- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,488
I am reposting the following since perhaps it got lost in the shuffle of the actual fire etc.
The particular saws (unknown name) addressed in item 2 are carried by rescues and squads). ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS?
The recent Throgs Neck Bridge fire clearly illustrates how important marine operations are. Getting water on the fire was very difficult using land apparatus and it took close to an hour before Marine 6 was able to go into operation. Access to the fire by land was not only difficult, it had many elements of danger for FDNY members.
It would seem a review of actual operations that were undertaken that day would be most beneficial and off the top of my head should include the following:
1. FDNY should receive from the responsible agency (e.g. MTA - parent agency of TBTA) a copy of the structural calculations that should be submitted by the Contractor performing the work on the bridge for the scaffolding and the bearing capacity including the loading of materials (this would be the "dead" load on the structure - loading of the members and their equipment would be the "live" load). This information, to be supplied by the contractor (and "signed off" on by a licensed P.E. with structural engineering expertise) should be made a part of the contract requirements - this would enable the FDNY to assess the risk of putting members down on the scaffolding etc. There could be a sign-off required by FDNY (just like or similar to a DEC permit) before the contractor is allowed to commence work. This information could become part of the CIDS information for the bridge while construction is in effect.
The actual mechanics of this procedure would have to be fine tuned and the information would have to be put into the CIDS data bank in a timely fashion for it to be of any value.
2. The DC or BC requested two SOC support trucks with special saws. (Not exactly sure what saws they were but they are on the archive tape). However two SOC support units contacted by the Queens dispatcher indicated that they didn't carry these saws. Subsequently the Chief cancelled the two SOC units. The question is multiplicative: (a)should this be normal equipment for SOCS to carry (b) do Rescues or Squads carry these saws - I think everybody gets the idea as this could be very iterative.
3. Should training exercises for future fires of this nature be undertaken (say a simulation on a Sunday morning) similar to other disaster scenarios.
Am going to post this under the Throgs Neck Bridge fire thread as well.
Would really like to hear thoughts of any actual FDNY firefighters as well!
The particular saws (unknown name) addressed in item 2 are carried by rescues and squads). ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS?
The recent Throgs Neck Bridge fire clearly illustrates how important marine operations are. Getting water on the fire was very difficult using land apparatus and it took close to an hour before Marine 6 was able to go into operation. Access to the fire by land was not only difficult, it had many elements of danger for FDNY members.
It would seem a review of actual operations that were undertaken that day would be most beneficial and off the top of my head should include the following:
1. FDNY should receive from the responsible agency (e.g. MTA - parent agency of TBTA) a copy of the structural calculations that should be submitted by the Contractor performing the work on the bridge for the scaffolding and the bearing capacity including the loading of materials (this would be the "dead" load on the structure - loading of the members and their equipment would be the "live" load). This information, to be supplied by the contractor (and "signed off" on by a licensed P.E. with structural engineering expertise) should be made a part of the contract requirements - this would enable the FDNY to assess the risk of putting members down on the scaffolding etc. There could be a sign-off required by FDNY (just like or similar to a DEC permit) before the contractor is allowed to commence work. This information could become part of the CIDS information for the bridge while construction is in effect.
The actual mechanics of this procedure would have to be fine tuned and the information would have to be put into the CIDS data bank in a timely fashion for it to be of any value.
2. The DC or BC requested two SOC support trucks with special saws. (Not exactly sure what saws they were but they are on the archive tape). However two SOC support units contacted by the Queens dispatcher indicated that they didn't carry these saws. Subsequently the Chief cancelled the two SOC units. The question is multiplicative: (a)should this be normal equipment for SOCS to carry (b) do Rescues or Squads carry these saws - I think everybody gets the idea as this could be very iterative.
3. Should training exercises for future fires of this nature be undertaken (say a simulation on a Sunday morning) similar to other disaster scenarios.
Am going to post this under the Throgs Neck Bridge fire thread as well.
Would really like to hear thoughts of any actual FDNY firefighters as well!