Dinosaur

I agree with the sentiment, but one could also ask:

So the question might be: If EMS leaves the scene, is it a realistic expectation that everyone has been evaluated or refused?

"Everyone"? So if the call is for a sick person at Wal-Mart do you have to solicit a refusal from everyone in the store?

Maybe it's just me but why are firehouses becoming so costly? The majority of the square footage is apparatus bays so when you consider the cost per square foot of the "living space" it is really exorbitant.

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/2015/03/goldfeder-first-due.html

A good example of the staffing problem.

Is that the old Croton aqueduct or is this still in service? I don't recall which is which anymore.

Or since the State of CT has no law or regulation stating that interior FFs must be certified, departments may have to just forgo the state certification program and handle training on their own as their budgets allow. Communities lose, instructors lose and worst of all new firefighters lose...thanks Dannell you a$$hole.

Don't they have to follow OSHA and/or NFPA? How can there be no standard for FF?

i feel like a lot of this thread is people grandstanding for their own opinions and feelings rather than looking at the facts / looking at what folks on hand had to deal with.

Well, on the bright side... at least there's an "active" thread again on this site :-) woohoo.

Most of the people on this site don't want facts. They want to argue emotionally because that's the way we've been doing it for the past 90 years.

The reality is that the facts bear out that there is no "system" for fire or EMS in Westchester and we could do much better.

It might say that. I haven't read that AC in about 6 years haha (For those who are not familiar with FAA Advisory Circulars, they're just as dry and boring to read as NFPA's). I would figure that the PAPD ARFF rigs would have enough AFFF to mitigate the fuel spill long before FDNY arrives. Striker 1500's carry 210 gal of AFFF, and the 3000's carry 420 gal.

Might it be that they try to retain that for firefighting and let the FDNY use theirs for spills?

I don't think anyone said that the METU could not also be used for evacuating nursing homes, the key to this thread is the lack of response to MCI's. I suppose if you had a multiple alarm fire at a nursing home at the same time as a train vs car collision with fire, then a decision would have to be made about which to do, but then again if you have two fires in teh same district that choice has to be made for every rig.

The Westchester METU's sole purpose is nursing home evacuations. That's one of the criticisms.

Chief Benz, did the Yonkers METU come to your nursing home fire?

I understand FDNY's major role in the Port Authority's Emergency Response Plans, as it's extremely similar to HPN's. I love knowing that I'm going to have a water source and manpower coming in when my tank is just about empty and rescue efforts need to begin. It's just the foam part that's boggling me. Why does FDNY come in with the "wrong" type of foam (and I mean wrong as in something other than prescribed in the federal aviation regulations)?

Could it be that once the plane was evacuated and the response changed from "ARFF" to "Haz-Mat" they used the preferred foam for the City? I'm just spit-balling here.

And doesn't AC 150/5210-6D say you can use the FDNY type of foam as well?

So the state would stop subsidizing the training and the entire cost would have to be borne by the recipient (local agency)?

Kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario, isn't it? I mean either the state continues to subsidize and everyone pays or they don't and the individual towns have to bear the expense. Either way, the taxpayers are paying.

I have a couple of questions for the ems folks on here, does Empress control or did they have something to do with getting the grant for the Yonkers METU? Who staffs the yonkers metu for a deployment? And do you need to have some kind of ems accreditation to respond to incidents?

I asked some of the same question and was told that Yonkers PD ESU responds with the METU and they're EMT's. Empress would already be at a job in the city so they would have additional EMS personnel on scene that could also be used.

Great question, Chief! Sadly I don't think it will get much of a response.

When you consider how poorly our elected officials communicate their performance to the taxpayer, I doubt very highly this would get any traction in the community regardless of how real the problem may be.

This topic is one that we've been arguing about for years in the EMS world. Agency policies come as a result of our litigious society and lack of common sense on the part of providers.

Regardless of your agency policy, when you arrive on scene of a call, it's your job to document what you found. If you arrive on the scene of a car that has literally just driven off the road due to snow and ice (a common theme this winter), then it's perfectly acceptable to document that there is no patient. However, writing "canceled, no injuries" does not suffice. Instead, you should document what you found and why you felt it acceptable to state that there were no injuries. This should include the names of the occupants and that you offered them a medical assessment.

If another agency cancels you, be sure to document the agency and, if at all possible, the name/shield number and rank of the person canceling you. Remember that the State (in New York, at least) puts the duty to act on the highest medical provider responding. If you pull up to a scene with significant damage and the PD is taking the driver into custody and they are denying him a medical assessment, you should explain to them that the patient should be assessed and sign off in the best interest of all involved. If they continue to refuse you access to a potential patient, obtain the name and shield number of the officer taking the patient into custody and, if possible, their signature refusing care of the patient. Sometimes, asking them for a signature will actually change their minds and at least let you do an assessment.

If a person has a complaint, no matter how vague, they become a patient. "I'm a little shaken up but I'm fine" is a complaint and warrants documentation of an RMA. If the patient has no complaint but there is damage or reports of mechanism indicative of potential trauma, that also warrants documentation of an RMA. If you have any question about either of these two, it warrants documentation of an RMA.

If your agency policy states that you do something, then you do it. However, if you don't have an agency policy, use some common sense and document, document, document, even if your survey of the scene and occupants leads you to the impression that there are no patients.

If "I'm a little shaken up" is a complaint, then we should also be at every movie theater showing a horror flick and Great Flags at the end of their crazy roller coasters. People claim to be "shaken up" by lots of things but that doesn't make them a "patient".

There is (or was) an EMS policy on calls involving no patient, cancellation, etc. Maybe people should refer to that.

Number of Posts on this thread discussing the merits or uses of the WCDES METU,

discussing the cost and feasibility, critiquing the SOP's or lack there of: 38

Number of approximate times the phrase or variation of phrase "evacuate Nursing Homes"

was used in this thread to establish a purpose or definition for the WCDES METU: 11

Number of alarms at Mt Vernon Nursing Home Fire on March 2nd: 2

Number of people "evacuated" or "relocated" from the "Nursing Home Fire": 19

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/westchester/2015/03/03/nineteen-patients-relocated-mount-vernon-nursing-home-fire/24300525/

http://westchester.news12.com/news/flames-tear-through-mount-vernon-nursing-home-1.10001495

The number of comments, critiques, discussion, rants, suggestions, follow up,etc on this thread or forum or whole website,

regarding the deployment or lack of deployment of the WCDES METU to "evacuate a nursing home" during a fire on March 2nd, 2015:

PRICELESS

Did Mt Vernon call and ask for it? Did the county refuse to send it?

And just to be fair, the second alarm in the vern sends less than half a first alarm response from some other places so the comment about alarms really isn't a good one.

Number of times someone tries to make a point but completely misses the mark because nobody knew what he was talking about. Hmm...

Everyone in this topic has said they would do it their way which is absolutely fine. None of you were the IC, and we've heard from members on scene even one in charge of operations, the IC did it how he thought he should run it. That's that. You guys didn't get the answers your looking for and have now jumped on the consolidation argument hoping that will work. I believe it was posted earlier in the topic, this is for discussion about the fire incident itself not consolidation. Feel free to make another topic about that so that can fade away like all the other consolidation topics. Like I said the pettiness and the unhappy with the answers you're getting is the reason this website has died.

I wasn't looking for answers when I posted about consolidation. It's just every time dozens of departments are needed for a single family dwelling on fire it highlights the need for it.

I'm not criticizing those involved in this fire nor am I being petty and unhappy. Sooner or later enough people will learn the truth about consolidation possibilities to make it happen. Won't be in my lifetime but still...

NOTE TO MODERATORS: Since the consolidation discussion has offended some, can you split it to another thread?

The problem I see is too many people use the FAST as their reserve company and don't have more people waiting in staging to go to work.

People gotta stop calling just enough to barely get it done and call enough to get it done safely and efficiently.

Actually I can see where consolidation might hurt an incident like this. This is because the principla reason for consolidation is saving money, which is generally a good thing.

Imagine a county with 25 Fire districts. Of those, 15 have Tankers. Now you consolidate and as part of teh reduction in apparatus, you go down to 10 Tankers. Now this fire that required 8 for a given flow, is using 80% of your Tanker fleet. Not only can't you fight another fire at the same time, you are severly limited in how much you can increase without going right back to using mutual aid.

That's the problem, you assume there would be a reduction in tankers. Frankly there would probably be an increase in tankers and a reduction in engines since the county already has more of them than all of NYC.

Properly analyzed and using real information not emotion or reliance on tradition, a regional, consolidated department would probably be far better equipped than we are today.

Consolidation is all about getting the unions all exited about putting in more paid staff.

You know the consolidation of volunteer departments without the addition of any paid personnel could be a significant improvement over the completely arcane system we have now. Everyone immediately assumes that consolidation implies paid but it doesn't! How about merging 4-5 districts that serve the same town? Or the countless villages that rely heavily on each other and are smaller than a postage stamp.

Imagine a River Towns or Sound Shore or North County Fire District with several former departments under one hierarchy. Economies of scale in purchasing, reduction of apparatus numbers (and the ability to have "spares", something virtually non-existent outside the big cities), higher personnel counts, standard training, administration and operations, to name a few.

A member department with strengths in one area can help one weak in that area and so on. Officers can be vetted from a larger pool of candidates improving the quality, competition, and ultimately performance. Chiefs will oversee a bigger department giving them more experience. Budgets can be consolidated perhaps reducing the overall cost to the taxpayer.

There's a lot to be said for consolidating and it doesn't mean adding ONE paid guy.

Yeah, I'm not sure what all the distress is about. They called a lot of resources at a time when that seemed like the right choice and it worked out. Tough weather, tough geography and a tough time of day. I'm not sure why we latched on to the, "how many tankers" thing....

....call'em, you can always send'em back.

I will make one comment....I saw a couple of photos of guys walking around on a peaked roof, covered in a foot of snow....and I'm moved to ask: Why? Was there an urgent need for verticle ventilation?

I will grant you the weather. Weather is unpredictable and often unforgiving. However geography isn't changing so I have to ask what about geography made this a tough fire? Aren't most of the homes in that part of the county on one lane sometimes dirt roads with narrow driveways? That's nothing new and should be an insignificant issue.

Time of day? That the time of day is an issue for the effective response of any fire department is a travesty. More reason to regionalize and consolidate departments and maximize the limited resources we have. If it took 13 departments because it was a weekday and it would have taken only 6 on a weekend day, we have a major problem with the "system"!

Thieving bastids! Gotta love politicians!

Just asking because I don't understand the situation. Shouldn't the city and the PD be paying for this?

Just asking, not looking for trouble........If Yonkers is fully committed to an alarm and needs station coverage, I understand that New Rochelle may have 'extra' units to spare, but why wouldn't they call FDNY rather than

Greenville and Eastchester which have less 'extra' units.

Barry?

I don't believe that any fire departments have "extra" units. They may have "more" units but the politicians make sure nobody has extra anything!

I tried looking through all the METU related forums and what not, but I can't find what I'm looking for....

How much did the WCDES METU cost? Or what would a similar unit cost? I'm just curious as to how much a rig like this goes for.

I believe that I heard it was in the neighborhood of 400K but don't hold me to that. It is NOT first-hand info.

If I may add in another scenario:

Someone has an MVA and DOES NOT ask for EMS and is NOT unconsciuous. Someone does call 911 and report it and and ambulance arrives. An involved person says, to the effect, "I have an abrasion on my arm from the airbag, but I am OK", or "My knee hurts from hitting the dash board but I think I am OK." I would say this common type of event makes these folks patients.

On the other hand, same collision scenario- no one asked for EMS but an ambulance gets sent due to caller info and the then all involved deny any complaint. I don't think those folks are patients. If you are not sick or hurt I don't feel you area patient. I bet the DOH has some info on this commonly discussed issue, but I am far too lazy to research it and post a link. And it may vary state by state. And State policy may allow for agency protocol.

I would tend to agree with you but I was told before I retired that our commercial EMS agency would write up everyone as a patient and have them RMA. I later found out that they billed for this. THAT changed my opinion on the subject

Although I don't know the internal details, I can think of two Police consolidations that have happened in our region. The most prominent would be when NYPD, NYC Housing Police and NYC Transit Police all merged. However one that included more departments would be the MTA PD merger that consolidated Metro-North PD, LIRR PD, and several smaller departments like Staten Island Rapid Transit PD.

The NYC mergers were hardly that. They all fell under the City of New York unlike trying to consolidate the Yonkers, Mount Vernon and New Rochelle Police or Fire Departments.

The MTA merger may be a better example. Has anyone got an example of FIRE departments merging?