FireMedic049

This is simply a question that really can't have a finite answer. First, the ability to transport more than one patient is heavily dependent on the situation at hand and the design of your ambulance at the incident. With the current trend in ambulance design to move away from the traditional bench seat style, the ability to transport more than one pt on a backboard is not going to be possible in those designs. If backboards aren't needed, then you're going to be limited in part by the number of seating positions available.
Beyond that, the condition of the patients and number of providers that will be in the unit are going to be a big factor. If you have the seating for it, taking 3 people complaining of headaches with a single provider at a CO call may not be much of an issue, but in my opinion and experience, if one patient requires ALS treatment, you shouldn't transport a second patient regardless of condition unless you have a second provider in the back. If the second patient also requires ALS treatment, then they should be in a separate transport unit. To do otherwise, unless we're talking extraordinary circumstances necessitating it, you simply can't provide each patient the care and attention they deserve.

This is simply a question that really can't have a finite answer. First, the ability to transport more than one patient is heavily dependent on the situation at hand and the design of your ambulance at the incident. With the current trend in ambulance design to move away from the traditional bench seat style, the ability to transport more than one pt on a backboard is not going to be possible in those designs. If backboards aren't needed, then you're going to be limited in part by the number of seating positions available.
Beyond that, the condition of the patients and number of providers that will be in the unit are going to be a big factor. If you have the seating for it, taking 3 people complaining of headaches with a single provider at a CO call may not be much of an issue, but in my opinion and experience, if one patient requires ALS treatment, you shouldn't transport a second patient regardless of condition unless you have a second provider in the back. If the second patient also requires ALS treatment, then they should be in a separate transport unit. To do otherwise, unless we're talking extraordinary circumstances necessitating it, you simply can't provide each patient the care and attention they deserve.

This is simply a question that really can't have a finite answer. First, the ability to transport more than one patient is heavily dependent on the situation at hand and the design of your ambulance at the incident. With the current trend in ambulance design to move away from the traditional bench seat style, the ability to transport more than one pt on a backboard is not going to be possible in those designs. If backboards aren't needed, then you're going to be limited in part by the number of seating positions available.
Beyond that, the condition of the patients and number of providers that will be in the unit are going to be a big factor. If you have the seating for it, taking 3 people complaining of headaches with a single provider at a CO call may not be much of an issue, but in my opinion and experience, if one patient requires ALS treatment, you shouldn't transport a second patient regardless of condition unless you have a second provider in the back. If the second patient also requires ALS treatment, then they should be in a separate transport unit. To do otherwise, unless we're talking extraordinary circumstances necessitating it, you simply can't provide each patient the care and attention they deserve.

Your opinion isn't the problem. Your lack of respect for the INFORMED opinion of those with extensive hands on experience, is.

Because without the training, they do not even know what they do not know.

There is not one civil service paid firefighter in Rockland county. So, the volunteer standard is all they have,
Fact is, you go to a majority of the other states in the union, and all volunteers must be trained to the same level as career firefighters before they are allowed to ride on calls. Why is this? Because it makes sense. How can anyone possibly agree and promote less training for anyone who is responsible for the lives of others? Why should volunteers be allowed to respond with this minimal amount of training, but career personnel have an exorbitant amount?
Simple example would be exploring a train accident on the MTA lines. How many volunteer departments who have MTA Lines run through them, require their firefighters to undergo MTA train safety if there is an accident on the tracks? How many departments require their firefighters to undergo mass casualty incident training, or mass hazmat decon training if another 9-11 happens and biochem or nuclear weapons are utilized and released into the general population in the city and commuters start to take the trains home prior to any transit ban placed into effect? Fact is, all career departments who sent their members to the academy, have received this training. I just found out the other day that FF1 no longer teaches how to operate a saw, or cut a roof. That's reserve for truck company class.
Forget about the population and what level of service they are receiving. The real questions are why, should you as a firefighter, choose to be unknowingly exposed to risks that you cannot even comprehend until you go through training? And paralleling that, as someone who is responding to those types of incidents, you should be demanding that you get trained in how to respond to those emergencies so you know and understand the risks and what to do CORRECTLY during those incidents. What kind of message does that send when we except apathy from our ranks in regards to training? People should be striving to learn all they can about the fire service, not actively attempting to hamper others safety.

It's not exactly the trivial thing that you seem to be inferring. I don't have a specific term to throw out there, but here's an example to help you understand the argument.
Let's say that everyone who belongs to a fire department is titled "firefighter" regardless of what role they perform or don't perform. Using that same logic, everybody who works for a hospital can be titled "doctor" regardless of what role they perform or don't perform. We don't do this because titles do matter. The titles doctor, nurse, ER tech, janitor, aide, etc. help the patients and staff distinguish between the different roles and what they each contribute to the overall operation. So, if you are sick and in need of a doctor, you wouldn't want a "doctor" (aka janitor) to treat you.
If you polled the average citizen on what a "firefighter" is and what their expectations for them are, it won't be that they just drive or just help outside if that person's house was on fire and a loved one was trapped inside. Therefore, using the title "firefighter" for all members is misleading in the same fashion that "doctor" doesn't mean the person who pushes the broom down the hallways of the hospital.

It's not exactly the trivial thing that you seem to be inferring. I don't have a specific term to throw out there, but here's an example to help you understand the argument.
Let's say that everyone who belongs to a fire department is titled "firefighter" regardless of what role they perform or don't perform. Using that same logic, everybody who works for a hospital can be titled "doctor" regardless of what role they perform or don't perform. We don't do this because titles do matter. The titles doctor, nurse, ER tech, janitor, aide, etc. help the patients and staff distinguish between the different roles and what they each contribute to the overall operation. So, if you are sick and in need of a doctor, you wouldn't want a "doctor" (aka janitor) to treat you.
If you polled the average citizen on what a "firefighter" is and what their expectations for them are, it won't be that they just drive or just help outside if that person's house was on fire and a loved one was trapped inside. Therefore, using the title "firefighter" for all members is misleading in the same fashion that "doctor" doesn't mean the person who pushes the broom down the hallways of the hospital.

1) And that is big part of the problem. Their are depts. that no longer have any interior volunteers (or none some of the time), but they have plenty of exterior. Most will deny this, but if you fail to tell the community, its the #1 problem, because you are no longer a fire department. Do you know that the exterior members need the same couple hundred hours per year of training for ISO. If they have less, it hurts your rating and costs your property owners more money. This includes your 85 year old "members" who no longer respond, but if your rules classify them as "firefighters" ISO deducts points for all the training hours they do not get each year?
All those exterior members with $3,000 tax funded turnouts, has the public been told that's where their $$$ goes?
I am not saying their is not a role for exterior members, but their needs to be a measured response and you need 3 or 4 (or more) interior for every exterior member.
2) I am having chest pain, quick call me a health care worker....anyone, as they are all equal.
3) Not writing off exterior. You cant fix the problem till you admit their is a problem. We hear everyday departments toning out multiple times for available members, but they have no problem? We hear of room and content fires that require 5, 6, 7 departments for mutual aid just to get a dozen interior members. We also know of departments that still claim to have hundreds of members, but that's not what responds.
We need to stop thinking that we need to maintain 58 individual fire departments, when 95% can not handle a simple fire without mutual aid.
And finally we need ALL firefighters to support MORE training. As long as groups fight to prevent this we will never move forward.

Right, but there in lies the problem. Departments should not be doing it, but they are. Not only that, they are willfully allowing members who are underprepared to operate on the interior to do so. Some just aren't up for the job. It's somewhat rampant in my area and other parts of the country.
My department runs very few calls outside of our city (not by our choice, most of the volunteers just don't call us, even though we're closer than some of the departments they use). A few years ago we sent an engine to a reported dwelling fire (basement) early in the morning in a small neighboring borough. As far as I know, dispatch added us to the call due to a slow response from the volunteers. Our engine was the third unit to arrive. It would've been first if on the initial dispatch, but that's a different conversation. They arrived to find 2 engines on scene, a supply line established, attack lines off and several people dressed up as firefighters around the house, but NOBODY had entered the building yet! Our crew entered and quickly determined that there was NO active fire. Just a good smoke condition from a lint fire. Is this what a local FD doing its job looks like? I don't think so.
This type of stuff leads to low expectations from the public because they don't necessarily know what a good FD looks like. The fire trucks show up, people in firefighter gear show up, they squirt some water until the fire goes out, the building is destroyed, everybody pats themselves on the back on how good of a job they did. This repeats itself enough times that the public now praises them for their effort and just accepts that fires = destroyed buildings not knowing that a competent FD would've saved a good number of those buildings and/or their contents.

It's not exactly the trivial thing that you seem to be inferring. I don't have a specific term to throw out there, but here's an example to help you understand the argument.
Let's say that everyone who belongs to a fire department is titled "firefighter" regardless of what role they perform or don't perform. Using that same logic, everybody who works for a hospital can be titled "doctor" regardless of what role they perform or don't perform. We don't do this because titles do matter. The titles doctor, nurse, ER tech, janitor, aide, etc. help the patients and staff distinguish between the different roles and what they each contribute to the overall operation. So, if you are sick and in need of a doctor, you wouldn't want a "doctor" (aka janitor) to treat you.
If you polled the average citizen on what a "firefighter" is and what their expectations for them are, it won't be that they just drive or just help outside if that person's house was on fire and a loved one was trapped inside. Therefore, using the title "firefighter" for all members is misleading in the same fashion that "doctor" doesn't mean the person who pushes the broom down the hallways of the hospital.

Right, but there in lies the problem. Departments should not be doing it, but they are. Not only that, they are willfully allowing members who are underprepared to operate on the interior to do so. Some just aren't up for the job. It's somewhat rampant in my area and other parts of the country.
My department runs very few calls outside of our city (not by our choice, most of the volunteers just don't call us, even though we're closer than some of the departments they use). A few years ago we sent an engine to a reported dwelling fire (basement) early in the morning in a small neighboring borough. As far as I know, dispatch added us to the call due to a slow response from the volunteers. Our engine was the third unit to arrive. It would've been first if on the initial dispatch, but that's a different conversation. They arrived to find 2 engines on scene, a supply line established, attack lines off and several people dressed up as firefighters around the house, but NOBODY had entered the building yet! Our crew entered and quickly determined that there was NO active fire. Just a good smoke condition from a lint fire. Is this what a local FD doing its job looks like? I don't think so.
This type of stuff leads to low expectations from the public because they don't necessarily know what a good FD looks like. The fire trucks show up, people in firefighter gear show up, they squirt some water until the fire goes out, the building is destroyed, everybody pats themselves on the back on how good of a job they did. This repeats itself enough times that the public now praises them for their effort and just accepts that fires = destroyed buildings not knowing that a competent FD would've saved a good number of those buildings and/or their contents.

Right, but there in lies the problem. Departments should not be doing it, but they are. Not only that, they are willfully allowing members who are underprepared to operate on the interior to do so. Some just aren't up for the job. It's somewhat rampant in my area and other parts of the country.
My department runs very few calls outside of our city (not by our choice, most of the volunteers just don't call us, even though we're closer than some of the departments they use). A few years ago we sent an engine to a reported dwelling fire (basement) early in the morning in a small neighboring borough. As far as I know, dispatch added us to the call due to a slow response from the volunteers. Our engine was the third unit to arrive. It would've been first if on the initial dispatch, but that's a different conversation. They arrived to find 2 engines on scene, a supply line established, attack lines off and several people dressed up as firefighters around the house, but NOBODY had entered the building yet! Our crew entered and quickly determined that there was NO active fire. Just a good smoke condition from a lint fire. Is this what a local FD doing its job looks like? I don't think so.
This type of stuff leads to low expectations from the public because they don't necessarily know what a good FD looks like. The fire trucks show up, people in firefighter gear show up, they squirt some water until the fire goes out, the building is destroyed, everybody pats themselves on the back on how good of a job they did. This repeats itself enough times that the public now praises them for their effort and just accepts that fires = destroyed buildings not knowing that a competent FD would've saved a good number of those buildings and/or their contents.

Right, but there in lies the problem. Departments should not be doing it, but they are. Not only that, they are willfully allowing members who are underprepared to operate on the interior to do so. Some just aren't up for the job. It's somewhat rampant in my area and other parts of the country.
My department runs very few calls outside of our city (not by our choice, most of the volunteers just don't call us, even though we're closer than some of the departments they use). A few years ago we sent an engine to a reported dwelling fire (basement) early in the morning in a small neighboring borough. As far as I know, dispatch added us to the call due to a slow response from the volunteers. Our engine was the third unit to arrive. It would've been first if on the initial dispatch, but that's a different conversation. They arrived to find 2 engines on scene, a supply line established, attack lines off and several people dressed up as firefighters around the house, but NOBODY had entered the building yet! Our crew entered and quickly determined that there was NO active fire. Just a good smoke condition from a lint fire. Is this what a local FD doing its job looks like? I don't think so.
This type of stuff leads to low expectations from the public because they don't necessarily know what a good FD looks like. The fire trucks show up, people in firefighter gear show up, they squirt some water until the fire goes out, the building is destroyed, everybody pats themselves on the back on how good of a job they did. This repeats itself enough times that the public now praises them for their effort and just accepts that fires = destroyed buildings not knowing that a competent FD would've saved a good number of those buildings and/or their contents.

Right, but there in lies the problem. Departments should not be doing it, but they are. Not only that, they are willfully allowing members who are underprepared to operate on the interior to do so. Some just aren't up for the job. It's somewhat rampant in my area and other parts of the country.
My department runs very few calls outside of our city (not by our choice, most of the volunteers just don't call us, even though we're closer than some of the departments they use). A few years ago we sent an engine to a reported dwelling fire (basement) early in the morning in a small neighboring borough. As far as I know, dispatch added us to the call due to a slow response from the volunteers. Our engine was the third unit to arrive. It would've been first if on the initial dispatch, but that's a different conversation. They arrived to find 2 engines on scene, a supply line established, attack lines off and several people dressed up as firefighters around the house, but NOBODY had entered the building yet! Our crew entered and quickly determined that there was NO active fire. Just a good smoke condition from a lint fire. Is this what a local FD doing its job looks like? I don't think so.
This type of stuff leads to low expectations from the public because they don't necessarily know what a good FD looks like. The fire trucks show up, people in firefighter gear show up, they squirt some water until the fire goes out, the building is destroyed, everybody pats themselves on the back on how good of a job they did. This repeats itself enough times that the public now praises them for their effort and just accepts that fires = destroyed buildings not knowing that a competent FD would've saved a good number of those buildings and/or their contents.

It's not exactly the trivial thing that you seem to be inferring. I don't have a specific term to throw out there, but here's an example to help you understand the argument.
Let's say that everyone who belongs to a fire department is titled "firefighter" regardless of what role they perform or don't perform. Using that same logic, everybody who works for a hospital can be titled "doctor" regardless of what role they perform or don't perform. We don't do this because titles do matter. The titles doctor, nurse, ER tech, janitor, aide, etc. help the patients and staff distinguish between the different roles and what they each contribute to the overall operation. So, if you are sick and in need of a doctor, you wouldn't want a "doctor" (aka janitor) to treat you.
If you polled the average citizen on what a "firefighter" is and what their expectations for them are, it won't be that they just drive or just help outside if that person's house was on fire and a loved one was trapped inside. Therefore, using the title "firefighter" for all members is misleading in the same fashion that "doctor" doesn't mean the person who pushes the broom down the hallways of the hospital.

It's more of an issue than you think. We have people who join the FD and never attend training except to be a driver and call themselves FF.
My point is that if you want to be a firefighter you shouldn't get to choose not to do the job of a firefighter by staying outside.
This isn't lunacy, this is the advocacy of FASNY and other groups that oppose vehemently any training standards or requirements to be called a FF.

It's not spin at all. Every police officer receives annual in-service training so they remain as current and qualified as a new recruit today. Likewise, career firefighters have to complete at least 100 (I think, it's been a long time since I did this paperwork) hours of annual in-service training also.
This is NOT a career vs. volunteer issue. This is an issue of standards. There is a minimum training standard for the career fire service and it has been vigorously opposed by the volunteer community. This disparity perpetuates the issues you're talking about.
I'm not saying every career FF behaves professionally or that volunteers don't. I'm saying that every career FF in the state of NY was trained to the same standard. You can't say that in the vollie community.

If you can no longer wear a mask you get to retire

The smaller hose tube at the bottom gets used pretty frequently. It's commonplace to use it to connect directly to a hydrant.
The larger hose tubes for drafting probably don't get used much at all. It is my understanding that they and the current engine design are primarily for alternate water supply usage in the event that the hydrant system is unusable, like what happened on 9/11 in lower Manhattan.