I would never wear an "ex-captain" badge. I have my shields and am proud of my service, but I don't want 30 badges at a parade. I'm just one of the guys.

Thanks for the intelligent reply. It's much better to see that some actually can think rather than put out the old argument of "what if your family lives next to a fire house that's closed?"
You are right that "call volume" isn't the best way to allocate staffing. However, I'm fairly certain that the FDNY would track things such as personnel used and manhours per incident. That, along with response time and a few other factors can lead to a better analysis of the system's needs. As far as knowing "when and where" your calls are going to be, you obviously cannot plan the exact time and location but you can very easily model trends, especially in an area with as high a volume as NYC. That's the principle behind system status management, generally predicting the area of the next call and positioning resources to handle that call.
One of the previous posters said that his company is second due for a structure fire that is 10 minutes away if a first structure fire is already going. My next question to that would be how often does this happen. If it happens once a year, then it may not pay to add resources. If it happens once a week, then staffing might have to be increased. This is all learned through proper analysis of the system, something which nobody appears willing to do. The government just wants to cut; the Union just wants to save jobs ... neither is a productive view.

Seth,
The FDNY has never had such an incident where they couldn't get around in the snow. The question has to be "why this storm?" The City received less snow than the Hudson Valley and my town roads were clear by 0600 Monday morning. Other towns were not so lucky, but by noon, just about everything was passable. This snow was light and could be moved easily by plows. Furthermore, because it was so light, it didn't pile up anywhere near as badly as the storm in February.
There are a few things that it seems the City is attempting to send to the back burner about this storm. First, it was reported early that private contractors are relied upon in heavy storms to assist the Sanitation Department with snow removal. Reports were that these contractors did not sign on with the City this year. I would question why... were there problems getting paid? was the City not paying enough? Of course, these questions reflect right back to City Hall, so it will be easier to demote an EMS chief and cast the spotlight that way. Second, what was up with the Department of Sanitation? There were reports of untrained drivers, work slowdowns, etc. Who the heck is running this joint and why was this allowed to happen?
Chains and 4 wheel drive ambulance come at a great and continuing expense. A 4 wheel drive ambulance not only costs more at the dealer, the maintenance costs are higher, fuel consumption is higher, and vehicle life is generally shorter. Chains are also an expensive option for an ambulance. I'm also not sure the tire chains that most use today (on spot type) would have been particularly helpful in moving around in this storm. I think you have to consider every dollar spent as a risk-benefit analysis. This "once a decade" storm caused so many problems for EMS getting around, but they didn't have the same problems in a worse storm in February, and there were several "other" factors that may have led to their problems. Does is make sense to spend money on tire chains or maybe CPAP, which could save lives every day, especially when it isn't yet known if these "other" factors were actually more responsible?
One thing we have done as a company is to get a bit more expensive tire for our ambulances. The stock tires that come from most manufacturers are not made for winter terrain. We buy a tire with an extremely aggressive tread pattern and there is a noticeable difference in the operation of the ambulance. Maybe an extra $20 a tire on their ambulance might fix the problem instead of a couple thousand dollars an ambulance in tire chains.

This is a really difficult situation the surrounding departments are put into as well. It would be very easy to say boycott going to the City if the layoffs occur. However, those who are still working there might need assistance. It would be devastating to find out that a brother firefighter died or was injured due to a department's refusal to respond because of a contract issue. I have quite a few lifelong friends in NFD and I sympathize with what they are going through but I wouldn't make a bad situation worse by not responding; it honestly puts the FF's lives at even more risk.

I spent a weekend up in Potsdam recently (for those who don't know, it's entirely a college town) and really didn't see any difference than normal. If it isn't 4 Loko, it's something else. When we were in college, we used to take the 26 mile trip up to the beer store in Canada to get Molson XXX or Labatt's Maximum. The Red Bull drinks have been a staple at college bars for a number of years. The kids I talked to in Potsdam really had no great affinity for 4 Lokos, basically saying that these drinks screw up their plans to drink all night and .... ummm ... have "relations" at the the end of the night.
Quite honestly, I'm sick of government trying to legislate responsibility. 4 Loko is just another fad. It will go away as quickly as the last if people just let it be because most people agree they taste horrible.