antiquefirelt

I need to address a previous comment. NY10570 I was one of those "dumbed down" EMT Supervisors (Lieut) in the NYC EMS system and had absolutely no issues with supervising both EMTs and Paramedics on a daily basis and actually enjoyed it. I found that there was extreme cooperation from both levels of personnel and knew my job was to enforce procedure and review what was within my scope of training. The issues arise when medics carry a "mightier than thou" attitude because of their level of training and forget that without BLS there is NO ALS and also forget where they came from, they were once one of those "dumbed down" EMTs. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. Lets talk dumbed down. Being a medic is not Roy and Johnny. It is flow sheet medicine. If you do A and see B then do D not C. There are even pocket protocol charts and I-Phone apps. Not that there is anything wrong with it but don't knock one area of a system because of a swollen ego. If swelling has become an issue some IM epi or benadryl might help but I am working out of my area to suggest that. Stay dry and safe in the snow today and remember we are all there for the same thing: the patient.

Its not the fire thats so stressful, its dealing with personnel, managment, politicians, pension issues, give backs, etc.

While we tend to embrace those that climb the ranks from bottom to top, very often a supervisor in almost any field, does not have to know everything about every facet of the field. In many Fire/EMS systems officers with lesser license levels command paramedics with no operational or supervisory issues. If an EMT cannot supervise a medic. the problem is his/her supervisory skills. Are all chief's Haz-mat tech's? How many worked in special operations? Yet they somehow can command an incident where resources area working that may have more expertise in certain areas. The same is true of EMS. If your EMT officers over step their bounds by going against a medics' patient care advice or direction, the issue is with the supervisory skill set and attitude.

While we tend to embrace those that climb the ranks from bottom to top, very often a supervisor in almost any field, does not have to know everything about every facet of the field. In many Fire/EMS systems officers with lesser license levels command paramedics with no operational or supervisory issues. If an EMT cannot supervise a medic. the problem is his/her supervisory skills. Are all chief's Haz-mat tech's? How many worked in special operations? Yet they somehow can command an incident where resources area working that may have more expertise in certain areas. The same is true of EMS. If your EMT officers over step their bounds by going against a medics' patient care advice or direction, the issue is with the supervisory skill set and attitude.

While we tend to embrace those that climb the ranks from bottom to top, very often a supervisor in almost any field, does not have to know everything about every facet of the field. In many Fire/EMS systems officers with lesser license levels command paramedics with no operational or supervisory issues. If an EMT cannot supervise a medic. the problem is his/her supervisory skills. Are all chief's Haz-mat tech's? How many worked in special operations? Yet they somehow can command an incident where resources area working that may have more expertise in certain areas. The same is true of EMS. If your EMT officers over step their bounds by going against a medics' patient care advice or direction, the issue is with the supervisory skill set and attitude.

I'm not with FDNY but I have no problem with a EMT overseeing ALS personnel. The EMT is not going to put him in a position to contermand a paramedics medical decisions but I know alot of EMTs that are operational superiour to our medics.

THANK GOD(!!!!!) That you are not in any position of authority. A minute or two of quicker response isn't the difference between life and death, that's the difference between MANY lives and deaths! In my particular area of the city, we are fairly well covered. What I mean is, there are a lot of companies per square mile. However, with only one full assignment out 20 blocks north, we become second due engine to box locations 10 minutes away. Do you know what that does to overall response times? Forget the public, how about that truck company that arrives 2 or 3 minutes before an engine in some cases? Those guys need to get in there to begin searching and the longer they have to do this without the protection of a hose line, the better the chances of catastrophe become. Considering we are losing our 5th man on many engine co's, the second due engines role of backing up the first hose line becomes that much more essential.
One thing that I must completely refute is your assertion that the FDNY needs to be run more like a business. This is wrong, plain and simple. It needs to be run in a professional manner of productivity and accountability, but it is not a business. A fire department is a drain, an expense. It is a cost that the municipality must incur in order to provide safety to the public. What we have now is, just barely, the resources to perform this task. To reduce in the face of cost would be criminal. It may appear that we could reduce our resources, but we cannot. Only in comparison with poorly staffed fire departments does this appear so. The simple fact is that most FD's are not properly staffed. Not at all. Staffing and resource conditions are the most important aspect of proper fire protection. The level of staffing in many areas and the idea of reducing staffing in NYC is an insult to the single greatest resource that most fire departments have and that is an extremely dedicated work force. How about bolstering that with the tools and manpower needed to perform the task and stop trying to figure out how you can best stretch and abuse the personnel on the street.
In New York City, the FDNY uses about 3% of the annual operating budget. For that small change, the 8.5 million residents and numerous businesses the best insurence policy money can buy. That's what a fire department is to it's municipality. The biggest and most versatile Swiss Army knife you've ever seen.

Isn't it amazing how when it comes to firefighting everyone is a friggin' expert! "You're not supposed to put water on that..." What then should they use Mr. 9 - 5 desk jockey, orange juice, milk, urine ??? God bless the Brothers, I'm glad they weren't injured. They really had their hands full with the storm and the lack of resources thanks to Mayor Bloomberg and his immediate staff of CEO losers...

I worked from Sunday afternoon until Monday evening, so I was on duty throughout. Just to clarify, I don't believe that any more could be asked of those on the street. Cops, EMS workers, firemen and others were doing the best that we could. I think what's important here is that the city do a better job of preparing citizens prior to the arrival of the storm. More media coverage to encourage people NOT TO DRIVE and stay out of the way of public safety and sanitation workers. More resources should have been available in terms of an increased number of buses on the road and all ambulances should have been staffed with 3. Every engine in the city was given a 5th man for the 24 and beyond, with good reason.
More resources should have been stacked up and ready pending the storm's arrival. There is no reason that 1,300 calls should be back-logged, no matter how minor the emergency is.
This tough, and in some cases fatal, occurrence aught to end any discussions regarding Fire, EMS, Police of Sanitation budget cuts. Clearly we need all of the resources we have and in some cases, more.

These are photos of Rombout Fire Departments structure fire that occurred at 226 Windsor Rd just before midnight on Sunday. Firefighters arrived to find fire through the roof of a ~ 4500 sq ft residence with high winds, heavy snow, white-out conditions, and near zero wind chill ...... Perfect weather for firefighting....... Firefighters apparently attempted an interior attack but were forced to retreat due to insufficent water and rapid fire spread due to the high winds...... I arrived as Command advised that they were going defensive....... I had a tough time keeping my lens free of snow and debris due to the high winds and only shot with one of two cameras I normally shoot with as a result...... This was clearly a frustrating fire for all who were there.....

A shot from the front...... Hughsonvilles FAST Team and Village of Fishkill......

It was snowing heavily and very windy.......

Hey, I found a hot spot........

A shot from the rear..... These guys were inside under the fire but had to pull out due to rapidly deteriorating conditions......

Insurmountable odds.....

With the wind fanning the fire and water issues.... Crews were ordered to pull back their lines and were clearly frustrated that they were defeated .....

This is shot of the Central Hudson gas man..... He had just retrieved the power meter but said "I killed the power but It's up to guys to turn off the gas.... It's too damn hot!"

While a tanker shuttle was being initiated, Rombout's Tower gets set up......

Village of Fishkill firefighters watch as 62-45 hits the fire......

The end.....

Sadly, the days of volunteerism in the truest sense seem to have passed us by. With more and more financial issues affected everyone, they really hit home with folks who work and then give their time for little or no pay to be members of the local FD or ambulance service. The public doesn't necessarily see that the same financial burden they feel pinches volunteer or POC firefighters/EMS personnel as well. With more people struggling to make ends meet, this scenario is only getting worse. At the same time, we've raised (rightfully) the standards for training and attendance to ensure a safer fireground. As we just saw with the Tarrytown tragedy, minimum training is a bare necessity.
In appears that in many places, besides LI and Westchester, the VFD's spend exorbitant amounts of money making the FD attractive to people, using new stations, new high end apparatus, FD social clubs, etc. In the end they end up with higher numbers, but maybe not for the right reasons? Until the public understand where that money is going and can measure the results in tangible ways, they may continue to get bilked, even if it is unintentionally. One must ponder the question that most VFD's have more apparatus than they can staff, why not slim down and move active, trained personnel to fewer companies to gain a better response. Far too often we see lines of apparatus at fire scenes with all the personnel working off the same few apparatus. The days of individual fiefdoms is coming to a close and the FD's that embrace the change early will have a position much closer to the "driver" of the regionalized bus, than those who bury their heads and the sand and are dragged into the inevitable kicking and screaming, with no voice in the implementation.
It amazes me when I see the Firehouse volunteer FD survey and so many VFD's have budgets far greater than that of my combo FD, and call volumes so far less.
Seth's has a point that there may be other alternatives to all out paid firefighters, but the discussion needs to be with an independent public committee of citizens who have no bias, just a sense of community. Too many of us fear speaking candidly with the public about our shortcomings and service levels garnered for the money spent. I can only say, that if you fear opening the books (all of them: financial, training, incident numbers) to the public you protect, you're probably not doing anyone, but yourselves, a service. The term Public Safety indicates we're doing this for the public, be your agency municipal, private or otherwise.

Sadly, the days of volunteerism in the truest sense seem to have passed us by. With more and more financial issues affected everyone, they really hit home with folks who work and then give their time for little or no pay to be members of the local FD or ambulance service. The public doesn't necessarily see that the same financial burden they feel pinches volunteer or POC firefighters/EMS personnel as well. With more people struggling to make ends meet, this scenario is only getting worse. At the same time, we've raised (rightfully) the standards for training and attendance to ensure a safer fireground. As we just saw with the Tarrytown tragedy, minimum training is a bare necessity.
In appears that in many places, besides LI and Westchester, the VFD's spend exorbitant amounts of money making the FD attractive to people, using new stations, new high end apparatus, FD social clubs, etc. In the end they end up with higher numbers, but maybe not for the right reasons? Until the public understand where that money is going and can measure the results in tangible ways, they may continue to get bilked, even if it is unintentionally. One must ponder the question that most VFD's have more apparatus than they can staff, why not slim down and move active, trained personnel to fewer companies to gain a better response. Far too often we see lines of apparatus at fire scenes with all the personnel working off the same few apparatus. The days of individual fiefdoms is coming to a close and the FD's that embrace the change early will have a position much closer to the "driver" of the regionalized bus, than those who bury their heads and the sand and are dragged into the inevitable kicking and screaming, with no voice in the implementation.
It amazes me when I see the Firehouse volunteer FD survey and so many VFD's have budgets far greater than that of my combo FD, and call volumes so far less.
Seth's has a point that there may be other alternatives to all out paid firefighters, but the discussion needs to be with an independent public committee of citizens who have no bias, just a sense of community. Too many of us fear speaking candidly with the public about our shortcomings and service levels garnered for the money spent. I can only say, that if you fear opening the books (all of them: financial, training, incident numbers) to the public you protect, you're probably not doing anyone, but yourselves, a service. The term Public Safety indicates we're doing this for the public, be your agency municipal, private or otherwise.

Sadly, the days of volunteerism in the truest sense seem to have passed us by. With more and more financial issues affected everyone, they really hit home with folks who work and then give their time for little or no pay to be members of the local FD or ambulance service. The public doesn't necessarily see that the same financial burden they feel pinches volunteer or POC firefighters/EMS personnel as well. With more people struggling to make ends meet, this scenario is only getting worse. At the same time, we've raised (rightfully) the standards for training and attendance to ensure a safer fireground. As we just saw with the Tarrytown tragedy, minimum training is a bare necessity.
In appears that in many places, besides LI and Westchester, the VFD's spend exorbitant amounts of money making the FD attractive to people, using new stations, new high end apparatus, FD social clubs, etc. In the end they end up with higher numbers, but maybe not for the right reasons? Until the public understand where that money is going and can measure the results in tangible ways, they may continue to get bilked, even if it is unintentionally. One must ponder the question that most VFD's have more apparatus than they can staff, why not slim down and move active, trained personnel to fewer companies to gain a better response. Far too often we see lines of apparatus at fire scenes with all the personnel working off the same few apparatus. The days of individual fiefdoms is coming to a close and the FD's that embrace the change early will have a position much closer to the "driver" of the regionalized bus, than those who bury their heads and the sand and are dragged into the inevitable kicking and screaming, with no voice in the implementation.
It amazes me when I see the Firehouse volunteer FD survey and so many VFD's have budgets far greater than that of my combo FD, and call volumes so far less.
Seth's has a point that there may be other alternatives to all out paid firefighters, but the discussion needs to be with an independent public committee of citizens who have no bias, just a sense of community. Too many of us fear speaking candidly with the public about our shortcomings and service levels garnered for the money spent. I can only say, that if you fear opening the books (all of them: financial, training, incident numbers) to the public you protect, you're probably not doing anyone, but yourselves, a service. The term Public Safety indicates we're doing this for the public, be your agency municipal, private or otherwise.

A couple of days ago, while mulling around the house trying to think about something interesting to write about, I pulled out a soft cover book from under the coffee table. It’s a little cookbook, and I’ve had it for so long I know quite a few of the recipes by heart, so I hadn’t really looked at it for some time.
So here I am holding “The Firefighter’s Cookbook”, John Sineno. “Award Winning Recipes From a Fire-Fighting Chef.” The book is a compilation of recipes, submitted by members of the FDNY. It contains drawings of firehouse scenes, sketched by one Robert Paul Scudellari. The first one is so simple and peaceful on page 2; two turnout coats hanging on hooks, two pairs of folded down rubber boots beneath.
Only a couple of pages in, and there’s some info:
A Vintage Original
First Edition August 1986
by John Sineno
It dawns on me; I bought this book about five months after I got on the job. This soft-cover book that has somehow stayed quite intact, save the rounded corners, and the dripped clam sauce on page 77‘s recipe, “Linguine with Clam Sauce” submitted by a Lt. J. Shea, of the Brooklyn/Queens Holy Name Society.
An Introduction
John Sineno was appointed to the New York City Fire Department on October 2, 1962. He describes his attitude as “cavalier” and his wife worrying, when after graduating probie school he get’s assigned to the “Fire Factory,” home to Engine 58 and Ladder 26, in the heart of Harlem. He is concerned on his first day reporting for duty. Can he live up to the job? The only question asked of him was from the then Captain of Ladder 26, Raymond Kelly, “Can you cook?”
I slump back into the couch, realizing this book had become much more than a cookbook. It’s also become a history book. A very gracious look back in time, when fires were constantly raging, but within the firehouse a calmness, decency and Brotherhood.
I remember looking at the illustrations and thinking they were kind of boring back in 1986. Just simple sketches of daily firehouse life:
A child visiting the firehouse with his mom, and the chauffeur standing next to the open door of the cab, having lifted that child behind the wheel.
A probie standing at the slop sink, wringing out the mop.
On page 46 a dish entitled “A Polish Farewell To Lent.” Sketch of a hook and a leather helmet, hanging on the railing of the engine cover in the open jump seat.
There are numerous sketches of men working in the kitchen of the firehouse.
But now I see the beauty in these drawings. The purpose of this book obviously, was not to convey the horrors of fire, or the danger these men faced, working in the busiest firehouse “on earth.” There are plenty of other books written about the fire service, particularly the FDNY, that have all the tension and seriousness of the business a fireman is faced with.
No, this one is special. It’s about the kitchen, the hub of life in any firehouse. It’s about the in-between time, the before time, and the after time in a very dangerous profession. The prep time for meals; “some good, some not so good, some great.” It’s about the chops busting and laughter that goes on in a firehouse kitchen. And it’s about the food. Recipes.
Smiling on the cover, wearing their gear with a table load of prepared dishes on a red tablecloth, and a Mack fire engine behind them; John Sineno E-58, and three Brothers, all from different firehouses around the city; E-202, E-248 and L-156. Sineno, who referred to his Italian grandmother in the introduction, is holding his award winning cheesecake, coupled with an appearance on the Phil Donahue that actually set the wheels in motion for this book to be made.
I stare at this cover. I can almost hear laughter in the background coming from behind the rig. Members joking around. What a great day this must have been. What a great day later on, for John Sineno to see his cookbook published.
There was however a greater purpose described within this wonderful book. It started with the Harvard Business Club visiting the Fire Factory; eighty people. John and company fed them well, even though they had no idea how many people would show up that day.
John and two fellow firemen, Jack Meara and Joe Hickey, were trying to establish a Burn Center in New York city. They felt “too many people were succumbing to burn injuries, and something had to be done about it.” That connection with the Harvard Business Club ended up with the formation of The New York Firefighters Burn Center Foundation.
The book states that “persons receiving third-degree burns in excess of 25 percent of their anatomy were for all practical purposes dead, unless transported to a burn center.” Do you relate to the compassion and dedication, to want to do something so incredibly humane? Not only did they pull the victims out, but now wanted to establish a state of the art burn center, so the victims might live. And they did it with New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, establishing what firemen referred too as “The Miracle on 68th Street.”
John gave away half the proceeds of the book to the Burn Center.
In the book there’s a request to make a donation to the Burn Center Foundation.
I started out not knowing where this entry would end up. But I think we should acknowledge with extreme gratitude, the work these men did in helping get the first Burn Center in NYC established. Something I imagine today, with Level One trauma centers here and there, might not have the same meaning it did back in the days when burn victims were “the most neglected of hospital patients.”
Thank you John Sineno, who passed away on April 2, 2003, and all the Brothers that fought those fires, made the saves, and then helped get a hospital built for the victims. And thank you for the cookbook. I think tonight I’m going to make the Shrimp Parmesan, page 12, and continue to think about this great little book and the heroes behind it. A cookbook that literally saved lives.
NEVER FORGET!

Book is out of print, Vintage publishers out of business, but still available from some on-line bookstores.
Photo and description of book from my own purchased copy.

Sadly, the days of volunteerism in the truest sense seem to have passed us by. With more and more financial issues affected everyone, they really hit home with folks who work and then give their time for little or no pay to be members of the local FD or ambulance service. The public doesn't necessarily see that the same financial burden they feel pinches volunteer or POC firefighters/EMS personnel as well. With more people struggling to make ends meet, this scenario is only getting worse. At the same time, we've raised (rightfully) the standards for training and attendance to ensure a safer fireground. As we just saw with the Tarrytown tragedy, minimum training is a bare necessity.
In appears that in many places, besides LI and Westchester, the VFD's spend exorbitant amounts of money making the FD attractive to people, using new stations, new high end apparatus, FD social clubs, etc. In the end they end up with higher numbers, but maybe not for the right reasons? Until the public understand where that money is going and can measure the results in tangible ways, they may continue to get bilked, even if it is unintentionally. One must ponder the question that most VFD's have more apparatus than they can staff, why not slim down and move active, trained personnel to fewer companies to gain a better response. Far too often we see lines of apparatus at fire scenes with all the personnel working off the same few apparatus. The days of individual fiefdoms is coming to a close and the FD's that embrace the change early will have a position much closer to the "driver" of the regionalized bus, than those who bury their heads and the sand and are dragged into the inevitable kicking and screaming, with no voice in the implementation.
It amazes me when I see the Firehouse volunteer FD survey and so many VFD's have budgets far greater than that of my combo FD, and call volumes so far less.
Seth's has a point that there may be other alternatives to all out paid firefighters, but the discussion needs to be with an independent public committee of citizens who have no bias, just a sense of community. Too many of us fear speaking candidly with the public about our shortcomings and service levels garnered for the money spent. I can only say, that if you fear opening the books (all of them: financial, training, incident numbers) to the public you protect, you're probably not doing anyone, but yourselves, a service. The term Public Safety indicates we're doing this for the public, be your agency municipal, private or otherwise.

Sadly, the days of volunteerism in the truest sense seem to have passed us by. With more and more financial issues affected everyone, they really hit home with folks who work and then give their time for little or no pay to be members of the local FD or ambulance service. The public doesn't necessarily see that the same financial burden they feel pinches volunteer or POC firefighters/EMS personnel as well. With more people struggling to make ends meet, this scenario is only getting worse. At the same time, we've raised (rightfully) the standards for training and attendance to ensure a safer fireground. As we just saw with the Tarrytown tragedy, minimum training is a bare necessity.
In appears that in many places, besides LI and Westchester, the VFD's spend exorbitant amounts of money making the FD attractive to people, using new stations, new high end apparatus, FD social clubs, etc. In the end they end up with higher numbers, but maybe not for the right reasons? Until the public understand where that money is going and can measure the results in tangible ways, they may continue to get bilked, even if it is unintentionally. One must ponder the question that most VFD's have more apparatus than they can staff, why not slim down and move active, trained personnel to fewer companies to gain a better response. Far too often we see lines of apparatus at fire scenes with all the personnel working off the same few apparatus. The days of individual fiefdoms is coming to a close and the FD's that embrace the change early will have a position much closer to the "driver" of the regionalized bus, than those who bury their heads and the sand and are dragged into the inevitable kicking and screaming, with no voice in the implementation.
It amazes me when I see the Firehouse volunteer FD survey and so many VFD's have budgets far greater than that of my combo FD, and call volumes so far less.
Seth's has a point that there may be other alternatives to all out paid firefighters, but the discussion needs to be with an independent public committee of citizens who have no bias, just a sense of community. Too many of us fear speaking candidly with the public about our shortcomings and service levels garnered for the money spent. I can only say, that if you fear opening the books (all of them: financial, training, incident numbers) to the public you protect, you're probably not doing anyone, but yourselves, a service. The term Public Safety indicates we're doing this for the public, be your agency municipal, private or otherwise.

Is it possible they cannot fathom that for the amount they pay in taxes, the FD isn't ready to respond from the station 24/7 with a well trained and organized staff? Not necessarily your FD in particular, but to the general public, they only know they pay a lot and when they call 911 people all dressed similarly show up.

Sadly, the days of volunteerism in the truest sense seem to have passed us by. With more and more financial issues affected everyone, they really hit home with folks who work and then give their time for little or no pay to be members of the local FD or ambulance service. The public doesn't necessarily see that the same financial burden they feel pinches volunteer or POC firefighters/EMS personnel as well. With more people struggling to make ends meet, this scenario is only getting worse. At the same time, we've raised (rightfully) the standards for training and attendance to ensure a safer fireground. As we just saw with the Tarrytown tragedy, minimum training is a bare necessity.
In appears that in many places, besides LI and Westchester, the VFD's spend exorbitant amounts of money making the FD attractive to people, using new stations, new high end apparatus, FD social clubs, etc. In the end they end up with higher numbers, but maybe not for the right reasons? Until the public understand where that money is going and can measure the results in tangible ways, they may continue to get bilked, even if it is unintentionally. One must ponder the question that most VFD's have more apparatus than they can staff, why not slim down and move active, trained personnel to fewer companies to gain a better response. Far too often we see lines of apparatus at fire scenes with all the personnel working off the same few apparatus. The days of individual fiefdoms is coming to a close and the FD's that embrace the change early will have a position much closer to the "driver" of the regionalized bus, than those who bury their heads and the sand and are dragged into the inevitable kicking and screaming, with no voice in the implementation.
It amazes me when I see the Firehouse volunteer FD survey and so many VFD's have budgets far greater than that of my combo FD, and call volumes so far less.
Seth's has a point that there may be other alternatives to all out paid firefighters, but the discussion needs to be with an independent public committee of citizens who have no bias, just a sense of community. Too many of us fear speaking candidly with the public about our shortcomings and service levels garnered for the money spent. I can only say, that if you fear opening the books (all of them: financial, training, incident numbers) to the public you protect, you're probably not doing anyone, but yourselves, a service. The term Public Safety indicates we're doing this for the public, be your agency municipal, private or otherwise.

Sadly, the days of volunteerism in the truest sense seem to have passed us by. With more and more financial issues affected everyone, they really hit home with folks who work and then give their time for little or no pay to be members of the local FD or ambulance service. The public doesn't necessarily see that the same financial burden they feel pinches volunteer or POC firefighters/EMS personnel as well. With more people struggling to make ends meet, this scenario is only getting worse. At the same time, we've raised (rightfully) the standards for training and attendance to ensure a safer fireground. As we just saw with the Tarrytown tragedy, minimum training is a bare necessity.
In appears that in many places, besides LI and Westchester, the VFD's spend exorbitant amounts of money making the FD attractive to people, using new stations, new high end apparatus, FD social clubs, etc. In the end they end up with higher numbers, but maybe not for the right reasons? Until the public understand where that money is going and can measure the results in tangible ways, they may continue to get bilked, even if it is unintentionally. One must ponder the question that most VFD's have more apparatus than they can staff, why not slim down and move active, trained personnel to fewer companies to gain a better response. Far too often we see lines of apparatus at fire scenes with all the personnel working off the same few apparatus. The days of individual fiefdoms is coming to a close and the FD's that embrace the change early will have a position much closer to the "driver" of the regionalized bus, than those who bury their heads and the sand and are dragged into the inevitable kicking and screaming, with no voice in the implementation.
It amazes me when I see the Firehouse volunteer FD survey and so many VFD's have budgets far greater than that of my combo FD, and call volumes so far less.
Seth's has a point that there may be other alternatives to all out paid firefighters, but the discussion needs to be with an independent public committee of citizens who have no bias, just a sense of community. Too many of us fear speaking candidly with the public about our shortcomings and service levels garnered for the money spent. I can only say, that if you fear opening the books (all of them: financial, training, incident numbers) to the public you protect, you're probably not doing anyone, but yourselves, a service. The term Public Safety indicates we're doing this for the public, be your agency municipal, private or otherwise.

I don't think the rural, suburban or urban really should make a difference, as the benefits of an initial conditions report can be realized in any setting. What I hate hearing is the Holy Shiite! tell them to expedite calls on the radio! We get these from M/A FD's, EMS unit and PD a few times a year, and the response I give is always, "We're already travelling as fast as is safely possible". Point being as much as the initial report can help slow units down, the screaming banshee chief's tend to send many into adrenaline overload, and who can blame them when their chief is setting that example. Progress reports really depend on what you're looking to get out of them. We likes them to document certain benchmarks, but given the small size of our FD, they serve little purpose otherwise as if the incident is much as all (working fire) a full recall has happened and crews are listening to the tactical frequency. On the other hand, requiring the progress reports does force the IC to review benchmarks and to put an actual time frame on the operation. I know firsthand how fast time goes by at a working fire, I'm often amazed out how much time has passed when we're cleaning up and some says the time.

While I agree that the first scenario, or both truly seem like heads up decision making, we do often have other reasons for not varying from protocols. Though it would seem the call was "obvious" sometimes and I imagine to a far greater extent in a much larger system, sticking to protocols validates them or shows the need for change.
In our case, anytime the dispatcher has a "gray area" they can contact the duty officer or first due IC and tell them what they have, prompting them to make or authorize the decision. Is there no way the dispatcher could call the first due IC and say, "we're getting multiple calls and I have R3 in the area?" Again, I doubt that type of heads up call would get anyone spanked in my system, but the larger the system the more rigid the guidelines tend to be.
Sometimes you have to take the rip and know you made the right call anyway, as long as humans are involved in the equation, no one will agree 100% of the time.

While I agree that the first scenario, or both truly seem like heads up decision making, we do often have other reasons for not varying from protocols. Though it would seem the call was "obvious" sometimes and I imagine to a far greater extent in a much larger system, sticking to protocols validates them or shows the need for change.
In our case, anytime the dispatcher has a "gray area" they can contact the duty officer or first due IC and tell them what they have, prompting them to make or authorize the decision. Is there no way the dispatcher could call the first due IC and say, "we're getting multiple calls and I have R3 in the area?" Again, I doubt that type of heads up call would get anyone spanked in my system, but the larger the system the more rigid the guidelines tend to be.
Sometimes you have to take the rip and know you made the right call anyway, as long as humans are involved in the equation, no one will agree 100% of the time.

The fire service, both dispatchers and supprssors are at a point in time where SOP's and/or SOG's have possibly become a detrement as opposed to a benefit. Some leaders believe they have the soslutions to all problems so they write SOP's one after another, until the SOP book is so thick it takes the low man on the totem pole longer to decipher what action he should take than to control the incident.
Gone are the days of thinking for ourselves, but the problem in a nutshell, the book can't cover every situation. I keep saying SOP, but please don't throw that "We use SOG because they're only guidelines" story at me. Screw up and either term can throw you under the bus. I remember when NFPA only had guidelines. What happened there?
Back to dispatchers making decisions. Your FD hired you from a list because the test you took allegedly tested your ability to think and make decisions. Next they trained you to make decisions. And then hey told you to go exactly by the book.
If your FD doesn't want any dispatcher to think and decide, why put a human in that position. Use a computer instead. I called SEARS yesterday to see if my order was ready. I talked to a very nice girl who kept giving menues to find out what i was calling for. At the end ,she said "Your order will be at the dock at three pm." If dispatchers aren't allowed to think and decide, we could get that SEARS girl to dispatch.
" If you smell smoke say "smell" if you see smoke say "see", If there are actual flames say "FIRE", if you are trapped say "trapped".
I'm sorry "Oh God come quick" is not a recognized answer..please listen to the menu again,,,,,.
Personally, I really think I would have a thinking dispatcher able to say "I'm getting multiple calls and a report of a person trapped I, your dispatcher,,,am bumping this up to a full assignment and adding another truck company.
What do others want?

While I agree that the first scenario, or both truly seem like heads up decision making, we do often have other reasons for not varying from protocols. Though it would seem the call was "obvious" sometimes and I imagine to a far greater extent in a much larger system, sticking to protocols validates them or shows the need for change.
In our case, anytime the dispatcher has a "gray area" they can contact the duty officer or first due IC and tell them what they have, prompting them to make or authorize the decision. Is there no way the dispatcher could call the first due IC and say, "we're getting multiple calls and I have R3 in the area?" Again, I doubt that type of heads up call would get anyone spanked in my system, but the larger the system the more rigid the guidelines tend to be.
Sometimes you have to take the rip and know you made the right call anyway, as long as humans are involved in the equation, no one will agree 100% of the time.

We do it on all calls. For typical EMS calls we don't see the same "gawkers", traffic is barely inconvenienced, and the crew's time in the street is far less. We do send an engine on all calls in the street, such as fallen in the crosswalk, bicyclists injured in the roadway, etc. We're of course not trying to eliminate calls, being a combo career/POC staffed department, so no one is missing time from work for "needless" calls. Some days are hectic, but most days guys would rather be out doing something than in quarters.