nycemt728

So I've heard several times today and even seen some articles online that report that Gov. Christie is planning on ordering flags to half for Whitney Houston. There are so many ways to honor someone, but to orders all flags in the state to half?? I'd like to point out that tihs is the same honor that is given to heads of state but more importantly those we have lost in the service to our country...a good voice yes but definitely not worth of the same statewide symbol of honor and respect. Technically, only the President or govenrnor can order flags to half, that should give some indication of that serious, solemn nature the act represents. If these articles are true, shame on Gov. Christie! P.S. for those who may point out that it was perhaps done for other celebs in the past, it was inappropriate then and it's innapropriate now; two wrongs don't make a right.

So I've heard several times today and even seen some articles online that report that Gov. Christie is planning on ordering flags to half for Whitney Houston. There are so many ways to honor someone, but to orders all flags in the state to half?? I'd like to point out that tihs is the same honor that is given to heads of state but more importantly those we have lost in the service to our country...a good voice yes but definitely not worth of the same statewide symbol of honor and respect. Technically, only the President or govenrnor can order flags to half, that should give some indication of that serious, solemn nature the act represents. If these articles are true, shame on Gov. Christie! P.S. for those who may point out that it was perhaps done for other celebs in the past, it was inappropriate then and it's innapropriate now; two wrongs don't make a right.

So, the Apellate Division ruled that there was an implied contract between the municipality/FDNY and Aviation. It would seem to me that implied contract would still apply unless the FDNY Commisioner takes some action to cancel it (not simply say they are improperly trained) or gets the court to supercede the previous decision of the AD case...

May she rest in peace

I agree, the woman was 100% wrong for entering and moving an emergency vehicle, and then downright selfish for being further late for work to complain about the officers and techs. HOWEVER, let's all remember we're all off duty at some point or another. Even though someone's life/emergency should take priority, can we all honestly say that we wouldn't be a little ticked if we couldn't get to work?? My point is this, yes we can and should park where we need to and do what we need to do for the safety of our patients but if we can do it with a little courtesy so as not inconvience the rest of the world, lets do it. I am in NO WAY saying jeapordize patient care, but the emergency services world is not black and white, there is room to play. There is no reason to the abuse the priveledges we have when there is alternative that works for everyone. IE if you can pull over a little and not block the road when you're responding to a residence, do it. If you are blocking someone and you, a boss or colleague can move the truck if someone needs to get out, do it. If you can shut off your truck in the nice weather while your sitting on a residential street or by a home, do it. A little courtesy goes a long way!!

I support the guys supporting charity, as it should be. However, uniform policy is meant to be followed. If the shirts weren't approved it's unfortunate but they perhaps needed to find another way to support the cause. Personally, I think many public servants take the their uniforms too lightly...I am sick of seeing jeans from volly squads on a set tour, backwards yankee caps on the privates and a t-shirt from whatever union or Joe Schmoe Annual Golf tournament on the local engine crews. Last time I checked, in most cases uniforms w/ the exception of the vollys uniforms are provided or paid for and there are rules about wearing them. Regardless the skills the wearer may have, it detracts from public opinion, and degrades us all a little when folks throw non-uniform items into the mix. Bottom line, support whatever worthy cause your heard desires, even on the job..just do it in a way consistant with the rules!

So I caught a new show on the Travel Channel tonight, Off Limits. It shows the host getting access to all sorts of places not generally open to the public. Really awesome concept, I would love to have his job. Anyway, tonight's show was about New York. One segment had the host exploring the Saw Mill River under Yonkers. Yonkeres FD provided technical support as the host and crew waded into the decently fast moving river. At FD's reccomendation, no one tied off to anything before wading in. From the non swift water expert's standpoint, it would have seemed preferable to tie off than not. I'm not questioning the decision. It clearly goes against what appears to be common sense in that sort of situation, so I'm curious as to why that type of decision would be made. At what point does being tied off become a hazard rather than a help, what factors go into that decision...the current? terrain downstreem? purpose of being in the water? Anyone with swiftwater training care to help out?
Here's a link to the show:
Travel Channel's Off Limits

So I caught a new show on the Travel Channel tonight, Off Limits. It shows the host getting access to all sorts of places not generally open to the public. Really awesome concept, I would love to have his job. Anyway, tonight's show was about New York. One segment had the host exploring the Saw Mill River under Yonkers. Yonkeres FD provided technical support as the host and crew waded into the decently fast moving river. At FD's reccomendation, no one tied off to anything before wading in. From the non swift water expert's standpoint, it would have seemed preferable to tie off than not. I'm not questioning the decision. It clearly goes against what appears to be common sense in that sort of situation, so I'm curious as to why that type of decision would be made. At what point does being tied off become a hazard rather than a help, what factors go into that decision...the current? terrain downstreem? purpose of being in the water? Anyone with swiftwater training care to help out?
Here's a link to the show:
Travel Channel's Off Limits

Ok so it didn't fly in space but's damn important. It was the prototype for all the others...and still continued to serve long after she was a museum piece. After the Columbia disaster, a piece of her wing tile was used as a research aide to help discover the problem.
That being said, the Intrepid has a pretty poor record of maintaining things...I hope they step up to the plate. Anyone who doubts that can look at the airplane collection that has only just recently begun to be stabilized and repaired or the huge amounts of graffitti on the interior of the Concorde. I sure hope the government signed a good contract stipulating the care and if necessary a repossesion clause.

I vote for those tire puncture devices on all higway entrances that can be easily mistaken esp w/ impairment ie sawmill, taconic etc. Cheap one time cost, little to no upkeep or staffing. Stop them before they get miles down the highway and cause needless havoc.

I vote for those tire puncture devices on all higway entrances that can be easily mistaken esp w/ impairment ie sawmill, taconic etc. Cheap one time cost, little to no upkeep or staffing. Stop them before they get miles down the highway and cause needless havoc.

I don't get this at all.
"The 911 system cost-sharing initiative would allow the city to recoup the costs associated with 911 system dispatch and telemetry that are currently borne by the city..." Excuse me, isn't 911 an essential service which the city HAS to provide? The notion of trying to 'recoup' those costs strikes me as... peculiar.


So what's next? Change 911 from toll-free to premium rate? That would raise money.


They're charging ambulances for using the system? Shouldn't they be *paying* for ambulances if the city needs them? If most of the tours are run by FDNY, most of the fee will be paid by FDNY, in other words the taxpayers?


As I said at the beginning, I don't get this at all!

Having been involved in a department which was comprised of Public Safety officers, as well as volunteer members there
were pro's and con's to the operation. All career personnel were trained and certified as required under the state for both LE & Firefighter and in several cases officers also were certified as EMT or Paramedic as we also in the at that time as first responder, in conjunction with contracted EMS provider. The PSO's were compensated above their base pay for being cross trained, as well as for enhanced state certifications in both LE or Fire and in their EMT/EMT-P certifications. SOP's were vital in our operations, i.e. PPE for all incidents (patrol officers carried all their PPE in trunk). In addition what we implemented to ensure consistency and to foster better operations was a testing program for volunteer personnel and officers equal to that of the career staff (physical agility, officer testing and candidate review board comprised of career and volunteer staff). The PSO concept was put in place in this community, due to limited budget and tax base at the time and remained in place for 18 years. The biggest concerns that were raised by the PSO's was their ability to maintain proficiency in multiple disciplines. Although all ongoing annual training requirements were met in both LE & Fire. Many of the officers had a preference of which area they liked and when the city's tax base and revenue grew to a point that the city council working with the Public Safety Director and rank and file, made a decision to split the dept back to separate PD & FD. All pay scales were maintained, PSO's were happy and they got to choose which dept they remained in. Additional benefit with the split was that budget wise with both capital and expense in that they could now identify needs for their particular disciplines and not be fighting internally under one budget.
The PSO concept I believe has its place within communities with limited tax revenue, but requires a person or persons at the top who are familiar and trained in both LE & FD in order to make it work, as wll as implementing strong SOP's and ensuring they are complied with.
Just my 2 cents

With all due respect to those "grieving", how are you making the connection between that incident and this thread? And, a little bit disingenuously I might add, as you posted several posts before invoking this.
And on an entirely different note, is it really that arduous to envision a "public safety concept" with cross-trained members. I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but I don't really think firefighting or law enforcement are of such an academic or unique nature that with motivated and determined employees, both positions could not be mastered. To assume otherwise really discredits members of both professions, in my personal opinion.

Captain, we all grieve for the loss of the brothers fallen in CT, VA and elsewhere but we can not forget that life goes on. We must constantly learn from the events, tragedy and lessons of actions both past and present. We can not stop learning just because it hurts too much, or it is too soon.
I choose not to "chill on this thread" because we too must learn from this video as if it were a NIOSH report. We must take the lessons learned and apply them to actions both present and future.
The individuals in the video this thread is based on risked their safety to extinguish what, a tractor-trailer truck cab with limited life-safety except those individuals who choose to unnecessarily risk their own safety. That sir contains a lesson if you ask me. That lesson is risk a little to save a little, risk a lot to save a lot. Those pictured in this video risked a lot to save something that was going to the dump the second that fire started.
I am sorry if this offended you, but we can not let the lessons of this video escape us.

Wow, I love how everyone dismisses a younger member's claims. Like not one of the veteran guys have seen an organization acting like a current members only club? Come on. Personally, I have witnessed and or heard of this happening often and regardless of the original poster's issues, it needs to stop. In a time where work weeks are increasing in hours and jobs are harder to find, volunteers are harder and harder to come by. Every organization that even thinks of asking for someone to sacrifice their time should be doing everything they can to allow volunteers to give their time, not throw up antiquated and prideful barriers. I understand response times, but if a member can get there in a good time, who cares wheres he's coming from?? If my organization relied on members who lived in there area, guess what we would have three members, all the rest come from outside the area, and some from signifigant distances. If companies are worried about response times, make members coming from a longer distance stand full tours in house so their response time won't be an issue, and as a matter of fact the response time of the company would be better b/c there's memebers at the house. Everyone always complains about volunteers killing xyz service...how about current administrations????

Lets cut the bull...big deal, anyone can (and did) call 911. It doesnt take a CFR, EMD, EMT, medic or doctor to tell someone to call 911. I guess you don't eat out much at all, b/c most food service locations at some point have some sort of gloves for prep. Most also have saran wrap...hello makeshift faceshield. Or ever see all those signs that sy CPR kit located behind counter? That's required by law. Perhaps you were unaware of the studies about compression only CPR being very effective? I'm sorry, I refuse to give the benefit of the doubt to two people who disgrace the uniform they were wearing and give the rest of us a bad name. Even if they were negligent and didnt perform any assesments or interventions, they still could have stayed by the patients side. At least then they would have been good human beings and New Yorkers. There are too many things that could have been done in this situation to even remotely defend these guys.
Further, I agree with the others here, they were on duty for the agecny having juristidtiction...so long as FDNY says they have to (and i highly believe they do) they had a duty to act according to NYS; there is no legal defense.