FireMedic049

2 problems I have with this. 1: as a student athlete I NEVER had a good nights sleep. Especially when I had homework on the weekends or week nights. There was nights where I was in bed by 1am.

I was a student athlete also and had homework most nights too, but I still managed to get to bed at a reasonable hour and get a decent nights sleep most of the time. What were you doing that kept you up until 1am?

Our local fire department recently implemented a policy that ANY firefighter still in high school, even if they are 18 or 19, can not take any calls after 10 on a school night. Personally, I have a big problem with this, because we have a lot of 18 and 19 year old OSHA/FFI interior qualified firefighters, and such policy would significantly reduce the number of firefighters available for night calls.

As others have stated, your department has a serious problem if you are relying on 18 and 19 year old kids still in HS to get apparatus on the road.

But something that other haven't touched on......

Maybe things have changed since I was in HS, after all it has been almost 26 years, but it was not common for there to be students that were 19 and still in school. If you were 19 and still in HS, it meant that you had to repeat a grade somewhere along the way. If you repeated a grade, it was almost always due to failing to perform in an adequate fashion academically.

I would think that a person who has had prior (or current) academic problems needs to be reporting for school well rested more than they need to run calls during the night.

Should school districts have the ability to essentially say that having people well rested for school is more important than public safety/firefighter safety?

Yes, they should have that ability to express their opinion. Are you unfamiliar with 1st amendment rights of the US Constitution? Should they have the right to dictate policy of non-affiliated organizations? No.

Here's the latest if anyone cares....

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/City-Turn-of-River-settle-litigation-5425618.php

I haven't read the actual agreement yet, but based on the content of the article, on the surface this agreement certainly seems to run counter to the single fire department, single fire chief model voted for in the charter revision. Allowing the volunteer organization to have control over the assignment and un-assignment of career personnel at their fire stations is mind-boggling when trying to create an integrated, city-wide combination fire department. The concept of the supposed top dog of the city-wide fire department's (Fire Chief Brown) decisions being subject to veto by his subordinates is simply ridiculous.

I'm kidding hence the emote with the wink. My sense of humor sucks!

Your sense of humor is just fine. Some people just don't understand it.

Nice rig.

I like this one too...also from PA (Blue Ridge Summit VFD)

1500 gpm pump 750 tank on a 130" wheelbase. No cross lays on this rig either, which I have come to believe is a better set up for a number of reasons

I think your wheelbase number is off. The engine looks to be about the same size as the one I work on and it has a 165" wheelbase.

My bad. It's a 147" Paraliner per Lifeline's website. Didn't know they only made the E-450's for 158" and longer....good to know, thanks.

It's the same with the GM Type IIIs. The G3500 chassis is only available as a 139" WB and the G4500 chassis is only available as a 159" chassis.

It appears to be a 138" WB chassis to me, which would make it an E-350. The E-450 is only available as a 158" WB chassis.

Didn't FDNY do a study on this? They started using raised cabs on all their apparatus in recent years.

Here's an interesting article against: http://www.iafc.org/onScene/article.cfm?ItemNumber=6336

I think it really comes down to the department's decision on what works for them. I mean, even a slight 10" raise helps.Also, they weren't wearing a seatbelt and get injured in a crash, that shouldn't be considered a LODI. A seat belt is part of your PPE.

I wouldn't categorize the article as being "against" raised roof cabs. The bulk of the article was about the lack of training in specific areas (riding in fire trucks and using the Q siren) for new firefighters and officers under the assumption that they just know what to do. It also touch on a primary factor in non usage of seatbelts being the non-user friendly aspects of older seatbelt designs and that newer designs have made them much easier to use when geared up.

The only thing about raised roof cabs in it was the assertion that having them meant the department was sending the message that it was ok to be out of your seat dressing, even if your policy stated otherwise. Personally, I think that's a bunch of crap. If your policy states personnel are to be seated and belted when the vehicle is moving, then the department is sending the message that being out of your seat getting dressed is not OK. If your personnel are not following the policy and your officers are not enforcing the policy, then that would be sending a message in conflict with the stated policy of the department and none of that has anything to do with how much headroom is in the back of the cab.

Barry:

Thank for your insight, but it has everything to do with being seated.

Perhaps in your part of the world, Firefighters always follow signage, directives, or you ride looking backwards, but my opinion is that a large open “cathedral” like cab encourages movement.

If we are intent on trying to reduce the “responding and returning” numbers with policies, we should also try to create environments that support the same policies. Yeah, and a more important part of creating an environment that supports that includes having company officers who make sure their FFs are seated and belted in during the response and firefighters who have the self-discipline to do it on their own. The only impact that a taller cab has on firefighters and not being seated and belted in is that there's more room when they are doing it. From my experiences, if a firefighter is going to be out of their seat during the response in a raised roof cab, they'll be out of their seat in a flat roof cab too.

I am fairly certain that we can still get there and do the job, without the cathedral. No doubt we could.

If you need them or want them, great.

And let us not be so naive to believe that industry does not push the service, rather than the service pushing the industry. Let's not be so naive to think that's a one way street.

Being honest, maybe it's just me, but something looks "off" in those shots.

Yeah, it's not a Seagrave.

This comment recently appeared in an online publication regarding a recent fire, which brought me to thinking.

Should having no hydrants nearby be a "complication"? If the area does not have a hydrant system, and the FD is preplanned for that area, shouldn't the water supply (tankers) be the norm?

It's hard to say without reading the article or knowing the department/area involved, but I think you may be misinterpreting the statement.

Yes, typically a FD covering a non-hydranted or sparsely hydranted area will preplan their water supply for calls into that area and yes, tankers would be the norm to provide that water supply. However, even with a good preplan, not having hydrants nearby can still be a "complication" for the operation.

It takes a lot longer to establish a constant water supply when setting up a tanker shuttle operation than it does to just drop some LDH from a hydrant. That in and of itself can "complicate" how the incident is handled. Some other things can further complicate the situation like how far from the scene is the water source for refilling the tankers and how long will it take for a sufficient number of tankers arrive. The first arriving units could easily find themselves on scene for 10-15 minutes before the full water supply and shuttle is established.

I was standing in the hall waiting with classmates to get into my 10th grade social studies classroom following lunch when I heard about it. The girl who told us was a bit of a jokester, so we were kind of like "yeah, right". Found out a little later that she wasn't joking.

I agree. Definately a waste of space.

Just curious but can an agency issue an exemption from a statute? Wouldn't that have to come from the legislative branch in the form of a revision or amendment to the law?

I can't say for sure, but I would imagine that in this specific incident, it may not be a case of the agency actually exempting a group from the law, but rather issuing a statement of finding regarding their interpretation of the law.

The center of the issue falls to how much of an "employee" is a volunteer (firefighter or EMS provider) and to an extent, who's "employee" are they. The whole idea of thinking that volunteers could be enough of an employee to qualify for healthcare coverage under the ACA, but not enough of an employee to require payment of wages for time worked on behalf of the organization under federal wage law is mind boggling to me.

So, it could simply be a case of determining that the law doesn't actually apply to the volunteers rather than determining that the law does apply to them and then deciding to actually exempt the volunteers from it.

I believe that there was never any intention for the healthcare mandate to include people actually volunteering their time to an organization and that this was only an "issue" because people associated with the volunteer fire service made it an issue.

Anything we do can be high risk - getting off apparatus. At my academy, we had a lesson on this - because there have been fatalities. Yes, it is a technical rescue discipline. I see that there arey NFPA compliant courses for Ice Rescue Technician. I wouldn't put that in the same category of risk as Trench Rescue for example.

Certainly, proper equipment is needed - and like anything in this business it's not cheap.

So, as lax as NY training standards are, is this a case where Ice Rescue teams are better trained in NY than elsewhere? Or is it just that Ice Rescue doesn't happen often enough that it is a high priority in all the things we do need to be trained in.

Actually, everything we do has risk, but not necessarily "high risk". Getting off apparatus in and of itself is not a very risky activity. What increases the level of risk into the "high" category would be the environment in which the low risk activity occurs.

Getting off on a busy interstate is certainly far riskier than doing it in the station for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean the activity itself is "high risk".

I wasn't making any attempt to rank ice rescue comparatively to other technical rescue disciplines. I was simply offering an explanation for the question asked. Many departments lack training and equipment to provide all forms of technical rescue, so maybe ice rescue is one that departments in that area aren't prepared for.

If you don't get many ice rescue calls, there's a good chance it may not be a priority for a department.

I can't speak to why the departments in your area don't have the equipment, but ice rescue is a form of technical rescue and many departments aren't adequately equipped and trained for technical rescue.

Ice rescue can easily be a high risk event, but with the proper training, equipment and adequate personnel that risk can be minimized, just like firefighting. To do it properly requires more than just "basic training".

This probably should be the obvious rules during snowstorms, but it obviously isn't, at least with the agencies I'm listening too.

Why are ambulance calls not prioritized during snowstorms?

Let's assume the EMD process is used for more then just pre-arrival instructions. An ambulance is dispatched for a person who stubbed their toe two days ago, is a known "frequent flyer", and was properly EMD'd to weed out anything else that could be going on.

2 minutes into that response, a call comes in for a 45 y/o male with chest pain and difficulty breathing after shoveling snow. At this point, the ambulance responding is 4 minutes away from the stubbed toe, and 6 minutes away from the chest pain. ALS is dispatched to both, but the closest is going to the stubbed toe, and the Flycar from the next district 10-15 minutes away in weather conditions is dispatched to the chest pain. Also note the ambulance corps has to page out for another crew, because their standby crew is going to the stubbed toe.

Why can't ambulances and flycars be diverted to more acute and higher priority calls if enroute to lower priority calls, and/or hold the stubbed toe until the next available BLS ambulance, and why send a flycar?

Keep in mind, I know this is everyday in some places, but I'm referring to response times and critical care during snowstorms. And this is yet another example of when we need to let our professional dispatchers do their jobs and use their training and educated judgment.

Don't have that problem in my area. We routinely divert to higher priority calls on a daily basis.

Sir,

You seem to have done your research, which is good. I wish there were more Firefighters out there like you that would actually look into the data. Hopefully you can help improve the fire service in your area.

I'm trying, but it's a big uphill climb.

1. I am well aware that the unfortunate loss of the brothers and sisters in Arizona is an anomoly. Even though this could happen again. Learning from our past incidents is key.

2. I am glad you still agree that out LODDs are still high. Because in fact they are. If anyone is content that the LODDs have been below 100 for the fith year in a row they should be ashamed. I want to see these numbers lower.

3. I know exactly what multi tasking is. I know its part of our trade. So your jab really isn't appreciated. It was more of a joke, than a jab. Some humor doesn't always play out well in forums.

With a little research you can easily find the facts of the EMS incident. The EMT screwed up. There were 2 calls with an interval of 2 minutes, the 2nd being a non priority. He decided to send a crewed rig to the later. He has a history of not following policy. If his history wasn't haunting him there is a possibility the board wouldn't have given him a suspension. He admitted that he was wrong and knowing so he should have taken the 60 day instead of quiting. WHY DO WE DO THIS JOB? I don't know too many that would quit!!

4. I am familiar with the data and thank you for posting it for everyone else.

5. I agree with your statement. It is very true.

I am not on here to argue or have a heated conversation with you or anyone else. That is a waste of my time. I am sorry you disagree that the Ellenville blog isn't a rant and rave, but that's my opinion. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think it's probably more about differing definations of what constitutes ranting and raving. I saw it as more of a discussion/debate.

In 2013 we had 101 LODDs (god bless them all). Our loss is up 18 from 2012 and 20 from 2011. The US Fire Administration hasn't come out with the statistics yet, but this is something we as members of the service should be addressing (instead of ranting and raving over this EMT in Ellenville). This topic is a serious problem in our field and we should be spending time on this. Even subtracting the loss of the 19 brothers and sisters in the Arizona Wildland Fire, the numbers of lost brothers and sisters is still way to high.

A couple of points (and not fully directed to you):

1) Statistically speaking, the 19 Arizona LODDs are an anomoly since we typically don't see single events with that many deaths. Subtracting them from the 2013 total you listed of 101, last year is on par with 2011 and 2012 in terms of total LODDs and the 5th year in a row under 100. This is kind of significant considering we spent 19 of the 22 years prior to that over 100 annually and that for many of those years post-incident onset deaths where not counted like they are now.

2) I agree, our LODD total is too high.

3) Although I wouldn't describe the discussion about Ellenville as "ranting and raving", we can discuss that situation and numerous others while also working to reduce LODDs. It's called multi-tasking and a lot of firefighters are pretty good at it.

4) Before we can truly make any progress on reducing LODDs, we have to identify and understand what is causing them. I repeatedly see posts in forums and comment sections trying to insinuate that what they perceive to be "unsafe" fireground operations (including non-LODD incidents) as the reason the annual LODD total is what it is.

Looking over the USFA stats for 2011 and 2012 and as best as I could decifer some of their coding, the 2 year averages for LODDs are as follows:

* During training - 8

* Vehicle related - 12.5

* On scene medical related - 10.5

* Post incident - 17

* Other, non-fire related - 21 (Includes on-duty medical related and on scene, non-fire related trauma)

* Traumatic fire related - 15 (These are the ones in which the fire or building kills us)

5) What that data tells me is that the "problem" is not predominately related to how we (collectively) fight fires. This doesn't mean we don't have stuff to learn and practice to keep this number down. To me, it means that the areas in which we need to be more focused are our health and apparatus operations. If we can get fitter (which should include keeping our most vulnerable members off the scene) and stop crashing our apparatus in the same ways over and over again, we should be able to make a sizable dent in LODDs and OTJ injuries.

I apologize, I did not miss your point. I was attempting to edit my last post when I recieved a phone call. The membership was told at the monthly meeting the individual was suspended for ongoing behavioral problems. The rumor mill had already started seeing as he was suspended 4 days prior to the meeting. After the correct information was provided to the membership I still caught a lot of grief over the suspension because "he's a driver and we need him!"

OK.

The license plate incident was the last straw. This individual had been spoken to numerous times regarding violations of rules and regulations. All incidents were documented. The lie was the final deciding factor. The board of directors were aware of the incidents and supported our decision to suspend the individual. We felt that the suspension would serve as an "attitude adjustment". We were right. After his suspension he returned and became a valuable asset. If you wish to discuss this further PM me so we don't hijack the thread.

I'm glad it worked out, but I feel like you missed my point. In your case, you can't let your members think that he was suspended for turning the license plate upside down when it was actually a "final straw" situation. They don't need to know all of the specifics, just that it involved multiple rule violations (and lying about the license plate incident). A suspension for what appears to be a harmless prank is BS and allowing your members to think that's the situation is wrong to all involved and deserves questioning by the membership.

I have a question. What was his reason for not sending the crew out on the first call to start with before the second call came in?? No one on here has really answered that part of how can you go to a second call before the first call.

I can't answer for their particular situation, but it's actually a pretty easy thing the explain. Sometimes you have to make a judgement call in a situation like that and take the second call if it seems like it's more of a priority.

In my area, our calls are assigned a priority category by 911. I work for a paid service that only responds with on-duty staffed units. If we have only 1 unit available and get 2 calls close together like this, we will typically take the higher priority call (unless the mutual aid unit will be a lot closer) and refer the other to mutual aid regardless of what order they came in.

We do the same thing within our units. If a unit is on the way to a low priority call and a high priority call comes in that they will be a lot closer to than one of our other units, they will divert to that call and one of the other units will pick up their call.

OK! Beating this story to death. Bottom line he buffed it out. He has no authority to send a crew to a second call before the first call. A child with a seizure and a elderly man with a cut arm are two different calls. For all we know the child was blasting a fever causing seizures, which in my medical training takes first priority. This EMT broke the rules and freelanced ( in my mind ) he wanted to be the hero of the day. Case closed. Another buff in a agency trying to get his/her name noticed. It happens in every department, there's always one that buffs a call and ends up causing more harm than good. No reader should argue with this cause we all have one in a department we serve and if you don't you full of it.

You are correct that a child with a seizure and an elderly man with a cut arm are two different calls. I'll preface this with the fact that I don't have the details provided at the time of the dispatches, the priority between the two calls seams clear based on these simplistic descriptions however, that may not be the case. Does the child have a history of seizures? Has the child been running a fever? How bad is the cut on the elderly male? How bad is he bleeding? Is he on a blood thinner?

Given the info presented, it appears that the VAC would be sending BLS units to these calls. As such, in general, the only thing that the crew would provide for the child is oxygen and transport to the hospital. On the other hand, if the eldely male's "cut arm" was actually a serious laceration with uncontrolled bleeding and on a blood thinner, then it could be argued that he could be the higher priority call since the BLS unit could provide a definitive intervention on the scene for his condition, but not for the child.

Regardless, the bigger issue appears to be an inadequate EMS system.

Couldn't agree more. The thing that gets me is that so many people are so quick to blame the officers or board of agencies and their policies. Having been a past officer, I have been belittled for policies set in place and disciplinary actions I have taken. Most people don't understand why the decisions were made. Myself and the captain at the time suspended a member for 30 days for turning a decorative license plate upside down. May seem extreme to some bit the decision was made after several incidents of his driving and when questioned about the incident (he was caught on tape by the way) he lied to is about it. Suspended, served his time, came back and became a productive member.

Now we see an article about a boy who was suspended after violating a rule in his agency. The crowd goes wild about it but no one has mentioned that this article states he has violated other rules in the past and no action was taken. I think they were trying to put him in his place. That's why I agree with his suspension.

A lot of the reason why people question decisions is often due to a lack of information being available to them or poorly communicated information that is available.

IMO, you just did this in your post above about the member you suspended. You state that you and the Captain suspended a member for turning a license plate upside down. You then insinuate that some issues with his driving and lying about the license plate incident may have influenced the suspension decision.

By itself, turning a license plate upside down is a BS reason to suspend somebody. Factoring in the driving issues to justify a suspension following a non-driving incident is suspect IMO. It might be reasonable to do so if the driving issues were a pattern of rule violations and the appropriate corrective measures where taken and documented. Suspending him for lying about turning the license plate upside down and you have definitive evidence that it's a lie, that's another story.

So what was the actual reason for the suspension, the license plate, a cummulative behavior issue or something else? If you suspended him for lying about the incident, but told or allowed your members to think that it was because of the license plate, then you deserve any grief you got over it.

IMO, this thing is nothing more than some people in the volunteer fire service creating a problem where a problem doesn't actually exist.