antiquefirelt

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.

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.

Look at farming trucks... they're really setting trends on rescue! https://streamable.com/qrjxu

Yeah, Europe has its compartment organization on point.  Granted their line deployment and pump set ups are entirely different, but I'd like to think that at some point Rosenbauer would find a way to fuse the ideas of Europe and US together into one impressive rig.

OK, this is NOT directly AMR related, but goes with SageVigiles post:
I JUST came home from DC, having ridden a bicycle 320 miles there from Poughkeepsie with the Muddy Angels EMS memorial bike ride. My brother lives there and is a huge scanner buff.
Here is what is driving me crazy: DC arrives and updates the job as minor/BLS/no life threat and has AMR sent. AMR then drives full-on lights and sirens to a call where it has been determined that there is nothing major going on.  Why are EMT's of any service driving lights/sirens to rush to the scene of a confirmed NON-EMERGENCY?  I can guess that DC doesn't want to hang around and wait, or that AMR wants to have good looking response times. But to endanger themselves and the public for that is BS.  Of the 50 EMS folks that the Muddy Angels rode for this year, 12, or about 24% died in MVA's.
   This is NOT against AMR, but against the shot-callers who set this up. Probably NOT an AMR decision, but a dead EMT is a dead EMT. More lights and sirens  driving= more dead EMT's.

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.

Deputy Thanks DC Firefighters for Saving His Life After Suffering Heart Attack During Hockey Game
By: Fox DC Staff
May 23, 2017
 
 
 
 
Nice job by the DCFD Hockey Team.
       

 
https://medium.com/@esaylors/how-much-is-each-addition-firefighter-on-an-engine-worth-about-600-000-d5efa5af0cda

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.

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. 

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. 

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...

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. 

When I first got on and worked in South Queens where there was lots of private dwelling fires and a fair share of vacant buildings this was very common.  The vacants then had the plywood HUD windows which the the chauffeur would take out.  The outside teams were very aggressive and operated independently.  So the ladder chauffeurs (who were very experienced firefighters from very busy trucks) would routinely take the attic window for VES.  SOP at time was to place the tip against the top of the window or wood and lower the stick.  It really wasn't that long ago but I feel as if we know a lot more.  First of all most people have embraced two in two out to the point that VES is done as a team.  As a firefighter in the Bronx we teamed up for VES (Roof and OV) and I thought it was better.  
 
Most importantly hopefully we think a lot more about coordinating ventilation and it's effects on the overall operation.  The fact is ventilation without water being applied to the seat of the fire is going to make the fire bigger and create flow paths.  So we need to think about why we do it.  If we're going to search for life we will need to isolate the area we are going to search or the fire is coming for us.  If we are going to VEIS we want to minimize the amount of air we are feeding the fire so we should not vent until we are fully geared up and in position.  To me this means facepiece on hood on on the tip of the aerial with your haligan.  This way you break the window, enter, find the door to the room, close it and search.  If you break it with the aerial and then climb up you have given the fire air for probably another minute minimum that will have a high potential of growing the fire.  I will be honest and say this is not how we used to do it but in the past 10 years we have been given some good information that we should use to refine our tactics and work smarter and safer.  Many say we are not thinking about potential victims when we refine these tactics but it's not true.  
 
If you're venting for fire then we need to have water on the fire and I'd argue it's not so critical that we need to use the tip of the aerial.  
 
I guess my point is that I'd rethink the tactic more based on our better understanding of fire dynamics (behavior) over concerns for the health of the aerial ladder.  

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.

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. 

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...

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. 

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

Instead of questioning an exterior attack vs an aggressive interior attack.  They should be getting back to basics and work on that.   Like someone mentioned above not really an "A" effort.  The way the video was edited you can't really create a true time line of how long it took to get things going.  In the video it shows an engine pulling up and to me it looks like it took a long time to get the line in place and water in it.  They had a chance to make a good push on this but their lack of assertiveness and aggressiveness they let this get away from them. I'd be embarrassed if I was the chief after seeing this.  

The biggest issue appears to be the amount of time it took to get any water on the fire. The videos is edited so we can't get an actual time line of what occurred.

The brochure has the outriggers out to 18' and the single jack in the middle rear for the single axle. They also have it on a tandem axle with a 16' spread, but 2 Jack's in the rear.

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

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