FireMedic049

Leaving your (100' ladder) tiller behind and taking the much smaller squirt because you lack a tillerman is not what I'd consider to be an "excellent plan B".

I know this will rustle the feathers of many, but think about it in terms of police. YES, Police. If a police officer is returning from training in another jurisdiction and comes across an accident, a robbery, or swerving drunk-driver, they will call it in to the either their dispatch or the jurisdiction the call is in and then render appropriate action until the arrival of the appropriate jurisdiction. The same thing would happen if they were near their own town line and saw something happen in the next jurisdiction. The questions are what did you know, when did you know it and what did you do about it? If the answer comes back to being reasonable, then I'm all for acting.
 
As a few have pointed out, the Scarsdale incident isn't very clear as to what happened. Eastchester could have very well been out on their own smoke investigation and come across the fire.  If so, report it to the jurisdiction having authority by common radio frequency or your own dispatch and then render aid in a reasonable manner until the "home team" shows up.
 
As for any incident near a town line, I would expect that if the FDNY were out on a smoke investigation near the Yonkers city line and they came to the Westchester border and saw smoke coming out of a building and some mother out front frantically running around that they would respond and do what they could do to assist until Yonkers showed up. If I were the FDNY Battalion Chief I would initiate operations, possibly make a rescue, and when Yonkers showed up I would go to the first arriving officer and say, "FDNY is on location, we have 2 engines and 1 ladder working. We rescued a child from floor 2. We have 1 line stretched in operation on the 1st floor. This is your city and your incident - you are in-charge, what can we do to help you?" If the Yonkers officer said continue operations and we'll stretch a back-up line I'd appreciate it. Once our troops arrive we'll try to kick you free ASAP" then I'd stay and do what was REASONABLE and respect the Yonkers officer's decision. If (I don't think Yonkers would do this) he said, "This is our fire and get out of our city" then I'd say, "Fine, pack-it up boys and let's hit the road. Good-luck!" 
 
This is not rocket-science. It's about what and when you became aware of something and then what did you do about it and was the action REASONABLE to do. Working together is a wonderful thing!!

For the most part, I agree with your message, but have a few thoughts and questions....
 
1) Was the Eastchester Captain in charge of the whole shift at the time of the incident or just the station nearest the incident?
 
2) Are Eastchester and Scarsdale on the same dispatch channel?
 
3) I'm not familiar with the area, but if the map at the beginning of the thread is accurate, it looks like the location of the fire is very close to the Eastchester/Scarsdale border and possibly within sight of the Eastchester station.  As such, I could easily see a situation where Eastchester units started to the incident thinking it could possibly be in their area, particularly if they aren't on the same dispatch channel.
 
4) The media is notorious for misreporting, misrepresenting or misquoting things.  As such, their statement of what happened may not fully represent what actually happened.
 
5) I have some difficulty with the use of the term "freelancing" in this particular context.  My understanding of the definition for freelancing is essentially doing a task or taking an action without communication or coordination of such.  There's a fair bit of detail about this not readily available to draw informed conclusions, but in general, I wouldn't consider investigating signs of a possible fire nearby to be freelancing, even if doing so happened to take you a couple blocks into the next town.  Once on scene, as the initial arriving unit(s), as long as they communicated that they were on scene, going to work and subsequently worked within whatever command structure that was established, I wouldn't necessarily call that freelancing and wouldn't necessarily call it operating without accountability.

In that situation, the decision to not respond was clearly the correct one as your Captain was aware that the incident was already being handled and adding yourself to the party could certainly be considered freelancing. 
 
In this case, I'd be curious to know some more details to help determine if this was freelancing or just a good faith effort to perform their duties and the incident just happened to be across the borderline.

For the most part, I agree with your message, but have a few thoughts and questions....
 
1) Was the Eastchester Captain in charge of the whole shift at the time of the incident or just the station nearest the incident?
 
2) Are Eastchester and Scarsdale on the same dispatch channel?
 
3) I'm not familiar with the area, but if the map at the beginning of the thread is accurate, it looks like the location of the fire is very close to the Eastchester/Scarsdale border and possibly within sight of the Eastchester station.  As such, I could easily see a situation where Eastchester units started to the incident thinking it could possibly be in their area, particularly if they aren't on the same dispatch channel.
 
4) The media is notorious for misreporting, misrepresenting or misquoting things.  As such, their statement of what happened may not fully represent what actually happened.
 
5) I have some difficulty with the use of the term "freelancing" in this particular context.  My understanding of the definition for freelancing is essentially doing a task or taking an action without communication or coordination of such.  There's a fair bit of detail about this not readily available to draw informed conclusions, but in general, I wouldn't consider investigating signs of a possible fire nearby to be freelancing, even if doing so happened to take you a couple blocks into the next town.  Once on scene, as the initial arriving unit(s), as long as they communicated that they were on scene, going to work and subsequently worked within whatever command structure that was established, I wouldn't necessarily call that freelancing and wouldn't necessarily call it operating without accountability.

If I'm not mistaken, the feature that you are describing allows the rear steer axle to be locked and this allows the vehicle to be operated with a single driver, but it's more like driving a tractor-trailer than a straight ladder.

Leaving your (100' ladder) tiller behind and taking the much smaller squirt because you lack a tillerman is not what I'd consider to be an "excellent plan B".

For the most part, I agree with your message, but have a few thoughts and questions....
 
1) Was the Eastchester Captain in charge of the whole shift at the time of the incident or just the station nearest the incident?
 
2) Are Eastchester and Scarsdale on the same dispatch channel?
 
3) I'm not familiar with the area, but if the map at the beginning of the thread is accurate, it looks like the location of the fire is very close to the Eastchester/Scarsdale border and possibly within sight of the Eastchester station.  As such, I could easily see a situation where Eastchester units started to the incident thinking it could possibly be in their area, particularly if they aren't on the same dispatch channel.
 
4) The media is notorious for misreporting, misrepresenting or misquoting things.  As such, their statement of what happened may not fully represent what actually happened.
 
5) I have some difficulty with the use of the term "freelancing" in this particular context.  My understanding of the definition for freelancing is essentially doing a task or taking an action without communication or coordination of such.  There's a fair bit of detail about this not readily available to draw informed conclusions, but in general, I wouldn't consider investigating signs of a possible fire nearby to be freelancing, even if doing so happened to take you a couple blocks into the next town.  Once on scene, as the initial arriving unit(s), as long as they communicated that they were on scene, going to work and subsequently worked within whatever command structure that was established, I wouldn't necessarily call that freelancing and wouldn't necessarily call it operating without accountability.

Acceptable, NO.  Unfortunate reality for many, YES.
 
Yes, but I bet that a 2 man crew arriving quickly, followed by an additional 2 man crew (or more) a couple of minutes after also outperformed a single 2 man crew and probably did at least as well as that 4 man crew arriving together minutes later.

While certainly not ideal, a competent and experienced crew of two arriving quickly can have a positive effect on many incidents rather than a unit with more staffing arriving a few or several minutes later.
 
I've spent the majority of my career (the paid part) working on an engine staffed with only 2.  We've been able to have 3 at times over the last few years.  Several years ago now, we had a 2 man crew arrive first at a working fire and execute a ladder rescue of a trapped victim prior to arrival of other units.  That gentleman knows what the point would be.  You'd be surprised at what we've accomplished at some incidents. 

For the most part, I agree with your message, but have a few thoughts and questions....
 
1) Was the Eastchester Captain in charge of the whole shift at the time of the incident or just the station nearest the incident?
 
2) Are Eastchester and Scarsdale on the same dispatch channel?
 
3) I'm not familiar with the area, but if the map at the beginning of the thread is accurate, it looks like the location of the fire is very close to the Eastchester/Scarsdale border and possibly within sight of the Eastchester station.  As such, I could easily see a situation where Eastchester units started to the incident thinking it could possibly be in their area, particularly if they aren't on the same dispatch channel.
 
4) The media is notorious for misreporting, misrepresenting or misquoting things.  As such, their statement of what happened may not fully represent what actually happened.
 
5) I have some difficulty with the use of the term "freelancing" in this particular context.  My understanding of the definition for freelancing is essentially doing a task or taking an action without communication or coordination of such.  There's a fair bit of detail about this not readily available to draw informed conclusions, but in general, I wouldn't consider investigating signs of a possible fire nearby to be freelancing, even if doing so happened to take you a couple blocks into the next town.  Once on scene, as the initial arriving unit(s), as long as they communicated that they were on scene, going to work and subsequently worked within whatever command structure that was established, I wouldn't necessarily call that freelancing and wouldn't necessarily call it operating without accountability.

Acceptable, NO.  Unfortunate reality for many, YES.
 
Yes, but I bet that a 2 man crew arriving quickly, followed by an additional 2 man crew (or more) a couple of minutes after also outperformed a single 2 man crew and probably did at least as well as that 4 man crew arriving together minutes later.

We have similar issues in my area.  I agree, more is definitely better.  Just pointing out that many of us on the career side don't have the option to wait a couple minutes for more personnel to arrive before responding.  Some of us are fighting just to maintain the understaffing that we already deal with.
 
I've read up on some of that research, but I don't recall reading about any scenarios where they studied two 2 man crews.  Would you happen to have a link or something off hand for that part?  I'd be interested in reading that.
 
I don't dispute the findings of that research, but I also have a good bit of experience with responding to fires understaffed and know what we're often able to accomplish while the cavalry assembles.  So while not ideal, a crew of 2 (experienced, competent FFs) is not pointless like insinuated above.

While certainly not ideal, a competent and experienced crew of two arriving quickly can have a positive effect on many incidents rather than a unit with more staffing arriving a few or several minutes later.
 
I've spent the majority of my career (the paid part) working on an engine staffed with only 2.  We've been able to have 3 at times over the last few years.  Several years ago now, we had a 2 man crew arrive first at a working fire and execute a ladder rescue of a trapped victim prior to arrival of other units.  That gentleman knows what the point would be.  You'd be surprised at what we've accomplished at some incidents. 

Acceptable, NO.  Unfortunate reality for many, YES.
 
Yes, but I bet that a 2 man crew arriving quickly, followed by an additional 2 man crew (or more) a couple of minutes after also outperformed a single 2 man crew and probably did at least as well as that 4 man crew arriving together minutes later.

While certainly not ideal, a competent and experienced crew of two arriving quickly can have a positive effect on many incidents rather than a unit with more staffing arriving a few or several minutes later.
 
I've spent the majority of my career (the paid part) working on an engine staffed with only 2.  We've been able to have 3 at times over the last few years.  Several years ago now, we had a 2 man crew arrive first at a working fire and execute a ladder rescue of a trapped victim prior to arrival of other units.  That gentleman knows what the point would be.  You'd be surprised at what we've accomplished at some incidents. 

While certainly not ideal, a competent and experienced crew of two arriving quickly can have a positive effect on many incidents rather than a unit with more staffing arriving a few or several minutes later.
 
I've spent the majority of my career (the paid part) working on an engine staffed with only 2.  We've been able to have 3 at times over the last few years.  Several years ago now, we had a 2 man crew arrive first at a working fire and execute a ladder rescue of a trapped victim prior to arrival of other units.  That gentleman knows what the point would be.  You'd be surprised at what we've accomplished at some incidents. 

We have similar issues in my area.  I agree, more is definitely better.  Just pointing out that many of us on the career side don't have the option to wait a couple minutes for more personnel to arrive before responding.  Some of us are fighting just to maintain the understaffing that we already deal with.
 
I've read up on some of that research, but I don't recall reading about any scenarios where they studied two 2 man crews.  Would you happen to have a link or something off hand for that part?  I'd be interested in reading that.
 
I don't dispute the findings of that research, but I also have a good bit of experience with responding to fires understaffed and know what we're often able to accomplish while the cavalry assembles.  So while not ideal, a crew of 2 (experienced, competent FFs) is not pointless like insinuated above.

We have similar issues in my area.  I agree, more is definitely better.  Just pointing out that many of us on the career side don't have the option to wait a couple minutes for more personnel to arrive before responding.  Some of us are fighting just to maintain the understaffing that we already deal with.
 
I've read up on some of that research, but I don't recall reading about any scenarios where they studied two 2 man crews.  Would you happen to have a link or something off hand for that part?  I'd be interested in reading that.
 
I don't dispute the findings of that research, but I also have a good bit of experience with responding to fires understaffed and know what we're often able to accomplish while the cavalry assembles.  So while not ideal, a crew of 2 (experienced, competent FFs) is not pointless like insinuated above.

Acceptable, NO.  Unfortunate reality for many, YES.
 
Yes, but I bet that a 2 man crew arriving quickly, followed by an additional 2 man crew (or more) a couple of minutes after also outperformed a single 2 man crew and probably did at least as well as that 4 man crew arriving together minutes later.

While certainly not ideal, a competent and experienced crew of two arriving quickly can have a positive effect on many incidents rather than a unit with more staffing arriving a few or several minutes later.
 
I've spent the majority of my career (the paid part) working on an engine staffed with only 2.  We've been able to have 3 at times over the last few years.  Several years ago now, we had a 2 man crew arrive first at a working fire and execute a ladder rescue of a trapped victim prior to arrival of other units.  That gentleman knows what the point would be.  You'd be surprised at what we've accomplished at some incidents. 

 
Assuming that another rig with more staffing was on its way, a rig with two is still better than none.  Establishing continuous water supply, throwing ladders to a known point of entrapment, extended walk around and size-up to the remaining incoming units, among many other activities can be completed by a crew of two and if nothing else, they're geared up and immediately fill out the "two in two out" requirement when the next arriving apparatus marks up. 

Your comment doesn't make much sense in regards to the context of this discussion.  This wasn't a case of someone directly involved speculating about the success of a new program.  This was a case of someone directly involved telling you that a new program that has been in effect for a while now IS a success.
 
You're response was rather dismissive of that informed explanation. 
 
No, I don't believe everything I read.  However, I've had enough interaction with M'ave on this forum to know that he is FDNY and that he has been reliable when it comes to information related to FDNY matters.
 
You may be trying to have a discussion and there definitely is a difference between argument and discussion.  However, you don't seem to understand the detail of each.
 
You are the reason why the "argument keeps on flowing".  A discussion was taking place.  You just weren't up to speed on the issue when the discussion started and speculated regarding the potential success of the program.  I offered an educated opinion to counter yours.  You were dismissive of that.
 
You were also provided with reliable information by a person directly involved that the program is successful (because it's been in place longer than you were aware).  However, your response again, was dismissive and some people called you on it and tried to educate you some.
 
You became argumentative in response to that rather than be appreciative of the information provided to you.  Now you are trying to be preachy, apparently unaware that you are the one who took things from discussion to argument. 

Your comment doesn't make much sense in regards to the context of this discussion.  This wasn't a case of someone directly involved speculating about the success of a new program.  This was a case of someone directly involved telling you that a new program that has been in effect for a while now IS a success.
 
You're response was rather dismissive of that informed explanation. 
 
No, I don't believe everything I read.  However, I've had enough interaction with M'ave on this forum to know that he is FDNY and that he has been reliable when it comes to information related to FDNY matters.
 
You may be trying to have a discussion and there definitely is a difference between argument and discussion.  However, you don't seem to understand the detail of each.
 
You are the reason why the "argument keeps on flowing".  A discussion was taking place.  You just weren't up to speed on the issue when the discussion started and speculated regarding the potential success of the program.  I offered an educated opinion to counter yours.  You were dismissive of that.
 
You were also provided with reliable information by a person directly involved that the program is successful (because it's been in place longer than you were aware).  However, your response again, was dismissive and some people called you on it and tried to educate you some.
 
You became argumentative in response to that rather than be appreciative of the information provided to you.  Now you are trying to be preachy, apparently unaware that you are the one who took things from discussion to argument. 

Your comment doesn't make much sense in regards to the context of this discussion.  This wasn't a case of someone directly involved speculating about the success of a new program.  This was a case of someone directly involved telling you that a new program that has been in effect for a while now IS a success.
 
You're response was rather dismissive of that informed explanation. 
 
No, I don't believe everything I read.  However, I've had enough interaction with M'ave on this forum to know that he is FDNY and that he has been reliable when it comes to information related to FDNY matters.
 
You may be trying to have a discussion and there definitely is a difference between argument and discussion.  However, you don't seem to understand the detail of each.
 
You are the reason why the "argument keeps on flowing".  A discussion was taking place.  You just weren't up to speed on the issue when the discussion started and speculated regarding the potential success of the program.  I offered an educated opinion to counter yours.  You were dismissive of that.
 
You were also provided with reliable information by a person directly involved that the program is successful (because it's been in place longer than you were aware).  However, your response again, was dismissive and some people called you on it and tried to educate you some.
 
You became argumentative in response to that rather than be appreciative of the information provided to you.  Now you are trying to be preachy, apparently unaware that you are the one who took things from discussion to argument.