Your Opinion on Requirements?

[ENG27SQ]

Ok since it turned into a big stink on TWD. Let's get some serious opinions.

.......Rescue.........the counties most common word it seems now a days.

What do you think should qualify a unit as a Rescue? What equipment should it have? Should it be a DEDICATED rescue, or can it be an engine which meets the requirements and I mean by having the equipment, not having the decal saying "Rescue" on the side of the truck.

This was a good topic til it went to s*** so let's see if we can get the 29 people on here who want to share knowledge to place their opinions here.

[opsoverkill]

Personally I do not care what something is called as long it can do the job!!!

Rescue no matter what it is in needs to have multiple tools and have redundancies in place to be able to continue with a rescue and not have to wait for another unit to arrive. They should also have the ability to properly crib two vehicles that are on their sides. Using the proper Tension Butruss method. Stabilization is the one of the first step of a successful assignment. Having 1-cutter, 1- spreader and 1 power unit and a few step cribs and a handful of 4x4x22 does not and should never be consider a rescue. Does it have its place? By all means as a first response extrication unit with a Rescue truck also on the initial dispatch. Another thing that needs to be addressed it EMS and Pt stabilization equipment. BLS and ALS are stretch very thin and these unit calling them selfs rescue need at least one of the crew trained medically and should have the ability to properly remove a pt out of a car. Remember the method that everyone use with no ked. Is wrong unless the pt condition warrants it. Basically speaking if the Pt is conscious and has good vitals the ked should be applied and the vehicle stabilized.

[radioboy]

I would for the most part agree with you Opsoverkill. I think a "Rescue" should be called one if that is indeed it's primary role in life. In todays age I don't think many people want a pretty truck setting around that only goes out for one type of call, so for it to have a backup/multi purpose in life is a must. I look at it like this, I work on airplanes and some planes have two designators, a primary mission and a secondary mission. The KC-135's primary mission is refueler and secondary is cargo hauler. Same could be for firetrucks. If an apparatus is primarily set up for rescue/extrication then that should be what it is called and used for. If it also carries and/or pumps water great. I think it should check in as Rescue and then if they need it to pump/relay then it does. I think some get carried away with calling their apparatus whatever it fits into for the call they go on. Some day you might here "Engine, Ladder, Rescue, Utility XXXX in route." I know that at my station we have some extrication tools on one of our Engines, but we will never call it a Rescue. 191 and Ft. Dix are our Rescue trucks if needed for such a call but what we have can get things started until they arrive.
Now I will admit that I have been away from FF for a while and am just in the last year getting back into it, so if ya'll want to totally disregard what I said I understand. Ha.

[shader101]

ops is right, call it whatever, do the job, i would guess, most chiefs know whats on their grids and what those Mutal aids have and are capable of otherwise why are they on the grid? we are lucky i guess we have a rescue truck that doubles as a cascade, with the right people it can be/do either

[3105]

Although I voiced my opinion on TWD, here it is again: each individual jurisdiction must design and equip their "rescue" based on their specific needs...which means that Town A's rescue will most certainly be equipped and manned differently than Town B's, making a clear, across the board definition of "rescue" damn near impossible to provide. What I need in my local (based on my incidents, target hazards, and risk assessment) may not agree with yours...and to be perfectly truthful, it shouldn't.

Having said that, I will offer this possibilty: a "rescue-engine" (ie: an apparatus that is equipped and responds in two separate functions) should have the right tools and quantities needed to provide extrication service to at least one vehicle unsupported by additional rescues. Note that I said "at least one", which does not eliminate the possibilty of being equipped to handle more than one. The need for dual-purpose vehicles is both real and justified in today's environment of ever-shrinking budgets. Another factor that has to be considered regardless of whether we're talking "rescue-engine", "light rescue", "rescue", or "heavy rescue" is whether they arrive with the required number of trained personnel to handle all the needed assignments. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference if you have TWO spreaders and TWO cutters as well as 4,345 pieces of cribbing if the three people who arrived with the rig can't deploy all the stuff needed and operate it in a coordinated manner. The second "rescue" might just be needed for personnel, not tools.

Just my two cents....

[laddertruckgoes]

The problem as I see it is that there are far too many companies calling their units as "Rescue Engines" when they really are not. Using the term "Rescue" gives an impression that the unit is going to arrive and be ready to gain access to someone 99% of the time. A combi-tool and cribbing isn't going to cut it. Now I am 100% for Combi tools being on Engines, but your still just an engine. A 35' ladder on your pumper doesn't make you a ladder company does it?!?!?

Anything that carries the term "Rescue" needs to be well equipped for anything that's thrown at them. A tool box if you will, but with practical minded equipment. If we could get every apparatus "Rescue" to carry cutters, spreaders, redundant power units, airbags, cut off saws, hi lift jacks and rams then we wouldn't be even having this topic.

What the problem is now is that we have companies running around claiming to be able to provide a service that they can not. I have no idea why anyone would be doing such a thing... I guess it's just not fun being ourselves anymore.

[ENG27SQ]

laddertruckgoes said:

The problem as I see it is that there are far too many companies calling their units as "Rescue Engines" when they really are not. Using the term "Rescue" gives an impression that the unit is going to arrive and be ready to gain access to someone 99% of the time. A combi-tool and cribbing isn't going to cut it. Now I am 100% for Combi tools being on Engines, but your still just an engine. A 35' ladder on your pumper doesn't make you a ladder company does it?!?!?

Anything that carries the term "Rescue" needs to be well equipped for anything that's thrown at them. A tool box if you will, but with practical minded equipment. If we could get every apparatus "Rescue" to carry cutters, spreaders, redundant power units, airbags, cut off saws, hi lift jacks and rams then we wouldn't be even having this topic.

What the problem is now is that we have companies running around claiming to be able to provide a service that they can not. I have no idea why anyone would be doing such a thing... I guess it's just not fun being ourselves anymore.

Sean I have to agree with you 100%. A lot of companies call themselves "Rescue-Engines" just to feel special.

A Combi tool and some cribbing...doesn't do it. How can you handle a car on its side with entrapment? Gotta call someone in with Struts/Zmags in don't cha'?

[laddertruckgoes]

Rescue-Engine 1712 ran one the other night... required Air Bags as soon as they arrived. Now what if this was in area covered by a inferior-equipped rescue... what could the delays have been??

Chief Pratt - Can you shed some light onto what you had there?

[1710]

Ambulance 1783 and Q4314 were on location with a patient trapped under the front end of a passenger vehicle. I met with the officer of 4314 and we agreed that we would use an air bag behind each front wheel to lift the vehicle. The patient was C/A/O. I relayed the orders to RE1712 and about 30 seconds later I was advised that the patient was extricated. I won't go into how the patient was extricated as to not get off of the topic of this post.

I agree 100% with what is being discussed. As a lot of you know I have been working on the resource typing for the county. This document has hit some bumps in the road, but I think that I have it worked out. I am scheduled to present it at the next Chiefs meeting in November.

[3105]

Sean's comment reinforces what I was attempting to say: define WHAT a rescue-engine is supposed to handle and you'll have the answer. For example, in my opinion, a rescue-engine should be equipped to handle extrication for one, two or three vehicles simultaneously...which means cutter, spreaders, rams, cribbing, bags, struts, etc. They are designed and equipped primarily to handle 99% of their projected rescue needs: motor vehicle crashes. Now, throw in an exotic rescue not unlike what 1900 encountered a few months ago and the requirements change considerably, which prompts dispatching of additional resources. Even if 1900 had a crystal ball that could see the future, would he necessarily have the dollars and room necessary to stock his apparatus with all the tools and devices needed to pull off a complicated rescue?

It may seem as though I'm trying to draw a fine line here and maybe I'm perceiving the problem from a different angle, but a rescue-engine is purpose built and equipped to perform a more narrowly defined rescue capability, albiet a vitally important one based on that department's risk assessment.

Here's another litmus test: can a department's rescue engine function entirely by itself without additional equipment, personnel, or resources for a one, two, or possibly three vehicle accident requiring two (2) simultaneous extrication operations taking place? If so, that's a rescue-engine.

[gotwork]

I really believed that Chief Pratt and Bozoski had a great "rough" document to propose to the county chief's and I apologize for not being there to support Chief Pratt. A rescue should be more diverse than vehicle extrication, and should have more equipment for the "heavy/odd" type incidents. A rescue engine should be equipped to handle vehicle extrication with a minimum compliment to conduct activities on two vehicles simultaneously. My department chose the Squad Company route due to having a very diverse compliment of equipment that exceeds the rescue engine and rivals the Rescue requirements. On top of that we worked to complete training in technical areas (confined space, Large vehicle rescues, HAZMAT technician level, rope High and low angle, collapse, trench, water, etc - working on a machinery rescue course). I personally agreed with the personnel and certification levels associated with the Squad company classification. I also think that there should be cert levels for all classifications. Keep up the great work Chief Pratt and the classification sub committee, it is a great start toward a better Burlington County Emergency Services system.