RES24CUE

The problem that presents itself is a paradox. Not enough fires per square mile to justify full-time, paid fire departments (and the costs of benefits, retirement, etc.)...but not so few fires that we can just count our losses and ignore the problem entirely. Your typical volunteer crew of 5 guys (or gals), 2 or 3 who have a bit of experience and a level head on their shoulders can typically handle your run-of-the-mill calls for food on the stove, a residential lock-out, or a car into the ditch. But when there is a fire every 2-3 years and that crew of 3 or 5 guys simply will not suffice. They do the best that they can and either one guy makes a good call and puts the line in the right place to make a stop...or, they chase the fire from window to window around the house until it eventually goes out (we have all seen it). Either way, the fires happen so infrequently that the public doesn't even realize that there is a problem. There were 5 fires in my town (with 3 independent departments) in 2013-2014 and all 5 of the buildings (one of which was one of the firehouse) were heavily damaged if not completely destroyed by fire.
I think there is a serious problem with the volunteer fire service (at least in my area). The chiefs, officers, and members of the fire departments are hiding their manpower shortages in an effort to protect their department's longstanding tradition. They are afraid that, if the public knows how bad things really are, then they will be uprooted from their firehouses and replaced with paid firemen. The chief will lose his spot as chief (along with his power and his car), the men will lose their "clubhouse," and the longstanding tradition of the department that they enjoy so much will be a thing of the past. They will have, in their eyes, failed as a department...
I read a lot of articles about manpower shortages or interviews with chiefs where they consistently say things like "we can always use more volunteers and manpower is low at present but we continue to respond to every alarm." To me, this means that the chief goes to every alarm and one or two guys to the firehouse during the day to get a utility or mini-attack out the door. I know of many fire departments around that "respond to every alarm" where the chiefs all sign on, then go to the firehouse, get a rig, sign that rig on as well, and they have 5 units on the road but only have 3 people (Shhhh...it's a secret!). Again, the chief is cloaking the manpower problem by saying that they never miss a response. And, to the county it looks like they have stellar responses when in fact they don't.
Another way that departments hide their manpower shortages is by saying that they have "50 members on the roster" when, in reality, only 3-5 are very active. If you look at the websites of some of these departments under the "members" section they have tremendous lists of firefighters; but half of these people haven't been seen in more than 5 years. On the department's website for my town (of which I was previously a member) there are a few people listed as members who are dead (NOT EVEN KIDDING!). So when the town supervisor or a concerned citizen looks at the website and see all those names they think everything is great, when, in reality, it is just a facade.
Lastly, I always hear chiefs in the paper saying "we averaged 15 people per alarm last year (month, week, etc.)". How many of those people are qualified interior firefighters? I know that when I was a member, the Chief would tell the fire district every month that the department "averaged 12 members per call the previous month." 4 of the 12 were fire police in their '80s who came to every call; 3-4 of the 12 were junior members; and the rest were the chiefs and a few stragglers per call. Again, this "average" number is an illusion to hide the fact that departments these days just don't cut it.
I think fire chiefs and fire departments are coming up with inventive ways to hide manpower shortages because the solution to the problem is not desirable to them. They are stalling because they think things will get better on their own (I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say "manpower comes in waves") where, in reality, you might get a good year or two with the addition of a few good members but the fact of the matter is that manpower has been on a steady decline for years. The real solution to the problem is going to eventually be the addition of a few paid chauffeurs to get the trucks out during the day, then eventually going to full-time staffing during the day. Then the volunteers can take over at night when there are more guys around who come home from work. But, the longer the volunteer leadership can hold off the better because they get to hold on to their little men's club and the pride of 100 years of service by their organization. They don't want the intrusion of paid firefighters in their space, they don't want paid vs. volunteer battles, they don't want union issues, and they don't want to be thrown out. Firefighting is fun and those of us who love it really enjoy doing what we do. If they bring in career firefighters, the volunteers won't get to do what they love to do anymore, be firemen. So they have to hide it to hold on to their job. Hopefully, no one will have to lose their life to evince change like we see everywhere else on this job!

The problem that presents itself is a paradox. Not enough fires per square mile to justify full-time, paid fire departments (and the costs of benefits, retirement, etc.)...but not so few fires that we can just count our losses and ignore the problem entirely. Your typical volunteer crew of 5 guys (or gals), 2 or 3 who have a bit of experience and a level head on their shoulders can typically handle your run-of-the-mill calls for food on the stove, a residential lock-out, or a car into the ditch. But when there is a fire every 2-3 years and that crew of 3 or 5 guys simply will not suffice. They do the best that they can and either one guy makes a good call and puts the line in the right place to make a stop...or, they chase the fire from window to window around the house until it eventually goes out (we have all seen it). Either way, the fires happen so infrequently that the public doesn't even realize that there is a problem. There were 5 fires in my town (with 3 independent departments) in 2013-2014 and all 5 of the buildings (one of which was one of the firehouse) were heavily damaged if not completely destroyed by fire.
I think there is a serious problem with the volunteer fire service (at least in my area). The chiefs, officers, and members of the fire departments are hiding their manpower shortages in an effort to protect their department's longstanding tradition. They are afraid that, if the public knows how bad things really are, then they will be uprooted from their firehouses and replaced with paid firemen. The chief will lose his spot as chief (along with his power and his car), the men will lose their "clubhouse," and the longstanding tradition of the department that they enjoy so much will be a thing of the past. They will have, in their eyes, failed as a department...
I read a lot of articles about manpower shortages or interviews with chiefs where they consistently say things like "we can always use more volunteers and manpower is low at present but we continue to respond to every alarm." To me, this means that the chief goes to every alarm and one or two guys to the firehouse during the day to get a utility or mini-attack out the door. I know of many fire departments around that "respond to every alarm" where the chiefs all sign on, then go to the firehouse, get a rig, sign that rig on as well, and they have 5 units on the road but only have 3 people (Shhhh...it's a secret!). Again, the chief is cloaking the manpower problem by saying that they never miss a response. And, to the county it looks like they have stellar responses when in fact they don't.
Another way that departments hide their manpower shortages is by saying that they have "50 members on the roster" when, in reality, only 3-5 are very active. If you look at the websites of some of these departments under the "members" section they have tremendous lists of firefighters; but half of these people haven't been seen in more than 5 years. On the department's website for my town (of which I was previously a member) there are a few people listed as members who are dead (NOT EVEN KIDDING!). So when the town supervisor or a concerned citizen looks at the website and see all those names they think everything is great, when, in reality, it is just a facade.
Lastly, I always hear chiefs in the paper saying "we averaged 15 people per alarm last year (month, week, etc.)". How many of those people are qualified interior firefighters? I know that when I was a member, the Chief would tell the fire district every month that the department "averaged 12 members per call the previous month." 4 of the 12 were fire police in their '80s who came to every call; 3-4 of the 12 were junior members; and the rest were the chiefs and a few stragglers per call. Again, this "average" number is an illusion to hide the fact that departments these days just don't cut it.
I think fire chiefs and fire departments are coming up with inventive ways to hide manpower shortages because the solution to the problem is not desirable to them. They are stalling because they think things will get better on their own (I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say "manpower comes in waves") where, in reality, you might get a good year or two with the addition of a few good members but the fact of the matter is that manpower has been on a steady decline for years. The real solution to the problem is going to eventually be the addition of a few paid chauffeurs to get the trucks out during the day, then eventually going to full-time staffing during the day. Then the volunteers can take over at night when there are more guys around who come home from work. But, the longer the volunteer leadership can hold off the better because they get to hold on to their little men's club and the pride of 100 years of service by their organization. They don't want the intrusion of paid firefighters in their space, they don't want paid vs. volunteer battles, they don't want union issues, and they don't want to be thrown out. Firefighting is fun and those of us who love it really enjoy doing what we do. If they bring in career firefighters, the volunteers won't get to do what they love to do anymore, be firemen. So they have to hide it to hold on to their job. Hopefully, no one will have to lose their life to evince change like we see everywhere else on this job!

The problem that presents itself is a paradox. Not enough fires per square mile to justify full-time, paid fire departments (and the costs of benefits, retirement, etc.)...but not so few fires that we can just count our losses and ignore the problem entirely. Your typical volunteer crew of 5 guys (or gals), 2 or 3 who have a bit of experience and a level head on their shoulders can typically handle your run-of-the-mill calls for food on the stove, a residential lock-out, or a car into the ditch. But when there is a fire every 2-3 years and that crew of 3 or 5 guys simply will not suffice. They do the best that they can and either one guy makes a good call and puts the line in the right place to make a stop...or, they chase the fire from window to window around the house until it eventually goes out (we have all seen it). Either way, the fires happen so infrequently that the public doesn't even realize that there is a problem. There were 5 fires in my town (with 3 independent departments) in 2013-2014 and all 5 of the buildings (one of which was one of the firehouse) were heavily damaged if not completely destroyed by fire.
I think there is a serious problem with the volunteer fire service (at least in my area). The chiefs, officers, and members of the fire departments are hiding their manpower shortages in an effort to protect their department's longstanding tradition. They are afraid that, if the public knows how bad things really are, then they will be uprooted from their firehouses and replaced with paid firemen. The chief will lose his spot as chief (along with his power and his car), the men will lose their "clubhouse," and the longstanding tradition of the department that they enjoy so much will be a thing of the past. They will have, in their eyes, failed as a department...
I read a lot of articles about manpower shortages or interviews with chiefs where they consistently say things like "we can always use more volunteers and manpower is low at present but we continue to respond to every alarm." To me, this means that the chief goes to every alarm and one or two guys to the firehouse during the day to get a utility or mini-attack out the door. I know of many fire departments around that "respond to every alarm" where the chiefs all sign on, then go to the firehouse, get a rig, sign that rig on as well, and they have 5 units on the road but only have 3 people (Shhhh...it's a secret!). Again, the chief is cloaking the manpower problem by saying that they never miss a response. And, to the county it looks like they have stellar responses when in fact they don't.
Another way that departments hide their manpower shortages is by saying that they have "50 members on the roster" when, in reality, only 3-5 are very active. If you look at the websites of some of these departments under the "members" section they have tremendous lists of firefighters; but half of these people haven't been seen in more than 5 years. On the department's website for my town (of which I was previously a member) there are a few people listed as members who are dead (NOT EVEN KIDDING!). So when the town supervisor or a concerned citizen looks at the website and see all those names they think everything is great, when, in reality, it is just a facade.
Lastly, I always hear chiefs in the paper saying "we averaged 15 people per alarm last year (month, week, etc.)". How many of those people are qualified interior firefighters? I know that when I was a member, the Chief would tell the fire district every month that the department "averaged 12 members per call the previous month." 4 of the 12 were fire police in their '80s who came to every call; 3-4 of the 12 were junior members; and the rest were the chiefs and a few stragglers per call. Again, this "average" number is an illusion to hide the fact that departments these days just don't cut it.
I think fire chiefs and fire departments are coming up with inventive ways to hide manpower shortages because the solution to the problem is not desirable to them. They are stalling because they think things will get better on their own (I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say "manpower comes in waves") where, in reality, you might get a good year or two with the addition of a few good members but the fact of the matter is that manpower has been on a steady decline for years. The real solution to the problem is going to eventually be the addition of a few paid chauffeurs to get the trucks out during the day, then eventually going to full-time staffing during the day. Then the volunteers can take over at night when there are more guys around who come home from work. But, the longer the volunteer leadership can hold off the better because they get to hold on to their little men's club and the pride of 100 years of service by their organization. They don't want the intrusion of paid firefighters in their space, they don't want paid vs. volunteer battles, they don't want union issues, and they don't want to be thrown out. Firefighting is fun and those of us who love it really enjoy doing what we do. If they bring in career firefighters, the volunteers won't get to do what they love to do anymore, be firemen. So they have to hide it to hold on to their job. Hopefully, no one will have to lose their life to evince change like we see everywhere else on this job!

I used to check this site more when the incident threads were up to date. There was a time when it seemed like at three in the afternoon or three in the morning emtbravo had good, detailed posts about every fire or pin job (anything significant where mutual aid was called). I work in an office where I can't monitor the pager all day so it was really great to know what was going on in the county. No one ever posts these anymore so I don't bother checking this as my resource. Now I check lohud or my local paper instead.
For me, the threads always turned into one of the following...
1. Career vs. Volunteer arguments
2. Everyone patting each other on the back for no reason
Boooorrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg!
Plus, I kept getting put on moderator watch where my posts had to be approved before they went into the threads for having unpopular opinions. For a past volunteer who is now getting back into it again I have very anti-emergency services views because I think that the volunteer fire system here in Westchester is seriously broken and am in favor of consolidation. That said, just because my opinions are negative and unpopular does not mean that they are wrong. When I sent a note to Seth asking why I was being censored he did not even bother to respond. So i seldom waste my time anymore.

I used to check this site more when the incident threads were up to date. There was a time when it seemed like at three in the afternoon or three in the morning emtbravo had good, detailed posts about every fire or pin job (anything significant where mutual aid was called). I work in an office where I can't monitor the pager all day so it was really great to know what was going on in the county. No one ever posts these anymore so I don't bother checking this as my resource. Now I check lohud or my local paper instead.
For me, the threads always turned into one of the following...
1. Career vs. Volunteer arguments
2. Everyone patting each other on the back for no reason
Boooorrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg!
Plus, I kept getting put on moderator watch where my posts had to be approved before they went into the threads for having unpopular opinions. For a past volunteer who is now getting back into it again I have very anti-emergency services views because I think that the volunteer fire system here in Westchester is seriously broken and am in favor of consolidation. That said, just because my opinions are negative and unpopular does not mean that they are wrong. When I sent a note to Seth asking why I was being censored he did not even bother to respond. So i seldom waste my time anymore.

I used to check this site more when the incident threads were up to date. There was a time when it seemed like at three in the afternoon or three in the morning emtbravo had good, detailed posts about every fire or pin job (anything significant where mutual aid was called). I work in an office where I can't monitor the pager all day so it was really great to know what was going on in the county. No one ever posts these anymore so I don't bother checking this as my resource. Now I check lohud or my local paper instead.
For me, the threads always turned into one of the following...
1. Career vs. Volunteer arguments
2. Everyone patting each other on the back for no reason
Boooorrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg!
Plus, I kept getting put on moderator watch where my posts had to be approved before they went into the threads for having unpopular opinions. For a past volunteer who is now getting back into it again I have very anti-emergency services views because I think that the volunteer fire system here in Westchester is seriously broken and am in favor of consolidation. That said, just because my opinions are negative and unpopular does not mean that they are wrong. When I sent a note to Seth asking why I was being censored he did not even bother to respond. So i seldom waste my time anymore.

I used to check this site more when the incident threads were up to date. There was a time when it seemed like at three in the afternoon or three in the morning emtbravo had good, detailed posts about every fire or pin job (anything significant where mutual aid was called). I work in an office where I can't monitor the pager all day so it was really great to know what was going on in the county. No one ever posts these anymore so I don't bother checking this as my resource. Now I check lohud or my local paper instead.
For me, the threads always turned into one of the following...
1. Career vs. Volunteer arguments
2. Everyone patting each other on the back for no reason
Boooorrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg!
Plus, I kept getting put on moderator watch where my posts had to be approved before they went into the threads for having unpopular opinions. For a past volunteer who is now getting back into it again I have very anti-emergency services views because I think that the volunteer fire system here in Westchester is seriously broken and am in favor of consolidation. That said, just because my opinions are negative and unpopular does not mean that they are wrong. When I sent a note to Seth asking why I was being censored he did not even bother to respond. So i seldom waste my time anymore.

I used to check this site more when the incident threads were up to date. There was a time when it seemed like at three in the afternoon or three in the morning emtbravo had good, detailed posts about every fire or pin job (anything significant where mutual aid was called). I work in an office where I can't monitor the pager all day so it was really great to know what was going on in the county. No one ever posts these anymore so I don't bother checking this as my resource. Now I check lohud or my local paper instead.
For me, the threads always turned into one of the following...
1. Career vs. Volunteer arguments
2. Everyone patting each other on the back for no reason
Boooorrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg!
Plus, I kept getting put on moderator watch where my posts had to be approved before they went into the threads for having unpopular opinions. For a past volunteer who is now getting back into it again I have very anti-emergency services views because I think that the volunteer fire system here in Westchester is seriously broken and am in favor of consolidation. That said, just because my opinions are negative and unpopular does not mean that they are wrong. When I sent a note to Seth asking why I was being censored he did not even bother to respond. So i seldom waste my time anymore.

I used to check this site more when the incident threads were up to date. There was a time when it seemed like at three in the afternoon or three in the morning emtbravo had good, detailed posts about every fire or pin job (anything significant where mutual aid was called). I work in an office where I can't monitor the pager all day so it was really great to know what was going on in the county. No one ever posts these anymore so I don't bother checking this as my resource. Now I check lohud or my local paper instead.
For me, the threads always turned into one of the following...
1. Career vs. Volunteer arguments
2. Everyone patting each other on the back for no reason
Boooorrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg!
Plus, I kept getting put on moderator watch where my posts had to be approved before they went into the threads for having unpopular opinions. For a past volunteer who is now getting back into it again I have very anti-emergency services views because I think that the volunteer fire system here in Westchester is seriously broken and am in favor of consolidation. That said, just because my opinions are negative and unpopular does not mean that they are wrong. When I sent a note to Seth asking why I was being censored he did not even bother to respond. So i seldom waste my time anymore.

I used to check this site more when the incident threads were up to date. There was a time when it seemed like at three in the afternoon or three in the morning emtbravo had good, detailed posts about every fire or pin job (anything significant where mutual aid was called). I work in an office where I can't monitor the pager all day so it was really great to know what was going on in the county. No one ever posts these anymore so I don't bother checking this as my resource. Now I check lohud or my local paper instead.
For me, the threads always turned into one of the following...
1. Career vs. Volunteer arguments
2. Everyone patting each other on the back for no reason
Boooorrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg!
Plus, I kept getting put on moderator watch where my posts had to be approved before they went into the threads for having unpopular opinions. For a past volunteer who is now getting back into it again I have very anti-emergency services views because I think that the volunteer fire system here in Westchester is seriously broken and am in favor of consolidation. That said, just because my opinions are negative and unpopular does not mean that they are wrong. When I sent a note to Seth asking why I was being censored he did not even bother to respond. So i seldom waste my time anymore.

I am generally unopposed to Monday Morning Quarterbacking. However, on this one I am hesitant. I do not know the whole story here, the assignment for that piece of apparatus, what the engine driver was trying to accomplish, or most importantly, where that rig went after the video ended. I hate the bullish mentality that many firefighters develop these days..."we are the fire department and we can do whatever we want." It is my belief that there a lot of overzealous idiots in this business who think its "cool" to force a door for an automatic alarm, break every window in the house for an incipient burn in a rubbish can, or push someone's car out of the way because they want their engine 10 feet closer to the fire. That said, I have 2 opinions on the mater:
The first opinion is that the engine doesn't belong in front of that fire to begin with! The only thing that would be achieved in this instance would be that the engine would block needed access for a ladder truck that should occupy the flanking position on the corner of that building. After all, we can always add more lengths of hose, but we can't add another fly to the ladder. That engine should be parked out of the way somewhere down the street and the amount of hose needed should be pulled to the fire building.
The second opinion that I have here is that I do not know the specific assignment of that engine and therefore cannot say that pushing those cop cars out of the way wasn't justified. If there were guys screaming for water and that engine was assigned to hit the plug, then maybe it was urgent that they squeeze by to get water to the attack engine. If there were people hanging out of windows and the ladder truck was behind them, maybe they needed to get out of its way. I don't know??? But I don't think that waiting 30 seconds for the cop to move his car would have made much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
My strongest opinion on the matter is that there are plenty of young and impressionable firefighters who read this blog who should take the actions demonstrated in this video with a grain of salt. There are many potential negative outcomes of performing a risky maneuver like the one in this video:
1. The two cars being pushed could have turned sideways and completely blocked the engine's access to the fire.
2. The car being pushed could have struck the engine's tire, flattening it, and leaving the engine unable to reach its destination.
3. The cars could have jumped the curb and taken out an unseen hydrant compromising the water source needed for the fire.
4. The actions of the driver could cause "bad blood" between the fire department and police department resulting in endless headaches during future operations.
As the previous post stated, "sometimes we have to do a little damage to get the job done." BUT DON'T GO LOOKING FOR IT! This should be viewed as an unfortunate event that should be avoided at all costs and not a great opportunity. There are far too many people (morons) in this industry who will think that this video "awesome." So I don't think that we should be cheerleaders here to feed those with an overly aggressive mentality.

I am generally unopposed to Monday Morning Quarterbacking. However, on this one I am hesitant. I do not know the whole story here, the assignment for that piece of apparatus, what the engine driver was trying to accomplish, or most importantly, where that rig went after the video ended. I hate the bullish mentality that many firefighters develop these days..."we are the fire department and we can do whatever we want." It is my belief that there a lot of overzealous idiots in this business who think its "cool" to force a door for an automatic alarm, break every window in the house for an incipient burn in a rubbish can, or push someone's car out of the way because they want their engine 10 feet closer to the fire. That said, I have 2 opinions on the mater:
The first opinion is that the engine doesn't belong in front of that fire to begin with! The only thing that would be achieved in this instance would be that the engine would block needed access for a ladder truck that should occupy the flanking position on the corner of that building. After all, we can always add more lengths of hose, but we can't add another fly to the ladder. That engine should be parked out of the way somewhere down the street and the amount of hose needed should be pulled to the fire building.
The second opinion that I have here is that I do not know the specific assignment of that engine and therefore cannot say that pushing those cop cars out of the way wasn't justified. If there were guys screaming for water and that engine was assigned to hit the plug, then maybe it was urgent that they squeeze by to get water to the attack engine. If there were people hanging out of windows and the ladder truck was behind them, maybe they needed to get out of its way. I don't know??? But I don't think that waiting 30 seconds for the cop to move his car would have made much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
My strongest opinion on the matter is that there are plenty of young and impressionable firefighters who read this blog who should take the actions demonstrated in this video with a grain of salt. There are many potential negative outcomes of performing a risky maneuver like the one in this video:
1. The two cars being pushed could have turned sideways and completely blocked the engine's access to the fire.
2. The car being pushed could have struck the engine's tire, flattening it, and leaving the engine unable to reach its destination.
3. The cars could have jumped the curb and taken out an unseen hydrant compromising the water source needed for the fire.
4. The actions of the driver could cause "bad blood" between the fire department and police department resulting in endless headaches during future operations.
As the previous post stated, "sometimes we have to do a little damage to get the job done." BUT DON'T GO LOOKING FOR IT! This should be viewed as an unfortunate event that should be avoided at all costs and not a great opportunity. There are far too many people (morons) in this industry who will think that this video "awesome." So I don't think that we should be cheerleaders here to feed those with an overly aggressive mentality.

I am generally unopposed to Monday Morning Quarterbacking. However, on this one I am hesitant. I do not know the whole story here, the assignment for that piece of apparatus, what the engine driver was trying to accomplish, or most importantly, where that rig went after the video ended. I hate the bullish mentality that many firefighters develop these days..."we are the fire department and we can do whatever we want." It is my belief that there a lot of overzealous idiots in this business who think its "cool" to force a door for an automatic alarm, break every window in the house for an incipient burn in a rubbish can, or push someone's car out of the way because they want their engine 10 feet closer to the fire. That said, I have 2 opinions on the mater:
The first opinion is that the engine doesn't belong in front of that fire to begin with! The only thing that would be achieved in this instance would be that the engine would block needed access for a ladder truck that should occupy the flanking position on the corner of that building. After all, we can always add more lengths of hose, but we can't add another fly to the ladder. That engine should be parked out of the way somewhere down the street and the amount of hose needed should be pulled to the fire building.
The second opinion that I have here is that I do not know the specific assignment of that engine and therefore cannot say that pushing those cop cars out of the way wasn't justified. If there were guys screaming for water and that engine was assigned to hit the plug, then maybe it was urgent that they squeeze by to get water to the attack engine. If there were people hanging out of windows and the ladder truck was behind them, maybe they needed to get out of its way. I don't know??? But I don't think that waiting 30 seconds for the cop to move his car would have made much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
My strongest opinion on the matter is that there are plenty of young and impressionable firefighters who read this blog who should take the actions demonstrated in this video with a grain of salt. There are many potential negative outcomes of performing a risky maneuver like the one in this video:
1. The two cars being pushed could have turned sideways and completely blocked the engine's access to the fire.
2. The car being pushed could have struck the engine's tire, flattening it, and leaving the engine unable to reach its destination.
3. The cars could have jumped the curb and taken out an unseen hydrant compromising the water source needed for the fire.
4. The actions of the driver could cause "bad blood" between the fire department and police department resulting in endless headaches during future operations.
As the previous post stated, "sometimes we have to do a little damage to get the job done." BUT DON'T GO LOOKING FOR IT! This should be viewed as an unfortunate event that should be avoided at all costs and not a great opportunity. There are far too many people (morons) in this industry who will think that this video "awesome." So I don't think that we should be cheerleaders here to feed those with an overly aggressive mentality.

I fully agree with you, RES24CUE, I should clarify from my original statement that I don't condone this type of behavior. However, given certain, and unfortunate, circumstances you have to find a way to get the job done (i.e. breaking the windows of the car blocking the hydrant to get the 5" connected). I'll bring it to your point of "DON'T GO LOOKING FOR IT!" There's a time and place where you would have to cause the undue damage, but, in my opinion, has to be a last possible option or you really need to save those 30 seconds to keep that rescue from becoming a recovery.
And, yes, videos like this do leave an unjust impression on the youth in the fire service. It's so easy to get lost in the moment and make a snap decision that can later become a mistake. Unfortunately for us, we're being watched all the time by the public, and almost always being recorded on a cell phone camera. That's when our little mistakes become huge issues for the department. It's best that we take these videos and put them to good use in the classroom. This video in particular is great for a driver training class, and can really drum up a good discussion around the table.

I am generally unopposed to Monday Morning Quarterbacking. However, on this one I am hesitant. I do not know the whole story here, the assignment for that piece of apparatus, what the engine driver was trying to accomplish, or most importantly, where that rig went after the video ended. I hate the bullish mentality that many firefighters develop these days..."we are the fire department and we can do whatever we want." It is my belief that there a lot of overzealous idiots in this business who think its "cool" to force a door for an automatic alarm, break every window in the house for an incipient burn in a rubbish can, or push someone's car out of the way because they want their engine 10 feet closer to the fire. That said, I have 2 opinions on the mater:
The first opinion is that the engine doesn't belong in front of that fire to begin with! The only thing that would be achieved in this instance would be that the engine would block needed access for a ladder truck that should occupy the flanking position on the corner of that building. After all, we can always add more lengths of hose, but we can't add another fly to the ladder. That engine should be parked out of the way somewhere down the street and the amount of hose needed should be pulled to the fire building.
The second opinion that I have here is that I do not know the specific assignment of that engine and therefore cannot say that pushing those cop cars out of the way wasn't justified. If there were guys screaming for water and that engine was assigned to hit the plug, then maybe it was urgent that they squeeze by to get water to the attack engine. If there were people hanging out of windows and the ladder truck was behind them, maybe they needed to get out of its way. I don't know??? But I don't think that waiting 30 seconds for the cop to move his car would have made much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
My strongest opinion on the matter is that there are plenty of young and impressionable firefighters who read this blog who should take the actions demonstrated in this video with a grain of salt. There are many potential negative outcomes of performing a risky maneuver like the one in this video:
1. The two cars being pushed could have turned sideways and completely blocked the engine's access to the fire.
2. The car being pushed could have struck the engine's tire, flattening it, and leaving the engine unable to reach its destination.
3. The cars could have jumped the curb and taken out an unseen hydrant compromising the water source needed for the fire.
4. The actions of the driver could cause "bad blood" between the fire department and police department resulting in endless headaches during future operations.
As the previous post stated, "sometimes we have to do a little damage to get the job done." BUT DON'T GO LOOKING FOR IT! This should be viewed as an unfortunate event that should be avoided at all costs and not a great opportunity. There are far too many people (morons) in this industry who will think that this video "awesome." So I don't think that we should be cheerleaders here to feed those with an overly aggressive mentality.

Maybe you wear your SCBA on the front now! Like a reverse backpack...

Maybe you wear your SCBA on the front now! Like a reverse backpack...

I know that for me personally, the LOSAP program had no bearing on my willingness to volunteer. I joined when I was 16...I doubt many 16 year old kids are thinking about their retirement (I know for sure that I wasn't). The department that I was in gave $20/year up to 40 years of service for a Max-Out of $800/month. This isn't going to break the bank that's for sure. When I quit the department at 26, the last thing that I was thinking about was my retirement fund. It didn't even cross my mind.
There is one thing that it does accomplish. It results in a bunch of 45-60 year old guys who come to the firehouse after the rigs have left on the run to sign the call sheet so that they get credit. This anomaly is generally intensified between Thanksgiving and Christmas when a number of the fork and knifers come down to look at the points posted on the wall and realize that they are 5 to 10 calls short of getting credit for the year. Then they step-up their loitering for the home stretch.
The guys who are in it because they like to get a little bit of heat are the first ones there and are on the rig in the sleet, snow, and rain regardless of the pension program!

The problem is it is generally enforced retroactively - after something bad happens. You can get away with it until someone gets hurt, or worse, and then they will be under the microscope.
At issue isn't the interpretation but rather the underlying purpose of the regulation, which as I recall was to insure someone was there to rescue the crew if something happens in an IDLH environment. Saying that two exterior FF is enough for the two out is a trap. If something happens to the crew in the IDLH, the exterior crew either has to rescue them in violation of the regulation or not rescue them and leave them to their fate.
I believe there are OSHA interpretations (really the only ones that count) that say the IC or pump operator can count toward the two out (if they're qualified) but think about that practically. A mayday is transmitted and the IC abandons command to become part of the rescue crew. Who will know what's going on or where the mayday is coming from? Who will know how many people are operating and where? There are so many problems with that strategy it isn't funny. Likewise the pump operator. He abandons his post and goes to rescue the crew only to find that more water is needed or another line needs to be charged by another crew. Bad plan!
The underlying problem is no standard for FF (outside of the career service) - at least in NYS - and no compliance with NFPA 1710 or 1720 to make sure enough qualified FF are on the scene.

I am with you BNechis. I have seen a number of incentives given in exchange for activity, yet, it is my belief that none of them actually make more people come to each call / event. I have seen departments give out Meals, Perks, Gas Cards, LOSAP (Length of Service Applied Pensions) and, while all of these are great reinforcements for people who come to calls, it does not effectually make them want to be more active. It just rewards members (those who are more active) for being as active as they want to be.
When I was a member in an Eastern Connecticut department, the town paid EMTs $50 per call to take in EMS runs on the ambulance. They would not pay all 8 EMTs that showed up but paid 1 Driver/EMT and one Patient Care EMT (unless the call was serious - then they would pay an extra EMT in the back i.e. CPR in progress). This effectively incentivized people to get their EMT training to make some extra money and to show up for the calls that no one wanted to go on. It even went a step further since "the juice was finally worth the squeeze to go on all of the crummy calls (I think I'm not the only firefighter who dreads the fact that the EMS job fell into our laps in a lot of places), people would come around the firehouse to hang out more hoping to be there when the call went out so that they could beat out the other guys to earn an extra $50...therefore, they would be there to take in all of the other calls. It also created a good amount of friendly competition that was fun for the guys. I can remember making $1500 in some months just to hang around the firehouse on the weekends and evenings a few days a week. The town would re-coup this money easily by billing the insurance companies of those who were transported to pay the volunteers.
Another thing that I found to be effective were departments that had bunk rooms. In this day and age where the economy is crap and young adults are being forced to work more hours for less cash and can't afford to buy / rent houses in their home communities, they move away after high school or college leaving the departments that they have been with for 8 or 10 years. Departments that allowed members to "bunk," effectively kept members that were trying to get out of their parents' houses and gave them a free place to live where they could still give back to their community. There major rules:
1. You must have taken your firefighter 1 class.
2. If you are at the firehouse when a call went out, you must go on the call!
3. If you do something stupid, you can't live there anymore!
This resulted in 3-6 free 20-30 year old live-in firefighters at the firehouse most of the time (definitely nights and weekends). You essentially had a full crew ready to roll. And, with 5 or 6 bunk people, there are seldom less than 2 guys there to take in a call at any given time.
Lastly, you need to encourage training so that people don't just want to do the bare minimum. Training bonuses! Take Firefigher II, get a $300 bonus!
The three aforementioned ideas utilized in conjunction resulted in the creation of a "quasi-paid" firehouse for very little cost. For the cost of a couple of sets of bunk beds and a few lockers, you got a full crew on staff at the firehouse who were happy to have a free place to stay and a pocket full of cash from training & taking in EMS runs. These 5 or 6 guys, subsidized by the rest of the volunteers, many of whom would hang around quite a bit to make some EMS cash, created a pretty good system where most calls were adequately staffed, response times were great, and the members were well-trained and happy. When i was a bunk person I was in college and loved it. I went to class during the day, had a free place to stay and more money in my pocket than a college kid could spend. The set-up allowed me to be an honor student and one of the most active members of my department with plenty of time to spare. Many of the other bunk guys had full-time jobs during the day, evening, or night and would come and go as they pleased.

I know that for me personally, the LOSAP program had no bearing on my willingness to volunteer. I joined when I was 16...I doubt many 16 year old kids are thinking about their retirement (I know for sure that I wasn't). The department that I was in gave $20/year up to 40 years of service for a Max-Out of $800/month. This isn't going to break the bank that's for sure. When I quit the department at 26, the last thing that I was thinking about was my retirement fund. It didn't even cross my mind.
There is one thing that it does accomplish. It results in a bunch of 45-60 year old guys who come to the firehouse after the rigs have left on the run to sign the call sheet so that they get credit. This anomaly is generally intensified between Thanksgiving and Christmas when a number of the fork and knifers come down to look at the points posted on the wall and realize that they are 5 to 10 calls short of getting credit for the year. Then they step-up their loitering for the home stretch.
The guys who are in it because they like to get a little bit of heat are the first ones there and are on the rig in the sleet, snow, and rain regardless of the pension program!

I know that for me personally, the LOSAP program had no bearing on my willingness to volunteer. I joined when I was 16...I doubt many 16 year old kids are thinking about their retirement (I know for sure that I wasn't). The department that I was in gave $20/year up to 40 years of service for a Max-Out of $800/month. This isn't going to break the bank that's for sure. When I quit the department at 26, the last thing that I was thinking about was my retirement fund. It didn't even cross my mind.
There is one thing that it does accomplish. It results in a bunch of 45-60 year old guys who come to the firehouse after the rigs have left on the run to sign the call sheet so that they get credit. This anomaly is generally intensified between Thanksgiving and Christmas when a number of the fork and knifers come down to look at the points posted on the wall and realize that they are 5 to 10 calls short of getting credit for the year. Then they step-up their loitering for the home stretch.
The guys who are in it because they like to get a little bit of heat are the first ones there and are on the rig in the sleet, snow, and rain regardless of the pension program!

I am with you BNechis. I have seen a number of incentives given in exchange for activity, yet, it is my belief that none of them actually make more people come to each call / event. I have seen departments give out Meals, Perks, Gas Cards, LOSAP (Length of Service Applied Pensions) and, while all of these are great reinforcements for people who come to calls, it does not effectually make them want to be more active. It just rewards members (those who are more active) for being as active as they want to be.
When I was a member in an Eastern Connecticut department, the town paid EMTs $50 per call to take in EMS runs on the ambulance. They would not pay all 8 EMTs that showed up but paid 1 Driver/EMT and one Patient Care EMT (unless the call was serious - then they would pay an extra EMT in the back i.e. CPR in progress). This effectively incentivized people to get their EMT training to make some extra money and to show up for the calls that no one wanted to go on. It even went a step further since "the juice was finally worth the squeeze to go on all of the crummy calls (I think I'm not the only firefighter who dreads the fact that the EMS job fell into our laps in a lot of places), people would come around the firehouse to hang out more hoping to be there when the call went out so that they could beat out the other guys to earn an extra $50...therefore, they would be there to take in all of the other calls. It also created a good amount of friendly competition that was fun for the guys. I can remember making $1500 in some months just to hang around the firehouse on the weekends and evenings a few days a week. The town would re-coup this money easily by billing the insurance companies of those who were transported to pay the volunteers.
Another thing that I found to be effective were departments that had bunk rooms. In this day and age where the economy is crap and young adults are being forced to work more hours for less cash and can't afford to buy / rent houses in their home communities, they move away after high school or college leaving the departments that they have been with for 8 or 10 years. Departments that allowed members to "bunk," effectively kept members that were trying to get out of their parents' houses and gave them a free place to live where they could still give back to their community. There major rules:
1. You must have taken your firefighter 1 class.
2. If you are at the firehouse when a call went out, you must go on the call!
3. If you do something stupid, you can't live there anymore!
This resulted in 3-6 free 20-30 year old live-in firefighters at the firehouse most of the time (definitely nights and weekends). You essentially had a full crew ready to roll. And, with 5 or 6 bunk people, there are seldom less than 2 guys there to take in a call at any given time.
Lastly, you need to encourage training so that people don't just want to do the bare minimum. Training bonuses! Take Firefigher II, get a $300 bonus!
The three aforementioned ideas utilized in conjunction resulted in the creation of a "quasi-paid" firehouse for very little cost. For the cost of a couple of sets of bunk beds and a few lockers, you got a full crew on staff at the firehouse who were happy to have a free place to stay and a pocket full of cash from training & taking in EMS runs. These 5 or 6 guys, subsidized by the rest of the volunteers, many of whom would hang around quite a bit to make some EMS cash, created a pretty good system where most calls were adequately staffed, response times were great, and the members were well-trained and happy. When i was a bunk person I was in college and loved it. I went to class during the day, had a free place to stay and more money in my pocket than a college kid could spend. The set-up allowed me to be an honor student and one of the most active members of my department with plenty of time to spare. Many of the other bunk guys had full-time jobs during the day, evening, or night and would come and go as they pleased.

I am with you BNechis. I have seen a number of incentives given in exchange for activity, yet, it is my belief that none of them actually make more people come to each call / event. I have seen departments give out Meals, Perks, Gas Cards, LOSAP (Length of Service Applied Pensions) and, while all of these are great reinforcements for people who come to calls, it does not effectually make them want to be more active. It just rewards members (those who are more active) for being as active as they want to be.
When I was a member in an Eastern Connecticut department, the town paid EMTs $50 per call to take in EMS runs on the ambulance. They would not pay all 8 EMTs that showed up but paid 1 Driver/EMT and one Patient Care EMT (unless the call was serious - then they would pay an extra EMT in the back i.e. CPR in progress). This effectively incentivized people to get their EMT training to make some extra money and to show up for the calls that no one wanted to go on. It even went a step further since "the juice was finally worth the squeeze to go on all of the crummy calls (I think I'm not the only firefighter who dreads the fact that the EMS job fell into our laps in a lot of places), people would come around the firehouse to hang out more hoping to be there when the call went out so that they could beat out the other guys to earn an extra $50...therefore, they would be there to take in all of the other calls. It also created a good amount of friendly competition that was fun for the guys. I can remember making $1500 in some months just to hang around the firehouse on the weekends and evenings a few days a week. The town would re-coup this money easily by billing the insurance companies of those who were transported to pay the volunteers.
Another thing that I found to be effective were departments that had bunk rooms. In this day and age where the economy is crap and young adults are being forced to work more hours for less cash and can't afford to buy / rent houses in their home communities, they move away after high school or college leaving the departments that they have been with for 8 or 10 years. Departments that allowed members to "bunk," effectively kept members that were trying to get out of their parents' houses and gave them a free place to live where they could still give back to their community. There major rules:
1. You must have taken your firefighter 1 class.
2. If you are at the firehouse when a call went out, you must go on the call!
3. If you do something stupid, you can't live there anymore!
This resulted in 3-6 free 20-30 year old live-in firefighters at the firehouse most of the time (definitely nights and weekends). You essentially had a full crew ready to roll. And, with 5 or 6 bunk people, there are seldom less than 2 guys there to take in a call at any given time.
Lastly, you need to encourage training so that people don't just want to do the bare minimum. Training bonuses! Take Firefigher II, get a $300 bonus!
The three aforementioned ideas utilized in conjunction resulted in the creation of a "quasi-paid" firehouse for very little cost. For the cost of a couple of sets of bunk beds and a few lockers, you got a full crew on staff at the firehouse who were happy to have a free place to stay and a pocket full of cash from training & taking in EMS runs. These 5 or 6 guys, subsidized by the rest of the volunteers, many of whom would hang around quite a bit to make some EMS cash, created a pretty good system where most calls were adequately staffed, response times were great, and the members were well-trained and happy. When i was a bunk person I was in college and loved it. I went to class during the day, had a free place to stay and more money in my pocket than a college kid could spend. The set-up allowed me to be an honor student and one of the most active members of my department with plenty of time to spare. Many of the other bunk guys had full-time jobs during the day, evening, or night and would come and go as they pleased.

I am with you BNechis. I have seen a number of incentives given in exchange for activity, yet, it is my belief that none of them actually make more people come to each call / event. I have seen departments give out Meals, Perks, Gas Cards, LOSAP (Length of Service Applied Pensions) and, while all of these are great reinforcements for people who come to calls, it does not effectually make them want to be more active. It just rewards members (those who are more active) for being as active as they want to be.
When I was a member in an Eastern Connecticut department, the town paid EMTs $50 per call to take in EMS runs on the ambulance. They would not pay all 8 EMTs that showed up but paid 1 Driver/EMT and one Patient Care EMT (unless the call was serious - then they would pay an extra EMT in the back i.e. CPR in progress). This effectively incentivized people to get their EMT training to make some extra money and to show up for the calls that no one wanted to go on. It even went a step further since "the juice was finally worth the squeeze to go on all of the crummy calls (I think I'm not the only firefighter who dreads the fact that the EMS job fell into our laps in a lot of places), people would come around the firehouse to hang out more hoping to be there when the call went out so that they could beat out the other guys to earn an extra $50...therefore, they would be there to take in all of the other calls. It also created a good amount of friendly competition that was fun for the guys. I can remember making $1500 in some months just to hang around the firehouse on the weekends and evenings a few days a week. The town would re-coup this money easily by billing the insurance companies of those who were transported to pay the volunteers.
Another thing that I found to be effective were departments that had bunk rooms. In this day and age where the economy is crap and young adults are being forced to work more hours for less cash and can't afford to buy / rent houses in their home communities, they move away after high school or college leaving the departments that they have been with for 8 or 10 years. Departments that allowed members to "bunk," effectively kept members that were trying to get out of their parents' houses and gave them a free place to live where they could still give back to their community. There major rules:
1. You must have taken your firefighter 1 class.
2. If you are at the firehouse when a call went out, you must go on the call!
3. If you do something stupid, you can't live there anymore!
This resulted in 3-6 free 20-30 year old live-in firefighters at the firehouse most of the time (definitely nights and weekends). You essentially had a full crew ready to roll. And, with 5 or 6 bunk people, there are seldom less than 2 guys there to take in a call at any given time.
Lastly, you need to encourage training so that people don't just want to do the bare minimum. Training bonuses! Take Firefigher II, get a $300 bonus!
The three aforementioned ideas utilized in conjunction resulted in the creation of a "quasi-paid" firehouse for very little cost. For the cost of a couple of sets of bunk beds and a few lockers, you got a full crew on staff at the firehouse who were happy to have a free place to stay and a pocket full of cash from training & taking in EMS runs. These 5 or 6 guys, subsidized by the rest of the volunteers, many of whom would hang around quite a bit to make some EMS cash, created a pretty good system where most calls were adequately staffed, response times were great, and the members were well-trained and happy. When i was a bunk person I was in college and loved it. I went to class during the day, had a free place to stay and more money in my pocket than a college kid could spend. The set-up allowed me to be an honor student and one of the most active members of my department with plenty of time to spare. Many of the other bunk guys had full-time jobs during the day, evening, or night and would come and go as they pleased.