dwcfireman

I know my number isn't accurate, but for 2am it seemed okay with me
It all falls back on training and knowing what you're doing inside.

I've held off on commenting on the gun issue for awhile as it is a sensitive subject.
I am a proud, legal gun owner. I obtained my NYS pistol permit in 2008 and own several handguns, as well as long guns.
I am in no way, shape or form a gun nut, but i certainly believe in a persons right to carry.
As a legal gun owner, i will say that the gun laws are very flawed, especially in here in New York. The laws seem to vary County to County and Judge to Judge.
Personally, i think that the gun laws need to be re-vamped and updated, instead of putting new laws on the books.
Finger printing, background checks and references are great, but wheres the Psychological exam? As a gun owner, i would gladly adhere to such testing (god i hope i'd pass). In my opinion, this would be a good start.
Add a psychological exam to the process for EVERY applicant. Even better, make ALL Permit holders under-go a psych exam every 1-2 years. This would A) ensure the permit holder is of sound mind and 2) make the State some revenue as you could charge for such exams (i would gladly pay such a fee).
I feel that the basic pistol safety course could use some updating, but its certainly a good start.
If you are granted an unrestricted permit (full carry), you should be held to a much higher standard (IMO). On top of the existing process, you should have to qualify (such as LEOs do) on the range to be granted the unrestricted. You should also then have to re-qualify each year.
Many of my gun owning brethren may not agree with me or think this is overkill, but i firmly believe it would be a good start and would benefit us all.
I will give a quick example of how the law is skewed here in NY;
I work part time as a Court Officer and have been for several years now. I received my NYS pistol permit through Westchester in 2008 and changed to Orange when i moved here.
After living in Orange for about 2 years, i applied to amend my permit to an "unrestricted." I had to take the day off of work and go before a judge on a Friday morning. I was well dressed and nothing but courteous and professional. I spoke of my background, as well as my training in regards to firearms. After each pause in my speaking, the judge would say things such as "so" or "ok and?" By Monday afternoon i had a letter from the County denying me of an unrestricted permit. The judges "reasoning;" there would be one more gun on the streets.
I know of civilians with little to no training in firearms who have been granted unrestricted permits. Is this an issue? I certainly believe so.
Do i believe that a gun is the end-all, say-all for self defense and protection? Absolutely not. This is where maturity, common sense and experience come into play.
There will be times when and where a gun just isn't the answer. Your best line of defense will always be your brain. If you can walk away or talk yourself out of an incident, then you should do so. If and when an incident arises that warrants the use of a firearm, you better damn well be ready to not only use it, but deal with the consequences. There will be times when you are caught off guard and will not be able to draw your weapon in a safe and timely manner. Again, this is where your brain, common sense and training come into play.
All this said, i would much rather have the (legal) option to carry a firearm if i so desired than to be unarmed and defenseless.
Not to sound cliche, but i'd also rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.
In the words of Kenny Rogers, "you got to know when to hold em' know when to fold em."

Great post. Your 99% is not accurate, while we may not need to search for life (if everyone is accounted for) we still need to search for fire (the seat of the fire) so the engine can get in and complete extingushment.

In response to a friend's Facebook comment, in which he stated that the United States should 'take ALL guns away from everyone,' I posted this in his comments:
I bring this topic up in light of the recent event in West Webster, NY where four firefighters were shot at, killing two and injuring the others. And again in Alabama, where firefighters were fired upon...And New Jersey, where a prisoner got hold of a weapon and fire upon police officers. I have always been a firm believer in the Second Amendment, and I exercise that right as a law abiding citizen, and want to know others' opinions on the subject.
Are people on this site un owners? What is your take on gun control? What do you think is causing these massacres? What do you think should be done to make not only our job, but Americans in general, safer?

In response to a friend's Facebook comment, in which he stated that the United States should 'take ALL guns away from everyone,' I posted this in his comments:
I bring this topic up in light of the recent event in West Webster, NY where four firefighters were shot at, killing two and injuring the others. And again in Alabama, where firefighters were fired upon...And New Jersey, where a prisoner got hold of a weapon and fire upon police officers. I have always been a firm believer in the Second Amendment, and I exercise that right as a law abiding citizen, and want to know others' opinions on the subject.
Are people on this site un owners? What is your take on gun control? What do you think is causing these massacres? What do you think should be done to make not only our job, but Americans in general, safer?

From what I can see, images from the scene show vehicles in the driveway. If the first unit(s) on scene CANNOT confirm that everyone is out of the structure, then aggressive primary and secondary searches need to be conducted to CONFIRM that everyone is out. ONLY if the structure is compromised beyond the point that would put firefighters in danger (i.e. going to an exterior operations) should any type of search be cancelled or cut short.
As far as overhaul goes, this is not the point where firefighter should be finding a body. Firefighters need to be trained to find vicitms while conducting primary and secondary searches, and rescues should be (due to training) more succesful. Overhaul is supposed to serve as the final stage of the fire fight, and this is where firefighters SHOULD be extinguishing hot spots and creating a safe environment for investigators. I do understand that there are some circumstances where victims could be missed, like in large area rooms, unreachable and confined spaces, and unusal areas (attics, basement closets, boiler rooms, etc.).
In my opinion, the reasons firefighters miss victims during their searches is due to a lack of training and the lack of experience. Some departments may not have the means to train properly, but it is important to train firefiighters in fire-like conditions to find victims. My department, for example, doesn't have the means to provide excellent in-house search and resue drills because of the facility that we have. This is where the officers have to become creative to teach the skills necessary for this function. On the other side, since fires happen ever so decreasingly, younger firefighters just don't gain the experience to conduct a thorough search. Thankfully, fires don't happen as often anymore, but on-the-job training and hands-on experience is the best way to learn. The more you do it, the better you become. Example: I'm usually on the truck, and usually end up on the roof. I can vertically ventialate any building in my sleep. But, 99% of those fires never required a search because all of the occupants were accounted for (just pointing out that some tasks are not completed because they are not necessary, which also leads to inefficiency on the fireground).
So, what do we need to do to fix this? Train more? Conduct more unnecessary searches? It's hard to say. You can train all day with the plastic Res-Q-Randy doll, but it's not the same as actually finding a victim in a raging inferno.

maybe they should donate to a NY fire department that lost everything

You hit the nail on the head, very well said I couldn't agree with you more brother

In response to a friend's Facebook comment, in which he stated that the United States should 'take ALL guns away from everyone,' I posted this in his comments:
I bring this topic up in light of the recent event in West Webster, NY where four firefighters were shot at, killing two and injuring the others. And again in Alabama, where firefighters were fired upon...And New Jersey, where a prisoner got hold of a weapon and fire upon police officers. I have always been a firm believer in the Second Amendment, and I exercise that right as a law abiding citizen, and want to know others' opinions on the subject.
Are people on this site un owners? What is your take on gun control? What do you think is causing these massacres? What do you think should be done to make not only our job, but Americans in general, safer?

If I win the MegaMillions tonight this may just be my first purchase!

This is not a issue in most cases, but as usual one bad apple could spoil the bunch. I think that in the case Santa riding on the fire truck is not the same as why the policies are in effect, they are there to warn against riding these outside positions while doing higher speeds to calls. Which one might ask, why we make a policy to prevent accidents with people riding outside positions instead of teaching how to drive safely instead.
The case with the Santa who almost had his taken off, they was stupidity on the part of the rider not watching or his spotter watching his travel path.
Leave this issue along, it is nothing to do with violations of fire department policies on riding to calls on the outside of the apparatus.

Historically, I have requested a separate fill site for tankers that present unique filling, or extended filling times. If the large tankers can unload water at the same rate as the standard size ones, there is no reason IMHO to take then out of the loop... Just have them fill elsewhere. If they cannot unload at the same rate, when they are done nursing, have them refill and standby in the event that the water shuttle breaks down and they have to nurse again.

First, I find it a bit ironic that the other video on the Facebook page shows how to foot a ladder using a set of irons....
I'm not going to beat a dead horse by pointing that fire is blowing throughout the rear of the home, rather I'll point out that the construction of the house appears to be extremely segmented, leading to the idea to vertically ventilate the garage. The garage, even though it's attatched, appears to have a completely separate attic from the house, which would lead to inspect the area for fire.

I agree 100% that a few inspection holes in the ceiling would suffice. And if there was fire in that attic space, given the exterior weather conditions, ripping down the ceiling or entering that attic space through a door or opening with a handline will be much more productive (and safe). Also note there is no visible fire or smoke in the garage.
Remember, while you're on the fire ground, you are your own personal safety officer, and a safety officer for those around you. Essentially, every firefighter at every incident is a safety officer. We have to look out for each other and stop each other from doing the inevitable mis-step (more commonly known as 'stupidity'). At no point should anyone rely solely on a safety officer to stop incidents like this one from happening. Common sense should have kicked in at some point during this incident, but s**t happens, and that's why we have to look out for our fellow brothers and sisters.

There's not as many fires as there were 30, 20, or 10 years ago. That's a fact. Sometimes I think guys feel the need to do some tactics at fires because they think this is there only chance. I could be dead wrong but how else can we explain things like cutting peaked roofs after the fire is under control, VES and searching above with no hoseline when the occupant meet you and told you nobody was inside. Stories like this happen everyday and no departments are immune. Part of being a professional is doing the tasks to match what need to be done not what's fun. A friend of mine works for a small paid department and told me how he went mutual aid to a neighbooring depatment and on arrival they had no water on the fire but were on the roof cutting away. If you are interested in doing cool stuff you heard NYC does so you can tell cool stories at the bar you need to re-evaluate being a firefighter.

I remember this was a hot topic around the state a few years back. I thought the resolve was that (at least volunteer firefighters) a CDL was not needed or firefighting personnel in NYS. I could be wrong, but that was the last thing I heard.

Having grown up in a rural fire house I've had the chance to work with tanker shutles on plenty of occasions. I can't completely agree that a tractor trailer tanker would slow down the operation. In my experience the shuttle operation is usually slowed down by inexperienced drivers/operators and miscommunication. My personal opinion is that tractor trailer tankers (or at least one in the shuttle operation) could be very useful at the begining of a fire or in a situation where there is an extremely long haul to get to the fire.

When you need a lot of water fast!!! I'm surprised the idea of large tankers like this isn't more common.

One word; Iowa.
Like....the whole state. MINE.

Deff the volunteer one I would even buy them some toys... As for the paid one no way

This is the same fashion how the federal goverment repealed regulations that now allow commercial pilots to carry guns with them. Not all pilots carry guns, and some airlines (usually smaller, regional airlines) prohibit their pilots from carrying. I don't fully agree the new legislation, especially when I own guns myself. I would never carry a gun on the fire truck, so why should EMT's need them on the bus. It cracks open pandora's box to a world of hurt and liability. Going back to the airlines, I don't agree with pilots being able to carry, either. Company/Agency rules and regulations for carrying weapons are far less strict than those in law enforcement agencies.
Changing the subject a bit; An Army friend of mine once said, "You can teach anyone to fire a weapon and hit a target, but not everyone can be taught to shoot a person." Some people, even those in law enforcement and the military, freeze up in a situation where they're being attacked or have a gun drawn back on them. The same thing will happen when a gung-ho EMT draws his weapon on a man who just shot his wife and children. Will this 24 year old EMS know-it-all pull the trigger, or will he end up in the morgue after he himself gets shot? This is where I agree with some of the others in this thread that non-lethal tasers and/or mace may be more acceptable. Then again, we should just fall back on our training and stage elsewhere until the police come in and do their job. Fire departments fight fire, EMS fights death, and Police departments fight crime. I'll gladly wait 30 minutes for a police officer if that's what I need to do.

If I win the MegaMillions tonight this may just be my first purchase!

If I win the MegaMillions tonight this may just be my first purchase!

Having been associated with the aviation world for about 15 years now, I happen to be familiar with the NWS weather lines. I'm also familiar with the FAA certified automated lines and radio frequencies for air traffic control and ATIS (Automated Terminal Information Service). The ATIS is updated by an airport's operations department and theATC tower simultaneously. The NWS weather, at least for airport reporting, is also fed from an airport operations office, yet some of the information is updated automatically from the weather instrumentation. The point I'm getting to here is that these automated services fall back on one thing; the human element. Without someone to augment the information correctly, the system fails.
Where am I going with this? Some people feel that automated dispatching systems will eliminate the human element for part or all of a dispatching center, thus reducing staffing levels and saving money. Others believe that the systems won't work and will cause more havoc on the scene (this is a little extreme, but there are people who just don't like computers). My opinion falls somewhere in between...I do believe the automated systems can relieve dispatchers of time-wasting dispatches, yet I know far too well of the consequences when computers fail at critical moments (like when my weather reporting monitor at the airport decides to take a "break" while trying to publish a weather report during a Nor'easter). The bottom line really comes to the jurisdiction and how they plan to use an automated dispatch system. It may work exceptionally well for a dispatch center that has the funding and technology to pull it off with a staff that is willing to make it work, and it may go horribly wrong for a small dispatching office with little funding and small staff.

Obviously, Charlotte has used the system enough to know that it can and will fail, and redundancies have been emplaced to account for the times that "Samantha" decides to take a break.
Personally, if this IS going to be the way of the future, let's give it a try. BUT, let's not get our hopes too high that this is going to be the future of 911 dispatch.

Charlotte Fire Department (NC) has used "Samantha" to dispatch for about a year. It does take a little while to get used to hearing her. They do give her a day off every once in a while to allow the dispatchers to train if the system goes down. She is also turned off during storms, because she has a hard time keeping up when the calls back up. Overall they system works good.

I am pretty sure on the show "Rescue Me" they had a computerized voice give out their jobs- wheather the actual FDNY does that, probaly anyone but me would know. If you tune into the National Weather Service stations on VHF high band, they have been having a computer "read" the weather for years.
X129: I know you have a face for radio, but maybe you could try to sound a a little sexier on the air- could lead to job security.

Stock up now before they`re gone!
More seriously, though, the unions should have dealt with the issue much differently, especially with the holidays coming up. How do explain to kids that Santa didn't bring them any gifts? How do you explain to your signaificant other that you can no longer afford the bills? Now you have to spend the holidays in a dark, cold house?? If the union sucked it up for a few months and took the lower pay, and negotiate an adendum where higher pay could return if profit margins increase, then 18,500 people would still have a job.

Me, too!