FFPCogs

We had a similar concept many years back in Stamford, called Squad 81. I was too junior to ride the rig, but it worked out fairly well in the beginning. My perception of it was that it was the proverbial horse designed by committee (you know, a camel). At each level the concept had more rules applied to it, there was an over abundance of fairness, there was a strange bit about housing the unit. It was eventually abandoned, although I think the concept is still valid.

One idea I have had was to use your NFIRS (or other reporting) data to deploy mixed crews. Based on the idea that anyone who signs up for such a crew obviously wants to go on calls, and that we can easily tell when and where the calls are occurring. What if we could prioritize what stations needed to be staffed on what shifts, then let people sign up. We could use data to tell us where to put the crews based on where they would be closest to the call volume, understanding that they would still be covering all the districts involved.

We've been discussing something similar in terms of using NFIRS to distribute dedicated coverage. It is one of many staffing variants we are actively researching. Ultimately the goal is to have all certified members here, regardless of which department they are a member of, able to ride any volunteer rig any time. There are some steps which have to be taken before we reach that point and those are in the works now. All this goes directly to some of my earlier comments about reevaluating HOW we volunteer. If what a department has always done is working, well, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and kudos to them, keep up the good work. If on the other hand it's not working, which although some would argue it, Stamford and many other communities clearly aren't, than it's time suck it up and take a look at what to do to fix it.

Cogs all great ideas however I was referencing the ignorance of dismissing quality, trained people for no reason.

My apologies for diverting from the intent of the thread.

Good topic which I hope will get people thinking. Yes, recruitment is of vital importance but it is only one side of the equation. Retention is also an area that is in need of some attention for most departments especially when we consider the fact that a recruit is not a replacement for a 4 or 5 or 10 year member. Now it is a well documented fact that poor leadership is the number one cause of people leaving the volunteer fire service but that problem itself encompasses a whole host of contributing factors. And of these none is more pressing than the inability to change, even when everything screams that change is necessary. To that point there is one area in which a change can have a dramatic impact. I have been a very vocal, albeit mostly lone, proponent of duty shifts for volunteer firefighters for quite some time. The more I look at recruitment and retention the more I realize that it's time for the volunteer service as a whole to reevaluate HOW we volunteer, not just what will get people in the door. It's great if we can get them, but to keep them is quite another story. As we now know incentives do offer some measure of success, but by and large it is how we handle responses and training requirements that causes much of the problem. Time is a very precious commodity for most people today and the usual method of drop what you're doing and respond just DOES NOT WORK ANYMORE in many areas. Implementing a duty shift program can and will address the issue of people's valuable time (along with a host of others). A person joins, gets certified and then chooses or is assigned a duty shift. He can then plan the rest of his life around that commitment with the full knowledge that his response area is covered by at least one crew and all members are contributing at least the same minimum level of service. Training can also be incorporated during these shifts and ultimately the community is provided a greater level of service to boot. Of course I do realize that for most daytime coverage is one of our most pressing issues, but there are ways to deal with it. College student and night worker live-ins are an option, and a good one at that, to help offset the lack of personnel during the day, but there will rarely be enough of them. So we must look at other options too. These can range from Public Works or other municipal employee memberships to mutual aid and go right on up to and include paying members to provide daytime staffing, either full time or per diem, to cover those hours. As always, the wider the net the better the catch, so when developing a plan all options should be considered and it should be as inclusive of all these options as possible to build a comprehensive, and more importantly successful, program.

Let me just add that as a recruiter for volunteers here in Stamford, one of the questions we ask in our interview is whether candidates would be willing to be assigned to a duty shift. Thus far, after interviewing more than 80 candidates, a full 100% of them have said that fulfilling their obligation by doing duty shifts would be a far better option for them instead of the "come when you can" norm currently in use. Now you can take that fact for whatever it's worth to you, but it sends a message loud and clear to me.

Lastly, there are a multitude of such programs up and running across the country to use as templates and refine to your needs...I would hope that at least some of you will consider the option.

Diversity may be one way to fix our recruiting problem, but it is not the only one.

But it is one that is fast becoming a..or dare I say THE...major factor. And it's not just Hispanic or Black we're talking about here, there are numerous other ethnic or minority groups that fall into the non traditional "supply" of volunteers including Indians, Eastern European immigrants, Asians and of course women to name a few. These are the resources available and we have to reach out to them every chance we get. For better or for worse the simple fact is average white, middle class 18-25 year old males just aren't as interested in volunteering as they once were. Sadly many feel there's not much in it for them or they just don't care, plus it's dirty, hot, manual labor that many find "beneath them" to do. But you know what it really doesn't matter why they aren't flocking to our doors, it only matters that they aren't. We have to recognize what we have to work with and then work with it. Right now we are seeing a decisive shift in the communities who are willing join, the question is what are we going to do about it.?

This article brings up some interesting points, but I just hope it is not diversity for it's own sake.

I definitely didn't get that read from the article, but since you mention it, no one should be lowering their standards for the sake of numbers or a "rainbow coalition" of members. This is not the line of work where that should be acceptable, not when lives depend on us. Now sure, diversity is a wonderful thing but in our business that is only true when it compliments or enhances what we, as a service, bring to the table. Diversity for it's own sake or to satisfy some kind of "politically correct" agenda will do nothing other than guarantee mediocrity...and diverse mediocrity is still mediocre no matter how many different shades it comes in. There's enough of that already in this country and no place for it in our business.

As the primary recruiter here in Stamford I can only say this: I will seek out anyone, anywhere....I don't care where you live, what your race is, what religion you practice or don't or what's between your legs...if you're willing and able to do the work we need you to do, than I'm happy to have you. If a department needs members (and who doesn't) and they don't tap ALL the resources they have available to them, than they're committing suicide...it may be slowly or it may be quickly but the end result will be the same, their organization will end up in the dustbin of history.

OK, that said, let me also add that making our VFDs more diverse does not have to mean we are turning our backs on our history and traditions. Sure, diversity can mean the end of "our culture" as we know it, especially if prejudices and ignorance hold sway, or diversity can enhance, strengthen and reinforce our culture to not only stave off our own extinction, but make it better...the choice is up to us. The responsibility for what our VFDs are now and what they can become rests squarely on our shoulders, no one else. We CAN embrace diversity and still remain who we are, but it takes willingness and work. It is the job of those of us who ARE our organization now to pass along our history, our traditions and our culture, those things that define us, to those who are coming along after us and who WILL BE our organizations in the future, even if they don't look like us or practice our religion or use the same restroom...for if we don't, we won't have a future

There seems to be a ribbon of young guys who demand respect before earning it. They don't give a crap about the older guys or their insight. A good leader needs to be built off those that came before them.

I couldn't agree more. There's a good number of younger members I've volunteered and worked with who, for some reason, think their mere presence in the room means they should get respect. They are quite taken aback by the notion that respect is earned not given. Seems that number is growing too, but fortunately there's still enough of us around to impart, and when necessary, reinforce the message. More often than not they get with the program or get on the next bus outta dodge..either way the message sinks in.

While both written testing and seniority are good barometers to use for promotions, I think there is a third leg to the triangle that is often overlooked, and that is an actual ability to lead. The senior man may be the most experienced and know his way around the fireground and the good test taker the most knowledgeable with a wall full of certifications but that doesn't mean either can actually lead others. Remember too that much of what officers do takes place off the fireground, especially the higher up the chain one moves. Keeping a crew or shift or department working smoothly with the myriad of personalities, pressures and administrative demands in play is no easy task, and it's been my experience that some who are promoted just aren't up to it. Personally, although probably impractical, I would like to see some form of practical testing used to gauge a candidates all around leadership skill, on and off the fireground, coupled with the written and seniority criteria.

A few years ago in Stamford we did a test where we sent members all over town with pagers and not only did tests from Dispatch but also from the backup tone encoders in the various stations. We did identify some areas where pagers were unreliable. That was just one city, I can imagine that there would have to be a proportionately larger number of areas in a county. Now weather these areas match up with the areas that have bad cell coverage, I do not know. Cell companies are always looking for new tower sites because they want to be competitive, so these areas change regularly.

When I was in Belltown, we had largely abandoned using the horn, except in a few rare circumstances. I personally used to use it on reported structure fires, as an additional alert method to the pagers. I know of a few calls where we picked up a few members who were in the area and for whatever reason did not have their pagers with them. So the horn was helpful.

I also know that we bought a paging program to send text messages to members phones. We mostly used this to get all the administrative messages off of the radio. However it did have some use for incident pages. We did get members responding that were out of radio coverage but close enough to respond. The reason that you can't depend on it is that you do now own and maintain the infrastructure. Back in the early 1990's there was an outage on a satellite, that was apparently used by many paging companies. They did not know about the outage, until people were able to get in touch with others by phone and ask why they had not returned pages. So in a fire setting, do you want to be the person who has a house on fire and you find out the pagers are not working because nobody showed up?

The horn/siren has a distance limitation, but in a small community where most members live or work nearby this is not an issue. I do not know anything about Delmar.

I agree that this is probably someone who moved into the area and then wants the area to change to his liking.

And don't forget that there are times when we can go days or more without power during / after a storm. Or God forbid if cell /radio networks get damaged or attacked. What happens when members can't charge their cell phones and pagers or get service for days? It's easy to say "ah that will never happen", but in our modern world if there's one thing we all should have learned by now it's that yes it can. Just because a technology is old doesn't mean it doesn't work. And I'm sorry but if an FD has been using a horn/siren for as long as you've been alive (whether you lived in town or not) you'll just have to suck it up snowflake and deal with it.

Horns /sirens (and pull boxes too, remember them?) - Antiquated? yes, obsolete or useless? no

With all due respect, and I mean that, between City of Stamford, Belltown, Turn of River, Long Hill, Springdale, am I missing anyone? you had to get a donation from Burlington?

Quite simply the supply of used gear available for our purposes is non existent, nor is there any money available to purchase it. Used gear that has not yet reached the ten year mark and that is still in service is used by active members of all of our departments and we're not going to pull gear from an experience FF to give it to a new member who may or may not stay around. With our recruitment efforts beginning to bear some substantial fruit we need to provide these recruits with gear to train in, so with little money and less gear available to fill that need, seeking throwaways from other departments solves two problems at once. The donor gets their used, out of date PPE disposed of and we are able to outfit our recruits for their initial training without shortchanging any of our active FFs. Seems like a win win to me. And if past practice is any guide, as probies complete their recruit training than gear rotation coupled with attrition as older members leave/come off the line should provide an adequate source of in service gear for these recruits to go on the line safely.

As I'm sure most here can relate, Stamford may be a wealthy community but that doesn't mean that the fire departments are wealthy. We do what we have to do to do what we do.

Hey all,

Just refreshing this thread to give it another try. If anyone can help out it would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Seth,

TL-45 is now due to rejoin the fleet early next year. If all goes well, by mid January. She is getting a fairly extensive refit with a new body, axles, brakes and upgrades to the wiring and hydraulics where necessary. When she returns to service the only thing will be left that's original is the boom, which has a good 15 to 20 years left on it...especially in Asbestosville..uh ahem I mean Belltown.

Happy Thanksgivings from my family and I to all of you and yours.

Belltown FD in Stamford is also selling trees starting tomorrow.Hours are weekdays 5-9pm and weekends 12-9pm.

Andrew Fredericks at FDIC ...his words ring as true today as they did when he first spoke them back in 2000

I can think of no better way to honor this great man's legacy and sacrifice than to take his words to heart and act upon them.

RIP Andrew..lost but never forgotten.

Thanks for all you still give to us.

I think that is the real crux of this. We're looking at a very small piece that came out of these research burns. The research really starts with scientifically (and importantly- repeatable methodology) showing the changes/clarifications in our fire environment on numerous fronts: building contents/fuel load that result in dramatically faster heat release rates (HRR), the building itself, and the effects of all ventilation (not just as a specifically employed tactic) on the fire and conditions within the structure.

We're getting stuck on one small item that has been identified as a way to address these faster HRR's that cause untenable conditions sooner, in structures that due to new building practices may fail so much faster it almost coincides with FD arrival. Failure to understand that fires in buildings are changing as opposed to the ones that much of our previous tactics were born from. This is not in anyway to say we've got to start from scratch, this means we need to adjust where tactically necessary based on understanding our "workplace" better.

There is a ton of information out there, and I've read, heard, discussed, seen, and tried a lot, of which was likely just a scratch on the surface. But in that time, I've yet to see anyone participating in the research advocate fighting all fires from the exterior. The only people saying this are really people immediately pushing back against change, anticipating the "Safety Sally's" are taking over and telling us interior attack is too dangerous. The only legitimate tactic that I've seen recommended by any credible source has been employing an exterior stream to quickly reduce the energy from a venting fire. This appears to have come from NIST's research showing that properly employed, the stream will not push fire or steam viable occupants to death, removing those concerns that often prevented us from doing this before. There are specific parameters for employing this tactic (when, where, how) and also very often noted that it should not cause noticeable delay in the initial interior stretch.

Reducing the heat in the interior, where applicable, is not because firefighters are becoming "wimpy" but in fact, because they recognize that the risks to occupants and firefighters alike continue to grow as heat rises. We now know that if the temp is "X" right now, it will likely grow as soon as we open the front door to take that first line in, and continue to rise sharply until we get water on the fire. Having given the same fire a quick shot of water, we may be able to move in to the seat faster. This should be the goal, remove the energy to speed our path to the seat of the fire, not to extinguish the fire from the yard.

Very erudite and well presented response that for the most part I agree with. This tactic like all tactics has it's place and being educated on the dieferent tools at our disposal and when to use them should never be frowned upon. That said I do though take exception to this one sentence as I have personally experienced quite a different view:

The only people saying this are really people immediately pushing back against change, anticipating the "Safety Sally's" are taking over and telling us interior attack is too dangerous.

As most know I spent a number of years doing contract firefighting overseas and in that capacity I worked with FF's from all over the U.S. and now Europe. Like FF's everywhere, we overseas engaged in tactical discussions frequently and at times even heatedly, especially when talking about aggressive interior operations. When I started back in 2004 there were probably 2 or 3 members out of 20 who advocated the "hitting it from the yard" tactic as THE primary means of attacking the average structure fire, specifically because they were taught and honestly believed that an "interior attack is too dangerous" in modern firefighting...their words not mine. Their departments made the conscious decision to change their fundamental strategy to an initial exterior attack every time at every fire as policy and justified that change by citing firefighter safety. Fast forward to 2015 and the number of my colleagues who come from departments that adhere to this principle has quadrupled to over a dozen or more, paid, volunteer and military out of 30. These are FFs from widely disparate departments ranging from North Carolina to Oregon, Indiana to Alabama and a host of places in between. They didn't know each other before being assigned to the base nor did their departments work together, the only thing they have in common is a taught belief that ""interior attack is too dangerous". The point being, the "push back " is not based on some kind of irrational fear of change, but rather resistance to a "one size fits all" "use this tactic always" philosophy that, in my personal experience anyway, seems to be spreading through the American fire service.

As I said I'm not sold on "hitting it from the yard" concept, but you know what, if a tactic works for you then it works for you...and that's great. But what it comes down to is what everything we do on the fireground comes down to...training. If a department has chosen to embrace this method of fire attack than they must follow through with training all their personnel thoroughly on the ins and outs of utilizing it. It was mentioned earlier about hitting the fire for a quick shot of about 30 or so seconds to "reset" the fire and cool the interior. Well everyone that may lay their hands on that nozzle has to know exactly what that means. Having been to a few fires over the years I've learned a thing or two and one of the most common mistakes I see often, in town and out, paid and volunteer, is members having a tool or line in their hands and using it simply because they do..."oh look there's fire coming out of that window..well I have a line here so I'll just hit it quick to knock it down for the guys inside"..as those interior members get lobsterized.

Training is the bedrock on which all of our tactics should rest and when incorporating something "new" that training should take on even more significance until that foundation is firm...at least IMHO.

I'm not a proponent of the "transitional attack", but that doesn't mean it doesn't have it's place. This tactic, like all tactics, has it's use, but one thing I find disturbing is that some have now begun to advocate using this method for attacking just about every fire...and no matter what the justification, that my friends is a very dangerous mindset to get into. We don't, nor can we, operate in a one size fits all or "magic bullet" mentality, at least not if we want to maintain what is at the core of our mission..saving lives....civilian lives. We have the training, they do not. We have the equipment, they do not. We have the experience, they do not. And lastly, they are the reason we are here...it is our duty to put "them" before "us" when they are in trouble...after all, that's why they called us.

Ray has it right, so much so that it bears repeating....

"A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

Nothing special about it and at 300 bucks a pop, that's big bucks to some departments with lots of members.

Or few members and even fewer dollars. Not every FD is it's own taxing district or is flush with funding. Even FDs in affluent towns sometimes have to scrape to get by, whether they have 100 members or ten. And now they want us to replace our turnouts every ten years too...yeah right...good luck with that.

But we don't share turnout gear, helmets, hoods, gloves, etc. The mask is fitted to us, so why is it any different then the rest of the PPE?

We used to do that too. Gear used to be stored on the rig and it was first come first served. Now I'm not advocating a return to those "good ole days"..and they were good, damn good...but for financially strapped department's sharing gear should be an option (in fact in some parts it's the norm cuz there just ain't no other choice).

But hey what do I know I'm just a fossil who, like hundreds of other guys, did everything "wrong" and "unsafe" and yet here we are to tell the tale.

I started out at a time when masks were always shared, they were a part of the SCBA unit, so OSHA or not I don't have a problem with it. And yes, if you think about it sharing masks offer considerable savings, but being that the NFPA is the mouthpiece for manufacturers, it's no surprise that they "recommend" every FF be issued one...$$$$$$$$$

Are they keeping the 2009 Sutphen 100' MM Tower as well?

Believe that is now Truck 2

So many wrong points here it is almost farsical.

You mean the deal to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and replace the nuclear weapons material with power generating material? Sounds like a lot of peace to me. That $100 billion will do wonders modernizing their infrustructrue and spreading American goodwill in the region.

Farcical? I think not. This "deal" will not "prevent" Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons" or "spread American good will" anywhere, or "modernize" Iranian infrastructure. More likely it will only ensure they acquire them sooner rather than later, undermine whatever credibility we may still enjoy in the region and be used to modernize their military to make the Iranian theocracy THE major player in the Middle East.

Our current and extremely naive administration, in it's overriding desire to secure a legacy of "peace" allowed itself to be duped and we are still being played by the Iranians:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/majid-rafizadeh/khameneis-new-nuclear-con_b_8446374.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592.

Didn't stop 4 planes from being crashed into PA, the Pentagon and WTC. And hasn't stopped mostly stone aged tech farmers from stopping NATO and Russians for 4 decades in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do not forget Syria was once one of the largest and best equipped militaries in the Middle East outside of Egypt, Saudis and Israel. Look where the knowledge of their overwhelming military forces is now.

The 21st Century will show that peace comes from hearts and minds, not from JDAMs and M4s or gun boat diplomacy.

You sound no better than those who say we need to nuke Iraq, Syria and Afganistan to "fix the problems" over there. You may have seen the war first hand, but your understanding lacks substance.

• 9/11 was not the fault of the military it was the fault of the mistakes made by our politicians, and President Clinton in particular, in ignoring intelligence and letting bin Laden escape when he could have been killed or captured. Same for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. those "stone aged farmers" have not stopped anyone, it is a lack of political will to see the job done that prevents a meaningful victory. Fact is by all accounts both the surge in Iraq and the one in Afghan were successful and stabilized the areas that they were intended to. It was only after the change in the rules of engagement that there was a resurgence of the militant extremists. This problem was further compounded by the withdrawl of combat troops. A perfect example of weakness allowing the growth of fanaticism and it's attendant violence.

• The Syrian Army is a poor example, as are most other armed Forces in the region. Syria may have fielded one of the Middle East's largest military machines, but it was an extremely corrupt one and one that is far from a stellar military force. The Israelis have routed them on every occasion they met.

• Agreed in the 21st Century it will be hearts and minds....backed up by a military capable of vanquishing threats when they appear, not after the damage has been done.

• To your last point sir I must respectfully but strongly disagree. My understanding of war and the use of military force is actually quite extensive both by personal experience and a voracious appetite for history. It is grounded firmly in reality.

Any belief that a draft would be better than an all volunteer force are sufficently put to bed with this RAND study.

The Evolution of the All-Volunteer Force

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9195/index1.html

Great article, when talking about the limited types of conflicts we have been engaged in recently. In these "limited" wars our exemplary volunteer and highly professional military does their job well...within the confines of what they are actually allowed to do that is. But as 2016 approaches we are entering into a new reality where a resurgent Russia and a bellicose and economically powerful China are flexing their muscles on a number of fronts. Often times it is the smallest spark that ignites a firestorm (i.e.World War I) and with the increased tensions and the potential for accidental confrontation the notion of a third World War is not as absurd as it was just 10 short years ago. An all volunteer military, no matter how professional, will be overwhelmed in short order. Roosevelt read the writing on the wall and instituted a draft in 1940 just prior to World War II and by doing so gave us a chance when we were in our darkest hour.

After a quick surf of the net here's just a few articles in support of reinstating the draft, although somewhat redundant there are some salient points being made:

http://listverse.com/2015/02/07/10-arguments-in-support-of-bringing-back-the-draft/

http://quietmike.org/2015/04/03/five-reasons-reinstate-military-draft/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/03/mcchrystal-time-to-bring-back-the-draft/

they should allow people over 35 to enlist I am 52 and would rather go than my 23 year old son who is a NYPD cop and fighting a different war here back at home.

As would I, but that is not possible, at least not at this time.