antiquefirelt

Our ambulances carry COVID-19 PPE kits for use on any call dispatched a Positive or Inconclusive case. The kit includes gown, faceshield and an N95. Additionally, an officer responds to all medical calls where it is a Positive or inconclusive patient and manages the scene personnel use and use of PPE.  Any N95 worn within 6ft. of a patient is disposed of, those worn but remaining outside the 6 ft. envelope are reused by the wearer until it's exposed. Unlike 99% of our "typical" EMS calls, a mistake doesn't just effect the patient.  A PPE or decon mistake has the potential to affect all our staff, their families and the next patient, so these runs are being overseen by the officer. We have implemented other measures to limit on scene exposure of staff as well which cuts down on unnecessary PPE use. 

Right now the department is looking into numerous re-use scenarios as the supply of PPE is scarce. Thankfully we're currently not seeing more than 1/3 of our patients being screened as Positive or Inconclusive, but we're requiring  the use of surgical masks on all EMS calls and a mask on every patient, as well as greater care in initial interaction screening.   

Lastly, and maybe it's happening everywhere, but we're seeing a real dip in overall EMS call volume. In the past two weeks we've seen a drop of probably 50% of "routine" medical runs.

Over the years I watched and read about both Fire and EMS departments merging or consolidation and come to the understanding that this rarely saves money (at least in the short term<10 yrs) and only functions well when it's well received by the "employees". It's easier where the employees are FT paid staff, as the details tend to get worked out. Volunteer organizations have a harder time unless they all want it. I'd think for any mainly volunteer or paid call departments a period of shared training and cooperative buying, along with standardization would set a more stable foundation. 

We have both fire and EMS departments "failing" around our area, and generally speaking the taxpayers are not given the whole story. Too often the EMS or Fire Chief and personnel are less forthcoming about their shortfalls with the public, as it seems to admit failure rather than a sign that times have changed and the between run volumes, call types and mandated training requirements have placed a significant burden on the all volunteer/paid call systems.

Well... I know Monday Morning quarterbacking always leads to bashing, but it would seem this video opens a bunch of questions. Maybe the unknown explains many of the things we saw or did not see?

Would have loved to see the Wallington stick back down the block and get the turntable inside of the wires...

So I'm pretty sure most or all of this comes from Priority Medical Dispatch, who have developed the phonetic response determinants based on the old four square risk model? Attached is the model from the EMD field guide. They note that the codes are given the same in every system, but the system users/admin determine the given response to the codes based on the local system.

For example, our system locally does not have ALS or BLS trucks, we have volunteers that may or may not have ALS in town or two career staffed EMS services that have ALS on duty. So if we're short  on medics, we send a medic on all calls that are Charlie, Delta or Echo, but hold them back on Alpha and Bravo calls to ensure their availability. Echo calls in our system have the dispatcher notifying the EMS, fire and PD resources in the dispatched area to ensure the fastest unit arrives as quickly as possible and can begin CPR or notify the others of the situation.

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.  

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. 

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. 

10 hours ago, LayTheLine said:

This is a short 3-minute video which I think is very educational. I've read and heard both sides of the argument about getting inside a fire and pushing the fire from the unburned side to the burned side. I've read and heard about transitional fire attack and the SLICE-RS concept about putting water on the fire as soon as you can and "reset" the fire; even if it's from the outside. Both arguments seem to have merit and it is very situational dependent. But watch this video and what happens when the firefighter puts water on the fire from inside the bus. The smoke, heat and steam obviously get pushed down to floor level or in this case even to ground level. It's a great video for really seeing the products of combustion being pushed. So I pose the question for discussion: Is it better to knock down the fire from any angle to reset it and cool the BTU's even though you may be pushing products of combustion on to trapped occupants, or is it better to take the extra time to get the hoseline in position by, for example going around to the backdoor, forcing entry and pushing the fire right out the living room picture window? 

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.  

Does it have CO detection built-in or that an option? 

Wasn't it Tulsa that had a previous issue with E-One aerials? 

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.

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. 

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.

1 hour ago, FF1 said:

Never criticize someone for getting the job done. We don't know the particulars of this. If that was the only viable option, go for it.

 

Hopefully the NFPA, NIOSH, OSHA and PESH police, who have never been on the line and have never been faced with making a split second, outside the box decision, will not come and arrest the aerial operator.

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. 

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...

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.

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. 

3 hours ago, goon16 said:

It was on another social media site giving credit to someone else.  Didn't read it all the way to the end.  My mistake 

I though ti t would be odd for an FDNY chief to have taken a Lt's position in Dallas, but nowadays who knows...

8 hours ago, goon16 said:

That was written by a very respected chief in the FDNY. 

The article gives credit to a Lt. from Dallas Fire/Rescue?

A 110 ft. RM tower with a single set of outriggers, no other stabilization required? Will be interested to see the rating charts.

On 4/19/2017 at 9:22 AM, dwcfireman said:

This is just one of the risks when beaching your ladder.  I've never seen it as a big deal.  We used to beach our quint upstate A LOT.  Usually to get it out we would jack it up with the outriggers and place plywood underneath the wheels.

I don't know, I'd say there is a lot of things that can go wrong: rollover? damage to the undercarriage? undesigned stress to the frame? I'd want to be damn sure that what I was doing was absolutely necessary for life or limb. In the case above, it would not appear to have been necessary, but of course we only have a 1/1000 of a second snapshot, so who's to say?

It appears someone at the Big "R" doesn't understand the chevron concept.

1 hour ago, 16fire5 said:

 

FLSA only requires OT for over 53 hours per week.  Some states in the north east NY included have a 40 hour work week for firefighters.  

Sadly I know this all too well, as this is the system I've been working for 20+ years now. My point in noting that above was that some of the higher salaries maybe attributed to working more hours. All other things being equal, the added hours would make pay 40% higher than the average taxpayer working 40 hrs a week.

Big OT number are almost always a result of failure to properly staff a department. With enough staff to ensure minimum staffing and cover some anticipated OT they would not see these "windfalls". Also, the article notes their numbers are total compensation (salary+benefits+OT) which is different than how much actually money the individuals take home. One must wonder the cost of health insurance and other similar expense in CA vs. other places. I know our City adds roughly 40% to any wages to figure benefits. In many places the pension systems are very different, some pay based on your total best year or years, other only on base wages. Also, while some FD's in CA run 42 hr weeks, many (most?) still run 56's? which is 40% more hrs. 

As noted above someone's math has to be way off, to say that every $1 of OT costs $1 to the pension system. That would be a 100% contribution and would be basically make overtime cost 3 times straight pay instead of 1.5?

On 2/24/2017 at 6:06 PM, fdalumnus said:

Once again politics rears it ugly head.

 

The hiring of the chief's son,IMO, should be celebrated, The fire service has a always been a family. Sounds like the chief ruffled a few feathers, so this is the payback.

The reality is there are two fire services when it comes to most (of these types) rules and regulations, municipal departments and then all others. Most municipalities have strict rules to protect themselves from liability and grievances. While the fire chief's son could be treated like anyone else in reality, just a mere perception can create problems. Most of the time it's something petty and stupid, not the big promotion or preferential assignments. But, in reality, does the Lt. worry he cannot discipline this FF in the same manner as he would otherwise? Can the crew complain about admin without offending the bosses son? Why did he didn't he get forced for OT?  The list of ways for other firefighters to be aggrieved is endless, add in that you're closely related to a boss and that just multiplies.