dwcfireman

I noticed the same thing about the air packs being left exposed to the crew compartment. I must have watched it 3 or 4 times and was thinking that there must be roll-down doors which they had raised for the video. I froze the video at 2:43 and it doesn't look like there any doors. If there are no roll-down doors then I think it would be more dangerous as the average gung-ho firefighter might unbuckle his/her seatbelt, stretch-over and reach in to get the air pack in an effort to get ready to fight the fire.  Very curious.... 
 
Overall I think they did a great job in designing the truck. 

The Community VFD is just outside of Houston, TX.  Their new Engine 91 looks like it was thoroughly thought out, especially when it comes to the health and safety of its firefighters.  I thought I'd share the video walk-around:
 
**This video was originally posted by Churchville Fire Equipment of Churchville, NY through Pierce Manufacturing**
 
Never mind the use of space in the compartments, there are few other things that really stuck out to me as I watched the video.  The first is the painted bumper edges, giving firefighters extra grip when stepping up on the bumper and tailboard.  The next is the stepped tailboard, allowing easier access to the roof and hosebed.  The last, and the major point of the video, is placing the SCBA in an exterior compartment, keeping firefighters seated and belted while the rig is in motion, and keeping the dirty packs outside of the passenger compartment.  Oh, did I mention the air conditioning that runs while the rig is plugged into shore power?

The Community VFD is just outside of Houston, TX.  Their new Engine 91 looks like it was thoroughly thought out, especially when it comes to the health and safety of its firefighters.  I thought I'd share the video walk-around:
 
**This video was originally posted by Churchville Fire Equipment of Churchville, NY through Pierce Manufacturing**
 
Never mind the use of space in the compartments, there are few other things that really stuck out to me as I watched the video.  The first is the painted bumper edges, giving firefighters extra grip when stepping up on the bumper and tailboard.  The next is the stepped tailboard, allowing easier access to the roof and hosebed.  The last, and the major point of the video, is placing the SCBA in an exterior compartment, keeping firefighters seated and belted while the rig is in motion, and keeping the dirty packs outside of the passenger compartment.  Oh, did I mention the air conditioning that runs while the rig is plugged into shore power?

The Community VFD is just outside of Houston, TX.  Their new Engine 91 looks like it was thoroughly thought out, especially when it comes to the health and safety of its firefighters.  I thought I'd share the video walk-around:
 
**This video was originally posted by Churchville Fire Equipment of Churchville, NY through Pierce Manufacturing**
 
Never mind the use of space in the compartments, there are few other things that really stuck out to me as I watched the video.  The first is the painted bumper edges, giving firefighters extra grip when stepping up on the bumper and tailboard.  The next is the stepped tailboard, allowing easier access to the roof and hosebed.  The last, and the major point of the video, is placing the SCBA in an exterior compartment, keeping firefighters seated and belted while the rig is in motion, and keeping the dirty packs outside of the passenger compartment.  Oh, did I mention the air conditioning that runs while the rig is plugged into shore power?

The Community VFD is just outside of Houston, TX.  Their new Engine 91 looks like it was thoroughly thought out, especially when it comes to the health and safety of its firefighters.  I thought I'd share the video walk-around:
 
**This video was originally posted by Churchville Fire Equipment of Churchville, NY through Pierce Manufacturing**
 
Never mind the use of space in the compartments, there are few other things that really stuck out to me as I watched the video.  The first is the painted bumper edges, giving firefighters extra grip when stepping up on the bumper and tailboard.  The next is the stepped tailboard, allowing easier access to the roof and hosebed.  The last, and the major point of the video, is placing the SCBA in an exterior compartment, keeping firefighters seated and belted while the rig is in motion, and keeping the dirty packs outside of the passenger compartment.  Oh, did I mention the air conditioning that runs while the rig is plugged into shore power?

The Community VFD is just outside of Houston, TX.  Their new Engine 91 looks like it was thoroughly thought out, especially when it comes to the health and safety of its firefighters.  I thought I'd share the video walk-around:
 
**This video was originally posted by Churchville Fire Equipment of Churchville, NY through Pierce Manufacturing**
 
Never mind the use of space in the compartments, there are few other things that really stuck out to me as I watched the video.  The first is the painted bumper edges, giving firefighters extra grip when stepping up on the bumper and tailboard.  The next is the stepped tailboard, allowing easier access to the roof and hosebed.  The last, and the major point of the video, is placing the SCBA in an exterior compartment, keeping firefighters seated and belted while the rig is in motion, and keeping the dirty packs outside of the passenger compartment.  Oh, did I mention the air conditioning that runs while the rig is plugged into shore power?

 
My department also carries a 6' Navy nozzle.  Since I've been here, we've used it a total of 0 times.  Quite honestly, the only person I know who has used it in an actual fire is my brother-in-law, and he was a fireman in the US Navy.  I'm not going to say that the Navy nozzle doesn't have it's place in structural or vehicular firefighting because it can be used with dramatic results.  Unfortunately, I think that most firefighters would rather use the combination nozzles that we have become accustom to due to the fact that they are more adjustable and more maneuverable.  I prefer the combination nozzle because of the adjustability because fire behavior can change quickly on you.  I especially prefer it in a vehicle fire since you can attack the main body of fire with a straight stream and then go to a fog when stuffing the nozzle under a hood or into a trunk.

 
You're going to have to go inside at some point, namely for overhaul.  And, since it's a metal tube full of plastic with a ton of windows, it's safe to say that you can enter a bus fire with minimal risk.  It's self-vented and there's just a bit of heat.  As long as all of the occupants are out and accounted for, the worst of your fears should be getting some melted plastic on your gear.

 
You're going to have to go inside at some point, namely for overhaul.  And, since it's a metal tube full of plastic with a ton of windows, it's safe to say that you can enter a bus fire with minimal risk.  It's self-vented and there's just a bit of heat.  As long as all of the occupants are out and accounted for, the worst of your fears should be getting some melted plastic on your gear.

we have it on the rescue in my department but why not attack from the outside using a navy low velocity fog nozzle.  i believe we have a 6 foot one, just the right height to go around the bus get the knock down and cool down.  then you can enter and mop up the hot spots. Just seems like this guy took a risk, especially if the fuel tank let lose, yes it's diesel but it will ignite.  

By the time the first rig arrived that bus was toast. Presumably all occupants were out. Why even go inside? Seems like a big risk to try and salvage some part of a vehicle. Just hit it from the outside.

I remember as a young lad riding the school bus that EVERY student thought that the fire drills were a waste of time (and, secretly the bus drivers would take bets on who could evacuate their buses the fastest!).  But, in all seriousness, those plastic seats will take off once there's enough heat energy in that bus.  One of the suggested videos at the end this one was a 12 minute video; it starts right after ignition (in the middle of the bus) and is fully involved by the 4 minute mark.  6 minutes in the situation is no longer tenable to life inside.  6 minutes is the mark that NFPA suggests that we arrive on scene.  Though the video above shows a bus fire where the point of origin is probably the engine compartment, depending on the situation we have to come up with a different plan of attack.  Pertaining to a bus fire, I would like to say that those fire drills pay off and everyone is off the bus and accounted for, that way we can just put the fire out like it was a shed or a sedan on fire.
 
LayTheLine, I understand what you're saying from a structural point of view.  I want to point out that NIST, the ATF, and FDNY have done complex studies with each other to identify the strengths and weakness for different attacks, including the semi-controversial transitional attack, for structure fires.  The studies, from what I've seen, don't really touch on vehicles fires, let alone mass transport.  The point I'm getting at here is that this is a vehicle fire, where we expect the vehicle to be totaled and cannot be saved, very much unlike a house or apartment building where we can save property.  Vehicle fires tend to be a complete loss of property, and we just put out the fire.  As for bus fires, we have to treat it as if someone is inside, but there are two important questions that have to be asked before we conduct an interior attack on a bus fire:  We have to ask the bus driver if everyone is off the bus, and is everyone accounted for.  If the answer to both questions is yes, then we attack the fire in a manner that is safest for us.  If either answer is no, then we take the calculated risk of saving a life (but keep it in the back of your mind of how fast that fire has spread and the toxic environment those victims have been exposed to prior to your arrival).
 
Bus fires are always going to be tricky, just as any vehicle fire.  Just remember that we, as firefighters, have three priorities: LIFE safety, PROPERTY loss prevention, and scene STABILITY, in that order!

I remember as a young lad riding the school bus that EVERY student thought that the fire drills were a waste of time (and, secretly the bus drivers would take bets on who could evacuate their buses the fastest!).  But, in all seriousness, those plastic seats will take off once there's enough heat energy in that bus.  One of the suggested videos at the end this one was a 12 minute video; it starts right after ignition (in the middle of the bus) and is fully involved by the 4 minute mark.  6 minutes in the situation is no longer tenable to life inside.  6 minutes is the mark that NFPA suggests that we arrive on scene.  Though the video above shows a bus fire where the point of origin is probably the engine compartment, depending on the situation we have to come up with a different plan of attack.  Pertaining to a bus fire, I would like to say that those fire drills pay off and everyone is off the bus and accounted for, that way we can just put the fire out like it was a shed or a sedan on fire.
 
LayTheLine, I understand what you're saying from a structural point of view.  I want to point out that NIST, the ATF, and FDNY have done complex studies with each other to identify the strengths and weakness for different attacks, including the semi-controversial transitional attack, for structure fires.  The studies, from what I've seen, don't really touch on vehicles fires, let alone mass transport.  The point I'm getting at here is that this is a vehicle fire, where we expect the vehicle to be totaled and cannot be saved, very much unlike a house or apartment building where we can save property.  Vehicle fires tend to be a complete loss of property, and we just put out the fire.  As for bus fires, we have to treat it as if someone is inside, but there are two important questions that have to be asked before we conduct an interior attack on a bus fire:  We have to ask the bus driver if everyone is off the bus, and is everyone accounted for.  If the answer to both questions is yes, then we attack the fire in a manner that is safest for us.  If either answer is no, then we take the calculated risk of saving a life (but keep it in the back of your mind of how fast that fire has spread and the toxic environment those victims have been exposed to prior to your arrival).
 
Bus fires are always going to be tricky, just as any vehicle fire.  Just remember that we, as firefighters, have three priorities: LIFE safety, PROPERTY loss prevention, and scene STABILITY, in that order!

I remember as a young lad riding the school bus that EVERY student thought that the fire drills were a waste of time (and, secretly the bus drivers would take bets on who could evacuate their buses the fastest!).  But, in all seriousness, those plastic seats will take off once there's enough heat energy in that bus.  One of the suggested videos at the end this one was a 12 minute video; it starts right after ignition (in the middle of the bus) and is fully involved by the 4 minute mark.  6 minutes in the situation is no longer tenable to life inside.  6 minutes is the mark that NFPA suggests that we arrive on scene.  Though the video above shows a bus fire where the point of origin is probably the engine compartment, depending on the situation we have to come up with a different plan of attack.  Pertaining to a bus fire, I would like to say that those fire drills pay off and everyone is off the bus and accounted for, that way we can just put the fire out like it was a shed or a sedan on fire.
 
LayTheLine, I understand what you're saying from a structural point of view.  I want to point out that NIST, the ATF, and FDNY have done complex studies with each other to identify the strengths and weakness for different attacks, including the semi-controversial transitional attack, for structure fires.  The studies, from what I've seen, don't really touch on vehicles fires, let alone mass transport.  The point I'm getting at here is that this is a vehicle fire, where we expect the vehicle to be totaled and cannot be saved, very much unlike a house or apartment building where we can save property.  Vehicle fires tend to be a complete loss of property, and we just put out the fire.  As for bus fires, we have to treat it as if someone is inside, but there are two important questions that have to be asked before we conduct an interior attack on a bus fire:  We have to ask the bus driver if everyone is off the bus, and is everyone accounted for.  If the answer to both questions is yes, then we attack the fire in a manner that is safest for us.  If either answer is no, then we take the calculated risk of saving a life (but keep it in the back of your mind of how fast that fire has spread and the toxic environment those victims have been exposed to prior to your arrival).
 
Bus fires are always going to be tricky, just as any vehicle fire.  Just remember that we, as firefighters, have three priorities: LIFE safety, PROPERTY loss prevention, and scene STABILITY, in that order!

It's also important to remember that the union is there to protect the process.  If you don't protect the process when an employee is disciplined, particularly when the employee may very well deserve the discipline or termination, then you set a dangerous precedent whereby someone in the future who doesn't deserve to be disciplined or terminated is harmed. 
 
It may not be easy or popular to represent an employee who may deserve the discipline or termination, but they have the right to representation and the union has an obligation to do so.  It's not the union's fault if the employer fails to follow proper procedure and the discipline or termination is overturned.  It's all no different than a person accused of a crime having the right to an attorney, the defense attorney having the obligation to represent them to the best of their ability and the police and DA having to follow the proper procedures in building and trying their case in order to avoid it being thrown out on a technicality.

I've been involved as a union rep in numerous discharge cases and as a rule have the burden of proof; in most of them management doesn't do their "homework" and the employee ends up being reinstated, many times with full back pay and benefits as well.  It's also important to remember that the  union is not there to "protect" the employee, rather they are there to "represent" the employee .

 
That hasn't exactly been what I've seen from the large city near me.  They've had several employees across different city departments that have been reinstated, largely due to violations of due process, in some cases, rushing into terminating the employee.

I might be able to be of assistance; I have quite a bit of experience in the labor field serving as a union officer as well as grievance chairman, most of it being in the private sector.  If you want I'll supply you with an email address to contact me.

This isn't the forum for such a question.  There's really no guidance you can get from us keyboard commandos without specific information, the kind of information that (a) doesn't belong here and (b) could reveal the identity of the agency or person.  
 
Suffice it to say that terminating a union employee is not taken lightly and there are statutory and contractual considerations before it can happen.  Most jobs don't want to get it reversed in court so they're very careful about taking such drastic action so they must have dotted the i's and crossed the t's.  
 

 
Isn't the money from Rye Brook half what PC was getting. And that contract comes up for renewal next year. There will be other options considered by Rye Brook.

 
Here's what I'm getting out of this statement:

If Putnam County is willing to share resources to obtain a grant, AND Westchester County is willing to share resources (to get a grant), AND Orange County is willing to share resources (to get a grant), are these counties setting themselves up to become a regional technical rescue response team?  In my mind, the sharing of resources cuts the cost to the taxpayers by setting up a system where this task force has this and that task force has that, and they share the resources based on what is needed where.  This is obviously in contrast to each county being set up exactly the same as the others.
 
Anyway, kudos to Putnam County on their progress in organizing such a specialized team!  It takes a lot of time, hard work, and resources to bring together such a project!

 
I agree with what you say about not having enough manpower, or let alone qualified manpower, to conduct a certain job.  But, sometimes you have to try something new to fix the problem.  Putnam County has determined that they need a technical rescue team to fill some of the holes in local responses.  This brings together county and local resources to perform a job.  Yes, it's new.  Does it fix the problem?  We need to wait and see how this team actually performs.  You can't judge an up-and-coming quarterback based on how he practices or what jersey he wears.  You have to see him play!
 
This team is in fact in it's crawling stage.  It still has to find members, train them to a specified level, and retain those members and their level of training.  Once they're at a point where the County can say, "Go!" then we can see how they perform under pressure and how well or poorly their responses are.  We cannot Monday morning quarterback something that hasn't happened (nor should we once the team is in place).
 
And, I don't think Putnam County is taking on more they can handle.  Nor do I think that the responders that are going to sign up for the team are going to be taking on more than they can handle.  Yes, you're going to lose some of the initial members due to time commitments or other issues, but you're still going to see a very gung-ho group follow through with the training.  In all honesty, if it's really not working out five years from now, the County can redevelop the team or the idea to make it work for them.  There's always room for learning, and there's always room for development.

I guess my only question to all the Naysayers is what other option is there? I suppose you could call another county mutual aid for a tech-rescue team but that would take time. I don't know the financial status of Putnam County or it's towns, but it sounds like if they are going to hire career firefighters to cover even the basic calls because of lack of manpower they need to concentrate on the basic daily responses with the career staff before creating a tech-rescue team. 
 
So let's assume it's a horrible, terrible, dumb idea to create the tech-rescue team with volunteers from the departments within Putnam County. No-way, no-how!! They'll buy people cool t-shirts anyhow to appease the 75% of the people who are in it for that.  So there is nothing.
 
Now, let's take the example of the construction worker who is up to his neck in a collapsed trench. Time is an important factor here. The call goes out to the local department at 1pm on a Tuesday afternoon. The first-due engine pulls up and has 3 on-board (Joe who is retired truck driver, Tom who is Captain and works in the local deli, and Sue who is an EMT). None of these members have experience or training in any type of tech-rescue. So they walk up to the guy who's buried and do what? There is no Putnam County team to request, mutual aid tech-rescue is too far away to be of any good, and the engine crew is not up to the task. The captain tells the worker there's nothing they can do for them and the crew climbs back on the engine and returns to quarters. That, of course, is ludicrous!!!
 
If there were a tech-rescue team, this is probably an incident they could handle. Sure the response might not be immediate, but in the meantime another department could be called in mutual aid to the scene to have manpower there and perhaps at least stabilize the scene until tech-rescue shows up. I know nothing of tech-rescue, but perhaps boards could be built up around the worker so more dirt doesn't fall on him. Maybe the EMT could get close enough to slip an O2 mask on the guy. Maybe they could prepare the scene by moving dump trucks and other vehicles out of the immediate area to give the tech-rescue team clear access to the scene. Maybe they could lay out tools on a tarp which the tech-rescue team might need (shovels, pails, ropes, etc.). 
 
So I ask the people who are against this, what are the alternatives? Not go? Go but then return? Have Lawn-Chair 1 respond so they can put out lawn chairs and tables and serve lemonade and sandwiches while they watch the guy die?
 
Very simple solution which I stated before:
 
1) If it's a minor situation like a child has his hand stuck in a bicycle chain, the first due engine can most likely handle that.
 
2) If it's a more serious incident like a guy buried up to his neck in a trench, the first due engine assesses the situation, calls for the tech-team, calls a mutual aid engine and tries to at least stabilize the scene and cause no further harm.
 
3) If the tech-rescue team arrives on location and it's a guy down an abandoned 200 foot deep well that is caving in, the tech-rescue team may decide they need heavier equipment and call additional tech-rescue teams and call on the private industry who has the equipment to deal with this. Perhaps they would have to dig a hole 50 feet away and then tunnel in to get him out. A very extended operation. But, the first due engine identifies the problem and calls for help. They immediately cordon off the zone so no one else falls in or loosens anything else which will fall in. They ascertain the number of victim(s), age(s), medical condition(s), etc. When the tech-rescue team shows up they realize they will need help and call for another tech-rescue team and ABC Drilling & Well Company. Perhaps the tech-team can feed a camera with audio down the hole to see if the person(s) are conscious and evaluate the situation. Who knows, maybe they could even snake an O2 mask down to the victim(s). The tech-team realizes its going to be an extended operation (perhaps 24 hours) and they set up a Planning & Logistics section and create an operational period chart. They may even call in an Incident Management Team.
 
It comes down to common sense, training, experience and knowing when "this is bigger than we can handle" be it the first due engine or the tech-rescue team. To do nothing you might as well nail the doors shut on the firehouse and have everyone volunteer at the local food bank; which by the way offers cool t-shirts too!!  

This reminds me of the talk of Haz-Mat responses back in the 1980's when departments were just getting involved in Haz-Mat responses. There were extreme ideologies back then as well. Some thought it was inevitable and something the fire service could not avoid. Others thought it was pure craziness and the barn doors should be kept shut if there was a green cloud floating through downtown. 
 
I think that starting a Tech-Rescue team is a good idea whether its career or volunteer. What are the alternatives? Have some child fall down a well and the totally untrained towns people gather together and try to form a human chain down into the well? With that being said, proper judgement has to be used by a Haz-Mat team or a Tech Rescue team when things are beyond their capability and that comes with training.  
 
If a local Haz-Mat team got called to a train derailment and there was some really severe Ethel-Methal Bad Stuff mixing with Super-Duper Sticky Stuff and it was obvious that special teams from the production companies and a professional clean-up crew would be needed to mitigate the situation, then perhaps the best approach would be to evacuate, pull-back and try to protect the environment if able to.
 
The same would hold true for a Tech-Rescue team. If they respond to an old excavation site to discover someone has fallen 100 feet into a 2 foot diameter hole, they may decide they need to call a professional excavating company and a professional rigging and shoring company to come in and assist. 
 
In both cases training, judgment and size-up are needed to determine, "can we handle this?" A chief wouldn't send a crew of firefighters into a fully-involved, collapsing house on a report someone was inside - same idea.
 

 
Here's what I'm getting out of this statement:

If Putnam County is willing to share resources to obtain a grant, AND Westchester County is willing to share resources (to get a grant), AND Orange County is willing to share resources (to get a grant), are these counties setting themselves up to become a regional technical rescue response team?  In my mind, the sharing of resources cuts the cost to the taxpayers by setting up a system where this task force has this and that task force has that, and they share the resources based on what is needed where.  This is obviously in contrast to each county being set up exactly the same as the others.
 
Anyway, kudos to Putnam County on their progress in organizing such a specialized team!  It takes a lot of time, hard work, and resources to bring together such a project!