STAT213

Members
  • Content count

    487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by STAT213


  1. Here's my experience with staffing levels. Worked in Syracuse, NY back in the 1990s and 2000s. City of 100000 or so. Daytime EMS including transfers was a max of 10. Unit hour utilization was tracked meticulously. Night time was 4 ambulances over night. That was usually enough.

    Where I work now, I'm in a town of 35k. We have one ambulance staffed and cross staff three others. We get mutual aid in very infrequently, maybe once a week.

    Mt. Pleasant is the same geographic size about - 35 square miles. So, five dedicated BLS trucks seems a bit much. Probably do it with three. Depends what benchmarks for response time you want to hit, and how much to spend. I bet you could do it with three trucks and one ALS unit if you triaged a good number of calls down to BLS or AEMT level.

    There are formulas for this. If you want service at your door in four minutes or less 90 % of the time, add more trucks and stations. It's not rocket science. The city of Syracuse (Fire, not ambulance) has their stations arranged to be anywhere in the city in four minutes. For a city of 100k that's 10 stations. EMS does system status management to position units to be on scene within 8 minutes 90 percent of the time.

    Bnechis, x635, AFS1970 and 1 other like this

  2. Wow. Those are ALL rare benefits for private EMS.

    So, costs are mostly the same, reimbursement should be fairly equal, depending on collection rates and ability.

    First question that comes to my pea brain is .... If empress can do it, and clearly do it fairly well, why can't everyone else?

    And my second question is for those other companies: WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO?

    AFS1970 likes this

  3. So, by your argument, county run systems like those in Maryland, Virginia, Florida and California are failures due to costs and subsidies of smaller communities. Hmmm. Really?

    You wouldn't be paying for larchmont to have fire protection equal to that of Yonkers, you would be paying to have your fire protection. All pay the same for the same coverage. That's like saying one neighborhood in Boston should pull out of the BFD because they don't like that from time to time their engine leaves to cover calls in another district.

    That's why the mess that exists now, exists. If you consolidate all the resources, the system becomes more efficient. Is it THAT hard to see? It's managed and run as a SYSTEM, not a bunch of independent entities.

    If you live on the border of say Yonkers and what used to be a volunteer town, you may just get your second engine or ladder WAY faster than you used to, because it's not coming from the other side of Yonkers, but from the next CLOSEST fire house.

    How exactly is this bad? Uniform training, uniform standards and staffed fire stations. None of those are bad.


  4. To me, it's all about options and flexibility. Know your tools, train with them and use what will work best for the given scenario.

    You're lost and stumbling through some smoke, low on air. Another crew finds you and can walk you out. You run out of air before you make it out. Would you rather share air and walk out or take in smoke and have to be dragged? That's a no brainer. Plug in and walk out together. Use the EBSS. If you don't spec it, you can't use it.

    Should the EBSS be used by RIT teams as the first line? Nope. Does having it increase your options. Yup. Be smart people.


  5. Without manpower lost?

    There isn't a guy driving a second or third truck now. These are designed to eliminate jobs.

    I get that it all costs money, I do. I pay taxes too. But anytime something like this comes up, jobs are lost. Either thru attrition or cuts, jobs are lost.

    Cities try out quints. Jobs are lost. Wow, we can have four guys in a station on one truck instead of eight on two??!! Wow, that's neat. And EFFICIENT. Anytime an administrator uses that word, there's likely an axe swinging somewhere.

    AFS1970, Newburgher and fdalumnus like this

  6. Awesome. Add more workload but it's all good because there's technology to make it better.

    Just because it looks cool, or seems awesome, Doesn't mean it is.

    Remember, one plow is now doing the job of two. With ONE driver. That means less drivers are needed. Less jobs.

    Kinda like those self checkout lanes. Seems cool, but it's just a way to pull jobs off the line. You can have one person doing the same job four used to be doing.

    Morningjoe, Dinosaur and Newburgher like this

  7. Sorry, but no. Not why we need a bailout system. This is why we need ground ladders placed quickly and efficiently. Among other things.

    Looking at that video, there were many things to do before bailing out.

    Am I advocating for not having bailout systems, no?

    But, that room didn't flash in a matter of seconds. It was free burning and finally got to him. Get to an area of refuge, close a door, do a window hang until the ladder arrives.

    Bailouts and survival should be part of our training, but watching that video, my first thought was not, I wished he had a bailout kit. It was, I wished his boys had placed ground ladders like good operators and truckies should. But once that didn't happen...yes...It was time to bail.

    Play heads up, don't get caught in the first place..


  8. I would rather have the "extra" guy on the floor. All day, everyday. Having a trained firefighter stuck in a room answering a phone and yapping on a radio instead of pulling hose is a waste of resources. Especially considering 60 control is there AND available to do the job FOR you.

    Can you really look me in the face and say "I'd rather have firefighter Joe in the radio room and not helping us make the stretch down a smoke filled hallway because he really is more helpful to me on the radio than on the line." If so, you are whacked.

    16fire5, HalfVolley, Oaks and 12 others like this