Posts by FirefighterDetroit

Quote from Volley

Foam pumpers and tenders are renamed engines and water tankers. In the game there is nothing special about foam. The game doesn't take into effect real life tactics and fire behavior.

I know this but it would make the game feel a little bit realistic with the unit in the game more for realistic value it doesn't necessary need to actually do much more than an engine can do but in real life it actually it's known to be more effecient to use a Foam pumper/ Foam Tender on a class A or Classs B fires it's been proven to be effeciant to use on industrial fires.

I have an idea for a new unit to be added maybe a foam unit can be added to the game. My idea is that instead of having a type two fire truck it can be named changed to Foam Pumper/ Foam Tender or something on the lines of that or it can be just added to the game as a new vehicle. I would appreciate some feed back on this idea. I feel this would be a great addition to the game for us players that have departments in the United States that actually use Foam Pumpers/ Foam Tenders to help provide some fire surpression to some Class A and Class B fires a department like the FDNY they converted some old engines into foam pumpers by adding a foam containment tank on it in the engines hose bed.

Edit: I like how people just randomly dislike something but don't say why they dislike it. Thanks to everyone that actually replies to threads and not just randomly dislike it and say why they don't like it.

Quote from leutmatho

the nfpa should have nothing to do with the game coding the minimum requirements need to be set so you cant send 1 engine to a highrise fire there needs to be a open source aspect to the game that allows people to pick what regulations to follow (kinda like the graphics packs) because here we dont have a ladder truck in all the towns and cities seeing a ladder truck in NSW is kinda rare. the point is different areas have diffrent regulations within the same department here so going of one regulation doesnt work for everyonee else it may work for 20% of people but the one thing go remember not everyone has the same.

Of course not the game wouldn't ever be coded to preform with the standards the reason why NFPA was mentioned was so people know what NFPA's standards are for fighting fires. NFPA will not nor will ever take over this game.

Quote from chevyrulzs2010

So, you are telling me that NFPA is the one who regulates the facial hair policy on your SCBA? You should check OSHA again ....
1910.134(g)(1)Facepiece seal protection.1910.134(g)(1)(i)The employer shall not permit respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who have:1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A)Facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interferes with valve function; or1910.134(g)(1)(i)(B)Any condition that interferes with the face-to-facepiece seal or valve function.1910.134(g)(1)(ii)If an employee wears corrective glasses or goggles or other personal protective equipment, the employer shall ensure that such equipment is worn in a manner that does not interfere with the seal of the facepiece to the face of the user.1910.134(g)(1)(iii)For all tight-fitting respirators, the employer shall ensure that employees perform a user seal check each time they put on the respirator using the procedures in Appendix B-1 or procedures recommended by the respirator manufacturer that the employer demonstrates are as effective as those in Appendix B-1 of this section.
OSHA is the one who is providing the regulation, NFPA is still just a standard, this is yet another example of OSHA and NFPA working together to make our job safer. Since NFPA has no ability to enforce its standards, OSHA ... the LAW ... used the common wording to make it so it has to be. Am I saying that NFPA has not done good things? No absolutely not, but you are also false in saying 10 year old gear does not meet the thermal standards of todays NFPA ... We have thrown out gear that has better thermal ratings due to its age than some of this new gear we are buying ... there is pros and cons to both sides of it ... NFPA is a good organization, it has done good things and made positive changes, but to go out and say that NFPA is the end all be all best thing to happen to the fire service is over the top and there is no denial that there is other influences other than safety in NFPA ... as with any organization, you have to make an evaluation of if their mission fits yours. There is no denying that a committee working on NFPA standards relating to gear, that is made up largely of the gear manufactures will not have a monetary motive behind it, either making it cheaper to produce or boosting their sales.

So keeping this on topic, yes there is NFPA standards that give GUIDELINES on responses to structure fires, however not every department chooses to, can, or does meet the NFPA standard. So long as they meet the OSHA it is fine. NFPA has no power to do otherwise. Thus the original suggestion does not serve a tangible improvement to the game and actually offers restriction by changing numerous different size and types of fire response to a single structure fire response.

Finally to put the whole NFPA thing to bed, this is directly off their website http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-r…about-codes-and-standards
A code is a model, a set of rules that knowledgeable people recommend for others to follow. It is not a law, but can be adopted into law.
A standard tends be a more detailed elaboration, the nuts and bolts of meeting a code.
thus, NFPA is not law, it can be adopted into law by a particular group or organization, however it is that organization who deals with the mandates of it and what punishment is dealt for not following it, not NFPA. NFPA pure and simple is not law. Further more every NFPA article you have referenced is a standard not a code. But think what you will, I am not going to debate this further.

If your comments were not meant to bash volunteers, you would not have placed your self higher than a volunteer telling them they have no right to tell you, a "career" firefighter about the fire service. I agree with WNYfirefighter, as a person who has served all walks of the fire service, career, volunteer, paid on call, no matter your status in the fire service you are as good as you want to be. Yes there are volunteer departments that do not perform well, and make the entire fire service look bad, but I know of many volunteer departments that can compete with career departments in training and ability. The same can be said for career departments, often times you will find more passion for the job in a volunteer than a career department, you see a lot of the "i am just here to collect a paycheck" attitude in the career world.

Display More

Dude just get over it already if you are going to whine and complain about NFPA then just shut up about it. As a matter of a fact it is a proven fact that newer gear has a higher thermal rating and as a matter of a fact NFPA is the one that started that standard about facial hair OSHA was just copying the standard. Let me tell you something if your department follows NFPA then you follow it it is your department's regulations if they follow it so end of story whether you like it or not if your departmens SOP's is NFPA then you follow it deal with it. Also stop trying to talk crap the moderator has already said that more crap talking about other users was not to be toleratered so I best you just stop before you get banned. Let me also correct you on something there is no monetary motive behind it because NFPA is nonprofit so they don't make money off of anything they make sell or do. Continuation of insulting me will result in me reporting for harassment I and the mods have already told you to stop insulting other users.

Quote from WNYfirefighter

A suburb of Rochester NY operates 3 on Pumpers (only 3 career staffed), and 2 on their Quint. Therefore you get 8 from one station and 3 from the other career station, plus if the volunteer stations go you have a possibility of a lot of people coming. And the response I gave were general response regulations encompassing several city departments that have the assets. I gave city response regulations because the game currently can't be done accurately in a rural setting due to not being able to add hydrants.
No bashing volunteers on my post. We are trained to the same standards as careers and do the same stuff. We risk our lives for others and their property for free. That deserves respect not some city boy calling us names. Professional is an attitude not a pay check.

It wasn't meant to bash on anyone, as a matter of a fact my department works with the two volunteer departments in my city ones out in the courty and ones located on the east side of the city in the 3rd ward almost all calls we handle we are either helping the volunteer department with M/A or they are either helping us with M/A.

Quote from chevyrulzs2010

In fact if you really break down NFPA and its standards, its is the most biased organization in existence. Look who sits on the NFPA committees, a majority are involved in gear manufacture. This has lead to why we have to replace gear that is older than 10 years old regardless of whether it is worn out or brand new in packaging. NFPA is also a money pot.

Actually no it's not it's more than what you think it is as a matter of a fact it has saved all departments from making the mistake of letting their crews have beards you know why because having hair below the lip line can trap gasses into your SCBA masks. Theres also some more examples of why NFPA is more than what you think it is as a matter of a fact NFPA 72 has saved countless lives making it not fire code compliance to go ahead and put pull stations higher than where anyone can reach them just like the Old Lady of the Angels school did and anyone in the service would know what happened to the school. You want to know why NFPA makes you change your gear every 10 years, because it's already outdated the next set is in compliance with a higher heat sustanability than the gear that is 10 years old, your helmet is the same thing it's already outdated, the next one is in compliance with a tougher durability of debris falling on you. Actually that is incorrect most of them are retired fire chiefs and commissioners only a few of them maybe one or two are involved with gear manufacture. They are involved with it so they know the gear is in compliance and so they can make some adjustments if needed to current gear, so no NFPA isn't a money pot NFPA doesn't get the credit the organization deserves for making changes to help save your life if it wasn't for NFPA you wouldn't have an SCBA back in the day firefighters ran through a building (yes ran, actually ran though it because they wanted to save people as fast as possible and thought the faster you saved them the more of a chance the people would survive but that was before oxygen was starting to be used in the field and actually didn't care about trying to put it out until people were saved from it, they had one goal and one goal only and that was to save as many as they could then they would put it out or be in the process of putting it out from the bucket brigade's help) with nothing on exect maybe your current clothes and a helmet but guess what the helmet wasn't designed to protect you back then yeah that's actually correct back then the fire helmet wasn't designed to protect you as a matter of a fact it was designed for decoration so the department can show off it's "fancy" helmet with cool designs to the public as a matter of a fact the helmet was a stove pipe design in broader terms it looks almost exactly like a top hat but a bit larger on all sidesand served no protection at all, today you have bunker gear and SCBA and a stronger helmet (though I can't technically claim this as they have been made stronger even before NFPA got involved with it) to go into a structure and put it out and you have a chance of making it out alive thanks to the fine people at NFPA. NFPA's there to protect you that's why it was created, it's almost like OSHA but more organized, more strict, and only for one disaster type and that is fire. You should really think about all NFPA has done for you to make sure you are as safe as can be instead of completly bashing the whole organization.

Quote from Gavin876

While I think that it's incredibly funny to bash someone who is so certain in their ignorance, this thread is way off topic. Let's put it back on topic or I'll be closing it.

Edit: Actually, I'm thinking that a discussion on the minimum staffing for a structure fire is perfectly relevant to this thread. Discussing the amount of compliance to NFPA standards is thus also related. However, bashing other users for their rank, career/volunteer status, or other things, will not continue to be tolerated. Tearing apart arguments one by one is still perfectly fine.

Um Gavin actually it's not ignorance it's how I claim NFPA to be I claim NFPA as regulations and requirements it's how I claim it as and I have that right to claim it as regulation whether anyone likes it or not, my department follows almost all of NFPA's regulations so therefore I call it regulations and requirements.

Actually NFPA is requirements so therefore you must obey them second of all I'm a captain so nice try volunteer.

Quote from EFD850

1 Engine company with 3 personnel isn't going to break the 2 in 2 out rule. You have other companies coming. So, again read the actual standards. If you don't have the standards. I can email them to you. My volunteer department has failed an ISO inspection before for not having 2 engines and 4 personnel on scene in the past. The city adjacent to my volunteer department operates 3 personnel on all their trucks because 2 engines still provide 6 personnel on scene. Therefore, the "two in two out" is still accomplished. Read the standards, not just an article from NOFD's IAFF.

Um it does violate the regulations because if it's a structure fire you are responding to then the two in two out applies read the standards then come back here and start talking I know the regulations i don't need a volunteer telling a career what is and what isn't regulation. Trucks are meant to have 3 personnel we are talking about engine companies not truck companies. Let me tell you something go ahead and read OSHA and NFPA then come back here and start talking volunteer boy lol not meant to bash on volunteers. the two in two out applies to attack crews and guess who does the attacking engines so no that part about saying 6 personnel on scene does not apply it applies to engines because they are the ones attacking the fire in a structure so therefore it applies onl to them so therefore you just admitted another department is breaking industry standards.

No it doesn't the article directly cites from NFPA so no it's NFPA bare minimum. The article directly states that it is a violation of NFPA 1500 for having an engine company staffed with 3 personnel the industry standard is 4 personnel on a company because it's called the two in and two out rule which is required by OSHA and NFPA (OSHA policy 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(4)(i) and NFPA 1500) so if you're not following both OSHA and NFPA on the two-in-two-out then your department is in serious trouble of getting fined a whole sum of money especially for not following OSHA, OSHA does not take too kindly on workplace violations. I know this because I read the article myself NFPA states it and so it is to be followed any department now following NFPA industry standards is going to get fined for violations. If you would look at the citations that they provide you would know NFPA's guidelines for bare minimums for structure fires.

Like Chicago's Ambulance bus 8-8-12 it's only used for MCI's or huge incident's (or just for when the cities about to hold a parade or event where a large crowd of people are at such as the Blackhawks celebration event that took place in Chicago) where it would require more than an EMS plan 3 which is where an exactly 15 Ambulances and a whole lot of the departments medical service units are at the scene. heres a picture of it. Here's some information about it when it was unvailed in 2012 in a CFD press release. A bus-sized ambulance that allows treatment of 13 patients at a time was unveiled today by the Chicago Fire Department, along with new heart monitors for all fire ambulances.
A custom-built CFD EMS patient transport bus was purchased with about $500,000 grant funds from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, allowing emergency treatment and transport for 13 patients, according to a CFD news release.
It has an onboard staff of four and is equipped with Automatic External Defibrillators and pulmonary support equipment including oxygen and emergency care drugs.
“The Chicago Fire Department’s EMS patient transport bus is the first of its kind in Illinois and will be used for any incident where multiple patient transports can be consolidated for delivery of more efficient care and resource management,” said Fire Commissioner Jose Santiago.
The CFD also announced 12-Lead ECG monitors are now in all advanced life support ambulances, which will allow paramedics to more quickly diagnose heart attacks.
“With the 12-Lead ECG monitors in place in all of the CFD’s 60 ALS ambulances, we have upgraded to the most advanced mobile cardiac diagnostic tool currently available for heart attack patients,” Santiago said in the release.

I would just like to clarify that NFPA minimum is 2 engines and 1 truck and a battalion for residential fires if any department gets caught not complying with NFPA bare minimum response requirements then they would be fined for violation of NFPA regulations just like the city of New Orleans did for not having 4 personal for an engine company, instead they had engine companies made of 3 personal on it and they got caught by NFPA for it and fined for not meeting industry standard for not sending the bare minimum required units to structure fires and for violating both NFPA 1500 and NFPA 1700 for allowing 3 personnal to make up an engine company when NFPA 1500 and NFPA 1700 requires a minimum of 4 personnal to make up an engine company. You can read the response requirements on pages 19-20 on this report issued by IAFF https://www.google.com/url?sa=…g2=miVS3WQQ_WFU5kdpRHJjTA I don't know if this post is revelant or not but the information is there.

This idea would be perfect for Chicago with this idea I can add a fire station at both airports and make it so I can recieve calls from the airports. I would love to see it being separate from the other calls as Alvin did mention we would be getting calls from an airport when you don't have any units to send to it because it would be taking units from calls that need units but they are out on a call at an airport, so I think it should be best to say that we should have the idea of it being separate from the other stations to advoid this.

Quote from Jason

How I read the original post is that to permeantly accommodate a smaller vehicle, like the battalion chief you need to expand your station at a cost of 100k. The suggestion being a parking space outside is sufficient for such vehicle but doesn't justify a 100k cost.

How a staging area comes into I don't know. You can't even buy a battalion chief vehicle without paying to expand the station first. Thus you've hit your issue already. A staging area is going to be no good as you need to expand and buy the vehicle first. Even if you move a vehicle to a staging area it's still holding up one vehicle slot at the station.

The topic changed when someone suggested having that spot shared for other units. Such idea has been discussed in detail before and the staging area somewhat resolved that idea; however to the original post bares no relevance. Gavin is simply trying to straighten the conversation so feedback can be obtained for the original idea OP suggested. It's not an abuse of powers or whatever you think it is. You cannot say the original post and staging areas have any direct connection.

They'll be no further conversation on this matter. If you're still keen to discuss send me a PM.

Display More

You made it sound easier to explain than how Gavin explained it thanks Jason. He made it sound to me as if he was saying oh I don't like the way this conversation is going to next time someone talks about it I'm deleting the post hence why I said "don't tell me you want to abuse your powers only because ..." but you you made it sound so much easier to understand.

Quote from Blaz3ikinz

you might want to attach some pictures for him to use/look at

Don't have any there are so many for Krys to look at online sorry.

Quote from leutmatho

so they are basically staging at another fire station

Just because they call it a staging area doesn't mean it has to be used only as that ive used it as a temporary fire station once while i saved creadits

Um yeah it does is there an incident occuring no there is not a stagging area is only used for INCIDENTS only that is all they are used for and thats why they were added to the game to have a relistic feel to the game as in real life. You do not use a stagging area for the heck of it to just send units there when they are not responding to an emergency that is just a waste and not to mention blocking and backing up traffic for no reason.

Quote from letsgohope12

Understand. It's called backfilling. That's the point of the staging areas that we have!

No it's not the point to having a staging area, it is so units can stage at a location so they can respond when needed, not to cover a certain district. Units are sent to an area to stage so if they are needed for support they are already there and ready to assist if needed. Understand one thing a staging area is only used for incidents while backfilling is only used when a department (mostly volunteer) does not have an adequate amount of resources to provide fire protection or EMS services because they are out on a run.

Quote from letsgohope12

Commonly known as a staging area........ which we already have......

What they mean is that units can use this space to cover units that are already out on a run it is commonly done to volunteer fire departments around my area where the whole house is on a run or cannot provide adiquite fire protection to the area they cover, units from another district nearby will park their units in the station and cover that area until they get back.

I would love to see a similar idea like this because since my department is based in Chicago I will be able to put a space for spare rigs like the real Chicago Fire Department. I'll even be able to put the rigs there from Chicago fire as that's where they are put when the show's not being filmed because they are actual units but they are spares they only get used when a squad, ambo, or a battalion is in the shop also fun fact did you know Engine 51 never gets put into the spare yard because it is a rig that is actually in service Engine 51 is the only rig out of all of the units on the T.V. show that is a unit used in service; even when the show is filming thats why when the alarm tones drop on the show Engine 51 barely ever gets called out because it's out on a run. It is seen responding to the shows calls because they are able to get a shot of it responding to a real run but they use the other units as background units to make it seem as if it's responding to their call; when it gets done with it's real run they simply put it at their call scene to make it seem aas if it's been there the whole time barely ever will you find that they did not have to do this.

Quote from EFD850

It is very common to respond to an unknown tanker spill. At the initial dispatch, the general public most of the time have no clue how to read placards nor carry an ERG. The driver of the tanker could be unconscious or no where to even be found and unable to advise what he's carrying. Therefore, to be dispatched to an unknown tanker spill is very common. Upon arrival, yes we can determine what it is. But, that is once we are on scene.

Actually wrong most of the time it isn't bystanders reporting that an unknown chemical is spewing out of a tanker, when dispatch recieves the call it's usually law enforcement that arrives first, they are the ones that are first to determine what it is because they have an ERG as well every emergency vehicle in the U.S. has an ERG it's law, anyways they are first to determine what it is, so no it's not common to find an unknown tanker spill because by the time we get there law enforcement has already determinded what it is. We are actually one of the last people to get to the scene it's because we have to put on our gear and respond driving a 10 ton truck down the road. Please just listen to the professional here that specalizes in this field of emergency services and take it as that it is not common to find an unknown tanker spill, and as a matter of a fact 911 will ask questions to the caller to ask them to see if they can identify the chemical I know this as well because I took some 911 training courses in 911 training you are taught to ask questions to the caller to see if you can help units arriving identify the chemical then 911 relies that information to responding units.