Dinosaur

There was a case I read about where a freelance reporter used a drone to shoot video of an collision scene. As he did with ground based video, he was planning on shopping the footage around to various new outlets to see who would buy it from him. However the police investigating the collision took exception to the drone and set about finding the operator, who was not that far away and not hiding. I forget if he was arrested or just given some type of ticket, but he appealed and won, as he was not interfering and it was nominally a freedom of the press issue, even though he was not an employee of any of the news outlets he regularly sold footage to.

And he could be subject to administrative charges from the FAA to the tune of 10,000 dollars for commercial use of a UAS without a certificate of authorization.

This is a very new field and yes, there are many valuable applications of the technology but there also needs to be some regulation or we'll wind up with people getting hurt when they collide with stuff or fall out of the air.

I'm really surprised nobody thinks its an issue to be flying these things over a fire scene or other emergency. It's not about the cameras. It's about safety.

As long as its kept at a certain height where it doesnt effect fire department operations and if your filming for the fire department or any kind of MOS then i dont see why a person cannot fly a drone especially if that video that was made possible from flying the drone is given to the fire company as training tool.. (my 2cents)

What height? Who determines if it is affecting FD operations (think about the drones interfering with air tanker operations out west a few months back)?

What if you're not filming for the agency and have no intentions of sharing it for training or any other purpose?

If it's illegal or operated outside of established regulations is that OK?

Here's a great question: Can the media buy a 100' ladder truck park it at the yellow tape and extend the ladder 78' over your scene to put a camera up? Would you be OK with that?

(just my 3 cents)

I was reading this story from another source and consulted someone who I consider a subject matter expert. He says that for commercial purposes a special FAA waiver is required and there are rules that must be followed when operating. For recreational purposes, there are other rules applicable to a "model aircraft" or "UAS" that have to be followed.

A government agency (including a fire department) has to apply for a special authorization to use them and very few are authorized by the FAA.

Some of the rules include: not operating within 5 miles of an airport (which I believe applies to Coldenham).

not operating over people or populated areas

operating at less than 400 feet (he states on his FB page that he was at 78 feet).

The person that I spoke to says that operating over private property at that height may be an issue but it's "uncharted territory" legal-wise.

I'm paraphrasing here but it does spark some interesting questions for continuing debate.

If it were really a chief's test they'd have their head there instead of their hand. LOL

According to the article, OVAC has CO monitors and they were in alarm mode so they knew the hazard existed.

Once they opened the doors to the building, it was hopefully venting and reducing the CO present but the practice of knowingly entering IDLH environments is of great concern.

I'm glad this story has a happy ending but it could just as easily ended differently.

I have a question about crews going to this fire. Perhaps some of you still active and in that area can help me out.

Are crews going for just the day or is the mobilization and mutual aid like the SEFU units - a 3 day assignment?

Do enough crews have wildfire PPE or are they getting that at the fire?

How many FF constitute a crew for this assignment?

Thanks for the info!

This is definitely one of the largest fires in our area and things happening for the first time are worth noting.

Fire is almost 5 miles long, burning almost 2500 acres or about 5 square miles, and is only about 75% contained. The NYS Incident Management Team (IMT) is managing the fire with NYS DEC and for the first time in NYS history, fixed-wing air tankers from Canada are being used to drop water with the NYS Police helicopters that have been operating already. Homes have been evacuated and roads closed.

Crews from around the region are being called in to help fight it on the ground and, depending on weather, it may be fully contained this week.

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20150505/NEWS/150509715

http://www.recordonline.com/photogallery/TH/20150505/NEWS/505009998/PH/73_169_629_2320_2330_1004088

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20150503/NEWS/150509814

Ya know....yeah, it usually is. When you're in Westchester County, you're living in someone's little fiefdom. Someone's little slice of the pie and it's a ridiculous exercise in redundancy. I'm paying my property tax bill (which is insanely high) and wondering why they're always asking for more money, but there are fewer cops and the roads are like the surface of the moon.

Too many Chief's, not enough Indians.....lets streamline the operations around here and put our money and manpower to better use.

It's all about ratio's with the fire service. We DO have some good resources here, so lets expand their scope of coverage and better utilize them. We could use an analogy that would apply to many volunteer departments around here:

Lets say Dept. A has 5, reliable and involved members and that department answers 2 calls a day. Dept. B next door also has 5 reliable and involved members answering 2 calls a day. Well, 5 guys is useless...and those guys would probably jump at the opportunity to do more with their dedication. So, COMBINE those depts. and you've got 10 solid guys handling 4 calls a day. You've doubled your available manpower and simultaneously increased staff utilization by 100%. In the process, you could eliminate half the chief's and their vehicles, probably a firehouse to maintain and a redundant vehicle or two.

But....that'll never happen, because everyone is too interested in protecting their slice of the pie....

Well said!

General rant not directed at any one municipality:

We had inadequate snow removal, potholes everywhere, understaffed and underfunded emergency services yet we live in the most expensive county in the stratosphere. Where is it all going ?

Well in Westchester alone 311 MILLION goes to Social Services.

Anyone know the extent of the actual Code requirements to discontinue the fire escapes? As noted common hallways are often contaminated when the door to the fire apartment is left open. I'd be surprised to see the exterior fire escape removed from a non-sprinklered building. Rated corridors with rated self-closing doors? Must be something besides a remote second means of egress? Two separated corridors to two or more separate stairways?

And don't forget that most interior stairways also become "junk yards" drug dens and garbage cans.

Here's a novice idea YFD, maybe your powers to be should refuse M/A to the Vern? Just a thought. Cut all ties with them!

I think you mean "novel" idea, not "novice". Big difference.

As for YFD calling them out on it rather than severing all ties as you suggest, it's a better move. If they refuse to respond, as you suggest, nobody notices and they move on to the next town until someone does supplement Mount Vernon's woefully understaffed and overworked members. Calling attention to the problem, in the appropriate context, highlights the mayor's disregard for the department and does so at without the expense of safety or fire loss.

For years the county's mutual aid system has been a way of avoiding real responsibility and appropriate staffing. It's been brought out here many times and people have gone to great lengths to explain their position, including Yonkers FD. Some departments have relied on MA to cover their day to day business and MV is guilty of that. This is just the latest round in the battle.

and friend. You will be missed.

Obituary for John Bondra

John M. Bondra, 47, an area resident for 10 years, passed away unexpectedly on April 9, 2015 at home. He previously lived in Peekskill.

Born in Peekskill on April 29, 1967, he was the son of Eileen (Makarius) and the late John Bondra. John was a 1985 graduate of Peekskill High School where he also was on the baseball team. He had been employed as a Corrections Officer for the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department for the past 10 years. He previously owned a sports memorabilia store in Montrose and Taco Loco in Peekskill. A Certified Paramedic, John had also been an Investigator for the Westchester County Medical Examiner.

In addition to his mother, John is survived by his sister, Judith; his niece, Haley; his nephew, Nicholas; and many aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends.

Calling hours will be held on Sunday from 2-5 pm at the McHoul Funeral Home, Inc., 895 Route 82, Hopewell Junction. The Mass of Christian Burial will be offered on Monday at 11 am at St. Kateri Church, 1925 Route 82, LaGrangeville.

No information on responses or actual use of any of the equipment showcased in this PR document. Is the use of all these millions a good return on investment or is it just squandered on today's ideas but no long-term planning based on realistic risk assessments or credible, factual information?

Lacks lots of substance!

or you could read the press release by Company 33 and see what really happened. They parked where their SOPs said to and couldn't react to the changing conditions because their members were literally in the fire.

SOP's are just that "standard" (and I read their press release). When this stopped being standard, they were in a bad spot and couldn't/didn't react fast enough to the changing conditions. It's not a criticism, it's merely a statement.

I guess they parked in a bad spot and didn't react to changing conditions fast enough. Somewhere there is an apparatus salesman doing the happy dance.

OK. Still confused about your 2nd question though.

I didn't ask a question.

This reminds me of the series that Gannett ran in the late 1980's. I believe the title was "where you live could cost your life?"
Here we are almost 30 years later lamenting the same problems.

So much for progress.

Along with the above, does anyone know how many structure fires 60 can handle at one time? Are they adequately staffed to pick up more departments going away from police dispatch?

I don't think the standard of measure or benchmark can/should be how many structure fires 60 Control can handle. There really is no metric for that.

I think better metrics need to be identified to determine if 60 is adequately staffed.

A better question would be how many fire departments can handle a structure fire.

60 Control does not do PD dispatch. They are FD. County Police Dispatch is picking up dispatch for departments like Kisco and Tuckahoe in the evening/overnights.

All the major cities have their own dispatch.

Peekskill and New Rochelle is dispatched by 60-Control. I think New Rochelle qualifies as a major city.

The question wasn't about 60-Control DOING police dispatch. The question was whether or not their staffing was changing as more departments leave the local PD dispatch and opt for 60-Control to do it.

Will it be available for any type of call needing the foam it carries, or just certain types of calls?

Only nursing home evacuations. LOL

If there's one area screaming for consolidation, it's school districts.

Read below:

http://www.lohud.com/story/money/personal-finance/taxes/david-mckay-wilson/2015/03/26/high-paid-school-administrators-lewisboro/70501246/

Over 55 million dollars being spent for 332 "administrators" (who probably never see the classroom) in 53 distinct, autonomous school districts serving 1.2 million students. Some districts ridiculously small but still paying their administrators more than State Education officials.

Gotcha!

Happy April 1st.

Your right, this topic was about PD. As a resident of putnam county do I feel there is adequate law enforcement, yes. You can't drive through my town without seeing local PD, sheriff department and state PD. You always seem to get 2 rmps on each run, but when it comes to the FD something needs to be done.

Interesting, you drive through one town and see three different police agencies. I've driven through some towns in Putnam (that don't have their own PD) and seen none.

Is this effective or is this ridiculous?

260-234. Not an overwhelming turnout or show of support.

Really? How about "everyone involved" or do we not even bother to figure that out?

It's not so far-fetched. Others in this thread have made included everyone in their decision making. There's no common sense in the equation for some people (not referring to you).