Welcome to EMTBravo.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.

antiquefirelt

Members
  • Content count

    1,590
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

About antiquefirelt

  • Rank
    Forum Veteran
  • Birthday 12/08/1969

My Web Presence

  • Website URL http://www.rocklandfd.com

Profile Information

  • Location Rockland, Maine
  • Gender Male
  • Interests apparatus

Recent Profile Visitors

10,183 profile views
  1. Our dept. has 3 shifts of 6 and a very small "call division" of 8-10. Recalls occur fairly often about an average of 30 times a month but we can go days with none and have 6 another day. These used to be by platoon a few decades ago when our call division was much larger, but now they are "all come" recalls. I track call payroll and FT recall attendance and on average we get 2.2 FT personnel per recall. We are paid a min. of 2 hrs OT for all recalls 0600-2300 and 3 hrs OT from 2300-0600 or anytime on holidays. Sadly only 3 of our career personnel live inside the city limits, so it does affect turnout and the speed at which the station is covered. None of our call division personnel are EMS licensed, so that makes recalls a bit more difficult, as of course this is 75% of our work. Most are fully certified FF2 and driver operated certified annually, but alas, the call force is dwindling to the core group and there is very little outside interest to join. I know that over the years recall attendance by career staff ebbs and flows. Younger guys tend to have other jobs off-duty, then there are guys with families that have childcare responsibilities during time off, those who get somewhat burned-out tend to not respond to routine recalls. On the plus side, we have one Lt. who lives in town who takes as much OT as possible come to most callbacks, and one or two other personnel who are pretty regular. With structure fires being down, we get decent turnouts for most first alarms. My own personal situation is that I used to be 'Johnny on the spot" even though I lived about 15 min. away, but as I've aged, I find getting back to sleep much more difficult and operating with less sleep much harder, thus I pass up more recalls at night than before even though I live closer. The one thing that seems to motivate career personnel in our dept. is that your off-duty attendance of training and recalls can be a factor in promotions, as personnel who are "always" there tend to be favored when other things are on par between candidates. With a large percentage of our officers eligible to retire in the next 3 years this likely will result in some making a greater effort.
  2. LayTheLine: That's far more than I anticipated. I'll have to ask if we have a similar thing in our area. I never remember being part of or hearing about a bus evacuation drill, but alas, it's been a few years since I rode in a yellow bus.
  3. While I think most would agree specialty tools like the Navy Nozzle, bayonet nozzles, or Bresdan Distributors have a place on apparatus, their uses are for a specific set of circumstances. In this case, even if you felt it was not safe to enter the bus, the rear door would have made an easy access point for a normal firestream. On evacuating the bus, does anyone know the procedure the drivers are taught (maybe not standard?). This looks like the perfect case for the driver to send kids out the back and check seat by seat on his way out the back as well? But, does the driver have to open the door, or can kids of any age do this in an emergency? If the driver has to go back and open the door, he may never get back to the front to check seat by seat... Something I'd never really given any consideration, but this discussion got me thinking.
  4. So a few points that must be considered when using this video as a basis for comparison: 1. The nozzle was set to a narrow to medium fog pattern, something we know will entrain air and push heat, smoke and fire. A straight or solid stream would not have had the same result, or to the same degree. 2. The issue of pushing products of combustion onto trapped occupants outside the fire room has been shown to be nearly negated with a proper solid/straight stream and little movement. Inside the fire room with actual fire out the window, the probability of survivability is next to nothing. 3. One of the reasons we have such a wide spread of results from the "reset" stream is the misapplication. When you say "at any angle", it's really a perversion of the research showing the smooth/straight stream should be aimed into the opening with the stream entering the opening low and aimed sharply upward at the ceiling and held there with little to no movement to minimize blocking the venting from the same opening. 4. Positioning a line to attack from the unburned side can result in delayed water on the fire, which we know is the real key to success. The sooner we can cool the fire and stop the production/spread of heat, the better. Also, going to the rear in residential dwellings often doesn't allow for the line to be placed between the fire and the stairs. In my opinion, the "outside hit" is a tactic that can work very well as long the conditions are right: a) fire must be self-vented from the fire room, b) the opening cannot be out of the way of the first line stretched so that it causes a delay in getting inside (unless it's totally untenable), c) charging the line outside cannot delay the stretch inside (fire on the third floor or above where a dry lay up may be significantly faster). Basically, why would we not want to cool the fire faster if it's possible? Again, done properly, utilizing a straight stream or solid bore properly applied when it doesn't significantly (60 seconds?) delay the stretch in? Again in my opinion this tactic should not be called "transitional attack". Transitional indicates a movement from one mode to another, but in this case the outside stream is not a defensive move, it's a "new" option in the offensive attack, that like other tactics should be utilized when conditions indicate and allow. Conditions dictate tactics. All of that said, that video went totally different than I anticipated, they made short work of that fire.
  5. Does it have CO detection built-in or that an option?
  6. Wasn't it Tulsa that had a previous issue with E-One aerials?
  7. If your staffed properly and everyone does their job you should be able to put the fire out and move before the ticket officer nabs you! Of course you'll have to leave all the overhaul to the truckies.
  8. Ughhh... Not a big fan of large conglomerate fire service product manufacturers. Seems like the larger companies get, the more removed they are from providing decent customer service and reasonable pricing. Since Cairns sold the helmet line to MSA we lost sizing, comfort and paid more. We've been Globe customers for many years and having strayed many times to give others a chance, we always revert back to Globe for the quality, pricing and delivery time, one can only hope they don't diminish the line in any way, but alas, streamlining multiple lines would seem inevitable.
  9. OK, sorry, but I gotta Monday Morning this. No way that any fire officer should have not seen the potential for this to occur and prevented it. The construction alone, nevermind the conditions at the start of the video indicate a different course from the one shown. Very lucky this wasn't far worse.
  10. Never criticize for getting the job done? So as long as we put the fire out, anything goes? I know that's not what you meant, but discussions like this should be broad based and allow use to discuss limits, situations, parameters, and practices. If you do $300k damage to an aerial while extinguishing a fire in a $200k home, with no life hazard, is that justified? Anything we do seems fine in the name of getting the job done, until someone is hurt or killed or we destroy property (there's or "ours"). The point isn't to be frozen with fear of "breaking a rule" but to understand how to employ a tactic while minimizing risk. As has been noted in numerous posts, apparatus are just tools, but let's not forget that there are proper and improper ways to utilize tools, so a video like this can be a valid opportunity to review what our people know think, understand and know about using an aerial to vent.
  11. Hadn't watched the video before, but I'd want to be sure my operators understood when it was OK and how it was done. In this case with the aerial mostly retracted it would seem far less likely to be damaging than if that had been at full extension. Aerials are not meant to be sideloaded, or torqued in any manner. This is exactly the type of use the aerial engineers feared when we talked about this. Again, maybe the situation called for this and the risk was worth the reward...
  12. I assume by Commissioner Finn's comments that these engine will have roof/bumper or similar mounted foam guns? I'm not convinced foam handlines would provide much difference with regard to the proximity of the firefighters directing the stream. In fact the set up pictured in the story would require getting even closer than a standard water based stream? Also, with no disrespect to Commissioner Finn or any Boston Jakes, but the only reason dumpsters and car fires would be the most hazardous to firefighters health would be if said firefighters failed to use all their PPE, including SCBA. One can likely assume this was just a poorly constructed article using some of the easier points to lay out on why the new engines have foam systems.
  13. The Chief of Dept. when I started was convinced that this was a valid thing to do when venting was necessitated, and couldn't be quickly or safely performed by personnel. His take was the aerial was a tool and far less important than firefighters lives. It was/is hard to disagree. I know of one fire where our old Maxim aerial was utilized to open up multiple windows covered in plywood on a tire warehouse, as the IC felt putting FFer's on the tip to remove plywood would have been too slow and very dangerous given the flammability of the exiting smoke. Not an option any more for us as we only have a TL. Some years later (2005) while we were having dinner with a few factory engineers, our salesman and a nationally recognized apparatus consultant this topic was brought up. Everyone agreed this was a valid tactic, but of course the manufacturer would have no control over how it was done, thus no way they'd sanction it. Noted was the fact that most new aerials have a bolt on tip section, and damage to the end could be fixed as long as the rest of the aerial was not damaged in the maneuver. Clearly, you need to be certain the tip clears any structural members. Questions of whether it should be lined up then lowered in vs. extended into the window remain a source of contention. I know of one "old" story from Auburn, Maine where the aerial was extended in and was driven into the ceiling above which then blocked the window as a means of egress which was the original intent, and firefighters suffered burns as a result.
  14. I though ti t would be odd for an FDNY chief to have taken a Lt's position in Dallas, but nowadays who knows...
  15. The article gives credit to a Lt. from Dallas Fire/Rescue?