helicopper

One difference is the structure of government in other parts of the country. Here in NY you can be paying, village, town, county, school, water, sewer, state, and fire taxes. In many other parts of the country if you don't live in a city, you live in the county and there are no towns/villages so you escape that tax. Schools are also coordinated and taxed at the county (or regional) level so there aren't 50 school districts all paying administrative costs, etc. and the cost is spread out over a much larger tax base. Let's face it, some school districts in Westchester are small with bloated administrative staffs and salaries and small student bases to draw from.

Why don't we all knock off the snipes at each other and focus on the issues. In context, the above was in reference to your doing the exact same thing so let's all practice what we preach. If you don't like the topic, don't read the thread! We all live in glass houses and the public, media, elected officials are peering in with magnifying glasses these days. It is naive to think that we aren't going to be held accountable and as I've said in the past, we need to consider these and many other questions and have answers so that when we're asked in a more formal venue than this forum we have answers and don't just respond with rhetoric or look like deer in headlights.

Perhaps you missed this topic and I'll admit I didn't see you ask for such information in the other thread you mention. Michaelian Institute Research on Consolidation of Services

One summer evening a pursuit was coming down I-95 from CT and a PD dispatcher broadcast... "All cars, suspect vehicle is now eastbound on 287 from I-95". "Car XX HQ, do you mean westbound on 287?" Dispatcher (quite annoyed and equally exasperated), "Negative, I said EASTbound on 287 from 95." Car, "well then you better notify the Coast Guard 'cause that car's in the sound."

I agree to a point. If someone cancels you then they assume the responsibility and liability for that decision. There are instances where it is entirely appropriate to cancel and be canceled just like it is entirely appropriate to stop an emergency mode response when advised that the call is not an emergency. All to often resources continue to respond with lights and siren after a size-up indicates that the emergency is minor or non-existent. If nobody else is on-scene then yes, it is your responsibilitiy to complete a size-up and investigation as appropriate. In this specific case, it seems that the entire system broke down. Seven pieces of apparatus arrive for a telephone report of an inside fire and nobody even knocks on the door? Wow, that's not normal. The officers on-duty were properly fired; this seems to me to be a case of negiglence - based on the information known to me thus far. If you didn't read the full report of the investigation, it's attached. 22368624.pdf

Article regarding allegations in Putnam County News and Recorder

Just to clarify, when this thread was started Mrs. Villanova was a candidate for Town Board in Putnam Valley. She was not successful in her bid for a seat on the Town Board but continues her "activism" against the fire department.

http://www.putnamvalley.com/planningzoningprograms.htm This planning board meeting can be viewed here so you can see and hear the comments first hand. It is the 1/25/10 meeting.

This is a vicious cycle. It reminds me of the fiscal crisis and mass layoffs of the 1970's, followed by the crime, fires, and pandemonium of the 1980's, and rebuilding of the city in the 1990's. Here we go again. We're going to cut public services and allow things to start that downward spiral again...

Villanova continues her fight against the FD and their proposed new firehouse. This was posted on a local blog after a planning board meeting on the subject.

A majority of the people who voted in 2008 supported him, that is far less than a majority of the country. His "popular vote" was just under 70 million or a little more than 20% of the country.

http://www.emtbravo.net/index.php?showtopic=35528 In reading the IA for the ice rescue this morning, I see that a "SCUBA team" was assigned. Does Somers have it's own SCUBA team or was that the Yorktown Heights team?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583829,00.html Many corollaries to domestic operations can be drawn from these statements too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100127/ap_on_bi_ge/lt_haiti_us_aid AP article about US aid $$$.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't every firefighter in NYC (and probably any career department) capable of part of a FAST assignment? This again highlights the disparity in training between career academies and OFPC. How can you be a "firefighter" and not have FAST training? Isn't rescue one of the fundamental duties of any firefighter? Is this another example of "team" designations hurting capabilities? Why have select people serving on FAST "teams" and not make every FF qualified for it so it is just an assignment on the fireground? How much more training - not counting experience which is also essential - is required for this "FAST" designation?

Doesn't this speak to the issue of dispatching the appropriate resources at the outset? If a full complement of personnel was assigned on the initial dispatch, wouldn't this whole discussion be moot? 12+1 for a career department or 36+1 for a volunteer department according to ISO, right? How many agencies can't do this on a routine, regular basis? Honestly now. We should be striving to identify strategies that will meet these and other standards so we can stop having this discussion. Regionalization and consolidation is one answer. Putting more career staff on is another answer. Having volunteers fill a roster and staff an apparatus or station is another answer. I'm sure those wiser and more experienced than me can add many more possibilities. Ignoring the problem and proclaiming the status quo is not an answer and sooner or later will cost someone dearly.

Civil and legal protests are an excellent tool to get a message out and influence an issue. However this was neither. Blocking streets, setting fires, and damaging/defacing buildings are criminal acts. Spraying foam on the riot police is neither funny or a service to their cause. Using government equipment and resources (foam) to stage the protest is certainly an issue too. In the US, this would probably have been handled much differently. To commend this type of conduct undermines the cause and demeans all the entitities that use peaceful protests as a tool to promote their issue. Imagine if the New Haven 20 had chosen this course of action? These people should be ashamed of themselves and I doubt their promotions will be sped up as a result.

Peak wind at the airport was 54 knots or 62 MPH at 1054 this morning.

Sort of. Mt Vernon is a Project Impact city and periodically State Troopers are assigned to augment MVPD patrol forces. MVPD also does special details involving the State, County PD, and MTA PD to "saturate" the city with cops.

Sorry, capt, I completely overlooked this part of your questions and you had to remind me... The only tranquilizer guns in law enforcement that I'm aware of are used to euthanize sick/injured/dangerous animals. They're not used to sedate; I believe it's the DEC or other like agencies that can actually tranquilize a bear (for example) and remove it from an area where it isn't welcome. The darts that we used to carry were exceptionally high doses of a substance that would very quickly drop an animal. To properly sedate an animal you have to calculate the animal weight and med dose. Difficult to do under good circumstances. Perhaps it is an option but in all likelihood the animal would drown before being rescued. Once unconscious it won't be able to keep its head above water. Interesting point, maybe someone with more animal experience can weigh in the idea.

Yes, yes they did. Probably about 8-10 years ago and that would not have been done today. Different personnel, different administration, different, well different everything. There have also been a couple of rescues of dogs stuck on ice flows on the Hudson during the past several years. None involved a helicopter but they did involve other emergency services.

And I think you just hit the key point - it is a calculated risk. We, in our respective disciplines, can not elminate risk so we do all we can to manage it. We calculate the risk just as you so succinctly described it above and we risk a little or a lot depending on the situation.

Just out of curiosity, what would the "water rescue assignment" be here in our area - not necessarily for a known dog but for a water rescue.

I hope everyone remembers this sentiment when there's a body recovery assignment and people are running around as though it was a brother or sister to be rescued. Risk/benefit analysis. Yes, it was a dog. Had this been training it would have been a mannequin. My point is that we very often go on "good intent" calls or other jobs where the risk may be higher than benefit but we do it anyway. Chief Flynn brings up some great points about making the hard decisions and I'm sure that the Chiefs in LA did the same thing before commencing the operation. We're not talking about a knee jerk decision with inadequate resources. We're talking about a FULL response with a swift water rescue assignment (alot of resources). As for the dropping a guy out of a helicopter, A. he wasn't dropped. B. That's his job. and C. they do this stuff all the time. That was a rescue equipped Bell 412 twin engine helicopter with a crew that probably has more experience than any comparable crew anywhere in the country. They perform rescues and other missions all the time be it a rain swollen river or narrow canyon or ocean or rooftop. Anyone on that crew could have decided to say "no-go" but they did a risk analysis and this was well within their capabilities so they did it. If it was your call or your crew you could say no and maybe this incident will cause some more discussions about some of the more unusual rescue type calls we get here in our area. Another positive outcome. Why do you go into burning vacant buildings? To save a building? You can't give me the argument that there COULD be someone in a vacant building because that's the same rationale that was used in this case. If the FD didn't get the dog, someone else would have and then they would have had a real rescue on their hands. So, why go into the building? Because that's the job, right? As I said in my first post, they're probably discussing how to handle animal cases in the future so nobody does get bitten.

efdcapt, my initial reaction was the same as yours - all these resources and risk for a dog? But after considering the statement that they would rather rescue a dog on their terms and in the best possible conditions than return to the location to rescue a good samaritan under unknown conditions I backed off my position a bit. We all know that someone would have gone in there to rescue the dog. Remember someone once jumped off the Tappan Zee Bridge to "rescue" a jumper. Then the FD would have been criticized for not taking action. The bleeding hearts would also condemn the FD for their insensitivity to that "poor, poor drowning dog" (remember LA is almost as liberal as NY). As for the use of a helicopter, as efd said, in the LA basin it is standard practice and they consider it just another resource. They don't sensationalize it as is done on this side of the country. Why the large response of FF and equipment? It would seem that it is the standard swift water rescue response, many of those resources were already pre-deployed due to the "river rescue preparedness state". I think the west coast has a much more structured, much more organized response of appropriate resources than we do. All in all, it was a good training exercise and I bet they're discussing how to safely extricate a dog in the future so a rescuer isn't bitten. Positive outcome. Good PR. Positive outcome. Dog is out of the water. Positive outcome. I'm sure that the Chiefs in the LAFD do a risk/benefit analysis and they must have considered all the possible outcomes before deciding to rescue a canine. There is always a risk analysis when employing a helicopter - for any operation - and if we always said "What would critics be saying if the helo had a tragic accident during the rescue attempt", we'd never leave the airport. It is about managing the risk and all helicopter crews do that. Think about all the funds that are going into special shelters that will accommodate pets in a disaster - why? Because some people place an extraordinary value on their pets and won't leave them behind. This is not that much different. The cost for this entire operation was probably negligible as almost all the resources were on-duty so the cost is a minor issue. Just another perspective.