+- Firepics-THE place for fire photographers (https://firepics.net/MyBB)
+-- Forum: Photos-MUST CONTAIN IMAGE IN ORIGINAL POST (https://firepics.net/MyBB/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Apparatus Photos (https://firepics.net/MyBB/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Chicago Fire Department (/showthread.php?tid=2101)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 09-06-2006
[quote name='Engine504Driver' post='21071' date='Aug 9 2006, 20:38 ']Where exactly on the lakefront is the Air Sea Rescue facility located? And, normally, are all 3 helicopters Bell 412's?[/quote]
Prior to wrecking the chopper, the CFD fleet was at 3 with one Bell Longranger (based on the jetranger) one Bell UH-1 "huey" (xmilitary and courtesy of Dan Rostenkowski) and the last was a Bell 412 (bought new) The 412 I think was bought to replace the last crashed helicopter.
The longranger has been given to the Chicago Police so that they have a helicopter. It was primarily used for training and as a backup.
The other two were rotated. The air-sea rescue station is located off the east end of 95th street in Calumet Park. The facility is fenced off and secluded. With the 3 helicopters there is also 6-8-7 A which is a converted ambulance for use by the Divers at the station.
Chicago Fire Department - Engine504Driver - 09-06-2006
I thought 6-8-7 was an MT-55 Frieghtliner custom vehicle made specifically for the Dive Team and "not" an old ambulance ?
Chicago Fire Department - CFD Adv207 - 09-06-2006
He said 687A not 687....687 is a Freightliner at Engine 13.
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 09-06-2006
Well...technically its not a fire rig but here it is...a new command unit for our office of emergency management..it contains police and fire CAD stations and can be linked via satellite...lotsa buck...little bang <img src='http://www.firepics.net/groupboards/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> <img src='http://www.firepics.net/groupboards/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/hysterical.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 09-06-2006
another view
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 09-06-2006
The bunkers vs. 3/4 debate can be beat to death. But what I can tell you from a CFD study and mine own experience. The CFD study showed a lot less heat stress, thus the reason for cancelling the order they placed before. The other much debated thing, bunkers provide you more protection than 3/4's, thus allowing you to get into situations you should not be in. In my opinion that Im sure will be much critisized, less FF deaths would occur if 3/4's were still used, because the FF's would not get into dangerous situations (ie. Flashovers). Let the beating of me commence.... Normally by people who have been brain washed by bunker gear manufacturers. Most of these people are in it for one thing, MONEY!
Lets do the math here:
Long coat $300 + 3/4 boots $75(max)= $375
coat $300 + pants $500 + boots $200 = $1000
if my math is correct that is $625 per FF, and CFD has 5000 FF's now think about that. Its a difference of $3,125,000.00(multiply by 3 for the FDNY).
Chicago Fire Department - chitownfyrfiter - 09-06-2006
Steve
Gonna make it's debut at the drill Thursday?
They gonna let you drive this?
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 09-06-2006
[quote name='Coop' post='31110' date='Sep 6 2006, 21:49 ']The bunkers vs. 3/4 debate can be beat to death. But what I can tell you from a CFD study and mine own experience. The CFD study showed a lot less heat stress, thus the reason for cancelling the order they placed before. The other much debated thing, bunkers provide you more protection than 3/4's, thus allowing you to get into situations you should not be in. In my opinion that Im sure will be much critisized, less FF deaths would occur if 3/4's were still used, because the FF's would not get into dangerous situations (ie. Flashovers). Let the beating of me commence.... Normally by people who have been brain washed by bunker gear manufacturers. Most of these people are in it for one thing, MONEY!
Lets do the math here:
Long coat $300 + 3/4 boots $75(max)= $375
coat $300 + pants $500 + boots $200 = $1000
if my math is correct that is $625 per FF, and CFD has 5000 FF's now think about that. Its a difference of $3,125,000.00(multiply by 3 for the FDNY).[/quote]
Okay I understand your side of it, but the NFPA Standards and most of the country (and correct me if I am wrong), have gone to full bunker gear have they not. I have wore both and yes I was better protected in full bunker gear and yes I did take a few more chances then I should have with full bunker gear and yes I had a couple more instances of heat stress in full bunker gear but shouldn't we protect our firefighters better than with the 3/4 boots?
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 09-07-2006
[quote name='The Nozzleman' post='31121' date='Sep 6 2006, 22:47 ']Okay I understand your side of it, but the NFPA Standards and most of the country (and correct me if I am wrong), have gone to full bunker gear have they not. I have wore both and yes I was better protected in full bunker gear and yes I did take a few more chances then I should have with full bunker gear and yes I had a couple more instances of heat stress in full bunker gear but shouldn't we protect our firefighters better than with the 3/4 boots?[/quote]
Dave,
I think you said it yourself. More heat stress. More Chances.. Results in FF deaths. So are we really protecting them so much better? Ok, here is something to think of....
CFD has 5,000 FF's and FDNY has 15,000 FF's(according to Firehouse Magazine)
I would like to find the info for FF deaths over the last ten years between the two depts. I would almost bet you that FDNY has more than 3x the deaths(excluding the 343 in 2001, No some people dont forget) than CFD. One of the number one killers in FF's besides apparatus accidents is heat stress and cardiac events(most caused due to heat stress). So I guess my question is... Are we really protecting our firefighters???
The honest truth most people dont like: Most organizations(like NFPA, not that I disagree with everything they do) are driven by monetary contributions from guess who???? In this case turn out gear manufacturers.
If you think it doesnt happen you are simply fooling yourself... Maybe tomorrow I will hit the IFSI library were the study was conducted......
Chicago Fire Department - CFD Adv207 - 09-07-2006
A hazy picture of Aerial Tower 1 RTQ.
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 09-07-2006
[quote name='chitownfyrfiter' post='31114' date='Sep 6 2006, 22:13 ']Steve
Gonna make it's debut at the drill Thursday?
They gonna let you drive this?[/quote]
I wouldn't go near that goofy drill for all the tea in China!!!!!!!
we had a smaller version of this that we were all gonna get certified in but of course that fell by the wayside and is now covered in dust in some garage...I don't think they will let us near this as its only for OEM people...not the people that actually do all the emergency dispatching everyday...Yes I am bitter can ya tell???? <img src='http://www.firepics.net/groupboards/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='<_<' />
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 09-07-2006
[quote name='Engine504Driver' post='30945' date='Sep 6 2006, 12:47 ']I thought 6-8-7 was an MT-55 Frieghtliner custom vehicle made specifically for the Dive Team and "not" an old ambulance ?[/quote]
Unit 6-8-7 is actually a Sterling Acterra with an ALF/Rescue Master Squad Body. The Code 3 branded 6-8-7 is not representative of the real deal.
Unit 6-8-7A allows for the divers normally on duty with the helicopters to respond if the helicopters are grounded It is painted black over red like the Special Ops units located with the Squad Companies
Chicago Fire Department - photog999 - 09-08-2006
[quote name='Coop' post='31110' date='Sep 6 2006, 21:49 ']The bunkers vs. 3/4 debate can be beat to death. But what I can tell you from a CFD study and mine own experience. The CFD study showed a lot less heat stress, thus the reason for cancelling the order they placed before. The other much debated thing, bunkers provide you more protection than 3/4's, thus allowing you to get into situations you should not be in. In my opinion that Im sure will be much critisized, less FF deaths would occur if 3/4's were still used, because the FF's would not get into dangerous situations (ie. Flashovers). Let the beating of me commence.... Normally by people who have been brain washed by bunker gear manufacturers. Most of these people are in it for one thing, MONEY!
Lets do the math here:
Long coat $300 + 3/4 boots $75(max)= $375
coat $300 + pants $500 + boots $200 = $1000
if my math is correct that is $625 per FF, and CFD has 5000 FF's now think about that. Its a difference of $3,125,000.00(multiply by 3 for the FDNY).[/quote]
Where in the world can you buy a bunker coat for $300.00??? Trust me even the long coats CFD is currently wearing are probably between $800 and $900 if not more because they are black PBI, which is the most expensive outershell you can buy. Morning Pride is the current manufacture of their coats.
The long boots are closer to $135.00 per pair.
A decent set of NFPA compliant gear (coat and pants) made out of the same spec as CFD and made by Morning Pride would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1500-$1700 (depending on options)
I actually have a deparment wearing black PBI that the next time they order gear it's going to cost them right around $2000.00 per set.
And no I am not getting rich doing this!!
Chicago Fire Department - npfd801 - 09-08-2006
I agree with Dennis' math, we're in a Millenia outer shell, higher end gear and I think we're over $1,800 a set for coat and trousers. If added a few more options, we could easily be in $2,000 gear.
I see that Lion got the Chicago contract, personally (I don't sell the gear, so this isn't as biased I suppose), but I know of at least three brands that I'd rather wear. I wonder what the contract called for, what kind of competitive evaluation there was, etc.
And for those of you that don't think there is a big difference in who makes the gear, send me an e-mail. We'll have a nice talk about one particular manufacturer's stuff that I'd just assume be rid of, but is new enough that I have to keep it around. I'd rather issue some stuff we bought in '99 over this crap we bought in '02 when I have a newbie that needs gear until he comes off probation and we buy him new.
Oh, and by the way - I hear Dennis is loaded, drives an Escalade with phat rims and kickin' sound system. He's da bomb. <img src='http://www.firepics.net/groupboards/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 09-08-2006
photog,
Are you an equipment manufacture or a dealer? or Fire Chief, FF?
because someone is making some money, even more than i thought.
here it is with your math:
3/4's $1035
bunkers $2000
difference $965 per FF multiplied by 5000 FF on CFD = $4,825,000.... Almost 5 million dollars its going somewhere....
I have just gotten 5 studies done on heat stress, and the differences between 3/4's and bunkers. So Ill let you know my findings.... But it seems odd if you recall CFD ordered bunkers in 1993(i think) and after testing and heat stress studies cancelled the order. I have tried to find this exact info, but have come close I believe. One study I have was published in Fire Engineering.
Chicago Fire Department - photog999 - 09-08-2006
[quote name='npfd801' post='31500' date='Sep 7 2006, 23:40 ']Oh, and by the way - I hear Dennis is loaded, drives an Escalade with phat rims and kickin' sound system. He's da bomb. <img src='http://www.firepics.net/groupboards/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[/quote]Joel, You are such a comedian! LOL Your the one driving the pimpmobile! <img src='http://www.firepics.net/groupboards/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Dennis
Chicago Fire Department - photog999 - 09-08-2006
[quote name='Coop' post='31143' date='Sep 6 2006, 23:44 ']Dave,
I think you said it yourself. More heat stress. More Chances.. Results in FF deaths. So are we really protecting them so much better? Ok, here is something to think of....
CFD has 5,000 FF's and FDNY has 15,000 FF's(according to Firehouse Magazine)
I would like to find the info for FF deaths over the last ten years between the two depts. I would almost bet you that FDNY has more than 3x the deaths(excluding the 343 in 2001, No some people dont forget) than CFD. One of the number one killers in FF's besides apparatus accidents is heat stress and cardiac events(most caused due to heat stress). So I guess my question is... Are we really protecting our firefighters???
The honest truth most people dont like: Most organizations(like NFPA, not that I disagree with everything they do) are driven by monetary contributions from guess who???? In this case turn out gear manufacturers.
If you think it doesnt happen you are simply fooling yourself... Maybe tomorrow I will hit the IFSI library were the study was conducted......[/quote]
Coop, I am an equipment dealer with a background in the fire service going back to 1980 so I've worn both long coats with 3/4 boots and also full PPE. Yes the old way is cooler but with fires buring much hotter I feel much better protected in full PPE. The reason guys take more chances is partially to blame on the gear and a lot to blame on training and dept. mentality.
You have to realize not all turn-out gear in made the same. A very few manufactures do any type of research into the gear to reduce stress. When you are wearing full PPE rehab becomes something that is mandatory not optional.
As far as NFPA is concerned, they are not supported by contributions from the manufactures, that is one of the biggest fallacies in the fire service. All technical committees(1971,1901,1982,1851 etc.) are equally represented by 1/3 fire service people (IAFF,IAFC,NVFC and so on), 1/3 Manufacture and 1/3 other industry professionals. Every time a standard is put out for change there are public comment periods where everyone in the fire service can express their opinion. A good example of this is with the proposed changes that were suggested for SCBA's, namely the universal bottle, fire service opinion sank that idea rather quickly. So i guess all I can say at the end of this rant is understand how NFPA works before you criticize (anad no I do not agree with everything they put out including some of the new changes in the turnout gear standard that just went into effect).
Remember NFPA is only a standard making body not a law making one tho their standards can and are adopted by law making and enforcing bodies. You don't have to follow it, but you better have a good team of lawyers if you choose not to follow it and something goes terribly wrong.
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming! <img src='http://www.firepics.net/groupboards/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 09-08-2006
[quote name='photog999' post='31578' date='Sep 8 2006, 11:39 ']Coop, I am an equipment dealer with a background in the fire service going back to 1980 so I've worn both long coats with 3/4 boots and also full PPE. Yes the old way is cooler but with fires buring much hotter I feel much better protected in full PPE. The reason guys take more chances is partially to blame on the gear and a lot to blame on training and dept. mentality.
You have to realize not all turn-out gear in made the same. A very few manufactures do any type of research into the gear to reduce stress. When you are wearing full PPE rehab becomes something that is mandatory not optional.
As far as NFPA is concerned, they are not supported by contributions from the manufactures, that is one of the biggest fallacies in the fire service. All technical committees(1971,1901,1982,1851 etc.) are equally represented by 1/3 fire service people (IAFF,IAFC,NVFC and so on), 1/3 Manufacture and 1/3 other industry professionals. Every time a standard is put out for change there are public comment periods where everyone in the fire service can express their opinion. A good example of this is with the proposed changes that were suggested for SCBA's, namely the universal bottle, fire service opinion sank that idea rather quickly. So i guess all I can say at the end of this rant is understand how NFPA works before you criticize (anad no I do not agree with everything they put out including some of the new changes in the turnout gear standard that just went into effect).
Remember NFPA is only a standard making body not a law making one tho their standards can and are adopted by law making and enforcing bodies. You don't have to follow it, but you better have a good team of lawyers if you choose not to follow it and something goes terribly wrong.[/quote]
Thank you, and I really do agree with you about the department mentality. The First fire department I was on was not as agressive as the last department that I was on. And that is one of the reasons that FDNY loses more firefighters that Chicago. The are extremely agressive in their policies on fire attack. And you know what they almost have to be with all of the housing units that are cramed in so tight. If they were not as agressive as they are they could end up loosing blocks and tons of people.
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 09-08-2006
[quote name='karl4700' post='25003' date='Aug 21 2006, 04:30 ']Tower 5 was also an emergency purchase.[/quote]
I've always wondered why a department as big as Chicago, with dozens of reserve engines and trucks, needs to buy single "emergency" purchases?
Chicago Fire Department - photog999 - 09-08-2006
[quote name='code20photog' post='31587' date='Sep 8 2006, 12:41 ']I've always wondered why a department as big as Chicago, with dozens of reserve engines and trucks, needs to buy single "emergency" purchases?[/quote]
Becaue at the time of the ''emergency purchase'' their reserve fleet had dwindled down to next to nothing due to the advanced age of the fleet. Someone can correct me but I believe this is the most uniform and up to date fleet the city of Chicago has ever had as well as the best replacement program they've ever had.