Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SRS131EMTFF

Judge orders 10-yr.-old firetrucks out of fleet: NYPost

26 posts in this topic



The judiciary just can't seem to stop meddling in the affairs of the emergency services. First Garaufis (sp) stymies recruitment for years and now Freed wants to control apparatus and maintenance. And beyond the FDNY you have Sheindlin curbing stop, frisk and question. There are an awful lot of judges out there, on every level, local to the supremes, who legislate from the bench. Its long been a disturbing trend that seems to occur more and more frequently. I must have missed the memo advising that attainment of the bench gives you the ability to know what's best for everyone else regardless of any factual information to the contrary.

x129K, medic84r4ny and Officer Ed like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article itself is kind of confusing. First of all, I thought that all FDNY front line apparatus were replaced every 10 years, so are they talking about special units, such as High rise and foam units? This article makes it sound like there's a whole fleet of older rigs being used by the city. Secondly it says the older rigs are used for non-fire emergencies, so there's a whole set of staffed fire companies, with older rigs, that are doing non-fire emergencies, doesn't sound right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judiciary just can't seem to stop meddling in the affairs of the emergency services. First Garaufis (sp) stymies recruitment for years and now Freed wants to control apparatus and maintenance. And beyond the FDNY you have Sheindlin curbing stop, frisk and question. There are an awful lot of judges out there, on every level, local to the supremes, who legislate from the bench. Its long been a disturbing trend that seems to occur more and more frequently. I must have missed the memo advising that attainment of the bench gives you the ability to know what's best for everyone else regardless of any factual information to the contrary.

This is not meddling, its called contract law.

The NYC fire officers contract for decades has said 10 years max.The city apparently has not been maintaining the agreement and the union took them to court. The judge agreed that the city was violating a contract that the city (not FDNY) signed.

tommyguy, Dinosaur, FF398 and 3 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By non-fire emergencies could he be talking about the EMS Division. I have personally seen 01 & 02 series buses on the road. FDNY helps that identification out with their unit serial numbering. First two digits followed by a dash identify the year, e.g. 04-12345 is an 2004.A 10 year old bus in service on NYC streets is a pretty beat up unit. Especially if it is a 3 tour bus. Just think about the stress of 24/7 operating over 10 years plus. While the decision makes sense the courts should leave the running of departments to the departments. I agree that there are too many judges trying to be legislators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By non-fire emergencies could he be talking about the EMS Division. I have personally seen 01 & 02 series buses on the road. FDNY helps that identification out with their unit serial numbering. First two digits followed by a dash identify the year, e.g. 04-12345 is an 2004.A 10 year old bus in service on NYC streets is a pretty beat up unit. Especially if it is a 3 tour bus. Just think about the stress of 24/7 operating over 10 years plus. While the decision makes sense the courts should leave the running of departments to the departments. I agree that there are too many judges trying to be legislators.

They're talking about non-fire emergencies like gas leaks though, outside of maybe haz-tac buses, I can't think of any ambulances that would handle a gas leak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I read it I thought they were talking about support vehicles used for inspections and maintenance etc.. You see a lot of FDNY vehicles with amber lights out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These articles aren't very well written because they are geared more towards a criticism of recent actions taken by judges in regards to NYC, i.e. priority hires with Garaufis, or the suspension of Stop and Frisk with Judge Scheindlin. They are in fact referring to front line FDNY rigs, engines and ladders assigned to companies, not EMS rigs and not support services vehicles. As a safety issue, the UFOA, the union representing FDNY fire officers, have included in their contract a clause that states that once a front line FDNY rig reaches 11 years of age it can no longer be used to respond to any runs other than runs for fires. This would include EMS, gas leaks, water leaks, elevators, and various other non-fire emergencies. Due to the amount of stress and wear placed on these rigs this clause was placed in to assure that the city didn't let the fleet waste away causing safety and maintenance issues. Since the city's order with Seagrave has already been fulfilled and no new contract for engines has been awarded, there are a number of rigs that are approaching, or have passed this ten year lifespan. The city was ignoring the issue so the UFOA filed suit. What I think the article is trying to focus on is the fact that even though the clause in the contract only referred to front line rigs assigned to a company, not spare rigs, the judge ruled that the city can't even use their spares that are older than ten years. Not sure if that was the judges actual ruling, or if the newspaper misinterpreted the issue, as they often do. If that is the case its a fairly significant problem, as rigs only become spares after they complete ten years of front line service, this would effectively eliminate the cities pool of spare rigs. Also, since the original agreement only affected front line rigs, the city could have circumvented the clause by providing the affected companies with spare rigs, allwoing them to continue to respond to all emergencies, not just fires. Interested to see how this is going to play out.

Bnechis likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this descision from another Judge who knows NOTHING about emergency services?????

steph likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This judges decision is based on UFOA contract provision mandating first line rigs get replaced every 10 years (10 years 364 days). This has been part of contract for many years, it ensures we have new rigs for all units in a timely fashion, no more hand me down rigs to certain units as was policy in old days.

Dinosaur likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this descision from another Judge who knows NOTHING about emergency services?????

The Judge does not need to know anything about emergency services. He/She needs to decipher (and rule on) what the terms of the contract intended.

Dinosaur and crcocr1 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a recommended time frame for replacing apparatus wether it is a big city like NY or a small suburban town where you may only see a handful of fires? Does NFPA have a standard on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best info in regards to NFPA I could find quickly was here:

http://www.iafc.org/Operations/LegacyArticleDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=2332

It states:

"Definition of first-line fire apparatus: First-line fire apparatus must be manufactured to NFPA 1901, 1991 (2003 editions) and must be maintained apparatus in accordance with NFPA 1912 and 1915.

Definition of reserve fire apparatus: Reserve fire apparatus is defined as apparatus manufactured to applicable NFPA 1901 editions, after 1979 and prior to the 1991 edition. Such apparatus must have been upgraded to include as many of the features as possible found in 1991 or newer units and as outlined below.

Definition of obsolete apparatus: Apparatus built before 1979 and/or not manufactured to meet NFPA 1901."

Doesn't provide any really hard dates as for replacement, just what's considered obsolete. I assume its because they take into account the fact that not every rig sees the same wear and tear, mileage, or weather conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so easy to tell who in this thread is actually in the city and affected by the ruling and who just wants to state their $0.02 on 'judicial activism'. The city signed a contract with a clause that says they need to replace the rigs every 10 years. They're breaking that contract. The judge is not meddling or trying to run the fire department. All they did was weigh in on the contract dispute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's so easy then tell us, I doubt anyone even cares, and whether one works for the city or not doesn't mean you are blind to what's going on in front of you. This is a classic case of judicial activism, as the judge decided she was going to rule on more than she was obligated to. Rather than simply rule on the case before her she reached further than the scope of this case and began making decisions not about the legality of a contract, but what she deemed to be proper in regards to the maintenance and lifespan of rigs that weren't frontline rigs and not specified in the contract or in the lawsuit. All she had to do was say yes the city is in violation, but she couldn't resist the urge to do what the majority of judges do, to try to expand and broaden their own power base. She had the right and duty to order a remedy to the issue brought before her, no more, no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares, the City will just ignore it and everyone will be driving in my case 12 year old apparatus with spotty AC and incandescent warning lights and have no right to say no to operating it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long can they keep an apparatus as a spare or reserve piece?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time frame is only front line rigs. Everything else has not rules, Shops will decide when to junk a spare or special rig. Foam rigs / MERV1 are all 80's early 90's. I am sure there are some others .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we got our ferrera we were using a spare that was a 94 seagrave and that was a year and a half ago so we keep ours a little long than 5 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better quaility, better features. Fdny get 100X as much use as most volly rigs hence volly rigs are is better condition i guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better quaility, better features. Fdny get 100X as much use as most volly rigs hence volly rigs are is better condition i guess.

There are volunteer rigs in our county that run about 30 calls per year (maybe 1st due at a fire every 3 to 5 years). They last 25 years, thats 750 calls in the vehicles lifetime.

There are FDNY rigs that do 5,000+ calls per year, thats 50,000+ calls and who knows how many fires. The FDNY rig does more calls in 2 months than the volunteer rig above does in its lifetime.

You can not compare the two.

Better quality - Really?

Better features - maybe, but are they needed to get the job done?

Better condition - yes, except for the flat spots in the tires from sitting so long

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The volly rigs seem to be better than fdny.

Low bider my friend, those apparatus are work horses, built on bare bones though, only having the minimal equipment needed to do its job, not 6,000 lights, no gold leaf, no 8-10 man cabs (cause you always fill those seats for jobs).

bigrig77 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.