FireMedic049

11 hours ago, JSchloss84 said:

It's unlikely they are F-350 with that size box..Just based off the picture they look like 168" -170" boxes so it's more likely F-450 Chassis.  They're definitely F-450s from what I can see.  The F-350 typically doesn't have the black fender flares on the cab and they also have smaller diameter wheels than the ones pictured.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong those with FDNY knowledge was the last planned order from wheeled coach 156" boxes or 170" ?  If I'm not mistaken, their Horton units were a 139" box based on the model that they were using.  Their "regular" Wheeled Coach units look like they're about the same size.  I doubt that they're 156", definitely not 170s.

5 hours ago, Flashpoint said:

How do you explain wrecking your most expensive piece of equipment on the way to an EMS call?

The same way you would explain wrecking any piece of equipment on the way to any call.   You simply explain what happened.

Accidents can happen at any time.  After the safety of our personnel and others, the main concern should be about whether or not the apparatus was being operated in an appropriate manner at the time of the accident.  The actual nature of the call is somewhat irrelevant.

****

Now I think the question you were trying to ask is something along the lines of how do you justify responding your most expensive piece of fire equipment to any EMS call after the vehicle was totaled in an accident while responding to one while also trying to imply that EMS calls (in general) are not worthy uses of this apparatus.

I'm not familiar with this department's operations and the article doesn't give much detail on what happened, but it does state that the unit was responding to a reported heroin overdose.  Having responded to more than my fair share of OD calls in my career, I can safely say that they can easily be a life threatening situation.

Since we're supposed to be about saving lives and property, I have to ask, is this person's life somehow less worthy of assistance from that unit because his life is possibly threatened by heroin rather than being threatened by a fire?

That was satire, right?

I know that it wasn't, but stuff like this is typical of where we are these days.  People expect a prompt, professional response from EMS when they or a loved one is experiencing a medical emergency, but they don't want to actually put up the money necessary to put that in place.

The problem isn't so much the increasing training requirements.  The problem is that too many are still trying to look at this in terms of what's convenient for the providers and not what's best for the patients.  EMS has progressed significantly over the past 4 decades in the care that we can bring to a patient's doorstep.  This increased capability necessitates increased training in order to effectively provide it.  We are no longer "ambulance drivers" scooping patients up and racing to the hospital.  We are now pre-hospital medical professionals bringing the ER to the patient, particularly at the Paramedic level of care.

If the requirements for providing this level of care have reached the point where the care can no longer be reliably provided by an all or largely volunteer staff, the solution is not to lobby the state to decrease the amount of medical training for providers.  The solution is to start treating EMS as the medical profession that it now is.

If that means a tax increase to do so, then suck it up buttercup.

Transcare in Pittsburgh apparently missed payroll this week and appears to also be ceasing operations.

On 2/26/2016 at 0:59 PM, GreatPlains588 said:

FDNY is prepared to pick up slack after private ambulance company files for bankruptcy

http://pix11.com/2016/02/25/fdny-is-prepared-to-pick-up-slack-after-private-ambulance-company-files-for-bankruptcy/

Maybe it is just me, but how does putting CFR-D Firefighters in pick-ups solve this problem?

The article you linked doesn't say anything about firefighters in pick ups.  It specifically mentions putting spare ambulances in service using overtime.

The CFR-D statement sounds like the reporter may not be understanding something correctly.

15 minutes ago, Morningjoe said:

What if certain firefighters don't place their trust in god. Maybe since the department and community is so heavily involved in religion, that they're terrified to speak their mind for fear of being shunned or mocked. Or what if they place their faith in Allah? This isn't about political correctness, but about what your department is now representing. Technically it's a government entity and it should not be endorsing ANY religion or lack there of. Could you imagine the uproar if the department placed "There is no God," or "Allah Akbar" on the side of their apparatus because someone donated their time and money to put it on?

Depending on their funding and organizational set up, the argument can be made that they technically aren't really a government entity, but rather a private entity.  As a private entity, they can more of less do whatever they want to within the law.  Within that, if it was a democratic decision within the rules of the organization, then the concept of "majority rules" applies.  Not everyone always agrees with every choice an organization makes.  The phrase itself does not actually endorse any specific religion since the term "God" is pretty much common across most religions.  I agree that there would be an uproar if one of the other phrases you listed were put on the apparatus.

15 minutes ago, Morningjoe said:

 

I'm all for individual PEOPLE believing whatever they want to believe. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhist, Amish, Scientology, Atheism, Pastafarianisim Flying Spaghetti Monster, but leave it out of the organization of the Fire Department. Don't ram it down my throat, or try and convert me, and I won't ram my beliefs down yours and try and convert you. And before people think I'm bashing religion, or accuse me of being someone who think's religion is evil, if what you believe makes you happy, doesn't harm or hamper anyone else's happiness or way of life, I'm all for it.

We can certainly debate the appropriateness of marking their vehicles in this way, but it's a far cry from ramming it down anyone's throat.  At it's core, it's advertising and there is little functional difference between seeing the message on a fire truck vs a billboard vs a sign in front of a church vs someone's POV.

Additionally, the phrase "In God We Trust" is a nation motto and printed on all of our money.  As such, it can also be viewed as a symbol of patriotism similar to displaying the American Flag on apparatus.

Disclaimer: My religious affiliation is Recovered Catholic and I support an individuals right to practice their religion of choice or none at all, as long as it doesn't violate our laws.  I prefer that others afford me the same consideration.

2 minutes ago, letsgo1547 said:

Yeah but what those articles don't say is that the rescue medics are in service like a normal ALS unit responding to normal everyday runs.  

Actually, the one article does pretty much state that.  In the second link with the Q&A, the medic states that something like 75% of her runs are regular paramedic responses.

2 minutes ago, letsgo1547 said:

I've been to situations where rescue medics could have been sent but they weren't and instead you get a normal ALS unit

Who hasn't been to a call where the wrong unit(s) were sent or didn't get a unit that should have been sent?

3 hours ago, x635 said:

I just wonder if the wheelbase could have been shorter. The Terrastars have a great turning radius I heard, and this is just as long as some other everyday FDNY apparatus.

I've heard just the opposite.  I've heard from some in my area that have a Terrastar that they don't turn that great.  Or at least not as good as the larger Durastar or Freightliner chassis.

As for the wheelbase, the only way to shorten the wheelbase on that chassis would be to lose the extended cab and/or lose the extra compartment at the front of the body.  Since they designed them that way, my guess would be that there was a need for both of those areas.  As such, the only other option to shorten the wheelbase in any meaningful way would be to move to a custom chassis like the Spartan Metro Star RT.

43 minutes ago, letsgo1547 said:

Are they serious

Serious about what?

They do fundraising or in come cases subscription protection. The department basically sends out a bill (or subscription fee notice) each year and if the homeowner or business pays the subscription fees, the department will respond to the location if called. There have been cases were the homeowner declines to pay the subscription fee and there was a fire at their location. The department responded to ensure that everyone was out and then left without fighting the fire. The dwelling burned to the ground. You may feel this is quite controversial but in some places it is a way of life.

I got bored....If you're going off a FDNY designed rescue, you're probably right. But lets look at a few things:

Manhattan is 33.77 sq mi, covered by 1.5 rescues (Rescue 1, and Rescue 3 covers Harlem) Westchester County is 500 sq mi. This means that if Westchester had the same population density as Manhattan, we would need 22 Rescues! I'll also add that NYC in total is 304.6 sq mi covered by 5 rescues (I thought a sixth was added after 9/11, if any body can provide better info on that).

As I understand it, they still only have 5 full-time, front line rescue companies. Rescue 6 is staffed as needed, like special events and severe weather situations where they anticipate the need for it.

In most places conditions are so much different.

1) Buildings, exposures, population etc are generally much different. Yes, but there are a lot of similarities too, particularly within specific regions.

2) Training requirements are much different. In most places today career firefighters are required to attend a fulltime 16-18 week recruit school before riding on any fire trucks. Usually, during each shift, some form of training or building surveys are done in order to keep their required skills proficient. True.

3) Career firefighters operate under a semi military environment. There is a chain of command that must be followed. If rules or policy is not followed, some form of discipline can be taken against that individual. This is also true of many VFDs.

4) To become a career firefighter there is a written and oral testing process, along with a very intense medical and a difficult CPAT agility test to successfully pass. Later comes a character investigation done by most police departments. As we know, the numbers are very high for those that apply, yet few are chosen. In general, correct.

5) Promotions within the career fire service are very difficult as well. Many individuals spent many years studying for the test day. In addition there is usually an oral interview with a score rating. When it is finely over, few are chosen over the number of individuals testing. Sometimes, there is also special school requirements that must be completed within a period of time to maintain that officer level. In general, correct.

The end result is that in most cases, only the very best candidates are chosen. For that, the people who pay for these firefighters expect the very best of service. And rightfully so. Unfortunately, there are a number of people/advocacy groups/government agencies that are actively trying to dismantle that process.

Those people have every right to expect their firefighters to help them in their time of need. And for those firefighters to thrown themselves into danger if necessary. That is the trade off. And if you happen to be one of those career firefighters, because of that, you must fully understand, that you are held to a higher standard than most individuals. You drop the ball and every other career firefighter gets dragged through the mud because of your foolish actions. The public trust you to go into their homes and apartments when no one is home. They will even hand you over their sick baby because they trust you. There's no other job like it.

Does the public appreciate what VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS do. Of course they do. Those guys are out there doing a job to help the public in their most desperate moments. No matter what the weather is, they are out there. They give up a nights sleep and still are expected to go to their fulltime jobs to support their families the next morning. Some come from outstanding careers or backgrounds. They have even helped me too.

I was a career firefighter. I was a volunteer firefighter as well. A career for 30 years and volunteer for 5 years prior to that. During my years as a career firefighter, on a few occasions I worked with volunteer firefighters. They depended on me and I depended on them. Yet when it was over, "you stay on your side of the fence, I'll stay on mine". That's pretty sad actually. Just a few hours before, we were cold and wet together. We might have had a few pretty hectic moments together. I'm sure their family members worried about them, just like my family members worried about me. We attended LODD funerals together for volunteer firefighters and career firefighters. The fact is that the smoke and heat was always the same. Career Firefighters and Volunteer Firefighters share a lot in common. They share things that no other groups share.

If you were to visit my home town you would find a Civil War going on. Between career and volunteer firefighters. Should I try to hide it ? No. Although I am not at all proud of what goes on here, "I know we are NOT alone". The reality is this, we should respect each other for what you do. "Instead of Fighting, We should be Uniting". Maybe it's time to think that over a bit. Remember, there are no promises made of going home in this fire service business. Over the years I learned that because I attended so many firefighter LODD funerals.

I've been a volunteer and career firefighter too. I often work along side of volunteers. I agree that we should be more united and respectful than we are.

From my experience and perspective, the volunteers oftentimes are more of an obstacle in getting to that place than the career folks. I often hear claims about how we're all doing the same job, have the same training, etc., but the fact is we aren't and we don't. Unfortunately, when you try to discuss this, the only thing too many on the volunteer side seem to take from it is that career guys are great and volunteers suck rather than understanding that career guys can be "better" by virtue of those differences in training and experience, but that doesn't mean that the volunteers are automatically inadequate. It's a lot like comparing pro athletes to college/high school athletes. The pros are typically better, which one would expect, but a lot of the non-pro athletes are pretty darn good, if not just as good in some cases. And in some cases, their best just isn't good enough.

We hear claims about how fires don't care if you're career or volunteer or that the person who's house is on fire doesn't care if you're career or volunteer, but who yells the most about training mandates or being held to any sort of standard? Who thinks it's perfectly ok to give a person a few dozen hours of basic introductory training (or none at all) and then turn that new person loose to respond and actively participate on calls? Who thinks it's appropriate to make a teenager with little actual experience a line officer?

IMO, these are the things that are at the very heart of the animosity between career and volunteer from the career side. Too many in the volunteer ranks want to be viewed as equal to the career guys without putting in the work necessary to truly be equal. Yes, there are places where truly providing services on the same level are not realistic (rural areas for one) and they do the best they can under tough circumstances, but there are others where the departments are just not being honest with themselves or their communities regarding the level of service they can realistically provide as a department or as an individual.

It's also frustrating to see comments about how career guys only care about the paycheck and don't have the pride in the job because we don't work fundraisers to pay the bills or in some cases don't live in the community that we work in. While there are career guys that are like that, the majority aren't and you'll find people like that in any career and you know there are plenty of volunteers that are all about the t-shirts and image rather than the work and service to the community.

Like you said, career and volunteer share a lot in common.

Personally, I try to be respectful of the volunteers in my area, but it's very hard at times to view some of them as peers when they do some of the stuff that they do and that includes burning down buildings that should not have burned to the extent that they did.

Rather then providing a second set of gear (both sets still have to be replaced every 10 years weather used or not). Wouldn't it be more cost effective (and healthier) to have a gear washer in the station and use it regularly. If you clean the crap off the gear as much as possible you would be reducing your exposure. I am not saying was gear after every call but at somewhat regular intervals. Even a second set of gear could be contaminated and you would have two sets of contaminated gear if not cleaned.

In terms of total cost, sure, it would probably cheaper overall to issue a single set of gear and have a gear washer available. However, the primary problem with this is the fact that when that single set of gear is being washed and then dries, the person that gear belongs to is essentially out of service during that time period unless they have immediate access to properly fitting spare gear. This isn't necessarily a problem when you have clearly defined off-duty periods in which you will not be needed to respond to calls and can clean the gear then. However, when you are essentially on-duty ("on call") 24/7, this can lead to people delaying proper cleanings when needed in order to available for that next call.

The idea behind the second set is to resolve that issue. You use one set while the other set is being cleaned and in most cases, that set will be available by the time the other set needs cleaned.

Clean gear is safer from a health standpoint and it can help the gear last longer.

I'm just asking, but are there really that many more burned out hulks in the volunteer districts than in the paid districts? Oh, let me answer, NO.

Your answer may be correct, but it may not be for the reason you think. In general, "paid districts" tend to be larger and busier than many "volunteer districts" and as such the number of "burned out hulks" could easily be greater due to having more fires overall. Additionally, even in paid districts, some fires are too advanced upon arrival to stop without the building being a total loss. So, looking at the end result and counting burned out buildings isn't a very reliable assessment of performance.

I have however, seen a number of fires in the volunteer districts of my area that should not have been the conflagration that they ended up being. And not just because of how long it took to them to arrive.

The volunteer model is not perfect but it continues to work

That's certainly subject to debate.

I don't think it's all scare tactics, cancer is some serious sh!t. That said while having two sets of gear would be great and necessary the bottom line here is who's going to pay that tab? I have a feeling that no municipality or fire district is just going to happily pony up another $2500 minimum per firefighter. I find this to be another case of sounding great (and completely valid) on paper but next to impossible to put into practice.

I think you may be surprised. There are municipalities/departments that already issue 2 sets of gear per firefighter.

This is something I pushed for at my current department several years ago and when we pitched it in contract negotiations we expected some push back from the administration, but they agreed to it with no haggling. We had a number of strong arguments for it and it worked. In our case, each person has 2 sets replaced in rotation so that their primary set is not more than 4 years old and their back up set is not more than 8 year old.

The turnout gear and PPE manufacturers are sure making a lot of money scaring people about cancer!

Well, the reality is that the cancer threat is pretty real if you see regular fire duty.

Another avenue that would be interesting to explore would be the impact of more regionalized fire services.

My county (in PA) has a lot of small departments covering small districts which results in multiple departments responding to most calls. I looked up some figures a few years ago for comparison and found that PG County Maryland and Fairfax County Virginia both had an average fire station to sq. mileage ratio of around 1 station per 10 square miles. My County was around 1 station per 3 square miles.

Additionally, at the time a nearby group of 3 communities collectively had 7 fire stations and at least 14 large apparatus and 7 support vehicles. My city is slightly larger than that area, but with the same population density. We have 2 stations (down from 4 a couple decades ago), 4 large apparatus and 2 support vehicles. We run around twice as many first due calls as that group and a lot more working fires. Why do they need so much more to do less?

How much money could be saved if we consolidated into fewer stations with less duplication of apparatus? Could that create the call volume and labor pool large enough that each station could be staffed most, if not all of the time? What would be the impact of that on dispatch to on scene response times and incident outcomes compared to what they are now?

But see I don't know if that is acceptable though. I've kind of mentioned it before in other posts regarding mutual aid. If you consider yourself a "city", then you should have adequate staffing regardless. We don't "consider [ourselves] a 'city'", we ARE a city (3rd Class) under the state classifications for municipalities however, we are a small city (5 sq miles). I agree that we should have adequate staffing regardless, but the same can be said for ANY fire department. Although not optimally staffed, our on-duty staffing is adequate for 90% of our calls and we can adequately cover some other calls with our off-duty personnel added in.

We used to handle most of our working fires by ourselves and although we could and still can bring most of them under control with our own personnel, we lacked adequate numbers on average to also provide our own RIT on these calls or have sufficient personnel available should something happen to one of our own. So, we're working with the neighbors more often now to address that need and it's working quite well.

Although we technically receive mutual aid more often than we give it, we only request it a few dozen times a year and are more than willing to provide more than we do currently. We don't do more because most of the neighbors are reluctant to call us, but that's a different conversation.

It's not fair to other communities that places like these rely on them to send their fire companies over to fight fire for hours, when the same thing could happen in their town and then who is left to fight it there? Not necessarily. In my area, most departments are not large enough to adequately provide all of the personnel and equipment needed for every call. In some cases, they don't have the calls to justify owning certain specialized equipment. As such, fire protection is provided in a quasi-regionalized approach. The departments aren't formally organized in a true regional basis, but units from multiple communities typically respond to most incidents, particularly those with high resource needs.

In a large city each fire station has limited resources and units/personnel from multiple stations are sent to incidents to work collectively. The main difference between this and what the area departments are doing is that the units in the city are all from the same department, but the others are not.

Part of this "regionalized" approach is that these departments are running on each other's calls and essentially sharing the burden to provide service. When units from the non-hosting community are tied up on a call in another community, other units available units in the area cover those area's calls, just liked they'd do if those units were tied up on their own call. In some cases, they relocate units into the "stripped" areas. In some cases, they just respond from their own stations since it's an urban area and many communities are somewhat small and close to each other.

If you call yourself a "paid" department, then you should have the right staffing and right equipment to get the job done. The need to have the right staffing and equipment is not something exclusive to paid departments. BTW, a "'paid' department" is not something you just call yourself, it's something that you are.

Nothing against the paid departments and nothing wrong with them being supplemented by volunteers. But, these municipalities got to realize that you can't rely on that all the time. As volunteers, we do our best to be around 24/7, but that's not always possible when we are working our own jobs and taking care of our families. Either fully staff and fund these departments or watch the s*** hit the fan and lose money through lawsuits, plain and simple. I agree with what is likely your point, but this isn't actually a paid/volunteer issue. In general, a municipality shouldn't shift their fire protection burden onto the fire departments/citizens of other municipalities regardless of the pay status of those departments. However, when an equitable regionalized approach is used as I described above, relying on neighboring departments can be a reasonable thing.

Now, there are more problematic situations like when a community reduces their department's capability below what is reasonably needed for their community rather than take the steps necessary to adequately provide for that need on their own or like what appears to be going on in Mt. Vernon where they have the reasonable ability to do some things themselves, but the administration is purposely not utilizing off-duty personnel in order to avoid the expense that comes with that and is pushing that burden onto other communities.

If you're actually defending the notion that 5.58 FF responding to a fire is acceptable, due respect, you're part of the problem. Read NFPA 1710 or 1720 or whatever applies to that thing you call a fire department.

I am continually amazed that people continue to defend grossly understaffed departments as if what they have is acceptable. This is 2016 in one of the most heavily taxed counties in the country and we still send 5.58 FF to a fire call.

And the icing on the cake for me is that's the AVERAGE. Meaning half the time you respond with less than that. Pathetic!

I doubt that you are seeing as many people as you think actually defending "grossly understaffed departments". I think you may be misconstruing explanations of a department's staffing situation as a defense of them in the sense that you assert.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people, if any (actual firefighters), that actually think that sending only an average of 5.58 FFs to a working fire as being acceptable. Very few of us actually have the ability to determine the staffing levels for our departments. As such, far too many of us must make the best of the less than ideal hand that we are each dealt.

NFPA 1710 and 1720 are nice, but unfortunately they're still kind of all bark and no bite on the front end. I can wave a copy of 1710 in front of my Mayor and Council every day, but it's not gonna get my department to 4 per apparatus and 17 on-duty. The money simply isn't there for that level of staffing and we'll be lucky to maintain where we're at now in the next few years. There are a lot of small departments out there just like us and some in worse shape. It's not ideal and it's only "acceptable" in the context that it's our reality and not changing anytime soon.

Oftentimes these discussions seem to focus on the limited on-duty staffing of a particular department, but overlooks the total response to a working incident which can result in a far more acceptable number of FFs on the fireground. My department, for example, averages 6 FFs on-duty. However, a working fire will also get a callback of off-duty personnel plus mutual aid. On average, this doubles our own personnel and the mutual aid units easily push us over 20-25 FFs on the fire ground relatively quickly. Many others do something similar.

I thought the video was decent, but I had to chuckle some at the "reassuring" comment towards the end that was supposedly from the home builders association about how "safe" homes are built these days. Pretty ironic considering the prevalence of light weight construction methods these days that do not hold up well under fire conditions and the extent to which they lobby hard against the very thing that could be the most beneficial in them in the event of a fire - residential sprinklers!

One thing I found interesting is that their goal is for the care provider to be able to remain seated and belted while providing care, yet they also incorporate the ability to transport a second patient in a manor which pretty much precludes the ability to do that for that patient.

To me, there seems to be an inherent conflict between the two and that means we should probably reexamine whether or not we should even be attempting to transport a second patient under those conditions.

Since when do we leave our downed brother and venture off? Who said anything about leaving a downed brother?

If your brother is low on air, you probably are too. Not necessarily. There are a number of scenerios where that may not be the case. For example, a fresh 2 FF crew is in the process of relieving another 2 FF crew when a collapse happens trapping one of the FFs being relieved. In this situation, you have 2 FFs with potentially a lot more air than the one who is low and trapped.

You're just dumping off air equalizing bottles. If you are buddy breathing, you are NOT equalizing bottles. When you buddy breathe, you are both breathing off the same cylinder until it runs out and then you breathe off the other. For some SCBA manufacturers, you will breathe off the low cylinder first, for others you will breathe off the high cylinder first. Now if you connect using the RIT connection, then you would be equalizing cylinders.

How are you going to save somebody if you can't save yourself. You're making yourself another victim, You aren't necessarily making yourself another victim.

I think the money is better spent on a RIT pack and crew. It's debatable if one is a better option than the other if you can only get one or the other. I can think of several pros and cons for each.

As I said before, if you can afford both, getting both is the way to go. It gives you multiple options, which is typically better than having few or no options if something bad happens, even if some of the options aren't ideal.

If you would be in a situation where you have to bail out of an upper floor, having a ladder in place is certainly better than not having one to use and jumping, risking serious injury. But, wouldn't it be even better to have a personal escape system available to deploy if the ladder isn't where you need it or can't get there in time?

I don't know about you, but I like the idea of having the option to share air if a RIT pack isn't immediately available rather than have a brother get hurt or die because there was no other option than for them to breathe toxic smoke or suffocate.

The buddy breathing hook up is more for when you and a partner are doing a search or some sort of task and one runs low on air, ie-consumes a bottle faster due to being worked up or out of shape or whatever the case is, maybe his mask was knocked off and lost a considerable amount of air, if hes at 1/4 bottle and vibrating and your at half or three quarters you two can hook up and even out the two bottles and buy some time to get out of the building, its a separate connection then the RIT quick connect fill which is located on near the valve.

When you hook the buddy breather connections together, the two cylinders don't equalize. You breathe off one cylinder, then the other when the first runs out or reaches whatever the "switch" point is for your manufacturer. It's important to know which cylinder you breath off first. Not sure about all manufacturers, but some use up the cylinder with the lower pressure first which can be a big problem if you should have to disconnect at some point.

Using the RIT connection will equalize between the two cylinders that are tethered.

A buddy of mines department is spec'ing out some new SCBA's. The Chief is intent that all packs have the "Buddy Breathing" hookup. I guess it's called an "Emergency Breathing Support System", or EBSS. He think it buys time until the RIT team can get there. Yes, it can provided you have somebody with you while waiting for the official RIT to reach you. You should listen to that Chief.

Both my buddy and I think it's a ridiculous feature that jeopardizes your air supply in a rescue mission. You have two guys hooked to one bottle, one's in distress and the other's probably all worked up, sucking down now one bottle between the two, and gives you less time to get out. It's absolutely not a ridiculous feature. It's use is not specifically limited to a "rescue mission". It's also for use when both people are able to self-extricate, but one doesn't have an adequate air supply. Yes, it technically will give the one with the greater air supply less time to get out, but it will also give the one with a critically low air supply MORE time to get out or at least buy them some time until further help can get to them should they be stuck or incapacitated. That could easily be the difference between life and death for a fellow firefighter. Having that ability at your disposal doesn't sound very ridiculous to me.

It also tethers you to that firefighter should he experience further distress or become unconscious. If you reach a point where you just can't extricate the person while tethered, you can always disconnect.

We think having an RIT pack sled with an hour bottle and quick connection is a much better option.

Thoughts? You should absolutely have both options if you have the ability. The two options should be viewed as complimentary features, not as alternatives to each other. The RIT pack is intended as a means for the RIT to resupply, supplement and/or replace the air supply of a firefighter in distress and/or unable to get out on their own, but it takes time to get it to the person who needs it. The buddy breather connection is more of an immediate, "self-help" option when there's no other viable alternative.

In general, the RIT pack is a much better option since it doesn't deplete the air supply of another firefighter, but the fire service is all about options and redundancy, right?