antiquefirelt

Bingo, I was looking to see if anyone had posted on the real reason for the low dollar loss and fire numbers! Proof that when you have full control of codes, construction and how people are to react you can have a fire safe area that plays host to millions. It helps when you have plenty of money and similar to any large corporate business has a lot to lose if there is a lawsuit due to injury/death. We never have issues getting code compliance from Walmart, Home Depot or any companies with a lot to lose.

We looked at CAFs very hard on our recent Rescue Pumper project and while many of us are convinced this maybe a valuable tool to have, the price tag was between $40 and $50K above the traditional water only pumper, with more systems (air compressor, foam injection, electronic flow meters throughout. More systems equals more potential problems and of the people we talked to that ran CAFs most had experienced issues that took them out of service. I think it's probably the way we'll be going in the future, but they need to become more reliable and less expensive. Not to mention the significant learning curve associated. When we were still seriously considering it, I spoke to Capt Robertson out in Ft. Worth about their CAFs trucks. He's a true believer but also noted it takes a true dept. shift to accept and adopt the change in tactics. He impressed on me that you cannot have different shifts or stations not buy into the concept. In the end, for us the money was the biggest issue and we've yet to fight a fire water wouldn't work on, evfen if it's not as effective.

It looks like this was a loser from the start (at least the start of the video). Commercial building with heavy smoke conditions, numerous cracks and holes in a brick wall pushing smoke. It looks like the FD might have started an interior attack, given the placement of a PPV fan, unless they were trying to gets this over with faster! They may have pushed in and hit some fire early causing the white smoke with little velocity, but toss in the PPV fan and a void space and you have a recipe for rapid fire development, as it seemed to turn fairly fast. This could have been a grease fire in the duct work, that escaped into the cockloft (looks like a Cafe by the name?) Or a typical fire in the rear storage area that breaches the ceiling. :15-30 - interesting how the white smoke coming from the #1 side is light and drops to the ground, again indicating that it may have been cooled by a sprinkler (not too liklely) or hose streams. :45- Side #1 white smoke has changed to billowing brownish gray smoke that quickly rises and has decent velocity. Hot fire taking hold of the interior. 3:00- fire lights up space toward the right of the original fire area (in the 1-2 corner space). Looks like it found some new fuel and lit off. 3:10- looks like an 1 3/4" or 1 1/2" line on 30 degree fog! Talk about out gunned! This was clearly a 2.5" fire from the start of the video. Too many FD's "always" pull the preconnect or won't drop it upon pulling out to get the big line. 3:45- Someone says, "I didn't think it was going to do that...at least not on this end" Really, you didn't? I hope you're not a FD employee. 5:20- now we have two 1 3/4" lines while one man stretches the 2.5". An ugly stretch at that, but we all have them days. I'd have liked to see some 2.5" smoothbores and/or portable guns on the sidewalk . Better yet would be a couple of tower ladders operating at street level, but alas it looks like a West Coast Seattle area fire where towers are few.

I'll toss in a note about tightening hard suctions. If you maintain hand tight and no one beats it on with the mallet, hand tight will work. Once someone has put the mallet to any fitting the O-ring gets compressed and always needs to be just a little tighter. My previous FD was a draft only town and we could maintain hand tight suction for over a year when everyone understood to leave the mallet in the compartment. We also used beachballs, small mooring balls, a chunk of Blue board or even wood to break up the whirl pools in portable tanks. Often when you can't get a prime you need to look for that on bad valve that needs to be just so or tighten a cap. The box type strainers work the best to give you max flow, as the barrel types tend to pick up debris easy. Low level strainers are good in drop tanks, but the box strainer (right side up) works better as long as the tankers are on a decent rotation.

We used to operate a Dive Team that was made up of career and a few call firefighters. We basically determined that it was too much to continue with due to the hours of training needed to keep up, and the infrequency of actual rescue incidents. If you look at training deaths, I believe you'll find that deaths per training drill for dive rescue is far higher than any other public safety discipline. As for the original comment: it would seem truly foolhardy to dismiss any resource you cannot otherwise get in a timely manner. That being said, there is something to be said for the IC being responsible for the actions of anyone coming into his/her scene. i would not allow a "fly-by night" team attempt a rescue if I thought they were a danger to themselves or others.

Our most recent truck (engine actually) committee reviewed all pump panel locations including these and went back to a side mount (actually rearmount pump with right side rear panel). One of the biggest reasons was the amount of up and down time an operator has with top mounts. And here in the northeast the snow, ice and water make for slippery conditions causing slips trip s and falls while mounting and dismounting the panel walkway. In fact I think this set up while nice in some regards may be worse for climbing up and down given the narrow steps and the fact you must make a turn. On the pro side you end up with top mount without sacrificing length.

This is true enough, though usedfiretrucks has a very valid point in that Fire Apparatus Builders use NFPA 1901 as a liability minimization tool, and rightfully so as it will be brought into court as a National Consensus Standard. We tried to by a non-compliant MM TL and couldn't do it (OK maybe Scope would've but the cost was astronomical). We spent tons of time researching TL's and talking to guys that use them and found that many of the problems were with times we felt were non-mandatory such as compartment light switches. We couldn't get a builder to make a truck without individual compartment light switches that also activate the "open door" warning light in the cab. So, just like so many other NFPA equipment mandates, our guys basically have learned to ignore the compartment ajar warning due to the 85% failure rate of this system. Literally from day one, we've had switches that fail to release. Or how about those great NFPA built in PASS alarms? Ever watch a video of a fireground where the SCBA's are so equipped? Who the hell will ever know if an armed PASS is for real or not? Again, many of these NFPA recommendations are due to "our" lack of discipline. We are our own worse enemy some times. But again, how many of us bow to the NFPA regulations for apparatus, SCBA, gear, etc. then look the other way when it comes to staffing? Like staffing won't make the job safer? Thank you, I'd just as soon ride an old firetuck with an old wire frame Scott 4.5 and more firemen then on a new NFPA compliant truck with CBRNE SCBA and to few guys to really get the job done right.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the most current edition of 1901 specifies what is required of an elevating platform. An escape ladder or any ladder for that matter is not required. In fact what you've posted is just as it says, "Where a water tower was equipped with a ladder, the same requirements as applied to an aerial ladder were required of the ladder on the water tower." This means that the water tower does not require the ladder but when it has one, it should meet ladder requirements to meet that part. The same is true of an elevating platform. Just because one non-required part/portion doesn't meet the standard does not mean the apparatus doesn't meet. Otherwise there'd be very few NFPA compliant buildings, where NFPA 101 is a probably their most used codes. As for MVFD's Scope, I'm sure someone here knows better, but I was told by the dealer who was delivering it that it was purely monetary. MVFD had little money but wanted a quality tower, and given the thoughts on using the escape ladder it was an easy cut. Again, third hand info someone form MVFD must have the inside skinny.

I believe you're mistaken here. NFPA 1901 does not require that an elevating platform have a ladder. See section 20.7 for the list of required components. It does specify that when it does have a ladder then said ladder must meet certain standards. The lack of the ladder does not make the aerial a water tower. While one might argue that an elevating platform cannot have a non-compliant ladder and remain compliant, the fact remains that it never needed a ladder to start and to diminish its designation due to the escape ladder would be silly. One also must ask at what point does NFPA compliance become too much? We are so worried about liability, that we spend money on items we admit we won't use, for a non-mandatory regulation. How many of you who will argue for full NFPA 1901 compliance have met 1710 or 1720?

We looked at buying a Scope without the "escape" ladder as well. While all of FDNY's TL's have them, read their TL Ops manual, it basically says that the escape ladder is a last resort, after using another aerial or rappelling. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their use. Given that FDNY buys about half of the Scopes built each year, they may know a bit about them. It seems there have been a lot of issues with Scope's since Seagrave took over, between the last few built in Virginia and the stuff coming out of Wisconsin, the new Seagrave/Aerialscope seems to being damaging it's own good name. Really a shame for a TL buff like me.

There was a movement to buy them here, but we couldn't get past he added weight. They really only seem to be for transfer trucks where you're always able to put he pt. on then use the motor or air (seen these?) to power it up. Otherwise how much does it help when you have to carry the stretcher off a porch or across a snowy lawn? I just wouldn't want any extra weight, when the only benefit is the lift that you can best protect your back from anyway. Lifting a stretcher from the ground to "load" is no issue using good techniques because you're stabilized and lifting straight up. How about something that reduces the weight when you're sliding across an icy driveway? The salesman for Stryker electrics left here in a big huff! Sadly a few of our employees were mad about it, I'll have to point out some of the user comments here. GAW6- what kind of area do you serve? I can see lots of pavement and hard floors making them seem pretty decent.

There has a been quite a bit of controversy over smoke detectors and how well the ionization types work. In MA they have a law banning the use of "ionization only" smokes. This is due in large part to D/C Fleming of Boston Fire who has been studying fire death and injuries where smoke detectors were present, as well as other sources who have been crying foul on them. There seems to be no issue with photo-electric smoke detectors. They also make combination units that use both types. From the last fire/smoke detection NFPA 72 seminar I attended it seems that a new gas sensing technology is going to be the best, but most likely cost prohibitive for anything but museums or other places looking to protect highly valuable property. Here are a few links about he detector type controversy: From D/C Flemming News Release possibly some bias or monetary connection has been question in regard to this.

Interesting method but I'm pretty sure we could have pulled the pins on the exposed hinges much quicker, or cut them for that matter.

I was hoping this was about Uniformed Fire Officers, but alas it is as ridiculous as it sounds. What a great way to kill the credibility of your book!

This is also how we have been teaching ventilation with an axe for a few years now. We let each academy class try both ways, almost every third swing with the dull blade gets stuck in the wood, with the flat side- no problem. This also makes for another easy tool selection: take the Irons. You can use the halligan to make a foot hold by spiking the pike into the roof and can them move further off the ladder on steep roof. Of course, the chainsaw and K12 are preferred when they work. We teach if you can walk without a ground ladder use the rotary saw, if you need a ladder use the chainsaw.

FD's lease apparatus for the same reason people lease cars and SUVs. It's generally for one of two reasons. First, you can't afford to buy that new truck you really want and the lease allows for lower payments. The second reason, is if you accept that you'll always have a vehicle payment, can meet the terms of the lease (mileage) and will always wan t anew vehicle within 3-5 years. For a FD that has had to spend tons of time and money limping aged apparatus, fighting to get funding when the trucks are still "in service" the lease option is fairly palatable. You'll never be more than x years aways from a new vehicle, with new technology and upgraded features that fit the changing needs of your dept., the maintenance costs will be lower as you are getting only the best years of the truck and the payments are low because the truck can be resold. Maybe throw in the third reason as mentioned above that often lease purchase payments are low enough to not exceed the amount requiring voter approval and therefore can be done immediately. Now in practice, one must wonder how the depreciation or trade in truck stands up to a trade-in inspection. Like car leases there must be some rules as to modifications to the original apparatus. What if you drill holes, change brackets, scratches, dings and dents? Also, how custom can the apparatus be to start? Are they all program trucks? I'd be interested to hear of how many FD's continue leasing after the first round of leased trucks is turned in. Lastly, as noted before most are actually lease purchases, as we were offered with our new rescue pumper project. The bids come in with the prices then the bidders offer a lease-purchase program to keep the payments low so it looks better to the annual bean counters.

Rockland Tower 3 is fully short jacked in that pic. It will allow pretty much full operation off the center line toward the jacked side, but will not allow any movement toward the shortjacked side. I hope that's what you were looking for. The picture was taken during the initial training conducted by Lt. Mike Wilbur of FDNY. The top picture was not training!

All kinds of love for this Rockland Truck! Speaking of Waterbury being like Poughkeepsie (sp) or Beacon. This tower was basically taken from the Waterbury specs. When looking at new towers we actually looked at PFD T2, Fairview's TL as well as the Peirce in Hillcrest, Valhalla's ALF and many more.

Here's another example of bashing without thinking. Why is the helmet chin strap necessary when there is no overhead danger? How does the chinstrap keep the helmet from falling off the front when you bend down? You'll have to cinch it up real tight to keep it on if it doesn't fit perfect. If it fits perfect with no hood, is it too tight with a hood? Does it fit perfect with the ear flaps in or out? I wear my chin strap on the front of my brim every day and use it when I mask up or am involved in an incident where there is an overhead issue. I suppose being a career EMS professional you wear your BSI on every call, full mask, eye protection, gloves, gown, etc. You know, just in case! Moose I do agree that there is plenty of room to change and we do need to think about doing things smarted and learning from our mistakes, but I'm sick of firefighters wearing Brotherhood stickers and t-shirts while calling other firefighters stupid or morons. Let only those perfect firefighters, in perfect depts throw stones.

I won't specifically defend it, as we all know the "rules" but... How many of you work in the perfect FD? No one ever violates NFPA rules? As was already mentioned, many depts in this country (no not mine) fight car fires every day with no SCBA. It's probably not as dangerous as ditching your mask before overhaul is complete, but most of us do that. Hell, Boston doesn't require bunker pants yet it's hard to argue that their "a bunch of moron's". Most of us try and do the right thing most of the time, but some rules are too much for some and not enough for others, it's the way it is. Our defualt position should not be to start calling other guys names... So much for Brotherhood! So for all you NFPA Safety Sally's: How many of you work for FD's that meet NFPA 1710 or 1720? I'm willing to bet some of you will have to look those up! Or do you pick and choose which safety measures to follow and which to bash other depts on?

Then they should make the mask firefighter proof. You are admitting that they know that the masks are going to be donned improperly so why make the mask prone to failure? This is the same manufacturer's CYA for every make and model of every widget: "improper use may result in failure". Remember the first MSA MMR's? If you didn't don the regulator "correctly" ensuring it clicked in, it would pop out! They since corrected this as it was prone to improper donning. Scott makes a great product line and I trust their SCBA completely, but their not infallible. BTW, I hate the 3000 mask as well. In fact I much prefer the older pre-air 50 packs with the kevlar straps and the AV 2000 mask. But as long as its a 4.5 it'll work!

Our three are completely washed and sanitized once a week regardless of calls. On top of this we run a very tight ship on keeping them clean after each call, but I'm sure there is no 100% mark. It's a fairly good point to question this but kids and public ed are a small part, considering we transport people every day with weakened immune systems. Both kids and elderly alike are highly susceptible so our daily call by call cleaning should be as good as we can do.

Our Union researched this a few years back with the intent on having the City be responsible for washing our uniforms. We found that indeed in NFPA 1500 and some other NFPA documents that they require that uniforms used on EMS runs stay at the station for sanitary purposes. In the end we didn't force the issue as it was one of those "bargaining chips" at the time. To this day my girlfriend who works in a dental office goes to work in street clothes and changes into scrubs at work and back to streets at lunch then into scrubs upon return and finally back to streets at the end of the day. They are regulated by license to do this like nurses and doctors. She cannot understand how I can bring home a uniform that has a far greater potential for BBP issues. Thankfully my EMS days are fairly few and far between. Currently, we run all "soiled" uniforms across the street to an approved laundromat who cleans them on the City's dime. But day to day uniforms are still our responsibility. I guess one could claim the uniform was soiled on any run and have it cleaned each shift, but that would start another Union issue. Good topic.

Exactly! If the study took all of the apparatus accidents in a given time period and then looked at the color of the apparatus, of course red would be involved in more! There are 10 times the red apparatus as compared to yellow/green/whatever. If you studied the different colors of apparatus and determined their rate of accident (X accidents per number of runs) you would have a true comparison. We have "Boars Head" schemed apparatus that is very visible, due to black reflective tape, red/white chevrons on the rear, and quality (not quantity) lighting. I think the unpainted roll-up doors help during the day as they provide color contrast when the reflective stuff isn't bright. JBE is right, most people aren't even looking at the apparatus they're watching the scene, the smoke, flames, people being extricated and are not paying attention to where the nose of the vehicle is pointing. Add in a cell phone and you'd be better off deploying a sniper than cones!

So I take there are more than a few of us who are sickened by the whole "there are no wrong answers". It's amazing how many classes I've taken in the last few years that the instructors let students answer questions wrong and do not correct them. We've adopted a motto that we teach as members of the "Church of Painful Truth". You may not like what you hear, but we will ensure you get the right answers and correct the wrong ones. None of this Well that is one way of doing i, but..." instead it's " no that way is not the best way, this is..." With as much bad info and practices out there, why let people cloud here minds with wishy washy answers, teach them the right way. I'd rather have hurt feelings than true injuries!