Bnechis

43 minutes ago, wiscems said:

 

 

I believe this is very unlikely. For one thing, the company is  being liquidated. That means there literally won't be anything left to acquire. 

 

Secondly, I don't believe they are in an agile enough position to recover the lost accounts prior to them implementing a new contracted bidder. That makes their sale a very difficult proposition at any price. 

Liquidating means the bankruptcy court will sell everything of value. NYP has expressed interest in the past. No contracts come with that, just the right to operate in the region.

2 minutes ago, Gomer said:

How long until Northwell (formerly North Shore-LIJ) EMS and NY Pres EMS move into the picture now that they own hospitals in Westchester and already have their own large existing EMS sytems?

They still need to get a CON to operate. Transcares may get auctioned to the highest bidder.

When MV went ALS in 84/85'? Amb #1 was Abbey with ALS and Amb #2 was Mvfd with BLS

Lets take it one step farther. The town of Pelham is 2.2 square miles. Approximately 1/2 is the village of Pelham and the other half is the village of Pelham Manor. They have an elected town supervisor and four Town Board members. plus Assistant to the Supervisor, Comptroller and ten departments: Town Clerk, Receiver of Taxes, Assessor, Courts, Town Engineer, Buildings, Senior Advocate, Historian, and Controller/Bookkeeper all in one town hall,

Then the villages have 2 of everything:

2 village managers

2 village clerks

2 village Police Departments

2 village Fire Departments

2 village Department of public works,

2 village Building Inspectors.

2 village attorneys

2 village Mayors and Boards

1 ALS flycar

AND is the only community in Westchester county with NO AMBULANCES.

I understand where you're coming from, but why do EMS personnel and police officers keep entering homes where CO is present when they don't have the proper apparatus to breathe in such an environment?

Great Question.

Is it a failure to recognize the situation as a CO incident? Yes, do they have detectors?

Is it a lack of training? Yes, and on the EMS side, did they learn about this after they learn to shout out: "Is the scene safe". To become an EMT you must state this constantly, but when I give a scenario, its said, but rarely does anyone know what it means.

Or is the adrenaline just taking over the brain and these service people are ignoring the facts around them?

Could Be, but which facts? Its colorless, odorless. Without a detector their is nothing to ignore (but that will kill you.

I don't know what the answer is, but there is no need to put an emergency responder at an unnecessary risk.

Giving them SCBA, without annual training, fit testing, medicals and back-up is putting everyone at risk.

Dangerous act to pull off, however, we in this service risk our lives so that others may live. Kudos to those involved with this rescue. An extremely brave act against an extremely dangerous (silent) predator!

On the other side, this was extremely dumb. I don't want to criticize the actions of those on scene, but things could have gone an entirely different direction. I only say this because I advocate placing SCBA on ambulances for this very cause. If the first responder notices multiple victims down, and a fire department response isn't underway, IMO EMT/Medics should be equipped to handle the first few minutes of a CO response w/symptoms. There is no need for EMS personnel or police officers to succumb to one of our deadly predators. ((FOR THE RECORD: My opinion is not meant to hijack this thread in anyway. My opinions on this matter are my own and are only placed here to create positive discussion))

But, I will reiterate, good job to everyone on scene!

SCBA should not be on ambulances or police cars, unless the personnel also have all of the other PPE, training and minimum staffing (2 in /2 out) as required by law.

We have enough problems training EMT's to handle EMS calls. Instead of the extra 100 hours of SCBA training, learning MCI management and many other skills would be time better spent.

The reason I say this is such a bad idea is I got to listening to a police officer ask my partner to say goodbye to his wife and children before he was intubated. He donned SCBA (no turnouts) and entered a structure fire to search for victims. His partner vented some windows and the building flashed. The officer did not survive.

The SCBA was issued for hazmat and toxic gases (including CO).

Now that's a Tanker!!!

No its a pumper/tanker.

"A Tanker" does not by definition have a pump. And yes it looks nice.

Its a Rockland County thing, for some reason if you have a 1000 gallon tank or more, you can call your truck a tanker.

You can or you must?

Time to change that. I see departments in a number of places who think they have a tanker, but ISO will not credit them with an ISO 8B. To move up from a 9 (the worst rating a fire dept can have) you need a minimum of 4,000 gallons of water on wheels in every response. Most places that get this improved rating (thus saving the community millions in insurance premiums) respond with an engine w/1,000 gal and a 3,000 gal tanker.

Thiells FD (Rockland County)

2015 Spartan, 1000 Gallon Tankers, 8 man cab.

Call it what ever you want, but at only 1,000 gallons and no side or rear dump valves and no direct tank fills in the rear and NFPA says that's an engine.

The big question is why is it so important to get rid of the dual axle?

Is it because your drivers have trouble driving it....that's a training issue

Is it because your station can not fit a 42' long truck? Maybe its time to modify the station.

What about ground ladders: When you shorten the body, you limit the length of ground ladders. No 45 footers and your 35 footer must be a 3 section which is heavy and will force out another ladder slot.

It says 115' of ground ladders:

35' Extension

24' Extension

14' Extension

18' Roof

14' Roof

10' Attic

That's not a truck company. Our E-25 carries

35' Extension

24' Extension

14' Roof

10' Attic

20' Little Giant.

That's only 12 feet less.

Scrap the water and pump and this thing can sit lower to the ground. If that happens it will be a compelling option for many departments.

While I agree with making it a truck. Removing the water and pump wont change its height. On a rear mount, that's dictated by the cab and rail height.

We bought a rear mount ladder with no tank or pump 2 years ago. We had a max height of 11' 2" and Peirce told us they can't build that low in a rear mount.

This could be a game changer. I know that this would fit a lot of departments very well.

I know a number of fire stations and metro north railroad bridges that it will not fit under

Well, it's only a 2001, so it really isn't that old.

that's all relative.

Their are a number of fleet management concepts that show apparatus should be sold before they are 10 years old. This is because of maintenance costs, parts availability and resale value.

Also, NFPA recommends all apparatus at 15 years old undergo a safety upgrade. This rig is 14.

Some of the safety features that might not have been available in 2001:

Sized Seatbelts

Seatbelt monitoring

Anti lock breaks

Automatic Traction control

Stability control

Roll over testing

Airbags

"It would be fun statistics to look at, but it might make people bring up that evil "C" word that no body like *insert evil laugh here.*"

Listen, I hear you, but 5 just ain't enough for anything. Not true. Many calls can be handled adequately with 5.

Yes, many calls can be but not structure fires.

I'm not saying that you and your guys don't do all you can and work hard. I'm saying that 5 firemen is scarcely better than 0. You may not be saying that, but you essentially labeled that effort as "useless" and "scarcely better than 0".

I like the line "you do not know, what you do not know".

In other words, if you have never operated with proper staffing (which ISO considers 13 plus search crews, plus FAST & plus water supply if not hydrants) and (NFPA considers 16 or 17 for a 2,000 sq ft single family dwelling with out a basement, with more responders if it s a working fire or a bigger structure). So you are operating at 25 - 30% of what the standards call for.

If you have never worked with proper staffing, you have no way of really knowing how bad your situation is

By the books....if you arrive on an Eng. with 5 guys;

1 is running the pumps

1 is an officer (who ideally shouldn't be humping hose)

3 firemen (one of whom has to stay outside with the pump operator to comprise a safety team until a FAST unit arrives)

The department of labor (federal) and (NYS) (I realize you are in PA). have both ruled that the guy at the pump and the IC are critical and cannot leave their positions, so by law you need 1 more to be your 2 out. Before your team can even be an interior crew.

I'll have to disagree with you on this one as my experiences in a small career department who's minimum on-duty staffing is "5 guys" says otherwise.

Now, I don't mean this as argumentative as it may sound and please don't mistake my comment as saying anything close to "5 guys" being adequate on-duty staffing, because it certainly isn't anywhere close to it when we pull up to a working fire. However, we see a good bit of fire and just want to make the point that what we can and have accomplished with just "5 guys" (before reinforcements arrive) is anything but "useless". It's certainly not ideal, but unfortunately, it is our reality and that of many other small career departments out there.

And ISO require departments without on-duty in the station staffing to respond with 15 members to get the same credit as they give your dept. with 5 members.

What about consolidation?Isn't that the answer to everything on this forum?

Consolidation can be an answer, but you still need everyone to pay there fair share. And under the current MV administration, they do not appear to be willing.

Bill them for the mutual aid? We started to bill for mutual aid in the EMS arena when it was abundantly clear that mutual aid was not only, no longer mutual, but bordering on abusive. Over time the neighbors that were most "abusive" found that they could utilize the money they paid for outside aid better by putting into better staffing (per-diem) of their own service. While our finance dept liked the revenue, it wasn't enough to increase staffing, so fewer calls out of town are better for our personnel.

Is there something in NY that would prevent a City from telling a neighbor that they'll still respond, but they'll be billed for the associated costs? This way, the decision is purely financial and the proverbial ball is in the "abuser's" court? There must be a law against this, 'cause the answer is too simple.

Interesting issue.

1) Everyone in the county has signed the county mutual aid IMA. So that does not allow for it. It does cover aspects of the requester paying for damaged equipment.

2) In general City's & Villages are not prohibited from billing, But fire districts (towns) generally can not bill for services rendered.

Just to stir the pot a bit, here we are talking about two municipalities that have fairly large busy departments. If this were two small towns with smaller departments there would have been about a dozen posts (at least) calling for them to consolidate. Instead the calls are to increase both separate departments. I am not from Westchester so I have no horse in the race, but if a major urban department can't handle calls, perhaps the C word should be thrown around here too.

The real problem is not if they should consolidate, its how can MV participate equally? YFD provides excellent fire protection to its citizens, while the political climate in MV is to rely on the neighbors.

The real issue is every career and combo will call back off duty firefighters to man spare apparatus or provide additional personnel to the scene during a major emergency, EXCEPT Mt Vernon. The MV Mayor expects everyone around them to pick up that cost.

General rant not directed at any one municipality:

We had inadequate snow removal, potholes everywhere, understaffed and underfunded emergency services yet we live in the most expensive county in the stratosphere. Where is it all going ?

A lot goes into duplication of services.

We have more engines than the city of New York and they protect 8x the population.

And 90% of them are understaffed or can not get on the road.

Barry - Will NRFD be using the former Engine 22 (2004 American LaFrance/RD Murray 1500/500) as the replacement for the current Spare Engine 17 (1998 Spartan/RD Murray 1500/500). And, if so, would NRFD just simply sell the 1998 Spartan/RD Murray off at auction?

Yes and Yes

New Engine 22:

The new Engine 22 went in service this afternoon.

How does everyone like the Spartans?

We have Spartan chassis on E21, 22, 23, 17, 18, R4, L-12, TL-11 from Smeal, Crimson, RD Murry, SVI & LTI. We also have other chassis.

The mechanics and members are happy.

With New Rochelle, I would suspect that heavy emphasis would be placed on a manufacturer who has had recent success of providing the city with Fire Apparatus, whose "In Service Up-Time" is well above the average (which would make obtaining Parts and keeping the rigs in service much easier). Thus, I would "suspect" (and I certainly might be wrong) that the same manufacturer that has recently supplied New Rochelle with Engine Company 21, 22, 23, and 25 (Spartan/Smeal) would be the vendor of choice (lowest bid dependent, of course)

in the past 7 years we have purchased 6 rigs from Pierce (E25), SVI (R-4), Smeal(E21-23), & Crimson(L12). Their were 4 bids involved.

We put out a performance spec that quality manufacturers can all meet. We purchase what is determined to be the best value and closest to the specifications. This has not always been the lowest bidder.