FireMedic049

I also disagree.  I've seen a number of examples in which a career firefighter was caught doing/saying something inappropriate and plenty have called for their termination, even if the infraction didn't really warrant termination.  Several have resigned as a result of these situations and the reaction to them.

I also disagree.  I've seen a number of examples in which a career firefighter was caught doing/saying something inappropriate and plenty have called for their termination, even if the infraction didn't really warrant termination.  Several have resigned as a result of these situations and the reaction to them.

My comments were specific to my area and in response to a question asked.  
 
With very few exceptions, fire investigation is handled at the County level, not department or municipality level.  The Fire Marshall's responsibility is the investigation.  They aren't used for suppression in this county and departments know that they need to hold the scene until the Fire Marshall arrives.
 
Therefore, from our perspective, they really don't need to respond emergency to incidents.  If they feel the need to do otherwise, that's their call.
 
But let's be clear, there's a distinct difference between a dedicated fire investigator (what I was talking about) and a person who responds to mitigate incidents, but is also responsible for the investigation of that incident (what you described).  As such, the criteria to determine the rate of response for each is not the same.

Well, they aren't needed for suppression purposes and we always maintain control of the scene until they arrive, so that pretty much eliminates the need for the emergent response.  So other than probably arriving sooner to start the investigation, there's not much to be gained from the emergent response.

Actually, the political logic is pretty easy to understand.  
 
The community has a "small" number of incidents and few "serious" calls, so they see the money spent on career personnel as unnecessary since they supposedly have so many volunteers in the department. 
 
Therefore, eliminating the paid firefighters doesn't really hurt anything and spending that money elsewhere helps whatever agenda they have.
 
Since most politicians have little clue about public safety, they tend to be oblivious to the reality of the impact of something like this, like no longer keeping some incidents small since the immediate response is no longer there.  
 
Penny wise, pound foolish.

It absolutely can be viewed as "competition", but the thing is (based on comments in this thread) the VACs created this situation.  If they had consistently and reliably gotten their BLS units on the street in a timely manner, then the hospital probably wouldn't have looked at making this change.  A SUV is a lot cheaper to operate as a fly car than an ambulance.

It absolutely can be viewed as "competition", but the thing is (based on comments in this thread) the VACs created this situation.  If they had consistently and reliably gotten their BLS units on the street in a timely manner, then the hospital probably wouldn't have looked at making this change.  A SUV is a lot cheaper to operate as a fly car than an ambulance.

 
Absent from most of this banter has been the giant elephant that is the Port Chester volunteers.
 
Now I am not suggesting that the rank and file were part of the negotiations prior to the dismissal of the entire career force, but this thread looks to be painted with financial blame with little said about the animus toward the Union.
 
So where is the widespread support from the PCFD volunteers? Yes, there are a handful out there support the laid off members, but with claims of upwards of 300 volunteers to support the village...one would think that more than a handful would show visible support?
 
Why have more volunteers not taken a stand with their "brother" career firefighters?
 
Have we not heard time and time again "that we are all brothers?", "the fire doesn't care if you are paid or volunteer", "I am a professional too" and other countless canned lines of absolute BS for years on this board and others out there.
 
Where is the cry of the volunteers? Where is the Chief pounding the desk?
 
In places like Lawrence (MA) and Providence (RI) were departments were dissimated due to the agenda of a Mayor, Fire Chiefs have resigned in protest (no worries, some boob is always found to sit-in), but the leader took a stand in protest.
 
I'll throw the gauntlet to the PCFD Chief and other "leaders" at his side....you sure have been quiet about this issue. Your silence is deafening. When will you stand?
 
There must be a bunch of hearing impaired individuals that live in "la-la-land" on this board if they still want to pretend that this was solely a financial crisis. This appears to be nothing more than good old fashioned retribution against a small labor union.
 
You want to know why?....Wait for the court documents and depositions...nothing like a nice controlled and sterile legal environment to find truth and oppress political smoke.
 
Who will stand? The Chief? His subordinates? The Volunteers?
 
BMA 
 
 
 
 
 

That's a false comparison.  Many police departments don't have auxiliary officers, unlike many many fire departments that do have volunteers or only volunteers in many cases.  Although they may be volunteer, auxiliary police officers are not typically used for front-line policing.  They tend to be used in more of a "security" role for events rather than responding to 911 calls.

That's a false comparison.  Many police departments don't have auxiliary officers, unlike many many fire departments that do have volunteers or only volunteers in many cases.  Although they may be volunteer, auxiliary police officers are not typically used for front-line policing.  They tend to be used in more of a "security" role for events rather than responding to 911 calls.

That's a false comparison.  Many police departments don't have auxiliary officers, unlike many many fire departments that do have volunteers or only volunteers in many cases.  Although they may be volunteer, auxiliary police officers are not typically used for front-line policing.  They tend to be used in more of a "security" role for events rather than responding to 911 calls.

That's a false comparison.  Many police departments don't have auxiliary officers, unlike many many fire departments that do have volunteers or only volunteers in many cases.  Although they may be volunteer, auxiliary police officers are not typically used for front-line policing.  They tend to be used in more of a "security" role for events rather than responding to 911 calls.

I wouldn't exactly call this situation a "public health emergency" in the terms that you seem to be insinuating.  No doubt this caused some pain, but in the grand scheme of things, 81 tours is a small portion of the daily staffing in NYC.
 
The civil service system is there for a reason and you simply don't just ignore it because you need to hire a bunch of people all of a sudden.  In a city the size of NYC, I would imagine that they pretty much always have an active civil service eligibility list and routinely run new recruit academies.  So, I would expect that they would be well positioned to immediately hire and train the personnel they need in a timely manner while utilizing overtime coverage in the short-term.
 
 
Not sure why you seem to be insinuating that there was no plan in place to deal with this situation.  I've read from more than one source that FDNY did have a contingency plan in case this situation happened.  As I understand it, the short-term plan included immediately putting additional FDNY units on the streets with existing personnel working overtime and that's exactly what they did.  So, yes, it was necessary for existing crews to work extra hours, but what constitutes actually being "overworked" is a subjective thing.  Working an extra tour or two per week isn't the same thing as having to work a double every day. 
 
They also made an emergency acquisition of several "in-stock" ambulances to help ensure they had enough units available for use while awaiting delivery of the numerous units already under construction and any add-ons necessary due to this.
 
Yes, the uncertainty of Transcare's viability was known, but you can't start hiring additional people in that quantity because something might happen.  Additionally, I would imagine that the hospitals have some sort of contract with FDNY to provide units for the 911 system that prevents FDNY from removing their units from the system based on rumor.  Why would the hospitals commits the financial resources to running their own EMS units if FDNY could just decide one day to immediately eliminate them?
 
So, I'm fairly sure that FDNY didn't have the legal ability to conduct a mass hiring, put additional units on the road and eliminate Transcare's units.

I didn't get the vibe that the city was unprepared from the article.  It struck me more as they are having difficulty managing the situation without "enough" resources mixed with a touch of the fear mongering that seems to be standard for the media these days.
 
It also had a healthy dose of the typical misguided belief that declining working fires and increasing EMS calls means that fire resources should be redirected towards EMS responses.  Sure, on the surface it seems reasonable that the area that makes up 70-80% of your department's responses should get the lion's share of funding, but it ignores some very important factors and usually one undeniable truth:
 
1) While fires are "down", incident responses aren't.  FDNY (as do all FDs) responds to much more than just working fires.
2) Fires do still occur (quite frequently in NYC) and when they do, they still require the same number of personnel arriving quickly.  In fact, recent scientific studies suggest that today's fire may require more personnel arriving even more quickly.
3) There are fundamental differences in necesssary staffing and apparatus/equipment costs between fire and EMS that impact how the funding pie is divided.  A single EMS unit in FDNY is significantly cheaper to acquire, equip and staff 24/7/365 than a single fire unit.
4) The problem may not be that too many resources are directed towards fire response.  Maybe the problem is just that too few resources are directed towards EMS response?
 
 

I didn't get the vibe that the city was unprepared from the article.  It struck me more as they are having difficulty managing the situation without "enough" resources mixed with a touch of the fear mongering that seems to be standard for the media these days.
 
It also had a healthy dose of the typical misguided belief that declining working fires and increasing EMS calls means that fire resources should be redirected towards EMS responses.  Sure, on the surface it seems reasonable that the area that makes up 70-80% of your department's responses should get the lion's share of funding, but it ignores some very important factors and usually one undeniable truth:
 
1) While fires are "down", incident responses aren't.  FDNY (as do all FDs) responds to much more than just working fires.
2) Fires do still occur (quite frequently in NYC) and when they do, they still require the same number of personnel arriving quickly.  In fact, recent scientific studies suggest that today's fire may require more personnel arriving even more quickly.
3) There are fundamental differences in necesssary staffing and apparatus/equipment costs between fire and EMS that impact how the funding pie is divided.  A single EMS unit in FDNY is significantly cheaper to acquire, equip and staff 24/7/365 than a single fire unit.
4) The problem may not be that too many resources are directed towards fire response.  Maybe the problem is just that too few resources are directed towards EMS response?
 
 

Pittsburgh did not respond into their district prior to this and Ingram didn't respond into Pittsburgh. 
 
With the exception of border calls where there is confusion, misidentification of the location for the call, etc., Pittsburgh Fire generally doesn't respond into other communities (that they don't cover) and they don't respond into the city. 

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.
 
 
 
 
 
 

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.
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Well, the reality is that underfunding is at the heart of some problems.  So, there's not much you can do to fix those problems if you don't put up the money.
 
In this case, the "problem" appears to be that the all volunteer ambulance services are having a hard time maintaining adequate membership to reliably respond to their calls.  This isn't a new or unique situation.  Many other places have faced this exact problem and have pretty much solved it.
 
Their solution wasn't to lobby for lower training standards.  Instead they started hiring people to staff the units on a consistent basis allowing them to maintain or improve the level of service they provide.
 
I can certainly understand the reluctance to increased taxes if one is already paying $20K in property taxes.  However, it's kind of ridiculous to already be paying that much, yet not have adequate public safety services.
 
 

 
Well, the reality is that underfunding is at the heart of some problems.  So, there's not much you can do to fix those problems if you don't put up the money.
 
In this case, the "problem" appears to be that the all volunteer ambulance services are having a hard time maintaining adequate membership to reliably respond to their calls.  This isn't a new or unique situation.  Many other places have faced this exact problem and have pretty much solved it.
 
Their solution wasn't to lobby for lower training standards.  Instead they started hiring people to staff the units on a consistent basis allowing them to maintain or improve the level of service they provide.
 
I can certainly understand the reluctance to increased taxes if one is already paying $20K in property taxes.  However, it's kind of ridiculous to already be paying that much, yet not have adequate public safety services.
 
 

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.
 
 
 
 
 
 

An actual fly car is a non-transport capable vehicle, typically an SUV or pick up based vehicle and may be staffed with only one Paramedic.
 
The ambulance obviously would be transport capable and be staffed by at least an EMT and Paramedic.
 
There may be some minor differences in the quantities of some equipment carried.
 
Other than that, there's not much of a functional difference when intercepting a BLS ambulance.  However, if the BLS unit fails to respond, you would be able to transport the patient if using an ambulance.

An actual fly car is a non-transport capable vehicle, typically an SUV or pick up based vehicle and may be staffed with only one Paramedic.
 
The ambulance obviously would be transport capable and be staffed by at least an EMT and Paramedic.
 
There may be some minor differences in the quantities of some equipment carried.
 
Other than that, there's not much of a functional difference when intercepting a BLS ambulance.  However, if the BLS unit fails to respond, you would be able to transport the patient if using an ambulance.

An actual fly car is a non-transport capable vehicle, typically an SUV or pick up based vehicle and may be staffed with only one Paramedic.
 
The ambulance obviously would be transport capable and be staffed by at least an EMT and Paramedic.
 
There may be some minor differences in the quantities of some equipment carried.
 
Other than that, there's not much of a functional difference when intercepting a BLS ambulance.  However, if the BLS unit fails to respond, you would be able to transport the patient if using an ambulance.