antiquefirelt

The reality is that most citizens and local politicians don't care what it says on the side of the fire apparatus at the fire scene as long as the fire is put out. Given the choice between properly funding the local FD to ensure they're capable of handling a first or second alarm fire on their own, or utilizing "free" mutual aid, they'll always choose the cheaper option. Unless a bunch of communities in a region are seeing growing expenses due to providing the mutual aid, chances of any one wanting to be more self-sufficient is unlikely.
The problem is the public doesn't know a good job from, mediocre or worse. If you arrive in any reasonable amount of time (longer for VFD's), don't look like the proverbial Monkey/Football, the fire goes out without getting worse after arrival, they'll be happy. In fact often they'll hail the FD for being hometown heroes, while having no clue they just got mediocrity. So trying to tell the public too spend more for a problem they fail to see or understand is a real uphill battle.
The fact is we're our own worst enemy far too often. We (as a whole) take what they give us (less and less), accept increasing risks to our personnel, and still get the job done to a level that is satisfactory to the masses. Until we start pointing out slower response times, equipment failures, lack of training or skill development and relate these to the loss of funds and personnel, the public will continue to push for lower taxes, as at the end of the day, unless they've experienced a fire, they have no real skin in the game. To the public we're one very expensive insurance policy, that appears to work when needed. Only when they use us themselves do they truly judge how well the money they've paid over the years was spent.

The reality is that most citizens and local politicians don't care what it says on the side of the fire apparatus at the fire scene as long as the fire is put out. Given the choice between properly funding the local FD to ensure they're capable of handling a first or second alarm fire on their own, or utilizing "free" mutual aid, they'll always choose the cheaper option. Unless a bunch of communities in a region are seeing growing expenses due to providing the mutual aid, chances of any one wanting to be more self-sufficient is unlikely.
The problem is the public doesn't know a good job from, mediocre or worse. If you arrive in any reasonable amount of time (longer for VFD's), don't look like the proverbial Monkey/Football, the fire goes out without getting worse after arrival, they'll be happy. In fact often they'll hail the FD for being hometown heroes, while having no clue they just got mediocrity. So trying to tell the public too spend more for a problem they fail to see or understand is a real uphill battle.
The fact is we're our own worst enemy far too often. We (as a whole) take what they give us (less and less), accept increasing risks to our personnel, and still get the job done to a level that is satisfactory to the masses. Until we start pointing out slower response times, equipment failures, lack of training or skill development and relate these to the loss of funds and personnel, the public will continue to push for lower taxes, as at the end of the day, unless they've experienced a fire, they have no real skin in the game. To the public we're one very expensive insurance policy, that appears to work when needed. Only when they use us themselves do they truly judge how well the money they've paid over the years was spent.

Sadly, everyone going home shouldn't even be considered success, it's merely the absolute minimum. It's easier to ensure everyone can go home if we don't even respond! That being said, I've seen plenty of fires that I'm surprised everyone went home from safely and of course in those places it just proves their MO is adequate. As we say,"They don't even suspect nothing".

Sadly, everyone going home shouldn't even be considered success, it's merely the absolute minimum. It's easier to ensure everyone can go home if we don't even respond! That being said, I've seen plenty of fires that I'm surprised everyone went home from safely and of course in those places it just proves their MO is adequate. As we say,"They don't even suspect nothing".

The reality is that most citizens and local politicians don't care what it says on the side of the fire apparatus at the fire scene as long as the fire is put out. Given the choice between properly funding the local FD to ensure they're capable of handling a first or second alarm fire on their own, or utilizing "free" mutual aid, they'll always choose the cheaper option. Unless a bunch of communities in a region are seeing growing expenses due to providing the mutual aid, chances of any one wanting to be more self-sufficient is unlikely.
The problem is the public doesn't know a good job from, mediocre or worse. If you arrive in any reasonable amount of time (longer for VFD's), don't look like the proverbial Monkey/Football, the fire goes out without getting worse after arrival, they'll be happy. In fact often they'll hail the FD for being hometown heroes, while having no clue they just got mediocrity. So trying to tell the public too spend more for a problem they fail to see or understand is a real uphill battle.
The fact is we're our own worst enemy far too often. We (as a whole) take what they give us (less and less), accept increasing risks to our personnel, and still get the job done to a level that is satisfactory to the masses. Until we start pointing out slower response times, equipment failures, lack of training or skill development and relate these to the loss of funds and personnel, the public will continue to push for lower taxes, as at the end of the day, unless they've experienced a fire, they have no real skin in the game. To the public we're one very expensive insurance policy, that appears to work when needed. Only when they use us themselves do they truly judge how well the money they've paid over the years was spent.

Sadly, everyone going home shouldn't even be considered success, it's merely the absolute minimum. It's easier to ensure everyone can go home if we don't even respond! That being said, I've seen plenty of fires that I'm surprised everyone went home from safely and of course in those places it just proves their MO is adequate. As we say,"They don't even suspect nothing".

You sir, have nailed it. Everyone going home is not the only metric for success on the fireground. Unfortunately we've conditioned too many Chiefs/Officers to believe this is the case.

I've made this same point several times discussing this in my area. The public is often conditioned to think that when there's a fire in their community, the house will be a loss and anything short of burning the entire block is a "good job" and will praise their FD for their efforts. The public also doesn't always recognize the football fornicating monkey show when they see it.
To some extent, this holds true for some of the departments involved. The amount of back slapping I see on social media these days on the heals of a fire in many of these communities is crazy. Everyone always did "a good job" and everyone going home safe is often used as the yard stick to measure the effort. They may have given 100% and done the best that they could, but that doesn't always mean that they actually did "a good job", did it in a reasonably safe fashion or that their efforts made the situation better.

The reality is that most citizens and local politicians don't care what it says on the side of the fire apparatus at the fire scene as long as the fire is put out. Given the choice between properly funding the local FD to ensure they're capable of handling a first or second alarm fire on their own, or utilizing "free" mutual aid, they'll always choose the cheaper option. Unless a bunch of communities in a region are seeing growing expenses due to providing the mutual aid, chances of any one wanting to be more self-sufficient is unlikely.
The problem is the public doesn't know a good job from, mediocre or worse. If you arrive in any reasonable amount of time (longer for VFD's), don't look like the proverbial Monkey/Football, the fire goes out without getting worse after arrival, they'll be happy. In fact often they'll hail the FD for being hometown heroes, while having no clue they just got mediocrity. So trying to tell the public too spend more for a problem they fail to see or understand is a real uphill battle.
The fact is we're our own worst enemy far too often. We (as a whole) take what they give us (less and less), accept increasing risks to our personnel, and still get the job done to a level that is satisfactory to the masses. Until we start pointing out slower response times, equipment failures, lack of training or skill development and relate these to the loss of funds and personnel, the public will continue to push for lower taxes, as at the end of the day, unless they've experienced a fire, they have no real skin in the game. To the public we're one very expensive insurance policy, that appears to work when needed. Only when they use us themselves do they truly judge how well the money they've paid over the years was spent.

The reality is that most citizens and local politicians don't care what it says on the side of the fire apparatus at the fire scene as long as the fire is put out. Given the choice between properly funding the local FD to ensure they're capable of handling a first or second alarm fire on their own, or utilizing "free" mutual aid, they'll always choose the cheaper option. Unless a bunch of communities in a region are seeing growing expenses due to providing the mutual aid, chances of any one wanting to be more self-sufficient is unlikely.
The problem is the public doesn't know a good job from, mediocre or worse. If you arrive in any reasonable amount of time (longer for VFD's), don't look like the proverbial Monkey/Football, the fire goes out without getting worse after arrival, they'll be happy. In fact often they'll hail the FD for being hometown heroes, while having no clue they just got mediocrity. So trying to tell the public too spend more for a problem they fail to see or understand is a real uphill battle.
The fact is we're our own worst enemy far too often. We (as a whole) take what they give us (less and less), accept increasing risks to our personnel, and still get the job done to a level that is satisfactory to the masses. Until we start pointing out slower response times, equipment failures, lack of training or skill development and relate these to the loss of funds and personnel, the public will continue to push for lower taxes, as at the end of the day, unless they've experienced a fire, they have no real skin in the game. To the public we're one very expensive insurance policy, that appears to work when needed. Only when they use us themselves do they truly judge how well the money they've paid over the years was spent.

The reality is that most citizens and local politicians don't care what it says on the side of the fire apparatus at the fire scene as long as the fire is put out. Given the choice between properly funding the local FD to ensure they're capable of handling a first or second alarm fire on their own, or utilizing "free" mutual aid, they'll always choose the cheaper option. Unless a bunch of communities in a region are seeing growing expenses due to providing the mutual aid, chances of any one wanting to be more self-sufficient is unlikely.
The problem is the public doesn't know a good job from, mediocre or worse. If you arrive in any reasonable amount of time (longer for VFD's), don't look like the proverbial Monkey/Football, the fire goes out without getting worse after arrival, they'll be happy. In fact often they'll hail the FD for being hometown heroes, while having no clue they just got mediocrity. So trying to tell the public too spend more for a problem they fail to see or understand is a real uphill battle.
The fact is we're our own worst enemy far too often. We (as a whole) take what they give us (less and less), accept increasing risks to our personnel, and still get the job done to a level that is satisfactory to the masses. Until we start pointing out slower response times, equipment failures, lack of training or skill development and relate these to the loss of funds and personnel, the public will continue to push for lower taxes, as at the end of the day, unless they've experienced a fire, they have no real skin in the game. To the public we're one very expensive insurance policy, that appears to work when needed. Only when they use us themselves do they truly judge how well the money they've paid over the years was spent.

Yes we do, but more so we owe it to ourselves to be honest with ourselves. What I mean by this is that we are the greatest obstacle to solving the problem of inadequate responses and until we can admit that truth there is little hope of progressing. Like an alcoholic the first step in fixing the problem is admitting we have one and having the willingness to do what it takes to fix it. Most can readily admit to the first part, that there's a problem, but very few can honestly say they are truly willing to do what it takes to fix it. Oh sure, many will loudly jump on the consolidation bandwagon and proclaim that this is "the answer", until that answer involves them making concessions to serve the greater good. "We must consolidate, but my agenda is more important that yours", "we must consolidate, but don't change my contract", "we must consolidate, but don't touch my apparatus", "we must consolidate but don't take my rank" and so on and so on. Sadly, egos, agendas and a warped sense of self importance makes it virtually impossible to progress out of the tradition of putting ourselves first. And make no mistake we have always put ourselves first, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. The public will only get what they deserve when we put their needs above our wants....and that my friends is a tall order indeed.

Interesting topic as an 'outsider" to the local politics and policies. It appears there are many rules/policies that dictate the use of equipment and personnel during MCI's and "disasters", I'm surprised someone doesn't have the ability to suspend some rules in these cases? At some point we are withholding resources just in case they're needed for their primary mission. No doubt there's more political issues where there are more people and money, but up in my neck of the woods, we can suspend most EMS rules (with sound reasoning and judgement) in the cases of an MCI where the suspension of said rule(s) will benefit the mission.

You mean when our government as it was designed, and the parties elected, don't do what you want, this is what you do? Slippery slope when the Executive Office can force their bidding upon us, remember what works for this president will surely be used by the next. As I recall our Forefathers designed our model to eliminate the possibility of "one man's rules". Pretty sure theirs been some rolling going on in many graves, for many years. Sad part is, this just emboldens elected officials at every level. Our governor who is the political polar opposite of our President is abusing his executive power on a daily basis to ensure his agenda.

You mean when our government as it was designed, and the parties elected, don't do what you want, this is what you do? Slippery slope when the Executive Office can force their bidding upon us, remember what works for this president will surely be used by the next. As I recall our Forefathers designed our model to eliminate the possibility of "one man's rules". Pretty sure theirs been some rolling going on in many graves, for many years. Sad part is, this just emboldens elected officials at every level. Our governor who is the political polar opposite of our President is abusing his executive power on a daily basis to ensure his agenda.

Like most regulations concerning firearms, they don't make sense. They are often put into place based on the science of emotion and gimmicks, not for any real crime reducing purpose.

I wonder if you'll feel the same way when a Republican is abusing this power (if they ever gain the Presidency again)? Yeah sure they've done it, but wait until the next one! This will become part of the routine for all presidents to come. And the President has plenty of sway with his party, so he's got some gridlock blood on his hands as well. In fact, the more he (or any Executive) abuses this power, the more we're likely to see partisan gridlock. It's kind of like blaming the whole game on the person who blew the final play, it takes a lot of mistakes to get to where we are today.

You mean when our government as it was designed, and the parties elected, don't do what you want, this is what you do? Slippery slope when the Executive Office can force their bidding upon us, remember what works for this president will surely be used by the next. As I recall our Forefathers designed our model to eliminate the possibility of "one man's rules". Pretty sure theirs been some rolling going on in many graves, for many years. Sad part is, this just emboldens elected officials at every level. Our governor who is the political polar opposite of our President is abusing his executive power on a daily basis to ensure his agenda.

More legislating by the executive branch. Not a fan of these actions at all.

From a Forbes article recently...
"Is .223 M855 ball ammunition currently a problem for law enforcement? Or, more precisely, is M855 ball ammunition when shot from handguns killing law-enforcement officers? According to the FBI’s “uniform crime reports” about 2.5 percent of all murders are committed with rifles of any caliber. The FBI does not break out its statistics by caliber. I was also not able to uncover a single murder of a police officer in a shooting where someone used a handgun chambered in .223—much less one using M855 ball ammunition. (The spokesperson for the ATF has thus far failed to respond to questions.)"
Remember, Eric Holder's "biggest failure" was to not enact tougher gun control, even through a Democrat-controlled Senate..This ATF move is a squishy feel-good measure that will do absolutely nothing to effect crime and once again only affect law-abiding gun owners . This M855 ammo was deemed obsolete by the US Military and was sold as surplus to the plinking/target shooting crowd.. I agree about the Executive Orders being the real thing to fear. Whats next? One more degree hotter for that frog in the pot... Sheeez

This only applies to the "green tip" M855/SS109 projectile in the 5.56mm cartridge. These are a 62gr, steel core, jacketed projectile otherwise known as "light armor piercing" or "penetrator" rounds.
This all stems from legislation from 1986 banning the use of "armor piercing" ammunition in handguns. Since you can now build/buy an AR type handgun (in some free states, NOT NY), that now places this ammo into that catagory.
This ammo was previously exempted from the ban on AP rounds, but because you can now use it in a handgun, the ATF is seeking to remove the exemption.
It does not "threaten" the AR as such. Most of the ammunition used in these is the 55gr lead core. That is by far the cheapest and most produced type.
And yes, AR type rifles can be had in nearly every commercially produced caliber and numerous "wildcat" cartridges. .223/5.56 and .308/7.62 being the most common.

Yeah that is the question but it seems like it should be answered at the supervisor level or even higher I was original trained that a flycar medic does a fast triage takes a report on one patient and let's the BLS unit do the rest or do what there department has in SOP/GOPs for the situation But coming on scene and finding no patients can simple put it as a police matter no patients The answer I got from my job is to write paper on all persons involved no matter wha as a fly car medic because the BLS departments can't be trusted to do it...
But this was a verbal change. No policy memo or email on it

This is a good question that certainly ought to have an answer consistent with agency policy. We struggle with this every few years and just now are looking for an actual documented policy.
The issue we seem to face is the MVA where some passerby calls 911, while no one in the MVA requests EMS or needs it. Along come our EMS crews who do full "refusals" on everyone at the scene. I've contended for many years that one of the "patients" could simply refuse to be evaluated, talk to EMS and flat out not sign a thing. Of course that would get documented. Really the full signed refusal is a CYA for the service and personnel. The problem comes when you're fairly busy and being tied up for 'no reason" causes further problems with responding to other calls. This just came up two shifts ago when the crews responded to a "property damage" MVA when 20 minutes later the driver reported to the LEO that he had a headache from striking his forehead on the steering wheel. Along comes Fire & EMS and finds 5 persons involved, three are minors with no parents available. No one needed EMS, all wanted to refuse all evals and any transport. Now we have a crew tied up trying to get sign offs for minors who were involved in a PD only MVA. In the end, they could have treated this as a single victim EMS responses due to how it was reported/requested.
There are many services that require refusals on everyone involved in an MVA they respond to, we do this 95% of the time, as our City Attorney feels it's much easier to defend things that are documented, vs. responding and not documenting any contact. His question has been: What's to stop someone from claiming they were injured and EMS never evaluated them to determine if they were at the time? I can see WAS 967's point of getting Name and DOB, which at least shows that you had some contact and backs up your claim that the denied wanting/needing EMS evaluation. Basically, the more that is documented the better? As far as taking that to the next level of conducting a full refusal? On our system each patient refusal takes about 1/2 hr (soup to nuts)...

Interesting topic as an 'outsider" to the local politics and policies. It appears there are many rules/policies that dictate the use of equipment and personnel during MCI's and "disasters", I'm surprised someone doesn't have the ability to suspend some rules in these cases? At some point we are withholding resources just in case they're needed for their primary mission. No doubt there's more political issues where there are more people and money, but up in my neck of the woods, we can suspend most EMS rules (with sound reasoning and judgement) in the cases of an MCI where the suspension of said rule(s) will benefit the mission.

Interesting topic as an 'outsider" to the local politics and policies. It appears there are many rules/policies that dictate the use of equipment and personnel during MCI's and "disasters", I'm surprised someone doesn't have the ability to suspend some rules in these cases? At some point we are withholding resources just in case they're needed for their primary mission. No doubt there's more political issues where there are more people and money, but up in my neck of the woods, we can suspend most EMS rules (with sound reasoning and judgement) in the cases of an MCI where the suspension of said rule(s) will benefit the mission.