antiquefirelt

Clearly you fail to understand how EMS in the rural areas often rely on licensed fire responders at all levels to begin care. Having started in a small rural community where the closest mutual aid ambulance was 20 minutes out, I can attest that having members properly equipped to assist patients is not a disservice of any sort. Aside from administering oxygen, bleeding control, assisting with EPI-pens, spinal immobilization, CPR and even defibrillation are often performed by first responders with success. Not to mention being able to assess the situation and ammend the response appropriately.

Clearly you fail to understand how EMS in the rural areas often rely on licensed fire responders at all levels to begin care. Having started in a small rural community where the closest mutual aid ambulance was 20 minutes out, I can attest that having members properly equipped to assist patients is not a disservice of any sort. Aside from administering oxygen, bleeding control, assisting with EPI-pens, spinal immobilization, CPR and even defibrillation are often performed by first responders with success. Not to mention being able to assess the situation and ammend the response appropriately.

Clearly you fail to understand how EMS in the rural areas often rely on licensed fire responders at all levels to begin care. Having started in a small rural community where the closest mutual aid ambulance was 20 minutes out, I can attest that having members properly equipped to assist patients is not a disservice of any sort. Aside from administering oxygen, bleeding control, assisting with EPI-pens, spinal immobilization, CPR and even defibrillation are often performed by first responders with success. Not to mention being able to assess the situation and ammend the response appropriately.

Clearly you fail to understand how EMS in the rural areas often rely on licensed fire responders at all levels to begin care. Having started in a small rural community where the closest mutual aid ambulance was 20 minutes out, I can attest that having members properly equipped to assist patients is not a disservice of any sort. Aside from administering oxygen, bleeding control, assisting with EPI-pens, spinal immobilization, CPR and even defibrillation are often performed by first responders with success. Not to mention being able to assess the situation and ammend the response appropriately.

Having read each and every post on this thread and having read all of the background regarding the South Fulton/Obion County situation, it is clear to me that many posters have a serious problem with reading comprehension and a serious problem seeing things in a context other than what the know from their day-to-day experiences.
Lets look at some facts --Obion County is extremely rural. It is 545 square miles of land area -- that is 95 square miles larger than Westchester County. The population of Obion County -- THE ENTIRE COUNTY, including residents of 8 cities is 32,450 people!!! Westchester's population is close to one million people. Attempting to view the situation in Obion County in light of the way things are in Westchester is insane.
In TN, you either live in a City or you live in the unincorporated County. There are NO TOWNS. County Government is extremely limited and County taxes are extremely low. Residents outside the Cities are NOT Taxed for fire protection. Fire Protection is NOT provided. People know that when they build their homes in areas outside City boundaries. That is a major reason why they build there. They don't want to be bothered by government, by other people and they hate paying taxes. They obviously also hate services that are provided by taxes and that is why they freely choose to live without those services, including fire protection.
At some point, the local government officials in the City of South Fulton decided that it would be possible to extend the service of the City's Volunteer Fire Department (a department paid for by the taxpayers of the City of South Fulton through their taxes)to certain residents of Obion County who reside within a reasonable response time to South Fulton. The City government established a Fee of $75 per year for the service it agreed to provide to property owners in unincorporated Obion County. Each property owner in the parts of Obion County, lying outside the city limits of South Fulton, was then free to make a conscious decision to purchase fire protection that they never had previously, for the sum of $75.00 per year or to continue living they way that had forever, without any fire protection at all. In this particular case, the homeowner decided to take his chances and not pay the fee. His decision, freely made. He gambled and lost. Nobody forced him to locate his home in an area that does not have fire protection. He freely chose to do that.
If if were a taxpayer in the City of South Fulton, and the local volunteer fire department, operating on my tax dollars, had chosen to extinguish a fire in a Obion County, for a homeowner who had NOT paid the $75.00 fee, I would be in court the next day to sue the fire department and every member who misappropriated taxpayer financed equipment to fight the fire. It would be an open and shut case. The fire department would lose. Responding outside the City Limits of South Fulton to fight fires in unincorporated Obion County is NOT Mutual Aid because there is no organized fire protection in the unincorporated areas of the county. The fire department has a fiduciary and moral responsibility to those who pay for the service -- the taxpayers of the City of South Fulton and those county residents who have entered into individual contracts for department service. They would be violating that fiduciary and moral responsibility if they extinguished a fire for someone who freely chose NOT to avail himself of that service.
Why is it so hard for so many to understand this concept.

I find it interesting that many people argue that RLS and unnecessary in many cases everywhere else, but seem to think NYC is a complete different situation? I've driven there plenty and would agree that traffic congestion is among the worst,but I don't see a difference between them and LA,Boston, the DC metro area, Honolulu, you name it. Slower response times? Sure to non-emergencies: who cares? Our monthly reports to City Council do not include the response times to non-emergency calls. Only calls where the NFIRs report shows a "Priority Response" (RLS) are factored into our average response times.
The same points ring true about the dispatch info in NYC as they do in Podunk: if you can't trust the dispatchers, work on that. Given the traffic issue, maybe calls that are questionable get bumped up to emergency responses vs. down to non-emergency? The citizens don't like waiting for non-emergency calls? Good, stop closing companies. This can only serve to cement the fact that closures will significantly impact all calls for service, emergencies or not. If response times are an issue, properly deploy stations and apparatus, don't make up the time recklessly speeding to boxes, which is not only dangerous to members but counterproductive to ensuring proper staffing. Of course all this is far easier to say than get done. And even more so in today's financial climate.
Running RLS to non-emergency calls is similar to doing more with less. The list of what's an emergency and what isn't is really going to be the key to ensuring life and limb are not endangered no matter what.

Ah, another 'grasshopper'... What I would say is that 'shorter time to patient' is always better. That said, if this is THE goal, then there are many ways to achieve it. Every 'way' has a 'cost' associated with it. Cost/benefit is a decision that gets made long before we get dispatched to a call in the form of staffing and system management. The greater determinant in how long it takes to get help to a patient is how far away from the patient the help is, not how fast you drive.
Almost invariably, it is trained bystanders whose instantaneous help keeps a patient viable until EMS gets there that make the larger difference in outcome. And yet basic emergency tactics aren't even taught in schools. One can get a driver's license and not know what to do at an auto accident.
Minutes also carry different values. If time from injury to arrival of useful EMS is under 8 minutes AND it is a critical call, then shaving time here might make sense. If time from injury to EMS arrival is going to be 15 to 20 minutes, then shaving a minute or two here doesn't have nearly as much value.
As for RLS versus reckless, half of all drivers are below average. One need not be reckless to meet up with an inattentive driver who completely isn't prepared to stop or take evasive action.
Whether RLS has value needs to be evaluated case by case. I think the wise responder does this starting from the position that RLS is not worth it and then tries to build a case that it is,not the other way around.
These are good questions. If at 20, one does not have the 'fire in the belly' then one shouldn't be in emergency services. If one still has it at 50, then they also shouldn't be in emergency services. Remembering one of the great quotes on why a driver didn't go all that fast..."If the fire's any good it will still be going when I get there."

I just have to. First every cardiac arrest is usually predisposed by some other form of event or illness...even "sudden cardiac arrest" is usually preluded by an underlying arrythmia so that's your first weak argument. Secondly give me a percentage wise of how often you can "never rely on dispatch information." My agency does over 3000 ALSFR and BLSFR responses a year and I bet 99% of the dispatch information is correct. So that's your second weak argument. If your agency is having an issue..you need to address it with your dispatching agency. But spoken well like what I hear from most uninformed, more opinion then fact buffs, but based on your age category I can't hold you over responsible for your comments.
Fact is you only save seconds with an emergency response. Or lights and sirens. Maybe you can give me a good excuse as to why when I TOT a job to BLS they opt to go lights and sirens to the hospital? Is there any BLS level issue that a medic turns the patient over to BLS that's a true emergency? I haven't figured that one out yet. Lets hurry up and get there..only for a good aggressive ALS provider to get good care underway...then if that provider is worth his/her salt...take a nice easy ride to the ER. So does that make sense? I don't use lights and sirens to transport cardiac arrests to the hospital. Problem there? I think not. On average...20 seconds quicker. Not worth my life for the one with less then 1/2% chance of survival and even less at that point as we do all of the same stuff they're going to do in the ED and often pronounce less then 5 minutes when we come through the door.
Knock off the excuses. Lights and Sirens are over used and sooner or later luck runs out. They should be used for True Emergencies and that we all know is less then 1% of what we're doing.
Experienced providers know there is a major difference in driving skill for a driver when using lights/sirens vs. not. With them on..braking and acceleration control often gives causing a jerky ride. Don't think so..pay attention next time when you take off with a trauma or severe medical emergency. If you were gonna use them..have them leave them off...then after a minute tell them to turn them on and see how your ride changes. Your brain processes about 400 items of information/decisions a minute when operating a vehicle with lights and sirens engaged...something has to give. Keep in mind you might not get into an accident..but you can cause significant numbers and severity of rebound accidents of other vehicles.
Bob Faugh always said it best in his lectures...saving seconds...costing lives.

Why do you have to? In my state and I presume most if not all others, the driver is still responsible for driving. This means you're liable if you drive without due regard for the safety of others. It is no stretch for 12 of your peers to determine that if you used lights and sirens for a hang nail, you did not use "due regard". Our Fire/EMS dept. is dispatched without the EMD codes but we are given the chief complaint, pertinent history and usually the pt's age. From this information the EMS crew assigned to the bus will determine how to travel. They announce "enroute, emergency status" or "enroute non-emergency". This was if the dispatcher has more information that would change their mind, they give it to them or let their impression be known. This also allows the duty officer to interject if he feels they've made an error in response mode (very rare).
We also tried responding to AFA's and other calls with a single unit using lights and sirens and others responding cold. This turned out to be a more dangerous situation where we are based out of one station. Drivers were very confused with how to react after pulling over for the lead unit running lights and sirens and then pulling back out in front of other apparatus that had no lights or sirens. Now all units respond in emergency fashion to calls that we feel warrant it, and many others the responding units respond cold, usually typical single engine calls like bark mulch fires, dumpsters without exposures, odor in the area, spilled fluids, etc.

I just don't get how they can hope to accomplish their goals of more minorities without discrimination. If they lower the aptitude required to ace the test, which is pretty much where you have to be to make the list, do they think that more whites won't be able to pass the easier test? Then how do they choose without discrimination? This country is out of hand with these types of issues. For one I see this as the one issue that makes me feel racist in any manner. I can't help but be angered by folks who argue that the tests need to be changed so they can pass them. I'd like to think these were rare individuals but instead, they make it a race issue. It really should cause other member of said minorities to be outraged that they're being "proven" to be less intelligent by their peers and the courts.

While we're being realistic, we must not lose sight of having higher goals and standards for ourselves. Many communities do what's easiest, not what's best for them. These means excuses of multiple tones, over-reliance on mutual aid (taxing other communities resources) and failing to properly train and equip their firefighters. A good part of the time, it's the FD leadership who has failed to fight for what was needed. When the new guy comes in and tells the community that they're all F'ed up and need to spend some money, they resent him/her and want the old Chief back. Cheaper is usually easier.But to agree with you I'd say that many of us cannot do anymore than the taxpayers will allow, the real question is are you (your FD) being honest with the taxpayers, town councilors and your own personnel?
There's an excellent article in April's FE on staffing and how it relates to nearly every fireground death. I've said it before, I'm certain we can link staffing issues to most LODD's and injuries, very often directly.

I'm sorry but I just can't see how a LE/Fire model can work and save money? Both jobs present incidents that require resources be dedicated to the incident, so if there are not enough resources to do both, one or the other (maybe whichever incident is second) will be neglected. If you have the resources to do both, why not "specialize" and just do one or the other and be damn good at one, not half-arsed at both? I'd like to see a system that works and works well that also saves money. I'll bet those that think it works well and many of us wouldn't agree. How about ongoing training? LE officers only learn to shoot once? Firefighters only need to pass FF1&2 then they're ready for the rest of their careers? Not hardly.
It's not that I don't believe LE officers are capable as of course they surely are. It's a priorities issue and LE has some significant mandates on them to follow very specific courses of action. If the Fire Service was more like LE in this regard we couldn't complain about how there are two standards for the FS, volunteer and career.

How about one that says "Thanks for funding that library addition and making 2 empty seats on this vehicle"

Good topic.
If the fire was accidental or some other form other then set by the homeowner Arson wouldn't apply.
I'm fairly certain law enforcement would handle the issue as I wouldn't deem that rational behavior, but that's my thought and I'd rather deal with the aftermath then not deal with the incident. But there are other actions that could be taken to remove the individual impeding the FD operation. Some are a stretch and I'm going on some older experience but I'd find something to take the person into custody to get them out of the way:
1. Illegal Open burn...then onto #3
2. Obstruction of Governmental Administration
3. Disorderly Conduct (probably wouldn't stick but it get them out of the way for the intended purpose, and if they are froggy...bye bye)
4. MHL?
5. Try to get them out off their property and into the public street...pick a number of things to try to use.
Bottom line is NY State law requires the Fire Chief to determine a cause of a fire, so sooner or later that has to come to light.

Blow on kindling, you get fire. Don't do it inside your tent.
-New Proverb
-ME

I truly beleive there are some fundamental differences in the places who successfully use PPV vs. those who can't make it work safely and discard it's use. Obviously both sides have good points, the real issues are the "indications" and contraindications".
Without a doubt PPV works and works well in many controlled fireground settings. I say controlled in that we know some basics: where the fire is, the building construction (where the fire is going), the path between the injection point and the exhaust point, and the relative area of any victims.
My FD tried for years to implement PPA/PPV with poor results. Short of some minor training points, I observed a two things that make me feel this may not be as valid a tactic in the Northeast as it is the Southeast or Southwest.
1. Here in the Northeast we have a larger percentage of old housing stock. More woodframe balloon construction, which unless it remains well intact should be a contra indication of PPA. Also basements/cellars are more prevalent and fires below the level of attack should be another contraindication. We seem to have an inordinate number of frame houses converted into multiple dwellings causing numerous ways to block the injection/exhaust pathway leading to pressurization of unanticipated areas.
2. Climate control. The places that see longer hotter summers have central AC or whole house HVAC, while in the northeast many folks only need the A/C a few weeks a year and resort to window opening/closing to cool their homes/units. This leads to buildings where we can't control the exhaust openings to properly utilize the PPA/PPV for superheated smoke and fire for longer periods (spring/summer/fall season). In the winter many old homes are closed up by closing all the doors or even using insulation board to close of whole second/third floors. Again, this blocks the anticipated injection/exhaust pathway.
Look at the bigger proponents of PPA and you'll see Salt Lake City, some Florida FD's, many Cali FD's and many more. Ask yourself how old their housing/building stock is compared to yours. The video provided shows them breaking some of the "rules of PPV" as well as some basic rules some of us beleive in.
My FD subscribes to the residential front door attack. Unlike these folks and WRaftery's FD, we actaully would have chosen the front door 99% of the time. Rather than "push the fire from the unburned to the burned" we choose to make the attack through the point which quickest gets the line between the occupants and/or stairs and the fire. With a few notable exceptions (Shotgun Shacks in TX and single wide trailers) we follow this basic plan of attack. The unburned to burned is in our eyes, a hold over from the days of 1.5" lines where we literally pushed the fire using fog streams and lower flows. Today we bring the correct weapon to the fight and extinguish the fire at the seat, rather than push it at all. I realize this is not how many FD's have been taught or practice, but it works well for us and we find we can get a line into position much faster most of the time. Finding an alternative entrance generally requires more homes, more turns, more time and often fails to secure the interior stairs. So to tie this back to PPA/PPV our fan would almost always be at the front door, but alas we (mostly) only use it after the knock.

I would think that dispatch would know to send the appropriate initial responses for a structure fire. It was called in as a struct fire. If this was an alarm activation and the member got on scene first and realized it was actually a structure fire, then yes, fill out the box, call for more M/A, etc.
The fact that this is a small DETACHED garage makes a big difference. If it were attached to a house, yes, send everybody.

I just have to add to those who think that's way too radical; think about how much talent comes to work in Westchester County coming OUT of NYC? Now you have talent that could come down in reverse TO the city instead of always away from it. I know it's probably wishful thinking, but why the hell not? We got unemployed recently trained union firefighters over here. A system that large could absorb that talent, EASILY.
Vets first.
Why not unemployed firefighters next?
I'm just sayin'.....
A BIG PS: I DO NOT SPEAK FOR ANY OF THE LAYED OFF BROTHERS, only in support of them. Edit: and without their authority to say anything, only my opinion. Also, content removed for irrelavence. lol

Chief, I'm gonna be a little persistent here so I can pass this info along with full understanding when the time comes so bear with me.
Young petite adult in front passenger seat, front impact accident, dual stage has sensed that it is not a large adult and we'll say the lesser of the 2 discharge (small charge for argument sake), the crumple sensors have detected this, car spins around 360 hits a jersey barrier front end again. Now from what antiquefire has said he was told there is a full and a much less than full charge. The less than full charge has deployed initally, now we are left with the full charge for this barrier impact. Since the sensors have already detected what charge was initially needed for the young adult, wouldn't a deployment of the full charge on 2nd impact to the young adult open up a can of worms with law suits?(I'm sure if they did not get seriously hurt it would be obsolete) Yes, I am going with the airbag/SRS could possibly deploy again but if this was something that has happened more than a freak time there would be much more accessible literature out about this for OUR safety other than word of mouth no? Thanks Chief

I learned last fall that many of our neighbors use the LDH to a manifold then short 2.5" to the direct tank fills. The reason given is that the LDH direct fill are often too high to safely connect and disconnect unless the hose is empty (rarely). Two 2.5" lines into the tanker one open discharge (three-way)to relieve the pressure once shut down. The two 2.5" flow plenty of water, often more than tankers are designed to be filled at. Depending on how the baffles and direct fills are configured, one must consider the pressure and flow internally and second if the air vents allow for rapid fills. Of course FD's that excel at rural water supply plan and spec apparatus specifically for their operations. Those of us who do rural water as a rarity usually slow the process with our conventional thinking and apparatus.

I think this is the essence of doing it right. If you see dollar signs first and improvements to care second, you'll soon find out this won't work out. On the other hand if you put the patients best interest as your primary goal 100% of the time with all other benefits second to this, you'll likely succeed.
There are some fundamental differences between the types of EMS providers, that preclude us from using the service model of one as a business plan for another. Here's what I've observed in my microcosm of emergency services:
Private EMS services very often utilize transfers to offset the expenses of emergency work. For private-for-profit service to remain viable there must be some profit. This means the buses must be moving as much as possible and costs must be a low as possible. Keeping buses moving means trying to have just enough staff and equipment to cover all bases, which when done profitably limits what's available for emergencies. A local island used to contract with us for transport from the airport to the ED, but found a cheaper deal with a private for profit service, yet we still do 50% of the calls as the private ambulances are often tied up. Sometimes patient care suffers at the hands of low costs, while some services provide stellar service. There are few opportunities for advancement in all but the largest systems, personnel burnouts is a real problem, few people actually retire from private EMS.
Non-profit EMS services must still remain in the black to function and suffer from many of the same issues as for profit privates. Often the combination of career staff and volunteers make these somewhat complex and quality and response coverage ebbs and flows over time. One that I am most familiar with in my area has a large trust of money that allows them to run in the red, and still only charge local municipalities minimal contract fees for service. They also offer some very interesting incentives for their employees and part time staff like the use of a Northwoods camp, frequent EMS conference travel, company vehicles, etc. They still have significant staffing issues requiring multiple tones and mutual aid.
Municipal EMS services can use taxpayer dollars to offset losses and can often survive on emergencies alone, requiring less "on the road time" for their buses. Short career ladders often seem to plague all but the largest of these. Similar burnout and lack of long-term employees seems to be common. The only ones in my area utilize per-diem staff only and even getting personnel to work per-diem is getting tougher as more services start competing for the same human resources.
FD Based EMS utilizes multi-role staff and are often able to get "free" fire response staffing while the ambulance is sitting idle. The taxpayers pay the difference between the dept's costs and the EMS revenue. Where I work this means the taxpayers enjoy a 4:30 response time to any call fire or EMS 24/7/365. Without 1800+ EMS calls there would be few or no career fire personnel as the work load minus peripheral duties wouldn't sustain it in a good year. We now have two EMS only employees who's positions are paid for out of a contract for services with an adjoining community. Luckily this contract covers 100% of their personnel costs yet yields only less than 1 call every three days, so on average we get 24 hours (they work 12 hr days) of "free" coverage time that takes a FF/medic off the ambulance and puts him/her back on a fire apparatus.
Again, this is what I see in my little corner of the US and in talking with others around the country. Just like anything there are many exceptions to the rules.

While it is understandable to help alleviate some financial burden that afflicts the taxpayers may pay off int he long run, it is a fast and slippery slope. Few cities find a way to cut costs one year and stop going back to the same "well" every time they "need" to. A decent benefits package has always been the public sectors draw. While we may see firefighting and police work as "glamorous" and think there's an endless pool of applicants, there are tons of other municipal jobs with far less attraction. Even this job cannot compete against higher paying private sector jobs while upping the ante as a profession and cutting the pay, job stability and benefits.

I'd agree there. Passing on knowledge is probably one of the most important roles an officer has. Nothing like an officer who takes the time to ensure his/her people understand their jobs (and his). To be a Fire Officer 1 per NFPA standards you must have Fire Instructor 1. There are plenty of great firefighters who promoted only to realize they weren't good officers, if you can't help your firefighters be great too, who will?

I disagree on leaving out instructor level classes mainly because volunteer depts do not have MTO's and rely on the company officers to conduct the training. Even depts with training officers or supplemental instructors should not be without company officers who lack formal training on how to conduct training for the members.

Instead of all the assumption and speculation from people who will have nothing to do with this piece of apparatus, how about we just wait until a member of Yonkers PD comes on here and give us a clue as to how and when it will be employed? Ya'll sound like a bunch of kids at Christmas time, trying to guess just what is underneath the tree.
Either way, with the impending budget crisis in Yonkers, I'm sure they need it and I wish them luck with it.