Dinosaur

Tall enough? Ever see a wind driven brush fire? Tall isn't the issue, wind velocity is the issue!!!

So wrong on so many levels. You can't compare FDNY to Westchester and some departments, to be blunt, don't work well together. Either because of egos and attitudes, different SOP's and training or some old feud that nobody remembers but "oh we don't call THEM for mutual aid!".
FDNY operates with the same training, SOP's, equipment, and hierarchy. They all have the same training and SOP, they all have the same equipment, and the bosses are all well trained and experienced. An engine is an engine and a ladder is a ladder. You know exactly what you're getting with each.
Westchester has 50 something different departments all with different training, procedures, leadership, expectations, and capabilities. Engines may be coming with one guy or they may be coming with a driver and two exterior "FF" or it may be a crew of four trained firefighters. You never know.
There are a lot of variables but the departments shouldn't be one. You should know that when you call 911 and report a fire blowing out the windows of an OMD, you're getting the troops. Even the 2nd and 3rd alarms that they chief called in Hempstead mean entirely different things in every Westchester department.
Hey bnechis, here's a question. The standard is 12+1 or 36+1 for a regular residential single family house. Is there a standard for a job like this? It's got to be at least double, no?

Who makes the determination? When an FD claims to be completely self-sufficient but isn't who throws the flag and calls the foul? Do the taxpayers get a rebate or credit for all they've contributed to the so-called FD when it really isn't?
This situation would have been a big charly-foxtrot in most of Westchester. You'd have tons of departments screaming half way across the county and half the resources would just stand there because the majority of "IC's" aren't prepared for something of that scale - even though the probability if such a job is high.

So wrong on so many levels. You can't compare FDNY to Westchester and some departments, to be blunt, don't work well together. Either because of egos and attitudes, different SOP's and training or some old feud that nobody remembers but "oh we don't call THEM for mutual aid!".
FDNY operates with the same training, SOP's, equipment, and hierarchy. They all have the same training and SOP, they all have the same equipment, and the bosses are all well trained and experienced. An engine is an engine and a ladder is a ladder. You know exactly what you're getting with each.
Westchester has 50 something different departments all with different training, procedures, leadership, expectations, and capabilities. Engines may be coming with one guy or they may be coming with a driver and two exterior "FF" or it may be a crew of four trained firefighters. You never know.
There are a lot of variables but the departments shouldn't be one. You should know that when you call 911 and report a fire blowing out the windows of an OMD, you're getting the troops. Even the 2nd and 3rd alarms that they chief called in Hempstead mean entirely different things in every Westchester department.
Hey bnechis, here's a question. The standard is 12+1 or 36+1 for a regular residential single family house. Is there a standard for a job like this? It's got to be at least double, no?

It's not bizarre. It's politics as usual in the 21st Century.
The Fire Commissioner is a mayoral appointee so he is limited in what he can say or do publicly. I'm confident that he is working to defend his department and we shouldn't be so quick to call him MIA or accuse him of not caring. That's speculative and disrespectful.
Let's try to remember that as difficult as this is for us to fathom, it is the livelihood of many members of this site so please consider their feelings when posting.
Thank you.

While 30 patients sounds overwhelming there is a big difference between 30 walking wounded and a much smaller incident with 10 critical. Severely injured patients tax your medical and firefighting resources. Triage and rapid trsnsport of your critical patients is vital to efficiently managing your scene. Even if you cant get 20 ambulances on the road there's a lot you can do on scene and FDs should not just bd relying on EMS to bail thfm out here. Unless you're assigning EMS on all of your structural alatms odds are you'll be waiting with the initial patients for EMS to arrive.

Bottom line no matter the time no matter the place, wether paid or vollie if your Department and Mutual aid units cant handle what is dispatched then you have no Buisness operating as a FD. I see what your doing here Bnecchis trying to open our eyes and start some table top talk which is good. Sometimes the situation is beyond our means to control as quick as one would want or vision, that can happen to anyone. In a situtation like this the first due or IC must consider how many people need to be removed from the building and relocated withinn and we all know that task will be tough with residents who always cooperate lol. We could go on forever about this. Good topic to open up some minds etc. One thhing they had to thier advantage that alot of us dont have here in Westchester is NO OVERHEAD WIRES so trucks can prove to be majorly effecttive.

I would go with 10 or more stories. That's about when you have to change tactics to a hi-rise operation and stage a floor below, operate from standpipes,designate "Hot stairway/Evacuation stairway," etc.
My point before was that even though you are only working in a 6-story OMD, you may be using a modified hi-rise tactic because of inaccessability of 3 sides.
In addition, reading Goon16's description of omd's, note that an OMD will have features that differ by when the building was built. They are usually Ordinary construction, normally not frame, but the brick veneer might be over concrete block. They differ in things like Fire escapes vs. Fire stairs, vs open stairs by date built. Many have standpipes, and some have house standpipes that are not connected to a fire main and don't have a FDC. House standpipes can be used for an initial attack by feeding the lobby standpipe with a hose line, but that ends their usefulness.
Even an older OMD with open stairs and accessable from only the A side can be worked with a standpipe pack form the 1st due engine. Take the standpipe pack to the floor below. Open or force a "clean" apartment on the A Side, and drop the standplpe pack line out the window. Communicate to the MPO where the line can be found, and have him connect to it. Better yet, work up a SOP for such places in your area, using what's best for you, given the different classes of buildings in your area and the response capabilities of your FD.

Very few. Contrary to the rhetoric we're all understaffed (career and volunteer) and not experienced with this type of fire in most areas.
Very very few I'm afraid. We don't spend a lot of time on these types of structures and we don't go to these buildings and drill because we're afraid of scaring the residents or some other nonsense.
Well if you order them early enough in the day and have them shipped priority overnight, you should have them by the next day at 1030. Seriously, the mutual aid system in Westchester is flawed. 60 doesn't know what resources are in service or out of service and they don't dispatch them all, even in a disaster. Other counties with centralized 911 are better but still behind the 8-ball because there's no standardization or coordination.
We'll never know. There is no consistency from day to day or hour to hour. We hope (and sometimes pray) that we get a good turnout from the volunteers and most career jobs are barely staffed for a really cookin' room and contents job so our guess is as good as theirs.
Hempstead did do a good job with this one. And they were lucky. 4 or 5 AM and the building would have had a lot more people in it.

Great points, but it requires the FD be honest in telling the community their limitations. Of course community "leaders" are looking for every dollar they can get, so saying "No" to a potential developer or large scale project is much more difficult for many people. Luckily codes are far more likely to prevent large multiple dwellings without sprinklers or require the number, location and types of egress to be such that upper floor entrapment is far less likely than those built just a few decades ago.

While most codes say 75 feet (approx 6 stories), I see a big difference in our 6-8 story OMD and out 40 story "high rises". Our highrises are concrete & steel, sprinklered, have fire pumps and presurized standpipes, fire alarms, HVAC systems to evacuate smoke and fire service elevators, presurized fire stairs, etc. Our 6-8 story OMD's have masonary walls and wood interiors (many are wood frame with a brick/stone veneer). open stairwells, no sprinklers, no stand pipes, common cockloft. abandoned dumbwaiters, non fire service elevators and not detection systems.
We have seen wind driven fire on 2nd floor fires. Half of CA has burned due to wind.
Nothing huge yet. And if a dorm that fire is coming.
Most do not. But this fire started on the 2nd floor, no standpipes for that attack (dont know about the upper floors) and many OMD's do not have standpipes.

Height is not the only thing when it comes to wind driven fires. I just got the new fire engineering, and while I have not read the article yet, they talk about a 1 story wind driven fire.

From Incident Alert:
Date: 06-17-12 (Sunday)
Time: 18:19hrs.
Weather Conditions: Warm and Clear
Description Of Incident: Chief 80 o/s reporting a kitchen fire on the 2nd floor of a 7-story brick 200'x200' OMD w/reports of victims trapped. Companies o/s w/heavy fire showing w/extension to the 3rd floor. 2nd and 3rd Alarms transmitted by Command for heavy fire conditions and numerous victims trapped. Command reporting fire extended to the 5th and 6th floors w/jumpers down. 4th, 5th, and 6th Alarms transmitted by Command. Heavy fire on the 2nd through 6th floors. Numerous L/S/O's w/master streams in operation. Ladder Companies opening up. Numerous victims rescued. Command requested 24 additional Ambulances to the scene for 30 victims to be transported to local hospitals. All hands working.
The above incident occured yesterday in Hempstead L.I.. The depts. did a great job and everyone was very lucky to have no fatalities.
Identical buildings exist in Westchester from Yonkers to Peekskill along the Hudson, from Pelham Manor to Portchester along the LI Sound and from Mount Vernon North to _______ along the Harlem Line MNRR.
How many depts. can get enough trained personnel on scene fast enough?
How many are competent in fighting a fire in this type of structure?
How long would it take to get 24 additional ambulances?
And how would the performance be if the weather was not perfect and it was at other times/day of the week?
Finally, how do we get there from here?

We need to effect a fundamental change in the fire service because large or small, career or volunteer, we're in trouble. Either from budget woes or declining volunteerism because everyone has to work more and more just to make ends meet.
Call it a revolution, call it a charter revision, call it a constitutional convention, call it Westchester 2025 (although it certainly isn't unique to Westchester) but we have to start the change or we're going to sit and stagnate for another generation.
Elmsford was able to get one fully staffed engine to a building collapse after a tornado while returning from another call. Good for them. The problem remains that we had different departments, with different qualifications respond with different resources and we expect them all to integrate into an effective seamless operation despite having different SOPs, experience, and leadership. Not a recipe for success.
I was recently at a social event attended by many FD officers, mostly chiefs, from a really good cross-section of the fire service (Current, retired, volunteer, career, young, old, even thin and fat ). I really should have taken a picture but to protect the guilty, I didn't. Over several adult beverages we were discussing our issues and don't ya know they were all the same. Budget, staffing, meeting standards, etc.etc.etc.
You can't tell me that the career and fire ISSUES are so different that we can't collaborate and solve them creating a better fire service for the future. FFCogs said it in his letter to the editor about the Stamford situation. We have to identify the goal and move toward it objectively and in the best interests of the public we serve. Not the best interests of one special interest group or another (and I'm sorry to say that the volunteer fire sector is as much a special interest group as unions are - maybe moreso).
One interesting revelation at this airing of the grievances (for all you Seinfeld fans), was that officers are still firefighters and have to perform that way. One chief related a recent experience where there was a good size structure fire (more than room and contents to be sure) and several mutual aid departments. They didn't have enough FF on scene and wound up calling more departments. The next day he was shown a picture of his "command post" where there were TEN (count 'em 10) white helmets and turnout coats standing around him. In the heat of the moment, he never considered it but he had TWO companies there with him that never got used for actual firefighting. He says, in hindsight, he should have tasked most of them with tactical assignments or fireground supervision jobs instead of having the coffee clatch at his ICP. We all laughed but hesitantly because we've all probably done similar things in the past.
Officers also have to be willing to lead by example and get the job done. If more started doing that instead of fighting to protect their sinking ship, we'd probably see conslidation and reorganization start to take hold.
Here endeth the lesson (yes, I have been watching entirely too many old movies lately!).

Great way to spend taxpayer dollars.......

As I read the IA about the 4th alarm with maydays in the Bronx yesterday (thanks ryang), I am confronted with strong concerns and reservations about how that would happen anywhere in the suburbs. This is not a paid/volunteer issue. This is a major incident response issue because no matter what your pay status, we've cultivated a recipe for failure in this region with absolutely no standardization, abysmal leadership/management training programs and experience levels, and no means to effectively coordinate the response.
Some are probably already cracking their knuckles and gearing up for a keyboard battle but before you do, take a deep breath and let me finish my thought.
Yesterday in the Bronx, a fire in ordinary buildings that we have all over our suburbs, resulted in the initial response of more than 40 "interior" (and I hate that distinction but more on that later) firefighters (4 E, 1 S, 3 L, 1 BC, S/C 1/1, plus 10-75 response). How many of our departments can honestly say we can put that many qualified, trained, and equipped FF on the road in the first three minutes?
Within five minutes, the 2nd alarm results in another TWO DOZEN fully equipped FF responding. All from the same agency, with the same training, SOP's, equipment, and leadership. Wow, who can beat that?
SIXTY-FIVE fully qualifed FF in five minutes with an appropriate span of control and properly trained supervisors for each resource. Imagine that?
I'm sure that some will argue that you don't need 65 FF for a job like that and they can do it in their agency with far fewer resources but my point is wouldn't it be nice to know that you have that many qualified guys at your disposal in a staging area a few blocks away and not 20 minutes and a dozen dispatches later?
Now, the other shoe drops. With all those resources already on scene and operating. With several highly experienced and qualified chiefs running the show, there's a collapse and multiple maydays.
What would you do as the IC?
What would you do as the attack officer supervising the missing FF?
Do you have training for that scenario?
Do you have a pre-plan for that?
Are there SOP's for the actions of everyone on the fireground when it does happen (and regrettably it will happen)?
In the Bronx, it resulted in the response of another SEVENTY-FIVE firefighters/company officers with at least another half dozen very experienced chief officers and support resources up the wazoo.
All this was coordinated by the County communications center (FDNY Bronx Radio). It wasn't the local police desk trying to coordinate all the requests from the field while answering the switchboard and trying to dispatch seventy different resources. It wasn't a dozen different PSAP's all doing it their own way. It was part of a plan! (Some will undoubtedly argue that it isn't a good plan or it is overkill or whatever but my point is there is a plan and a standardized response!).
The chief officers that handled this fire probably have at least 12-15 years of experience as an officer backed up and supported by alot of training, drills and exercises. (FDNY has one of the elaborate exercise programs I've ever seen).
What do we have?
What do we require of our officers?
How do we get them the experience they need for this type of incident?
How experienced are they?
Are there any SOP's so dispatch knows what to do when the mayday is transmitted?
The FDNY response and resources is without question unique but how would we handle this kind of response? In a simple 3 story frame house fire that spread to similar exposures. This wasn't a high-rise. This wasn't a big factory. This was a row of buildings like almost any town in the Hudson Valley, Fairfield, or north Jersey.
It's time to stop the petty bickering and organize. If we won't consolidate we should at least agree on training, equipment, and response policies so when the other shoe drops on you there's a fighting chance for the trapped members!!!
It's 2012. The time for 90+ different dispatch points in Westchester is long gone We need a single coordinated 911 center for police fire and EMS in every county with properly trained professional 911 call-takers and dispatchers doing their jobs.
Put the ego and attitide and bravado aside and start lobbying for what is best for not just now but the future!

We need to effect a fundamental change in the fire service because large or small, career or volunteer, we're in trouble. Either from budget woes or declining volunteerism because everyone has to work more and more just to make ends meet.
Call it a revolution, call it a charter revision, call it a constitutional convention, call it Westchester 2025 (although it certainly isn't unique to Westchester) but we have to start the change or we're going to sit and stagnate for another generation.
Elmsford was able to get one fully staffed engine to a building collapse after a tornado while returning from another call. Good for them. The problem remains that we had different departments, with different qualifications respond with different resources and we expect them all to integrate into an effective seamless operation despite having different SOPs, experience, and leadership. Not a recipe for success.
I was recently at a social event attended by many FD officers, mostly chiefs, from a really good cross-section of the fire service (Current, retired, volunteer, career, young, old, even thin and fat ). I really should have taken a picture but to protect the guilty, I didn't. Over several adult beverages we were discussing our issues and don't ya know they were all the same. Budget, staffing, meeting standards, etc.etc.etc.
You can't tell me that the career and fire ISSUES are so different that we can't collaborate and solve them creating a better fire service for the future. FFCogs said it in his letter to the editor about the Stamford situation. We have to identify the goal and move toward it objectively and in the best interests of the public we serve. Not the best interests of one special interest group or another (and I'm sorry to say that the volunteer fire sector is as much a special interest group as unions are - maybe moreso).
One interesting revelation at this airing of the grievances (for all you Seinfeld fans), was that officers are still firefighters and have to perform that way. One chief related a recent experience where there was a good size structure fire (more than room and contents to be sure) and several mutual aid departments. They didn't have enough FF on scene and wound up calling more departments. The next day he was shown a picture of his "command post" where there were TEN (count 'em 10) white helmets and turnout coats standing around him. In the heat of the moment, he never considered it but he had TWO companies there with him that never got used for actual firefighting. He says, in hindsight, he should have tasked most of them with tactical assignments or fireground supervision jobs instead of having the coffee clatch at his ICP. We all laughed but hesitantly because we've all probably done similar things in the past.
Officers also have to be willing to lead by example and get the job done. If more started doing that instead of fighting to protect their sinking ship, we'd probably see conslidation and reorganization start to take hold.
Here endeth the lesson (yes, I have been watching entirely too many old movies lately!).

We need to effect a fundamental change in the fire service because large or small, career or volunteer, we're in trouble. Either from budget woes or declining volunteerism because everyone has to work more and more just to make ends meet.
Call it a revolution, call it a charter revision, call it a constitutional convention, call it Westchester 2025 (although it certainly isn't unique to Westchester) but we have to start the change or we're going to sit and stagnate for another generation.
Elmsford was able to get one fully staffed engine to a building collapse after a tornado while returning from another call. Good for them. The problem remains that we had different departments, with different qualifications respond with different resources and we expect them all to integrate into an effective seamless operation despite having different SOPs, experience, and leadership. Not a recipe for success.
I was recently at a social event attended by many FD officers, mostly chiefs, from a really good cross-section of the fire service (Current, retired, volunteer, career, young, old, even thin and fat ). I really should have taken a picture but to protect the guilty, I didn't. Over several adult beverages we were discussing our issues and don't ya know they were all the same. Budget, staffing, meeting standards, etc.etc.etc.
You can't tell me that the career and fire ISSUES are so different that we can't collaborate and solve them creating a better fire service for the future. FFCogs said it in his letter to the editor about the Stamford situation. We have to identify the goal and move toward it objectively and in the best interests of the public we serve. Not the best interests of one special interest group or another (and I'm sorry to say that the volunteer fire sector is as much a special interest group as unions are - maybe moreso).
One interesting revelation at this airing of the grievances (for all you Seinfeld fans), was that officers are still firefighters and have to perform that way. One chief related a recent experience where there was a good size structure fire (more than room and contents to be sure) and several mutual aid departments. They didn't have enough FF on scene and wound up calling more departments. The next day he was shown a picture of his "command post" where there were TEN (count 'em 10) white helmets and turnout coats standing around him. In the heat of the moment, he never considered it but he had TWO companies there with him that never got used for actual firefighting. He says, in hindsight, he should have tasked most of them with tactical assignments or fireground supervision jobs instead of having the coffee clatch at his ICP. We all laughed but hesitantly because we've all probably done similar things in the past.
Officers also have to be willing to lead by example and get the job done. If more started doing that instead of fighting to protect their sinking ship, we'd probably see conslidation and reorganization start to take hold.
Here endeth the lesson (yes, I have been watching entirely too many old movies lately!).

We need to effect a fundamental change in the fire service because large or small, career or volunteer, we're in trouble. Either from budget woes or declining volunteerism because everyone has to work more and more just to make ends meet.
Call it a revolution, call it a charter revision, call it a constitutional convention, call it Westchester 2025 (although it certainly isn't unique to Westchester) but we have to start the change or we're going to sit and stagnate for another generation.
Elmsford was able to get one fully staffed engine to a building collapse after a tornado while returning from another call. Good for them. The problem remains that we had different departments, with different qualifications respond with different resources and we expect them all to integrate into an effective seamless operation despite having different SOPs, experience, and leadership. Not a recipe for success.
I was recently at a social event attended by many FD officers, mostly chiefs, from a really good cross-section of the fire service (Current, retired, volunteer, career, young, old, even thin and fat ). I really should have taken a picture but to protect the guilty, I didn't. Over several adult beverages we were discussing our issues and don't ya know they were all the same. Budget, staffing, meeting standards, etc.etc.etc.
You can't tell me that the career and fire ISSUES are so different that we can't collaborate and solve them creating a better fire service for the future. FFCogs said it in his letter to the editor about the Stamford situation. We have to identify the goal and move toward it objectively and in the best interests of the public we serve. Not the best interests of one special interest group or another (and I'm sorry to say that the volunteer fire sector is as much a special interest group as unions are - maybe moreso).
One interesting revelation at this airing of the grievances (for all you Seinfeld fans), was that officers are still firefighters and have to perform that way. One chief related a recent experience where there was a good size structure fire (more than room and contents to be sure) and several mutual aid departments. They didn't have enough FF on scene and wound up calling more departments. The next day he was shown a picture of his "command post" where there were TEN (count 'em 10) white helmets and turnout coats standing around him. In the heat of the moment, he never considered it but he had TWO companies there with him that never got used for actual firefighting. He says, in hindsight, he should have tasked most of them with tactical assignments or fireground supervision jobs instead of having the coffee clatch at his ICP. We all laughed but hesitantly because we've all probably done similar things in the past.
Officers also have to be willing to lead by example and get the job done. If more started doing that instead of fighting to protect their sinking ship, we'd probably see conslidation and reorganization start to take hold.
Here endeth the lesson (yes, I have been watching entirely too many old movies lately!).

We need to effect a fundamental change in the fire service because large or small, career or volunteer, we're in trouble. Either from budget woes or declining volunteerism because everyone has to work more and more just to make ends meet.
Call it a revolution, call it a charter revision, call it a constitutional convention, call it Westchester 2025 (although it certainly isn't unique to Westchester) but we have to start the change or we're going to sit and stagnate for another generation.
Elmsford was able to get one fully staffed engine to a building collapse after a tornado while returning from another call. Good for them. The problem remains that we had different departments, with different qualifications respond with different resources and we expect them all to integrate into an effective seamless operation despite having different SOPs, experience, and leadership. Not a recipe for success.
I was recently at a social event attended by many FD officers, mostly chiefs, from a really good cross-section of the fire service (Current, retired, volunteer, career, young, old, even thin and fat ). I really should have taken a picture but to protect the guilty, I didn't. Over several adult beverages we were discussing our issues and don't ya know they were all the same. Budget, staffing, meeting standards, etc.etc.etc.
You can't tell me that the career and fire ISSUES are so different that we can't collaborate and solve them creating a better fire service for the future. FFCogs said it in his letter to the editor about the Stamford situation. We have to identify the goal and move toward it objectively and in the best interests of the public we serve. Not the best interests of one special interest group or another (and I'm sorry to say that the volunteer fire sector is as much a special interest group as unions are - maybe moreso).
One interesting revelation at this airing of the grievances (for all you Seinfeld fans), was that officers are still firefighters and have to perform that way. One chief related a recent experience where there was a good size structure fire (more than room and contents to be sure) and several mutual aid departments. They didn't have enough FF on scene and wound up calling more departments. The next day he was shown a picture of his "command post" where there were TEN (count 'em 10) white helmets and turnout coats standing around him. In the heat of the moment, he never considered it but he had TWO companies there with him that never got used for actual firefighting. He says, in hindsight, he should have tasked most of them with tactical assignments or fireground supervision jobs instead of having the coffee clatch at his ICP. We all laughed but hesitantly because we've all probably done similar things in the past.
Officers also have to be willing to lead by example and get the job done. If more started doing that instead of fighting to protect their sinking ship, we'd probably see conslidation and reorganization start to take hold.
Here endeth the lesson (yes, I have been watching entirely too many old movies lately!).

We need to effect a fundamental change in the fire service because large or small, career or volunteer, we're in trouble. Either from budget woes or declining volunteerism because everyone has to work more and more just to make ends meet.
Call it a revolution, call it a charter revision, call it a constitutional convention, call it Westchester 2025 (although it certainly isn't unique to Westchester) but we have to start the change or we're going to sit and stagnate for another generation.
Elmsford was able to get one fully staffed engine to a building collapse after a tornado while returning from another call. Good for them. The problem remains that we had different departments, with different qualifications respond with different resources and we expect them all to integrate into an effective seamless operation despite having different SOPs, experience, and leadership. Not a recipe for success.
I was recently at a social event attended by many FD officers, mostly chiefs, from a really good cross-section of the fire service (Current, retired, volunteer, career, young, old, even thin and fat ). I really should have taken a picture but to protect the guilty, I didn't. Over several adult beverages we were discussing our issues and don't ya know they were all the same. Budget, staffing, meeting standards, etc.etc.etc.
You can't tell me that the career and fire ISSUES are so different that we can't collaborate and solve them creating a better fire service for the future. FFCogs said it in his letter to the editor about the Stamford situation. We have to identify the goal and move toward it objectively and in the best interests of the public we serve. Not the best interests of one special interest group or another (and I'm sorry to say that the volunteer fire sector is as much a special interest group as unions are - maybe moreso).
One interesting revelation at this airing of the grievances (for all you Seinfeld fans), was that officers are still firefighters and have to perform that way. One chief related a recent experience where there was a good size structure fire (more than room and contents to be sure) and several mutual aid departments. They didn't have enough FF on scene and wound up calling more departments. The next day he was shown a picture of his "command post" where there were TEN (count 'em 10) white helmets and turnout coats standing around him. In the heat of the moment, he never considered it but he had TWO companies there with him that never got used for actual firefighting. He says, in hindsight, he should have tasked most of them with tactical assignments or fireground supervision jobs instead of having the coffee clatch at his ICP. We all laughed but hesitantly because we've all probably done similar things in the past.
Officers also have to be willing to lead by example and get the job done. If more started doing that instead of fighting to protect their sinking ship, we'd probably see conslidation and reorganization start to take hold.
Here endeth the lesson (yes, I have been watching entirely too many old movies lately!).

We need to effect a fundamental change in the fire service because large or small, career or volunteer, we're in trouble. Either from budget woes or declining volunteerism because everyone has to work more and more just to make ends meet.
Call it a revolution, call it a charter revision, call it a constitutional convention, call it Westchester 2025 (although it certainly isn't unique to Westchester) but we have to start the change or we're going to sit and stagnate for another generation.
Elmsford was able to get one fully staffed engine to a building collapse after a tornado while returning from another call. Good for them. The problem remains that we had different departments, with different qualifications respond with different resources and we expect them all to integrate into an effective seamless operation despite having different SOPs, experience, and leadership. Not a recipe for success.
I was recently at a social event attended by many FD officers, mostly chiefs, from a really good cross-section of the fire service (Current, retired, volunteer, career, young, old, even thin and fat ). I really should have taken a picture but to protect the guilty, I didn't. Over several adult beverages we were discussing our issues and don't ya know they were all the same. Budget, staffing, meeting standards, etc.etc.etc.
You can't tell me that the career and fire ISSUES are so different that we can't collaborate and solve them creating a better fire service for the future. FFCogs said it in his letter to the editor about the Stamford situation. We have to identify the goal and move toward it objectively and in the best interests of the public we serve. Not the best interests of one special interest group or another (and I'm sorry to say that the volunteer fire sector is as much a special interest group as unions are - maybe moreso).
One interesting revelation at this airing of the grievances (for all you Seinfeld fans), was that officers are still firefighters and have to perform that way. One chief related a recent experience where there was a good size structure fire (more than room and contents to be sure) and several mutual aid departments. They didn't have enough FF on scene and wound up calling more departments. The next day he was shown a picture of his "command post" where there were TEN (count 'em 10) white helmets and turnout coats standing around him. In the heat of the moment, he never considered it but he had TWO companies there with him that never got used for actual firefighting. He says, in hindsight, he should have tasked most of them with tactical assignments or fireground supervision jobs instead of having the coffee clatch at his ICP. We all laughed but hesitantly because we've all probably done similar things in the past.
Officers also have to be willing to lead by example and get the job done. If more started doing that instead of fighting to protect their sinking ship, we'd probably see conslidation and reorganization start to take hold.
Here endeth the lesson (yes, I have been watching entirely too many old movies lately!).

We need to effect a fundamental change in the fire service because large or small, career or volunteer, we're in trouble. Either from budget woes or declining volunteerism because everyone has to work more and more just to make ends meet.
Call it a revolution, call it a charter revision, call it a constitutional convention, call it Westchester 2025 (although it certainly isn't unique to Westchester) but we have to start the change or we're going to sit and stagnate for another generation.
Elmsford was able to get one fully staffed engine to a building collapse after a tornado while returning from another call. Good for them. The problem remains that we had different departments, with different qualifications respond with different resources and we expect them all to integrate into an effective seamless operation despite having different SOPs, experience, and leadership. Not a recipe for success.
I was recently at a social event attended by many FD officers, mostly chiefs, from a really good cross-section of the fire service (Current, retired, volunteer, career, young, old, even thin and fat ). I really should have taken a picture but to protect the guilty, I didn't. Over several adult beverages we were discussing our issues and don't ya know they were all the same. Budget, staffing, meeting standards, etc.etc.etc.
You can't tell me that the career and fire ISSUES are so different that we can't collaborate and solve them creating a better fire service for the future. FFCogs said it in his letter to the editor about the Stamford situation. We have to identify the goal and move toward it objectively and in the best interests of the public we serve. Not the best interests of one special interest group or another (and I'm sorry to say that the volunteer fire sector is as much a special interest group as unions are - maybe moreso).
One interesting revelation at this airing of the grievances (for all you Seinfeld fans), was that officers are still firefighters and have to perform that way. One chief related a recent experience where there was a good size structure fire (more than room and contents to be sure) and several mutual aid departments. They didn't have enough FF on scene and wound up calling more departments. The next day he was shown a picture of his "command post" where there were TEN (count 'em 10) white helmets and turnout coats standing around him. In the heat of the moment, he never considered it but he had TWO companies there with him that never got used for actual firefighting. He says, in hindsight, he should have tasked most of them with tactical assignments or fireground supervision jobs instead of having the coffee clatch at his ICP. We all laughed but hesitantly because we've all probably done similar things in the past.
Officers also have to be willing to lead by example and get the job done. If more started doing that instead of fighting to protect their sinking ship, we'd probably see conslidation and reorganization start to take hold.
Here endeth the lesson (yes, I have been watching entirely too many old movies lately!).

We need to effect a fundamental change in the fire service because large or small, career or volunteer, we're in trouble. Either from budget woes or declining volunteerism because everyone has to work more and more just to make ends meet.
Call it a revolution, call it a charter revision, call it a constitutional convention, call it Westchester 2025 (although it certainly isn't unique to Westchester) but we have to start the change or we're going to sit and stagnate for another generation.
Elmsford was able to get one fully staffed engine to a building collapse after a tornado while returning from another call. Good for them. The problem remains that we had different departments, with different qualifications respond with different resources and we expect them all to integrate into an effective seamless operation despite having different SOPs, experience, and leadership. Not a recipe for success.
I was recently at a social event attended by many FD officers, mostly chiefs, from a really good cross-section of the fire service (Current, retired, volunteer, career, young, old, even thin and fat ). I really should have taken a picture but to protect the guilty, I didn't. Over several adult beverages we were discussing our issues and don't ya know they were all the same. Budget, staffing, meeting standards, etc.etc.etc.
You can't tell me that the career and fire ISSUES are so different that we can't collaborate and solve them creating a better fire service for the future. FFCogs said it in his letter to the editor about the Stamford situation. We have to identify the goal and move toward it objectively and in the best interests of the public we serve. Not the best interests of one special interest group or another (and I'm sorry to say that the volunteer fire sector is as much a special interest group as unions are - maybe moreso).
One interesting revelation at this airing of the grievances (for all you Seinfeld fans), was that officers are still firefighters and have to perform that way. One chief related a recent experience where there was a good size structure fire (more than room and contents to be sure) and several mutual aid departments. They didn't have enough FF on scene and wound up calling more departments. The next day he was shown a picture of his "command post" where there were TEN (count 'em 10) white helmets and turnout coats standing around him. In the heat of the moment, he never considered it but he had TWO companies there with him that never got used for actual firefighting. He says, in hindsight, he should have tasked most of them with tactical assignments or fireground supervision jobs instead of having the coffee clatch at his ICP. We all laughed but hesitantly because we've all probably done similar things in the past.
Officers also have to be willing to lead by example and get the job done. If more started doing that instead of fighting to protect their sinking ship, we'd probably see conslidation and reorganization start to take hold.
Here endeth the lesson (yes, I have been watching entirely too many old movies lately!).

The water rescue teams are located where their sponsors are based. For example the County Technical Rescue Team is located in Valhalla. That's pretty centrally located.
Yorktown, Somers, Mahopac Falls all have water rescue teams because those departments have committed to the expense, liability and obligations of sponsoring a specialty team. Do you think Yorktown should base their team in Mamaroneck just because Mamaroneck is on the Sound?
Not everyone can be all things to all people. Leave the specialties to the departments willing and able to make the commitment to them. Not just doing them because its "cool" or they want the new patch.