Michael P.

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

100 Good

About Michael P.

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Contact Info

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

19,902 profile views

Single Status Update

See all updates by Michael P.

  1. 8 new photos in the gallery! I'd love to hear your thoughts on them!

    1. Show previous comments  12 more
    2. Michael P.

      Michael P.

      @HenryH BCFD The ideal situation is that I would have dedicated ambulances for ALS and BLS calls, however, since I will only have 2 ambulances at this point, I would need a backup plan in case the ambulances are called out. :D That is why I'm also implementing the Fast Response Units. As you may well know, I'm sort of redoing the fleet given the new cabinet design I have, and replacing the compartments for 17 triple combinations and 8 trucks isn't cheap either; so it may take a while before I get new ambulances. 

      Manpower is another one of those problems that drive bad apparatus purchase (such as trying to do too much with one rig and thus overloading the apparatus which significantly reduces the lifespan of the apparatus). Although most of the problems is a direct result of the economy, there is also politics involved here. Like I said earlier, careful planning by the fire department is what's absolutely necessary to make the best use of available funds for both apparatus purchasing and manpower. 

    3. ~JD~


      @Michael P. Indeed it does, that's why departments need to be progressive and adaptive to the community's ever changing and growing needs, otherwise the system would breakdown.

      @Edward O. Still looking high on those numbers in my opinion.

      The Chief must not be busy to take all the EMS calls with the ALS crew. My point was, for many departments, rolling the engine or truck on medical calls brings that extra manpower that's not on the medic. For your FD, just swap the Chief, medic and EMT with an engine crew and that's the difference. My argument is just putting the engine crew or another crew on a more economic vehicle so they aren't running the engine all the time.

    4. ~JD~


      @HenryH BCFD With the whole response for ALS mainly is where the departments could improve with the QRV concept. Having a full engine company is great for serious calls and the oh so wonderful bariatrics but the only thing needed from them is really the manpower. So using a smaller utility vehicle to bring manpower and some gear would be more economic than sending the engine. A good concept out there now is San Diego's squad program, that has 2 FFs on a squad truck with a pump, tank and ALS gear, once on scene with a medic you have 4 people on scene without sending an engine. I will say with some calls, the more guys on scene the better, I've been on two so far that had 4 people riding in the back working a patient, so it can vary. But 2 in the back during a transport can handle a majority of ALS transports.

      As for staffing, I agree that minimum staffing is a dangerous game that risks lives unnecessarily for the benefit of saving a few dollars, the NFPA studies were done and published for a reason! While it is a legitimate issue for some, others use it as scare tactic to get more taxes from the public, and then there are those that are simply wasteful and ignore the need for adequate public safety. But hey, at least city hall has some nice landscaping and a great new fountain out front!

    5. Show next comments  3 more