FireMedic049

To me, it's all about options and flexibility. Know your tools, train with them and use what will work best for the given scenario.
You're lost and stumbling through some smoke, low on air. Another crew finds you and can walk you out. You run out of air before you make it out. Would you rather share air and walk out or take in smoke and have to be dragged? That's a no brainer. Plug in and walk out together. Use the EBSS. If you don't spec it, you can't use it.
Should the EBSS be used by RIT teams as the first line? Nope. Does having it increase your options. Yup. Be smart people.

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.

So the option is to let your "buddy" suffer until he goes unconscious then drag him to safety? We share masks as a way of ensuring anyone, firefighter or civilian has fresh air to breathe, now we're so self centered we won't share our air? What else won't you do for your fellow firefighters? I hope I'm being over the top, but step back and read what some of you have written.

Those are tough questions to answer in general since it's often impossible to pinpoint an exact cause for any specific cancer. Outside of something like 9/11, it's more likely that the cause of cancer is going to be the result of multiple minor exposures over a career rather than a specific exposure. Cancer doesn't show up until well down the road unlike the broken leg after falling thru a floor or off the building.
This is why it is so imperative for firefighters to be covered by some sort of presumptive cancer legislation that acknowledges our significantly higher risk for certain types of cancer vs the general public, removes the burden from our shoulders to find the proverbial "needle in a haystack" to prove it's job related and provides us with the care and benefits due to us for an occupational illness.
That said, it's imperative that we (individually or organizationally) actively work to reduce our risks by limiting exposures as much as possible and ideally not doing things that could potentially be used to disqualify oneself from that presumptive benefit, like tobacco usage for instance.

I wouldn't necessarily classify it as having "no regard for staffing standards" in the career departments that are "understaffed", at least not at the FD level.
Typically the guys/gals on the street know that they are "understaffed" whether it be in terms of individual unit staffing, number/type of staffed apparatus and/or overall shift staffing. We often have to work with the hand we are dealt rather than the one we'd like to have. Very few firefighters in any career department have any real influence when it comes to setting staffing levels. The unions can only do so much to address the matter and sometimes it comes down to deciding what is the best of several bad options.
A few years ago Gary, IN was having severe financial issues (not that they aren't now) and the decision was made to reduce staffing on all companies in order to save money. Pretty sure it was a reduction from 4 to 3 per unit. The contract called for minimum unit staffing of 4 and the union filed a grievance over the reduction. It eventually went to arbitration and the union won the grievance and the City was ordered to put the 4th FF back on all in service units.
The City complied and immediately put the 4th FF went back, but at the same time they closed several more companies in order to do it and still save the money. The legal precedent regarding staffing is basically that unit staffing is enforceable in arbitration, but overall shift staffing and number/type of apparatus in service essentially fall to managerial prerogative and can't be imposed by an arbitrator.
So, in this situation, the union technically prevailed and kept the 4th FF, but they ended up losing a few engine/truck companies. So, it begs the question in a situation like this, are you better off with 5 engines & 1 truck staffed with 4 FF each or with 6 engines & 2 trucks with 3 FF each?
In my small career department, if we were to have to comply with a 4 FF per unit requirement, it would pretty much close our second unit (engine) and station almost every day. Right now, our first unit has 3 on it most of the time, occasionally 4 and the second has 3 probably around half the time. Being forced into a single unit would significantly impact our operational flexibility, increase response times to half of the city and in all honesty, not be any "safer" for us. We'd love to have more on-duty staffing, but that's just not in the cards anytime soon. This works for 90+% of our calls and we rely on our off-duty personnel and neighboring VFDs for the calls that need more.

I had a similar thought when I read the story the other day.
I want to say that I read somewhere that Toledo had a large retirement a few years ago that depleted a lot of their senior members and resulted in a large influx of new members and promotion of some others without significant time on the job.
If I recall correctly, there was mention of something regarding crew make up in the NIOSH report from the double LODD he referred to. I don't think it was listed as a specific contributing factor in what occurred though. I think it was more of a making note of it and the obvious issues that can come with a less experienced crew.

I had a similar thought when I read the story the other day.
I want to say that I read somewhere that Toledo had a large retirement a few years ago that depleted a lot of their senior members and resulted in a large influx of new members and promotion of some others without significant time on the job.
If I recall correctly, there was mention of something regarding crew make up in the NIOSH report from the double LODD he referred to. I don't think it was listed as a specific contributing factor in what occurred though. I think it was more of a making note of it and the obvious issues that can come with a less experienced crew.

I had a similar thought when I read the story the other day.
I want to say that I read somewhere that Toledo had a large retirement a few years ago that depleted a lot of their senior members and resulted in a large influx of new members and promotion of some others without significant time on the job.
If I recall correctly, there was mention of something regarding crew make up in the NIOSH report from the double LODD he referred to. I don't think it was listed as a specific contributing factor in what occurred though. I think it was more of a making note of it and the obvious issues that can come with a less experienced crew.

I wouldn't necessarily classify it as having "no regard for staffing standards" in the career departments that are "understaffed", at least not at the FD level.
Typically the guys/gals on the street know that they are "understaffed" whether it be in terms of individual unit staffing, number/type of staffed apparatus and/or overall shift staffing. We often have to work with the hand we are dealt rather than the one we'd like to have. Very few firefighters in any career department have any real influence when it comes to setting staffing levels. The unions can only do so much to address the matter and sometimes it comes down to deciding what is the best of several bad options.
A few years ago Gary, IN was having severe financial issues (not that they aren't now) and the decision was made to reduce staffing on all companies in order to save money. Pretty sure it was a reduction from 4 to 3 per unit. The contract called for minimum unit staffing of 4 and the union filed a grievance over the reduction. It eventually went to arbitration and the union won the grievance and the City was ordered to put the 4th FF back on all in service units.
The City complied and immediately put the 4th FF went back, but at the same time they closed several more companies in order to do it and still save the money. The legal precedent regarding staffing is basically that unit staffing is enforceable in arbitration, but overall shift staffing and number/type of apparatus in service essentially fall to managerial prerogative and can't be imposed by an arbitrator.
So, in this situation, the union technically prevailed and kept the 4th FF, but they ended up losing a few engine/truck companies. So, it begs the question in a situation like this, are you better off with 5 engines & 1 truck staffed with 4 FF each or with 6 engines & 2 trucks with 3 FF each?
In my small career department, if we were to have to comply with a 4 FF per unit requirement, it would pretty much close our second unit (engine) and station almost every day. Right now, our first unit has 3 on it most of the time, occasionally 4 and the second has 3 probably around half the time. Being forced into a single unit would significantly impact our operational flexibility, increase response times to half of the city and in all honesty, not be any "safer" for us. We'd love to have more on-duty staffing, but that's just not in the cards anytime soon. This works for 90+% of our calls and we rely on our off-duty personnel and neighboring VFDs for the calls that need more.

3:30.....no one has stretched a line. No one seems to have completed a primary of the original fire occupancy, some dude is cutting like hell to open a Bilco door and another guy has his hood up under his helmet.....no face piece on....
This is confusing me....and looks terrible

In the real world these guys had the ability to utilize their respiratory PPE (aka SCBA) while working in close proximity to smoke and in some cases inside the smoke filled building and chose not to.Yes, there will be instances where you have to take immediate action and may take in some smoke doing it, but this was clearly not the case in this situation.
With what we now know about the link between the products of combustion and firefighter cancer, there's pretty much no excuse to not use your SCBA these days.

In the real world these guys had the ability to utilize their respiratory PPE (aka SCBA) while working in close proximity to smoke and in some cases inside the smoke filled building and chose not to.Yes, there will be instances where you have to take immediate action and may take in some smoke doing it, but this was clearly not the case in this situation.
With what we now know about the link between the products of combustion and firefighter cancer, there's pretty much no excuse to not use your SCBA these days.

In the real world these guys had the ability to utilize their respiratory PPE (aka SCBA) while working in close proximity to smoke and in some cases inside the smoke filled building and chose not to.Yes, there will be instances where you have to take immediate action and may take in some smoke doing it, but this was clearly not the case in this situation.
With what we now know about the link between the products of combustion and firefighter cancer, there's pretty much no excuse to not use your SCBA these days.

Yes. It was stated in the Yonkers thread on firepics.net that it may have been reassigned to a busier company for a better opportunity to evaluate.

Unfortunatly, this issue is not confined to "rural" NY. Declining volunteerism is an issue from the city line, north. That said, there are a lot of dedicated volunteers who could (and would like) to do more. The current system is truely a hindrance and a serious overhaul is needed. Smaller town and village fire departments shouuld be combined into larger area districts. The pool of active volunteers would better service a larger area and more call volume. In areas where necessary, by population and call volume, could be supplemented by a career staff.
Towns and villages really need to give up a little control and allow for a vastly superior, efficient reorganization. Emergency services can operate more effectivly on economies of scale, to some degree.
I live in Westchester, in a high-tax community. I work in the poorest congressional district in the United States. The residents of said congressional district recieve vastly superior Fire and EMS service. Why does anyone think this is acceptatble? Everyone, regardless of municipality should demand equal emergency service protections.
This is not a volunteer/career issue. This is not one municipality vs. another....this is a life safety issue for citizens and responders. We can better utilize our emergency personel, improve and better utilize volunteer service and compliment with career firemen when needed.
Lets smarten up.

I can see maintaining the siren to use in a civil defense fashion or as a backup for times like you mention where power is out for an extended time period, but using it on a daily basis for all calls just isn't necessary. Additionally, if your means of notification goes down, you staff your station to ensure a response.
The fact that some companies don't use sirens and some companies only blow the siren during certain hours shows that the siren simply isn't essential for member notification or for the public for that matter.
If they were, every station would have them and use them every time there was a call.

I can see maintaining the siren to use in a civil defense fashion or as a backup for times like you mention where power is out for an extended time period, but using it on a daily basis for all calls just isn't necessary. Additionally, if your means of notification goes down, you staff your station to ensure a response.
The fact that some companies don't use sirens and some companies only blow the siren during certain hours shows that the siren simply isn't essential for member notification or for the public for that matter.
If they were, every station would have them and use them every time there was a call.

I can see maintaining the siren to use in a civil defense fashion or as a backup for times like you mention where power is out for an extended time period, but using it on a daily basis for all calls just isn't necessary. Additionally, if your means of notification goes down, you staff your station to ensure a response.
The fact that some companies don't use sirens and some companies only blow the siren during certain hours shows that the siren simply isn't essential for member notification or for the public for that matter.
If they were, every station would have them and use them every time there was a call.

I think this is a poorly framed poll question. The question asks for a one size fits all answer for something that has far too much variability for that type of answer to work.
I think there will be times in which this tactic will be a wise option and there will be times in which it is the wimpy option.

Why does this just have to be an "unfortunate coincedence" and not the predictible result that comes from lowering (or ignoring) performance standards in order to achieve a diverse workforce regardless of fitness/ability to actually do the job?

Why does this just have to be an "unfortunate coincedence" and not the predictible result that comes from lowering (or ignoring) performance standards in order to achieve a diverse workforce regardless of fitness/ability to actually do the job?

She was a disaster from the beginning She should never have been given the chance to be a firefighter. Couldn't do any of the evolutions in probie school. Just another part of the agenda that is the city of New York and the fire department thanks to this f****** judges ruling.

Why does this just have to be an "unfortunate coincedence" and not the predictible result that comes from lowering (or ignoring) performance standards in order to achieve a diverse workforce regardless of fitness/ability to actually do the job?

Why does this just have to be an "unfortunate coincedence" and not the predictible result that comes from lowering (or ignoring) performance standards in order to achieve a diverse workforce regardless of fitness/ability to actually do the job?