AFS1970

Interesting graphics on that rear roll up.

On 4/17/2016 at 10:14 AM, nfd2004 said:

 Then when a 22 year old, or the like, makes a very foolish fire ground decision, causing injury or worse, people will wonder why. And by the time the city/town faces a serious lawsuit over such a case, the chief officer and those political officials are long gone. Meanwhile the damage is done and the rest of the taxpayers foot the bill.

Sadly while age is one factor in this sort of incident, being older does not remove the possibility of such a decision being made with bad results. This is why training is critical. Although I thin ongoing training has to be part of this also, getting a certification in order to be chief, then not taking some kind of command level CE, will quickly begin to chip away at the knowledge base.

I remember that episode, it had the A-Team being hired by a small private fire department, the chief was played by Stephanie Kramer, much more famous for her role on Hunter. They had a contract for a town but were in a battle with a bigger corporation that was trying to take over the town's fire service. I think there was some sort of involvement with organized crime also.

Murdock's crazy of the week was to carry a seltzer bottle dressed as a miniature copy of himself as a firefighter with him.

PGFD has now announced this as a Line of Duty Death, one of the firefighters has succumbed to his injuries. The other is still in critical condition.

I have said it before, certifications do not make you a good officer, but they are what we have for now.

I think qualifications should be a combination of years of service, run/response stats & training/certifications. The idea being you should score high in all three categories but you can make up for shortcomings in one by having higher stats in the others. Bearing in mind that no system is perfect.

However once a system is in place it becomes the responsibility of the department and the individual member together to ensure that there are qualified members and that the standard still meets the needs of the departments.

I remember looking at a set of by laws for a department that required FF1 to get off probation, yet never required EMR or EMT, despite about 55% of the runs being EMS related. Now I am not saying we should sacrifice FF1 but you should probably need both if that is the way your department is responding.

I know of one department that required HazMat tech to be chief, they later revisited that and got rid of it because they really were not running the number of HazMat calls they once anticipated.

7 hours ago, FFPCogs said:

A crack was found in the last section of the boom on TL-45 and it is now being replaced. With that there are no longer any components on the rig that are original.

Last section? Near the bucket or near the base? I only ask because I still see the 1996 decals on that section near the turntable.

If I remember correctly, there are a few small towns that are completely surrounded by Pittsburgh. This has been the result of annexing the surrounding towns over the years.

This is all part of a vicious circle. Higher certifications are created. Department changes rules to require those. A few candidates become chiefs. Department does nothing to help additional members get certified. Chiefs step down/retire. Lack of qualified members leads to lowering requirements.

I don't know how it is in NY but I know in CT you can contract the state academy to come in and run a class at your department. Granted you can't make the class meet everyone's schedule, but you can get members certified if the department and the members actually have the will to do it.

The key is to make any requirements reasonable.

From what I have read the policy was not know to the firefighters in question before the posting. Now announcing an intention to post more pictures is likely taking this to a whole other level.

This story is an example of a horrible way to follow the letter of the law (rule) and not the spirit of the law (rule), I doubt anyone that was involved in drafting this rule ever gave a single thought to someone wanting to use their turnout gear in a wedding invitation photo. 

This is also a very bad example of having all or nothing policies that do not allow for any judgement calls. While some see this as insulating a department from a bad judgement call, I see it as forcing the department into a bad judgement call.

 

This would only be of use if dispatchers were allowed to make decisions.

This will only work if you train and keep training your dispatchers. This is something that most agencies are uninterested in. There are many theories but they all revolved around funding and a general disrespect for dispatching as a profession. Hearing a MAYDAY and doing anything else other than relaying that message to the IC requires not only a well developed SOP but also an understanding of what a MAYDAY is and when & why it is used. Then and only then would I feel comfortable making any decision.

On 3/16/2016 at 9:40 PM, x635 said:

If the Feds can set these standards for wildland firefighting, then why not structural firefighting?

Like the old joke says, they would back burn your living room to put out a kitchen fire.

Seriously the last thing we need is another federal over reach. Then again we already have an NFPA standard for officers, not everyone uses it. Some states will defiantly say we are not an NFPA state. So what would the point be?

Quite a few years ago I re3ad an article about a large wild fire out west. The article quoted some FEMA rep about the need for more manpower. I called to ask about going out. I was referred to my state agency. Who told me I needed a recommendation from local OEM. That was the only easy part. Then I called back the state and they told me I needed a red card. That class is offered once a year in February. As this was the spring time they told me I would have to wait for next year. In the mean time they were bringing in firefighters from Australia & New Zealand, Non firefighting forestry employees and non firefighting trained prisoners. All of whom were somehow superior to a firefighter from this country that wanted the training.

So if they run a national standard IC training like this, you will have to wait several months after the fire to become certified to command the fire you are currently at. Barring that option, they will allow you to call mutual aid but only from other countries, not from the next town over. You may also have your health inspector respond because he works for the city, just not as a firefighter.

Oh and remember the national standard says that a big truck with a larger TANK of water on it is a tender, because apparently 49 out of 50 states get this one wrong.

Always cool to see a refirb, in that you have limited ability to make a lot of changes. There is usually some innovated or imaginative ways that things get added.

There could be some good deals there for smaller departments with limited funding.

Interesting picture and concept. Now would there have been any easy way to cross the border had the rig been needed on the Mexican side of the wall? Are there any special considerations with international mutual aid? I am sure that it is an issue all along the northern border. I remember hearing a few years ago of a truck from Canada being stopped when trying to respond into NY, but I do not remember the details.

Date:03/19/2016
Time: 11:44
Location: 695 Long Ridge Rd
District: Turn of River

Channel: Ground 2

Weather: Clear
Units: Initial Assignment: E9, T2 Upgrade Assignment: U4 (IC), E8,E2 (Replaced by E5),E3, U6 (Safety), E62,T67, FM109 (C&O), U1 (Chief of Dept) SPD: 8D (Lieutenant/Tour Commander), 8S2 (Sergeant), 4B50, 4C17, 4D56 SEMS: M901 (Supervisor), M4
Writer:  AFS1970

Description: Initially reported as a residential fire alarm, E9 arrived on scene to see flames on the 1st floor. E5 cleared from a medical call as the upgrade was being dispatched and replaced E2. As units were still responding a second call for a possible chimney fire was dispatched in another part of town.

I still believe that RIT should be part of FF1. Few if any departments have the luxury of a dedicated RIT that is always available. Everyone needs to be able to be basically competent at Firefighter Safety & Firefighter Removal. 

A few years ago when I left the Fire Service, the CT state fire academy was offering a 2 day Basic & a 2 day advanced RIT course, as well as a 1 day Mayday / Self rescue class. I took all of three and they were great classes. While you could put those together into a 40 hour class, I think that is probably not going to fly as part of a recruit class. However if you did maybe 8 on RIT, 8 on Self Rescue, and then incorporated those into other evolutions as you trained, then I think we could get everyone on the same page.

Existing members need to be refreshed on these skills and that includes Chief's. Yes the chances of a Chief being on a RIT are rare except in the smallest of departments, but how many places in our area will roll a mutual aid FAST with a chief officers as wither the driver or officer? Look at the IA's on this site, almost everyone sends a car as part of the RIT/FAST assignment. That tells me there is a need for that officer to have a clear understanding of what will be involved, how long it will take and what other resources may be needed just to remove one firefighter. Reminding a chief of his roots is never a bad thing.

Rest in peace, Brother. May his memory be a blessing.

I think this is a good idea, for no other reason that a chief officer needs to be aware of this type of situation in order to effectively manage this type of incident. Granted LAFD is large enough, that the chief of department will probably not be the IC at all but the most major of incidents, but it is good to have an understanding of Mayday / RIT issues that comes from somewhere other than a textbook or a classroom.

I know chief's that were chiefs already when RIT became a regular thing. They have never done any training like this in a live setting. These are also the chiefs that most often reassign "those guys just standing around" to other duties. I have to think it is because they lack the basic concept. It seems like LAFD is taking a step in the right direction to accomplish this.

I have said this about firefighter training also. While the hours have increased, which is generally positive, there has been little done to creatively fit the classes to a busy Volunteer's schedule. When I took my first EMT class 21 years ago (feels old to type that) the class was two nights a week with a few Saturdays. My FF1 & FF2 had similar schedules. More often than not they are planned around the departments regular drill night.

Now I have taken classes that were on Sunday mornings and provided food in the cost of the class. I have been in classes that were held once a week, which obviously takes longer to complete, but those have been the exception not the rule. If a topic can be done with a single instructor, could the class be taught multiple times with different students coming together for practicals and tests? I don't know the answer but decreasing the hours is probably not it.

The last things I will say is that we have to stop talking publicly about how big a burden it is before we talk internally about a solution. I can't prove it but have long felt that inadvertently we are psyching out potential new members by telling them how impossible it is before they even ask.

Very cool, and the domino effect it sparked to help the family is even better.

I think this is a great idea, one more departments should follow.

As for separating religion from the fire service, if you want to do that you will have to remove the crusader symbol from all rigs, patches, stickers, ect. Sometimes we forget that the Maltese Cross was (and still is) the symbol of the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Saint John, a Christian crusader army.

A friend of mine in NJ is part of an EMS Squad in NJ, they issue gear to all members. I know they get a coat, pants and helmets. I don't think they get any special boots or shoes. They use dark blue, and I think it is water proof as well as BBP resistant. As home responders they wear the gear on most if not all calls as it also serves as a uniform.

I can see why this is an issue for NYC, and I can sort of see how the individual may not be dealing with the first department completely ethically. However many people looking for a career take multiple tests. Very often you have no real idea when your are going to come up on someone's list. So a department calls you and offers you the job, you take it. Then a short time later another department offers you a better job and you take that. Outside of public safety we would just call that climbing the ladder of success. Here we call it poaching.

Are they needed? This is the catch 22 that most agencies find themselves in with special units. You get a rig, train the staff and commit to having the resource in service. However actual call volume is not there, so you use them for routine calls. If they are busy on a routine call when the special call comes in you have to send someone else.

Think about a Rescue Pumper, do we not send that to a brush fire, because a vehicle collision might happen? No, as a matter of fact dual purpose rigs in the fire service are usually purchased specifically  for multiple uses. I see no reason for EMS to be any different. Think about your Haz Mat team, do they not go on other calls just waiting for a spill? Of course not, because few if any departments or communities could afford a full time Haz Mat team. Still, you do want them there when they are truly needed.

How about a public information / education session with the staff. One would think that as a nurse they would have a basic concept of what is and is not an emergency, but as we all know these facilities are relying less on RN's and more on other positions. They are also marvelously bad at dealing with EMD questions. This leads to a far greater amount of high level responses because the answers are generally "UNKNOWN" which upgrades the call. The correct answers will get the downgraded responses.

Some of my favorites are when asked if they are with the patient they say "someone is". That has to be followed up with are you that someone?

Most of the answers are either I don't know or just send someone. It is not uncommon for the staff to have someone not involved and nowhere near the patient make the call. This leads to the response of an Ambulance and often Fire Apparatus for what turns out to be a minor call. This leads to burnout, which leads to lack of response, which leads to calls to reform the system.

However the facilities are usually run by boards made up of lawyers and insurance agents who just want to pass the patient off to EMS as fast as possible with no actual treatment they can be held responsible for. There is a solution out there, but not enough people are interested in finding it.