FireMedic049

The same way you would explain wrecking any piece of equipment on the way to any call.   You simply explain what happened.
 
Accidents can happen at any time.  After the safety of our personnel and others, the main concern should be about whether or not the apparatus was being operated in an appropriate manner at the time of the accident.  The actual nature of the call is somewhat irrelevant.
 
****
 
Now I think the question you were trying to ask is something along the lines of how do you justify responding your most expensive piece of fire equipment to any EMS call after the vehicle was totaled in an accident while responding to one while also trying to imply that EMS calls (in general) are not worthy uses of this apparatus.
 
I'm not familiar with this department's operations and the article doesn't give much detail on what happened, but it does state that the unit was responding to a reported heroin overdose.  Having responded to more than my fair share of OD calls in my career, I can safely say that they can easily be a life threatening situation.
 
Since we're supposed to be about saving lives and property, I have to ask, is this person's life somehow less worthy of assistance from that unit because his life is possibly threatened by heroin rather than being threatened by a fire?
 
 

The same way you would explain wrecking any piece of equipment on the way to any call.   You simply explain what happened.
 
Accidents can happen at any time.  After the safety of our personnel and others, the main concern should be about whether or not the apparatus was being operated in an appropriate manner at the time of the accident.  The actual nature of the call is somewhat irrelevant.
 
****
 
Now I think the question you were trying to ask is something along the lines of how do you justify responding your most expensive piece of fire equipment to any EMS call after the vehicle was totaled in an accident while responding to one while also trying to imply that EMS calls (in general) are not worthy uses of this apparatus.
 
I'm not familiar with this department's operations and the article doesn't give much detail on what happened, but it does state that the unit was responding to a reported heroin overdose.  Having responded to more than my fair share of OD calls in my career, I can safely say that they can easily be a life threatening situation.
 
Since we're supposed to be about saving lives and property, I have to ask, is this person's life somehow less worthy of assistance from that unit because his life is possibly threatened by heroin rather than being threatened by a fire?
 
 

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.
 
 
 
 
 
 

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.
 
 
 
 
 
 

The article you linked doesn't say anything about firefighters in pick ups.  It specifically mentions putting spare ambulances in service using overtime.
 
The CFR-D statement sounds like the reporter may not be understanding something correctly.

Depending on their funding and organizational set up, the argument can be made that they technically aren't really a government entity, but rather a private entity.  As a private entity, they can more of less do whatever they want to within the law.  Within that, if it was a democratic decision within the rules of the organization, then the concept of "majority rules" applies.  Not everyone always agrees with every choice an organization makes.  The phrase itself does not actually endorse any specific religion since the term "God" is pretty much common across most religions.  I agree that there would be an uproar if one of the other phrases you listed were put on the apparatus.
 
We can certainly debate the appropriateness of marking their vehicles in this way, but it's a far cry from ramming it down anyone's throat.  At it's core, it's advertising and there is little functional difference between seeing the message on a fire truck vs a billboard vs a sign in front of a church vs someone's POV.
 
Additionally, the phrase "In God We Trust" is a nation motto and printed on all of our money.  As such, it can also be viewed as a symbol of patriotism similar to displaying the American Flag on apparatus.
 
 
Disclaimer: My religious affiliation is Recovered Catholic and I support an individuals right to practice their religion of choice or none at all, as long as it doesn't violate our laws.  I prefer that others afford me the same consideration.

Depending on their funding and organizational set up, the argument can be made that they technically aren't really a government entity, but rather a private entity.  As a private entity, they can more of less do whatever they want to within the law.  Within that, if it was a democratic decision within the rules of the organization, then the concept of "majority rules" applies.  Not everyone always agrees with every choice an organization makes.  The phrase itself does not actually endorse any specific religion since the term "God" is pretty much common across most religions.  I agree that there would be an uproar if one of the other phrases you listed were put on the apparatus.
 
We can certainly debate the appropriateness of marking their vehicles in this way, but it's a far cry from ramming it down anyone's throat.  At it's core, it's advertising and there is little functional difference between seeing the message on a fire truck vs a billboard vs a sign in front of a church vs someone's POV.
 
Additionally, the phrase "In God We Trust" is a nation motto and printed on all of our money.  As such, it can also be viewed as a symbol of patriotism similar to displaying the American Flag on apparatus.
 
 
Disclaimer: My religious affiliation is Recovered Catholic and I support an individuals right to practice their religion of choice or none at all, as long as it doesn't violate our laws.  I prefer that others afford me the same consideration.

Serious about what?

As I understand it, they still only have 5 full-time, front line rescue companies. Rescue 6 is staffed as needed, like special events and severe weather situations where they anticipate the need for it.

Another avenue that would be interesting to explore would be the impact of more regionalized fire services.
My county (in PA) has a lot of small departments covering small districts which results in multiple departments responding to most calls. I looked up some figures a few years ago for comparison and found that PG County Maryland and Fairfax County Virginia both had an average fire station to sq. mileage ratio of around 1 station per 10 square miles. My County was around 1 station per 3 square miles.
Additionally, at the time a nearby group of 3 communities collectively had 7 fire stations and at least 14 large apparatus and 7 support vehicles. My city is slightly larger than that area, but with the same population density. We have 2 stations (down from 4 a couple decades ago), 4 large apparatus and 2 support vehicles. We run around twice as many first due calls as that group and a lot more working fires. Why do they need so much more to do less?
How much money could be saved if we consolidated into fewer stations with less duplication of apparatus? Could that create the call volume and labor pool large enough that each station could be staffed most, if not all of the time? What would be the impact of that on dispatch to on scene response times and incident outcomes compared to what they are now?

I've been a volunteer and career firefighter too. I often work along side of volunteers. I agree that we should be more united and respectful than we are.
From my experience and perspective, the volunteers oftentimes are more of an obstacle in getting to that place than the career folks. I often hear claims about how we're all doing the same job, have the same training, etc., but the fact is we aren't and we don't. Unfortunately, when you try to discuss this, the only thing too many on the volunteer side seem to take from it is that career guys are great and volunteers suck rather than understanding that career guys can be "better" by virtue of those differences in training and experience, but that doesn't mean that the volunteers are automatically inadequate. It's a lot like comparing pro athletes to college/high school athletes. The pros are typically better, which one would expect, but a lot of the non-pro athletes are pretty darn good, if not just as good in some cases. And in some cases, their best just isn't good enough.
We hear claims about how fires don't care if you're career or volunteer or that the person who's house is on fire doesn't care if you're career or volunteer, but who yells the most about training mandates or being held to any sort of standard? Who thinks it's perfectly ok to give a person a few dozen hours of basic introductory training (or none at all) and then turn that new person loose to respond and actively participate on calls? Who thinks it's appropriate to make a teenager with little actual experience a line officer?
IMO, these are the things that are at the very heart of the animosity between career and volunteer from the career side. Too many in the volunteer ranks want to be viewed as equal to the career guys without putting in the work necessary to truly be equal. Yes, there are places where truly providing services on the same level are not realistic (rural areas for one) and they do the best they can under tough circumstances, but there are others where the departments are just not being honest with themselves or their communities regarding the level of service they can realistically provide as a department or as an individual.
It's also frustrating to see comments about how career guys only care about the paycheck and don't have the pride in the job because we don't work fundraisers to pay the bills or in some cases don't live in the community that we work in. While there are career guys that are like that, the majority aren't and you'll find people like that in any career and you know there are plenty of volunteers that are all about the t-shirts and image rather than the work and service to the community.
Like you said, career and volunteer share a lot in common.
Personally, I try to be respectful of the volunteers in my area, but it's very hard at times to view some of them as peers when they do some of the stuff that they do and that includes burning down buildings that should not have burned to the extent that they did.

That's certainly subject to debate.

As I understand it, they still only have 5 full-time, front line rescue companies. Rescue 6 is staffed as needed, like special events and severe weather situations where they anticipate the need for it.

That's certainly subject to debate.

Another avenue that would be interesting to explore would be the impact of more regionalized fire services.
My county (in PA) has a lot of small departments covering small districts which results in multiple departments responding to most calls. I looked up some figures a few years ago for comparison and found that PG County Maryland and Fairfax County Virginia both had an average fire station to sq. mileage ratio of around 1 station per 10 square miles. My County was around 1 station per 3 square miles.
Additionally, at the time a nearby group of 3 communities collectively had 7 fire stations and at least 14 large apparatus and 7 support vehicles. My city is slightly larger than that area, but with the same population density. We have 2 stations (down from 4 a couple decades ago), 4 large apparatus and 2 support vehicles. We run around twice as many first due calls as that group and a lot more working fires. Why do they need so much more to do less?
How much money could be saved if we consolidated into fewer stations with less duplication of apparatus? Could that create the call volume and labor pool large enough that each station could be staffed most, if not all of the time? What would be the impact of that on dispatch to on scene response times and incident outcomes compared to what they are now?

I've been a volunteer and career firefighter too. I often work along side of volunteers. I agree that we should be more united and respectful than we are.
From my experience and perspective, the volunteers oftentimes are more of an obstacle in getting to that place than the career folks. I often hear claims about how we're all doing the same job, have the same training, etc., but the fact is we aren't and we don't. Unfortunately, when you try to discuss this, the only thing too many on the volunteer side seem to take from it is that career guys are great and volunteers suck rather than understanding that career guys can be "better" by virtue of those differences in training and experience, but that doesn't mean that the volunteers are automatically inadequate. It's a lot like comparing pro athletes to college/high school athletes. The pros are typically better, which one would expect, but a lot of the non-pro athletes are pretty darn good, if not just as good in some cases. And in some cases, their best just isn't good enough.
We hear claims about how fires don't care if you're career or volunteer or that the person who's house is on fire doesn't care if you're career or volunteer, but who yells the most about training mandates or being held to any sort of standard? Who thinks it's perfectly ok to give a person a few dozen hours of basic introductory training (or none at all) and then turn that new person loose to respond and actively participate on calls? Who thinks it's appropriate to make a teenager with little actual experience a line officer?
IMO, these are the things that are at the very heart of the animosity between career and volunteer from the career side. Too many in the volunteer ranks want to be viewed as equal to the career guys without putting in the work necessary to truly be equal. Yes, there are places where truly providing services on the same level are not realistic (rural areas for one) and they do the best they can under tough circumstances, but there are others where the departments are just not being honest with themselves or their communities regarding the level of service they can realistically provide as a department or as an individual.
It's also frustrating to see comments about how career guys only care about the paycheck and don't have the pride in the job because we don't work fundraisers to pay the bills or in some cases don't live in the community that we work in. While there are career guys that are like that, the majority aren't and you'll find people like that in any career and you know there are plenty of volunteers that are all about the t-shirts and image rather than the work and service to the community.
Like you said, career and volunteer share a lot in common.
Personally, I try to be respectful of the volunteers in my area, but it's very hard at times to view some of them as peers when they do some of the stuff that they do and that includes burning down buildings that should not have burned to the extent that they did.

I've been a volunteer and career firefighter too. I often work along side of volunteers. I agree that we should be more united and respectful than we are.
From my experience and perspective, the volunteers oftentimes are more of an obstacle in getting to that place than the career folks. I often hear claims about how we're all doing the same job, have the same training, etc., but the fact is we aren't and we don't. Unfortunately, when you try to discuss this, the only thing too many on the volunteer side seem to take from it is that career guys are great and volunteers suck rather than understanding that career guys can be "better" by virtue of those differences in training and experience, but that doesn't mean that the volunteers are automatically inadequate. It's a lot like comparing pro athletes to college/high school athletes. The pros are typically better, which one would expect, but a lot of the non-pro athletes are pretty darn good, if not just as good in some cases. And in some cases, their best just isn't good enough.
We hear claims about how fires don't care if you're career or volunteer or that the person who's house is on fire doesn't care if you're career or volunteer, but who yells the most about training mandates or being held to any sort of standard? Who thinks it's perfectly ok to give a person a few dozen hours of basic introductory training (or none at all) and then turn that new person loose to respond and actively participate on calls? Who thinks it's appropriate to make a teenager with little actual experience a line officer?
IMO, these are the things that are at the very heart of the animosity between career and volunteer from the career side. Too many in the volunteer ranks want to be viewed as equal to the career guys without putting in the work necessary to truly be equal. Yes, there are places where truly providing services on the same level are not realistic (rural areas for one) and they do the best they can under tough circumstances, but there are others where the departments are just not being honest with themselves or their communities regarding the level of service they can realistically provide as a department or as an individual.
It's also frustrating to see comments about how career guys only care about the paycheck and don't have the pride in the job because we don't work fundraisers to pay the bills or in some cases don't live in the community that we work in. While there are career guys that are like that, the majority aren't and you'll find people like that in any career and you know there are plenty of volunteers that are all about the t-shirts and image rather than the work and service to the community.
Like you said, career and volunteer share a lot in common.
Personally, I try to be respectful of the volunteers in my area, but it's very hard at times to view some of them as peers when they do some of the stuff that they do and that includes burning down buildings that should not have burned to the extent that they did.

That's certainly subject to debate.

I've been a volunteer and career firefighter too. I often work along side of volunteers. I agree that we should be more united and respectful than we are.
From my experience and perspective, the volunteers oftentimes are more of an obstacle in getting to that place than the career folks. I often hear claims about how we're all doing the same job, have the same training, etc., but the fact is we aren't and we don't. Unfortunately, when you try to discuss this, the only thing too many on the volunteer side seem to take from it is that career guys are great and volunteers suck rather than understanding that career guys can be "better" by virtue of those differences in training and experience, but that doesn't mean that the volunteers are automatically inadequate. It's a lot like comparing pro athletes to college/high school athletes. The pros are typically better, which one would expect, but a lot of the non-pro athletes are pretty darn good, if not just as good in some cases. And in some cases, their best just isn't good enough.
We hear claims about how fires don't care if you're career or volunteer or that the person who's house is on fire doesn't care if you're career or volunteer, but who yells the most about training mandates or being held to any sort of standard? Who thinks it's perfectly ok to give a person a few dozen hours of basic introductory training (or none at all) and then turn that new person loose to respond and actively participate on calls? Who thinks it's appropriate to make a teenager with little actual experience a line officer?
IMO, these are the things that are at the very heart of the animosity between career and volunteer from the career side. Too many in the volunteer ranks want to be viewed as equal to the career guys without putting in the work necessary to truly be equal. Yes, there are places where truly providing services on the same level are not realistic (rural areas for one) and they do the best they can under tough circumstances, but there are others where the departments are just not being honest with themselves or their communities regarding the level of service they can realistically provide as a department or as an individual.
It's also frustrating to see comments about how career guys only care about the paycheck and don't have the pride in the job because we don't work fundraisers to pay the bills or in some cases don't live in the community that we work in. While there are career guys that are like that, the majority aren't and you'll find people like that in any career and you know there are plenty of volunteers that are all about the t-shirts and image rather than the work and service to the community.
Like you said, career and volunteer share a lot in common.
Personally, I try to be respectful of the volunteers in my area, but it's very hard at times to view some of them as peers when they do some of the stuff that they do and that includes burning down buildings that should not have burned to the extent that they did.

In terms of total cost, sure, it would probably cheaper overall to issue a single set of gear and have a gear washer available. However, the primary problem with this is the fact that when that single set of gear is being washed and then dries, the person that gear belongs to is essentially out of service during that time period unless they have immediate access to properly fitting spare gear. This isn't necessarily a problem when you have clearly defined off-duty periods in which you will not be needed to respond to calls and can clean the gear then. However, when you are essentially on-duty ("on call") 24/7, this can lead to people delaying proper cleanings when needed in order to available for that next call.
The idea behind the second set is to resolve that issue. You use one set while the other set is being cleaned and in most cases, that set will be available by the time the other set needs cleaned.
Clean gear is safer from a health standpoint and it can help the gear last longer.

I've been a volunteer and career firefighter too. I often work along side of volunteers. I agree that we should be more united and respectful than we are.
From my experience and perspective, the volunteers oftentimes are more of an obstacle in getting to that place than the career folks. I often hear claims about how we're all doing the same job, have the same training, etc., but the fact is we aren't and we don't. Unfortunately, when you try to discuss this, the only thing too many on the volunteer side seem to take from it is that career guys are great and volunteers suck rather than understanding that career guys can be "better" by virtue of those differences in training and experience, but that doesn't mean that the volunteers are automatically inadequate. It's a lot like comparing pro athletes to college/high school athletes. The pros are typically better, which one would expect, but a lot of the non-pro athletes are pretty darn good, if not just as good in some cases. And in some cases, their best just isn't good enough.
We hear claims about how fires don't care if you're career or volunteer or that the person who's house is on fire doesn't care if you're career or volunteer, but who yells the most about training mandates or being held to any sort of standard? Who thinks it's perfectly ok to give a person a few dozen hours of basic introductory training (or none at all) and then turn that new person loose to respond and actively participate on calls? Who thinks it's appropriate to make a teenager with little actual experience a line officer?
IMO, these are the things that are at the very heart of the animosity between career and volunteer from the career side. Too many in the volunteer ranks want to be viewed as equal to the career guys without putting in the work necessary to truly be equal. Yes, there are places where truly providing services on the same level are not realistic (rural areas for one) and they do the best they can under tough circumstances, but there are others where the departments are just not being honest with themselves or their communities regarding the level of service they can realistically provide as a department or as an individual.
It's also frustrating to see comments about how career guys only care about the paycheck and don't have the pride in the job because we don't work fundraisers to pay the bills or in some cases don't live in the community that we work in. While there are career guys that are like that, the majority aren't and you'll find people like that in any career and you know there are plenty of volunteers that are all about the t-shirts and image rather than the work and service to the community.
Like you said, career and volunteer share a lot in common.
Personally, I try to be respectful of the volunteers in my area, but it's very hard at times to view some of them as peers when they do some of the stuff that they do and that includes burning down buildings that should not have burned to the extent that they did.

I've been a volunteer and career firefighter too. I often work along side of volunteers. I agree that we should be more united and respectful than we are.
From my experience and perspective, the volunteers oftentimes are more of an obstacle in getting to that place than the career folks. I often hear claims about how we're all doing the same job, have the same training, etc., but the fact is we aren't and we don't. Unfortunately, when you try to discuss this, the only thing too many on the volunteer side seem to take from it is that career guys are great and volunteers suck rather than understanding that career guys can be "better" by virtue of those differences in training and experience, but that doesn't mean that the volunteers are automatically inadequate. It's a lot like comparing pro athletes to college/high school athletes. The pros are typically better, which one would expect, but a lot of the non-pro athletes are pretty darn good, if not just as good in some cases. And in some cases, their best just isn't good enough.
We hear claims about how fires don't care if you're career or volunteer or that the person who's house is on fire doesn't care if you're career or volunteer, but who yells the most about training mandates or being held to any sort of standard? Who thinks it's perfectly ok to give a person a few dozen hours of basic introductory training (or none at all) and then turn that new person loose to respond and actively participate on calls? Who thinks it's appropriate to make a teenager with little actual experience a line officer?
IMO, these are the things that are at the very heart of the animosity between career and volunteer from the career side. Too many in the volunteer ranks want to be viewed as equal to the career guys without putting in the work necessary to truly be equal. Yes, there are places where truly providing services on the same level are not realistic (rural areas for one) and they do the best they can under tough circumstances, but there are others where the departments are just not being honest with themselves or their communities regarding the level of service they can realistically provide as a department or as an individual.
It's also frustrating to see comments about how career guys only care about the paycheck and don't have the pride in the job because we don't work fundraisers to pay the bills or in some cases don't live in the community that we work in. While there are career guys that are like that, the majority aren't and you'll find people like that in any career and you know there are plenty of volunteers that are all about the t-shirts and image rather than the work and service to the community.
Like you said, career and volunteer share a lot in common.
Personally, I try to be respectful of the volunteers in my area, but it's very hard at times to view some of them as peers when they do some of the stuff that they do and that includes burning down buildings that should not have burned to the extent that they did.