Update on Stamford Merger

[TRex 9]

As we approach almost a full year of this debate, coupled with budget time and contract negotiations information is surfacing that the full board is not in favor of this joke of a plan, and the support is not there. The plan may be failing, but not to worry, a new contrieved attack on the SFRD may come in the form of budget reallocation, essentially putting the whole mess right back to what it was before the paid consolidation of human resources took place. One step forward and two backwards. Perfect.

[TRex 9]

Cogsy Ol' boy. You too, can right a very intelligible diatribe as well. And as I have stated in the past, Kudos to Belltown in not obscuring the truth and not counting the SFRD members that continue to belong to the Belltown organization in one way or another as active available participants. As we also know they shouldn't be for a number of reasons, but none the less there is history right? I will however say that the comments of the former volunteer to whom you refer seems to have done more than just "sound off". He apparently has alot of background and background information, and is not afraid of stating fact. He does not seem apprehensive of any retaliation either from his employers. I think he provides credible insight, and possibly veiw point that may be of more interest to the real people that actually count, the Tax Paying citizens that are actually interested.

I hope he has nothing to loose in acting like the true professional he is, unlike some other former volunteers that could also have contributed but refused for some reason, (they are on promotional lists as chance would have it as I understand). Did someone say "Tammany Hall" in a previous post?

Cogs,

I am not in favor of the Brown plan as well but it makes more sense than the alternative, as well as answers the mandate that was given by the TASK FORCE controlled by the Mayor, that being a neutral cost alternative. It is not the SFRD's fault that they responded to the mandate as directed. The city probably thought it was not possible. And yes, it does not say for how long, but how long does the cost of the SVFD plan project out over. No numbers after 3, 4 and 5 years are given. And as far as the Mayors plan's effectiveness, time will tell and prove that farce.

[x152 179]

Pete:

Can you expand upon the concept of "musical fire trucks"? I may be wrong, but your remarks seem to indicate that you support the concept of having the career staff jump around to roll whatever fire trucks are available (or as many fire trucks possible).

I have a pretty good understanding of the fire service as a whole, but this "novel" concept appears to be something unique all but to the wisdom of just a very few in one area of southwestern Connecticut.

Is the concept of a "Company" operation dead, or have all of us been blind to the value of breaking our crews into many pieces for promote the "benefit" of lots of rolling stock in order to appear that things are greater than they are?

Just think what the FDNY could do with a 6 member ladder company or 7 member rescue company? How bout Maryland, those County Departments splitting the career crews into slices and rolling them out hot?

I keep hearing about how terrible it is that the SFRD has such a problem with splitting their Companies into fragmented truck drivers, but am still looking into the tangible results of where such a great system is in place?

- Boston

- FDNY

- PG County

- LA County

- Houston

- Philly

- Jacksonville

- Detroit

- Chicago

- Hartford

- Bridgeport

- Yonkers

Anyone else promoting this concept? Anyone in the business?

[mstrang1 213]

Cogs-

If there is enough volunteer "staff" to man apparatus, the career guys can take the engines, and the volunteers "should" be able to respond with, trucks, rescues, tankers, etc. This would mean that the career guys should not have to split the company and take multiple rigs with substandard crews. If they sufficiently man all of the apparatus that is available to them, it would be a formidable force to deal with most emergencies. So far today, Engine 9 responded on 3 calls, with no TORFD turnout to any of them. This is not "being subsidized by volunteers" as Mayor Pavia hopes would happen with the new plan.

[Geppetto 31]

Instead on spreading manpower out to see what apparatus fits best, maybe the "god-forbid" quint concept, similar to what St. Louis does may be more appropriate. If every piece can (almost) do everything, then what else would you need to roll? Maybe equip some houses with rescue-pumpers, some with aerial-pumpers, and some with pumper-tankers. But I'm sure the individual companies would not like to have their equipment dictated to them either.

Wait a minute, I almost forgot. It's the MANPOWER that puts the fire out. Nevermind.

[FFPCogs 863]

In reference to the last 3 posts

1st: Yes absolutely it is manpower not rigs that puts out fires.

2nd: I never said "split the crews". That is a misinterpretation of what I propose. Crew integrity would be maintained only the rigs on which those crews respond would differ depending on the nature and location of any given call.

3rd: While "musical fire trucks' may not be standard practice it will allow for an adequate initial response of fully staffed and appropriate apparatus to incidents with the manpower that is available, and it will do so without depleting the resources of downtown as is currently the case.

Cogs

Edited January 25, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Instead on spreading manpower out to see what apparatus fits best, maybe the "god-forbid" quint concept, similar to what St. Louis does may be more appropriate. If every piece can (almost) do everything, then what else would you need to roll? Maybe equip some houses with rescue-pumpers, some with aerial-pumpers, and some with pumper-tankers. But I'm sure the individual companies would not like to have their equipment dictated to them either.

Wait a minute, I almost forgot. It's the MANPOWER that puts the fire out. Nevermind.

G,

The idea of quint based operations is not a bad one even though I personally despise the concept of quints to begin with...(for me an engine is an engine and a truck is a truck ect., mixing them just reduces the capabilities of both). The one major problem I see with the concept here and now though is the cost. For a St. Louis or Richmond, VA type system to work here would require the entire fleet of apparatus (paid and vollie alike) be converted to quints (or multi use rigs) which would cost a fortune and I don't see that as feasible at the moment. There is also the potential effects an all quint system would have on staffing and manpower which may negatively impact SFRD more so than the VFDs so I don't know how well the concept would sit with the union...(not a dig guys just a well documented concern of career FFs everywhere this concept has been explored). In all fairness though in looking towards the future (say 5 - 10 yrs) I would grudgingly have to admit the idea has merit and could conceiveably work if we began heading in that direction now. To that end I believe that strategic planning of this type would be invaluable in helping to achieve much of what needs to be done and also quite frankly in avoiding the circumstances that created the current mess, but at present I think it would be almost impossible to accomplish on a citywide basis. BFD has a strategic planning committee and we do explore and recommend many different approaches to the meet the needs of our FD now and in the future. On that note does anyone else do something similar?

Cogs

Edited January 25, 2011 by FFPCogs

[pjreilly 6]

In order for the QUINT system to work, they must be properly staffed with 5-6 FF per rig, so that multiple tasks can be completed by a crew. I don't see that happening in Stamford.

[Alpinerunner 61]

Cogs-

If there is enough volunteer "staff" to man apparatus, the career guys can take the engines, and the volunteers "should" be able to respond with, trucks, rescues, tankers, etc. This would mean that the career guys should not have to split the company and take multiple rigs with substandard crews. If they sufficiently man all of the apparatus that is available to them, it would be a formidable force to deal with most emergencies. So far today, Engine 9 responded on 3 calls, with no TORFD turnout to any of them. This is not "being subsidized by volunteers" as Mayor Pavia hopes would happen with the new plan.

That could work in some situations, but a lot of what the VFD's need are drivers. If there is a VFD crew with driver, they could take the truck. If just a crew, they could staff the engine with 5-6, or split the career staff and run 2 rigs with 3 each. If there isn't enough to supplemental volunteer manpower, then only the engine rolls from TOR and use Belltown's truck. Flexibility IS useful.

When TOR has their daytime driver, there is the manpower there to properly staff the apparatus and they get out the door. Daytime divers are hard to get, and when one goes on vacation, that's a problem. For instance, there are FFs at TOR now, with no driver, same with yesterday. Text gages go out for "full crew need driver" all the time. When they had a regular overnight driver and day driver, they made 85% of calls. Again, the volunteers firefighters ARE THERE. They just need drivers and additional firefighters for a truly strong response.

[FireMedic049 597]

That could work in some situations, but a lot of what the VFD's need are drivers. If there is a VFD crew with driver, they could take the truck. If just a crew, they could staff the engine with 5-6, or split the career staff and run 2 rigs with 3 each. If there isn't enough to supplemental volunteer manpower, then only the engine rolls from TOR and use Belltown's truck. Flexibility IS useful.

When TOR has their daytime driver, there is the manpower there to properly staff the apparatus and they get out the door. Daytime divers are hard to get, and when one goes on vacation, that's a problem. For instance, there are FFs at TOR now, with no driver, same with yesterday. Text gages go out for "full crew need driver" all the time. When they had a regular overnight driver and day driver, they made 85% of calls. Again, the volunteers firefighters ARE THERE. They just need drivers and additional firefighters for a truly strong response.

So, you state the problem is you have a crew, but no driver among the volunteers, correct?

Uhhhhm, maybe you should train some of those crew members to be drivers?

[Alpinerunner 61]

So, you state the problem is you have a crew, but no driver among the volunteers, correct?

Uhhhhm, maybe you should train some of those crew members to be drivers?

Good idea! I'll relay that up the chain.

It takes time for the leadership to train and be comfortable with a driver. Progress is being made, hense the average response climbing from a poor 25%ish response for the first year all-volunteer to closer to 80% at the end of last year. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to want to and be able to be a driver, and to be at the station 100% of the time. This is why having paid FFs in house makes sense. Volunteers FFs then staff when they can, or respond from home to the scene. It's the most efficient way.

[mstrang1 213]

Not for nothing, but if they do not have an engine driver, I have been on calls where TORFD units have responded with either a pickup or an SUV. Maybe you will not have all the equipment, but you will have manpower, which is what is needed the most. Yesterday, Engine 9 responded on 3 calls, engine 8 at least 2, engine 7 at least 2, none of which had ANY volunteer response. This is not just on weekdays 9-5. This happens on evenings, weekends, holidays, etc. It happens ALL THE TIME. Are you saying that TORFD gets out to 80% of their calls? Yesterday, the number was 0% as of 9PM when I checked Engine 8s runs for the day. It definitely was 0% with Engine 9. There has to be some solid days to bring that average up to 80%. Based on my observations, TORFD makes approximately 50% of calls.

On a related note, they do seem to have a much higher percentage when it is guaranteed they will beat Engine 8 or 9 to the scene (251 Turn of River Rd comes to mind). I am not sure how or why this happens, but I am not the only person to notice this trend.

[FireMedic049 597]

In order for the QUINT system to work, they must be properly staffed with 5-6 FF per rig, so that multiple tasks can be completed by a crew. I don't see that happening in Stamford.

Not really. You seem to be making the common mistake when discussing the "QUINT system" (AKA "Total Quint Concept", TQC).

In a TQC type of deployment, the Quint is typically deployed as either an "engine" or as a "truck", not both. When doing such, manpower wise, a 4 FF quint is no different than a 4 FF engine or 4 FF truck. Obviously, additional staffing would increase a single unit's ability to do multiple tasks regardless of what type of unit it is.

The bigger issue for the system to work well is having firefighters who are trained in both disciplines, good SOPs and operations that clearly define what each unit's role will be on a call and good officers who will ensure that their unit will perform whatever role assigned.

[FD828 77]

G,

The idea of quint based operations is not a bad one even though I personally despise the concept of quints to begin with...(for me an engine is an engine and a truck is a truck ect., mixing them just reduces the capabilities of both). The one major problem I see with the concept here and now though is the cost. For a St. Louis or Richmond, VA type system to work here would require the entire fleet of apparatus (paid and vollie alike) be converted to quints (or multi use rigs) which would cost a fortune and I don't see that as feasible at the moment. There is also the potential effects an all quint system would have on staffing and manpower which may negatively impact SFRD more so than the VFDs so I don't know how well the concept would sit with the union...(not a dig guys just a well documented concern of career FFs everywhere this concept has been explored). In all fairness though in looking towards the future (say 5 - 10 yrs) I would grudgingly have to admit the idea has merit and could conceiveably work if we began heading in that direction now. To that end I believe that strategic planning of this type would be invaluable in helping to achieve much of what needs to be done and also quite frankly in avoiding the circumstances that created the current mess, but at present I think it would be almost impossible to accomplish on a citywide basis. BFD has a strategic planning committee and we do explore and recommend many different approaches to the meet the needs of our FD now and in the future. On that note does anyone else do something similar?

Cogs

Why would the volunteer fleet have to be converted to all quints? Why can't just the paid staff have quints and the volunteers keep the equipment they have? If you are so concerned about the right rig rolling out the door, doesn't this solve that issue with the exception of a tanker and heavy rescue of course? Couldn't the able volunteers then respond on either the engine, truck or tanker? Whatever they are responding on, the career quint will assume the other roll. Kinda like engine 5 right? It is an engine except when responding up north then it becomes a truck company.

Edited January 25, 2011 by FD828

[mstrang1 213]

FD828-

In Geppetto's original post about Quints, he had said to have everything Engine based ie Quints, Rescue engines, engine/tankers, etc. In this situation, the rescue pumper would operate similar to a squad, tankers could be an engine/nurse tanker, etc. This could be done through apparatus attrition, over the lifetime use of the current apparatus(HAH!!).

[FD828 77]

FD828-

In Geppetto's original post about Quints, he had said to have everything Engine based ie Quints, Rescue engines, engine/tankers, etc. In this situation, the rescue pumper would operate similar to a squad, tankers could be an engine/nurse tanker, etc. This could be done through apparatus attrition, over the lifetime use of the current apparatus(HAH!!).

No no, I get what Geppetto is saying. What I don't get is why Cogs feels the entire fleet (paid and volunteer) would have to be changed over to quints if that is the direction the city went. If they wanted to go with multi-purpose equipment, I agree that through attrition is could be more feasible.

Edited January 25, 2011 by FD828

[FFPCogs 863]

Why would the volunteer fleet have to be converted to all quints? Why can't just the paid staff have quints and the volunteers keep the equipment they have? If you are so concerned about the right rig rolling out the door, doesn't this solve that issue with the exception of a tanker and heavy rescue of course? Couldn't the able volunteers then respond on either the engine, truck or tanker? Whatever they are responding on, the career quint will assume the other roll. Kinda like engine 5 right? It is an engine except when responding up north then it becomes a truck company.

My impression in answering G was that we were talking about a St. Louis type system where basically every (or most actually) rig in town is multi-use thereby "doubling" their efficiency while reducing the overall operating, maintainance and personnel costs. This is why the concept was developed and how the St. Louis or the TQ concept is meant to work (and part of the reason I despise the concept). An all quint system here would mean every firehouse including the VFDs has a quint and each box would get the closest available units as either an Engine or Truck based on a predetermined response matrix.

It seems to me that what you're suggesting is not really much different than what I'm suggesting by cross staffing. Putting Quints in every VFD house and then dispatching them based on the type of call is the same as cross staffing the existing rigs based on the type of call, except we have to buy a few more quints. The crews will still be gone with their rig as either an Engine or Truck thus leaving that area devoid of that piece in the matrix and the volunteers would still have to respond with what's left to the scene or staff the remaining rigs to answer addtional calls.

If we were to get to the point of say MD or VA in which volunteers cover shifts and staff particular apparatus then yes I could definitely see the value of this idea since this would offer the paid rigs the flexibility to respond citywide as needed per call while reducing the overall staffing levels and costs necessary to cover the whole city. But in all honesty this is not something I would advocate for a number of reasons which I'd be happy to share with you via PM.

Cogs

Edited January 25, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FD828 77]

It seems to me that what you're suggesting is not really much different than what I'm suggesting by cross staffing. Putting Quints in every VFD house and then dispatching them based on the type of call is the same as cross staffing the existing rigs based on the type of call, except we have to buy a few more quints. The crews will still be gone with their rig as either an Engine or Truck thus leaving that area devoid of that piece in the matrix and the volunteers would still have to respond with what's left to the scene or staff the remaining rigs to answer addtional calls.

Cogs

But if you go by your logic, if the career staff switches machines based on the type of call, you are still leaving that area void of that machine if there is another call. IE: If there is a water leak call and the career guys take the truck, there is no truck covering that area and the next closest one would have to respond. So it is the same thing. If the career guys staff 1 machine no matter what it is, when they go out (and they will) that area will then have to rely on the next closest unit (or the volunteers) for the next call. So no matter what or how you try to sell "cross staffing" the results will be the same. That's why if it is 1 department, it would work like every other big city or town with multiple stations. If 1 station is out on a run, the next closest one gets the call. Do you think FDNY, Boston, Chicago etc... would cross train guys to take either the truck or the engine depending on the call? Why do you think they don't?

But all this aside, the quint idea is not my favorite at all. But I thought it would be a good place to start or compromise if you will, with the the volunteers and their insistence to have the career staff flip back and forth between rigs.

Edited January 25, 2011 by FD828

[CTFF 65]

I wonder if some of the more experienced Stamford guys could recall Incidents where a specific unit was needed but was on another call and unit that could fill in was not sent?

I simply don’t remember areas being left uncovered.

[TRex 9]

I wonder if some of the more experienced Stamford guys could recall Incidents where a specific unit was needed but was on another call and unit that could fill in was not sent?

I simply don’t remember areas being left uncovered.

I can't remember such an instance. It is manpower that puts out fires. Even if you pull up with out a pump and you get there quick enough without having to wait for others from home, a water can and other extinguishers and even a quick S&R can still be utilized. I have seen it. If the fire is well involved you are going to loose it anyway.

[FFPCogs 863]

I wonder if some of the more experienced Stamford guys could recall Incidents where a specific unit was needed but was on another call and unit that could fill in was not sent?

I simply don't remember areas being left uncovered.

I don't think there's every been a call that has gone unanswered either and that's because we have mutual aid and backfilling for station coverage by volunteers. But if you reduce the overall resources of SFRD by distributing them citywide, as opposed to what they are currently able to cover effectively as they are now downtown, it becomes a very real possibility that there will be major delays in responses. Also take note that right or wrong the level of volunteer participation decreases not increases once SFRD is in the house (ala Glenbrook) so the helpful hand on which the Brown plan depends will, if history is any guide, fall short. Especially when some want to relegate volunteers to support functions or demand that volunteers by virtue of the fact that they are volunteers be subordinate in all cases to SFRD. This will lead in very short order to a city full of Glenbrooks where volunteers will see no benefit to serve. And a city full of Glenbrooks will not be the cure you tout it to be by any means and 12 calls responded to in a year amply demonstrates that. So we come back to the necessity in a very short time of having to hire more career firefighters to staff more apparatus to cover the whole city. It's really a no brainer here guys.

[FFPCogs 863]

But if you go by your logic, if the career staff switches machines based on the type of call, you are still leaving that area void of that machine if there is another call. IE: If there is a water leak call and the career guys take the truck, there is no truck covering that area and the next closest one would have to respond. So it is the same thing. If the career guys staff 1 machine no matter what it is, when they go out (and they will) that area will then have to rely on the next closest unit (or the volunteers) for the next call. So no matter what or how you try to sell "cross staffing" the results will be the same. That's why if it is 1 department, it would work like every other big city or town with multiple stations. If 1 station is out on a run, the next closest one gets the call. Do you think FDNY, Boston, Chicago etc... would cross train guys to take either the truck or the engine depending on the call? Why do you think they don't?

But all this aside, the quint idea is not my favorite at all. But I thought it would be a good place to start or compromise if you will, with the the volunteers and their insistence to have the career staff flip back and forth between rigs.

Now now T, I'm not really THAT stupid. Anytime a rig is dispatched and becomes committed there is a shortfall and units must then backfill or cover more area where necessary. The difference here is that Stamford already has an abundance of apparatus at it's disposal which cross staffing can effectively make use of. Why buy more when we have firehouses full of rigs just waiting for crews to man them. And let's get to another point here, the major complaint with the Mayor's plan is not cross staffing but the number of staff assigned and this we know because we have been repeatedly assailed with how dangerous the plan is by providing substandard staffing. I don't think 2 cuts it either but 4 per rig offers double the bang for the same buck so long as volunteers pick up and guarantee the same level of coverage at night. No matter how you slice it, SFRD Engines in VFD houses, Quints, cross staffing, whatever...anytime a rig is dispatched with a crew that rig and crew will be committed therefore there will always be times when areas are not "covered". And just to remind everyone because it has been thrown at me constantly..this is NOT New York , Chicago or even East Bumblefrok for that matter, so what they do doesn't matter and won't work here.

Cogs

Edited January 25, 2011 by FFPCogs

[CTFF 65]

. So we come back to the necessity in a very short time of having to hire more career firefighters to staff more apparatus to cover the whole city. It's really a no brainer here guys.

Thankfully a no brainer is right up my alley. So your concern is the city is going to have to hire more career firefighters? Isn't the mayor trying to fix this by hiring more career firefighters?

[Bnechis 3,961]

The idea of quint based operations is not a bad one even though I personally despise the concept of quints to begin with...(for me an engine is an engine and a truck is a truck ect., mixing them just reduces the capabilities of both).

I agree, an engine is an engine and a truck is a truck. Now lets compare. you say mixing them reduces the capacities of both...ok I take 3ff & 1 officer put them on a quint. They arrive at a structure fire they can either attack the fire like an engine or perform as a truck, but not both due to 1/2 the needed manpower to do both.

How is this any different from your idea of cross staffing 2 or more units with one crew. I take 3ff & 1 officer put them on an engine in the fire house. They are dispatched as a truck company, grab their stuff off the engine, switch rigs and take the truck. They clearly can not do the work of an engine now because they have 1/2 the staffing and didnt bring the engine with them. Quints are marginal, but cross staffing is worst.

The one major problem I see with the concept here and now though is the cost.

The start up costs are a killer, but running a $900,000-$1.2m quint on every call reduces the life of the rig by 25% or more. Very expensive to maintain the system, which is why you see very few cities doing it.

Also they limit your ability to carry enough hose, water and ground ladders. which are more important in the non-hydranted areas.

[FD828 77]

Now now T, I'm not really THAT stupid. Anytime a rig is dispatched and becomes committed there is a shortfall and units must then backfill or cover more area where necessary. The difference here is that Stamford already has an abundance of apparatus at it's disposal which cross staffing can effectively make use of. Why buy more when we have firehouses full of rigs just waiting for crews to man them. And let's get to another point here, the major complaint with the Mayor's plan is not cross staffing but the number of staff assigned and this we know because we have been repeatedly assailed with how dangerous the plan is by providing substandard staffing. I don't think 2 cuts it either but 4 per rig offers double the bang for the same buck so long as volunteers pick up and guarantee the same level of coverage at night. No matter how you slice it, SFRD Engines in VFD houses, Quints, cross staffing, whatever...anytime a rig is dispatched with a crew that rig and crew will be committed therefore there will always be times when areas are not "covered". And just to remind everyone because it has been thrown at me constantly..this is NOT New York , Chicago or even East Bumblefrok for that matter, so what they do doesn't matter and won't work here.

Cogs

It isn't MD or VA either

[FD828 77]

Also take note that right or wrong the level of volunteer participation decreases not increases once SFRD is in the house (ala Glenbrook)

So who's fault is that? There isn't any paid personnel in TOR's fire station yet they don't have what I would call adequate participation in the public safety of their residents. I don't think you can even count Springdale as a department. And this decrease in participation is only because of SFRD guys are in their house? Really? Are we in 3rd grade or are we professionals? Professionals responsible for saving lives and property. If the volunteers don't want to come out because they don't "like" who the career staff is and if they are willing to let public safety and doing the "right" thing take a back seat to hurt feelings, then they should hang up the gear and find a new hobby. Glenbrook included.

I just have to know, giving the proven fact that other then BFD, the calls are going unanswered multiple times a day in the volunteer departments, what makes you believe that if the mayor enacts this plan that there will be a change and the volunteers are going to show up? Or do you believe that Belltown will just answer every call for every district?

Edited January 26, 2011 by FD828

[FireMedic049 597]

My impression in answering G was that we were talking about a St. Louis type system where basically every (or most actually) rig in town is multi-use thereby "doubling" their efficiency while reducing the overall operating, maintainance and personnel costs. This is why the concept was developed and how the St. Louis or the TQ concept is meant to work (and part of the reason I despise the concept).

I can understand not liking the TQC based on the perception that using it reduces overall manpower and in-service companies. I can also understand not liking it because of the compromise that can occur with the apparatus vs regular engine/truck deployment.

However, there's some things to think about when looking at the use or suggested use of TQC. What's the alternative option? I'm not sure what happened in St. Louis, but I know when Richmond went TQC there was a reduction of companies and overall size of the department. There was a lot of grumbling over the change and all, particularly the view that using quints made what was lost "expendable". This could certainly be true, but what would've happened if they didn't make the change? If the goal was to reduce costs, then it's likely that a force reduction could have happened anyway. So, if you eliminate some personnel, then you either reduce company size or eliminate companies.

Let's say you have 20 engines and 5 trucks operating from 20 stations and have to eliminate 5 companies. Do you close a truck or two? Do you eliminate 5 engines and close 3 stations while also reducing 2 of the engine/truck houses to just the truck and leave the those 2 districts without a suppression capable apparatus? Do you close 5 companies, convert the rest to quints and keep all the stations open while retaining suppression capabilities in all stations and adding 15 aerial devices to your arsenal?

What's the best option if you are losing the positions anyway?

It seems to me that what you're suggesting is not really much different than what I'm suggesting by cross staffing. Putting Quints in every VFD house and then dispatching them based on the type of call is the same as cross staffing the existing rigs based on the type of call, except we have to buy a few more quints. The crews will still be gone with their rig as either an Engine or Truck thus leaving that area devoid of that piece in the matrix and the volunteers would still have to respond with what's left to the scene or staff the remaining rigs to answer addtional calls.

Cross staffing isn't quite the same as using a Quint. It is in the sense you refer to, but one of the main areas in which it can certainly cause a problem is when that manpower will not be responding from the station. If the crew on-duty is returning from a call, out doing an inspection, training or whatever, the quint allows them to immediately respond and act in either role. However, if they took the engine and the next call is for the truck what do you do? It's generally not very practical to return to the station to switch apparatus.

Your idea is certainly valid, but has some distinct drawbacks compared to the duty crews using quints.

[FFPCogs 863]

Thankfully a no brainer is right up my alley. So your concern is the city is going to have to hire more career firefighters? Isn't the mayor trying to fix this by hiring more career firefighters?

No my concern is that more career firefighters will have to be hired because the volunteers will have been allowed to wither and die. And with those additional hirings comes an increase in taxes that we who live here will be forced to pay. We've developed alternatives in terms of staffing that reduce...yes reduce not eliminate...the number of paid personnel necessary to ensure adequate protection in Vollywood, but those alternatives require an investment on the part of the City in the volunteer system..an investment by the way which costs millions less than a paid citywide option.

Let's cut to the chase here, I know full well where the volunteer system stands as a whole but I am also confident of what we are capable of given the support from 888 that has hitherto been lacking. And while we're being frank let me say that I am also fairly confident that there is a cadre within SFRD that wants the volunteers gone, done, over and will settle for nothing less. And these factors also play a part in my concerns and in how they are addressed.

Cogs

Edited January 26, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

I agree, an engine is an engine and a truck is a truck. Now lets compare. you say mixing them reduces the capacities of both...ok I take 3ff & 1 officer put them on a quint. They arrive at a structure fire they can either attack the fire like an engine or perform as a truck, but not both due to 1/2 the needed manpower to do both.

How is this any different from your idea of cross staffing 2 or more units with one crew. I take 3ff & 1 officer put them on an engine in the fire house. They are dispatched as a truck company, grab their stuff off the engine, switch rigs and take the truck. They clearly can not do the work of an engine now because they have 1/2 the staffing and didnt bring the engine with them. Quints are marginal, but cross staffing is worst.

I can see your point and even agree with it to an extent, but in the end to me it is 6 of one half a dozen of the other.

The start up costs are a killer, but running a $900,000-$1.2m quint on every call reduces the life of the rig by 25% or more. Very expensive to maintain the system, which is why you see very few cities doing it.

Which is one of the reasons I am not in favor of this option at this time, but as I said if we were to begin planning for that eventuality now in 5 or so years the concept may be viable and the cross staffing crews could then be assigned to quints.

Also they limit your ability to carry enough hose, water and ground ladders. which are more important in the non-hydranted areas.

And strike three at this point

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

I can understand not liking the TQC based on the perception that using it reduces overall manpower and in-service companies. I can also understand not liking it because of the compromise that can occur with the apparatus vs regular engine/truck deployment.

However, there's some things to think about when looking at the use or suggested use of TQC. What's the alternative option? I'm not sure what happened in St. Louis, but I know when Richmond went TQC there was a reduction of companies and overall size of the department. There was a lot of grumbling over the change and all, particularly the view that using quints made what was lost "expendable". This could certainly be true, but what would've happened if they didn't make the change? If the goal was to reduce costs, then it's likely that a force reduction could have happened anyway. So, if you eliminate some personnel, then you either reduce company size or eliminate companies.

Let's say you have 20 engines and 5 trucks operating from 20 stations and have to eliminate 5 companies. Do you close a truck or two? Do you eliminate 5 engines and close 3 stations while also reducing 2 of the engine/truck houses to just the truck and leave the those 2 districts without a suppression capable apparatus? Do you close 5 companies, convert the rest to quints and keep all the stations open while retaining suppression capabilities in all stations and adding 15 aerial devices to your arsenal?

What's the best option if you are losing the positions anyway?

Well that is one of my fears. Believe it or not the last thing I want to see is positions being lost. I think that there is the potential and justification to redistribute any personnel currently assigned up in Vollywood to existing units downtown to staff them to a level on par with that of say FDNY. Downtown Stamford is not a small town anymore and the demographics and fire load of their response area is considerably more than what it was just 20 short years ago. I for one am all for increased staffing downtown where it is needed.

Cross staffing isn't quite the same as using a Quint. It is in the sense you refer to, but one of the main areas in which it can certainly cause a problem is when that manpower will not be responding from the station. If the crew on-duty is returning from a call, out doing an inspection, training or whatever, the quint allows them to immediately respond and act in either role. However, if they took the engine and the next call is for the truck what do you do? It's generally not very practical to return to the station to switch apparatus.

Your idea is certainly valid, but has some distinct drawbacks compared to the duty crews using quints.

True enough but in all reality whenever a rig is on the road the potentail exists for there to be a shortfall. And yes there are drawbacks to my ideas and I'm the first to admit that they exist, but I think we've done a fair job of coming up with alternatives that take ALL the factors plaguing our system into consideration.

Cogs

Edited January 26, 2011 by FFPCogs