fdalumnus

What's in em?

My department has a Sutphen Tower that is about the same age, and looks about the same model. I'd like to know more about this issue. Is it a department thing or Sutphen thing? Anything we should be watching out for?

I wouldn't necessarily classify it as having "no regard for staffing standards" in the career departments that are "understaffed", at least not at the FD level.
Typically the guys/gals on the street know that they are "understaffed" whether it be in terms of individual unit staffing, number/type of staffed apparatus and/or overall shift staffing. We often have to work with the hand we are dealt rather than the one we'd like to have. Very few firefighters in any career department have any real influence when it comes to setting staffing levels. The unions can only do so much to address the matter and sometimes it comes down to deciding what is the best of several bad options.
A few years ago Gary, IN was having severe financial issues (not that they aren't now) and the decision was made to reduce staffing on all companies in order to save money. Pretty sure it was a reduction from 4 to 3 per unit. The contract called for minimum unit staffing of 4 and the union filed a grievance over the reduction. It eventually went to arbitration and the union won the grievance and the City was ordered to put the 4th FF back on all in service units.
The City complied and immediately put the 4th FF went back, but at the same time they closed several more companies in order to do it and still save the money. The legal precedent regarding staffing is basically that unit staffing is enforceable in arbitration, but overall shift staffing and number/type of apparatus in service essentially fall to managerial prerogative and can't be imposed by an arbitrator.
So, in this situation, the union technically prevailed and kept the 4th FF, but they ended up losing a few engine/truck companies. So, it begs the question in a situation like this, are you better off with 5 engines & 1 truck staffed with 4 FF each or with 6 engines & 2 trucks with 3 FF each?
In my small career department, if we were to have to comply with a 4 FF per unit requirement, it would pretty much close our second unit (engine) and station almost every day. Right now, our first unit has 3 on it most of the time, occasionally 4 and the second has 3 probably around half the time. Being forced into a single unit would significantly impact our operational flexibility, increase response times to half of the city and in all honesty, not be any "safer" for us. We'd love to have more on-duty staffing, but that's just not in the cards anytime soon. This works for 90+% of our calls and we rely on our off-duty personnel and neighboring VFDs for the calls that need more.

This is not a paid vs volunteer thing, it's a there should be ONE standard for ALL firefighters. There's should also be one standard for fire departments. All departments should be able to put the minimum number of properly trained firefighters on the scene in the generally accepted national standard. While Mt. Vernon seems to take the brunt of public flogging, with the exception of Yonkers and possibly New Rocelle no other fire department it Westchester can even fight a room and contents fire without Mutual Aid. Is Mt. Vernon undermanned yes, but so is basically every fire dept in Westchester.

Without manpower lost?
There isn't a guy driving a second or third truck now. These are designed to eliminate jobs.
I get that it all costs money, I do. I pay taxes too. But anytime something like this comes up, jobs are lost. Either thru attrition or cuts, jobs are lost.
Cities try out quints. Jobs are lost. Wow, we can have four guys in a station on one truck instead of eight on two??!! Wow, that's neat. And EFFICIENT. Anytime an administrator uses that word, there's likely an axe swinging somewhere.

Here we go....

Before you knock the unions ( who keep pushing for increased training and manpower) about blocking Home Rule why not lobby for one standard for all firefighters in the state, paid or volunteer. That would include new firefighters, in service training for all firefighters, response times, manning on apparatus, promoting officers on qualifications not on election results. Not to mention mandatory retirement age so we don't have a rig responding with 3 or4 70 year old men on it with a 19 year old lieutenant because that was all that was around.

why would the unions stop home rule?

Don't you mean FASNY, which lobbies against same standards of training for professional career staffing, and volunteer members? If I was a betting man, which I've been known to be, I'd place my money on the non-uniformed training standards of volunteers, vs known and required training of career firefighters as the reason for not being called into Mt. Vernon and a majority of other career/combo departments.Why would I roll the dice with the qualifications of those coming in, vs knowing when I call for an engine, I'm gonna get exactly what I asked for in terms of manning and qualifications?

Date: 12-24-15
Time: 09:30hrs
Location: Whippoorwill Rd area
District: North Castle PD
Units: Car 30, Car 31, Car 36

Description: Female observed unknown male in a blue Saab taking tip money left out for garabge men and postal workers. 911 was contacted, a vehicle and person description was given. North Castle PD fanned out in the area to create a perimeter to the roads this suspect was most likely to travel. North Castle PD identified the vehicle and person driving, and a stop was initiatied on Banksville Rd. The officers discovered the tip money in his car. Taken back to original scene where he was positively ID'd by the initial caller. North Castle PD then had one under arrest.
**Please PM me with any corrections or updates**

Not as well thought out. Actually, to me it looks like the only purpose of these trucks, was a way of spending money.

Completely wasted space behind the cab, how about some type of enclosure with bench seating to aid in evacuation and why not all wheel drive instead of two wheel so it can go in the snow, speaking of which how about a plow attachment and a winch.
Sounds like they had money for dump trucks not specialized vehicles and this is the best they could do. Another waste of taxpayer money.

so let me get this straight, the only reason to become a vol ff is to be chief? and with that thinking, every member that joins has the capacity to be chief. And by that thinking now if you pay a chief, all the volunteers should quit. Different way of looking at things. interesting

Not everybody is cut out to be an officer or chief and some people are happy to be firefighters. Nobody is entitled to those positions.

Ideally, yes and I agree. On the same token, volunteers are taking time away from their personal lives and families, something that's increasingly difficult to do. Add on top of the fact these facilities give nothing back to the community, yet tax their resources immensely. How's the guy who's lived in that district for 50 years and is a homeowner who's having a legit heart attack going to feel when he has to wait for a mutual aid ambulance because this one facility has called for the 5th time today for a stubbed toe because the facility nurse called in sick or is on vacation so their protocol is to call EMS instead of covering her shift. That's not fair to anyone.

I thought you volunteered or accepted professional positions with the up front knowledge of responding to each and every call, as if its an emergency. Emergency services are supposed to be dedicated to the communities, in which, they protect, regardless of the address, nature and frequancy of the call.
It boggles my mind that people are acknowledging the fact that they "pick and choose" which alarm to respond to. This mentality contridicts everything that the emergency services stand for.
Let the officers be officers, commissioners be commissioners and handle the problems, if determined that a problem exists and in the mean time, remember what you signed up for and serve your community everytime the alarm goes off.

Their is a science to fleet management and many departments have no idea about this.
What is the best time to replace a rig? Much depends on its condition, wear and tear etc. A small department that runs 300 calls a year vs. a busy one doing 10,000. etc.
But their are a number of factors to consider:
1) NFPA standards list 25 years max life, but only if the vehicle has a safety upgrade at 15 years. How many safety updates has the industry seen in the last 25 years? seatbelts, antilock breaks, automatic traction control, tilt testing, etc.? What is the liability on keeping rigs longer than this?
2) Resale value. At 10 years and 1 day the resale value of apparatus dramatically drops. Their are some large depts. that have a very progressive program to remove all rigs from primary service at 8 years and place them into the spare fleet. They are sold before their 10th year. The maintenance costs avoided, plus the resale value mean these departments actually spend less (over a 30-40 comparison) than those depts. that keep the rig until its only value is for scrap metal.
3) Maintenance Costs. Most apparatus components are covered under warranties, almost all run out by 8-10 years. The cost of maintaining older apparatus is dramatic compared to new (particularly when many costs are covered by warranties). Experience shows that in a fleet of 20 vehicles, the 2 oldest may take up to 80% of the maintenance budget. And it is not uncommon for depts. to spend 5-10%/yr. of the cost of a replacement on older apparatus. This does not take into account the down time which is hard to measure financially. As many major manufacturers have gone out of business these costs and time goes up.
4) Budget Cycle - Most depts. never set a long term replacement cycle. This creates major financial stress and causes delays in purchasing which will increase costs (particularly interest costs for bonding). If you have 100 apparatus in your fleet and you determine that the average life you want is 10 years, then every year you need to buy 10 new rigs. If you have 4 rigs and you want 20 years than every 5 years you need to buy a rig. This pattern must continue forever. If the rig ages get to close together, your costs get piled on in a very short period. If you have a steady pattern it is easier to budget and maybe even save for.
Replacement cost (average):
2 engines $500,000 each
1 ladder $1,000,000
1 Rescue $250,000
Your average is $562,500. If you buy one new rig each year you need to budget $112,500 every year (plus inflation) and you will maintain your fleet at no rig over 20. and a new rig every 5 years.

There seems to be a ribbon of young guys who demand respect before earning it. They don't give a crap about the older guys or their insight. A good leader needs to be built off those that came before them. I never went to college but have had extensive training in my profession since getting hired. I recently had a newly promoted officer tell me that he deserved it because he went to college to better himself while others didn't.

I've participated in two tactical simulations for promotions in departments other than my own. One was to hire a career Fire Chief and the other for a lieutenants promotion process in a career FD. The aspect I thought was missing, that is a real factor, is the urgency of the situation. Candidates are very calm, collected and methodical in the simulation, almost algorithmic, whereas we know some people who are challenged on the fireground when faced with some many factors all at once. That being said, I like this better than not having any evaluation of practical tactical applications.
One of the factors we use to evaluate leadership potential in firefighters is their ability to teach others. A hallmark of nearly every decent officer I've worked for or with, was their ability to pass on knowledge. Some don't have it, and that is generally reflected in how tight their crew is. Some crews have a few bright individuals that "get it", but others that don't, but where the officers are good, the baseline of the whole crew is raised.

Too much equipment could allow some inexperienced persons to lose sight of the big picture and become directly involved at the task level. Much like having booster reels, if it's there it can be misused where strict guidelines are not routinely followed. When the IC gets directly involved at the task level, other things get missed. And if you had it on board and did not deploy it, it could bite you. Anyone remember Dallas FD not maintaining the pumps on their quints yeas ago? Having equipment and failing to use it can become a legal nightmare when people are looking to pint the finger of blame, which is sadly becoming ever-more-present in public service.

In some rural areas, the major apparatus can be 15 or more minutes behind a chief officer responding directly to the scene. It may not put out a barn fire, but it may prevent a small fire from getting out of control or it may provide cover to effect a rescue.
It's not an answer to all things but a useful tool for some things.