FireMedic049

Off hand I'd say that every 2 years is a pretty short replacement cycle, however it may very well be right on the money for their needs. NFPA 1851 states TOG should be retired when it reaches 10 years old, however this "maximum" life expectancy will not be appropriate for FDs that have a lot of fire duty. Mayberry VFD may be able to get 10 years out of a set, but FFs in the busiest companies of FDNY may only get 2-3 years out of a set before it is no longer servicable.Oftentimes, money plays a significant factor in the length of replacement cycle used.
In my department, we are now (by contract) to be issued a new (primary) set every 4 years. When we get a new set, what was the primary set becomes our backup set and what was the backup set if still servicable, will become "reserve inventory" to be used to initially outfit new hires until their "primary set" is delivered or as a temporary substitute while repairs are made to one of the issued sets. For us, the 4 year cycle seems to be just about right. The gear is beat up by that point, but still in decent enough shape in most cases that it should be able to last 4 more years as a back up with limited usage.

Yeah, PPE specification isn't really taught much. I did a fair bit of research when I updated my department's specs about 7 years ago. We were looking more for performance than price. We are a small urban career department with a lot of old construction along with abondoned SFDs and catch a good bit of fire - both arson and accidental. At the time we were wearing Securitex with a PBI outer shell. It didn't seem to hold up very well at all. There were some wear issues related to the construction of the gear rather than the materials used. We had a lot of issues with the "buttons" for the suspenders breaking frequently.
We selected Morning Pride as the manufacturer with Globe (G-xtreme) a relatively close second. Cost per set for both was within less than $5 of each other, but the MP seemed to offer "more for the money". PBI Matrix was selected as the outer shell in part because of good past experience with PBI and also because it is one of the toughest fabrics. We selected a 3-layer E-89 thermal liner with a Crosstech moisture barrier. It was actually our 2nd choice, there was a military-related availability issue with the original selection. Overall the gear has performed far superior to what we were using prior and most of the original purchase is now serving as a "backup" set and in decent shape for that limited use role. The fit of the gear for me at least was superior to anything else I'd worn to that point. There were lots of grumbling about the Securitex from the guys, but I don't recall much of any with the MP.
The spec was updated last year in part to address some areas of high wear that didn't perform as well as we'd have liked (specifically the reinforcement material used in certain spots) and in part due to economics. We again selected MP. The outer shell was changed from PBI Matrix to Advance Ultra (which wasn't available the last time) in order to save $100+ per set, but the new fabric had very similar performance numbers to the PBI Matrix. When the gear arrived, the outer shell was actually the regular Advance material. Still not sure how that change occurred. We switched to a new 2-layer "slick" liner that the nearby large metro department was now using. Crosstech is still the moisture barrier. After one year of use now, the new stuff is performing well. We'll have to see in another year or two if the new outer shell is durible enough for our needs. I think my new set fits even better than the first set of MP.
The things I specifically like about MP's product would be:
Best fitting, most comfortable gear I've ever worn.
The "heat channel" knee is more comfortable than other knee padding that I've tried, plus it adds a lot of protection against compression burns to the knees.
They offer additional upper body/shoulder/arm thermal protection with the use of their "dead air panels". This option significantly raises the TPP of those regions without lowering the THL of those regions.
The coat cuffs are designed in a fashion where your arms don't get soaked (inside) when working with your arms raised.

Globe offers a strong product, but I think MP is a better one overall.
Overall, I've had good experience with the materials listed and would certainly recommend them for use.
Personally, I've had no experience with Innotex.

Yeah, PPE specification isn't really taught much. I did a fair bit of research when I updated my department's specs about 7 years ago. We were looking more for performance than price. We are a small urban career department with a lot of old construction along with abondoned SFDs and catch a good bit of fire - both arson and accidental. At the time we were wearing Securitex with a PBI outer shell. It didn't seem to hold up very well at all. There were some wear issues related to the construction of the gear rather than the materials used. We had a lot of issues with the "buttons" for the suspenders breaking frequently.
We selected Morning Pride as the manufacturer with Globe (G-xtreme) a relatively close second. Cost per set for both was within less than $5 of each other, but the MP seemed to offer "more for the money". PBI Matrix was selected as the outer shell in part because of good past experience with PBI and also because it is one of the toughest fabrics. We selected a 3-layer E-89 thermal liner with a Crosstech moisture barrier. It was actually our 2nd choice, there was a military-related availability issue with the original selection. Overall the gear has performed far superior to what we were using prior and most of the original purchase is now serving as a "backup" set and in decent shape for that limited use role. The fit of the gear for me at least was superior to anything else I'd worn to that point. There were lots of grumbling about the Securitex from the guys, but I don't recall much of any with the MP.
The spec was updated last year in part to address some areas of high wear that didn't perform as well as we'd have liked (specifically the reinforcement material used in certain spots) and in part due to economics. We again selected MP. The outer shell was changed from PBI Matrix to Advance Ultra (which wasn't available the last time) in order to save $100+ per set, but the new fabric had very similar performance numbers to the PBI Matrix. When the gear arrived, the outer shell was actually the regular Advance material. Still not sure how that change occurred. We switched to a new 2-layer "slick" liner that the nearby large metro department was now using. Crosstech is still the moisture barrier. After one year of use now, the new stuff is performing well. We'll have to see in another year or two if the new outer shell is durible enough for our needs. I think my new set fits even better than the first set of MP.
The things I specifically like about MP's product would be:
Best fitting, most comfortable gear I've ever worn.
The "heat channel" knee is more comfortable than other knee padding that I've tried, plus it adds a lot of protection against compression burns to the knees.
They offer additional upper body/shoulder/arm thermal protection with the use of their "dead air panels". This option significantly raises the TPP of those regions without lowering the THL of those regions.
The coat cuffs are designed in a fashion where your arms don't get soaked (inside) when working with your arms raised.

Globe offers a strong product, but I think MP is a better one overall.
Overall, I've had good experience with the materials listed and would certainly recommend them for use.
Personally, I've had no experience with Innotex.

Less than what the 51 new FFs proposed in the SVFD plan would cost 5+ years from now.

Less than what the 51 new FFs proposed in the SVFD plan would cost 5+ years from now.

Less than what the 51 new FFs proposed in the SVFD plan would cost 5+ years from now.

Less than what the 51 new FFs proposed in the SVFD plan would cost 5+ years from now.

Less than what the 51 new FFs proposed in the SVFD plan would cost 5+ years from now.

I disagree with the notion that the term "volunteer" best describes a person receiving compensation for their work. Ask anybody outside the fire service if a person who volunteers doing anything gets paid for whatever task they are doing and I doubt you find many that say yes.
It's one thing to receive a nominal stipend to offset incidental expenses over the course of the year and still be "volunteer". However, once you cross over into a pay per call and/or duty shift type of situation, then the term "volunteer" no longer applies. Volunteers are unpaid workers. If the IRS and/or Federal Labor Laws want to treat a compensated "volunteer" the same as an uncompensated volunteer so be it, but that doesn't mean that it's appropriate to mislead the public.
If terms describing members are truly irrelevant, then why does the volunteer fire service get so worked up over the term "professional firefighter" when used to describe firefighters who get paid to be firefighters? It's certainly a more accurate term than using "volunteer" to describe pay per call firefighters.

That may be so, but just because a city leader says they have no money, doesn't mean they actually have no money. They have been known to exaggerate the severity of their city's financial situation on occasion in the past. And sometimes "no money" means no money for stuff that they don't want to spend money on - like their employees.

Firemedic beat me to the punch, but I gotta spout off.
I was initially very uncomfortable with the mandate that people buy product. Ignoring the FACTS that this mandate was initially a republican alternative to the single payer universal healthcare system championed by Clinton and was successfully implemented in Mass by Romney is just silly, but somehow the right and its blowhards have pulled it off. I say successfully in reference to Mass because it has lowered the per capita cost of healthcare for the entire state and has begun to shift spending from treatment to prevention. By all estimates the program is going to save the state money. The left and right just can't agree on how much.
I am no longer uncomfortable with the mandate because there are enough precedents of congress having the power to regulate our lives. If you want to go old school George Washington along with several original framers of the constitution passed legislation mandating health insurance for mariners and another bill requiring all able bodied men purchase and maintain a rifle and other necessary equipment in case they were to be called upon to serve in the militia. More recently congress can even tell you how much wheat you can grow on your property for personal use.
You're absolutely right, there has been little improvement in the home of the average american. That is going to be Obama's biggest hurdle to re-election. What numbers do you want? How about GDP?? From the first quarter 2008 through till the end of 2009 our economy shrunk in every quarter except 1 where we posted 1.3% growth. Since then, we've been positive every quarter and managed an average growth of 2.4%. Not the historical average of 3.25% but on par with the rest of the world. More specific to the average joe, lets see unemployment rates. Here, we hit a high of 10% back in 2009 and have slowly cranked that down to 8.2%. Almost every indicator of economic health took a massive dump in 2008 and they have all improved since then.
Some like to argue that any idiot could have managed the same gains because things were so bad they could only go up. No one can honestly say Obama's policies and theories have been given a fair and unhindered shot at righting the economy. He has been hindered at every turn by an obstinate congress that picks arbitrary fights (ie: debt ceiling) just to fight them. Things absolutely could have been worse. Who we can thank for that we won't really know until long after this election when all these moves have fully played out.
Hopefully through reading my posts you've recognized I'm more than willing to give credit to Republicans and criticize Democrats. In this case, Bush is very much responsible for much of the conditions that enabled the collapse. Clinton had his hand in there too, but Bush compounded problems and failed to act on earlier signs of trouble. Bush also set the tone for solution with his bank bailouts. I believe he had the right idea, but a very poor implementation that turned a lifeline into a windfall. Liberals are still blaming him because we are still crawling out of the hole generated by an economic meltdown and two unfunded wars.
Obama absolutely promised a lot more than he delivered. But as I and firemedic have pointed to before, Obama cannot do it on his own. Congress has to help. At the same time Obama burned a lot of opportunities to get other things done by sticking to healthcare reform. He also was forced to bail on some promises when the realities of the job met his hopes and dreams. A perfect example being Guantanamo. Rather than force through a campaign promise because he promised it, he took the hit and left the base in operation.
Its always depressing finding more people ignorant enough to hate someone because of a name or religion. I've seen first hand death in the name of many religions perpetrated by people from every variety of nation. Look at human history and none can escape a vile and murderous past. Yet you're so superior that you can pass judgement upon a person simply based upon their name? It is truly disgusting.
I have no doubt that obamacare if upheld by the supreme court will have a positive impact. I have seen what happens to people with no or insufficient insurance. I see the way the system waits until someone is completely crippled and removed from productive society before stepping in. Preventing health problems and treating them early is far more cost effective than managing all of the complications that lie down the road. It is not only cheaper but it maintains their ability to contribute to society. To continue to earn money and pay into the system. Health insurance only hurts when you don't need it.

I'm pretty sure the "Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act" (aka "Obamacare") has already been passed since the GOP are hellbent on repealing it. I can't say for sure what impact it will have on the "quality of our current healthcare", but I do know it's improved the quality of healthcare for many of the uninsured/underinsured in the Country. But, by all means let's throw out all these people like the weekly trash. I mean after all it has to be their fault that their job doesn't pay enough to afford coverage.

I'm pretty sure the "Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act" (aka "Obamacare") has already been passed since the GOP are hellbent on repealing it. I can't say for sure what impact it will have on the "quality of our current healthcare", but I do know it's improved the quality of healthcare for many of the uninsured/underinsured in the Country. But, by all means let's throw out all these people like the weekly trash. I mean after all it has to be their fault that their job doesn't pay enough to afford coverage.

I'm pretty sure the "Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act" (aka "Obamacare") has already been passed since the GOP are hellbent on repealing it. I can't say for sure what impact it will have on the "quality of our current healthcare", but I do know it's improved the quality of healthcare for many of the uninsured/underinsured in the Country. But, by all means let's throw out all these people like the weekly trash. I mean after all it has to be their fault that their job doesn't pay enough to afford coverage.

I'm pretty sure the "Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act" (aka "Obamacare") has already been passed since the GOP are hellbent on repealing it. I can't say for sure what impact it will have on the "quality of our current healthcare", but I do know it's improved the quality of healthcare for many of the uninsured/underinsured in the Country. But, by all means let's throw out all these people like the weekly trash. I mean after all it has to be their fault that their job doesn't pay enough to afford coverage.

I'm pretty sure the "Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act" (aka "Obamacare") has already been passed since the GOP are hellbent on repealing it. I can't say for sure what impact it will have on the "quality of our current healthcare", but I do know it's improved the quality of healthcare for many of the uninsured/underinsured in the Country. But, by all means let's throw out all these people like the weekly trash. I mean after all it has to be their fault that their job doesn't pay enough to afford coverage.

You're right of course...what the hell was I thinking....

I'm sorry, but this rational, reasonable, coherant response has no place in a discussion of something as serious as the provision of fire and rescue services.

I'm sorry, but this rational, reasonable, coherant response has no place in a discussion of something as serious as the provision of fire and rescue services.

Union or not, I think you need to consult a labor attorney immediately! The media has absolutely no business being involved in personnel discussions and this situation could very well be an unfair labor practice.

Well, obviously the tarps are the wrong color. Everybody knows that you don't use blue tarps on a white house with black trim.

Well, obviously the tarps are the wrong color. Everybody knows that you don't use blue tarps on a white house with black trim.

Well, obviously the tarps are the wrong color. Everybody knows that you don't use blue tarps on a white house with black trim.

I think you're spending too much time in the sun. You seem to be arguing with yourself on this issue.
I don't recall anybody arguing against the use of any sort of incentive program or outright compensation for non full-time career firefighters. The "debate" is solely about the use of the term "volunteer" to describe a firefighter who is actually being paid for their participation. Now, I'm not talking about those receiving a nominal amount annually that essentially "reimburses" out of pocket expenses related to serving as a volunteer FF, but rather those being paid per call and/or paid for duty shifts.
Federal labor law may treat them as a "volunteer", however they are not really a volunteer in the traditional view of volunteerism. "Volunteer" in the traditional view equates to performing a service/task without monetary compensation.
Regardless, if "titles" and other "labels" really don't matter, then why must the term "volunteer" continue to be used to describe a person being paid to respond to and/or standby for fire calls when clearly terms such as "per diem", "on-call", "part-time", "casual", etc would appear to be much more accurate?
I am paid to respond to and standby for fire calls now, so I guess I must still be a volunteer too, eh?

I must admit I find a certain amount of humor/irony with this post. You're stating that "titles" are essentially "irrelevant" and there's no reason to get worked up over the term "volunteer" when a person being compensated still falls within FLSA definitions. However, when the term "professional" is used to describe a career firefighter - a use completely consistent with the definition of "professional" in any dictionary and most civilians too - the volunteer fire service gets all worked up about it and feels slighted.
So why the apparent double standard?