antiquefirelt

That either slows the rig down from starting its attack or makes the hydrant man walk back to the rig when he realizes he forgot it. Easier to just carry a simple reducer so you can go off the 2.5"

Parking is a huge issue all over the place where there's any built up areas. The problem is the tax base cannot support building these garages using public funds, thus new buildings must be required to provide a requisite number of spaces, most of the time based on their impact. There are many examples of publicly funded parking garages that end up killing the municipal budget. Maybe ensuring the price of the ticket got these people's attention would prevent they're taking a gamble parking in front of a hydrant?

In both case show here the line appears that it will have significant friction loss from the kink. I wouldn't think twice about damaging the car, but I would hope for adequate water. The latest (first pics?) looks as if the kink might completely occlude the line. As said above, I'd expect a 2.5" to 5" storz adapter off a side port, then the line. Maybe not the best flow, but almost a guarantee to be better than the kinked lines. That said, is BFD's SOP that the Hydrant Assist Valve be placed every time? I'm lost on why they use it so close to the pumper? Typically used to lay in and have water before the next in can "boost" the pressure. Maybe it's an expensive shut off valve?

Another fantastic example of the self-importance and blame projection of modern society: "I don't have to follow the rules. Its the city's fault I had to block lifesaving safety equipment."

although they proved their point, look at the kink of the ldh. as a boss I would question why they didn't use a side gate.

Not to throw stones, but how does one determine a particular brand is: Very Safe? Do they offer more safety features? Do more testing? Or have you experienced firsthand the safety?
We have AEV's, specced heavily for provider safety with numerous non-standard features, but in the end we have no proof that they'll be any better or worse. I can conclusively say they cost more. But we're not looking to cut safety to save money, except that it appears the safer patient compartments are not as functional for patient care, which to me is not a place we can sacrifice.

I see problems on all fronts. First and foremost, seasonal influenza and Ebola have the same symptoms, especially in early stage. That implies that we could easily end up putting on the suit for a lot of calls in the months ahead.
Problem #1 brings us rapidly to #2. Given the generally wide proliferation of seasonal influenza, we may not be able to use dedicated ambulances. As much as your suggestion has much merit, the numbers might not allow it.
#3 is tied to #1 and #2: Suiting up this often could easily place a financial burden on agencies big and small. One of the commercials in our area is not in the best of financial shape right now. The added cost could be the straw that breaks....
Your comment on the questioning prior to patient contact is dead on. I worked my career in a high volume, top-notch 911 operation. They were 100% EMD trained and experienced. Every request for medical assistance went through EMD. Additional focused questioning in that environment is not really much of an issue to implement, and just as easy to devise and implement effective ways to pass positive indicators on to the EMS responders without raising public alarm. However, that is not the case everywhere. Many counties have bare bones, small 911 operations even though they are central dispatch. No EMD, not enough personnel on duty to do EMD if they had it, and dispatch systems that don't utilize digital paging, MDT's, and similar alerting systems that would keep this information off the regular voice radios.
I see a huge problem in the volunteer EMS community with every aspect of this.

Pretty interesting. Our guidance in Maine has been fairly lackluster, basically mirroring or referencing CDC Guidance. I could see issues developing and implementing policies in the 10 day window, though its unlikely many will have any "patients" within that time frame. The bigger issue is how we ensure our people know they may be dealing with suspected Ebola (we can still say it here!) before they make patient contact. This requires quality questioning and honest answers. It's not feasible to suit up for every call, nor warranted. I'm still of the mind that a suspected Ebola patient should not be transported in a public EMS bus. Isolate, plan the transport and care, then use designated assets who are proven to be trained equipped and compliant. Improper handling could result in a widespread public health crisis.

The issues surrounding the particular apparatus aside, the more interesting point is that it appears that there's no deviating from the treat or sign-off rules when faced with an MCI? We all should be very familiar with the need to document the crap out of everything, but at some point the legal liability must not overcome the system. While it's not an excuse to skate the rules, sometimes you have to evaluate the totality of the situation and trust that doing the right thing, is the right thing to do.

Check out youtube on a search using "Thamesford Fire-Lessons Learned"
It is one of the best critiques I have ever seen.
Sorry I had to give you a phrase to search, but for some reason, I couldn't give you a link but my computer is giving me a hard time

One thing I would now advocate which is different to what I was taught and did is to don your facepiece on the ground ascend the ladder and then take the window. The old way of taking the window with the ladder then ascending the ladder then donning your facepiece is just extra time allowing the fire to grow. Once inside the first thing you should do is to get the door to the room closed. These things will buy you more time for your search. VEIS is a good tactic especially in a situation like VBFD faced here. Seems like VB has their act together thanks for sharing.

It also says the school failed to place her in a classroom that could be evacuated, while other parts of the ADA require that forcing those disabled persons into some spaces is prohibited and reasonable accommodations must be made to ensure they're given the same choices as fully mobile persons. It's a no win situation. No one wants to force someone to suffer greater injustice due to their disability, but there's a point where "reasonable" must be determined and this case seems to lead directly to the question of what's reasonable to expect of the school, the FD or any other building owner.

Maybe they thought it was better to close now rather than wait for the minimum wage hike to kill them?

That's what almost everyone does. But its not the dealer who pays. In almost every case the contract is between the municipality and the manufacturer. The dealer advises the manufacture as to the costs and they get reimbursed from the manufacture after you pay for the truck.

Our apparatus committee is made up of 5 personnel of which in recent years three have gone on any factory trips. Typically the committee chair goes on all trips, the A/C in charge of maintenance goes on the pre-build and final trip and other holes are filled as can be by availability. The last two fire apparatus purchases were bid with three total trips each: pre-construction, pre-paint, final inspection/testing. Both of these trucks were "one-offs" and thus each trip proved valuable. I'm not sure we'd do the same number if we used the same builder or if we were buying another one of the same of either. I suepct the needs vary greatly from FD to FD and depending on the apparatus.

The trip is not free.
Depending on the location of the factory (Airfare, hotel meals, etc.) The costs for flying to mid west for example add approx. $1,000 per person per trip and that is built into the cost of the truck.
The "Dealer does not pay" he fronts the money and you pay as part of the cost of the truck.
So 10 members going on pre-construction, pre-paint and final to Pierce or Seagrave or Ferrara, Smeal, Spartan etc. will cost $30,000 that your tax payers will cover.
Also with that size group, their are almost always more "add-ons"..."Hey look at the spinny light that mildew hose has on their new pumper, we need that too" I have been told by manufacturers that they can easily see $50K - $100K in increase because of it.
We send the spec writer and the mechanic. Unless its driving distance, then we might add a chief.

To a quint is somewhat different than the rescue engine concept in that the role of the personnel is vastly different. When we arrive at a fire we need engine companies and truck companies doing their specific functions well. When we have a pin job we typically don't see the need for multiple different company types. Extrication is a fairly easy role for either a truck or engine, of course better with a dedicated company who spends even more time training and conducting these ops.
The second issue I have is putting two primary systems on one truck-aerial and pump. Both systems can take the truck out of service killing both roles. To me a rescue engine with portable equipment works where there aren't other companies that can cover the assignment when the pumper is out for service or otherwise engaged.
I see quints as perpetuating the "jack of all trades, master of none". So where multiple houses and companies are needed, I think the quint is an impediment to better quality apparatus and personnel. And as Chief Raftery points out, they are like the magic lantern the "lay off Genie" resides in.

Maybe they thought it was better to close now rather than wait for the minimum wage hike to kill them?

I should take that comment about bigger balls in NY and run with it, but I won't. Put a guy in a room full of fire and he won't care what city he's in.

As for the original post and the article. We've seen what happens when a FD has a tank and pump on their aerial then fails to maintain them due to budget woes. Faced with major cuts, repairing pumps and leaking tanks on apparatus that functionally never used them didn't make sense, next thing you know you're Houston FD on 60 Minutes (mid 90's?) explaining why your truck company couldn't stretch a line. More primary systems require more upkeep and maintenance. Typically FD's aren't apparatus poor, their manpower poor. If there are holes in someone's response system that allow for long periods of time between a truck arriving and the next in engine, likely tossing a Quint in will create an even longer delay when that piece is tied up or out of service.
This reminds me of the Louis CK clip about "Of course, but maybe". Of course, of course we have to make due with the funding and staffing the public gives us, but maybe when they cut and cut until we're riding twice as far with half the members to a fire the public should get what they paid for... Of course not, but... While I wholeheartedly believe we must provide the highest level of service we are capable of with the resources we're given, we must educate the public as to the limitations these cuts make. It is our job to to assume risk to address the emergency needs of our communities, but it's also our job to ensure that we take every measure possible to return to quarters with the same personnel we left with in the same condition. There is a balance between acceptable risk to our members and the amount of risk assumed to save life and property, if the public doesn't understand that scale we are partially to blame. We understand that it's impossible to provide the level of service many Metro FD's provide in rural America, yet how many citizens really understand the difference?

Up this way, until recently all we had was candle pin bowling so the balls aren't much bigger than a softball.

As for the original post and the article. We've seen what happens when a FD has a tank and pump on their aerial then fails to maintain them due to budget woes. Faced with major cuts, repairing pumps and leaking tanks on apparatus that functionally never used them didn't make sense, next thing you know you're Houston FD on 60 Minutes (mid 90's?) explaining why your truck company couldn't stretch a line. More primary systems require more upkeep and maintenance. Typically FD's aren't apparatus poor, their manpower poor. If there are holes in someone's response system that allow for long periods of time between a truck arriving and the next in engine, likely tossing a Quint in will create an even longer delay when that piece is tied up or out of service.
This reminds me of the Louis CK clip about "Of course, but maybe". Of course, of course we have to make due with the funding and staffing the public gives us, but maybe when they cut and cut until we're riding twice as far with half the members to a fire the public should get what they paid for... Of course not, but... While I wholeheartedly believe we must provide the highest level of service we are capable of with the resources we're given, we must educate the public as to the limitations these cuts make. It is our job to to assume risk to address the emergency needs of our communities, but it's also our job to ensure that we take every measure possible to return to quarters with the same personnel we left with in the same condition. There is a balance between acceptable risk to our members and the amount of risk assumed to save life and property, if the public doesn't understand that scale we are partially to blame. We understand that it's impossible to provide the level of service many Metro FD's provide in rural America, yet how many citizens really understand the difference?

Up this way, until recently all we had was candle pin bowling so the balls aren't much bigger than a softball.

Correct For incinerators you used it somewhat like chimney chains. They were used as the line was being stretched. As for water, we had a Doohickey that went over the faucet (all incinerator closets had sinks) and had about 4 feet of rubber hose and a shower head. Handy little tools they were.
They went by the wayside when the EPA got rid of incinerators