OT - Small town vol. fire chief vehicles

BarnyardEngineering

Well-known Member
Location
Rochester, NY
Have any of you noticed this in your area?

At least two small town volunteer fire departments about 20 miles to the West of me have these "phantom" fire chief SUVs.

By phantom, I mean they are white lettering on white paint, or black lettering on black paint, with a narrow little light bar on the roof that looks like part of the luggage rack. From a distance they look like a normal SUV. You can only tell that they're a fire department vehicle if you get within 10' or shine a light on them.

Every morning, I get passed by one or both of them on the expressway into the city. When I get passed, they are 30-35 miles from their home town, so they are using department vehicles to commute around 40 miles in to work.

That just doesn't seem right. I understand that they're the chief and all, but they're not going to be able to respond to an emergency from 40 miles away.
 
Are the autos fire dept. owned or private owned?

Around here some of the volunteers autos are decked out by the private individual.
 

If they are volunteers, then they may be private vehicles with these guys going to work. What kind of plates are they wearing? In my state FD vehicles or vehicles owned by a municipality have gov't plates.
 
The plates are also "phantom" and they just say "CHIEF" but you can only read it if you're close, or shine a light on them. From a distance they look blank. They are not NY issue plates, so I can only conclude that these are department vehicles.

Also, why would you do that to your own personal vehicle? Chief is an elected position, and small town volunteer fire departments tend to be very "political." Coups happen all the time. You could be chief one day, and have a very silly looking car the next.
 
Here they are painted red with very visible
lettering and owned by fire department. I
don't mind them driving to work in case they
have a call but we have seen them 45 minutes
from home shopping with the wife and kids.
My question is if they have an accident with
a none member in the vehicle who is
responsible?
 
If they are volunteer, are the vehicles privately owned?If so they can drive wherever they choose to go.

Volunteer fire depts are somewhat of a sore subject with me.
I realize their importance and the need. My family has had many members over the years. But just like little league
sports, some people lose their common sense, and drive like idiots when the siren sounds. In several small hamlets and
towns the local firetrucks and buildings (using federal grants) are worth more than the buildings they are there to
save. Some people can not separate a hobby (keen interest) from reality.
 
That is one of the perks of being chief in a volunteer department. If they had nothing nobody would volunteer. If you don't like it join the fire department , become chief and drive the SUV.
 
Our department is a small one. We just in the last 2 years got new bunker gear, the first new stuff EVER. Our problem is insurance, if something happens and we have substandard gear there would be a huge lawsuit. Now outer issue is our pumper truck. We currently have a 80's Ford with a 750 GPM pump, however at the last testing it would not meet the 750 GPM. Your homeowners insurance is based partially on you local department, so now either homeowners pay higher rates or we get a new pumper. We are looking for pumpers but either you spend 100 and maybe have the same problem in a couple years or you spend 80k, our village has less than 80 people and we haven't had a structure fire in 3 years, only grass fires. I understand your argument and I'm personally not in favor of spending 80k on a truck that will only get used on a rare occasion. So what may look like gross overspending may have other reasons.
 
Greg K is on the money with his response.
A bunch of bureaucrats in Washington set the standards that
all fire dept's, paid, volunteer, big city, small township,
have to abide by.
Most of the bureaucrats are politicians or friends of politicians
That have very little real experience. And have no knowledge of
small town, small budget departments.
They just say this is the way to do it and if you don't your
liable!
They mandate that you have X number of firefighters and X number
of officers to fight a fire.
They haven't a clue.
That's why the Chief has a dept vehicle.
And I guarantee he has grey hair or is starting to go grey.
I never had grey hair until I was Chief for two yrs.

Steve A W
30 year veteran of the the volunteer fire service.

.
 
I don't see how a shiny new department-owned SUV disguised to look like a regular passenger vehicle, parked 40 miles from the nearest edge of the fire district, improves anything.

I got no problem with the chief having a vehicle to drive when he is in his district and/or doing his chiefly duty. When the chief uses the department vehicle for an 80-mile round trip daily commute to his job, EVERYONE should have a problem with that.

Greg K, so what you're saying is that instead of using limited funds to update equipment, small fire departments should instead spend it on personal transportation for the chief?
 
Decals are inexpensive and easy to remove. Light bar can be moved to another vehicle. License plate registration could be transfered to another chief's vehicle. If the position is only part-time, the fire district may be money ahead to pay the chief mileage for the few times when he does use his personal vehicle for district business.
 

Nearly a year ago our department's chief got fired. One of the issues was the troubles that he had driving the department Expedition around. It was high visibility until one of his crashes then the stickers became the blend in type. But problems such as showing up on TV at an incident 100 miles away was just a small part of what got him canned. Our department rarely gets turned down when they ask for a truck or equipment. One of the biggest problems was member turnover under him.

Steve AW, It sounds like you are thinking that the NFPA is a federal gov't. agency, well it is not. It is a private organization funded by insurance companies. They have no authority at all to tell departments what to do. They can only recommend. Fire Departments often show sections of the NFPA standards to budget committees and town councils to support their requests for funding. Our chief would leave off the end of the section where it says that the decision is really the chief's. The insurance underwriters have much more authority, but the town is always free to go to another company.
 
Lol. No that's not what I meant. My point
was that sometimes it seems like the
departments are living high on the hog but
there is more to it. Someone on here said
once " when things don't make sense, it
means you don't have all the info, which is
why you asked the question on the first
place. In my county we now have an emergency
management/ homeland security person. He
drives a provided vehicle and does, umm,
stuff. Actually he does do some organizing
of equipment, write grants, and coordinate
between departments. I'm not sure how
necessary the job is but he does work at it.
Perhaps what you are seeing is an example of
the FEMA/ Homeland Security push, but I
don't agree with driving it to work unless
it is a personal vehicle. Most license
plates will either say "official" or be a
standard plate so that may help shed some
light on whether it is a personal or
government vehicle.

As far as there being more to the story,
someone else posted about government grants
and overbuilding and just to illustrate what
CAN go on. When we were in the process to
build a new fire hall for ourselves about 5
years ago we looked into grants. We
discovered that the biggest grant
opportunity was through the USDA. The issue
that we ran into was this. We could build a
60?100 fire hall the way we wanted for about
$225,000 (which is what we ended up with)
or if we got the government grants and
jumped through all the hoops and followed
all their guidelines we could have the same
(essentially) fire hall for close to
$500,000. If we took their money we had to
play by their rules which included things
like an engineers stamp on a set of plans
from a neighboring towns firehall and other
requiremeets that didn't fit our needs.

In the end we talked to one of the owners
of Liteform who grew up locally and he gave
us an awesome deal on the Styrofoam forms.
Since I had just gone into business for
myself as an electrician I got the bid (for
cost) and with the help of 2 other
electricians on the department donating
nights and weekends we wired it for a good
price. The concrete flatwork was done by
another member of the department. A painter
friend of mine donated the labor to paint.
It was all paid for by private donations and
a grant from a private local foundation who
generously donated about $80,000, a local
feedlot who promised I believe $10,000 a
year for 5 years, many locals who were
having good times with $7 corn, and quite a
few fundraisers. One issue we had was that
the laws had just changed the year we built
and we had to put in a sprinkler system, to the tune of over $30,000. We
put in a small kitchen but since we would
need a commercial exhaust hood if we used a
range we just put in 2 wall ovens saving
about $10,000.

Like I said sometimesthings are required and
once you start down the road you have to
comply and get more than you want or need.
Like buying a new puckup, I just want a club
cab, v-8, civil seats and floor, and an AM
radio. However I have to buy power windows,
CD player, power mirrors, heated steering
wheel lol just because that's my only
choice.
 
Lol. 1500 GPM would collapse every water line I town as well as the water tower! Our 745 (now) GPM pumper would do us for another 20 years. I'm guessing well end up spending the money for a good one since most of the leaders are more forward thinking than I am, I squeak when I walk lol
 
I am a 40 year volunteer fire fighter having served as a chief and asst. chief. In Pennsylvania a volunteer fire dept. may use privately owned vehicles of the chief and asst. chiefs and equip them with a red light bar and siren. No other identification is required.
 
No body would volunteer????? Really? My grandfather was the local chief. My father was the local chief. My nephew was the local chief. None of them got a free SUV to drive all over the state. If that is why you joined up....maybe you don't understand the concept.
 
I have to disagree on your assessment of the NFPA. Yes they are not a government agency and have no enforcement authority but most states adopt their guidelines. Remember that the NFPA is the same organization that the NEC code comes from and that is the industry standard for most if not all states.
I do not think any manufacture of fire equipment produces a product that is not NFPA compliant. As far as liabilities and lawyers go it is best to follow all of the NFPA guidelines.
Let me also say the the NFPA has hurt the small volunteer fire departments because of the added cost to meet their guidelines.
I am all for safety but don't always agree with the guidelines.
 
I don't know where you're at or the state practice... but here Nova Scotia... provincial statute allows for chief officers to have lights and
sirens in their personally owned vehicles... and as such are permitted all of the exceptions afforded an emergency vehicle while responding
to an alarm.
Generally these are concealed lights like a ghost car... since most don't want visible lights on their daily driver...
Having to change the lights out when you lose the white bucket is seldom a worry... there ain't no lineup looking for the job here. The only
thing you ever get from it is a migraine and white hair.

Rod
 
(quoted from post at 09:49:33 04/19/17) The plates are also "phantom" and they just say "CHIEF" but you can only read it if you're close, or shine a light on them. From a distance they look blank. They are not NY issue plates, so I can only conclude that these are department vehicles.

Also, why would you do that to your own personal vehicle? Chief is an elected position, and small town volunteer fire departments tend to be very "political." Coups happen all the time. You could be chief one day, and have a very silly looking car the next.

Up here the blue light heroes dress their vehicles up with all the lights and stickers they can. Nothing new in this area.

If they are wearing something other than a normal passenger car plate, something "official", then it would seem they are "dept" vehicles. But gov't employees using work vehicles for personal use is nothing new. I caught a lot of them. You'd call the agency responsible, but I don't know what ever happened after that.
 
(quoted from post at 13:12:22 04/19/17) Greg K is on the money with his response.
A bunch of bureaucrats in Washington set the standards that
all fire dept's, paid, volunteer, big city, small township,
have to abide by.
Most of the bureaucrats are politicians or friends of politicians
That have very little real experience. And have no knowledge of
small town, small budget departments.
They just say this is the way to do it and if you don't your
liable!
They mandate that you have X number of firefighters and X number
of officers to fight a fire.
They haven't a clue.
That's why the Chief has a dept vehicle.
And I guarantee he has grey hair or is starting to go grey.
I never had grey hair until I was Chief for two yrs.

Steve A W
30 year veteran of the the volunteer fire service.

.

Yup. Hold a small town rural dept to the same standard as NYC or LA. Stupid. That's why we don't have a fire dept in my town. I tried to form one and the costs are astronomical.
 
(quoted from post at 05:55:23 04/20/17)
(quoted from post at 13:12:22 04/19/17) Greg K is on the money with his response.
A bunch of bureaucrats in Washington set the standards that
all fire dept's, paid, volunteer, big city, small township,
have to abide by.
Most of the bureaucrats are politicians or friends of politicians
That have very little real experience. And have no knowledge of
small town, small budget departments.
They just say this is the way to do it and if you don't your
liable!
They mandate that you have X number of firefighters and X number
of officers to fight a fire.
They haven't a clue.
That's why the Chief has a dept vehicle.
And I guarantee he has grey hair or is starting to go grey.
I never had grey hair until I was Chief for two yrs.

Steve A W
30 year veteran of the the volunteer fire service.

.

Yup. Hold a small town rural dept to the same standard as NYC or LA. Stupid. That's why we don't have a fire dept in my town. I tried to form one and the costs are astronomical.

Bret, I don't understand. I know that it costs a lot, but some fifteen years ago a lot of departments helped a small town in northern NH start a department up. Many departments donated surplus equipment. As I pointed out above the NFPA has no authority. Perhaps some town councilmen convinced townspeople that NFPA standards had to be followed? A fifty year old engine can be a "Class A" pumper.
 
If you're going to do interior, structural fire fighting... I don't know why you shouldn't be held to the same standard? The fire is the
same, is it not?
If you want to provide defensive only fire fighting, then the standards are different... but then you're basically unrated. No insurance
breaks, etc. So it then becomes a question of what purpose are you serving by spending 75% of the same money to set up a service that
provides 10% of the protection...

Rod
 
Sometimes here in Mn. they give a vehicle to drive as part of the pay package as another vehicle is
cheaper for the department than an increase in salary. One local department got into a big controversy
about that a few years back, but when the dust settled it turned out to be a good deal for them.
 

This is somewhat related: Before moving out to the country I lived close by the city, residential area. Lots of emergency calls, local FD would respond lights, sirens, air horns blaring 4-5 am on a Sunday little 25 mph street no traffic. This was common for them. Woke the whole neighborohood.
 
Fire hoses don't come with push button and color screens. Gee, I wonder why?!?!? Maybe them rich-folk fire equipment should have smart phone holders everywhere so they can text all their instructions....WHILE fighting the fire (remotely, of course). :lol:
 
However, if you were in a rural situation where you required 1250 flow for grading purposes, and could actually haul that by tanker shuttle... you would need that remaining 250 to run the jets... and that would be very economical to get by with that. So that 1500 might be pretty small. Most engines coming in this area today have 1500's on them...

Rod
 
(quoted from post at 10:09:51 04/20/17)
(quoted from post at 05:55:23 04/20/17)
(quoted from post at 13:12:22 04/19/17) Greg K is on the money with his response.
A bunch of bureaucrats in Washington set the standards that
all fire dept's, paid, volunteer, big city, small township,
have to abide by.
Most of the bureaucrats are politicians or friends of politicians
That have very little real experience. And have no knowledge of
small town, small budget departments.
They just say this is the way to do it and if you don't your
liable!
They mandate that you have X number of firefighters and X number
of officers to fight a fire.
They haven't a clue.
That's why the Chief has a dept vehicle.
And I guarantee he has grey hair or is starting to go grey.
I never had grey hair until I was Chief for two yrs.

Steve A W
30 year veteran of the the volunteer fire service.

.

Yup. Hold a small town rural dept to the same standard as NYC or LA. Stupid. That's why we don't have a fire dept in my town. I tried to form one and the costs are astronomical.

Bret, I don't understand. I know that it costs a lot, but some fifteen years ago a lot of departments helped a small town in northern NH start a department up. Many departments donated surplus equipment. As I pointed out above the NFPA has no authority. Perhaps some town councilmen convinced townspeople that NFPA standards had to be followed? A fifty year old engine can be a "Class A" pumper.

Maybe it's NYS, but when I tried I thought I could do just what you said. Donated equipment, used truck, something to make the initial attack and hold it until the big guys could get there. Nope. The radios required to participate in the Mutual Aid system alone were over $20K IIRC. The turn out gear all had to be dated within a certain period. The truck couldn't be older than a certain date. It was crazy. And then there was the training. 100 hours right off the bat. Hard to find people with that kind of time.
 
Sounds like they weren't interested in entertaining any type of defensive operation... but to be fair, you need radios, etc, etc. and just
the annual cost of maintaining all that with used gear is so high it's mabey not worthwhile.
Sorry to tell you I have no sympathy for you on the 100 hours for level 1. Even that's pretty abbreviated at 100 hours... I work part time
instructing that here and I simply can not imagine sending anyone out on a hose without it.

Rod
 
(quoted from post at 06:15:06 04/20/17) If you're going to do interior, structural fire fighting... I don't know why you shouldn't be held to the same standard? The fire is the
same, is it not?
Actually, it's not. Fire is fire, but fuel is different. In the south, most home buildings are built using 2x4 construction. Some parts of the country there isn't even insulation in many buildings. Farther north, you have buildings with 2x6 (or greater) construction. Most smaller commercial buildings and some private homes are using steel-framed structures. Along the southern and eastern coastlines, buildings have to withstand hurricane. Much of the Mid-west people opt for something a little better at withstanding the devastating effects of a tornado, though this isn't as common. In cities, you have multi-level structures to deal with, not to mention the congestion and tight work spaces.

The vol FD I was in once responded to a fire and explosion at a refinery down in....am wanting to say Baytown, Tx. We weren't anywhere near set up for that, but they were mostly needing manpower and definite water supply. There was a long line of equipment - probably over a mile long, and most of the equipment was fortunately not needed.

While at fire training school near Texas A&M University, we had to take turns manning the hose as well as being the one to stick our hand through the wall of water to close the valve on a 500 gallon (might have been 1,000...but makes no difference) LP tank spewing flames over 100' in the air. There are barns with hay/straw that can be difficult to extinguish, not to mention blown-in insulation. That stuff is NASTY to put out! With vehicle fires, you have larger quantities of fuels such as gasoline, diesel and even aviation fuel, all of which must be dealt with properly. ....Now let's add in all of the chemicals used in daily life - old chemicals as well as new stuff. Ever think about what happens when carpet burns? Carpet pad? A sofa? Not to mention paints/finishes, cleaning supplies, and a whole host of other unknowns.

Nope, fire isn't quite the same.

Oh, and when in cities with buildings above about 150' high, it gets increasingly more difficult to fight the fires as your normal average water pump may have a max head of maybe 120'. I don't for an instant envy those city fire fighters who have to haul all that hose up stairways!! Figure in about 60 lbs of bunker gear and breathing apparatus, then add in the weight of a charged 1.5" line and you're carrying a heck of a lot of weight into an unknown area, often with little or no visibility (it is normally NOT as you see on TV!!!!!!!!!!!), wearing all that cumbersome gear, and going into the additional heat of the fire. No sir, I don't envy those guys one bit!!
 
(quoted from post at 10:32:22 04/21/17)
(quoted from post at 06:15:06 04/20/17) If you're going to do interior, structural fire fighting... I don't know why you shouldn't be held to the same standard? The fire is the
same, is it not?
Actually, it's not. Fire is fire, but fuel is different. In the south, most home buildings are built using 2x4 construction. Some parts of the country there isn't even insulation in many buildings. Farther north, you have buildings with 2x6 (or greater) construction. Most smaller commercial buildings and some private homes are using steel-framed structures. Along the southern and eastern coastlines, buildings have to withstand hurricane. Much of the Mid-west people opt for something a little better at withstanding the devastating effects of a tornado, though this isn't as common. In cities, you have multi-level structures to deal with, not to mention the congestion and tight work spaces.

The vol FD I was in once responded to a fire and explosion at a refinery down in....am wanting to say Baytown, Tx. We weren't anywhere near set up for that, but they were mostly needing manpower and definite water supply. There was a long line of equipment - probably over a mile long, and most of the equipment was fortunately not needed.

While at fire training school near Texas A&M University, we had to take turns manning the hose as well as being the one to stick our hand through the wall of water to close the valve on a 500 gallon (might have been 1,000...but makes no difference) LP tank spewing flames over 100' in the air. There are barns with hay/straw that can be difficult to extinguish, not to mention blown-in insulation. That stuff is NASTY to put out! With vehicle fires, you have larger quantities of fuels such as gasoline, diesel and even aviation fuel, all of which must be dealt with properly. ....Now let's add in all of the chemicals used in daily life - old chemicals as well as new stuff. Ever think about what happens when carpet burns? Carpet pad? A sofa? Not to mention paints/finishes, cleaning supplies, and a whole host of other unknowns.

Nope, fire isn't quite the same.

Oh, and when in cities with buildings above about 150' high, it gets increasingly more difficult to fight the fires as your normal average water pump may have a max head of maybe 120'. I don't for an instant envy those city fire fighters who have to haul all that hose up stairways!! Figure in about 60 lbs of bunker gear and breathing apparatus, then add in the weight of a charged 1.5" line and you're carrying a heck of a lot of weight into an unknown area, often with little or no visibility (it is normally NOT as you see on TV!!!!!!!!!!!), wearing all that cumbersome gear, and going into the additional heat of the fire. No sir, I don't envy those guys one bit!!

Well KCM I have to disagree with you. In the course of my 35 years on my small town rural department in NH, where for 25 of them I was the nozzle man, I was on responses to everything that you describe. And so far as the city firefighters hauling all that hose up the stairs, well, they don't. They just take their standpipe pack and hook onto the standpipe on the fire floor. Fire can be a little different from place to place, but with mutual aid pacts any firefighter anywhere can be called just twenty miles away and be into something different, so it all pretty well levels out.
 
Yes, you're right, and I "did" think about that while writing, but was already a ways in. Had no "tall" buildings in our area. Were never any buildings more than 3 stories, and pretty much had no reason for the packs there.

My time in was back when open jump seats were still OK. Also happened to be in one of those jump seats on a 3,000 gal engine when it overturned on a small rural road. Had hot engine oil spill over me. Still don't know how it was possible, but one of my bunker coat snaps snagged on the truck cab and I ended up ripping it right off when that oil hit. From there everything went hazy. Stood up, stood there for what seemed like a long time. Walked around to the front of the engine. There I saw the fire chief on the bottom (on passenger door) and our maintenance man on top of him and trying to climb up. Neither of them were very small men! *lol* I could see their mouths moving but heard no sound. Slowly the sound came back and I snapped back into action. Then had to go to the hospital to get checked out for oil burns - got lucky!
 
(quoted from post at 11:02:23 04/21/17) Sounds like they weren't interested in entertaining any type of defensive operation... but to be fair, you need radios, etc, etc. and just
the annual cost of maintaining all that with used gear is so high it's mabey not worthwhile.
Sorry to tell you I have no sympathy for you on the 100 hours for level 1. Even that's pretty abbreviated at 100 hours... I work part time
instructing that here and I simply can not imagine sending anyone out on a hose without it.

Rod

Rod, no disrespect intended, but how much training do you really need to put water on a fire? I know, I know, times have changed. but 35 years ago when I was a firefighter/EMT we saved houses, saved lives and none of us died horrible deaths. I'm not against training at all. I'm just pointing out that 100 plus hours for the basic course is just the start. In my day I think the basic course was something like 12 hours, and it was hard to get people to take the course even at that. EMT was 81 hours the 1st time I took it. My point is that while people are mandating all sorts of training and super duper equipment, etc, peoples homes and farms are burning because the fire co takes 20 minutes to get here at a minimum. Lives will be lost as this progression of mandates continues. We need to find a happy medium for tiny, rural depts. At this point the deck is stacked against us.
 
(quoted from post at 15:02:16 04/21/17)
(quoted from post at 11:02:23 04/21/17) Sounds like they weren't interested in entertaining any type of defensive operation... but to be fair, you need radios, etc, etc. and just
the annual cost of maintaining all that with used gear is so high it's mabey not worthwhile.
Sorry to tell you I have no sympathy for you on the 100 hours for level 1. Even that's pretty abbreviated at 100 hours... I work part time
instructing that here and I simply can not imagine sending anyone out on a hose without it.

Rod

Rod, no disrespect intended, but how much training do you really need to put water on a fire? I know, I know, times have changed. but 35 years ago when I was a firefighter/EMT we saved houses, saved lives and none of us died horrible deaths. I'm not against training at all. I'm just pointing out that 100 plus hours for the basic course is just the start. In my day I think the basic course was something like 12 hours, and it was hard to get people to take the course even at that. EMT was 81 hours the 1st time I took it. My point is that while people are mandating all sorts of training and super duper equipment, etc, peoples homes and farms are burning because the fire co takes 20 minutes to get here at a minimum. Lives will be lost as this progression of mandates continues. We need to find a happy medium for tiny, rural depts. At this point the deck is stacked against us.

But Bret, you keep referring to people mandating. Who is mandating? I don't believe that the "mandates" are really law.
 
Well... what we're doing here at the present time is NFPA 1001 cert with hybrid delivery where they do their theory online through
OSU/Resource 1 on the Moodle platform... and then 5 full weekends of hands on. Could we cut that down to 1 weekend of fire control so
people learn how to directly deal with fire? I suppose so... but then we'd be forgoing all of the prep skills that lead to a good
foundation to deliver fire control. You quite correctly point out that 1001 is 'just the start'... and it certainly is. When we look at the
skills a lot of these folks have after 5 weekends.. I think most of us would say that they are perhaps competent to be a backup firefighter
on a nozzle crew. It takes time to develop the skills necessary to recognize the situation you're in more so than simply apply water. One
wrong, untrained move is all it takes to get a face full of fire, or give your buddies a face full of fire... or a steam burn.. or worse.

As to someone else's remark about fire fuels being different in different areas.... I don't agree with that particularly. I'm in a rural
department.. and when we look at the mixture of occupancies we could be tasked to respond to.. it runs the gammit nearly every hazard
class. There's farms here with large on farm feed mill complexes, sawmills, large hay storages, commercial size LP storage tanks...
lightweight farm building complexes... power stations and on and on. Never mind dealing with MVA's and so on.
What I would say is that today's PVC/foam/petroleum based fueled fire is far more rapid in development, more intense and more deadly than
what firefighters were dealing with 40 years ago. Structures are tighter, the retain heat better, they flash quicker... they exhaust their
oxygen supply... then sit and wait for you to open a door... Also with lightweight building materials... they collapse MUCH quicker. So in
short things have changed a HUGE amount. I believe if you look around you can find a NIST vid with flashover comparisons between a modern
home and grandma's house.... the former flashes in about 4 minutes! The latter was somewhere around 28-30 minutes...
What amazes me is that there is still people out there who through the goodness of their hearts are willing to go into that mess, nearly
untrained... like cannon fodder. I don't get it.

Rod
 
What I see , even with paid fire departments, is that they are not really fire fighters as much a fire watchers. Used to be a real fire fighter would go in to the source/center of the fire to put water on it. Not today, they just stand back and spray useless water on the impenetrable roof and watch it burn down. Now I'm not saying that is all bad, because, if no life is at risk then why put another life at risk, but it isn't like it used to be. Just saying.
 
(quoted from post at 22:20:59 04/21/17) What I see , even with paid fire departments, is that they are not really fire fighters as much a fire watchers. Used to be a real fire fighter would go in to the source/center of the fire to put water on it. Not today, they just stand back and spray useless water on the impenetrable roof and watch it burn down. Now I'm not saying that is all bad, because, if no life is at risk then why put another life at risk, but it isn't like it used to be. Just saying.

JMOR, you are completely right. From when I started in 1973 to the present the emphasis on safety at the expense of aggressive fire fighting has been a continuous change. In the early eighties the fire service was saying wait until OSHA gets at the fire service. There was delay because there was a mind-set that firefighting had to be dangerous. Then suddenly thee was NIOSH and they really came at fire fighter safety. It was needed because fire fighting became much more dangerous in the late sixties. Once the use of self contained breathing apparatus became widespread, firefighters were going into the dangerous situation of interior attack much more than before. When I started out we were taught that we should expect to "take a beating" which meant getting burned, as we pushed aggressively to where the seat of the fire was in order to put the water on it. Now, if a firefighter gets burned there has to be an investigation into who screwed up, and an officer is likely to get a reprimand.
 
(quoted from post at 19:14:25 04/21/17)
(quoted from post at 15:02:16 04/21/17)
(quoted from post at 11:02:23 04/21/17) Sounds like they weren't interested in entertaining any type of defensive operation... but to be fair, you need radios, etc, etc. and just
the annual cost of maintaining all that with used gear is so high it's mabey not worthwhile.
Sorry to tell you I have no sympathy for you on the 100 hours for level 1. Even that's pretty abbreviated at 100 hours... I work part time
instructing that here and I simply can not imagine sending anyone out on a hose without it.

Rod

Rod, no disrespect intended, but how much training do you really need to put water on a fire? I know, I know, times have changed. but 35 years ago when I was a firefighter/EMT we saved houses, saved lives and none of us died horrible deaths. I'm not against training at all. I'm just pointing out that 100 plus hours for the basic course is just the start. In my day I think the basic course was something like 12 hours, and it was hard to get people to take the course even at that. EMT was 81 hours the 1st time I took it. My point is that while people are mandating all sorts of training and super duper equipment, etc, peoples homes and farms are burning because the fire co takes 20 minutes to get here at a minimum. Lives will be lost as this progression of mandates continues. We need to find a happy medium for tiny, rural depts. At this point the deck is stacked against us.

But Bret, you keep referring to people mandating. Who is mandating? I don't believe that the "mandates" are really law.

My understanding from the fire guys I talked to was it was OSHA and NFPA doing the mandating and being backed up by the States and Feds. What I know for sure is we can't protect ourselves under the current system as a municipality.
 
(quoted from post at 00:53:52 04/22/17) Well... what we're doing here at the present time is NFPA 1001 cert with hybrid delivery where they do their theory online through
OSU/Resource 1 on the Moodle platform... and then 5 full weekends of hands on. Could we cut that down to 1 weekend of fire control so
people learn how to directly deal with fire? I suppose so... but then we'd be forgoing all of the prep skills that lead to a good
foundation to deliver fire control. You quite correctly point out that 1001 is 'just the start'... and it certainly is. When we look at the
skills a lot of these folks have after 5 weekends.. I think most of us would say that they are perhaps competent to be a backup firefighter
on a nozzle crew. It takes time to develop the skills necessary to recognize the situation you're in more so than simply apply water. One
wrong, untrained move is all it takes to get a face full of fire, or give your buddies a face full of fire... or a steam burn.. or worse.

As to someone else's remark about fire fuels being different in different areas.... I don't agree with that particularly. I'm in a rural
department.. and when we look at the mixture of occupancies we could be tasked to respond to.. it runs the gammit nearly every hazard
class. There's farms here with large on farm feed mill complexes, sawmills, large hay storages, commercial size LP storage tanks...
lightweight farm building complexes... power stations and on and on. Never mind dealing with MVA's and so on.
What I would say is that today's PVC/foam/petroleum based fueled fire is far more rapid in development, more intense and more deadly than
what firefighters were dealing with 40 years ago. Structures are tighter, the retain heat better, they flash quicker... they exhaust their
oxygen supply... then sit and wait for you to open a door... Also with lightweight building materials... they collapse MUCH quicker. So in
short things have changed a HUGE amount. I believe if you look around you can find a NIST vid with flashover comparisons between a modern
home and grandma's house.... the former flashes in about 4 minutes! The latter was somewhere around 28-30 minutes...
What amazes me is that there is still people out there who through the goodness of their hearts are willing to go into that mess, nearly
untrained... like cannon fodder. I don't get it.

Rod

So no matter what, it's go pro or go home? Sorry, that simply defeats the purpose of the "volunteer fire co" IMO. I don't want anyone to get hurt, but watching someone die or loose everything they built because of bureaucratic mindsets is just wrong IMO.
 
I'm afraid you're living in dinosaur times.... Doing professional training and being professional is really not that much to ask of someone
conducting offensive fire attack. That doesn't mean career. It just means you dedicate enough time to the craft to know the hazards and
learn basic skills to keep yourself and your buddies alive. The reality is that if you go to a fire and there's someone in there... you're
going to try and go in and get them out... and if you don't understand what you're dealing with.. you could be in there dead with them.
Like I said before... I do not understand that notion where myself, as a volunteer... is going to give my life in vain to save someone else
simply because I was stupid enough to bust the door down and go in unprepared. So I guess the answer is yes... if you're not up to doing
that level of training then you're probably better off not there at all. It's not a bureaucratic mindset... it's just a preference for life
on my own part.
I've witnessed one of these 'heroes' at work... in one instance he stormed a house alone with no PPE to rescue two people. Fortunately they
all survived... but the soot line was halfway to the floor. I was listening to this on the radio as we responded... and all I could think
of is that two of us would be dragging three of them out on arrival.
Another time we grabbed him just before he discharged a forestry back pack on an energized electrical fire burning cattails on the edge of
a pond. Talk about risking it ALL for absolutely NOTHING.
I find it amusing reading some of the other responses in this thread about the ineffectiveness of some dept's... spraying water on the roof
while it burns to the ground, etc. All I could think of... was what a lack of training that they would be doing that. They could still
mount a proper defensive attack to hold the fire and transition to offensive when resources allow. That's done here all the time...

Rod
 

Rod, I guess I am a dinosaur. I'm not asking anyone to die because of a lack of training by going inside a house fire. What I am asking for is some mandate relief so that "the firehouse" being their whole lives. Honestly, horror stories like yours notwithstanding, it doesn't take a lot of training to put out a grass fire or protect an adjoining structure or put a ladder up to a window some someone can escape. It doesn't take a lot of training to do CPR or put pressure on a wound. IMO the fire service has bought into the idea of more and more and more in all ways. More training, more requirements on equipment, more expensive equipment, replaced more often. As with so many other bureaucratic answers to issues that may or may not exist, the one size fits all solution doesn't fit anyone very well, and the costs are supposed to be swallowed by a grateful taxpaying public. I ran the numbers in out little town in the sticks here. Between what we pay for "fire protection" from other larger towns, the insane costs of homeowners insurance for what is deemed essentially "unprotected property" as far as fire company response time and the savings that could be had if we had a small station located here, we could easily fund a building with 2 used pieces of equipment. But the mandates in place prevent us from doing that. How is that "right"? We have maybe 8-12calls a year in our town. Mostly grass fires. standbys at accidents or a chimney fire. Every now and again we'll have structure fire and the "big boys" with their millions in equipment show up after a half hour to spray water on the foundation. I'm sorry if you think I'm making light of training or the dangers involved. I'm not. But I don't see how mandating unreasonable standards in equipment and training serves or benefits anyone but the bureaucrats, fire equipment concerns and the fire service itself.
 
(quoted from post at 05:32:07 04/24/17)
Rod, I guess I am a dinosaur. I'm not asking anyone to die because of a lack of training by going inside a house fire. What I am asking for is some mandate relief so that "the firehouse" being their whole lives. Honestly, horror stories like yours notwithstanding, it doesn't take a lot of training to put out a grass fire or protect an adjoining structure or put a ladder up to a window some someone can escape. It doesn't take a lot of training to do CPR or put pressure on a wound. IMO the fire service has bought into the idea of more and more and more in all ways. More training, more requirements on equipment, more expensive equipment, replaced more often. As with so many other bureaucratic answers to issues that may or may not exist, the one size fits all solution doesn't fit anyone very well, and the costs are supposed to be swallowed by a grateful taxpaying public. I ran the numbers in out little town in the sticks here. Between what we pay for "fire protection" from other larger towns, the insane costs of homeowners insurance for what is deemed essentially "unprotected property" as far as fire company response time and the savings that could be had if we had a small station located here, we could easily fund a building with 2 used pieces of equipment. But the mandates in place prevent us from doing that. How is that "right"? We have maybe 8-12calls a year in our town. Mostly grass fires. standbys at accidents or a chimney fire. Every now and again we'll have structure fire and the "big boys" with their millions in equipment show up after a half hour to spray water on the foundation. I'm sorry if you think I'm making light of training or the dangers involved. I'm not. But I don't see how mandating unreasonable standards in equipment and training serves or benefits anyone but the bureaucrats, fire equipment concerns and the fire service itself.

I agree with you Bret, I witnessed the transition in my town of 4500. But going back to your response to my earlier post. It is not up to the NFPA or OSHA, it is up to you and a few others who are like-minded to convince the town fathers to show a little spine and stop letting their insurance companies dictate to them.
 
Well, if your government is mandating something... it's the result of one or two things. 1. The fire underwriters mandate the capacity,
capability and age of your engines. Yes, that is based on NFPA 1901... but it's the underwriters that enforce it, not the municipality. So
depending on the exposures you have, they may mandate a 750-1250 certified pump. If you're rural... no hydrants... then they will mandate a
rating for a superior water shuttle. The minimum to be rated is a continuous supply of 250 gpm for 2 hours and achieved within 5 minutes of
arrival on scene. And that requires you to move the water I think 5 km. Grading performance ratings improve with increased volumes of
waster moved. Even 250 is not easily achieved... and that also requires the property be located within 5 miles of a fire station I think.
The second big boogeyman is the court... or more importantly the trigger happy lawyers and insurance companies that take YOU to court if
you are somehow negligent in losing a structure that probably should have been saved. So the governmental response is simply in tune with
mitigating that risk.

I get where you're coming from tho. Our typical call volume here is about spot on with what you project... and the same type of calls. When
you ammortize the cost of equipment here we'd be somewhere in the vicinity of Cad $ 60k annual operating budget to keep our station open.
So if you're the government people looking at that ask... and you're basically doing exposure protection, grass fires etc and the structure
is going to burn down anyway... and everybody goes off to court... what incentive is there for them to fund it? We're looking at trucks now
to replace a tanker/pumper that is 29 years old. It will likely require 275K to replace. The municipality will not fund that in full but
may fund part of it... leaving us to come up with probably 150k... but if we don't, all goes back to zero. Insurance rates will go up, etc.

Rod
 
(quoted from post at 09:40:18 04/24/17)
(quoted from post at 05:32:07 04/24/17)
Rod, I guess I am a dinosaur. I'm not asking anyone to die because of a lack of training by going inside a house fire. What I am asking for is some mandate relief so that "the firehouse" being their whole lives. Honestly, horror stories like yours notwithstanding, it doesn't take a lot of training to put out a grass fire or protect an adjoining structure or put a ladder up to a window some someone can escape. It doesn't take a lot of training to do CPR or put pressure on a wound. IMO the fire service has bought into the idea of more and more and more in all ways. More training, more requirements on equipment, more expensive equipment, replaced more often. As with so many other bureaucratic answers to issues that may or may not exist, the one size fits all solution doesn't fit anyone very well, and the costs are supposed to be swallowed by a grateful taxpaying public. I ran the numbers in out little town in the sticks here. Between what we pay for "fire protection" from other larger towns, the insane costs of homeowners insurance for what is deemed essentially "unprotected property" as far as fire company response time and the savings that could be had if we had a small station located here, we could easily fund a building with 2 used pieces of equipment. But the mandates in place prevent us from doing that. How is that "right"? We have maybe 8-12calls a year in our town. Mostly grass fires. standbys at accidents or a chimney fire. Every now and again we'll have structure fire and the "big boys" with their millions in equipment show up after a half hour to spray water on the foundation. I'm sorry if you think I'm making light of training or the dangers involved. I'm not. But I don't see how mandating unreasonable standards in equipment and training serves or benefits anyone but the bureaucrats, fire equipment concerns and the fire service itself.

I agree with you Bret, I witnessed the transition in my town of 4500. But going back to your response to my earlier post. It is not up to the NFPA or OSHA, it is up to you and a few others who are like-minded to convince the town fathers to show a little spine and stop letting their insurance companies dictate to them.

Showcrop, I am a "Town father" and I can tell you first hand that all the spine in the world does no good when the Feds and State are aligned against you. Insurance rates are what they are. Not sure where you're going with that.
 
(quoted from post at 12:04:49 04/24/17) Well, if your government is mandating something... it's the result of one or two things. 1. The fire underwriters mandate the capacity,
capability and age of your engines. Yes, that is based on NFPA 1901... but it's the underwriters that enforce it, not the municipality. So
depending on the exposures you have, they may mandate a 750-1250 certified pump. If you're rural... no hydrants... then they will mandate a
rating for a superior water shuttle. The minimum to be rated is a continuous supply of 250 gpm for 2 hours and achieved within 5 minutes of
arrival on scene. And that requires you to move the water I think 5 km. Grading performance ratings improve with increased volumes of
waster moved. Even 250 is not easily achieved... and that also requires the property be located within 5 miles of a fire station I think.
The second big boogeyman is the court... or more importantly the trigger happy lawyers and insurance companies that take YOU to court if
you are somehow negligent in losing a structure that probably should have been saved. So the governmental response is simply in tune with
mitigating that risk.

I get where you're coming from tho. Our typical call volume here is about spot on with what you project... and the same type of calls. When
you ammortize the cost of equipment here we'd be somewhere in the vicinity of Cad $ 60k annual operating budget to keep our station open.
So if you're the government people looking at that ask... and you're basically doing exposure protection, grass fires etc and the structure
is going to burn down anyway... and everybody goes off to court... what incentive is there for them to fund it? We're looking at trucks now
to replace a tanker/pumper that is 29 years old. It will likely require 275K to replace. The municipality will not fund that in full but
may fund part of it... leaving us to come up with probably 150k... but if we don't, all goes back to zero. Insurance rates will go up, etc.

Rod

Rod I realize we're in 2 different nations and things differ. My beef is the movement, by whom I'm not entirely sure, a few years back to make little, rural FD's come under the same rules and mandates as NYC, LA, Chicago, Toronto, etc. This is politics, simple as that, and I'm sure there are billion$$$ in play somewhere along the line. But no one seems to give a crap about the land/homeowner who not only has to foot the bill for the costs of fire protection, but the costs for not having it too. Okay, I'm a dinosaur, but it's just wrong IMO.

Things have gotten to the point that there has been a little talk of someone buying a used fire truck, for farm purposes of course, and what would happen if they somehow arrived at a fire in just a few minutes instead of 1/2 hour and put the fire out. To me it's no more of a problem than putting out a neighbors grass fire with your garden hose. A lawyer says it's a near certain liability issue with criminal charges involved!
 
ive seen it in my area too, i can remember when the "chief" was the guy with the heaviest duty jumper cables, so he could get the and i mean the firetruck started, now a whole building full of new trucks latest and greatest ,chief gets a new suv too
 
(quoted from post at 08:04:49 04/24/17)
I get where you're coming from tho. Our typical call volume here is about spot on with what you project... and the same type of calls. When
you ammortize the cost of equipment here we'd be somewhere in the vicinity of Cad $ 60k annual operating budget to keep our station open.
So if you're the government people looking at that ask... and you're basically doing exposure protection, grass fires etc and the structure
is going to burn down anyway... and everybody goes off to court... what incentive is there for them to fund it? We're looking at trucks now
to replace a tanker/pumper that is 29 years old. It will likely require 275K to replace. The municipality will not fund that in full but
may fund part of it... leaving us to come up with probably 150k... but if we don't, all goes back to zero. Insurance rates will go up, etc.

Rod

This is my biggest gripe with the County Fire Department. They were called out near us recently. Took over 15 minutes to get there with 1 truck. As previously stated in this discussion it takes modern rooms 4 to 5 minutes to become fully involved. So essentially if I had 911 on the phone while I set my trash can on fire, the first fire truck with 1 pump and 4 people would get there when 1/2 of my home was fully involved and the fire had started spreading into the attic. The house would be a total loss.

While I'm grateful for the local FD, i'm also realistic about the low population density and response time. And it sickens me to pay for 2 new fire trucks, a 1 Million dollar fire station, a station SUV, and 5 or 6 salaries knowing that even if they were given every advantage in the world, my home would still be a pile of ashes should a fire begin. Plus I have to pay increased home insurance rates. Again, its not the fault of the local FD, just the realities of the situation.
 
Well, the way it works here... and this is probably where our laws may differ a bit... but for us, as a fire department... we are empowered
by provincial (state) statute through the municipal government act. That requires us to register as a fire department within the boundaries
of whatever jurisdiction we intend to serve. In doing that we are released as individuals from liability, short of gross negligence, to act
in suppressing a fire. The act empowers us to take whatever reasonable steps are necessary to carry out that suppression. However... if we
are not registered, as you are suggesting in your example... then we are wide open to any and all liability. That's probably not a big deal
if you're putting out a fire with the clear consent of the owner. The problems start when you are required to suppress a fire that has been
set, often times by the owner of the property... particularly if insurance is involved... so you either don't put the fire out and
insurance sues you... or you do and the owner shoots at you, etc. Or the more likely scenario with what you suggest... a willing property
owner lets you in to suppress the fire, you damage something on his property... and then he turns around and sues you. There's so many
possibilities you can't imagine them all... and insuring yourself against them is about the only recourse. That alone costs us over 9k a
year...
Again, I get where you're coming from. It would be nice if we could operate in the way you suggest. I think everyone on our department
wishes it was still that way... but ti just isn't.


Rod
 

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Back
Top