thebreeze

27 years of what, living in your moms house? Your profile says you are 37 so we know it wasn't 27 years in the fire service. The only guy who gets whiny here is you, you want to sit and criticize something and when someone sends back a well thought out post outlining how the helicopter has in fact been useful you state that there is no evidence. Where is your evidence? You fire off shots in the dark saying a resource you don't use isn't useful. When people who do use it clearly lay out how it is useful you criticize them for not agreeing with your point of view. You come off like a clown, I know plenty of guys like you, you talk a big game and bash everyone like you know what's what. I guess you feel the need to let everyone here know your opinion because no one in Florida wants to listen to your BS anymore. Yeah I don't share my profile info, so what, would it matter to you who I was? YOIRE gonna be the same clown regardless. Yeah let's hear what nonsense you have to spew at me now, go ahead, I've had my balls broken by guys who wouldn't let you carry their d@ck s$eat. Go ahead you'll be talking into empty space.

The reason it legally isn't the responsibility of the parents is because they are 18/19. Yes you can play the "you live under my roof" card as a parent, but bottom line they can do what they want, including moving out of the house.

While school SHOULD be their first priority, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a minute. Its really the Member's decision, and I'm not quite sure how a fire department could set that kind of restriction on a certified employee who is of age.

Juniors are easy to regulate because OSHA (or PESH) should have regulations about minors and all that.

Just an important distinction I think.

They can do it very simply, either by the department having it in it's by laws or the district establishing a rule. Just because someone isn't technically a minor doesn't mean they have the best decision making abilities, it's the senior members and officers job to help them make the right decision and then to help them understand why it's the right thing to do.

Must be that they're trying to dumb down the FD cause the PD still requires it.

It has nothing to do with dumbing down, it has everything to do with "diversity", the PD is already more diverse or they would drop the requirement for them too I'm sure. It's funny though, they got rid of the FDNY college requirement to try to increase the number of minorities who passed, but how is that logical if a sufficient number of minorities are able to pass NYPDs supposedly higher level of college requirement? Could it be maybe they just don't want the job? No of course not, that's absurd. Ask the Vulcans why, if the NYPD is so diverse with a high college requirement, how does it make sense that lowering the FDNYs would produce the same result? If their president could even grasp the logic of that statement I think his bow tie might spin.

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head!

PARENTS! Not the school, not the FD, not the government.

Good for you!!!

I agree that the ultimate responsibility lies with the parents and that more parents should take a more active role in their children's lives. This does not mean, however, that the school system and the FD do not have a responsibility to the student. We entrust the schools with teaching and caring for our children, if we aren't educators ourselves I don't think we really have the right to second guess every one of their opinions on what is best for a student to function properly. Wouldn't you want the school to take an interest and say something if your child was falling asleep in school all the time? It shows that they are actually invested in the child's future, isn't that a good thing? As far as the FD, we often take members 16 or 17 years of age who still have a year or two of high school left, that schooling should be their main priority, it's going to serve them in whatever they do for the rest of their lives whether it be firefighting or not. 16 and 17 year old children shouldn't be the backbone of our firefighting service, in fact they shouldn't even be interior members. The immaturity, inexperience, and feeling of invincibility that all children have is something that needs to be monitored closely. I'm not saying that some of these kids won't go on to be great firemen, I'm saying that they need a proper education and careful mentoring from those above them in the fire service.

P.S. If anyone takes issue with me referring to 16 and 17 year olds as children, let me say first, I get it, I didn't want to be considered a child then either, it took years for me to realize what a jackass I actually was. Second I will paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut who once said that in this country boys and girls do not become men and women until they have either served in a war or graduated college and entered the real world.

Not just for promotions. Most civil service positions now require college credits at the ENTRY LEVEL. Getting a good job with nothing more than a HS diploma is fast becoming a thing of the past.

Sadly that trend seems to be reversing in the name of fairness and "diversity". The FDNY used to require college credits as a condition of employment, that has since been reduced to 6 months of "work experience". Apparently the ability to learn and apply your knowledge isn't as important to municipalities as what ethnic group you hail from. Don't be surprised if you see more of these requirements disappearing as well as the lowering of standards and requirements for promotions all in the name of "diversity".

I wasn't going to take the bait but because you decided to show all of us your back side....

Every time I vent the roof it's usually because I'm trying to give my two truck company members that have been inside making a search or a save some relief while the guys on the engine are still outside trying to figure out which end of the hose the water comes out of!

Now that you've shown me your underside;

"In the vertical ventilation study, a 4’ x 8’ ventilation opening removed an even larger amount of hot smoke and fire gases. However, without water on the fire to reduce the heat release rate and return the fire to a fuel controlled regime, the increased air supply caused more products of combustion to be released than could be removed through the opening, overpowering the ventilation openings and worsening conditions on the interior."

"Vertical ventilation is the most efficient type of natural ventilation, it not only removes a large amount of smoke, but it also introduces a large amount of air into the building (the mass of smoke and air out must equal the mass of air introduced). If uncoordinated with fire attack, the increase in oxygen will result in increased fire development and heat release. "

"

• If the fire is in a fuel controlled burning regime, effective vertical tactical ventilation will provide a lift in the smoke level and slow fire development even if fire attack is delayed. This was commonly seen in the legacy fire environment, but is unlikely in the modern fire environment due to the high heat release rate of modern fuels and fuel loads found in today’s buildings."

"

• If the fire is ventilation controlled, the effectiveness of vertical tactical ventilation on improving conditions is dependent on concurrent application of water onto the fire. Note that this requires effective fire attack, not simply a charged line at the door or being advanced into the building. Once ventilation openings are created, the clock is ticking on increased heat release rate."

I'll save more for later if necessary, but maybe its time for you to think a little more about why you do what you do, and if it is or is not the best thing to do, or if you're just putting everyone at greater risk because hey, i'm in the truck, I need to break everything I can find.

The answer that we were looking for, is that truck guys cut the roof so they can see real firemen working.

Engine work is the lion's share of the whole job. Truck work is nothing without the engine. Firemen's helpers.

Why do truck guys cut the roof?

It's a partisan website; how about posting a website with that on it which is non-partisan in nature? Lot's of allegations, but not much real evidence unless you believe the pitchman.

So you don't actually think that any of the people who receive welfare benefits in this country are doing so fraudulently or abusing the system? How deep is your head in the sand? Where do you work that you don't see this first hand? This has been reported elsewhere and what do you need for there to be proof? The entirety of your paycheck being taken away from you to pay for others who do nothing? I am sorry to say but this isn't news, it happens every day in every state. Politicians and the media ignore it because of what a large chunk of the population they would isolate themselves from by bringing attention to it. If you really think that this is simply some story manufactured by a political party to get some publicity, then you are sorely lacking in the amount of attention you pay to what really goes on in the majority of this country and the bowels of our political system. Money buys votes, money for nothing buys more. Welfare abuse is rampant in this country, and if you want to turn a blind eye to it be prepared to see more and more of your check go towards federal income tax.

Taxpayers need to understand that if you want services, there comes a price tag attached to it. Those who stick their necks out to help/save others should be taken care of if they can no longer do the job due to an injury which occurs on the job or as a result of being on the job. Those who abuse the system, if caught, need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and made an example of; it's people like them who give workers in the public sector a bad name in the first place.

I have no doubt that the system down the road will be reformed and depending on who is in office and their political leanings will ultimately determine what changes take place.

No changes will take place, because if you want to start reforming the system you are going to have to go all the way, and that means alienating a huge population of voters who politicians can very easily sway by offering increased welfare benefits at no cost to them. The cost is incurred by the minority of people who actually work and pay taxes, but they are the minority, and they have pride, so keep shoving the burden on them because they will take it, right?

I cannot fault the Journal News for this article.

This is a broken system.

I say this and I am a member of the pension system but I am also a taxpayer.

The system is broken. But, as the previous poster states, the NYS Legislature will never correct this. The Legislature takes the definition of incompetance to new heights every time it meets. This, and almost every other problem NYS has will continue to fester.

The system is broken because politicians rob from the funding of one system to help pay for others. They don't want to raise taxes for their pet projects and entitlements because then people would fight back against them. So instead they underfund pensions, use the money elsewhere, and then blame the unions, its all sleight of hand, they are trying to pull a fast one on everybody.

just looks like the state is fallowing up and expanding the investigation from a couple of weeks back when they arrest 20 or 30 or so FDNY and NYPD officers caught scamming the system and posting pics and stuff on facebook when they claimed they couldn't work and barely able to work or function

Just like everything else in the news, why say what these people do for a living, it sells papers that's why. You think retired cops and firemen are the only people who scam disability, social security, etc? I have a bridge to sell you then. You know how many people who never put a dime into the system or did an honest days work in their life are living a good life because they know how to scam the system? Why isn't there an article about the millions of every day regular people who scam the system? Its because no one would care because there wouldn't be a big tag word like cop or fireman attached, and because the newspapers and politicians don't want to alienate a huge section of the population who scam their way by every day. It's a witch hunt, why don't we try going after the people who abuse welfare, because there are millions of them, but only a few hundred cops and firemen, its a political number game, votes, that's where it all ends.

There is a video of this car on Hudson Valley Fire Equipmemt's Facebook page.

As previously stated, the Chief was able to build the car to his own specification. Every other chief vehicle in the MKFD is very clearly labled as such. Does it really matter what color the car is painted? For the record, this car does not belong to my company and the car could be labled more clearly but it does have a ton of black reflective striping. Not everyone in MKFD wants to "buff." The other black chief vehicle owned by the Mutual Engine and Hose Co. looks just like the white car owned by the Hook and Ladder Co., only the vehicle is painted black.

These are my views and I am not at all speaking views of my department.

Uh I don't know what you think a buff is, but this vehicle is the epitome of buffiness. Whoever the person who speced it was, they felt they were better than having to drive around in a vehicle that actually displays what it is. You want to be the Chief, be the Chief, not some undercover incognito guy rolling around looking like he could be part of a Blackwater mercenary squad in the Middle East somewhere. Its a shame the Commissioners of this district, or whoever signs the checks, allowed something like this to be purchased, its not the Chief's personal car, he should have input only into what he would like to have inside it that might be usefully applied towards the job he is supposed to be doing, he shouldn't have anything to say about how it looks, he gets a free car and free gas, take it as it comes.

Black huh? Another fire chiefs car that we don't want to look like a fire chiefs car? Who are we hiding from? Or are we just trying to look like a Secret Service motorcade?

http://youtu.be/6PYb_anBMus?t=1m43s

1. There's nothing wrong with the guy using a parking cone as a simulated p**** and bending over one of his fellow firefighters? (clear violation of sexual harassment sensitivity policy)

2. There's nothing wrong with the firefighter spinning the backboard around like a helicopter in close proximity to his fellow firefighters? (obvious risk of injury).

3. There's nothing wrong with the firefighters haphazardly using taxpayer funded equipment to make an internet video that has no benefit to the taxpayer or the organization? If they tear a dive suit while rolling around on the engine room floor or scratch the truck dancing around with a pickaxe are they going to pay for it out of pocket? Or just tell the Chief that they don't know what happened?

Glad to hear that you guys have no rules or policies in Kiribati (or is this just your opinion and your superiors would offer a much different perspective when asked...especially on camera when interviewed by the media after an internet video scandal?)...I'll be sure to look for your department's name on the cover of the newspaper when I'm reading it in my office and taking myself seriously...

1. I am pretty sure it was consensual for the purpose of entertainment, so I'm not too worried.

2. Do you live in a bubble? This is a profession steeped in the possibility for injury, do you avoid going down a hallway when its banked down because there's an obvious risk for injury? Do you not swing an axe in zero visibility trying to hit a halligan with obvious risk of injury? RISK, you take risks every time you get out of your bed, stop acting like the idea of risk should be paralyzing.

3. It also has no real detriment to the taxpayer or department, it was something done on a lark for fun, should we ban fun? If something got damaged, time to pay the piper, own up like a man, take your punishment, and move on. If you live your life worrying about the consequence of every little thing you aren't really living. You gotto step up to f@#* up.

We have rules, they aren't against fun. they don't ban being silly or horsing around, also I'll be the guy on camera offering up OUR perspective as a department and telling the media to get a life too and to go find a real story. Have fun sitting in your office reading the paper, don't go outside though, its scary out there, someone might be twirling a backboard around.

How about you stop taking yourself so seriously. Everyone needs to blow off some steam every now and then, and honestly this seems like a fairly harmless way to do it, better than everyone tying a load on at the bar after each shift or call at least. I highly doubt there was any compromise in emergency services coverage nor any waste of money incurred by the making of these videos. For the most part no one really cares about what we as emergency services do in our down time as long as long as we are there when we need them or it doesn't affect their wallet. It was an internet fad, it has pretty much come and gone, and if you look further there were far more disturbing videos of this type posted, some even staged by politicians themselves. Flash in the pan, done and gone.

If wearing a radio strap, it and the radio should be worn under your turnout coat, the remote mic can then be clipped to your lapel or collar so it can be accessed. This avoids the problem of the strap or radio becoming hung up or interfered with.

Are these apparatuses not insured? I'd think smaller towns would be forced to carry insurance so they didn't have to suddenly find big bucks when first due apparatus is damaged regardless of where the incident occurred? Does the insurance only go to the town line? If so, what about vehicle insurance covering personnel while out of district? Here's another wrinkle: Who pays if you crash the engine at a parade in another town? Seriously? Parade host?

Why should my insurance pay when I am coming at your behest? The only reason I am on the road is because you called me out, otherwise the rigs would be safe and sound in their bays. You took the toys out of the box, you pay when they break.

I said assets he really doesn't need. If he needs them, call them by all means. Any commissioner who tells the chief what to do for mutual aid is WAY WAY WAY overstepping his bounds legally.

Regardless, really needs, need, doesn't need, doesn't really need, none of these have anything to do with why such policies are in effect.

That's an interesting law, as it puts the responsibility for damage with those who have the least amount of control over preventing it, short of not calling for assistance. I know I'd certainly limit the amount of time I'd be calling FD's that didn't have a minimum standard I could verify. I suspect this may be one decent justification for those times when people here complain that career FD's don't utilize closer VFD's.

Think of it this way, you wanted to play with someone else's toys, or you don't have enough toys to play with, and if their toys get broken playing your game, its your responsibility to fix them. You are the one asking them to bring their vehicles and equipment into your district, so you are ultimately the one most capable of preventing an incident, by handling it yourself and not calling them. You ask them to come help you, they do it to aid you, not because they are obligated, they do it out of that brotherhood spirit everyone on here talks about so much. So when you call for them, and ask them to put themselves in harms way, yeah it's ultimately your responsibility. Say they come into your district for a fire and through extreme circumstances, not under anyone's control, they end up losing a first due piece of apparatus, what are they supposed to tell their taxpayers? Sorry folks you have to buck up for another engine because we lost ours protecting the taxpayers three towns away? That wouldn't be right would it? The way it is designed to work is fair, especially because it works both ways, also, this is what districts carry insurance for no?

Or perhaps it keeps the incident commander from calling assets he doesn't really need as he(or his district technically) is now on the hook for responsibility for it.

I truly hope no IC would hesitate to call for help because he's worried about that. Any time you feel you could use more help, ask for it. You wouldn't want to be that IC second guessing himself while visiting your brothers in the hospital or God forbid standing watching that caisson. All for what, you were worried about your fire districts insurance premiums going up? If a Commissioner ever had the balls to try and tell his Chief to not call mutual aid because of something like that I think that would be grounds for removal.

Your Mutual Aid agreements require the requesting FD cover the insurance or cost of damaged equipment (and personnel)? I've never heard of this. How would a member know if he/she was adequately covered when responding out of district? If this were the case, I'd think everyone would use a spare or reserve piece as their mutual aid apparatus, and I'd think few personnel would risk their lives and livelihoods for an unknown if they were injured or worse.

Actually I am pretty sure that it's fairly standard, well down in NY at least. Also I don't think it has anything to do with the mutual aid agreements, I think it is mostly driven by the insurance side of things. The requesting department is responsible for the cost of any of the mutual aid departments equipment damaged while operating at an incident in their district. I am not certain about personnel but I am fairly certain they are still covered under their own department and either way have equal protection under the states benefit laws and workers compensation.

Just to set the record straight NWVAC was not shut down because of not answering calls. It was because the Town Supervisor 1 has no respect for females in office and the Chief at that time was one and 2 because he felt due to them having the level of EMT-I that the truck needed 1 on every single call when they went out which was not the case. Shows he must have been wrong because when they came back in service they had the same number of members and made there calls. It was not until later on they hired on some paid staff.

Just the name savevolunteers911 screams bias and shows an agenda and what your priorities are. I don't care if a person is volunteer or paid but if they are in the emergency services all they should care about is the lives and well being of the people they have sworn to protect, the people who pay taxes and expect a reliable consistent service, the people who voted for this mayor, who its sounds like is trying to do what he believes best for his constituents. The town doesn't get to vote specifically on who provides them EMS service, but if they did could you be confident they would 100% choose the VAC? I don't think many VACs in any number of communities could answer that question with supreme confidence.

Personally I feel that in today's day and age the negatives of a parade far outweigh the positives, year after year more trouble seems to come from them than good. One problem comes quite simply from the present day shortage in the number of people volunteering. With numbers of volunteers dropping 20% in the last decade alone its hard enough to find people around on a normal day to answer calls let alone to field a respectably sized group for a parade while still adequately providing for the protection of your district. Another issue I see is the maturity level of the fire service as a whole. With the necessary infusion of younger members to the ranks we begin to have to deal with the new "values" that modern society has instilled in our younger generations. The "I've got mine", entitled, spoon fed, nursed til puberty, one year wonders who know it all, can't be told otherwise, and have no interest in, or true respect for, the reputation or tradition of the service which they are joining. For a time this problem has been more evident and widespread in the volunteer ranks but it is a cancer that is no doubt slowly and surely spreading to many well respected career departments nationwide as well. Couple these issues with the age we are in where everything you do or say is very likely caught on camera or video and you have a recipe for trouble. Personally I am not a fan of parades, though I understand why many enjoy them and wish them to continue. My opinion however remains that parades are a detriment to what should be our first and foremost priority, protecting the taxpayers of our fire districts.

Gotta look good

It's not always just about looking good. Retired BC John Salka wrote a great article about polishing the brass, how as a probie it was an important task to be performed regularly. Not only did it look good, helping with company pride, but it also indirectly helped familiarize the probie with exactly where everything was on the rig, and what it was used for.

What does a "parade" have to do with anything? It is the crux of the whole article/lawsuit. The article/lawsuit states that:

"the Brewster Fire Dept attended a parade on the night of July 11, 2013 hosted by the Mahopac Fire Dept. As is traditional and custom, participating BFD members were allowed to consume alcoholic beverages before and after the parade and were invited back to the firehouse for a social gathering after the parade. Upon Ratajack's arrival at the firehouse, there was a gathering outside of smoking members. Observing this group more closely, Ratajack noticed members including Steven Miller and Paul DeBartolomeo, who had chosen not to be in uniform or to march in the parade, drinking and socializing with members that had marched. Because parades are integral to a volunteer FD's team building and public visibility, the BFD has historically has not allowed members to join the social event following a parade unless they have marched in the parade. This group had decided to come to the party but had not done any of the work to prepare for the parade, to march in the parade, or to clean and return the equipment to service so that it would be available for a fire call. Miller and DeBartolomeo, among others, were "free-loading" at the expense of the other volunteer members. Ratajack went upstairs to the main hall of the firehouse, but, could not ignore the member's free-loading and undermining behavior. Ratajack exploded, spewing obnoxious and derogatory words and phrases about the non-participating members, including every swear word Ratajack could think of at the moment such as "f******", "niggers", "pieces of s***", "bullshit". On information and belief, none of the non-marching members heard Ratajack's tirade nor do they belong to a racial or ethnic minority. Ratajack then went downstairs to discuss ejecting the non-participating members with 2nd Assistant Chief Phillip McMurray. As the second in command, it would have been disrespectful of the chain of command to walk over McMurray and order the non-marchers to leave. Chief Ratajack, pointing at the group of non-participants, said to McMurray that it was a "bunch of bullshit" and Chief McMurray should not allow the non-marchers to remain. Instead of supporting his superior officer, 2nd Asst. Chief McMurray tried to move Chief Ratajack back into the building while challenging Ratajack's authority to act, and rebuking Ratajack for his choice of vocabulary. Their argument continued at the top of the stairs and inside the front vestibule of the firehouse and was heard by more then it should have been. Chief Ratajack again used several common swear words referring to the "free-loaders" as a group. On information and belief, none of the non-marching members heard Ratajack's tirade nor do they belong to a racial or ethnic minority. The argument ended with Chief Ratajack reminding Chief McMurray of the chain of command saying 'we needed to get on the same page or it's going to be a rough two years when I become Chief'".

This comes directly from the lawsuit lines 43-49.

First I'd like to take issue with the statement that parades are an integral part of team building or public visibility. Company drills and training and learning to work with others while taking classes at the training center are how you foster a team mentality, not strutting down the street in every town that decides to have a parade. As far as visibility goes, I feel like parades draw the wrong types of people trying to be visible, the guy you haven't seen at a call in six months but who shows up for the spread and to make himself "visible". If you really want positive public image for your department participate in a fundraiser for a good cause, put a team together to do a walk or run for a cause, participate in something greater than the department showing what you do to give back. A question I'd ask about the guys involved in this debacle, are they good responders, do they pull their weight where it's really important, on the fire scene? On the flip side, how many of the members who actually marched aren't around regularly to attend drills and calls? The chief in question sounds like a real prima Donna to me, immature, bombastic, and if he thinks that his offensive racist language was acceptable because the members he was berating weren't minorities, then he's just flat out incompetent.