helicopper

Just so we're clear..... read my entire sentence. "Who knows who's right, and who cares?". As in, "who cares who's right?", not "who cares about response times". Honestly, it's great to engage in honest discourse over the topics of the day, including response times and staffing levels, but let's stop the nit-picking over what time each piece of equipment got out unless you have reliable information.
There is an awful lot of hearsay and misinformation that ends up being the topic of a two or three page thread on here. My point is that two people come forward with information from the same incident with dramatically different response times, not seconds apart, but minutes. Check the thread, how do you account for an 8 minute difference in what two people heard? And since there is such a discrepancy, how do you sit at a distance and feel qualified to opine on what should have been done with incomplete and imperfect information? Yes, seconds count, and yes, we should all strive to provide the highest level of service, at the safest, most efficient speed that conditions allow. What doesn't count is an endless barrage of criticism over every single incident.
Don't worry about my feelings Chief, I don't "TIP", just tired of the same old harangue every time there is a structure fire IA.

If two people disagree on something and you don't care who's right, wouldn't that infer that you don't care about the issue at all?
You mention that you are not happy certain things becoming "two or three page threads on here"...if something becomes a two or three page thread, wouldn't that infer that it is a topic of interest to at least several people?
Please show me where in my comments i "opined on what should have been done"??
Who made an "endless barrage of criticism over every single incident"??
I have questioned response times a few times in structure fire IA's and I have done so for a reason. To establish whether or not there is a real systemic problem, we need to investigate whether or not there is a pattern, and not just one or two isolated incidents. I'll tell you what...as soon as I feel comfortable that the fire service in Westchester County on a whole recogjnizes and begins to deal with this serious problem in a healthy way, I'll stop occassionally asking questions about response times and manning levels at certain incidents.
I have not opined on much on here, I ask questions or state facts usually. I will opine, however, that you are easily upset over the issue because it hits close to home and shines a light on something that makes you very uncomfortable. You are blaming the messenger and your desire to brush this problem under the rug puts you in a small minority on this site apparently (and thankfully).

Dep Raftery _I do like the 20 min rule. You are hitting the nail right on the head-- IC's should look around at their manpower or lack there of and make rapid decisions to the handleing of the situation. Take a look at how many "interior firefighters" are there and how long it took them to get there. If you dont see enough hmmm time to call more manpower.How do you figure that out?? Simple- well not so simple-but here something to think about- 2story house fire- flames showing. basic FF says one line to the fire one line backs up the first or at least protects the means of egress. How many FF's?? 3 on each line?? ok that 6 and officer that 7, IC thats 8, pump operator up to 9 now ,opps lets not forget search and rescue hmm at least 2 more ,seems like 11 to me. Lets protect our own men with a RIT 2-3 more thats 14 and we havent laddered the building yet. Well you get the idea ,if you cant produce these numbers you better be on the lookout for mutual aid. Can lines be stretched and operated witih les the three?? Can you get away with only one line?? Can things wait?? That my firefighting friends is up to the Incident Commanders and they had better be up to the task of Commanding.
Just my thoughts on the situation

This is a great topic.
Just from my limited experiences up that way, and taking into account some of my experiences in the city, as soon as more than one quality(caller reports visible fire, something substantial) call comes in reporting that structure, let the IC know, and get ready to put Mutual Aid on Standby. As soon as the IC pulls up and confirms it, re-tone the original FD for a confirmed fire and immediately tone out whatever mutual aid should be required(tankers, RIT/FAST, relocations).
That being said, I am a firm believer in having run cards, and/or the Chiefs of departments, regardless of who gets elected, etc going to the dispatch office and sitting down with either a senior supervisor, or the head honcho of said office and saying, this is what we want to do when this happens.
The only obstacle to that is, POLITICS!!!! One chief wants this department for a tanker, and doesn't want this one. My recommendation is every few years, the assignments get evaluated and adjusted as needed. Not something that changes with every new chief. Us Dispatchers have enough to deal with.
My penny for the night.

So there you go boys and girls,enough holes in the times to drive a tanker through. Did Banksville's tanker respond at 16:19 or 16:27? What arrived on scene at 16:28, E157, E158, or both? Read through this thread and see how different the times are from one person to the next. Who knows who's right, and who cares? Once again, a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking and commentary by people who were not involved whatsoever, speculating and criticizing with incomplete, inaccurate information. I fail to see what is gained by all of this. My two cents.

Good thread starter. It stirs up a lot of thought. But to fully answer it would take a thesis, and the answers would be different for every communities situation. Manpower, time and distances of incoming companies, qualifications of Mutual aid companies, AND the fire itself all have to be analyzed before you can truly give your answers. ICS and SOP's cannot be written in stone, They have to be dynamic and be able to handle all the "either/ors" that the first post of this thread poses.
Having not answered your initial questions. let me at least share a rule of thumb told to me many years ago by a FDNY DC. He called it the 20-minute rule and has always worked for me.
When do you call for a 2nd Alarm On Arrival?
More than 2 Windows
More than one floor
More than 20 min.
The 20 min Rule briefly explained:
More than 2 windows: For the most part, a single room will have one or two windows. Fire showing beyond that indicates that this might be more than your 1 alarm room and contents job.
More than 1 floor: Obviously, this fire is on the move and will require more resources than you have on hand.
More than 20 min: If you don't believe that the fire can be completely put out in under 20 min, transmit the 2nd. Why 20 min? Because that's how long a SCBA (and the hardworking person wearing it) will last. Without incoming manpower, you would have to stop work on thf firefight to rehab/refill.
And, while I'm at it, heres my own rule of thumb on SOP's, SOG's, and other rules of thumb:
1. Keep it simple. If it's simple, you might remember it under pressure. If it's complicated you won't.
2.Keep it flexible. Or else it won't fit your next incident.

Red though they may be , I think it's rogue.

Again my issue is if a member does not have FAST training then they are not an interior qualified firefighter.
Yes it is part of the career academy. Just because it is not included does not mean a department can't or should not require it.
When we talk about the different training standards, I find it amazing that any chief would consider sending a member (his "brother") into a working fire without having been trained in survival. And not requiring them to know what to do if a "brother" gets in trouble.
So based on previous postings and OFPC's discription of FAST, we have departments that are willing to send members into burning buildings that do not know how do the above listed skills. Why bother having a fire department at all, it is clear that these departments do not care about there members or the public if they are so willing to put themselves at risk, because 16 hours is way to much time to invest in ones brother.
PLEASE THINK LONG AND HARD ABOUT THIS....IF YOUR DEPARTMENT ALLOWS THIS, IT NEEDS TO CHANGE TODAY.

What exactly are these FAST skills so many of you are talking about? I'd like to see a list of the types of skills required to be a FAST member. And should the lack of these skills prevent firefighters from attempting to assist other firefighters in need?
Many years ago I attended a fireground survival/RIT program in Providence, RI. One of the rotations was a small group discussion about functional RIT with John Norman and Butch Cobb. They specifically asked what each persons' FD was doing about RIT. Of course being over 10 years ago the answers were all over the board and less than favorable. One career firefighter froma small FD noted his FD had no trust that the local VFD's could provide them with RIT trained personnel and therefore had no RIT program as career staff was too limited to have crews standing fast. Both Norman and Cobb, jumped in and asked if maybe any SCBA certified firefighter would be better than no one? A decent discussion followed to which most of us agreed that any firefighter with basic interior training would be far better than no one. Hard to disagree with. This should not be an excuse not to conduct more training, but instead should establish a baseline to build from.
You need people ready to react, but requiring advanced training to the point that you cannot field a RIT in a reasonable amount of time is asking for trouble. So while you have highly certified and equipped FAST it does little good in the station or only on drill nights.
For those of you with LE background, think of this as the "active shooter" scenario. Far too few PD's could field a SWAT team in time so procedures have changed to ensure routine LEO's can react rapidly to dynamic incidents.

While I am all for helping out other nations in a crisis, and we should, hundreds of millions have been spent, concerts have been held, charities have been created, corporations have donated tens of millions of dollars and goods, the networks and various television shows have just about created 24/7 coverage and yet we have a national crisis occurring under our noses that is all but being ignored. Families are becoming just as homeless here in the US as homes are foreclosed and jobs are lost by the hundreds daily. Children are going to bed at night hungry and grown men are seeing a jump from a bridge as the only solution to their problems. Maybe we do not have people trapped under bricks and concrete but they are trapped under mountains of debt and hopelessness. When I was growing up there was a saying that charity begins at home. Lets face is every time the US steps up to the plate and take resources that could best be used for its own population it is always ridiculed for its actions. Maybe it is time that priorities were reassessed.

While I see the humor in it, I also see some serious negligence by the firefighters.
1. All of these apparatus are here, what is left for emergency responses?
2. Say an incident comes up that would require the use of that foam? Oops, we used it to prove a point, sorry.
3. Lighting fires in the streets? Come on.
4. Blocking streets and causing a public hazard, not smart.
Like it or not, public servants are held to a higher standard, and this is bordering on moronic. If it occurred here, people would of went ape sh1t!
But, I do think it is funny and probably got some peoples' attention. Hopefully whatever it is they're seeking is met and done so before more shennanigans occurs.

Only the rescuers on the call are in a position to judge the risk/benefits/value of the operation. They know their abilities, which from viewing the clip are remarkable. It looks like the ultimate training exercise. Pulling a mannequin is nothing like dealing with a terrified living creature. As we all know, when conditions are right for one emergency, they are right for many. Had there been a need for the resources that were at scene, say for a person in the water, one may assume those resources would have been redeployed to the higher value target---and response time would have been excellent.
Having been bitten or kicked a time or six on rescues, when handling wild/terrified animals it is almost a given that teeth or hooves will be an issue. Getting bitten is not that bad. It's why some of us have had rabies vaccinations and why there is prophylaxis for animal bites with unknown vaccination history.
Motorcycle tie down straps from wreckers work well for securing legs of large things that kick. Cargo netting, commercial or home made, especially out of rope that floats is light weight and works well for 'If you can't tie it, tangle it.' situations in conjunction with a handful of carabiners. A jacket/shirt flipped over a head with sleeves used to secure it buys time.
As for, 'it's only a dog'. A life is a life; where one draws the line on value is a personal decision. -- A society can be judged by how it treats its animals and its elderly--- [someone else said that]. If we start placing a value on a life before deciding what resources it gets.... well that might be a slippery slope.
Operations one is well trained for will be easy/safe and operations one has not trained for will be difficult/dangerous. My opinion is the rescue of the dog was a well orchestrated act of compassion that speaks volumes about those who did it and their dedication to training and preparedness. It should make us all proud.

My point is it never should have been a "swift water rescue" It was a dog. What are you doing dropping a guy out of a helicopter into a rain swollen river, putting his life on the line for a dog. Then to boot, he gets injured by the dog

Chris, great post...it's funny, after I made my earlier post I was out to dinner and me, being the buff that I am, couldn't stop thinking about this whole discussion. I also thought about the vacant building analogy and I was thinking too that most of us on this forum really can't make a judgement at all about how much risk was actually involved in this incident as, obviously, most of us have no real training or experience is helicopter or swiftwater ops. Much like outside observers may feel that it doesn't make any sense for us to make agressive interior attacks at vacant building fires because they don't have the same training or experience levels as we do, maybe we would look at this swiftwater operation in LA and think that it was actually riskier than it really was because we are not looking at it through the eyes of people highly experienced in this area.
I was also thinking that maybe I was overly simplistic thinking in my first post. We actually do take calculated risks to save PROPERTY all the time, even when we know there is no life in danger. The old analogy, risk a little to save a little, risk a lot to save a lot, risk nothing to save nothing...So, maybe it would be rational to take a calculated risk to save an animal.
As to the vacant buiding analogy, an area where I do have some training and experience...we don't make interior attacks in vacant buildings just because there COULD be someone in the building. Oftentimes, we complete our primary search and we continue to conduct interior operations, sometimes aggressive interior operations. The reasons we would do this are several...many times, vacant buildings are exposing nearby occupied buildings and the best way to protect the exposures is to agressively extinguish the fire in the vacant. Or, the vacant may still have some value and we do take some risks to save property. Last, it is usually a lot quicker to push in and put the fire out then to stand around all night and "surround and drown", which ties up fire department resources causing longer response times to other incidents. Of course, if the volume of fire or the condition of the building dictates an exterior attack / defensive operation, that is what we do, regardless.

On another day would LA consider doing this to grab another firefighter or maniquin as part of a training evolution. I understand that they have and do that. So the question then is there more risk doing this rescue if they put there members into similar conditions as training.
Also the reason for so many responders is they set up half a dozen or more rescue sites for rescues in the LA River. The flow is so fast they only get about 2 seconds to make a grab before the victim is beyond them. The primary method they use is an inflated firehose anchored at one end and suspended atthe other end and middle, on the down stream side of a bridge. the second the victim grabs hold they release it and it swings shoreward on the anchored end (like a door) and members in swift water gear (PFD, Wetsuit, water helmet, swift water fins, teather)make the grab.

This would be a tough call for an IC. We all, or most of us, love animals. Your people are chomping (no pun intended) at the bit to help the dog and use their training and equipment. If you pull it off, it is good PR. If you decide not to go for it, your own people as well as the public are probably all pretty pissed off at you. I will not Monday morning quarterback this incident because I wasn't there and I don't have all the details. However, if I were the IC at a similar incident, I would not place my members at any significant risk to save an animal.
Anyone who may at some point in their career be faced with a similar go or no go decision would be well advised to think now about what decision they might make, and to realize the pressure that will be put on you if you decide to stand by and do nothing. Sometimes, though, it takes the most courage to make the decision that you will do nothing. I'd rather stand by 1,000 times and watch animals die, than have to live with the fact that someone under my command was killed or suffered a serious injury attempting to save a non-human life.

The incident happened far enough away I thought we could hash it around a bit, without "offending" any of the members of this site; that's why I brought it up after the I.A. Kujo is based in San diego as I know it, so even he is not directly there. And he always does an excellent job reporting in from the West Coast. Hopefully we'll get more from him about this too.
Thankfully as Chris pointed out here, the outcome was positive, except for the injuries to the firefighter.
Similar to what I did with NIOSH fatality reports, giving an incident a good critique can be a great learning method, especially if none of us are directly involved, so no hurt feelings in the discussion.
The only guy that can reasonably take humbrage with any comments here would be the IC from that job, who could come on here if he likes and give a full explaination of the events and circumstances leading up to this rescue mission..... (oh no here we go with that again!)

First thing is, can we cut the money issue out of the discussion? It was only raised because a member thought the department might get a donation due to their actions. They probably will, so that's great.
I think all of "our hats are off" to the brothers/sisters. I'm sure they're "stand up guys." Most firemen, cops, ems, are. They carry the mantle of honor forward in their continued excellence in operations, saving lives, and doing "the right thing." Chief Crocker said it best about there being no greater honor.
That isn't the question. It's about decision making, and priorities.
~Best to you.

Totally assinine! 50+ firefighters for an hour and a helicopter. Whoever was in charge of this operation should be called in on the carpet and read the riot act. Total misuse of manpower and resources as well as putting people in danger for what? A freaking dog

The argument is not that the firefighters or test writers are racists. It starts with the dept not being able to prove that the test did anything to help select better firefighters. First class or last class and you're still getting firefighters with similar pass rates and similar promotions rates. The tests in question had an higher failure rate amongst minorities. Traditionally in any standardized test, your basic education has a lot to do with how well you do on the test. Poor people get a crappier education than rich people. Its not all society, there are many factors including family and community issues. Here in grand ol' NYC the vast majority of our minorities come from garbage communities with weak schools, broken homes, and little community support. They are not going to do as well as better educated people who grew up in better communities with better schools. It just so happens these better communities are a little heavy on the white end of the spectrum. SO, what is really a poverty bias takes on a racial bias. In the Jim Crow south there were many laws put into place to disenfranchise blacks without explicitly preventing blacks from voting. Things like property ownership requirements and literacy requirements while not explicitly targeting blacks were used to target them. So piles of precedent and case law were developed to prevent those types of actions. This is the same principal that the city has lost on. The test wasn't intentionally racist, but it had the unintended consequence of placing a greater hurdle in the way of minorities. Now if you can create a test that directly speaks towards someone's ability as a firefighter or aptitude for becoming a firefighter you can test away to your hearts content. That is why you have the latest test created by the city. While it appears to be a lot of bullshit and unimportant babble, the test was essentially a pshych profile. I hope this made sense and didn't ramble too much. If it did, then why are you still reading?

I've previously posted this elsewhere, and I make no apology for repeating it here:
Now I'm a relatively recent immigrant to the USA (a transplanted Scotsman), I don't really 'get' American racial politics or American attitudes to race at all. And I'm fairly new to the fire service. But:
"Last July, the judge ruled that the exams used to screen applicants between 1999 and 2007 were slanted against blacks."
Could someone please explain to me how, in the 21st century, a judge can say that with a straight face? Last time I checked, all brain matter was grey, not white, black, or anything else. How do you 'slant' an exam against someone who has black skin? I don't believe it's possible.
Either you're smart, or dumb as a brick.
Either you're fit, or you're not.
Either you work hard, or you're lazy.
Either you give 110%, or you're on cruise control.
But... either you're black, or you're white?
To even suggest that it's POSSIBLE to 'slant' exams in such a way that black candidates will do worse than white candidates seems to me to be a profoundly racist statement. I do not, and fear/hope I never will, understand it.

Previous post from another thread on this board:
How much more watered down does the test have to be?? I mean, there was a picture in one of the questions on the 2007 open competitive that said, "The fire chief wears a white helmet, find him in this picture." A drunken teenager could have passed that test. How much money was invested in the last test and recruitment?? You can lead a horse to water...
Has it ever occured to the Vulcan Society that maybe, just maybe, there is a majority of the minority who DON'T want the job?? Kindly refer to my last remark regarding the horse. How much further backwards does the city and the FDNY have to bend over, before someone says, "That's enough"???
I took the written exam 3 times, and missed a 4th due to my military service. Failed the physical the first and third times, blew off the second due to personal obligations(rassum frassum ex-wife!!!!) Now, I'm 36 and too old. I have nobody to blame but myself. I didn't put in the training and dedication required. Furthermore I have no intention of saying I was discriminated against, I just didn't put forth the effort. Maybe that's something the Vulcans should look into, making sure the people they so desparately want to get on the job PUT FORTH THE EFFORT!!!!
We may live in the land of opportunity, but the opportunity can only become a reality if you work for it, not if it's handed to you.

I have to disagree with a lot of the comments supporting the youths actions and condemning the airline. I worked in NYC my entire career including Borough Park, Brooklyn, one of the most Orthodox areas in the city and never came across this practice. This aside remember the terrorist chant their prayers also prior to "self sacrifice" so the fact that the boy was "praying" is not a sole comforting factor for the flight crew. For this crew could have mistaken this to be his preparation for a terrorist act against the plane. It was said he was traveling with his "sister". How did they know that for a fact, could it have been an accomplice, remember there is a female terrorist on trial as we speak. While we are all entitled to our personal opinions remember when we second guess people for acting it will only cause inaction which will lead to larger problems. While people got delayed and a young man got an education into the fact that the entire world is not as familiar with his religion as he thought, in the end the all arrived at their final destination safely and yes now the world has been educated and also now knows what a phylactery or Hebrew tefillin is.

Because she should be trained to recognized threats....not overt signs faith.
If this was some Christian with a bible and rosary beads this would not have happened. It is quite obvious that this occurred due to complete and total ignorance on the part of the flight staff.
It should not matter if you have never seen "Tefillin" before, you should know, as a representative of you employer and in this case the airline you should be aware of what poses a threat and what does not. A 17 year old kid praying with his sister would only be a threat to atheism and the paranoid, witch hunting society we live in today.
With incidents like these we prove that the terrorists have won, their goal is to interrupt our daily lives and fight within ourselves to eventually weaken us.....and that it has....

B&E stuff... lol
That's actually more of an asset. We break into homes to rescue people all the time!