Welcome to EMTBravo.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About FireMedic049

  • Rank
    Forum Veteran

Profile Information

  • Location SWPA
  • Gender Male
  • Primary Sector You Work In Fire
  • Your Primary Role Captain

Recent Profile Visitors

6,960 profile views
  1. In that situation, the decision to not respond was clearly the correct one as your Captain was aware that the incident was already being handled and adding yourself to the party could certainly be considered freelancing. In this case, I'd be curious to know some more details to help determine if this was freelancing or just a good faith effort to perform their duties and the incident just happened to be across the borderline.
  2. There are places in which calls are dispatched to the closest units regardless of response district boundaries, but in a lot of areas in which that happens, the departments have all signed off on doing so and are all dispatched by the same dispatch agency and may even be sharing a common dispatch channel. As for this particular incident, there seems to be insufficient information presented on here to determine if what happened was or wasn't "ok".
  3. Leaving your (100' ladder) tiller behind and taking the much smaller squirt because you lack a tillerman is not what I'd consider to be an "excellent plan B".
  4. If I'm not mistaken, the feature that you are describing allows the rear steer axle to be locked and this allows the vehicle to be operated with a single driver, but it's more like driving a tractor-trailer than a straight ladder.
  5. For the most part, I agree with your message, but have a few thoughts and questions.... 1) Was the Eastchester Captain in charge of the whole shift at the time of the incident or just the station nearest the incident? 2) Are Eastchester and Scarsdale on the same dispatch channel? 3) I'm not familiar with the area, but if the map at the beginning of the thread is accurate, it looks like the location of the fire is very close to the Eastchester/Scarsdale border and possibly within sight of the Eastchester station. As such, I could easily see a situation where Eastchester units started to the incident thinking it could possibly be in their area, particularly if they aren't on the same dispatch channel. 4) The media is notorious for misreporting, misrepresenting or misquoting things. As such, their statement of what happened may not fully represent what actually happened. 5) I have some difficulty with the use of the term "freelancing" in this particular context. My understanding of the definition for freelancing is essentially doing a task or taking an action without communication or coordination of such. There's a fair bit of detail about this not readily available to draw informed conclusions, but in general, I wouldn't consider investigating signs of a possible fire nearby to be freelancing, even if doing so happened to take you a couple blocks into the next town. Once on scene, as the initial arriving unit(s), as long as they communicated that they were on scene, going to work and subsequently worked within whatever command structure that was established, I wouldn't necessarily call that freelancing and wouldn't necessarily call it operating without accountability.
  6. We have similar issues in my area. I agree, more is definitely better. Just pointing out that many of us on the career side don't have the option to wait a couple minutes for more personnel to arrive before responding. Some of us are fighting just to maintain the understaffing that we already deal with. I've read up on some of that research, but I don't recall reading about any scenarios where they studied two 2 man crews. Would you happen to have a link or something off hand for that part? I'd be interested in reading that. I don't dispute the findings of that research, but I also have a good bit of experience with responding to fires understaffed and know what we're often able to accomplish while the cavalry assembles. So while not ideal, a crew of 2 (experienced, competent FFs) is not pointless like insinuated above.
  7. Acceptable, NO. Unfortunate reality for many, YES. Yes, but I bet that a 2 man crew arriving quickly, followed by an additional 2 man crew (or more) a couple of minutes after also outperformed a single 2 man crew and probably did at least as well as that 4 man crew arriving together minutes later.
  8. While certainly not ideal, a competent and experienced crew of two arriving quickly can have a positive effect on many incidents rather than a unit with more staffing arriving a few or several minutes later. I've spent the majority of my career (the paid part) working on an engine staffed with only 2. We've been able to have 3 at times over the last few years. Several years ago now, we had a 2 man crew arrive first at a working fire and execute a ladder rescue of a trapped victim prior to arrival of other units. That gentleman knows what the point would be. You'd be surprised at what we've accomplished at some incidents.
  9. If I'm recalling the stuff I've read on the matter correctly, the study compared outcomes of trauma patients that were transported by BLS units vs ALS units. The conclusion was essentially that the initiation of an IV in the field provided no better of an outcome for most patients and that quicker contact to trauma center times had a bigger impact on outcomes. Basically concluding that ALS units tended to delay transport in order to perform ALS interventions, specifically IVs, while BLS units tended to transport immediately since they didn't perform those actions. I don't remember for sure if the study controlled for the severity of condition of the patients cared for by each unit type. Did the ALS units care for patients that were on average more critical than those cared for by the BLS units and to what extent did that impact outcomes? Were outcomes worse due to the delayed transport (for the IV) or having sicker patients?
  10. Your comment doesn't make much sense in regards to the context of this discussion. This wasn't a case of someone directly involved speculating about the success of a new program. This was a case of someone directly involved telling you that a new program that has been in effect for a while now IS a success. You're response was rather dismissive of that informed explanation. No, I don't believe everything I read. However, I've had enough interaction with M'ave on this forum to know that he is FDNY and that he has been reliable when it comes to information related to FDNY matters. You may be trying to have a discussion and there definitely is a difference between argument and discussion. However, you don't seem to understand the detail of each. You are the reason why the "argument keeps on flowing". A discussion was taking place. You just weren't up to speed on the issue when the discussion started and speculated regarding the potential success of the program. I offered an educated opinion to counter yours. You were dismissive of that. You were also provided with reliable information by a person directly involved that the program is successful (because it's been in place longer than you were aware). However, your response again, was dismissive and some people called you on it and tried to educate you some. You became argumentative in response to that rather than be appreciative of the information provided to you. Now you are trying to be preachy, apparently unaware that you are the one who took things from discussion to argument.
  11. Then why when I explained that noticeable change was already occurring did you feel the need to emphasize that you said that change would be minimal as if trying to claim your statement was correct on a technicality?
  12. They didn't just announce this now. The announcement regarding the creation of this program was done a while ago. This was essentially a follow up article regarding how the program was working. It's not that hard to figure out that he is FDNY. He's literally said it directly or indirectly in a number of posts on here. What he's likely trying to get at is why after being told by someone with firsthand knowledge of this topic that it is successful, your response was "we'll find out soon".
  13. What do you so called "experts" know anyway?
  14. Did you read it? None of your comments indicated that you thought there would be a noticeable improvement (change). You literally made a statement that the fly car being closer than the ambulance wouldn't make a difference.