lt411

Back in the early 70's, the ghetto area companies (Harlem;south Bronx; Bed-Sty;Brownsville,etc) had manning as follows: the engine companies had 6 firefighters and an officer- but the city tried an experiment with "Rapid water engines", which had a slurry tank on top of the booster tank that added a "friction-reducing additive" to water being pumped out the 1-3/4" line. If the RW system was in-service, the manning was reduced to 5 firefighters (money-saving idea). But the only way to know if the system was operational was the "green light" on the pump panel. The brothers would (at times) unscrew the light bulb so it didn't show green. Hence the Battalion chief would hire the 6th firefighter back until the "shops" checked out the system. We really did need that 6th man, as we would routinely have "fire out the windows" at least once every tour, and the SCBA's were not readily available. The ladder companies ("trucks" had the standard 5 firefighters and an officer, EXCEPT- in certain high activity areas we had "adaptive response trucks". From 1500 hrs- 2400 hrs the dispatchers would send one truck instead of the standard two trucks (on a pulled street box ), but the AR truck would have 7 firefighters. The 2 "extra firefighters would act as the 2nd due truck, searching the floor above. On a phone alarm the dispatchers would send 2 trucks anyway, so the idea was not kept for long. In 1975 when thousands of us were laid-off in the NYC fiscal crisis, all these "ideas" and pilot programs went away. There were also "TCU " trucks that were operational from afternoon to after midnight, and also second section engines . Crazy times, but it was the greatest time to be a firefighter in the greatest city and the greatest dept in the world. I remember many tours where the Bronx dispatcher would plead for any available company to "free up for a working fire". There were several times where the deputy chief would order us on the dept radio to leave our hose in the street as we were "taking up" and respond to another job. Sometimes I feel that I know how Lou Gehrig of the NY Yankees felt, when he said how blessed he was to be able to "be on the team".

Back in the early 70's, the ghetto area companies (Harlem;south Bronx; Bed-Sty;Brownsville,etc) had manning as follows: the engine companies had 6 firefighters and an officer- but the city tried an experiment with "Rapid water engines", which had a slurry tank on top of the booster tank that added a "friction-reducing additive" to water being pumped out the 1-3/4" line. If the RW system was in-service, the manning was reduced to 5 firefighters (money-saving idea). But the only way to know if the system was operational was the "green light" on the pump panel. The brothers would (at times) unscrew the light bulb so it didn't show green. Hence the Battalion chief would hire the 6th firefighter back until the "shops" checked out the system. We really did need that 6th man, as we would routinely have "fire out the windows" at least once every tour, and the SCBA's were not readily available. The ladder companies ("trucks" had the standard 5 firefighters and an officer, EXCEPT- in certain high activity areas we had "adaptive response trucks". From 1500 hrs- 2400 hrs the dispatchers would send one truck instead of the standard two trucks (on a pulled street box ), but the AR truck would have 7 firefighters. The 2 "extra firefighters would act as the 2nd due truck, searching the floor above. On a phone alarm the dispatchers would send 2 trucks anyway, so the idea was not kept for long. In 1975 when thousands of us were laid-off in the NYC fiscal crisis, all these "ideas" and pilot programs went away. There were also "TCU " trucks that were operational from afternoon to after midnight, and also second section engines . Crazy times, but it was the greatest time to be a firefighter in the greatest city and the greatest dept in the world. I remember many tours where the Bronx dispatcher would plead for any available company to "free up for a working fire". There were several times where the deputy chief would order us on the dept radio to leave our hose in the street as we were "taking up" and respond to another job. Sometimes I feel that I know how Lou Gehrig of the NY Yankees felt, when he said how blessed he was to be able to "be on the team".

"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.  

When the Sh** is hitting the fan on the fire floor or the floor above, language frequently gets salty. Anyone who has spent some time in zero visibility and high heat while searching for life, forcing doors, getting a line into position or trying to find their way out would likely agree.

My view of radio etiquette may be different from others.  I prefer a quick, concise, informational radio call that can transmit the appropriate information to assign a task or get a job done.  I get frustrated when pertinent information is not transmitted or when a transmission is garbled with misinformation or non-important media. The use of curse words does not accomplish a goal or task faster, rather that is stimulates the receivers mind in a manner that it causes fear and confusion.  Fear and confusion can then lead the receiver of the information to panic, thus creating an adverse effect in the operation of the goal/task at hand.  Essentially, it causes an effect in the receiver's brain where he/she believes that they are being yelled at, and have a moment of clarity that makes him/her believe that they are doing something wrong, and induces a mini panic attack where they continue to do something wrong.  By the way, this is something I learned in my psych courses over ten years ago, long before the BS millennial "safe places" and "political correctness" were such a thing.  This reasoning is in psychological text books still today.
 
As for the professionalism side of the argument I was originally going for is the sake that there are people watching and listening.  I'm sure the majority of the public doesn't care, but some people do.  I care.  If we, as a service, want to appear as the professional life savers of the public that we always do, we need to conduct ourselves in a professional manner in every facet of the job, including talking on the radio.  My point here is that the more professional we are in every little detail while conducting our job, the more professional and the public perceives us as.  Sometimes it's little things that carry a person a long way.

Given the circumstances they get a by. Sounds like he was calling for a line and it wasn't coming fast enough. I think we all have been in situations where the last thing we are worried about is our language. What is important is they got the job done and went home to their families

I disagree, there are times you should hear language like that but it should only be used when its needed like "Get the F out of the building".  
 
This is from Brooklyn.  If it was from the Bronx the reply you would hear would be something to the effect of "Act like you've done this before" or "Are there any professionals on the second floor?"

I'm pretty sure it was a special request by the IC. ConEd maybe gave them the heads up that the Purple K units were an option, but knowing Rockland County, a lot of those guys are FDNY to begin with so they probably knew already that that was an option to go with. Engine 33 and 84 are the closest Purple K units to our area, since the rest are situated in Brooklyn and Queens. I don't know why 23 Truck was added to the assignment but it could be because they have capabilities as well. It's cool to know that our brothers down to the south are more than welcome to give us a helping hand. That's what mutual aid is all about. Great job by all who were there!

I doubt most of us would have a similar take if they wanted to lengthen out the years of service before retirement eligibility? Many had to fight to get 20 or 25 year no age retirement plans to ensure our members could safely do the job up until their last day, how do we make that argument and then fight maximum age limits?
 
This is a younger persons game and we certainly cannot guarantee all personnel will ascend in rank to a safer less physical job. While we lose people of all ages, the stats are fairly clear that firefighters have much higher health risks than most professions and we can be certain that with every passing year those risks multiply. Couple this with the heavy responsibility we have to complete our duties, which in most cases doesn't allow for redundancy, we put ourselves and the public at greater risk when we don't do all we can to strengthen our weakest links. I don't know what FDNY need to get to make full retirement, but I know I need to make my full 25 years and with that 4 1/2 years away I can say for sure that every year that goes by recovering from an injury or even a tough job gets harder and harder. I started at age 26 and now at 46 am thinking that going until age 61 would be pretty near impossible, and I haven't ridden backwards for over a decade. 
 
Of course they want the FD to hire older people, they can make the case they're making about minorities and in the long run retirees will be older, resulting in less money expended between retirement and death, if they actually make it to a full pension. What do you bet that's a huge fiscal impact in NYC?

I guess I'll throw in my cents based on a personal experience.  I was in uniform, we were all assembled and then we started looking around and realized that most everyone who would be responding to alarms was going to the parade.  The Chief asked me to stay behind at my station and respond to any calls we received within the district.  My nephew was working up the road from the firehouse and would come down in the event of a call so we would be a minimum of two and of course others may show up but at least there would be one engine responding.  We ended up taking in one EMS call and one AFA during the time of the parade.
 
I think before you send your dept out of town, for any reason, you should make sure you have left behind at least a minimum set crew for one engine, your ladder and your ambulance.  And, depending on the size of your dept. if you leave town for MA or Training Ctr. you should have a crew stand-by in qtrs for your own dept.  If you can't fill out that stand by, you shouldn't be sending your resources out of town.
 
If you need to take your ladder out of town for training, you should have a neighboring dept stand by in qtrs while your out.  If their already in qtrs it will save the response to the FH time.

This is not a new topic...but it hits close to home.  I live in a 6 story, fire-proof multiple dwelling.  This means...there are no fire escapes.  If a fire were to occur on the 4th, 5th or 6th floors, a resident could potentially be blocked from their front door....the only means of egress.  Whats the other way out?  An aerial ladder.  What good is that aerial ladder when its 20 minutes away at a parade?  Maybe farther!  My local FD has several engines and one, single ladder.  Why does that ladder, the only means of high-rise rescue, EVER leave town?  To win a trophy?  To show off?  To look cool?
 
If there were ever a tragedy, I'd expect those responsible to see criminal charges.
 
Im all for parades.  Im all for tradition.  Our volunteers give time and these kind of events are joyful and proper compensation for dedication.  We should have fun and maintain freindly relationships with neighboring dept's through social activities.
 
However, our first mission is life-safety.  If a town has 3 or 4 engines and 1 ladder....um....the ladder doesnt go to parades.  Smarten up, send an engine.
 
 
There wasnt a need to include a dept. name, because this dept. is not unique.  The list of offenders is long, sadly.

I didn't get the vibe that the city was unprepared from the article.  It struck me more as they are having difficulty managing the situation without "enough" resources mixed with a touch of the fear mongering that seems to be standard for the media these days.
 
It also had a healthy dose of the typical misguided belief that declining working fires and increasing EMS calls means that fire resources should be redirected towards EMS responses.  Sure, on the surface it seems reasonable that the area that makes up 70-80% of your department's responses should get the lion's share of funding, but it ignores some very important factors and usually one undeniable truth:
 
1) While fires are "down", incident responses aren't.  FDNY (as do all FDs) responds to much more than just working fires.
2) Fires do still occur (quite frequently in NYC) and when they do, they still require the same number of personnel arriving quickly.  In fact, recent scientific studies suggest that today's fire may require more personnel arriving even more quickly.
3) There are fundamental differences in necesssary staffing and apparatus/equipment costs between fire and EMS that impact how the funding pie is divided.  A single EMS unit in FDNY is significantly cheaper to acquire, equip and staff 24/7/365 than a single fire unit.
4) The problem may not be that too many resources are directed towards fire response.  Maybe the problem is just that too few resources are directed towards EMS response?
 
 

there is one Field Comm unit for FDNY,and in the past it was staffed by one dispatcher and one lieutenant. The officer reports to the command post and relays any orders/updates to the dispatcher in the Field Comm unit for further action.

Mr Wanamaker- worked with your Dad in Engine 92 in the Bronx- always a smile on his face, happy guy the whole tour (especially when we caught a "job"). One of the best firefighters I worked with. He headed to the "boats" after the bunker gear came in, and the EMS runs had us running around constantly. He just hated putting on/taking off 15-20 times per tour. He was a true role model for the younger guys who were studying to be a boss- they all knew they wanted to be a fire office like Harry-take care of your people;don't ask them to do anything you wouldn't/couldn't do; and always "do the right thing".  

Mr Wanamaker- worked with your Dad in Engine 92 in the Bronx- always a smile on his face, happy guy the whole tour (especially when we caught a "job"). One of the best firefighters I worked with. He headed to the "boats" after the bunker gear came in, and the EMS runs had us running around constantly. He just hated putting on/taking off 15-20 times per tour. He was a true role model for the younger guys who were studying to be a boss- they all knew they wanted to be a fire office like Harry-take care of your people;don't ask them to do anything you wouldn't/couldn't do; and always "do the right thing".  

Mr Wanamaker- worked with your Dad in Engine 92 in the Bronx- always a smile on his face, happy guy the whole tour (especially when we caught a "job"). One of the best firefighters I worked with. He headed to the "boats" after the bunker gear came in, and the EMS runs had us running around constantly. He just hated putting on/taking off 15-20 times per tour. He was a true role model for the younger guys who were studying to be a boss- they all knew they wanted to be a fire office like Harry-take care of your people;don't ask them to do anything you wouldn't/couldn't do; and always "do the right thing".  

My father was a LT in the FDNY and worked on this boat for years. He loved his time working with guys at marine 1. He passed away from illness he got while working at the trade center site. I think he would be happy about the fate of this boat! 

there is one Field Comm unit for FDNY,and in the past it was staffed by one dispatcher and one lieutenant. The officer reports to the command post and relays any orders/updates to the dispatcher in the Field Comm unit for further action.

there is one Field Comm unit for FDNY,and in the past it was staffed by one dispatcher and one lieutenant. The officer reports to the command post and relays any orders/updates to the dispatcher in the Field Comm unit for further action.

there is one Field Comm unit for FDNY,and in the past it was staffed by one dispatcher and one lieutenant. The officer reports to the command post and relays any orders/updates to the dispatcher in the Field Comm unit for further action.

 
While I agree with you on this, there's no better leader than the one that gets out there and does the same training as everyone else.  Yes, the chief needs to worry about those meetings, the safety issues, the rig maintenance, etc.  But, every once in a while, a great leader needs to get out there and show that he/she still has the skills and can still do the job.  This is partly because the chief still needs to know how to do the ob, especially in a day and age where science is proving different fireground conditions, equipment is becoming more integrated and innovative, and just to keep the skills up in general.  A great leader needs to be just as reliable on the fireground as followers.

The other thing that is great about this is the chief is showing that he hasn't left the workers in the dust.  He hasn't forgotten about them and the work that they do.  A lot of career chiefs just settle into their offices and never go back into the line of duty.  But, if you go out there and show the front line personnel that you can still do the job, you earn their respect 1,000 times over.  The firefighters know that you can still do what they do, and that you haven't become just a political desk jockey.
 
The fire service needs leaders, not bosses with bright white coats and helmets.  Lead by example, lead with courage!

There's no doubt that in our collective neck of the woods, (i.e. NY, CT) the level of redundancy borders on the absurd and that this is a costly and unnecessary waste. But on the flip side there is also no doubt that volunteers are far less costly than an all paid service, even with all that waste. To that point, I would contend that this would be so even if stations were consolidated and staffed by paid FFs and property/insurance losses were reduced by having that staff able to effect more positive outcomes sooner (although there's no empirical evidence to support that claim to the best of my knowledge). There is also no doubt that a paid service would provide a higher degree of protection in terms of trained personnel and the availability of that personnel, but as I stated earlier that too comes with a trade off, as less stations means longer response times in getting those trained personnel to incidents. Bottom line here is that volunteers will almost always be cheaper (and that's not even counting the transitional costs of shifting from a volunteer to paid service) and since they are, Mr. John Q. Public will happily live with having them as his sole source of fire protection. He doesn't think he'll ever need the fire department in the first place so he see no need to pay more for it then he already does, and besides, that's how it's always been. And if God forbid he does have a fire, well then...when Blubbery Barney and One tooth Willie (as some see volunteers) show up in their big red shiny parade piece firetruck and squirt water in his window, he's ok with that because his friends and neighbors came to his aid in his time of need and he's got home owner's insurance.
Career FFs will never fully replace volunteers, nor could they. The cost is just too prohibitive and thus there is no political will to make it so. Unfortunately for far too long the volunteer fire service in general has lived off that fact and refused to take steps to provide the best possible protection to those we serve. Like most of the rest of America it seems settling for mediocrity instead of striving for excellence is the new normal.
​And one last point that although it's been said before it bears repeating. Many of our predecessors on both sides of the paid / volly divide worked tirelessly to make our service better for us and our communities. When we spend more time infighting or pushing this or that agenda then we do serving, I think we are all doing a great disservice to those who came before us and those who will come after. We are all in this together and we could accomplish so much more, for those we serve and for ourselves, by building each other up than we do by trying to tear each other down..and that is something we should all strive for, because in the end there's nobody looking out for us but us.

"FireMedic049", I think we have worked together in the same place. Your story is so similar to mine.
As a Volunteer Firefighter for five years in a combination department, both the career and volunteer members got along great. In fact many of those career guys offered us their help in preparing for some of the upcoming test. Even a few on their off duty time.
Finally in 1975 I get the career firefighters job. But in a different city. It doesn't take me too long to find out that I entered into a War Zone. All because of the fact that I became a career firefighter.
I guess I fall into the category of a "Dinosaur Firefighter". So many things are different now.
I was able to see when females first entered into the fire service. That wasn't something that was welcomed by many members, including myself. Of course today we know that many females are doing a great job. Including some that are now Chiefs within some of our largest American cities.
I was able to see the time when the fire department responded to medical calls. Prior to that, our attitude was "We're Firefighters not Doctors". Today of course we know that the larger percentage of all calls are medical rather than fire related for most places. I have firefighter friends that are alive today because of the work that firefighter/medics did to keep them alive.
I was able to see a time when air packs were NOT a luxury or optional item, but one of mandatory equipment. We know today how important that is. But using an air pack years ago wasn't always available. And if you did get to wear one, they didn't have a warning bell telling you to leave the building. You try to suck in air and there is nothing left. Now you try to find your way out using NO AIR.
My point is that being a dinosaur of the fire service (which I am very proud of), I was able to see many improvements made. There has been many difficult hurdles conquered over the years within the fire service. But for some reason, we still just can't seem to get this career/volunteer thing figured out.

I live in Mahopac and did attend the town hall meeting, I found it informative . The meeting was attended by elected officials and Fire dept member and residents of Mahopac. The residents made up about 10% of the crowd. No change is coming to Mahopac in my opinion. This was the good old boys club at its best. I as a mahopac tax payer am annoyed that the dept as a whole has not offered a apology or explanation how this has happened. Its under investigation, cant talk about it. I feel 1 of the chiefs should write a letter to the local paper (Mahopac News) and explain. If I cashed my paycheck and dropped $5 on the way home from the bank I may not notice ,but if I dropped $500 I'm sure I would notice and the rest of my family also wonder where our money went this week. Before everyone forms their opinion of me let me say I am a paid fire officer and I do not believe the volunteer fire system works so my view is 1 sided, I do know several families that have volunteer firefighters in them and I can say they are stand up men and women who want to serve, but lets look into the latest UL fire studies on how todays fires burn hotter and give off more BTU's early in development and reach flashover quicker. I work in a large dept and we are in the firehouse waiting for a structure fire to come in and we still lose buildings and people. What are you really saving in a rural community with the reflex time it takes to get a piece of apparatuson scene with the needed manpower to start a fire attack. I know whats needed thank god most residents don't

Their is a science to fleet management and many departments have no idea about this.
What is the best time to replace a rig? Much depends on its condition, wear and tear etc. A small department that runs 300 calls a year vs. a busy one doing 10,000. etc.
But their are a number of factors to consider:
1) NFPA standards list 25 years max life, but only if the vehicle has a safety upgrade at 15 years. How many safety updates has the industry seen in the last 25 years? seatbelts, antilock breaks, automatic traction control, tilt testing, etc.? What is the liability on keeping rigs longer than this?
2) Resale value. At 10 years and 1 day the resale value of apparatus dramatically drops. Their are some large depts. that have a very progressive program to remove all rigs from primary service at 8 years and place them into the spare fleet. They are sold before their 10th year. The maintenance costs avoided, plus the resale value mean these departments actually spend less (over a 30-40 comparison) than those depts. that keep the rig until its only value is for scrap metal.
3) Maintenance Costs. Most apparatus components are covered under warranties, almost all run out by 8-10 years. The cost of maintaining older apparatus is dramatic compared to new (particularly when many costs are covered by warranties). Experience shows that in a fleet of 20 vehicles, the 2 oldest may take up to 80% of the maintenance budget. And it is not uncommon for depts. to spend 5-10%/yr. of the cost of a replacement on older apparatus. This does not take into account the down time which is hard to measure financially. As many major manufacturers have gone out of business these costs and time goes up.
4) Budget Cycle - Most depts. never set a long term replacement cycle. This creates major financial stress and causes delays in purchasing which will increase costs (particularly interest costs for bonding). If you have 100 apparatus in your fleet and you determine that the average life you want is 10 years, then every year you need to buy 10 new rigs. If you have 4 rigs and you want 20 years than every 5 years you need to buy a rig. This pattern must continue forever. If the rig ages get to close together, your costs get piled on in a very short period. If you have a steady pattern it is easier to budget and maybe even save for.
Replacement cost (average):
2 engines $500,000 each
1 ladder $1,000,000
1 Rescue $250,000
Your average is $562,500. If you buy one new rig each year you need to budget $112,500 every year (plus inflation) and you will maintain your fleet at no rig over 20. and a new rig every 5 years.