1. #26
    Forum Member
    1OLDTIMER's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    USAF 389th SAC
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFD21C View Post
    The problem is you are dropping two 4 man companies to 2 3 man companies if i am understanding you correctly. NIST did a study not to long ago (i will have to find it if you would like) that showed a significant increase in a the effectiveness of a 4 man company over a 3 man company. They further found that the difference between a 2 man company and a 3 man company was less then a 3-4. They also found the samething with the difference between 4-5 man companies.
    I understand and agree completely with your statement, however the (minus 1 from the original 4 man eng) is not (really) that significant in THIS operation as, the (now) 3 man eng. ALWAYS responds with a 4 man quint on a fire run...never alone, a reduction from 8 to 7 on the initial attack. If it is a known (or presumed) actual fire, more than one alarm is transmitted, automatically bringing (with each alarm) 2 more engs and a quint.
    "we will bankrupt ourselves in the vain attempt at absolute security"
    Pres. / General Dwight D. Eisenhower

  2. #27
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Seems like a reasonable way to operate given that more likely than not, you are running far more EMS than fire, which does make EMS your primary mission.

    In our department we run a squad to EMS calls often leaving the engine unmanned at the station. Either the squad will return to Central for the engine, respond to the closest satillte station to the fire or have a volunteer pickup the engine at Central.
    That's real efficient....
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  3. #28
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    537

    Default

    I am lost so the engine has four men on it. If you subtract 1 man that leaves you with 3 so that engine is now a 3 man company. Does the quint run as a task force with the enigne? i.e. every call that the engine responds on the quint runs. If so I know for a fact that Captoldtimer can chim in on that topic. And can voice his opinion on reducing man power in them. That was before my time.

    The way I see it before you had a 4 man engine company and a 4 man quint (truck) company. Now you have a 3 man enigne company and a 4 man quint (truck) company. So now you are still significantly shorting yourself. If the quint helps out doing Engine work, then the truck work gets short changed. If the Quint doesnt help the Engine then the engine work gets short changed.

    The Balance of the alarm assignment is not important. When that first arriving are just pulling up and the people during the inital stages is where the impact is in regards to 4 ver 3 man companies. I can have 50 2 man companies responding to a house fire but that first arriving company is still getting short changed. Unless they are all responding in a parade of fire trucks.

    Depending on the jurisdiction- the 1 or 2 house fires a month you might not see an impact on. But if that company is making 15 fire related runs a day you will see an impact. Those impacts will be an increase in work load on each firefighter on the truck. Officers being forced to perform task instead of doing the job of leading the company. Even for the routine fire calls (smells and bells) your turn around time will be increased i.e. picking up hose lines. Which has the snowball effect of the next fire call will have an increased response time.

    IMO the situation that you describe is a bean counters approach to providing service. You are cutting one area of your service delivery for another. Which will result in a negative impact on the cut area. Now how big of an impact this cut will have is dependant on the demand for that cut service.

    And to add further discussion to your point I believe the system you describe is actually costing more. In order for the EMS only unit to save money. The cost to put inservice and operate the added vehical has to be less then the savings on wear and tear on the enigne. Which in my swag math doesnt seem to be the case.

    (edit-)

    After further research I see that they did not purchase the vehical it was already inservice. That unit still needs to be replaced at some point though. which still adds in to the cost.
    Last edited by RFD21C; 08-20-2011 at 05:24 PM.

  4. #29
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    That's real efficient....
    Given the fact that there are almost volunteers that respond to the Central Station to cover the station in the event of an EMS call, or hover close by in the event of a simultaneous fire call, or administrative members (myself and the DC) that stay in the office for most responses at Central, the impact on fire response is minimal.

    In addition, given the size of our district, it commonly is more efficient and faster for the squad to go to the closest satellite station to the incident from the EMS call and drop off a driver than it would be for the slower engine from Central to respond to the outer areas of the district, where we have volunteer stations.

    The simple fact is EMS is 84% of what we do ... So it is our primary function. Fire and all other calls represent only 16% of what we do, so in essence, it is a secondary function.

    Our volunteers give us the ability to commit our paid and volunteer ride-out staff to EMS with a minimal impact on fire response. That minimal impact does exist, but it is a reasonable trade-off for the delivery of EMS.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 08-20-2011 at 07:39 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  5. #30
    Forum Member
    1OLDTIMER's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    USAF 389th SAC
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFD21C View Post
    And to add further discussion to your point I believe the system you describe is actually costing more. In order for the EMS only unit to save money. The cost to put inservice and operate the added vehical has to be less then the savings on wear and tear on the enigne. Which in my swag math doesnt seem to be the case.

    (edit-)

    After further research I see that they did not purchase the vehical it was already inservice. That unit still needs to be replaced at some point though. which still adds in to the cost.
    The Suburban being used, is a SPARE from the 'rotation' when new (every few years) Bat. Chief Suburbans are put in-service, and it was NOT PURCHASED for THIS. When it's time to replace Squad 2, another 'SPARE' will be moved into service, rather than trade or auction it off.

    I beg to differ on the TOTAL 'overhead' (and replacement cost) of operating a Class-A, diesel powered, Crimson eng...compaired to that of a gas powered Chevy Sub.

    As I stated previously, this is obviously not for every dept. and area for whatever reasons. That being said, THIS IS WORKING OUT FOR AFR, with service expanding to another high EMS call area in the near future.

    Thanks for the 'quality' discussion, observations, input and opinions...
    "we will bankrupt ourselves in the vain attempt at absolute security"
    Pres. / General Dwight D. Eisenhower

  6. #31
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1OLDTIMER View Post
    The Suburban being used, is a SPARE from the 'rotation' when new (every few years) Bat. Chief Suburbans are put in-service, and it was NOT PURCHASED for THIS. When it's time to replace Squad 2, another 'SPARE' will be moved into service, rather than trade or auction it off.

    I beg to differ on the TOTAL 'overhead' (and replacement cost) of operating a Class-A, diesel powered, Crimson eng...compaired to that of a gas powered Chevy Sub.

    As I stated previously, this is obviously not for every dept. and area for whatever reasons. That being said, THIS IS WORKING OUT FOR AFR, with service expanding to another high EMS call area in the near future.

    Thanks for the 'quality' discussion, observations, input and opinions...
    Again, it sounds very much like the system Shreveport, another city, is using in their high-volume EMS areas the reduce the response of the engines, with reported success. Except they are taking manpower from the truck companies.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  7. #32
    Forum Member
    Fyrtrks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Binghamton,N.Y.
    Posts
    265

    Cool The old two sided coin

    This is a tough call. I see the practicality of an SUV in a volunteer department. I also see the need to have the crew together on the main piece in a career department. In a career department the $ 20,000 we spend every 5 years on SUV's could buy a heck of a lot of tires and oil changes on the big pieces and you have all of your tools if the blinger comes in on the way back from a boo boo box run. I am very weary that the day will come when we are returning and come across the child trapped in a sceond story bedroom and the first floor is cooking. I like to think I pushed the movement to take only the big piece to MVAs but I am sure someone here will dispute that. The other problem we have here is the PD gets Tahoes for 1 officer and we cram 3 firefighter/paramedics in a small SUV (Grand Cherokees soon to be Escapes.

    Please don't just settle of the local light guy who works out of his garage or the radio shop. Have your unit built by a pro, it doesn't have to be my company it could be one of our competitors we can plan and integrate things they way they should be/ It will be the most used unit in the station so why not treat it like the rest of your apparatus. It makes a world of difference you can get a warranty and you have someone to go back to if you have a problem.

    Did I advertise any?
    Fyrtrks

  8. #33
    Forum Member
    gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    1. We run 3 man companies, won't work. City is not going to increase our manpower to save fuel $$.
    2. Only 1 double house with engine/truck, not going to cut manpower from companies already down to 3.
    3. We don't have any spare utility vehicles. They are given to other city dept's just before the wheels fall off.
    4. "Spare" Suburban or not, it is an additional vehicle in the fleet you wouldn't need if not for this EMS response program.

    My crew was recently dispatched for a lift assist. We were enroute and dispatched to an apt fire alarm. We were two blocks away from the alarm and arrived almost immediately, and extinguished the fire before our normal second due would have showed up-had they not been on another call. The third and fourth due were also on other calls, but broke away and responded direct to the fire scene. Can't see that 3 Suburbans would have done much good at such a fire had it gotten away from us, or we had been OOS. Not enough room in a Suburban to carry all the gear we used on that small fire either-turnouts, SCBA, 6' hook, axe/halligan, water can, TIC, toolbox, etc.

    I think that it is ridiculous to worry about mileage on fire apparatus. What's next, the Suburban gets 12mpg, lets put the EMS crew in a Ford Focus to get 20mpg? How about mopeds? After 15 years that engine apparatus will be rusting and falling apart whether it has 120K miles on it or 30K. Saving a few gallons of gas won't make up for spending $60-80K purchasing and outfitting another Suburban.

  9. #34
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnyv View Post
    1. We run 3 man companies, won't work. City is not going to increase our manpower to save fuel $$.
    2. Only 1 double house with engine/truck, not going to cut manpower from companies already down to 3.
    3. We don't have any spare utility vehicles. They are given to other city dept's just before the wheels fall off.
    4. "Spare" Suburban or not, it is an additional vehicle in the fleet you wouldn't need if not for this EMS response program.

    My crew was recently dispatched for a lift assist. We were enroute and dispatched to an apt fire alarm. We were two blocks away from the alarm and arrived almost immediately, and extinguished the fire before our normal second due would have showed up-had they not been on another call. The third and fourth due were also on other calls, but broke away and responded direct to the fire scene. Can't see that 3 Suburbans would have done much good at such a fire had it gotten away from us, or we had been OOS. Not enough room in a Suburban to carry all the gear we used on that small fire either-turnouts, SCBA, 6' hook, axe/halligan, water can, TIC, toolbox, etc.

    I think that it is ridiculous to worry about mileage on fire apparatus. What's next, the Suburban gets 12mpg, lets put the EMS crew in a Ford Focus to get 20mpg? How about mopeds? After 15 years that engine apparatus will be rusting and falling apart whether it has 120K miles on it or 30K. Saving a few gallons of gas won't make up for spending $60-80K purchasing and outfitting another Suburban.
    Don't Laugh,I think I have seen London EMS on Motorcycles. T.C.

  10. #35
    Forum Member
    gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    Don't Laugh,I think I have seen London EMS on Motorcycles. T.C.
    I see what you're saying, T.C. But for those that don't know any better, I think that has more to do with traffic congestion and narrow streets than mileage. Plus, they are not dual role Fire-EMS.

    God forbid some budget slasher sees this:
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  11. #36
    Forum Member
    1OLDTIMER's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    USAF 389th SAC
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnyv View Post
    I see what you're saying, T.C. But for those that don't know any better, I think that has more to do with traffic congestion and narrow streets than mileage. Plus, they are not dual role Fire-EMS.

    God forbid some budget slasher sees this:
    Here is a REAL 'money saving' idea for cities on a low (or have recently lost) their budget altogether. Not an EMS, but a First-Aid kit could be added. PD's have been using bikes for many years in high congestion areas, so why not FD ? A section of 2.5" for a direct hookup, and a couple of "cans," what more could one ask for ?

    Starts everytime; quiet...no ear damage; makes the EPA mad as it is not emitting anything; zero fuel cost; tires are reasonable; convenient to house nearly anywhere...man wish I would have thought of and got the pat. on this super idea.

    more 'great' ideas/solutions here -> http://www.strangevehicles.com/
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by 1OLDTIMER; 08-22-2011 at 11:49 AM.
    "we will bankrupt ourselves in the vain attempt at absolute security"
    Pres. / General Dwight D. Eisenhower

  12. #37
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnyv View Post
    I see what you're saying, T.C. But for those that don't know any better, I think that has more to do with traffic congestion and narrow streets than mileage. Plus, they are not dual role Fire-EMS.

    God forbid some budget slasher sees this:
    I'm SURE it's because of congestion and I agree 100% on the other issue. Not so sure on the Dual role,Steve Dude I'm sure can enlighten us. Given the recent events in London,I'm sure he's either trying to rest of fix stuff,lot of horror there recently. Nice pic btw,I LIKE it,hehe T.C.

  13. #38
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    87

    Default

    The department I am with just went to three man shifts a few months ago and this has opened up all kinda of possibilities. When I stay up at the station for the night we have a four man crew (I am a volly). If a medical call comes in two of us will often take the F250 with medical gear and our turnouts. Our district is only 11 sq miles (give or take a bit) and we generally only beat the ambulance by 3-5 minutes. If we get on scene, and immediately get toned out for a fire, even if we have to wait 4-5 minutes with the patient, we will only be 30 seconds to a minute behind the engine for actually arriving on scene. and often times will beat the engine. Then you have four firefighters on scene in roughly the same amount of time you would have if we had all taken the engine. The only downside (that I can see from OUR system) is that when the two guys in the F250 show up on scene they are not packed out yet, but while they pack out on scene the driver gets off the engine and does a scene sizeup and the guy riding seat pulls the line. No problems there.

    The fire service has changed dramatically and the reality of it is we will get many many more opportunities to save a life on a cardiac arrest call or a not breathing call then we will pulling someone out of a fire. And since life safety is the priority we run Echo medical calls (not breathing calls mainly) with as fast a response time as possible and we do get saves because we can often times be on scene in under 2.5 minutes from when the pager goes off for the call. All the firefighters at the station (paid) are trained to the same minimum standards, everyone of them can run command, drive any truck, pump any truck, and operate any line. This means if we have two guys out in the F250 on a medical call (and two at the station) and we get a vehicle accident with entrapment then per SOP's one guy at the station takes the engine which is fully outfitted with extrication and the other guy takes the "service truck" which is like a rescue and is outfitted with more extrication tools and loads of other equipment. The two guys in the F250 will almost always beat the engine and service truck even if they have to wait on the ambulance 2-3 minutes. and you have 4 guys on scene, with two full sized apparatuses to block traffic and a third that can be used for traffic control.

    Our system works well, and it is due to our area size, our staffing, and the fact that our guys are trained for everything on every truck...period.

  14. #39
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,593

    Default

    A lot of this arguement centers on the number of fire v. EMS responses.

    In our case, we are primarily an EMS response agency. We see a very limited number of fires, except during periods of high brush fire danger, such as we are in now.

    We have built our reputation with the citizens on our delivery of EMS. In fact, at one point we ran EMS transport for the majority of the parish before the parish EMS agency was formed. Because of that, we have a very long and storied history, and reputqation, with the delivery of EMS.

    There are likely other agencies who run a fire/EMS mix similair to ours that view EMS as a primary, or at a minimum, an equal with EMS.

    There may be other areas, including some posters in this discussion who either run far more fires, or have far more limited resources to deal with fire-related calls. Thier perspective regarding the delivery of EMS, and the resources that should be committed to EMS v. fire will differ significantly from the perspective of those who run far fewer fires. They amy view fire as the priority, with EMS being of alesser importance, or in some cases, a distraction, or a drain on resources that should be dedicated to fire v. EMS.

    Bottom line is how we view the committment of manpower and resources to EMS v. fire is a product of our department's and it's manpower and resources, the community, and the fire/EMS mix in that community.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  15. #40
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1OLDTIMER View Post
    Here is a REAL 'money saving' idea for cities on a low (or have recently lost) their budget altogether. Not an EMS, but a First-Aid kit could be added. PD's have been using bikes for many years in high congestion areas, so why not FD ? A section of 2.5" for a direct hookup, and a couple of "cans," what more could one ask for ?

    Starts everytime; quiet...no ear damage; makes the EPA mad as it is not emitting anything; zero fuel cost; tires are reasonable; convenient to house nearly anywhere...man wish I would have thought of and got the pat. on this super idea.

    more 'great' ideas/solutions here -> http://www.strangevehicles.com/
    We already tried the motocycle fire truck here in the 1930's. It had a side car and everything. From what i have read they actually were some what effective. i am sure Captoldtimer has a photo of one. Heck he might have even rode on one!!! I will see if I can find the article i read on it when i am at work next time.

  16. #41
    Forum Member
    1OLDTIMER's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    USAF 389th SAC
    Posts
    255

    Default

    I guess we are getting off the topic a little, but here was Maxim's "motorcycle" w/pump and hose that was made during the WWII years. Wouldn't one of these be a great find for a parade or muster today...
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    "we will bankrupt ourselves in the vain attempt at absolute security"
    Pres. / General Dwight D. Eisenhower

  17. #42
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    You better HIDE these. Some Genius at City Hall will try to get them BACK. IMAGINE the savings,hehe T.C.

  18. #43
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    A lot of this arguement centers on the number of fire v. EMS responses.

    In our case, we are primarily an EMS response agency. We see a very limited number of fires, except during periods of high brush fire danger, such as we are in now.

    We have built our reputation with the citizens on our delivery of EMS. In fact, at one point we ran EMS transport for the majority of the parish before the parish EMS agency was formed. Because of that, we have a very long and storied history, and reputqation, with the delivery of EMS.

    There are likely other agencies who run a fire/EMS mix similair to ours that view EMS as a primary, or at a minimum, an equal with EMS.

    There may be other areas, including some posters in this discussion who either run far more fires, or have far more limited resources to deal with fire-related calls. Thier perspective regarding the delivery of EMS, and the resources that should be committed to EMS v. fire will differ significantly from the perspective of those who run far fewer fires. They amy view fire as the priority, with EMS being of alesser importance, or in some cases, a distraction, or a drain on resources that should be dedicated to fire v. EMS.

    Bottom line is how we view the committment of manpower and resources to EMS v. fire is a product of our department's and it's manpower and resources, the community, and the fire/EMS mix in that community.
    For ONCE,we're close to agreeing on something. And since we run little to no EMS you'll be getting a BRT on the call. NO surburbans here(except the Bosses)everything else is a pickup(in the Small rolling stock). T.C.

  19. #44
    Forum Member
    CaptOldTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFD21C View Post
    We already tried the motocycle fire truck here in the 1930's. It had a side car and everything. From what i have read they actually were some what effective. i am sure Captoldtimer has a photo of one. Heck he might have even rode on one!!! I will see if I can find the article i read on it when i am at work next time.


    As my friend has said, we use them from 1920 to 1940. No I wasn't on the job then. They were very easy to get around with. Two [2] members from a 7 man company. It was a new concept that began in 1920 that really worked!

    Motorcycles, with a side car, could weave in and out of traffic with two members to answers calls such as auto's, trolley cars, grass, trash, chimneys, kitchen and incipient fires in buildings. Most of the time they went alone, but also ran as part of the company which they were assigned to.
    Stay Safe and Well Out There....

    Always remembering 9-11-2001 and 343+ Brothers

  20. #45
    Forum Member
    1OLDTIMER's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    USAF 389th SAC
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Capt...thanks for posting the GREAT photo from the '20's. I can't tell if it was an Indian or Harley, but really doesn't matter.

    You probably remember seeing the MC's the U.S. Army used during WWII, and same there...zoomed all over the place under most conditions. They were sold for as low as $50 after the war...but are worth a fortune today.
    "we will bankrupt ourselves in the vain attempt at absolute security"
    Pres. / General Dwight D. Eisenhower

  21. #46
    Forum Member
    CaptOldTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1OLDTIMER View Post
    Capt...thanks for posting the GREAT photo from the '20's. I can't tell if it was an Indian or Harley, but really doesn't matter.

    You probably remember seeing the MC's the U.S. Army used during WWII, and same there...zoomed all over the place under most conditions. They were sold for as low as $50 after the war...but are worth a fortune today.

    It was an Indian "Big Chief 74". The cost was $785.00 FOB Springfield, Massachusetts.
    Stay Safe and Well Out There....

    Always remembering 9-11-2001 and 343+ Brothers

  22. #47
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1OLDTIMER View Post
    Aug. 16, 2011:

    This started as an 'experiment' 4 months ago, however has worked-out so well, that a second unit is already being considered. Keep in mind, that AFR does NOT 'transport'.

    This came at no 'extra' cost to the citizens, as a 'spare' Suburban is being used, and staffing was accomplished by using 2 F/F's per shift from one of the '4-man eng. Co's.'



    more here -> http://www.ems1.com/ems-products/amb...-for-EMS-calls

    "Folks that come up with brilliant ideas today...need to be commended"
    So the cost saving will be moot when the "spare" suburban needs to be replaced. Even if it is another hand me down, there had to be another new one purchased. Figure $50,000 for a new one (including lights, radio and such, even if it is just manpower to move and install) it will take 10 years to cover the $4600 a year savings before it saves money again.

    Also has all the EMS equipment been taken off the other apparatus and placed on the suburban or is it duplicate equipment (another hidden cost.)

    FYI the Rochester Fire Department is going away from the Midi concept.

  23. #48
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lexfd5 View Post
    FYI the Rochester Fire Department is going away from the Midi concept.
    it appears the motive is financial and not based solely on tactical considerations.

  24. #49
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    247

    Default

    As I understand it the rationale for getting FDs involved in EMS primarily was that they could generally arrive faster than the ambulance service thereby gaining the few extra minutes that can sometimes be very important for patient survival.

    But, it seems to me that if FD funding is at such a critical level that worrying about tire and gas costs for the engines are becoming an issue, its time for the city to have a serious talk with whoever provides their ambulance service. Perhaps they've grown a little too used to the FD taking up their slack. Why not have them deploy multiply SUV-based crews across the city instead of the FD doing it?

    My combo department is considering doing something a little like this, but I wouldn't have much of an issue with it since our paid staff is already larger than justified based on either our fire or EMS call volume. So, while on some level it probably will eventually impact some fire scene, our real fire calls (as opposed to false alarms, etc.) are so rare that I can't imagine many situations where it would make much difference. But, for larger towns, it would be more of an issue.

  25. #50
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,862

    Lightbulb Do less with less?

    Quote Originally Posted by auxman View Post
    My combo department is considering doing something a little like this, but I wouldn't have much of an issue with it since our paid staff is already larger than justified based on either our fire or EMS call volume. So, while on some level it probably will eventually impact some fire scene, our real fire calls (as opposed to false alarms, etc.) are so rare that I can't imagine many situations where it would make much difference. But, for larger towns, it would be more of an issue.
    I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you're clearly not one of the career members of your combo FD? I guess false alarms should be handled by less personnel, since, after all they're just false alarms, right? You're either severely misguided or jealous. How about the very first time you show up to an actual fire with less personnel, you've just raised the overall risks to everyone firefighters and civilians. Sure, you can adjust your tactics to cover up lost personnel, but in the end this is a form a a reduction in service or slowage of service to the civilians who you serve. Not to worry, you not alone in your misguided view. Everyone understands making the best use of the taxpayers dollars, but it somehow is more offensive when some of the misinformation come directly from the ranks of the FD.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Which calls do you dread?
    By ROOKIELZ in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 02-11-2007, 10:32 AM
  2. Suspicious Phone Calls
    By san4rd in forum Washington State
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-07-2005, 02:44 PM
  3. Suspicious Phone Calls
    By san4rd in forum Idaho
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-07-2005, 02:24 PM
  4. leaving work for calls?
    By RHVFC in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-24-2001, 02:39 PM
  5. Cutting Medical calls in Ozark/MO Firefighters cut med calls
    By NFD270 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-19-2001, 04:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register