helicopper

As I stated in a previous thread, I had sent an email from my official Yonkers email account to the DES individual who is listed on their website as being the person, or one of the persons "in charge" of this "team". I had respectfully asked these same questions to him, explaining that as a Deputy Chief on the Yonkers Fire Department (and a former long time Captain of our Rescue Company as well as former NYS adjunct instructor teaching technical rescue), I felt that I should be aware of the capabilities (or lack thereof) of this team in the event that we might be working together at a large scale emergency. I received no response. I felt no need to pursue it further because in my opinion based on what I have seen and heard, the County Team is not a viable asset and should nort be taken seriously. I did however provide them the opportunity to begin a professional discourse and perhaps prove to me that my impression is incorrect.
The only times I have posted on this website regarding the County Team is to express my opinion after a previous poster has touted the capabilities of this "team". I have never criticized a particular individual on this "team", nor did I get involved in criticizing any particular incidents, such as the one in Hastings. The simple fact is that by any reasonable measure, the Westchester Technical Rescue Team, or whatever they are calling themselves, is not viable as a technical rescue asset and to purport otherwise is a disservice to those we are sworn to protect and may in fact cause loss of life in the future.

This is true in the northeast, but in many portions of the country county or regional depts. are career or combination. Often because it is cheaper when it is done on a regional bases. While the volume may be lower in bedroom communities, the type of response is based on the emergency, not the type of community (if the house is burning, the fire des not care if its in a city or out in the country). The spending difference that you speak of would be based on trying to fully staff a volunteer dept in Westchester with career personnel. When you look at the southern regional models (GA, SC & FLA, etc.) most stations with the call volumes seen in many Westchester depts. would only require an engine (and a tanker if no muni water system). Its amazing that they send less for career depts then we spend and meet national standards for response.
Clearly the overall budget is less in a volunteer dept., career depts. are established with larger populations than those found in most bedroom communities. Either a city or county/region. When covering a larger population the costs per family (or per tax payer). As an example I compared the per capita cost of my city FD with that of a number of VFD's in notrthern westchester and we average about $100 less per capita. The key is regionialization.
Even more amazing would be the amount of money that could be saved in the volunteer communities in Westchester if they would become a regional dept. The only one who would not save money is the apparatus dealers.
If life hazard or significant property dammage threat is not an issue then why does every dept in westchester need all the apparatus it has? Based on that statement alone, do we need all of the FD's (and stations and rigs) we have?
If politician did a risk/benefit assesment they would figure we would be better in some communities with no FD and pay the next dept over to come to the 1 call every few days. Politicians do risk/benefit assesments for there career, not for the safety of the community. If they think funding a new tower ladder in a VFD that does not need one will get them reelected then they will get a new TL.
If you ask that way, of course they will never go for it. One County in S.C. showed that going county wide and career dropped the ISO rating from a 9 to a 5, saving each property about $800/yr in fire insurance while increasing the fire tax by $300, they put it to a vote and everyone is saving money today.
You are right it wont happen here, because we will fight to keep our depts. seperate, even if we can not meet the needs, because we are way to proud of the "great" job we are doing.
The reason taxes are #1 in Westchester is because the pleasure of our communities is to do it this way, because they do not understand that the rest of the country does it for a fraction of the cost (this is mostly school tax, but every tax contributes).

Having crews in station does not even have to be an official Dept. policy for volunteers. Get together with some other guys and pick a few nights or days to have an unofficial standby. Put a notice up that on such and such a night/day between the hours of.......we are going to meet up. Check to see your busiest times during the day/week, in most cases stats don't lie, and have a standby during those hours. Buy an x-box for the firehouse, have wireless for guys/gals to use their laptops in station, come up with a drill schedule for off hours and give guys credits for extra drill time, have lunch or dinner together, in this endless video age their are infinite training videos, buff fire videos and the like to keep the younger buffs occupied in the firehouse.
In most volunteer Depts. you get credit for the alarms you make and have to make a % of the years totals. Change it a bit to give credit for standby hours. At least for the younger guys if they are going to get home and sit in their rooms on the computer or play video games make it so they can do it at the firehouse. Plus you will always find that senior guy looking for an excuse to get out of the house

Response times are often an accurate barometer of what the community has collectively decided to pay for. It doesn't take knowing this job to understand that it will take volunteers longer to respond when they have to come from home. Now that that is understood, it's no stretch to understand that the longer the emergency goes without intervention, the greater the chance of serious injury, deaths and greater property loss. The problem is when "we" confuse what we are capable of with the resources we've been given. Not all of us can fulfill every aspect of emergency work 100%, yet we seem to falsely act as if we can, giving a flase sense of security to the citizens.

One of the most frequently overlooked requirements is the ability of a member to actually swim. I am a strong believer that anyone operating on/near/in the water in an official capacity should be able to pass an annual swim test including boat operators. We developed two versions. The basic swim test is designed for anyone operating in an "operational" capacity including dive tenders, boat operators, etc. The advanced swim test (the IADRS version which NFPA adopted) is given to anyone operating at the technician level (swiftwater or SCUBA). The physical requirements required of members participating on a water rescue team are very different than many other tasks first responders encounter.
Boat operators also need to go through proper training for the vessels that they will be operating - especially in a rescue mode. Rescue boat operations are extremely dangerous and personnel need to have the proper training/equipment to do the job. Just as no one should be driving a fire truck without the proper training, no one should be operating a boat without the proper training (regardless of size, design or horsepower). Just having a USCG safety certificate does not constitute proper training of a marine rescue boat (any recreational boater in CT is required to have one).
I would also stress that Department's need to evaluate their specific capabilities. Just because you may have a boat and cold water suits doesn't necessarily make a water rescue team or marine unit. I see many Departments using the "ice commander" suits as a one-type-fits-all suit - they have very specific limitations and people need to be aware of them. If you are calling for mutual aid, be specific in what you need and know what you are getting.

This is the absolute truth, and in essence the best response one could give to the question raised in the original post of this thread. If you don't like what somebody else posts, shut them up with facts. No need to attack them, no need for moderator intervention, no need to make threads like this complaining about other threads. It's really the most satisfying way to handle things, both personally and for the good of the site.

I don't post on here often, and when I do I keep my posts to a minimum. I like to get involved in debates about sensitive issues just as much as some other members do, but I don't get involved in serious debates on this site because you say one thing and right away 10 people are crying that you're bashing or criticizing. Quite frankly, it's a turn off for a lot of people who may be able to contribute positively to the forum, but don't want to get all mixed up in the nonsense.
I don't think that outright attacks should exist in this forum. I don't think this forum should become the equivalent of an NYPD Rant type forum where a bunch of disgruntled emergency services personnel talk about who is the worst paramedic, or the laziest cop, or the buffiest firefighter. I think this forum should remain a constructive place for local emergency services personnel to debate and discuss the issues that exist in emergency services, whether at the local or national level. Chris192's post in the other thread related to this topic is a perfect response I think... if only I could put it so eloquently, but honestly I don't care much about being eloquent.
Emergency services personnel generally have Alpha/dominant personalities. They're leaders, they face things that the general public does not face, and we do things that the general public does not do. Having an alpha personality means sometimes you have to grow some thick skin. If someone throws a jab at volunteers, don't cry about it. Come up with an educated rebuttal that disputes what that member is saying. Problems exist across the board with paid, volunteer, and combination departments. Discussing these problems is not bashing, it's a discussion to talk about the problems that exist. If you don't like the fact that your agency has faults that someone pointed out in this forum, get over it. Maybe the points brought up here are valid points, so instead of crying about it, do something about it. Make necessary changes, ask how things can be improved, ask what you can do to bring your agency up to the recognized standards.
The simple fact is that in an area where there is so much diversity amongst its emergency service personnel, there's always going to be conflict and debates. Just because someone's views on a certain person, agency, service, or method of doing things aren't your own views, as JFLYNN says, QTIP.
I can only hope that too many members of the general public don't read the nonsense that goes on here. Some of the threads are fantastic, with great input from a lot of educated and experienced individuals. The moderators do an excellent job of weeding out posts that are not constructive.
While I don't personally know you Seth, I know you value this forum for what it is and I know that you and the staff have put a lot of time, effort, and money into creating this forum. All I can say is, don't let all the petty complaints and other nonsense get to you. If people have a problem with things that are said here or topics that arise, let them move on, and find another forum where everyone holds hands and sings songs around a campfire. If they choose not to move on, then they are going to have to learn not to be so sensitive and grow some thicker skin.

This is not targeted to anyone but I am a firm believer in "if you can't take the heat"...you know the rest. We all have opinions and should be able to express them without being accused of bashing. I have read many comments about volunteer departments such as training (or lack of) manning, response time, too much equipment, blue lights. consolidation..etc and you know what....most of them are true so I suggest either get thick skinned about and fix the problem or do something else. The politically correct tone is ruining the fire service. I am seeing it first hand and it disgusts me.

Yes its covered a couple of different areas, but look at the title: "Would you still volunteer"? that could cover a number of different areas, as we have seen.
It is too bad that you can not see the positive info:
1) We have learned that the dedicated volunteers do not need blue lights and they feel they may do more harm then good.
2) We have learned that the dedicated volunteers do not need LOSAP and they feel they may do more harm then good.
3) We have learned that some members are very honest about their departments and are willing to discuse it.
I am still waiting to hear if anyone can show any positive effect LOSAP have had on VFD's?
Yes, there are a lot of reasons why people volunteer, why they stay and why they go. I also think the reasons are very different for those under 21 as for those in other age groups. In the past I have noticed that the under 21 group are the ones who put $4,000 lightbars on $2,000 cars (can you still get cars for that price?). The older group has less concern with lights.
A lot of career firefighters, including myself where volunteers. Some still are, others have moved on. We do understand and in my case I left over a year before getting called to my career dept. I left because of the level of BS (lights, training, attendance, drinking in the firehouse during calls, etc.) funny how many of those issues are still being debated 25 years later. As a note I think my former VFD has resolved many of those issues, but only in the last 10 years.

1st off I wouldn't stop volunteering if they took away blue lights, the LOSAP system, or tax credits etc., and I don't think many people would stop for those reasons.
Comparing a pension to a courtesy light? C'mon....
As far as LOSAP, I've seen through my experience that it doesn't aid in recruitment at all! Most of the people that join really want to help their community or be a FF. If a person approaches me with intrest in joining the FD, the last thing I lightly mention is that....and truthfully, its never really been a "dealbreaker" Has it aided in retention? The answer is yes, but in a negative way. Its retained the "free loaders," "bar problem solvers," and whatever other terms you may have for them. Everyone knows these people, they're the ones at the meetings, training sessions, that are only worried about the sign in sheet. But the one that really burns me is the ones that are looking for their point at a wake, funeral, or memorial service(literally, they will lay the paper on the casket to get that point). Its kind of like they are only concerned with getting an extra point than actually being there to honor a deceased member and pay their respects to the family. Maybe at one point these kind of members were an asset to the organization, but I don' t think that entitles them to turn into the blood-sucking mutants that they've become.
And before the question is asked, yes I sign the sheets too. However, that is NOT my reason for being a volunteer. I do it because I have family ties to it, I love to do it, and to serve my community. I feel that if the above mentioned members are entitled to it, I and other members similar to me absolutely are too. We're the ones that get up at 2am for the auto alarms, participate in training, and help out in every event in the department does, regardless of whether we get a "point" or not.

Barry
I joined my dept way back in 1972, I wasn't promised anything and I expected nothing and I still feel that way. I was against and still am against our losap program and I believe it is one of the worst things we have done. We have people that come around just for thier points, the first thing they look for is the call sheet so they can sign in and then usually disappear, they do the same thing for training sessions as well. I continue to respond, train, attend meetings, etc because I want to not for the losap as I could car eless abot it. I really haven't seen an increase in members since we started this program, we get a few each year and lose a few each year and unfortunately the ones we lose are usuallly good firefighters.
As for the original topic "courtesy lights" My opinio is that no one really understands their purpose including those that use them as well as the general public. How many of you with blue lights have written authorization from your Chief as required by law?
As for asking the question of career Firefighters taking the job if there wee no pension, who in this day & age would take a job that offers no pension?

Thats really the problem. While many people want to and intend to save lives, hiding behind this we're volunteers and doing the best we can isn;t always good enough. Right now, there are two big weaknesses in emergency services in Westchester right now as I see it. Coverage capability and redundancy. Both of these problems greatly affect the volunteer service and every time they're brought up, it assumed people are bashing the volleys. All any of us want to see is the volleys and paid depts do something to address these problems. The paid depts appear to have started the ball rolling towards this end. Volleys too often continue to sit dug in insisting that all is well.

Yes, I would! I am beginning to think they should outlaw them anyway, they cause more harm than good!

Thanks Barry! The only question I have the energy to answer tonight is; In response to Chief Flynn and from what we found out through hands on with FDNY at the drills is; he is correct about the NY CORP & NYC 2 1/2 scenario. It isn't an exact match but it will work if needed. We hooked up to standpipe 2 1/2's during the drill and it is loose as you start to connect them but when you tighten them down they do "make up". Everyone involved in the drill felt it was do-able if necessary. Some of us use FDNY 1 1/2 couplings but it's kind of a moot (sp?) point as FDNY doesn't use 1 1/2" for most stretches (esp. standpipes) As far as the hydrant wrenches go, all the Dept's in the Mutual Aid Drill were issued the standard Hydrant Wrench and two 2 1/2" to 3" increaser's (sp?) from Div.7 to supply Tower Ladders & Siamese connections. Hydrants that use the Magnetic wrenches are becoming more common in the Bronx but Div.7 Chief could not get NYC to issue those to us due to $$$$. Some of the Dept's have them already (YFD,NRFD&FDMV) as you know. There is a request in from Batt.18 to try and acquire some but I do not know the progress on that as of this moment. Hope that helps. BTW, we need to get together about "The Book"!

They are a crack commando unit was sent to prison by court for a crime they did not commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the New York City underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... The A-Team.

Cap, your recollection of the events of that day is almost my recollection to the letter. I was duty DC, so I stayed back. We too were loading up with EMS supplies, and fueling up, and off-duty guys coming in with their own sawzalls and pry bars in anticipation of a major rescue effort that never happened. My Capt that went to 233rd St recounts the same occurrences as you. Be it known, also, that you and I have never discussed this before, but the recollections are still vivid, and the same story line.
Unfortunately the heroism of the 343 has been forgotten today by most Americans. When I half-mast my flag on Sept 11, I am now asked what's the half-mast for. A hundred years from now the 343 will only be remembered by future Firefighters, and then, only if we don't let our Brotherhood go by the wayside.

I don't know about how everyone who was working in southern Westchester that day feels; but I can tell you I have never felt good about the way things went down on 9-11. I can't see anybody trying to take any credit for what we did not do.
I remember very distinctly that morning and the ensuing chaos. We received tones following the collapses to the effect of "all departments south of 287 respond to Manhattan." As eager as we were to respond, our Chief decided to hold units, stock medical supplies and await further orders. A recall of all off duty members was instated; the southern Westchester Chiefs formulated some kind of plan, and units eventually responded to the Bronx staging area. My squad was working, so we were held held back, while off-duty members beefed up staffing on rigs and responded to the Bronx. Frustrating.
The story from the responding Captain was that the staging area was at times somewhat out of control. A chief in the firehouse had a missing son in the collapse and guys were eating pizza in the street and joking around. Embarrasing.
We went on 24on/24off schedule for a few days. There was nothing that most of us could do, except cover our own response areas. Some members staffed a full compliment ladder company, relocated to a Bronx station, and had to endure a "lecture" from a former fire commissioner in front of FDNY members. Humiliating.
When somebody finally organized something for the hundreds of career firefighters to "officially" do, we all boarded tour buses out of Station 3 in Mt. Vernon, rode down the West Side in front of cheering crowds, ran a gauntlet of tools and supplies, walked to the site to be met at the FD Command Post and told "sorry guys, there's been a mix-up, we have to go home." Then we had to walk past cheering crowds back to the buses. Humiliating and frustrating. I remember a brother, back on the bus asking "what did we come here for lunch?"
The only times I ever felt useful was helping fill the ranks at funerals. This came with a call through the unions, it had nothing to do with the County. One of the earliest was in the Bronx; using a Yonkers Casson and honor guard for the casket. I'll never forget the now deceased Chief from Yonkers who helped me to get a grasp on the magnitude of what had happened. When that Chief left us a couple/few years later, I thought back to the day we buried FDNY Firefighter Manuel DelValle. I could never have imagined that Chief wouldn't be with us thereafter.
Frustration, embarassment, humiliation.
Every one of us who ever attended a funeral or memorial for a 9-11 cop or firefighter knows who the true heroes were. As Captain Billy Burke's brother said at his funeral in St. Patricks Cathedral "One hundred years from now, all of us will be gone and mostly forgotten. But these 343 firefighters names and memories will live way beyond that." That rang so true to me.

GREAT QUESTION!
NFPA standards are considered consencus standards. That means they must be "accepted" by some level of government to become law.
The level of government can be Federal, State, or Local and can be "accepted" by an of the 3 branches: executive, legislative or judicial.
Many NFPA standards for building construction have been accepted or mandated by NYS Codes Div. (state executive) making them law.
Turnout gear NFPA standards are set by FED OSHA (& NYS PESH) (both executive, fed & state)
Bailout rope NFPA standards were mandated by NYS Legislative and enforced by NYS executive.
The NYS courts have "accepted" most if not all consencus standards, unless a law supercedes it.
Now to the heart of your question:
NFPA 1403 has been accepted by NYS OFPC (executive) and turned into state law. Allowing it to be used in the courts.
NFPA 1710 has not been accepted by any state as a standard. It is slowly starting to crop up in civil litigation. Once it hits the NY courts during civil liability it most likely will be accepted by the courts, unless the defendant (the FD or municipality) can prove they were following a comperable consencus standard (there are none).
NYS law does not allow career firefighters to sue their employeers for injury or death and that is extended to cover thier families.
Who is the most likely plantif? A civilian who has a fire loss, an insurance company that wants to be covered for its loss, or a firefighter from another community who is hurt going mutual aid into an under staffed dept? I dont know, but at some point I suspect some smart lawyer will figure out its worth some bucks, until then municipalities will continue the gamble that they are saving $$$.

Doesn't our county (Dutchess) have a Task Force System specifically desgined to revolve around having adequate, trained staffing responding on mutual aid calls? Why isn`t this isn't applied to ALL alarms, not just mutual aid?
On another front, mutual aid is even a grey area, since so much of it is essentially "automatic" aid to see if we can get a rig to even respond in some areas of the county. Furthermore some aid is anything but mutual, with one department providing aid to others consistantly, and not receiving it back as such. Until departments and their commissioners, officers, and members alike can assure a response of propoerly staffed equipment that meets the lay of the land, building construction etc. of their jurisdiction, paid, volunteer, or some combination therof, we have a lot of room for improvement.
After reading the on-time ratings in the 2002 Boston Globe report, I would be interested to see what the staffing levels (or average staffing level) was in each department as well.
Also, to all of the Career Brothers here, we train in 5-6 person "Companies" in the Academy, probably for instructor liability reasons, why is it that when we get on the line we work in 2-3 person companies? Is there any liability that comes back on those who dictate the staffing of apapratus?

Agreed and that plan is or should be the mutual aid plan.
Agreed, but 1st we need to define an alarm. How many engines, trucks, and support units and how many firefighters (note: I did not say interior, because everyone else is just a helper) and officers make up that 1st alarm? By almost any standard, its a minimum of 2 engines and 1 truck (or squad, if laddering is not an issue based on construction, these members are assigned truck functions)and a minimum of 16 firefighters and officers.
Many depts that send 3,4 or more units on a 1st alarm consider a 2nd alarm another 1 or 2. This is wrong. If you do not have enough rigs to double the 1st alarm, then you can not send a 2nd alarm without mutual aid. We have forgotten how fire alarms were historically established:
Before radios and phones fire telegraph street boxes was the way we got called. Every box had a number, when someone activated the box the number was transmitted (to horns on the fire station, bells in the fire station, and to tapes). The number was sounded (same as some VFD's that still have horns) and based on the box number, you would look on the wall (or in a little book) to determine what rigs went and where to box was located. Once on scene if the chief decided he needed more help he would send a ff to reset the 1st box or run down the road to the next box to strick the "2nd Alarm". When this number came across and you looked up on the wall it told you who went, if the 1st due was alread out. If the 1st alarm was 2 steamers, 2 hose wagons and a city service truck, then thats what was also sent on the 2nd, because you did not know till you got onscene if you were going to help or you were going to another incident just down the road from the 1st. We need to follow our history on this one, instead of trying to make do with less and less.
Of the 58 departments in Westchester, which ones send that many interior ff's + supervisor per rig to calls in there own district 24/7/365? I think its a little unrealistict to have dept's send more help on M/A then it sends to its own calls.

Not knowing anything about Dutchess County, but speaking of our own neighborhood...
Just a couple of thoughts running through my head.
1. You should have the courtesy to send at least what you would expect when making the request yourself.
2. Relocates should be treated like a scene response, because you could very well end up going to the scene.
3. On a COUNTY LEVEL, we should all be sending the same minimum crew, whatever we all decide upon.
4. Don't abuse the system. I know some places lack personnel to handle "simple" incidents, and call upon Mutual Aid to cover them while they handle something "simple," which (for paid and volunteer guys) can become a nuisance.
5. If you can't provide a minimum crew of capable, QUALIFIED personnel, MAN UP and state you can't handle it. It's more respectable not to send a crappy crew then it is to response / relocate with one.
A while ago, the Chiefs in our Battalion met and had a discussion as to what the minimum personnel expectation should be per apparatus. We have lived up to our end of the "suggested policy," and when we call for assistance we would expect the same. (Luckily we've had it)
Every call we go to, whether in our own neighborhoods or on Mutual Aid, is a reflection on the organization as a whole. Sending a lack of personnel or a group of unqualified personnel makes you look like a group of unconcerned, "living in fantasyland" misfits. If you relocate with a sub-par crew and you're dispatched to another emergency that you can't handle...who loses?
Not to mention it could trigger a heated EMTBravo discussion, as we've seen before...

The topic started here is to find out some direction of question in the Topic Title.
A little background on the subject, the other day a local Fire District was requested to respond to another District's firehouse for stand-by coverage on a relocate and the requested Department responded with only two individuals, a Driver & an Exterior/Support member, on the rig and were met at the Stand-by station by one of thier Asst. Chiefs... So, in reality what was this rig that relocated ready to handle should they had to go to a AFA, Structure Fire, MVC or even an EMS Call ???
So here are the questions this topic brings out that I would like to have some input from all you out there on.
Should an Engine or Truck when they are dipatched to a neighboring District for stand-by relocation coverage be staffed with just anyone?
Just a Driver?
or Fully Staffed with Qualified interior people in every seat?
and
Should they all come on the rig?
or Can you have Engine or Truck respond and have the proper personnel meet that rig in the relocate station?
and
Who Decides this?
The District being requested?
or The District Requesting the coverage?
What is your protocol and who decided it??
I welcome all and any comments and thoughts on this topic.
Thanks in advance..

This past week, 21 firefighters and myself completed Firefighter 2 at the Westchester County Fire Training Center. I'd just like to take a moment to thank our instructors, Tom MacPherson, Bill Dingee, Ralph Stupple, Pete Bertocchi, and John Baker. These instructors dedicated so much of their time to educating us, as well as firefighters across Westchester and beyond. The instructors that teach us often go unthanked for their diligent work and effort. I just felt it important to recognize them for their dedication to educating us.
Congrats to the rest of my classmates, you all worked hard this week, braving the sub-0 wind chills and lots of ice to better yourselves. Excellent work.

This incident really concerns me. I cannot recall ever hearing or reading of an incident of this type; an exploding dumpster that killed a firefighter. We've all seen BLEVEs in our time. I also recall one incident where firefighters were cutting open the side of a Silo with a partner saw, hosing down the blade to prevent sparks when the particulate matter inside the silo exploded, blowing the cut section out and killing a firefighter.
But this incident is unique. Naturally with hindsight it's easy to say the department involved should have been aware of the occupancy; an aluminum sand casting plant, that should have raised red flags with regard to the contents of the dumpster.
Do you know the industrial sites within your response area; what they manufacture, and what they would be disposing of as a biproduct of their manufacturing? Sure if you have a furniture plant in your district you would be aware of the fire load and chemical hazards within the plant, but how many of us have the awareness to think that the disposal areas outside the plant could be time-bombs just waiting for water to be added to create an explosion hazard?
In my time, the thing that most concerned me was auto-exposure from a dumpster to the structure itself. I mostly thought if the contents contained something dangerous it would be latex paint cans, or possibly spray paint. We had numerous dumpster fires, and pulled the engine close enough to extinguish the fire with a 100' trash line. But now, after this, I think I wouldn't do it anymore.
What about a gasoline can in the dumpster, like Bill pointed out? Or a discarded propane tank, that somebody just dropped in the garbage in the dark of night?
I really think this incident should be given GREAT attention by all fire departments. The NIOSH report should be poured over by everyone. And immediately, ALL dumpster fires should be approached as if they are ALL capable of exploding, and causing death or injury to firefighters.
How about this; if there is no exposure issue with a burning dumpster, why not just automatically create a hot-zone, and do not attempt to extinguish it? I mean, what are we actually "saving" anyway? A dumpster? Certainly not the contents. IMHO, let it burn out, and stay away.
This fatal incident should be given high priority and put all departments on notice to NOT continue business as usual. Dumpsters have become EXTREMELY hazardous, and ALL dumpster fires should be treated as haz-mat incidents from now on. For God sake, this thing went off like an IED!

Let's not forget that there's no such thing as a routine vehicle fire, a routine fire in a private dwelling ... etc. Everytime we go out the door we may be subjected to unknown and unexpected hazards. Never forget that no matter how well we follow the rules (PPE properly donned, correct sized attack lines properly supplied, proper ventilation completed, etc ...) things can go horribly wrong. Keep your eyes and ears open, be alert to hazards when on inspection duty, non - fire related emergencies, etc. If you see something that looks wrong, say something to the boss, get the situation corrected before there's a fire.