Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 56 of 56
  1. #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


  2. #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.

  3. #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.

  4. #44
    Forum Member CaptOldTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,202

    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

  5. #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

  6. #46
    Forum Member CaptOldTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,202

    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

  7. #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.

  8. #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.

  9. #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.

  10. #50
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,805

    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.

  11. #51
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    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.
    I know this will fire up another debate, but what the hell.

    First of all, the vast majority of alarm trips are false. Secondly, if you start looking at the buildings that have alarms, the majority of them also have sprinkler systems, which means if there is an actual fire, it will in all likelihood be extinguished by the sprinkler system long before we arrive.

    In some places it's not uncommon for 98-99% of alarm trips to be false, and I have documentation to back that up.

    As far as fire v. EMS .....

    If you operate in an area with low fire frequency, EMS can and should be allocated a higher percentage of your fire resources than if you operate in an area with a high fire incidence. Bottom line, EMS affects and saves more lives than fire response ever will, so it simply makes sense to dedicate them to EMS and utilize the remainder as a fire resource.

    I have no idea what the numbers are in auxman's area, but in our area, 84% of our volume is EMS. Less than .1% of our runs are structure fires with slightly over 1% representing total fires, so yes, we dedicate our entire career and ride-out staffing to EMS when we are operating at multiple calls and essentially allow the volunteers responding from home handle any fire calls that may come in until the EMS runs are cleared.

    EMS should have equal priority as fire, and honestly, will save fire more lives than a fire truck ever will.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 08-28-2011 at 07:25 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  12. #52
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    247

    Default

    RDF, I guess you didn't notice that I was essentially arguing against diverting fire staff in this way by saying that the EMS folks should be the ones stretching their resources to answer these calls rather than the FD. And what I was also saying was that even if our Dept. tried something like this our call volume is so low (including even fire alarms) that it would be extremely rare for it to cause us a problem.

    Perhaps it was my saying that we are overstaffed on the paid side that got you upset. We are, but what I didn't say, but would have if the question came up is that we are are also understaffed on the volunteer side primarily due to the department policy requring all vols to be FFII (which I happen to agree with, but it does limit your vol recruiting a bit). So don't think I was even getting close to making some "the vols can handle everything" argument.

  13. #53
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by auxman View Post
    Perhaps it was my saying that we are overstaffed on the paid side that got you upset. We are, but what I didn't say, but would have if the question came up is that we are are also understaffed on the volunteer side primarily due to the department policy requring all vols to be FFII (which I happen to agree with, but it does limit your vol recruiting a bit). So don't think I was even getting close to making some "the vols can handle everything" argument.
    You are correct in seeing the source of my ire. You explanation only furthers the issue in my view. You say you're overstaffed with paid people but short on volunteers? So if too few volunteers show up, it would still be better for fewer paid firefighter to be on duty? And the answer, though you say you disagree, is to lower standards for your volunteers? I cannot even guess what your angle is or how you've arrived at your assertions? Sorry to call you out, but I just don't understand...

  14. #54
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    247

    Default

    Thats getting away from the point of the thread more than necessary. If you really care about staffing at my dept I'll be happy to discuss it through PM though I don't see the point.

  15. #55
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I know this will fire up another debate, but what the hell.

    First of all, the vast majority of alarm trips are false. Secondly, if you start looking at the buildings that have alarms, the majority of them also have sprinkler systems, which means if there is an actual fire, it will in all likelihood be extinguished by the sprinkler system long before we arrive.

    In some places it's not uncommon for 98-99% of alarm trips to be false, and I have documentation to back that up.

    As far as fire v. EMS .....

    If you operate in an area with low fire frequency, EMS can and should be allocated a higher percentage of your fire resources than if you operate in an area with a high fire incidence. Bottom line, EMS affects and saves more lives than fire response ever will, so it simply makes sense to dedicate them to EMS and utilize the remainder as a fire resource.

    I have no idea what the numbers are in auxman's area, but in our area, 84% of our volume is EMS. Less than .1% of our runs are structure fires with slightly over 1% representing total fires, so yes, we dedicate our entire career and ride-out staffing to EMS when we are operating at multiple calls and essentially allow the volunteers responding from home handle any fire calls that may come in until the EMS runs are cleared.

    EMS should have equal priority as fire, and honestly, will save fire more lives than a fire truck ever will.

    So how do you feel about staffing, training, and equipping for specialty/technical rescue disciplines?

  16. #56
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nameless View Post
    So how do you feel about staffing, training, and equipping for specialty/technical rescue disciplines?
    My combo department operates a technical rescue team. We probably utilize it twice to three times a year. When we do, it generally requires a full department commitment including safety, support and command positions.

    As a rule, we will pull a neighboring departments technical rescue certified personnel into the operation as well either as a backup team or supplemental personnel.

    Since we will be generally committing all available personnel to the operation, also use mutual aid to cover our Central Station. In some cases we may have some non-technical rescue members available to run EMS and fire calls along with the mutual aid cover company, but that would be more the exception as compared to the rule.

    We view technical rescue as a role that is as critical as EMS, though it is not used very often.

    We do not do water or dive as there is minimal call for that in our district. There is a neighboring department that has extensive experience and a number of trained personnel, so we utilize them for those types of responses, which occur once every few years and are generally recovery operations.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

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