AFS1970

Years back Harrison donated the old engine 13, a 1985 mc Mack pumper to a dept. Down in Louisiana after hurricane Katrina destroyed all of the depts rigs. Also they sold for a dollar, old engine 11 a 1988 Mack cf  pumper to a dept upstate. Engine 42 what a shame, some poor dept. Could of used this rig and treated it like a brand new rig. Some dept. that can't afford a new million dollar engine. But I guess the people in charge needed the 2800.00 or whatever they sold it for to be destroyed.

 
One thing has nothing to do with the other......unless your trying to stir things up.

nfd2004 - I can see you have your heels dug in on this one and won't budge, which is understandable with the fire service problems in your own city. Do I think that regionalization is a good idea? In many instances it is and I've stated that. Without beating a dead horse all my point was is that any regionalization should be well thought out. You helped prove my point by referring to the Northern Hudson Regional Fire Department, which sounds like a success. But if you look at the history of its creation, you'll see that the early planning and discussions began back in the early 1980's and the department became a reality on January 11, 1999. So obviuosly they took their time, thought through potential problems, garnered public support and figured out the funding. It wasn't a flip the switch over-night and off we go. Final thought: Go slow, tread lightly and make sure your citizens really are aware of what they're signing up for.

NFD2004 - I agree that fire depatments work for the citizens and not themselves. Any changes should come at the will of the people, not the fire chiefs.
 
Perhaps I focused too much on the fire service alone. Before the citizens of any village, town, county, etc., make any changes to what the y pay for, they should be aware of what they are voting to change, be it fire, police, DPW, schools, sanitation departments, etc. Perhaps the fire service is the closest of any government service that should consider consolidation. But it should be considered with due diligence. Study the good models (Fairfax, LA County) to find out what works and what doesn't. Who will have control and will each department have a seat on the governing board? How will it be funded? Is there an escape clause? 
 
I've seen a consolidation of fire districts that went horribly wrong. I've also seen 3 towns consolidate into a school district without much thought. Town A had double the population of either Town B & C. Now the elected officials come from Town A. Town A pretty much rules the roost. The elementary schools have been consolidated, making for very long bus rides for children from Towns B & C. This could have been avoided if certain controls were in place, such as each town gets at least one seat on the school district committee, or perhaps make a central middle school & high school but allow each town to have control over their elementary schools (as is done in other regional school districts.)  
 
Once a few years go by and the elected officials turnover, there may be a whole new set of ideas of how to run any governmental department which may not be in the best interest of all members in that district (be it fire, police, school, etc.)

 
I have proposed this idea previously but included neighboring depts in the mix to spread the responsibility.  The 'duty' apparatus responds immediately to any call in the 'mutual' district, supported by the primary department when it assembles their crews.  Many depts are providing dual response these days so designating alternating companies to provide a duty crew can build teamwork and commeraderie while providing immediate response to the community. If two neighboring depts that typically rely on each other can't field a duty crew of 4, then the problem is more serious than some would like to acknowledge.

Rescue 40 - 1994 Pierce Lance
Will probably be 25 years old when or if new one comes. NFPA reccomends 20 year replacement,.

M' Ave - Nicely put. It's not easy in our current society to find the time to volunteer. On one hand I'm all behind the concept of consolidation and it makes sense, but I've experienced it from the other side that once you give up control of your own destiny, you'll never get it back. Sure the fire chiefs don't want to give up their kingdoms, but they aren't the ones I'm truly concerned about. I worry about the politicians. Everyone could be on board when the consolidation happens, but then 2 or 3 administrations down the road new people take over and decide on massive changes and you're like, "this isn't how it was supposed to go." You may have had 1 engine & 1 ladder in your station. When it comes time to replace the engine, the new administration decides to buy a quint and dispose of the engine and reallocate the ladder to a different station. You have two career men on duty who roll the quint on every call but there's nothing left for the responding volunteers, so they end up driving to the scene in their cars. Let's face it, part of the fun of volunteering is the ability to climb on the apparatus and respond making some noise. That's just one example of how things could change over time and the local department can do nothing about it because they are now part of a bigger entity. I never thought I would think that way or even write it, but I have seen some weird things as the years go by. 
 
On a related topic, I wonder if Mt Kisco is happy about giving up their police force? If you get inside and really study it, is what was promised really happening? I hope for them it is, but I wouldn't put it past the powers to be to decide that they are one officer short on the Evening shift for the whole Westchester County Police force. To save on over-time, they'll drop from 3 to 2 cruisers in Mt Kisco for the Eve shift and if necassary they'll divert a cruiser from the parkway if they get busy. But low and behold, the car on the parkway stops a suspicious vehicle and the closest back-up cruiser happens to be in Mt Kisco, so he jumps on the parkway and drives up to the next town as a back-up and leaves Mt Kisco with one car for 45 minutes. The people may say, "we were always happy to send a car or two mutual aid, manpower depending, but we would always keep two cars in town as a home guard. How come at times there's only one car?" 
 
I'm just using Mt Kisco as an example because I'm familiar with their situation. I hope it doesn't happen that way and I hope the people of Kisco are happy with the move. No disrespect to the WCPD.
 
So I would say that consolidation is the way to go given the current climate, but I would say to tread lightly and get certain things in writing to protect your jurisdiction. 

My old department had an activity requirement not a time requirement. It seems to have worked well for quite some time, although I am not sure if it is still in place. You got 1 point for each call, drill or meeting. You needed 50 points to stay an active member. The bulk of the department was between 75-100 every year. There were a few heavy hitters with over 200 and a few who struggled to make 50, but all in all it worked.
 
As for recruiting, I have said it before and will say it again. Too many Chiefs give what I call the Psych Out speech. They bemoan the lack of members and then go on to list all the reasons people don't join. I strongly believe this has the effect of making anyone who is trying to decide if they want to volunteer and psyching them out to the point where they just don't bother. How about listing all the reasons people do volunteer, instead.
 
One of the department's in Stamford did a nice piece several years ago, a small card with profiles of 3 members. They picked a local business owner, an electrician working for a construction contractor & a corporate VP of a local company. I don't know how successful it was but it showed a diverse group of volunteers.
 
Then all we have to work out is how to stop chasing new members away, which seems to be the biggest problem.
 

My old department had an activity requirement not a time requirement. It seems to have worked well for quite some time, although I am not sure if it is still in place. You got 1 point for each call, drill or meeting. You needed 50 points to stay an active member. The bulk of the department was between 75-100 every year. There were a few heavy hitters with over 200 and a few who struggled to make 50, but all in all it worked.
 
As for recruiting, I have said it before and will say it again. Too many Chiefs give what I call the Psych Out speech. They bemoan the lack of members and then go on to list all the reasons people don't join. I strongly believe this has the effect of making anyone who is trying to decide if they want to volunteer and psyching them out to the point where they just don't bother. How about listing all the reasons people do volunteer, instead.
 
One of the department's in Stamford did a nice piece several years ago, a small card with profiles of 3 members. They picked a local business owner, an electrician working for a construction contractor & a corporate VP of a local company. I don't know how successful it was but it showed a diverse group of volunteers.
 
Then all we have to work out is how to stop chasing new members away, which seems to be the biggest problem.
 

The reality is there are two fire services when it comes to most (of these types) rules and regulations, municipal departments and then all others. Most municipalities have strict rules to protect themselves from liability and grievances. While the fire chief's son could be treated like anyone else in reality, just a mere perception can create problems. Most of the time it's something petty and stupid, not the big promotion or preferential assignments. But, in reality, does the Lt. worry he cannot discipline this FF in the same manner as he would otherwise? Can the crew complain about admin without offending the bosses son? Why did he didn't he get forced for OT?  The list of ways for other firefighters to be aggrieved is endless, add in that you're closely related to a boss and that just multiplies. 

I am not knocking the Port Authority for the job they do.
They have a job to do, and most of them do it admirably.
The problem is the pay.
If anyone thinks, no matter how much O/T is worked, that any cop deserves 300-400K a year is out of their minds.
Surgeons do not get paid that much.
Stories like this are why there is much flack over cops salaries in general.
Never mind the stories that will come about when the public learns of the pensions that salary will generate.
...and cops wonder why the anti-pension movement is gaining steam.
I have been in LE for 35+ years, and yes, I would like a raise.
I would like to ask for 300 Thousand a year.
If they gave it to me I would think they were out of their minds.

 
 
This is what I meant about time requirement.  You have to make a certain number of meetings, certain number of drills, and make a certain number of calls to stay as an "active" firefighter.  I've heard of some volunteer departments that have actual time requirements, such as a duty night where a specific crew is on call and hangs out at the fire house.  It's a cool concept because this time at the fire house can be used for training AND you have a fully staffed apparatus out of the door immediately should an alarm arise.  Unfortunately, it's not a model that could work for everyone (especially smaller departments).

My old department had an activity requirement not a time requirement. It seems to have worked well for quite some time, although I am not sure if it is still in place. You got 1 point for each call, drill or meeting. You needed 50 points to stay an active member. The bulk of the department was between 75-100 every year. There were a few heavy hitters with over 200 and a few who struggled to make 50, but all in all it worked.
 
As for recruiting, I have said it before and will say it again. Too many Chiefs give what I call the Psych Out speech. They bemoan the lack of members and then go on to list all the reasons people don't join. I strongly believe this has the effect of making anyone who is trying to decide if they want to volunteer and psyching them out to the point where they just don't bother. How about listing all the reasons people do volunteer, instead.
 
One of the department's in Stamford did a nice piece several years ago, a small card with profiles of 3 members. They picked a local business owner, an electrician working for a construction contractor & a corporate VP of a local company. I don't know how successful it was but it showed a diverse group of volunteers.
 
Then all we have to work out is how to stop chasing new members away, which seems to be the biggest problem.
 

My old department had an activity requirement not a time requirement. It seems to have worked well for quite some time, although I am not sure if it is still in place. You got 1 point for each call, drill or meeting. You needed 50 points to stay an active member. The bulk of the department was between 75-100 every year. There were a few heavy hitters with over 200 and a few who struggled to make 50, but all in all it worked.
 
As for recruiting, I have said it before and will say it again. Too many Chiefs give what I call the Psych Out speech. They bemoan the lack of members and then go on to list all the reasons people don't join. I strongly believe this has the effect of making anyone who is trying to decide if they want to volunteer and psyching them out to the point where they just don't bother. How about listing all the reasons people do volunteer, instead.
 
One of the department's in Stamford did a nice piece several years ago, a small card with profiles of 3 members. They picked a local business owner, an electrician working for a construction contractor & a corporate VP of a local company. I don't know how successful it was but it showed a diverse group of volunteers.
 
Then all we have to work out is how to stop chasing new members away, which seems to be the biggest problem.
 

My old department had an activity requirement not a time requirement. It seems to have worked well for quite some time, although I am not sure if it is still in place. You got 1 point for each call, drill or meeting. You needed 50 points to stay an active member. The bulk of the department was between 75-100 every year. There were a few heavy hitters with over 200 and a few who struggled to make 50, but all in all it worked.
 
As for recruiting, I have said it before and will say it again. Too many Chiefs give what I call the Psych Out speech. They bemoan the lack of members and then go on to list all the reasons people don't join. I strongly believe this has the effect of making anyone who is trying to decide if they want to volunteer and psyching them out to the point where they just don't bother. How about listing all the reasons people do volunteer, instead.
 
One of the department's in Stamford did a nice piece several years ago, a small card with profiles of 3 members. They picked a local business owner, an electrician working for a construction contractor & a corporate VP of a local company. I don't know how successful it was but it showed a diverse group of volunteers.
 
Then all we have to work out is how to stop chasing new members away, which seems to be the biggest problem.
 

Another issue is the housing market in areas where they join. They join as younger members still living at home, go off to college and graduate. Now they come home get a job but are unable to afford or find a suitable home in the town or even nearby to make it for calls. 

There is so much going against volunteer fire departments these days that it's insane to think that any VFD could recruit more volunteers.  There's the time commitment, between training, classes, and alarms that it eats at everyone's personal time to have a social life and spend time with our families.  The stress of working a full time job then being a firefighter on the side doesn't help either.  It's not a wonder why a lot of us have high blood pressure.
 
But, some departments get lucky and gain a few firefighters here and there.  Unfortunately, a lot of those recruits wash out.  They don't have the time.  They realize that they can't make the commitment.  Heck, some realize that fire is scary!  I've seen a few people over my career leave because they were either afraid of fire, heights, or were scared away by the stress of the job.
 
Then, there are people out there that say that can't do it.  These are the people that are happy you got a new truck, and want to take a ride on it, but never fill out the application.  There are so many citizens that could be great firefighters, but they already have themselves in the mindset that they can't do it.  OR, they think that the department is paid and they don't want to "switch careers" at this point in their lives.
 
But, there is another evil working against the volunteer firefighter that always seems to be left un-discussed.  The volunteer fire company.  VFC's always have some sort of minimum time commitment that's associated with their memberships.  Generally speaking, probationary firefighters have to put in the largest commitment, and as your career progresses the less of a commitment you have to make.  A lot of companies make the minimum commitment so high at the beginning that there is a large washout rate.  It's almost like some companies don't want to bring in new firefighters because in this day and age it is far too difficult to keep up with the training and time commitments (never mind that too many people require second and third incomes to survive).
 
There is too much working against the volunteer firefighter. Yes, time commitments are important, especially with newer firefighters that need the training and the experience.  Yes, it's a thankless job to bust you butt for free.  Yes, you lose time in your personal life where you have to leave a party or a family function for the big one.  For those of us who stick through it we show that the volunteer firefighter can prevail.  We show that we do mean something.  We just have to find a way to show everybody else that they can do the same and start handing them applications.

Though sad the Chief had to step down. But as said on this site many times. Rules are rules. Nepotism rules have been in place across the country now for many years. They dont only pertain to Fire departments, they effect many civil service jobs. Best of luck to you Chief  

Nepotism rules like this were put in to prevent conflicts of interest. However too many people run frightened from the potential for lawsuits and often end up making choices based on misconceptions. 
 
I don't know the legal structure in Peekskil, but it would seem to me that the issue would be what input the chief has in hiring decisions and then what role he has in supervision and possible discipline with the career staff. 
 
Stamford put a fairly restrictive policy in, largely due to one family, but it was mostly political. The odd thing was nobody seemed to care until a supervisor who was about to hire someone realized that his bosses son was next up on a list he had already hired people from. He asked for an opinion from our ethics board on how to make sure he did his interview and hiring correctly. Sadly he never should have asked, as that brought lots of politicians into the mix and we now have a policy.

 

Very discouraging... This post was just showing the difference in maneuverability, no about manning and plan B and all the other complaints voiced here. I've only been on this forum for less than a year and just about every post ends up going off topic and bashing the fire service for all the problems there are. News Flash - The general public has access to this forum, it's not a password protected spot. When they read it and, more importantly, when the town fathers and managers read this they must think "what a bunch of lunk heads. No need worrying about them at town meeting because they can't agree on anything and don't get along with each other."
 
Open discussion is good when done in a positive way. But the negative comments and the Monday Morning Quarterbacking on this forum is ridiculous.
 
Getting back to the post: It was a very good video which I learned a lot from in 2 1/2 minutes. Yes, there are different types of ladders with advantages and disadvantages to all of them and that's a good and valid discussion.  FireMedic049, thanks for explaining how the tiller becomes more of a tractor-trailer than a straight stick when the rear wheels are locked. Something else I just learned.
 
Anyway, have at it boys, I've got better things to do!

Why is this always a surprise... The PA answers to NO ONE...never has and never will.....

Legacy is the strength of the Fire Service

Once again politics rears it ugly head.
 
The hiring of the chief's son,IMO, should be celebrated, The fire service has a always been a family. Sounds like the chief ruffled a few feathers, so this is the payback.