Bnechis

QUOTE(emt301 @ Feb 18 2008, 03:26 PM)

If things are still like they were back when I worked at 60 control, R-4 is...not...actually OOS most of the time - it's "cross-manned". The crew for TL11 also is the crew for R-4...and they will take whichever rig is appropriate for the call. If the call is a firematic one then TL11 will respond. If the call is for an MVA with extrication or some other type of rescue assignment, then R-4 responds and TL11 is left in quarters. In the event of a multi-alarm structure fire, TL11 will generally respond, and then staff re-called to station 1 will man R-4 when they arrive, bringing the rig to the scene if needed. Anyone with corrections feel free to post.....

That's what I heard too... I wonder though, could R-4 could be staffed full time with the right money?

-Joe DA BUFF

P.S. I like the old R-4. Very distinctive. But, I bet a new R-4 will be a good addition.

If you are offering the $$ for staffing we accept. And it is still cross manned. Only O.O.S. if out for repairs.

Here's one piece of CT Legislation, its the first thing I could find, I don't know if it is the most definitive:

While this does not rule out PD being incharge, Here is one that we have used in planning:

Under OSHA 29CFR1910.120 THe incident commander shall have training (at a minimum)of at least 24 hours; to the ops level plus ICS. Since it has been interpreted by NYS DOL Admin Law Judge (in a case against Nassau County) that ALL ff must recieve HM OPS prior to responding and in the same case (sorry I don't have the exact case info, was told this by one of the key witnesses in the case back in 1990 or so) PO's are not required to have this level.

So if its leaking, or hazardous chemicals, if the FD Chief is legally quallified and the guys with the guns are not....by default.

Otherwise, I know of no statued (other than the determine the cause of origin and that the property is ours during the time of a fire).

Now, lets consider local policy. In NR we have a document that was approved by the city council that says who is incharge of different types of incidents and the only one thats a little fuzzy is when the snipers home is on fire......lol.

PD...the bullets and us the fire.

I'll stand behind the peacemaker and wait till its clear who's incharge.

From The Journal News legal section 2/15/08 "Bond resolution...authorizing the issuance of bonds of the city of New Rochelle, New York in the principal amount of $480,000 to finance the acquisition of firefighting vehicles."

Would this be for the Rescue or other apparatus?

The JN missed the #'s The Bond was $1,095,000.

To cover a new E-25 and R-4

I am not advocating thumbing your nose at OSHA, but no specific fine has ever been upheld under the general duty clause, atleast that I have ever seen or heard of.

1910.146 certainly does apply to the earlier statements, though.

Unless the Pepridge Farm "cuppers" case was overturned, they were fined under it. I dont knowof any FD that has had an issue with the GDC. In NYS, Pesh barly fines anybody.

There is nothing that OSHA states you have to wear SCBA at car fires nor is there an NFPA recomendation that I know of for car fires. (If there is please correct me and point me to the right direction on the standards.) Should there be if their isn't and should it be adopted? Hell ya!

OSHA - CFR 1910.146 Respiratory Protection (the same one that gave us 2in/2out). Requires that eployeers provide and employees utilize SCBA when exposed to an IDLH (Imediatly Dangerous to Life and Health). CFR 1910.120 requires any response to an unknown release of toxic chemicals must be monitored to determine if they are hazardous. And the general duty clause of OSHA requires that employeers must protect their employees from any know hazard, even if no specific standard exists and OSHA can fine based on this alone.

Anybody that has been a member of the network for longer than 10 minutes should know that Westchester County has a bogus system (lack of) when it comes to the fire service........ The county is simply there for us as a resource provider when they should have more decision making capabilities. Each department does what they want, when they want to... both career and volunteer. The crazy thing is there isnt a higher power to tell them otherwise. It goes as high up as the chief of the department and stops. Their is no county policy because nobody wants to be told what to do. Nobody that works/volunteers in this county has the right to talk about anyone, because their system is flawed... across the board.

Anyone interested in seeing how Westchester should be...

CLICK BELOW

http://www.kentland33.com/sop/generalorder...tch20041115.doc

http://www.kentland33.com/sop/ralorder3-7,...ember5,2004.doc

An interesting contradiction in this post, we should be more like Kentland.......but we should let DES oversee what we do. Last fall PGFD (the county) wanted to put a paid medic unit in to their station to reduce response time and the chiefs refused..."the county can't tell us what to do".

While FF wants to catch "good" jobs, if you look in IFSTA the primary role of a FF is to protect life. This also means Preventing fires. Kentland is very proud that they catch more fires than most career FD's, but maybe if they would spend time doing fire inspections they would be reducing the pain and suffering of the community. But of course that would not be as much fun as being able to brag about all the responses.

"The crazy thing is there isnt a higher power to tell them otherwise. It goes as high up as the chief of the department and stops. Their is no county policy because nobody wants to be told what to do. "

While in some cases depts. don't want to be told what to do, in other cases chiefs with 40 years of fire experience (and actually having extensive fire ground experience) who worked there way up thru the ranks (earning the rank) and now have 20+ years as a chief officer do not need to be told how they should do their job.

First off I hope no one in this thread takes anything in here personally because if you posting here (instead of about a wet down or a parade) you obviously have a strong interest in safety and your profession. That being said we all realize the impetus for this came from an incident the FDNY experienced. In the City of New York we do things differently than most places, and there are many reasons for that. We have the best manning out there and I’m thankful for that. One thing we do and stress from the moment you enter the Fire Academy is the responsibilities of the Roof Firefighter and his responsibility to get the Life Saving Rope (LSR) to the roof. We allow nothing and I mean nothing to deter him from his/her said duty and position. I remember being told that if I chose not to bring my mask to the roof that was about myself but not bringing the rope I was making a decision for all the brothers on scene.

Since the FDNY chose to equip it’s members with PSS many others demand the same equipment. Do they demand a LSR to the roof at all multiple dwelling fires? Do they have a quick evolution to rescue a trapped firefighter or civilian? In NY we in my opinion place a higher priority on the LSR and its importance than the PSS. Also the LSR has saved more firefighters and civilians than the PSS ever will. I don't see anyone call for legislation mandating this.

Excellent point.

NYS DOL says that a LSR would meet the standards, if its in place (and not left in a compartment on the rig).

We've had them on all trucks for at least a doz years. Its SOP to bring it to the roof.

Big problem for many depts. is they dont consider the roof a major priority, often because they have limited manpower.

Bnechis, you're spot on that we are killing ourselves many other ways much more efficiently but we have seatbelts in all fire apparatus, we have SCBA to protect us from the environments in which we operate, and we know how to protect our health. The real issue is how we choose to not protect ourselves. But that shouldn't excuse the job from providing the appropriate equipment.

I'm not excusing the job, my point was what is the best way to provided it. They NY Times did an article on the FDNY system, where they said many of the members (particularly those over 40y/o) felt it limited their movements and made it more likely to being trapped.

My dept. evaluated this over a year before the law came out and did issue equipment. A lot of members here seem to belive that they are intitiled to the FDNY system because its what they believe is the best (I'm not saying it is not). The law makes sense, evaluate your risk and determine what is needed. Does a dept. upstate, where the tallest structure is a "double wide" with an additional cinder block under it need ropes? I was called by a village manager asking how to respond to the FD's request for $500 per member for all members, including exterior only members and "life" members who live in nursing homes.

We evaluated a harness system and felt it was great, easy to deal with, jump out the window and your in good shape..etc. Then one member got hooked exiting the rig on a call (he didn't know he was hooked) and after going 50' stopped short because he came to the end of the rope and now he was done.

My bigger point was that just by issuing equipment wont help if FF's will not use it. I know depts that have issued harness/ropes and it sits in a locker or car. I've also heard a few cases both with the old & the new FDNY systems, where members in trouble did not use them because they "forgot" they had them.

Final issue; Is it my perception or is it that FDNY & everyone in the NY metro area sees this as such a major issue, but none of the other major cities & metro areas do?

If we all need the FDNY system, what about Chicago, Boston, Dallas, LA...etc. What do they do ?

How about other nations: what does London, Paris, etc. do?

Many involved said they thought they were going to loose the whole truck and Rescue Co. being that they couldn't find an anchor point and just used each others body weight to hold the rope.

The crew on the roof did a fantastic job.

In the raw footage you could see the shards of glass flying out past the rope....they were very lucky, because under that much tension it would take almost nothing to cut the rope.

Also, pulling the crew in at that steep of an angle multiplied the forces on the rope by at least 3x. We have used that as a force multiplier and it is very effective (200 Ibs pull can lift almost 600 Ibs about 2 feet).

That additional force is what almost pulled the crew off the roof. The moment they made the grab, they should rapidly lower as far as they can (less time dangling, reduced force multipliers, and closer to ground if something fails). In this case they had enough rope to reach the ground.

I'm not trying to take away anything from what they did. Because it was an outstanding example of what a great roof team can do. Just lots of members do not understand some of the concepts that come into play and for future incidents we should consider that.

QUOTE(FirNaTine @ Feb 7 2008, 12:08 PM)

Thought the same thing bro. and your right. Then again it's the UK. What do they know! Their Cops still don't carry guns.

Beats me - never worked with one. But ... it looks like they are footing the ladder more than raising it. Letting the other two guys do the donkey work. I guess if you only have 4 on your crew?

Don't believe that...9 years ago I saw many were carrying, they just kept them lower key, except for the ones with the sub machine guns.

They do better manning than that.

6 is minimum manning on a pump (ground ladders are only on pumps). Thats on all pumps (vol & paid) in GB (England, Scotland, & Wales). Manning is established by the Queens Office (of state, If memory is correct).

The Rope and Caribiner is a way of getting out sure. Safely ? probably not. Will it work? Hopefully.

"Safely?" ....This makes it sound like your considering a recreational rappeling drill. I've taught bailout classes for over 20 years (yep, long before NYS...I was taught by Lt. Jim Curran from FDNY R1 in 1986) and have always taught that if you are about to perform a bailout it means that a) your in deep trouble, you found a window, and c) you are planning on jumping (because you have no choise). At this point any system will do because you are going out that window (with or without a rope).

In the late 1990's a retiered USAF Col (who survived a crash but had massive burns) spoke at the NYC Burn Center Class (FDNY Randels Is.) and said when your burning you will jump, even if you know you will die. He even said you would jump from the top of the world trade center. I didn't believe him...then, and I don't think anyone else did either.

From Drag Rescue Devise Concern:

"Thanks to the brother who shared this info and it is something that I've had a simliar incident with while running a student through mask confidence but they didn't get hung up on it badly it just deployed and stayed out. I will be putting this into my FF survival presentation and all other pertinent presentations to get it out there."

As I previously posted, one concern for a bail out system is it could cause a ff to become trapped. On this post they showed a ff getting trapped with his DRD, which is much smaller and partialy covered by SCBA most of the time, look at how bulky the bailout harnesses and rope packs are.

so if the rope and carabineer save one life and is inexpensive it isnt worth it???

I do agree with the statement TRAIN WITH WHATEVER SYSTEM THAT YOU HAVE

It appears to me that everyone missed the concept of of Risk Assessment (as required in ALL OSHA and PESH regs).

Whats the risk to ff's?

How many FF's have died in the last 20 years because they jumped, fell (due to no bailout system) or died at a window because of no way down? (My count is less than 15)

How many ff's have died from cardiac issues? (my count is over 750)

How many in responding (and no seat belt use)? (over 500)

Cancer...(unknown)

If we provide mask that dont get used when needed, seat belts that don't get used...

does a harness and bulky rope system that may never be used increase the risks? The extra weight contributing to cardiac stress? THe harness more likely to get a member entangled during a search?

A lot of people are upset that depts are not running out to get them harnesses, but is this the best way to protect our members. How many know that the gemtor or any harness made of nylon melt at 364 degrees, and could be damaged long before you ever need it? What about exposre to chemicals that are found at common incidents?

We looked at all of these issues a year before this law and experimented with a number of different "systems" and felt the best way to protect or members was a smaller, light and simple system.

We have been lucky to have not needed it yet, but I can count dozens of members who I know have had cardiac events on our job.

I'm sure a number of posters will not like what I've written, but again

Whats the real risk to ff's?

I thought they were working with ELITE , Any body know for sure.

News12 said it was Elite.

The law never mentioned training, just the "have to have". The State didn't pony up money for more Survival classes.

800.17(g) (g) Training (1) The employer shall ensure that the firefighter is instructed and trained in the proper use of the safety ropes and system components. (2) Training shall be comprehensive, understandable and recur annually. (3) Training shall include: 3(i) Why the equipment is necessary and how improper fit, usage, and maintenance can compromise the protective effects of the provided ropes and system components. (ii) The limitations and capabilities of the provided ropes and system components. (iii) How to use the rope and system components in emergency situations and in situations where the ropes and system components fail. (iv) How to inspect, put on and remove the ropes and system components. (v) The maintenance and storage requirements for the ropes and system components. (4) The employer shall certify that firefighters have been trained in accordance with this section and that they have demonstrated competence in the use of the ropes and system components.

Looks like the law requires training. Also the survival class does not meet the standard if the dept decides to go with any system (like a harness based system) that is not taught.

If Special Operations were to be "Centrally" controlled by the Westchester County DES (rather than by individual municipalities, such as Yonkers), such Granted Equipment could be used and sharred amongst all of the Fire Districts in Westchester County, complimenting the current Training Efforts in Valhalla. But that goes back to the "Great Regionalization/County DES Control Debate" which has been debated on this site for quite a long time.

Since this unit was paid for with Fire Act Grant money and DES is not elligable for that grant, since it is not a fire dept. In this case it is better that it is not "centrally' controlled.

Very Nice....Thanks

About the towing company. Why wouldn't a towing company have speedy dry on hand to handle fluid clean up? Or brooms for sweeping debris? They want the business of towing and holding to make money. Correct? They deal with clean up at their own facilities and for disposing of these products with in the law. Correct? If you as the responding agency spread speedy dry down at an accident scene aren't you also required to clean it up and dispose of it properly? You can't tell me that there aren't departments out there that just leave speedy dry down and leave the scene. I have scene this time and time again. There will come a day when those agencies are reported, then what? I would love to see the fine they will receive from state or federal agencies incharge.

Yes, responding agencies are required to remove the material, however how many do? I looked in to this and found out that DEC requires anyone transporting these "products" be a "licenced hazardous waste desposal operation" How many FD's are? How many tow services are? So if you leave it your violating regs and if you pick it up your doing the same, unless licensed to do it.

If towing companies want to tow, then let them clean it up too. If they wanted they could also bill for the clean up and disposal to the insurance companies? Large incidents of course are a different matter. That's why we have Hazmat Teams.

If the community requires it, thats fine. NYS Thruway Auth does not, since we bring the speedy dry there.

What hazmat teams clean up the spill?

The one word i hate is ACCIDENT! When is it ever an accident? Motor vehicle collision yes. But somewhere, somehow, someone screwed up. Just my 2 cents, maybe less.

Accident just means no one ment to have an MVA...otherwise it would be called a deliberate.

And hitting a NYC cab with a rig is no accident...its a deliberate..... "did I say that out loud?"

If there is a actual or potential IDLH and there is a life safety risk then it goes out the window.

The chief went out the window....Hope he bought that bailout system....lol

The Chief shouldn't be entering the structure when he/she arrives at a call, so he/she cannot declare the structure safe and the fire put out.

Reasons:

2-in/2-out

First officer on scene is IC, and should remain outside where he/she can direct incoming units.

The chief should not be entering a structure if its a working fire, so he can direct incoming units.

2-in/2-out only comes into play if there is a potential or actual IDLH atmosphere. If this is the normal (99%) A/A the chief can and should be protecting both his personnel and the rest of the public by slowing everyone down.

Why would the FD get called back to this? The tow company is there, shouldn't the spill be their problem?

Our tow company just tows, sometimes they sweep up the glass. But hazardous fluid spills on a road way they will not touch.

Whats everyones thoughts on a 48/96 work schedule?

website- www.48-96.com

I like it personally and wish my department would try it out.

Interesting site. It appears there are no disadvantages.

The advantage to the dept. are reduced laundry cost and less trips to the store. Both can be reduced in other ways.

But, the sales pitch that the member can go hunting for 4 days at a clip is interesting.

How does this help the taxpayer or the person in need of our service?

It shouldn't be allowed by management nor sought by the union. Management should see it as dangerous for the safety of the firefighters and the citizens. The union should think about what message it sends to the public...

Well Said.

Also, will be customizing the interior pt. compartment with "Captain's" chairs instead of a bench seat on Pass. Side. Anyone else doing this? This is mainly for protection as well as comfort for main pt. provider.

We had that on my HRIT unit (neonates) back in 1985...it was great. Can limit the ability for a 2nd pt. but call another bus.

A few examples in my area? PD arrives at the scene of an automobile fire. Officer utilizes his and another PD extinguisher. Fire is quelled and the officer cancels FD and requests a towing company. Towing company arrives, the tow operator is winching the auto onto the flatbed and the auto re-ignites and the tow operator receives minor burns.

Our common version is; MVA PD determines its propert damage only and cancelles FD & EMS. Then 20 minutes later as tow truck is removing the car, calls FD back for Fluid Spill in roadway.