10512

 
Dinosaur wrote:
" State law in CA has all police cars black and white "
This is a Newport Beach California car. I am not familiar with California law, but I have been to California on a few occasions, and while the vast majority of Police cars there are B&W, I have seen a few that were not B&W.
This example is the first photo I found on a Google search, but there are a few other examples.

 
I disagree.  I think all police cars should be the same - different patches, fine - but I happen to like knowing that when I am visiting California I'm looking at a police car and not a taxi.  State law in CA has all police cars black and white and even specifies that there have to be certain lighting combinations to insure they are recognized as a police vehicle. 

There's no rhyme or reason here in NY.  At all.

americanpolice posted:
"ever so closer to the NYPD scheme"
 
This is not the first time they went to an NYPD look.
If I recall, going back to the early 80s or maybe even the 1970s, the predecessor to the the DEP Police, the NYC Bureau of Water Supply Police, had cars with the same white over blue scheme the NYPD had at that time.
This had the same shade blue (Great Northern Blue) the NYPD had with the single white stripe along the body.
I tried finding a photo on line to no avail.

americanpolice posted:
"ever so closer to the NYPD scheme"
 
This is not the first time they went to an NYPD look.
If I recall, going back to the early 80s or maybe even the 1970s, the predecessor to the the DEP Police, the NYC Bureau of Water Supply Police, had cars with the same white over blue scheme the NYPD had at that time.
This had the same shade blue (Great Northern Blue) the NYPD had with the single white stripe along the body.
I tried finding a photo on line to no avail.

16fire5 called it in his post.
The term "All Hands" (officially a Signal 7-5) usually is transmitted after a 10-75 has been requested.
A 10-75 is not only for fire. It can be used for any response. It is simply a resource request, not meaning working fire, although that is the most common usage.
It is simply a request for the following: 
(copied from the NYFD.com site)
 
"A notification signal transmitted when, in the judgment of the officer in command, conditions indicate a fire or emergency that requires a total response of the following units: 4 Engines, 2 Ladders, 2 Battalion Chiefs, 1 Rescue Company and Squad Company. Officers transmitting a 10-75 shall also state if it is for a fire or emergency and if a building is involved along with the type of building."

If these units respond and all are put to work, then the Signal 7-5 is transmitted.
Although, the term you would hear on the radio would be "All Hands" are operating.
If the 10-75 is given and as an example, in the end, only 2 engines and 2 trucks are "put to work", the "All Hands" designation would not be used.

Why does this vehicle have official plates?
I though Police Vehicles were not required to have DMV plates in NYS? 
I looked back at older images, I see the DEP Police have had Official Plates on their vehicles for a while. I never noticed that before.
I am trying to think if any other agency in NYS has plates issued by DMV on their marked vehicles.
I know NYSP have plates from DMV, but those plates have the radio call # on it, these plates seem to be regular issue municipal plates.

Why does this vehicle have official plates?
I though Police Vehicles were not required to have DMV plates in NYS? 
I looked back at older images, I see the DEP Police have had Official Plates on their vehicles for a while. I never noticed that before.
I am trying to think if any other agency in NYS has plates issued by DMV on their marked vehicles.
I know NYSP have plates from DMV, but those plates have the radio call # on it, these plates seem to be regular issue municipal plates.

16fire5 called it in his post.
The term "All Hands" (officially a Signal 7-5) usually is transmitted after a 10-75 has been requested.
A 10-75 is not only for fire. It can be used for any response. It is simply a resource request, not meaning working fire, although that is the most common usage.
It is simply a request for the following: 
(copied from the NYFD.com site)
 
"A notification signal transmitted when, in the judgment of the officer in command, conditions indicate a fire or emergency that requires a total response of the following units: 4 Engines, 2 Ladders, 2 Battalion Chiefs, 1 Rescue Company and Squad Company. Officers transmitting a 10-75 shall also state if it is for a fire or emergency and if a building is involved along with the type of building."

If these units respond and all are put to work, then the Signal 7-5 is transmitted.
Although, the term you would hear on the radio would be "All Hands" are operating.
If the 10-75 is given and as an example, in the end, only 2 engines and 2 trucks are "put to work", the "All Hands" designation would not be used.

"All hands" or signal 7-5 (not to be confused with 10-75 are most frequently used when referring to structural fires.  But not necessarily.  You can transmit a 10-75 for a fire or emergency.  Gas leaks, manhole fires, brush fires, and other incident can and do result in the transmission of a 10-75.  As for the all hands when 3 and 2 are being used you are using all hands.  A reported structural fire gets an assignment of 3 engines, 2 trucks, and a battalion chief.  If the chief uses 2 and 2 and holds the 3rd engine fast it's not an all hands.  The scenarios with using 2 and 2 on the highway box don't constitute an all hands.  
 
As for the SOC unit response
The transmission of a 10-75 results in the dispatch of the normally assigned rescue and squad if available.  If the fire/incident escalates to an all hands doubtful a rescue and squad will be assigned regardless.  If a chief advises he used all hands and is under control they will not receive the SOC units and other specialized units.  
 
I'm sure this is still confusing and I'm not sure I'm doing it justice but I'll use and example of a working fire to show the units assigned and timing.  
 
Phone call reporting a fire in a building.  
3 Engines, 2 Ladders, and 1 Battalion Chief are dispatched.  
 
First engine arrives and finds a working fire and transmits a 10-75.  
4th Engine is assigned, 3 truck(FAST), additional Battalion Chief, and the Deputy Chief is notified
 
Usually at the first progress report the chief notes what he is using.  This is usually when the all hands is transmitted with the status of the fire Doubtful, probably will hold, under control.  
 
In the outer boroughs the vast majority of "All Hands" are transmitted for fires.  

I do not know all the details, but there is enough information in the story to state this is nothing more than a pizzing match.
Once the adults involved realize this, this can be easily solved by those involved.
Anyone who has kids has dealt with similar situations.
But, what are the chances the departments or the local politicians will actually work this out?
If the local press pushes it, they may be forced to find the solution, otherwise this will continue.

It sounds like there is much more to this story.
...and it is comprised of five members?
...and there is a new Fire Department?
...there is much more to this story.

"In January the Town refused to pay Harrison EMS until we showed them our financials (they have no right to look at our financial, HEMS is private not-for-profit org not a town entity)."
This quote, if true, is troubling.
I have to back the town on this.
If that is the attitude of the management of an agency that receives town money, the town can probably do better looking elsewhere.
If this statement is true, it is a signal that this is much more than a pizzing match between the town and a few EMS members.
If they are taking town money, then they are answerable to the town.
This makes it look like HEMS is hiding something.
Anyone looking at this is going to come to this conclusion.

...and, not to mention the obvious, but wasn't there a few agencies up bit up the road who are now going through some rather complicated, embarrassing and possible criminal investigations regarding questionable use of public money?

 

"In January the Town refused to pay Harrison EMS until we showed them our financials (they have no right to look at our financial, HEMS is private not-for-profit org not a town entity)."
This quote, if true, is troubling.
I have to back the town on this.
If that is the attitude of the management of an agency that receives town money, the town can probably do better looking elsewhere.
If this statement is true, it is a signal that this is much more than a pizzing match between the town and a few EMS members.
If they are taking town money, then they are answerable to the town.
This makes it look like HEMS is hiding something.
Anyone looking at this is going to come to this conclusion.

...and, not to mention the obvious, but wasn't there a few agencies up bit up the road who are now going through some rather complicated, embarrassing and possible criminal investigations regarding questionable use of public money?

 

The simple truth is, if someone, anyone, had taken command, it is likely everyone else would have followed. I did not hear this incident, but from what I am reading, it sounds like no one was in charge.

Some solutions, such as a Marine Battalion, while sounding good, only add another layer to bureaucracy to it. A complicated incident does not need additional layers.

Just my opinion, but a good rule of thumb for establishing command would be the boss of the first agency that gets the original call is in charge, and remains in charge unless and until a reason comes up that justifies a change.
If the location or jurisdiction, is in question, the command stays with the original responding agency until the jurisdiction is positively determined. It makes no sense to change unless there is a valid reason.

This would eliminate the some of the guesswork and would, at the minimum, have everyone answering to the same authority, even if it changed later on, at least the ballgame starts with everyone on the same page.

These are just my thoughts, I have seen similar things before, and they will likely occur again.

The simple truth is, if someone, anyone, had taken command, it is likely everyone else would have followed. I did not hear this incident, but from what I am reading, it sounds like no one was in charge.

Some solutions, such as a Marine Battalion, while sounding good, only add another layer to bureaucracy to it. A complicated incident does not need additional layers.

Just my opinion, but a good rule of thumb for establishing command would be the boss of the first agency that gets the original call is in charge, and remains in charge unless and until a reason comes up that justifies a change.
If the location or jurisdiction, is in question, the command stays with the original responding agency until the jurisdiction is positively determined. It makes no sense to change unless there is a valid reason.

This would eliminate the some of the guesswork and would, at the minimum, have everyone answering to the same authority, even if it changed later on, at least the ballgame starts with everyone on the same page.

These are just my thoughts, I have seen similar things before, and they will likely occur again.

The simple truth is, if someone, anyone, had taken command, it is likely everyone else would have followed. I did not hear this incident, but from what I am reading, it sounds like no one was in charge.

Some solutions, such as a Marine Battalion, while sounding good, only add another layer to bureaucracy to it. A complicated incident does not need additional layers.

Just my opinion, but a good rule of thumb for establishing command would be the boss of the first agency that gets the original call is in charge, and remains in charge unless and until a reason comes up that justifies a change.
If the location or jurisdiction, is in question, the command stays with the original responding agency until the jurisdiction is positively determined. It makes no sense to change unless there is a valid reason.

This would eliminate the some of the guesswork and would, at the minimum, have everyone answering to the same authority, even if it changed later on, at least the ballgame starts with everyone on the same page.

These are just my thoughts, I have seen similar things before, and they will likely occur again.

I always wondered what was the point of having a ladder truck with its own pump and a tank.
Are the added cost and weight on the truck worth it?
I have no idea how much this cost extra, but I doubt it is a nominal fee.
Plenty of places use trucks with no pumping capacity and no water tank. Why do some have no pump/tank?
Is there a big advantage to combining the pump/ladder?

x636 wrote: In the tight areas of Putnam, the first due has to get close to the scene, especially in tight areas, and having that Quint first due allows it to get to the fire scene before it gets trapped in by hose and a tanker shuttle.
Responses in Carmel prior to this rig was always an Engine was first out the door. Even when their last Ladder was in service, the ladder was not the first one to roll.
Unless Carmel is changing their response policy, I do not think this is the first due rig. I have not heard of this truck will be used as a Quint.
I could be wrong, does anyone know if this will be the case?

I always wondered what was the point of having a ladder truck with its own pump and a tank.
Are the added cost and weight on the truck worth it?
I have no idea how much this cost extra, but I doubt it is a nominal fee.
Plenty of places use trucks with no pumping capacity and no water tank. Why do some have no pump/tank?
Is there a big advantage to combining the pump/ladder?

The fact that you are asking on this forum and the fact that the cars are left in the driveways indicates the problem is your Department does not have a plan "B" .
The problem is not what to do with the Command vehicles.
The problem is to fix the management who cannot figure out you always need to have a plan "B".
Once that is solved, the issue of who gets the Command vehicles will solve itself.

Is anyone actually positive that an inspection was being done? Is it possible that the DOH inspector stopped to offer assistance?

Why am I not surprised... What a skell.

SECTMB wrote:
"Lots of people with NYDOCCS across their backs. Like the public is supposed to know what that means. What's wrong with just plain POLICE. Agencies and their acronyms."
I see your point about confusion, but the reason why just plain "Police" should not be used is that Corrections Officers are not Police.
The term Police should only be used with Police.
They can put "Corrections" across their backs if they want.

So far, it appears most of these questions regarding drones are "hypothetical".
It appears not very much enforcement has gone into drone regulation.
There have been a few "near misses" regarding drones.
When, not if, a drone is involved in an incident, whether it be an accident or recklessness, and that time is coming soon, you will see a host of new regulations regarding their use.
As of right now, nothing major has happened.
Give it some time, and when that happens, there will be all kinds of rules and enforcement.

So far, it appears most of these questions regarding drones are "hypothetical".
It appears not very much enforcement has gone into drone regulation.
There have been a few "near misses" regarding drones.
When, not if, a drone is involved in an incident, whether it be an accident or recklessness, and that time is coming soon, you will see a host of new regulations regarding their use.
As of right now, nothing major has happened.
Give it some time, and when that happens, there will be all kinds of rules and enforcement.