M' Ave

Please do not inject facts into this.

I hear you, but you're missing the whole basis of my argument here. If mutual aide is done correctly and resources are spread efficiently, then you would be coming from a distance that requires the use of RLS to reach your new area of responsibility for the duration of the incident keeping the primary agency busy. Being in NYC has no significance in how you allocate resources and how you get them into an under served area. Once again, an area devoid of emergency services IS an emergency.
As for the lawyers....not worried, so long as I'm driving my Engine in a safe manner and operating with "due-regard" for the conditions around me. How am I protected? This:
Straight from "The Books", FDNY Safety Bulletin, Chapter 1, Section 2:
Sirens and warning lights may only be used when engaged in Emergency Operations , i.e.: responding to or operating at an alarm, or relocating to the quarters of another unit.

From my take on all of this banter about how to respond, are your drivers that bad? So out of control that you don't trust them to get from one location to another?
If it is the driver that is reckless, and the officer doesn't have the balls to control him, that is the real problem. If it is the officer that is out of control, and the driver lets him get away with it, that is another problem.
IT IS ONLY ANOTHER CALL WE ARE ASKED TO RESPOND TO.

I don't understand why there is opposition to responding in emergency mode to cover. Clearly you shouldn't respond as you would to a 10-75, but you need to get where you're going and quickly. When we relocate to another company to cover, we respond in emergency mode, slow and steady, but lights and siren non the less.
You're relocating to another area because at that moment there is inadequate fire protection there. What good am I to the people in, say Riverdale, if I'm 150 blocks away and a 1st due alarm comes in for fire, or anything else? When return, you drive with traffic.

I'm reading a lot of continuing talk about why NOT to respond "RLS", yet all the reasons I read seem to highlight the failings in the system of adequately covering an area and not questioning the method of getting there. If the system is set up to spread coverage to even out a geographical area, then a neighbor shouldn't be moved one town over.
If the fire is in Dobbs Ferry and Irvington, Tarytown and Hastings are operating, then an engine should be moved there from, say, Port Chester and a ladder from say, Peekskill. Thats just an abstract idea, but that's how you spread coverage efficiently. You move people from COMPLETELY uneffected areas to a central location to offer coverage to a group of municipalities that are committed to an emergency. Also.....those relocated units should NOT be sent to the scene, if it can be helped.
The above is why relocating in emergency mode becomes necessary. You need those units to get to the area that needs coverage quickly. When there is a fire in midtown Manhattan, the relocations come from Harlem and Queens. Who says you can't compare this to Westhchester? Forget the municipality, this is just how it should work.
Is, "the odds of there being another emergency are slim" really the argument? If that's the case, then just pack up your fire department to begin with, because there's only a slim chance of disaster......
Stop with the defining of an emergency....too many gray areas. A serious hole in emergency service coverage IS an emergency. No one says to go bombing through red lights, but stop, look and proceed.

I'm reading a lot of continuing talk about why NOT to respond "RLS", yet all the reasons I read seem to highlight the failings in the system of adequately covering an area and not questioning the method of getting there. If the system is set up to spread coverage to even out a geographical area, then a neighbor shouldn't be moved one town over.
If the fire is in Dobbs Ferry and Irvington, Tarytown and Hastings are operating, then an engine should be moved there from, say, Port Chester and a ladder from say, Peekskill. Thats just an abstract idea, but that's how you spread coverage efficiently. You move people from COMPLETELY uneffected areas to a central location to offer coverage to a group of municipalities that are committed to an emergency. Also.....those relocated units should NOT be sent to the scene, if it can be helped.
The above is why relocating in emergency mode becomes necessary. You need those units to get to the area that needs coverage quickly. When there is a fire in midtown Manhattan, the relocations come from Harlem and Queens. Who says you can't compare this to Westhchester? Forget the municipality, this is just how it should work.
Is, "the odds of there being another emergency are slim" really the argument? If that's the case, then just pack up your fire department to begin with, because there's only a slim chance of disaster......
Stop with the defining of an emergency....too many gray areas. A serious hole in emergency service coverage IS an emergency. No one says to go bombing through red lights, but stop, look and proceed.

My thinking is this about responding, just because you are r/l/s doesn't mean you have to drive any faster then "normal" there is a saying you don't make up time on the road you make it up in the firehouse getting ready. Traffic being what it is you will never get where you are supposed to if you don't make noise.

I'm reading a lot of continuing talk about why NOT to respond "RLS", yet all the reasons I read seem to highlight the failings in the system of adequately covering an area and not questioning the method of getting there. If the system is set up to spread coverage to even out a geographical area, then a neighbor shouldn't be moved one town over.
If the fire is in Dobbs Ferry and Irvington, Tarytown and Hastings are operating, then an engine should be moved there from, say, Port Chester and a ladder from say, Peekskill. Thats just an abstract idea, but that's how you spread coverage efficiently. You move people from COMPLETELY uneffected areas to a central location to offer coverage to a group of municipalities that are committed to an emergency. Also.....those relocated units should NOT be sent to the scene, if it can be helped.
The above is why relocating in emergency mode becomes necessary. You need those units to get to the area that needs coverage quickly. When there is a fire in midtown Manhattan, the relocations come from Harlem and Queens. Who says you can't compare this to Westhchester? Forget the municipality, this is just how it should work.
Is, "the odds of there being another emergency are slim" really the argument? If that's the case, then just pack up your fire department to begin with, because there's only a slim chance of disaster......
Stop with the defining of an emergency....too many gray areas. A serious hole in emergency service coverage IS an emergency. No one says to go bombing through red lights, but stop, look and proceed.

I'm reading a lot of continuing talk about why NOT to respond "RLS", yet all the reasons I read seem to highlight the failings in the system of adequately covering an area and not questioning the method of getting there. If the system is set up to spread coverage to even out a geographical area, then a neighbor shouldn't be moved one town over.
If the fire is in Dobbs Ferry and Irvington, Tarytown and Hastings are operating, then an engine should be moved there from, say, Port Chester and a ladder from say, Peekskill. Thats just an abstract idea, but that's how you spread coverage efficiently. You move people from COMPLETELY uneffected areas to a central location to offer coverage to a group of municipalities that are committed to an emergency. Also.....those relocated units should NOT be sent to the scene, if it can be helped.
The above is why relocating in emergency mode becomes necessary. You need those units to get to the area that needs coverage quickly. When there is a fire in midtown Manhattan, the relocations come from Harlem and Queens. Who says you can't compare this to Westhchester? Forget the municipality, this is just how it should work.
Is, "the odds of there being another emergency are slim" really the argument? If that's the case, then just pack up your fire department to begin with, because there's only a slim chance of disaster......
Stop with the defining of an emergency....too many gray areas. A serious hole in emergency service coverage IS an emergency. No one says to go bombing through red lights, but stop, look and proceed.

I don't understand why there is opposition to responding in emergency mode to cover. Clearly you shouldn't respond as you would to a 10-75, but you need to get where you're going and quickly. When we relocate to another company to cover, we respond in emergency mode, slow and steady, but lights and siren non the less.
You're relocating to another area because at that moment there is inadequate fire protection there. What good am I to the people in, say Riverdale, if I'm 150 blocks away and a 1st due alarm comes in for fire, or anything else? When return, you drive with traffic.

1) When I worked in NYC going to a call from Manhattan to Queens or the Bronx was closer than Many of our Westchester Relocates .
2) The incident in question was going to Pelham. That means GFD would not be going "to the next district" but driving through Scarsdale, Eastchester, Mt Vernon to get to Pelham. It also means that Pelham has a Job and already committed PFD, PMFD, NRFD, EFD and MVFD. Also means that they will be covering both PFD & PMFD.
3) That's the reason the ISO standard is that you have spare apparatus. Unfortunately with 58 departments we duplicate so much, but still most depts. have no spares. and can not justify them. When it comes to the ISO 9 (non-hydrant) departments/areas of the county most have more engines than needed and none have enough tankers.

I don't understand why there is opposition to responding in emergency mode to cover. Clearly you shouldn't respond as you would to a 10-75, but you need to get where you're going and quickly. When we relocate to another company to cover, we respond in emergency mode, slow and steady, but lights and siren non the less.
You're relocating to another area because at that moment there is inadequate fire protection there. What good am I to the people in, say Riverdale, if I'm 150 blocks away and a 1st due alarm comes in for fire, or anything else? When return, you drive with traffic.

I don't understand why there is opposition to responding in emergency mode to cover. Clearly you shouldn't respond as you would to a 10-75, but you need to get where you're going and quickly. When we relocate to another company to cover, we respond in emergency mode, slow and steady, but lights and siren non the less.
You're relocating to another area because at that moment there is inadequate fire protection there. What good am I to the people in, say Riverdale, if I'm 150 blocks away and a 1st due alarm comes in for fire, or anything else? When return, you drive with traffic.

I don't understand why there is opposition to responding in emergency mode to cover. Clearly you shouldn't respond as you would to a 10-75, but you need to get where you're going and quickly. When we relocate to another company to cover, we respond in emergency mode, slow and steady, but lights and siren non the less.
You're relocating to another area because at that moment there is inadequate fire protection there. What good am I to the people in, say Riverdale, if I'm 150 blocks away and a 1st due alarm comes in for fire, or anything else? When return, you drive with traffic.

I don't understand why there is opposition to responding in emergency mode to cover. Clearly you shouldn't respond as you would to a 10-75, but you need to get where you're going and quickly. When we relocate to another company to cover, we respond in emergency mode, slow and steady, but lights and siren non the less.
You're relocating to another area because at that moment there is inadequate fire protection there. What good am I to the people in, say Riverdale, if I'm 150 blocks away and a 1st due alarm comes in for fire, or anything else? When return, you drive with traffic.

I don't understand why there is opposition to responding in emergency mode to cover. Clearly you shouldn't respond as you would to a 10-75, but you need to get where you're going and quickly. When we relocate to another company to cover, we respond in emergency mode, slow and steady, but lights and siren non the less.
You're relocating to another area because at that moment there is inadequate fire protection there. What good am I to the people in, say Riverdale, if I'm 150 blocks away and a 1st due alarm comes in for fire, or anything else? When return, you drive with traffic.

Today 35 members of the FDNY's Incident Management Team were deployed to Buffalo, NY,
to assist residents following the area's record snowfall.

No I was implying that many depts. do not even have an officer on the rig

Kid, are you old enough to drive yet?
300 lbs of iron sticking out of the ground isn't enough? Gimme a break.....

Is there a difference?
I am sure that someone from that Company could tack-on a Seagrave logo on the front of the rig to make you feel better.

Kid, are you old enough to drive yet?
300 lbs of iron sticking out of the ground isn't enough? Gimme a break.....

Kid, are you old enough to drive yet?
300 lbs of iron sticking out of the ground isn't enough? Gimme a break.....

Kid, are you old enough to drive yet?
300 lbs of iron sticking out of the ground isn't enough? Gimme a break.....

The smaller hose tube at the bottom gets used pretty frequently. It's commonplace to use it to connect directly to a hydrant.
The larger hose tubes for drafting probably don't get used much at all. It is my understanding that they and the current engine design are primarily for alternate water supply usage in the event that the hydrant system is unusable, like what happened on 9/11 in lower Manhattan.