M' Ave

Okay, we went off on a tangent over a staffing comment. The KEY point I was trying to make is that many small departments have good, dedicated people who are underutilized. I know, I was a volunteer in more than one place, just like that. By combining departments and enlarging response areas, we give those people more responsibility, responsibility that I'd bet they crave. I know I would have. In doing so, we give people more activity and residents get more people responding on the initial call for service. Win. Win.

^^^^^ Okay....Idon't get it. You're the first fireman I've ever heard defend their understaffed operations. You're taking this personally and that means you're taking it wrong. 1 or 2 rooms of fire, a few grabs and only 5 guys? You're gambling and a lot of things aren't getting done. If 5 can get the job done, why does my job have 1 Chief 5 Line Officers and 23 Firemen ON THE INTIAL RESPONSE FOR FIRE? We're lucky too, to have the staff we do and we should have more. EVERYONE should have more. This is not a personal assesment of you or the other brothers you work with. You clearly do a lot with little staffing, but it's an extremly dangerous situation. You don't have enough eyes on the outside and you have NO HELP if anything goes wrong. 5 is FUNCTIONALLY useless and doens't even meet NFPA/OSHA, ect. It is dangerous and the powers that be are careless in allowing you to operate with so little support.

Listen, I hear you, but 5 just ain't enough for anything. I'm not saying that you and your guys don't do all you can and work hard. I'm saying that 5 firemen is scarcely better than 0. By the books....if you arrive on an Eng. with 5 guys; 1 is running the pumps 1 is an officer (who ideally shouldn't be humping hose) 3 firemen (one of whom has to stay outside with the pump operator to comprise a safety team until a FAST unit arrives) So...you have an officer and 2 firemen on a line. Who's searching? Who's checking the rear and who's able to coordinate venting from the exterior? You guys might bust your humps and thats great, but 5 guys just isn't effective and if you're looking to improve your staffing, you should be screaming about safety and effectivness to the elected officials who rarely give adequate value to our safety and operations.

Ten House is a really special circumstance. I've worked there once or twice as a detail. Great guys, had a great tour there recently. Here's the deal....that firehouse is a living memorial, a tourist destination and certainly highly visable. It's hard to even respond on alarms from there. The moment the door go up, they're mobbed. They have to put signs out telling people not to cross the apparatus door threshold. They have to use ropes to stop sidwalk traffic to pull out. It's a revolving door and I'm sure that it can be too much at times. **To anyone visitng NYC and planning to visit a firehouse: Please visit us! We're happy to chat, talk a little shop and maybe give a quick tour. However, if you're in the know, (and you are 'cause you're on this site) visit off the beaten path a bit. Give the guys in Times Square and The World Trade Center a break if you can.

Trains stop at "Stations", we work in fireHOUSES If you had a poor experience at any of the shops you visited, that's a shame. Remember, ya never know what kinda day they were having and sometimes the revolving door of visitors is hard to deal with. I'm not regularly assigned to work in Midtown, but I have on occasion and while everyone's happy to chat and entertain visitors, it's hard to get other work done and sometimes it's overwhelming. I'm not trying to dissuade visitors, we welcome it. Shame there was a bad experience, ya just never know how that day was going... As for the NYPost article, correct, the member quoted was not a "Probie". The NYPost, journalistic beacon of integrity, took some posts from the "FDNYRant" (which is the worst thing ever) for that article and called them "quotes". All in all, some guys are not happy with the Open House, and I understand it, but it's a couple of hours for some positive PR on a Saturday. We'll live.

Ya know....yeah, it usually is. When you're in Westchester County, you're living in someone's little fiefdom. Someone's little slice of the pie and it's a ridiculous exercise in redundancy. I'm paying my property tax bill (which is insanely high) and wondering why they're always asking for more money, but there are fewer cops and the roads are like the surface of the moon. Too many Chief's, not enough Indians.....lets streamline the operations around here and put our money and manpower to better use. It's all about ratio's with the fire service. We DO have some good resources here, so lets expand their scope of coverage and better utilize them. We could use an analogy that would apply to many volunteer departments around here: Lets say Dept. A has 5, reliable and involved members and that department answers 2 calls a day. Dept. B next door also has 5 reliable and involved members answering 2 calls a day. Well, 5 guys is useless...and those guys would probably jump at the opportunity to do more with their dedication. So, COMBINE those depts. and you've got 10 solid guys handling 4 calls a day. You've doubled your available manpower and simultaneously increased staff utilization by 100%. In the process, you could eliminate half the chief's and their vehicles, probably a firehouse to maintain and a redundant vehicle or two. But....that'll never happen, because everyone is too interested in protecting their slice of the pie....

I think the concern about Mutual Aide is less about the frequency of use, or the lopsided nature of M/A (requesting more than responding) than it is about being properly prepared for most incidents. If Mount Vernon requests M/A twice as often, so-be-it. Maybe they've had a rash of large multi-alarm fires. (This is all hypothetical) That to me doesn't seem like the issue. The real issue rests in whether or not a Fire Department can handle the routine fires without constantly calling outside agencies. If an urban, city fire department can't handle an "All-Hands" or even 2nd alarm fire, without outside help....they're understaffed. Mutual Aide should be reserved for extenuating circumstances. Multiple serious fires in remote locations, simultaneously or an unusual and extensive multi-alarm fire. Everyday operations or (i hate this term) "routine" fires should be able to be handled by that municipality. The members of FDMV (and any dept.) deserve to be properly staffed. I'll also note that the # of apparatus responding isn't even remotely as important as the # of personnel. How many engines to you typically need to supply handlines at a private dwelling fire? Probably 1, but we'll say 2, just in case. Ladders? 2 trucks is probably sufficient to provide roof access and a second means of egress. It's the personnel carried by later arriving apparatus that is important, not the vehicles themselves. We'd all like to see more companies and more men, but I'll take more men and fewer companies if forced to choose.....

True....they should also take note of another fact; The warranty FDNY specifies is murder. Build it right the first time and you won't lose your shirt in warranty costs.

Too true. I work in an area where there are some highrises, mostly NYCHA buildings. You do end up with some wild scenarios and you need A LOT of manpower. I was at a fire a few years ago where the fire was in one unit on the 5th floor with minor auto exposure on the 6th.....there was a fatality on the 21st fl. Smoke permeated throughout due to some odd ball Federal building standards and what not.....crazy stuff.

Nice rundown. Schomberg Towers, Mitchell Llama Development. fyi, on that 3rd Alarm Rundwon, It was only Lad. 49 Acting Lad 26. Lad. 26 was first due.

Yeah.. THIS^^^^^^^^ x 1000.

This discussion, and this website, will often include conversations about operations and tactics. If we can't critique (constructively) operations of our own, or other departments, we'll learn nothing. Emergency operations from New York City to Peoria deserve analysis and critique. No event is without mistake or action that could be evaluated after the fact. What are we supposed to say? The fire went out, great job guys? For my own part of this discussion; I was not there, I did not take part. That limits my ability to comment, but photos and resources called raised some points for discussion. I for one will ALMOST never question the request for additional resources. Call more than ya need and send'em home if you find your self in better position to manage the incident with units on scene. At this particular fire, it looks as though the first due department was faced with several adverse conditions and they summoned more resources to overcome them. Fine. I did question the need for members to be operating on a peaked roof, covered in snow, to facilitate vertical ventilation. Vert. Venting is not always particularly beneficial in a PD and the risk of putting members on the roof seems unnecessary. In my dept., peaked roof ventilation is accomplished from the bucket of a tower ladder while the member is belted in. Clearly there is decades of operational experience that calls for such caution. Chainsaws, additionally, are THE. MOST. DANGEROUS. TOOL. we use. I hope this discussion continues with focus on an, over-all, job well done. However,we can all improve and this is how. **Discussions on staffing, consolidation and general resources is one that needs a great deal more attention than it's getting, but lets focus here on a single operation, it's merit's and detraction's, and not something fundamental that effects the whole fire service.

Well, I would suggest that geography is ever changing. This house was reported to be more remote than most. Tougher access to the operating pumper, perhaps longer distances to a tanker fill site, ect. There are tons of variables here and we have to trust the IC's decision to request X number of tankers. As for the "system" and time of day.... I agree completely, but that's a different discusion....and a much bigger one.

Yeah, I'm not sure what all the distress is about. They called a lot of resources at a time when that seemed like the right choice and it worked out. Tough weather, tough geography and a tough time of day. I'm not sure why we latched on to the, "how many tankers" thing.... ....call'em, you can always send'em back. I will make one comment....I saw a couple of photos of guys walking around on a peaked roof, covered in a foot of snow....and I'm moved to ask: Why? Was there an urgent need for verticle ventilation?

It's only a couple of border Eng. Co's that carry this adapter. There are other issues to consider, such as radio inter-operability.

Well, I'm not a fan of any particular builder...but the quality of assembly seems to matter a lot. Just ask someone who works on a Ferrara rearmount delivered to the FDNY in the last few years..... ....same engine, trans, ect....but put together badly.

Long winded tail nothing! We (guys on the job in the last decade + need to hear your stories). This is a key training example in the Wind Driven Fire discussion. Thanks for sharing.

+1 to this. SOP's have the control man flush out the standpipe before hooking-up. However....you can't flush 20 foors worth of water (or 40, 50, ect) and something could very well come through the line and clog at the tip. However, you're much better off with a 1 1/8th smooth bore tip, both for lower propensity to clog and for it's superior penetration ability. My personal belief is.....automatic/fog nozzles have no place in interior structural firefighting. They have a multitude of applications in brush, rubbish, decon, utility emergencies, exterior and many others....but a straight up house or apt. fire.....i'll take the smooth bore.

Yes. The reduced friction loss is chief among the reasons, plus fire load and water volume for wind impacted fires.

Just to expand on what the brother said here: We had the light weight hose in service for about 2 years (give or take), however, it was discovered that the hose (where it meets the coupling) was deteriorating at an incredible rate and leaking. So far, they seem to blame the fact that our roll-ups are stacked outside and exposed to the elements all the time. So, we went back to the tried and true. No one minds, it always works MOST important? It's a good tool, I'll give ya that, but I'd say that the Control Man's best friend is a pipe wrench. When all else fails (wheel, vice grips, spanner, ect.) the pipe wrench will get the stuck cap off and water flowing. Water will still get to the nozzle, pressure gauge or not. Worst cast, maybe you just test the will of the nozzle-man

Yeah Barry, I read your whole report. It wouldn't only be a cost savings, but clearly an improved Fire service. I won't name specific dept's, but there are some within that study that can barely provide the minimum, if even that. (That's not a knock on the guys, its a knock on staffing and/or volunteer participation) I have to imagine that there would be some cost savings realized in a reduction in apparatus and equipment. (While we're short staff around Westchester, we're certainly not short of firehouses filled with shiny trucks) I would hope that apparatus repair costs could be reduced by uniform fleet orders as well. I mean, lately in NYC, we've gotten a lot of apparatus from different builders, but they've all the got the same motor, transmission, brake systems, ect. ect.....and this means they stock one type of part....with little variation. On a separate note, my desire to see some consolidation isn't limited to the fire service. There are a lot of other agencies that could use a little combining.

I'm a huge fan of consolidation of certain services. There are simply too many little kingdoms around here. I'd venture to say that a consolidation that didn't save money, isn't really a consolidation. You can cut administrative staff, for one. There should be fewer chiefs and some redundant bureaus, such as a detective units, IAB, ect would be trimmed from 2 - 1. Yup, it means admin staff losing their jobs, hopefully only due to attrition. The only way to save money (real money) is to employ fewer people.

Nothing about compensation? What's the pay-scale these days?

Good question......you'd need 160 psi, just to overcome friction loss. Add the 70 +/- psi at the nozzle and you've got the engine screaming and you're only going 400' Our bed has 2 loads that lead with 1 1/4". They're both 6 lengths of 1 1/4" over 10 lengths of 2 1/2". Some places will use fewer lengths of 1 3/4" and more 2 1/2", but always 16 lengths. With our standard 15/16" smooth bore tip, we'll need a minimum of 220psi at the panel to achieve the flow we want. That leaves you 30psi to account for additional elevation (higher floors). 250psi is the limit without authorization and a lot of safety procedures....

Goes ta show ya....know how to "short-jack" the street side.....and know all of your hydrant hook-up methods