JetPhoto

I finished it last night, more or less. There are a few more very minor details that I have to complete, but for the most part it's done.

The first set of decals is on, the second set will be white lettering and metallics. The Bare Metal Foil application was tricky, I haven't done it in such a long time. Besides finishing the decals, I need to add mirrors, an access ladder, scene lighting and other fixtures, and miscellaneous details. I also need to paint and install the various doo-dads and gadgets I made for the compartments. I probably won't make the February 28 deadline, but I'm in no rush. ;D

Moving along, I need to finish up the decal artwork and tin the exterior brightwork, plus some minor details. But it's almost complete.

Yeah, thanks guys, it helps a lot! My next problem is, can I make all that stuff so small?

Congratulations to the DC HazMat Team, who, for the 2nd year in a row, won the NYS HazMat Challenge held at Montour Falls, NY!
Please see the attached .pdf for the entire article!
Volunteers are HazMat Champs 2 years in a row.pdf

A few shots from the exposure.... exposure.... which side would you call this?
These shots don't do the LDH lays justice. There's a LOT of hose out there to be picked up. Glad everyone is OK!

A few shots from the north side of the fire building. Heard the sirens and saw the plume, but had to go to a stupid meeting. I cut it short, grabbed the work camera, and took a few shots. I had just eaten at Coyote Flaco a few doors up before the alarm went out.

Interior crew bailing out the front fire excape 2nd floor when they where cut off from the interior starcase, Eng 58 down to half of tank!

On scene:
PCFD: 2391, 2393, E59, E58, E60, E61, E62, E63, E64, TL2, L31, R40
RBFD: L30
VMFD: 2241, E38
TMFD: 2232, E36
PFD: 2411
HFD: 2163
LFD: 2229, R1
PCRRBEMS: 22-A-19, 22-1-20, Medic 19
WCDES: FC1, 2001, Bat 15
Beeline, Con Ed, PCPD, RPD, PCDPW

I got a lot more photos!

Photos By Beachbum

Looks like the SCBA Bottle is out of hydro date.....lol

Toys R Us - White Plains

Here are some pictures of FDNY R5 taken Sunday at the LI Fire Expo

Front of R5.

Rear of R5.

Looking inside the rear box. Note the red reflective striping around the rear perimeter.

Side Company Emblem.

View of the top of the rig.

An "antenna bar" with eight antennas attached to the front of the rear box.

Very sturdy grab rails along both sides. This rig appears to be built of heavy duty materials. The white speaker on the left is the intercom to the front cab.

AirPak Brackets and seating in the rear box.

View of the front inside of the rear box.

Radios at the front of the rear box. There is a sliding window just above this on the front of the box.

Netting for compartments with roll up doors also.

Rear wall of the front cab.

Front console with two radios and door ajar indicators. To the rigth of these radios is another scanner.

View of the dashboard.

The first of the five new Ferrara rescues being constructed for FDNY is finished and will be assigned to Rescue 5. Here are a few photos of it on display at the Long Island Fire, Rescue & EMS Mega Show, which is going on this weekend at Nassau Coliseum. My apologies for the "cluttered" and blurry shots. Was very difficult to get a good shot with all the people around, and a "point and shoot" job doesn't always get along with sub-par lighting situations. But, until the rig is delivered and the "experts" get access to it, these will have to do.

I'm a little confused by your post, but what I did get from it is the arguement that is made by a lot of Tactical EMS practicioners that "it's easier to train a medic to be a cop then it is to train a cop to be a medic". In my opinion, this does hold some level of truth. I've tried to keep my personal opinion about this topic to myself, but here it is (if anyone cares, lol).
First and foremost, if a Tactical Team is going to utilize a civilian EMS provider as their Tactical Medic (in the TEMS world the term "medic" is used to describe both EMT's and Paramedics), they have to select the right person. The individual needs to be put through the hiring process as if they were going for a job with the Law Enforcement agency they're going to be working with, including interviews, psychological exams, drug tests, background checks, etc. Secondly, they need to pass the SWAT physical/agility just as if they were trying out for the team as a regular LEO. Face it, not every LEO is cut out for the type of work that Tactical Teams perform. We like to think of Tactical operators as "the best of the best", true masters of the craft of high risk tactical operations. Experts in firearms control, marksmanship, and tactics. Individuals who can carry out specialized tactical operations that require such a highly motivated and skilled LEO. Civilian TEMS providers should be held to that same standard.
In regards to training, any civilian TEMS provider should attend some form of Law Enforcement training to attain a title similiar to peace officer status. In addition, all TEMS providers must attend some form of TEMS training to learn how to take the medical skills they already possess and apply it to the tactical environment, as well as learn those skills and methodologies they are not accustomed to which are specific to the field of Tactical EMS (i.e. remote patient assessments, medical threat assessments, barricade medicine, etc.)
You can't just take a civilian medical provider, throw a heavy vest and helmet on them, and call them a Tactical Medic. There needs to be a stringent, rigid set of standards and training before any civilian EMS provider can attain such a status. There needs to be written medical and operation protocols, continual joint training between the Tactical Team and the TEMS providers, training standards set forth by the agency, medical directors should be involved, etc.
Operationally, I don't necessarily believe in putting a civilian TEMS provider in the stack. I do agree that civilian TEMS providers, if properly outfitted with the necessary PPE (heavy vest, etc.), can be placed in the inner perimeter, staged at the point of entry. A civilian TEMS provider in the stack does nothing to benefit the Tactical Team; it's just another individual to get in their way of what they have to do. Tactical Teams have a mission, and that mission is carried out through speed, suprise, and violence of action. Sometimes more is not better, and this is one of thoses cases where unnecessary personnel running around the inside of a location can be more of a hinderance then a help. One of the main ideas of the TEMS program is to cut down on the time for an injured person to receive medical aide. Having your civilian medical provider staged at the point of entry, where they are not in the way of LEO's as they carry out their operation, but still close enough that they can be on top of an injured party in seconds, is not only effective, but ensures a higher level of safety for the TEMS provider.
Am I against civilian TEMS providers? No, as long as they follow the strict standards and guidelines I spoke of before. There are a hundred reasons why most LEO's are against the idea of civilian TEMS providers, and I don't disagree with them. There are liability concerns, safety concerns, OPSEC concerns, and so on. Neither way of thinking is right or wrong in my opinion. Both concepts can work, it's simply up to the Tactical Team to decide which is going to be the best means of providing tactical medical care. The only thing that I don't agree with is to shun away from civilian EMS providers simply because they're "civilians" and have no idea about law enforcement or combat. You know how many combat veterans are returning back from overseas and going back to their jobs stocking shelves at the local grocery or department store? These individuals have more combat experience then most LEO's out there. Keep an open mind. There are many civilian EMS providers out there with significant military experience serving multiple tours overseas. They're an untapped resource for such a program that should not be overlooked just because they're not an LEO.

This is one of the top debates within the Tactical EMS community, and there are a few good arguements made on both sides as to which provider, a civilian EMT/Medic or a sworn Law Enforcement Officer, is better utilized to function as a TEMS provider. Each methodology has it's own pros and cons, and as NJMedic stated, it generally comes down to the individual team studying both options and going with the concept that is going to work for them. I'll try to give you some of the pros and cons of each concept.
Civilian EMS Providers as TEMS Providers
The Pros: Generally civilian EMS providers possess a stronger medical skillset then LEO's who are not regular practioners of prehospital emergency medicine. Prehospital medical providers are generally more comfortable and often more competent with providing prehospital medical care to individuals who are sick/injured. Because they already possess that skillset and that level of competency, medical training for experienced prehospital medical providers focuses on taking that knowledge of conventional prehospital medicine and applying it to an unconventional environment.
The Cons: One of the big cons is the liability of taking a civilian EMT/Medic and placing them in an austere, potentially violent environment where there is a higher likelihood of a violent encounter with an armed individual, which is completely the opposite of conventional EMS training and scene safety standards. The debate on whether to arm civilian providers is another that comes down to local jurisdictions and is an entire topic in it's own. Some civilian providers are an unarmed member of the team, leaving the medical provider defenseless in the event of a violent encounter. Generally these providers are offered basic firearms training and some range time to become familiar with the weapon platforms the tactical team they are supporting utilizes. Armed civilian providers generally attend some form of peace officer academy, similiar to becoming an armed auxiliary or part-time officer of the department they are working with. I could go on and on about this, but it's a whole different topic. One of the other big concerns for tactical teams is Operational Security (OPSEC). Generally tactical teams work under a heavy blanket of OPSEC so their operations remain covert until it is time for them to go operational. Usually the only individuals privy to an upcoming warrant execution are the members of the team. Even other sworn LEO's who are not associated with the tactical team are not made aware of the pending operation so the covert nature of the operation is not blown. Let's say the Tactical Commander contacts their civilian TEMS counterpart to advise them of the impending operation, and the civilian TEMS provider, who is not in the mindset of OPSEC, then posts all over his/her Facebook page about the "big hit" they're doing with the tactical team in the morning. This is a significant concern for tactical teams, and one of the reasons only certain individuals are privy to the details, even small details, of the impending operation. If the target of the hit is somehow tipped off, they can easily prepare for it, either by moving their operation to another location, or fortify their location and be ready to shoot it out with the team when they arrive.
Sworn Law Enforcement Officers as TEMS Providers
The Pros: Sworn LEO's assigned to Tactical teams are already trained in police tactics, weapon platforms, and are used to operating in an austere, violent tactical environment. Assigning a LEO to the stack provides the team with another gun; meaning another LEO who is an armed member of the team with arrest powers and all of the other powers provided to LEO's. One of the other pros is that LEO's in general have a slight amount of "distrust", and I use that term loosely, when it comes to individuals outside of the Law Enforcement community. By distrust I mean that you will often see LEO's associating with and hanging out with other LEO's, because of that mutual understanding of "the job". Now within the Law Enforcement community, LEO's assigned to Special Operations teams are a group within the group, and they often won't fully associate with other LEO's, even from their own department, the way they would with other members of their team. Now try taking a civilian, non-LEO TEMS provider, and placing them in the middle of this team and see how they're received. Every team is different, but it may take a while before they are welcomed into the team as a team member. A sworn-LEO provider also has earned some level of trust from the team simply because they're "on the job".
The Cons: Maintaining a strong skillset to be able to provide competent, complete, and correct medical care to a sick or injured individual. A LEO who does not regularly practice prehospital medicine will possess a weak skillset and be an incompetent provider, which is counter-productive to the operation. One of the other cons that can arise is confusion on the part of the LEO medical provider. Are they a TEMS provider first, or a Police Officer first?
There are just some of the basic arguements for which type of provider would be better suited for work on a tactical team as a medical provider. Obviously there is a whole lot more to be said for types of providers, levels and types of training, and so on.

Great turnout by PD, FD and EMS for the funeral of Poughkeepsie Police Det. John Falcone in Carmel.

For those of us, who were unable to attend....Thank you for the pictures.

So, I can't use my pump operators pocket guide for dummy's? LoL

Progress Photos 2/23/11

For all your information the west point fire department recieved the call at 630pm did not locate the victims till about 930pm. Cadets had no harnesses and 50ft rope and were not properly trained on repelling. They were freshman. They were 1800ft above rt 218. They were trapped on a 6ft ledge. 5 rope rescue teams were dispatched through the mutual aide program. WestPpoint fire department did a department recall. WPFD has of the highest trained rope rescue technician in the state and he is nationally certified. Ground crew walked through waist deep snow with rope rescue equipment for about 5miles. The cadets were dressed in improper seasonal clothing. The incident commander followed policies and NYPD avaition was the last resource that would respond. SP were on scene with a helicopter with a spot light. USCG had no helicopters available cap may to boston that would do a rock face rescue. The reason the WPFD did not repel down is because they could not find a substantial anchor point to carry out the rescue safely.

The winds at Floyd Bennett and JFK were topping out around 55-60 knots that night. The flight to Storm King must have been really interesting even in the SAR equipped Bell 412. I'm reasonably sure that all non life-safety flights were grounded that night, I know for sure that ours were.
Is there really an argument that recon is a lower priority than rescuing people off a cliff?
Point 1 - I've argued this here before; there is no FD in the northeast US that can sustain an aviation unit by itself especially in this economy (there's a thread all about this on Bravo somewhere already). There are a lot of PD's that can't sustain aviation units either, that's not a dig on the fire service.
Point 2 - You guys are fighting to restore the fifth firefighter to your engines, a position that is sorely needed, why would you want to divert money to a helicopter and sfaffing?
Point 3 - There's no such thing as one helicopter if you want to maintain 24/7 coverage so you have to have more than one aircraft. This doesn't account for staffing which again is a big deal. Recreational pilots are not police/fire/EMS pilots so having a few pilots on staff doesn't mean you have flight crews.
What is done on multi-alarm fires during inclement weather (fog, ice, heavy snow)? You do without the air recon chief, right? Wind is no different, it's also a weather phenomenon that can make flight unsafe.
Likewise, the weather conditions along the coast in Brooklyn were actually worse than they were inland so the flight upstate was good while the flight locally was ill-advised (no pun intended). This is sometimes the case even within the city itself; there have been cases where we're flying in lower Westchester and the Bronx is clear but they're grounded in Brooklyn due to fog/reduced visibility.

Riverside Hose of Tarrytown is expecting delivery of a Crimson Rescue Pumper. Here are some spy shots of the current progress. More photos can be seen at Crimson Fire.

The Westchester County helicopter was requested for illumination but declined the mission because of wind conditions. The Bell 407 is a great helicopter but with the wind (40+ knots) coming over a ridgeline it was not a good environment for a light helicopter like that to attempt a rescue. State Police helicopters (based less than 5 miles away at Stewart) are also hoist equipped and they have three different airframes to choose from, Bell 407 (not a good choice), Bell 430 (twin engine medium duty aircraft), and a Huey (which may or may not be hoist equipped).
The NYPD Air-Sea Rescue aircraft will go virtually anywhere because of their agreement with the US Coast Guard and capabilities of their personnel an aircraft.
I'm not sure what you mean by "rigged for the mission intended" but the NYSP aircraft do have hoist capabilities. It is interesting that they were just doing hoist training last week but didn't complete this mission. There must have been some reason for that which we're not aware of.
According to the NYPD, they used a horse collar for the two cadets and the ESU member that was lowered to them wears a hoist/rappel harness. The collar cinches around the victim so it is very difficult to slip out. It sounds like the State Police were there and provided illumination for the NYPD.
The weather at Stewart Airport just a few miles north of the incident had sustained winds of 15-25 knots with gusts to 35-45 knots so it was absolutely an incredible feat to hover at the mountain where winds are notoriously faster and more turbulent. Kudos to the NYPD, this was a rescue that not alot of other agencies could have successfully pulled off.
Why this was done and a ground rescue was not performed - the NYPD rescued these recruits after midnight, more than six hours after they became trapped on the cliff and after other measures failed or were deemed too risky to attempt. Conditions were bad and the use of a helicopter was determined to be the best option to expeditiously resolve the incident.
The NYPD doesn't just "do" these types of rescues. They (management, pilot and crew, ESU members) measure the potential risk, the availability of other options, and the capabilities of crew and equipment. After that risk assessment the hoist rescue was chosen as the option of choice. WIth that said, I'm satisfied that it was the best option given the circumstances.
Finally, where does it say that these cadets were rappelling or were attached to ropes? It says they were "separated from their squad" during a training exercise. There's no mention of ropes at all.