FDNY 10-75

Forum Moderators
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    965

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by FDNY 10-75

  6. Posted

    These got stuck in the snow (and King Andy didn't like that) so they have ordered new 4x4s that will mimic the FDNY high axle vehicles much closer. Theyre delivered but not completely upfitted.

    3 of these were originally lettered for NYSP, later stripped and repainted black to match DHSES scheme. 2 Others are DOT yellow with the DHSES logo on the door.

    post-778-0-82114100-1450356940.jpg

    EmsFirePolice likes this

  18. Posted

    Great read.

    While we're talking about Andy, why are companies still using combination nozzles for structural firefighting? The facts are all there about solid stream nozzles but I almost think some places refuse to believe they are superior or they're in complete denial. You see departments purchasing the 'latest' TFTs or Akron Brass combination nozzles because they have this gizmo or that. Sure, they have their place but not for our bread and butter structural fires. I believe that most of these newer fog nozzles are nothing more than a way to make a buck off an (almost) obsolete product.

    FFPCogs, Bottom of Da Hill, AFS1970 and 1 other like this

  22. Posted

    I don't want to rain on the parade here, but the Lucas device hasn't been shown to improve outcomes...

    http://roguemedic.com/2014/03/the-failure-of-lucas-to-improve-outcomes-in-the-linc-trial/

    How about spending (a lot of) money on something that actually can improve outcomes, like more medics?

    Just my 2 cents.

    I have only seen 2 'large' scale studies comparing the use of the Lucas II and manual CPR, one was conducted in Europe, the other in the US. The European study indicated that there was almost no difference between mechanical and manual CPR in ROSC. While some people view this is a negative result for the Lucas, I have to disagree; citing, that the device frees up an extra person at the scene. This enables that provider to perform other interventions (while CPR is in progress) and should the patient be transported, less manpower is required to take the patient to the ED. With the Lucas and a transport vent in operation you can literally transport an arrest with one medic in the back, whereas with mechanical CPR you would need at least two people. It frees up resources in EMS systems that are already limited. While a matter of convenience for me or any other provider doesn't justify the price tag, it is an exceptionally helpful device when working an arrest.

    The US study did indicate improved outcomes in patients that received mechanical CPR coupled with an impedance threshold device. It's not clear to me why Physio doesn't push the use of ITDs with the Lucas to improve outcomes but it ma have to do with copyright, advertising, etc. The Lucas 'haters' never seem to cite this trial conducted by the AHA.

    paratrooper75, PoqFFEMT, x635 and 1 other like this

  24. Posted

    That last photo....the black truck with the large "roof rack"....what's that all about?

    It's a new Lenco Bear, larger than the BearCat units and similar in size to the POT (Photo observation truck) unit.

    The 'roof racks' are hydraulic platforms for officers to make dynamic entry to upper floors of a building, plane or give access to other elevated areas.

    Stairs set up - http://www.patriot3.com/wp-content/themes/patriot/images/mars-armored/Lenco-BEAR-lg-3.jpg

    ...and http://www.hendonpub.com/assets/articles/1856/012054b0-200b-4e97-9578-e0e6e5a07c2e.jpg

    http://www.lencoarmor.com/law-enforcement/

    BFD1054, E106MKFD, PEMO3 and 1 other like this