Dinosaur

About time.

About time.

I guess by default they would be but they're only meeting OSHA's two in-two out requirement.
They can't ladder the escape routes, prepare for rescues, assess the structure, and do all the other tasks that a FAST/RIT team would be able to do.
If departments have responses to a confirmed structure fire with only four FF, they also have other issues. Of course this is happening all over every day because we continue to do things the way we did 75 years ago.
If we had one large department FD consisting of 10-12 of the current fire fiefdoms we could get the 3-4 guys available in each and have a reasonable response more quickly and effectively than we do under the current patchwork. This isn't rocket science; its done damn near everywhere else better and cheaper than we do it.
Consolidating doesn't mean closing fire houses - it just means managing smarter and using resources more wisely. It's not a bad word and should really be looked at more seriously than we do.

I guess by default they would be but they're only meeting OSHA's two in-two out requirement.
They can't ladder the escape routes, prepare for rescues, assess the structure, and do all the other tasks that a FAST/RIT team would be able to do.
If departments have responses to a confirmed structure fire with only four FF, they also have other issues. Of course this is happening all over every day because we continue to do things the way we did 75 years ago.
If we had one large department FD consisting of 10-12 of the current fire fiefdoms we could get the 3-4 guys available in each and have a reasonable response more quickly and effectively than we do under the current patchwork. This isn't rocket science; its done damn near everywhere else better and cheaper than we do it.
Consolidating doesn't mean closing fire houses - it just means managing smarter and using resources more wisely. It's not a bad word and should really be looked at more seriously than we do.

Nice to see he was published.
He did a great job that day and a number of lives were saved by his actions.
If he had not done what he did, someone would have asked the question:

Where's your drill sargent (capt)....Blown Up Sir

If we observe and for the sake of this discussion only we assume the following to have been the complete and timely reporting of a structure fire for the VMFD, this is a great example to look at in more depth:
At 05:41 hours there is something burning in this basement which results in 4 engines, a truck and three commanders responding to and taking action toward @05:47 hours confirmed smoke from the basement. Two minutes later a commander transmits a 10-75 and requests TMFD FAST.
@05:58 hours we see a Rescue responding "w/FAST." A minute later a commander transmits for the FAST unit to locate at the scene, and finally @06:03 the designated FAST unit is on scene.
From 05:41 hours with an IDLH occurring at the location in the basement, twenty-two minutes later the FAST in on scene. In those 22 minutes, this fire was confirmed and obviously attacked because we have a command request at 05:55 hours for Con Ed for an electrical fire.
What I see missing from this real fire scenario, (and congratulations to the VMFD for obviously a successful stop) is a continuous, designated company from the home department that assumed and performed the necessary functions of a FAST Team. So my question would be, why is the FAST unit from the Town, 22 minutes later? What good would that have done in those critical initial attack moments when FAST is supposed to be appropriately in place as required by the OSHA Standard 1910.134 or the NFPA 1720 (volunteer standard) or NFPA 1710 (career standard applying because the TMFD is combo)?
The designated FAST company could have been engine 38, 39, 40, 41 or truck 20, and this assignment would have been continuous would it not? There should be no need for a "replacement FAST unit" 22 minutes later. I'm missing what that accomplishes regarding compliance with the Statute, but more importantly the immediate and continuous protection that should have been afforded the initial attack members who proceeded down into this burning basement.
Regardless if a commander from this job is going to possibly come back now and answer that there was a designated home company performing FAST until the arrival of the Town's Rescue, it doesn't make sense to transfer the function. Whatever home company was the initial FAST, they were the eyes from the beginning. They were locating secondary means of egress and assuring that was made available to interior units. They threw the ground ladders, stretched the FAST hoseline.
I hope the members of the VMFD will not take offense to the observations I have made here, and once again this was a real situation, but I'm not attempting to say the I.A. information is totally accurate; it's only for the sake of this discussion that I would conclude there to have been either an unnecessary delay in implementing the FAST, or an unnecessary transfer of function.
Again, I obviously wasn't there, don't know the intensity of the fire the Village faced at this job, it just so happens to be perfect timing to fit into the hypothetical for this discussion. Most sincerely am not trying to step on anyone's toes or MMQB their fire.

I perceive some common misconceptions among members of the Fire Service in NY State that should probably be cleared up:
FAST (RIT or MAT) is not a NY State rule, it is an OSHA regulation, hence, Federal law.
You are not allowed to enter a structure on fire beyond the incipient stage without SCBA, training in its operation, and a qualified rescue team in place.
The rescue team must remain in place as long as anyone in SCBA is in the building.
NY State is not responsible for training you. It is the responsibility of your employer, that is, your department. If you are a volunteer, you are considered an employee of your department under this regulation.

Maybe we could give volunteers tax breaks too! And pensions! Oh, and we can buy a couple of SUV's and let them take turns electing people to use them 24/7! Hey, we can give them a discount on things like a pool membership, breaks from local merchants, movie theatres, etc.! Maybe we can build a hall which they can use for family events and such? We can spend money to throw a big party every year! Oh yes, how about providing a gym? Perhaps we can invest some money on travel reimbursements for vacations, um, I mean training travel...We should also make sure we absolutely do not question any money spent on apparatus and equipment...after all, that is just a "drop in the bucket" and these guys are volunteers, right?
What do you guys think? Will any of these ideas help out with recruitment and retention?

Its commonly called pay per call or part time pay. You do know that then you can not right off your volunteer car use on your taxes and as a benefit, it may be taxed.
Ok then here is the real question, does it retain memebers?
The current active members who are showing up without this gas, are showing up because they want to, not because of the gas. So for them its not retention, its a payment (which if the community agrees, I see no problem with).
Those members who no longer contribute or have resigned are the ones you are then trying to retain and you need to ask 2 questions:
1) do you really want them back? Were the productive members or always just another body?
2) Will free gas bring them back.
Like most retention payments, the big question is will it really work or are we just throwing a little money away and claiming its working?

I think the concept is being lost on some departments that create special teams for FAST when it should be the function of aany/every FF instead of "special teams" that aren't always available.
In a large career department every FF can be FAST. In smaller departments and most volunteer agencies it's treated like something special and not everyone gets the training.

Yes. If something happens the highest ranking person will be held accountable but in many cases they'll be held responsible whether they're on the scene or not (vicarious liability).
A chief should absolutely stand back and let subordinates learn how to manage/supervise. If the incident escalates or changes they can always step in and assist the junior officer.
I was fortunate and had some crusty old dinosaurs allow me to fall flat on my face as I was moving up in the ranks. You learn a lot that way!

Yes. If something happens the highest ranking person will be held accountable but in many cases they'll be held responsible whether they're on the scene or not (vicarious liability).
A chief should absolutely stand back and let subordinates learn how to manage/supervise. If the incident escalates or changes they can always step in and assist the junior officer.
I was fortunate and had some crusty old dinosaurs allow me to fall flat on my face as I was moving up in the ranks. You learn a lot that way!

Yes. If something happens the highest ranking person will be held accountable but in many cases they'll be held responsible whether they're on the scene or not (vicarious liability).
A chief should absolutely stand back and let subordinates learn how to manage/supervise. If the incident escalates or changes they can always step in and assist the junior officer.
I was fortunate and had some crusty old dinosaurs allow me to fall flat on my face as I was moving up in the ranks. You learn a lot that way!

Yes. If something happens the highest ranking person will be held accountable but in many cases they'll be held responsible whether they're on the scene or not (vicarious liability).
A chief should absolutely stand back and let subordinates learn how to manage/supervise. If the incident escalates or changes they can always step in and assist the junior officer.
I was fortunate and had some crusty old dinosaurs allow me to fall flat on my face as I was moving up in the ranks. You learn a lot that way!

Yes. If something happens the highest ranking person will be held accountable but in many cases they'll be held responsible whether they're on the scene or not (vicarious liability).
A chief should absolutely stand back and let subordinates learn how to manage/supervise. If the incident escalates or changes they can always step in and assist the junior officer.
I was fortunate and had some crusty old dinosaurs allow me to fall flat on my face as I was moving up in the ranks. You learn a lot that way!

A disaster is right but we don't need to make Rye Brook a "real department", because the Village Board never will. They'll continue with inadequate staffing, inadequate coverage, reliance on mutual aid, and we'll be right back here talking about the same nonsense year after year.
We need to start consolidating all these little companies/departments/districts and focus on regional approaches with properly trained personnel responding in accordance with NFPA and OSHA standards instead of departments like mine that think sending one career guy on an engine or ladder is a response. Maybe there will be 10 fully trained volunteers right behind him but maybe there won't. That's no system.
Training also needs to get standardized so you can't call yourself a firefighter if you can't do the job and haven't completed the training standard. The single standard for FF whether you are paid or volunteer. Imagine that.
Its time to stop the nonsense and move on so we are cost effective and efficient at doing our job for our customers, the taxpayers.

Charlie, this isn't just your problem. The problems plaguing the fire service (and the other emergency services) are all of our problems and are not unique to Port Chester or Rye Brook. In fact, the best solution lies in everyone looking at a regional solution rather than trying to put bandaids on all these little problems.

A disaster is right but we don't need to make Rye Brook a "real department", because the Village Board never will. They'll continue with inadequate staffing, inadequate coverage, reliance on mutual aid, and we'll be right back here talking about the same nonsense year after year.
We need to start consolidating all these little companies/departments/districts and focus on regional approaches with properly trained personnel responding in accordance with NFPA and OSHA standards instead of departments like mine that think sending one career guy on an engine or ladder is a response. Maybe there will be 10 fully trained volunteers right behind him but maybe there won't. That's no system.
Training also needs to get standardized so you can't call yourself a firefighter if you can't do the job and haven't completed the training standard. The single standard for FF whether you are paid or volunteer. Imagine that.
Its time to stop the nonsense and move on so we are cost effective and efficient at doing our job for our customers, the taxpayers.

Read, digest, comprehend and then respond. If you do these things you'll realize that I have a lot more than negativity to bring to this topic. It's called constructive commentary. As for your writing; I'm not trying to insult you. I'm simply pointing out that if you want your point to be taken seriously, you should be able to string a properly constructed sentence together. No one is looking for perfection, but I have to read your post about 4 times to make sense of it. Part of a respectful argument is to address everyone here like well read adults.
As for PCFD/RBFD operation; why should be not discuss that here? Isn't that the point of this forum? What should be do, buff out to apparatus and incident photos all day? Or perhaps we should only give big pats on the back for a job well done after every incident. No, that's not what this is for. We have this forum and it allows us to do many things. We get to share photos, report incidents and most importantly, discuss operations in the hopes of improving them. If all of those things can't be done, than why are Seth and the rest of the staff killing themselves and spending money keeping this site open?
As for the RBFD issue, lets cut to the chase. Everything is not fine. Those guys are in a position of having to do too much with not enough. Sorry, but waiting for PCFD to show up is also not appropriate as a first due means of providing emergency service. How about night time? Do you REALLY think that the lone chauffeur of engine 59 thinks showing up in front of a building fire at 2 A.M. is fine? I DOUBT it. What do you think residents see? They see a big red truck and a guy killing himself to hook up to a hydrant or whatever, but then they have to wait a few LONG minutes waiting for people to arrive to actually fight the fire. That's B.S. for that fireman to be in that position and B.S. for the residents.
There are many ways to skin this cat, but the system as it exists now is in fact NOT working. It is not sufficient and it puts a lot of firemen and civilians in danger, let along property. This is not about the dedication of those who work or volunteer in this two department system. This is about not being provided with the tools or manpower to do the job. Why are you defending this system? Is it because, "this is the way we've been doing it for 175 years", as someone said? Well, I guess we should dust off the hold hand drawn pumpers because they worked fine a century ago, right? Why examine a system to look to improve it?
If this doesn't get through....nothing will. I'm going to put the soap box away for now....

I'm not really sure the Mayor is a "best option" guy and I'll point out Bobby V as my prime example.
The mayor can't even get his plan out of the Public Health and Safety Committee of the BOR. The SFRD plan isn't even there, though the members are aware of it and have asked the city for the cost of it as it is written. I don't think we are close to change in the fire service in Stamford. I've said for a bit now the city needs to get everyone in the room to discuss and devise a plan. Present that plan as a unified fire service and move on. This Mayor won't do that.
I won't get into the scheduling debate of our hypothetical fire service again but I do have to ask one question.
If paid firefighters can be stationed 24/7/365 with out an increase in cost or much lower then the Mayor's plan, why remove them at night? Why not get more equipment out the door closer to the fire with full crews? Isn't that in the best interest of the public?

When you've got 15 minute response times you shouldn't complain about the time it takes to do anything.

Fire service administrators are going to get themselves in trouble with such broad and draconian policies. There is freedom of speech and as indicated with the results of the NYC EMS lawsuit, the courts will probably not side with the FD in these cases.
What do we have to hide? Why are we so closed-minded?
I have every right to criticize, praise, discuss, or simply talk about whatever I want, even my fire department. Unless I do it on a FD computer or while on FD time, they have no right to tell me I can't.
Stupid, narrow-minded policies.

In the past couple of days I've had a couple of conversations with firefighters from both the career and volunteer sides of the business, and came away from both with very similar information. Apparently many departments are enacting IT policies which strictly prohibit active members from posting ANY information about their department on the internet, without expressed or written approval from the chief of department, or somebody else designated by the department. So basically, if you want to write anything about your department, you have to submit it to the chief for approval.
I was quite surprised to hear this not once, but twice now in recent days. Is this some sort of trend taking hold in fire departments?
And now the argument against such a policy. Why on good earth would a fire department want to throttle down the healthy sharing of information from/between firefighters? The situation as described made me think of that famous quote on the bust statue in front of Faber College, "Knowledge Is Good." (from the movie Animal House for some of the younger members) I mean how freaking ridiculous, I mean just when you think they can't get any more ridiculous, I mean.....C'mon!
Are people in power so insecure they are now afraid of what the firefighters are thinking and saying to each other in the informal settings of a website? Fire related websites are tools of empowerment for those in the business. There has been such a movement toward the sharing of information, sharing of opinions, support for each other, support for each others departments, sharing of photography of equipment, tips on fireground operations, safer tool handling, special hazards one might encounter with particular vehicles if they become involved with fire, literally the list of positives for information sharing is endless.
And now comes word from very smart and knowledgeable firefighters that the effort is on, in a backward and FUBARed way, to start suppressing what firefighters can and cannot say; well no actually it's worse. They are saying "we don't want you saying anything."
What is this now, technology is here to help everybody, and departments want to enact a new DARK AGE? Shhhhhh.....
I was wondering because there's been a few different threads where the commentary was noticeably light, and normally we'd have no shortage of guys wanting to get in on a potentially hot discussion. But now it makes sense what's been going on. And it's a damn shame. It's a shame that firefighters are being intimidated to not say anything, not even talk about firefighting in a generic sense without naming names or departments. We've always done a pretty good job at maintaining the etiquette, the protocols if you will. There's an unwritten line, well it used to be unwritten apparently, but we knew how far we could take things. Nobody is out there blogging with the intent of embarrassing a department. And yet now comes word of "the era of new censorship".
I think it's a terrible direction for departments to be moving in. Let's hope it's the exception and not the rule. Just goes to show you, give a fire department a way to screw up a sure thing, a positive learning tool, the GREATNESS of the internet, an unprecedented tool that is helping departments, not hurting them, and they'll figure out a way to do it.

I think the concept is being lost on some departments that create special teams for FAST when it should be the function of aany/every FF instead of "special teams" that aren't always available.
In a large career department every FF can be FAST. In smaller departments and most volunteer agencies it's treated like something special and not everyone gets the training.

I think the concept is being lost on some departments that create special teams for FAST when it should be the function of aany/every FF instead of "special teams" that aren't always available.
In a large career department every FF can be FAST. In smaller departments and most volunteer agencies it's treated like something special and not everyone gets the training.