I didn't see this posted so I thought I would post it. I may have missed it.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/04/port_authority_to_create_stand.html
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/04/port_authority_to_create_stand.html
Port Authority FD
- Thread starter patrickfd
- Start date
Bulldog
Bulldog
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,305
I hadn't seen that posted before, although I had read about the fine. Just what New York needs, another big headed agency! They should just let FDNY take over the fire duties at the airport. Instead of creating another whole organization, it certainly makes more sense from both an administrative and cost-effectiveness sides of the issue.
"... it certainly makes more sense from both an administrative and cost-effectiveness sides of the issue." - That's just the problem with what you suggest, Bulldog: it makes sense. One of the absolute New York truisms is that if you want anything - anything at all - screwed up, give it to the Port Authority or the MTA. Either one will screw up anything beyond all recognition and reality and expect a pay raise for doing it.
Simple solution: Certify a sufficient number of Newark & F.D.N.Y. Firefighters to ARFF requirements. Have N.F.D. and F.D.N.Y. provide all fire and rescue services at the airports. Have N.P.D. and N.Y.P.D. assume control of all law enforcement duties at the airports. The PA of N.Y. & N.J. costs a ridiculous amount to operate, give taxpayers a break in their pocket books and a much more efficient level of law enforcement and emergency services at the same time..
http://www.northjersey.com/news/new-jersey-new-york-airport-rescue-teams-trigger-cost-debate-1.1289601
http://www.northjersey.com/news/new-jersey-new-york-airport-rescue-teams-trigger-cost-debate-1.1289601
Getting Yours [PAPD PBA Makes Sure They Get Theirs]
New Jersey, New York airport rescue teams trigger cost debate
BY SHAWN BOBURG ? Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 ?The Bergen Record? / Hackensack, N.J.
When a jet carrying 127 passengers careened off a runway at La Guardia Airport this month, a specially trained rescue team was there within minutes. The images of the team helping shaken passengers slide off the wing of the damaged plane, as it teetered near the edge of Flushing Bay, told the story: It could have been a lot worse.
Overshadowed by that quick action and good fortune is a simmering debate that centers on the emergency rescue squads at the major airports in New York and New Jersey. It boils down to a question the Port Authority, the agency?s police union, airlines and federal aviation regulators can?t seem to agree on: What is the safest and most efficient way to provide emergency fire protection and rescue?
The debate continues to flare more than a year after a major change that more than tripled the cost of the response teams ? the creation of stand-alone fire and rescue squads at each of the agency?s airports. The squads? sole responsibility is to remain on standby in a firehouse in case something goes wrong. For decades, the task fell to Port Authority police officers whose primary job was to patrol and secure the airports. They were cross-trained as firefighters and would quickly respond to aviation emergencies as well.
Critics of the new aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) squads, which required hiring hundreds of additional workers whose average $144,000 compensation totaled more than $40 million in 2014, say the old way was cheaper and just as effective. Newark Liberty?s largest commercial carrier, United Airlines, and the union that represents the Port Authority?s police officers as well as the rescue squads have publicly voiced strong opposition to the arrangement in recent months, as the costs have come into clearer focus.
United Airlines filed a complaint with federal regulators in December, protesting what it called ?unreasonable? flight fees charged by the Port Authority, and taking specific aim at the six-figure pay for each of the new fire and rescue personnel.
And the union that represents both the police and the fire and rescue teams is in the unusual position of labeling the move as wasteful even though it brought hundreds of high-paying jobs under its umbrella.
?When they are not responding to a crash, they can do training, but otherwise there?s not a whole lot for them to do during a 12-hour tour,? the union?s general counsel, John McAusland, said of the firefighters.
On the other side of the debate is the Federal Aviation Administration, and some at the Port Authority, who point out that the region?s airports were the only ones nationwide that did not have their own dedicated fire and rescue squads until last year. It was the FAA that pressed the Port Authority to make the change amid an investigation into how the agency maintained records of firefighter training. The Port Authority agreed.
Asked for comment, an FAA spokeswoman pointed out there has not been a training violation since the agreement was signed. And one Port Authority official said the new system allowed the rescue teams to train together, likely leading to better coordination. But the price is much higher: The Port Authority spent $74 million on aviation rescue and firefighting in 2014, the first year under the new system. In 2013, that figure was $24 million, according to a spokesman.
The relatively new Port Authority chairman, John Degnan, said in an interview that he, too, is concerned about the cost and wants to look into how the job might be done more efficiently, while adhering to federal safety requirements.
An alarm sounds
The response to the La Guardia incident, the first major accident under the new plan, illustrates what has changed ? and what hasn?t.
When an alarm went off that Thursday morning inside a garage on the eastern side of the airport, there were about a dozen people inside on standby, not on patrol. The rescue team hears the high-pitched alerts signaling a potential emergency almost daily, even when it turns out to be fuel leaking from a parked plane or a cockpit indicator light that appears to be malfunctioning, said Sgt. Michael Guzowski, who oversees the La Guardia unit but was not on the shift that responded to the recent accident.
On March 5, just after 11 a.m., an air traffic controller announced over the intercom that a plane had veered off Runway 13.
The officers jumped on large chartreuse-yellow fire trucks that contain unique equipment, such as a spear-like nozzle designed to pierce the fuselage of a plane and fill the interior with fire-suppressing foam.
One of the officers, Brian Vitale, of Oakland, looked out the window of the second truck as it approached the plane, its nose resting on a berm separating the bay from the airfield, and saw fuel leaking from one wing. On the other wing was the first passenger to cross through the emergency exit. Vitale and others helped the passengers get out of the airplane and onto waiting buses.
?I had everyone from people crying to a girl who I heard say, ?That was kind of fun, ??? Vitale said. ?The majority were pretty shaken up.?
So what would have been different under the old system?
About four cross-trained officers would have been waiting in the garage, doing police-related desk work while on standby, before driving the trucks to the scene, said McAusland, the union lawyer. Meanwhile, Vitale and many of the other rescue officers might have been on patrol instead of remaining on standby in the command post. Those officers on patrols near the runways in police cars would have met them there.
Now, the fire and rescue teams cannot carry out any police duties, resulting in a net gain of hundreds of airport jobs to staff both police patrols and firefighting units. Union officials said the FAA made it clear they wanted police and firefighters to be completely separate.
Both the Port Authority and the union agree that what has changed are the methods but not the result, noting that under the prior system, officers consistently beat federal response time requirements, including getting the first truck to scene of an accident in less than three minutes.
?We were able to meet the requirements for response using that system in the past,? said John Selden, the Port Authority?s former general manager of airport certification and safety and now the deputy general manager of John F. Kennedy International Airport. ?To my knowledge, in my time here we never had a crash where we had an issue with our response.?
?Staggering? cost
In its complaint, United called the added cost to airlines under the new system ?staggering.?
Newark?s largest carrier wrote that it agreed that the police and firefighting functions should be separated, as they are at other airports. But it blamed the Port Authority for striking an agreement with the union that filled the rescue positions at the relatively high salaries earned by Port Authority police.
Payroll data show that the 292 ARFF team officers earned, on average, total compensation of about $144,000 in 2014. That included an average of more than $31,000 in overtime pay that union officials said was partly due to required training for new hires. All ARFF officers make base salaries of at least $90,000, but that doesn?t count longevity and other additional payments that push their compensation into the six figures.
By comparison, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which operates Washington Dulles and Reagan National, pays its firefighters a starting base salary of $50,000, and a maximum of $82,815, according to its website.
United says that, as a result of the new arrangement, airlines operating out of New York-area airports faced a ?staggering? $58 million one-year increase in fees paid to the Port Authority.
The change at the Port Authority grew out of an investigation by the FAA into the Port Authority?s records of required fire and rescue training. As part of the settlement of that investigation, the Port Authority agreed to set up the stand-alone squads. The union says the agency?s record keeping, not the previous system, was the problem. And it faults Port Authority leaders, particularly Executive Director Pat Foye, for not pushing back against the FAA.
Degnan, the Port Authority chairman, said he plans to learn more about the settlement in the coming months.
?I have a concern that it is too costly and the Port Authority should be exploring alternative ways of delivering the same level of fire protection at a cheaper cost,? he said.
The union argues the FAA approved of the previous system for decades and had no authority to require the stand-alone squads. The union?s lobbyist has pressed the case with federal lawmakers, hoping to get the decision reversed.
Port Authority officials said the FAA made it clear in negotiations about potential fines for record keeping that it wanted the Port Authority to get in line with other major airports.
?It?s a difficult position when your regulator is coming after you for civil penalties to try to convince them that your system is the right way to go,? Selden said, adding that the FAA believed separating the police from the rescue squads would help solve the record-keeping problem by making the system simpler.
Tom Belfiore, the Port Authority?s chief security officer, said the new system did have some advantages: Because the rescue teams work set shifts with the same pool of people, they train as a team; it?s also easier to manage overtime, he said.
As for alternatives to make the system more efficient, Belfiore said that would have to be sorted out with the union at the bargaining table.
New Jersey, New York airport rescue teams trigger cost debate
BY SHAWN BOBURG ? Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 ?The Bergen Record? / Hackensack, N.J.
When a jet carrying 127 passengers careened off a runway at La Guardia Airport this month, a specially trained rescue team was there within minutes. The images of the team helping shaken passengers slide off the wing of the damaged plane, as it teetered near the edge of Flushing Bay, told the story: It could have been a lot worse.
Overshadowed by that quick action and good fortune is a simmering debate that centers on the emergency rescue squads at the major airports in New York and New Jersey. It boils down to a question the Port Authority, the agency?s police union, airlines and federal aviation regulators can?t seem to agree on: What is the safest and most efficient way to provide emergency fire protection and rescue?
The debate continues to flare more than a year after a major change that more than tripled the cost of the response teams ? the creation of stand-alone fire and rescue squads at each of the agency?s airports. The squads? sole responsibility is to remain on standby in a firehouse in case something goes wrong. For decades, the task fell to Port Authority police officers whose primary job was to patrol and secure the airports. They were cross-trained as firefighters and would quickly respond to aviation emergencies as well.
Critics of the new aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) squads, which required hiring hundreds of additional workers whose average $144,000 compensation totaled more than $40 million in 2014, say the old way was cheaper and just as effective. Newark Liberty?s largest commercial carrier, United Airlines, and the union that represents the Port Authority?s police officers as well as the rescue squads have publicly voiced strong opposition to the arrangement in recent months, as the costs have come into clearer focus.
United Airlines filed a complaint with federal regulators in December, protesting what it called ?unreasonable? flight fees charged by the Port Authority, and taking specific aim at the six-figure pay for each of the new fire and rescue personnel.
And the union that represents both the police and the fire and rescue teams is in the unusual position of labeling the move as wasteful even though it brought hundreds of high-paying jobs under its umbrella.
?When they are not responding to a crash, they can do training, but otherwise there?s not a whole lot for them to do during a 12-hour tour,? the union?s general counsel, John McAusland, said of the firefighters.
On the other side of the debate is the Federal Aviation Administration, and some at the Port Authority, who point out that the region?s airports were the only ones nationwide that did not have their own dedicated fire and rescue squads until last year. It was the FAA that pressed the Port Authority to make the change amid an investigation into how the agency maintained records of firefighter training. The Port Authority agreed.
Asked for comment, an FAA spokeswoman pointed out there has not been a training violation since the agreement was signed. And one Port Authority official said the new system allowed the rescue teams to train together, likely leading to better coordination. But the price is much higher: The Port Authority spent $74 million on aviation rescue and firefighting in 2014, the first year under the new system. In 2013, that figure was $24 million, according to a spokesman.
The relatively new Port Authority chairman, John Degnan, said in an interview that he, too, is concerned about the cost and wants to look into how the job might be done more efficiently, while adhering to federal safety requirements.
An alarm sounds
The response to the La Guardia incident, the first major accident under the new plan, illustrates what has changed ? and what hasn?t.
When an alarm went off that Thursday morning inside a garage on the eastern side of the airport, there were about a dozen people inside on standby, not on patrol. The rescue team hears the high-pitched alerts signaling a potential emergency almost daily, even when it turns out to be fuel leaking from a parked plane or a cockpit indicator light that appears to be malfunctioning, said Sgt. Michael Guzowski, who oversees the La Guardia unit but was not on the shift that responded to the recent accident.
On March 5, just after 11 a.m., an air traffic controller announced over the intercom that a plane had veered off Runway 13.
The officers jumped on large chartreuse-yellow fire trucks that contain unique equipment, such as a spear-like nozzle designed to pierce the fuselage of a plane and fill the interior with fire-suppressing foam.
One of the officers, Brian Vitale, of Oakland, looked out the window of the second truck as it approached the plane, its nose resting on a berm separating the bay from the airfield, and saw fuel leaking from one wing. On the other wing was the first passenger to cross through the emergency exit. Vitale and others helped the passengers get out of the airplane and onto waiting buses.
?I had everyone from people crying to a girl who I heard say, ?That was kind of fun, ??? Vitale said. ?The majority were pretty shaken up.?
So what would have been different under the old system?
About four cross-trained officers would have been waiting in the garage, doing police-related desk work while on standby, before driving the trucks to the scene, said McAusland, the union lawyer. Meanwhile, Vitale and many of the other rescue officers might have been on patrol instead of remaining on standby in the command post. Those officers on patrols near the runways in police cars would have met them there.
Now, the fire and rescue teams cannot carry out any police duties, resulting in a net gain of hundreds of airport jobs to staff both police patrols and firefighting units. Union officials said the FAA made it clear they wanted police and firefighters to be completely separate.
Both the Port Authority and the union agree that what has changed are the methods but not the result, noting that under the prior system, officers consistently beat federal response time requirements, including getting the first truck to scene of an accident in less than three minutes.
?We were able to meet the requirements for response using that system in the past,? said John Selden, the Port Authority?s former general manager of airport certification and safety and now the deputy general manager of John F. Kennedy International Airport. ?To my knowledge, in my time here we never had a crash where we had an issue with our response.?
?Staggering? cost
In its complaint, United called the added cost to airlines under the new system ?staggering.?
Newark?s largest carrier wrote that it agreed that the police and firefighting functions should be separated, as they are at other airports. But it blamed the Port Authority for striking an agreement with the union that filled the rescue positions at the relatively high salaries earned by Port Authority police.
Payroll data show that the 292 ARFF team officers earned, on average, total compensation of about $144,000 in 2014. That included an average of more than $31,000 in overtime pay that union officials said was partly due to required training for new hires. All ARFF officers make base salaries of at least $90,000, but that doesn?t count longevity and other additional payments that push their compensation into the six figures.
By comparison, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which operates Washington Dulles and Reagan National, pays its firefighters a starting base salary of $50,000, and a maximum of $82,815, according to its website.
United says that, as a result of the new arrangement, airlines operating out of New York-area airports faced a ?staggering? $58 million one-year increase in fees paid to the Port Authority.
The change at the Port Authority grew out of an investigation by the FAA into the Port Authority?s records of required fire and rescue training. As part of the settlement of that investigation, the Port Authority agreed to set up the stand-alone squads. The union says the agency?s record keeping, not the previous system, was the problem. And it faults Port Authority leaders, particularly Executive Director Pat Foye, for not pushing back against the FAA.
Degnan, the Port Authority chairman, said he plans to learn more about the settlement in the coming months.
?I have a concern that it is too costly and the Port Authority should be exploring alternative ways of delivering the same level of fire protection at a cheaper cost,? he said.
The union argues the FAA approved of the previous system for decades and had no authority to require the stand-alone squads. The union?s lobbyist has pressed the case with federal lawmakers, hoping to get the decision reversed.
Port Authority officials said the FAA made it clear in negotiations about potential fines for record keeping that it wanted the Port Authority to get in line with other major airports.
?It?s a difficult position when your regulator is coming after you for civil penalties to try to convince them that your system is the right way to go,? Selden said, adding that the FAA believed separating the police from the rescue squads would help solve the record-keeping problem by making the system simpler.
Tom Belfiore, the Port Authority?s chief security officer, said the new system did have some advantages: Because the rescue teams work set shifts with the same pool of people, they train as a team; it?s also easier to manage overtime, he said.
As for alternatives to make the system more efficient, Belfiore said that would have to be sorted out with the union at the bargaining table.
The PA has 4 other major airports in its empire or soon to be in it.....Newark, Teterboro, Stewart in Orange County NY and soon Atlantic City International in NJ..The locals in those areas are all volunteer or limited manpower career or combo departments...Very unlikely if not impossible to meet the FAA requirements for CFR protection currently or for the proposed expansion of those facilities.....Nor would the PA cede emergency services to outside agencies....The civilian or military FD would probably remain at AC and Stewart for now..Like it or not, FDNY has very little training and experience in ARFF. The expense to equip and train FDNY crews for JFK and LGA far outweigh any possible benefit. FDNY main purpose is to augment water supply and assist in rescue operations and EMS at the airports during a crash. Better off left to the professionals with the equipment and training already. The current pay and fees for the PA is a whole another can of worms......
Stewart Airport ARFF is provided by the Air National Guard. FDNY and Newark FD could easily get personnel trained and certified for ARFF. The cost would be quite affordable compared to the hosing taxpayers are being subjected to (and have been for many years) by the Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J..dan said:
And that's some BS. So if the firefighters are not responding to a crash they're just wasting time? Training is just "not a whole lot to do"? How about equipment checks? Inspection of the airport infrastructure? Calls that are not crashes or other serious incidents -- oh, they're not "real" jobs? I don't know what agency should take over fire & rescue on the NY&NJ airports (I'm not from here) but it definitely should be fire department and not a police department with "cross-trained" members. Leave fire & rescue to the FD and law enforcement to the PD.
Disclaimer: I am NOT a neutral party on this topic. I am posting to share some insight. Not interested in a pissing match with anyone, just looking to share information. I will happily reply to any constructive posts and questions.
There is no "port authority fire department." ARFF services are provided by Port Authority Police Officers and Sergeants (PAPD) who have been administratively placed under the PA's ?Aviation? department (which is airport operations) and no longer under ?public safety? which is what the patrol police officers are assigned to. The ARFF Cadre is headed by a civilian ARFF Captain who then delegates down to a sworn PAPD police sergeant (crew chief).
As part of the agreement with the FAA, the PAPD officers assigned to the ARFF cadre do not perform any police responsibilities at all, they are dedicated to the firehouse and all related duties. They are committed to ARFF duties only for a minimum period of 5 years. The only time they may be utilized as police officers is during a major emergency (e.g. a WTC situation and aftermath). These members are 100% committed to ARFF. The police officers assigned to ?police patrol? at the airports still maintain certification as ARFF in order to augment the assigned and dedicated ARFF members until mutual aid arrives.
There was never a problem with our ?old system.? The problem was with the record keeping. At no time and on no incident has the PAPD ARFF response ever been critiqued on a major incident by the FAA, NTSB or any other regulatory agency.
A typical tour at an ARFF station is similar to any paid firehouse. The tour starts with equipment checks, (SCBA, holmatro tools, hand tools and of course the response trucks). All systems are tested and product is flowed to ensure operation. There?s scheduled daily and weekly inventory and maintenance to be done and the house to be put in order. Coffee, meals and gym time of course. Then training runs the gamut, from airport familiarization, aircraft familiarization, drilling with trucks, tools and equipment. We do powerpoints & videos as well. Quite often in warmer weather a good deal of time is spent outside of the station travelling the airfield and checking aircraft, the fuel farms, maintenance hangars. A good deal of time is spent talking with mechanics and touring aircraft of various types. We also respond to other fires and emergencies on the facility, ex: car fires, brush fires, serious aided calls in the vicinity of the stations. And is there down time? Of course there is?just like in ANY paid firehouse in the City of New York (and elsewhere).
I?ve seen criticism that the FDNY has better command and control. Yes, the FDNY is more experienced. No debate. But the ARFF cadre operates under the incident command system. At any major event a unified command post is established by PAPD and the I/C by mutual aid agreement is the Port Authority Police Tour Commander. ICS should evolve and work as designed regardless.
No one in PAPD ARFF is looking to taker over anyone?s job. It is our job according to the PA and negotiated by union contract and we train for it and we do it well. We are an initial firefighting force. We do a very specific job. We cannot do our jobs stand alone; just as FDNY or any other agency stationed at an airport could manage with just the resources on the airfield. FDNY still is exclusive for structural firefighting on the airport. We do not sit around and knock or critique FDNY or other departments, unlike the pure venom often spewed at us. We simply want to do our jobs. ARFF is, like it or not, for better or worse, our job. Might that change in the future? Possibly. That?s for the unions and the PA to decide. And as I?ve seen bashing of the PAPBA, think about this: would you as a UFA or other union member simply give up one of your job responsibilities and walk away for nothing? I don?t think so. Why should PAPD guys?
Oh, and before anyone brings it up YES, PAPD escorts are required on the aircraft operations side of the fenceline. The agreement is for FDNY to respond to the staging areas upon transmission of box 37 or box 269. For other fires & emergencies the FDNY responds directly to the location. If it is in the secure areas (behind a screening point in a terminal for example), a PAPD escort is required. FEDERAL regulations, not made up PA rules or ?protecting our turf.?
My only real problem is we don?t do enough inter-agency drills. We should train on a regularly set scheduled basis. Multi-unit drills should be held at the airport. That would go a long way in improving operations and ultimately personal relations between the actual ground troops so to speak.
Once again, feel free to ask questions, I will be more than happy to provide any information I can.
There is no "port authority fire department." ARFF services are provided by Port Authority Police Officers and Sergeants (PAPD) who have been administratively placed under the PA's ?Aviation? department (which is airport operations) and no longer under ?public safety? which is what the patrol police officers are assigned to. The ARFF Cadre is headed by a civilian ARFF Captain who then delegates down to a sworn PAPD police sergeant (crew chief).
As part of the agreement with the FAA, the PAPD officers assigned to the ARFF cadre do not perform any police responsibilities at all, they are dedicated to the firehouse and all related duties. They are committed to ARFF duties only for a minimum period of 5 years. The only time they may be utilized as police officers is during a major emergency (e.g. a WTC situation and aftermath). These members are 100% committed to ARFF. The police officers assigned to ?police patrol? at the airports still maintain certification as ARFF in order to augment the assigned and dedicated ARFF members until mutual aid arrives.
There was never a problem with our ?old system.? The problem was with the record keeping. At no time and on no incident has the PAPD ARFF response ever been critiqued on a major incident by the FAA, NTSB or any other regulatory agency.
A typical tour at an ARFF station is similar to any paid firehouse. The tour starts with equipment checks, (SCBA, holmatro tools, hand tools and of course the response trucks). All systems are tested and product is flowed to ensure operation. There?s scheduled daily and weekly inventory and maintenance to be done and the house to be put in order. Coffee, meals and gym time of course. Then training runs the gamut, from airport familiarization, aircraft familiarization, drilling with trucks, tools and equipment. We do powerpoints & videos as well. Quite often in warmer weather a good deal of time is spent outside of the station travelling the airfield and checking aircraft, the fuel farms, maintenance hangars. A good deal of time is spent talking with mechanics and touring aircraft of various types. We also respond to other fires and emergencies on the facility, ex: car fires, brush fires, serious aided calls in the vicinity of the stations. And is there down time? Of course there is?just like in ANY paid firehouse in the City of New York (and elsewhere).
I?ve seen criticism that the FDNY has better command and control. Yes, the FDNY is more experienced. No debate. But the ARFF cadre operates under the incident command system. At any major event a unified command post is established by PAPD and the I/C by mutual aid agreement is the Port Authority Police Tour Commander. ICS should evolve and work as designed regardless.
No one in PAPD ARFF is looking to taker over anyone?s job. It is our job according to the PA and negotiated by union contract and we train for it and we do it well. We are an initial firefighting force. We do a very specific job. We cannot do our jobs stand alone; just as FDNY or any other agency stationed at an airport could manage with just the resources on the airfield. FDNY still is exclusive for structural firefighting on the airport. We do not sit around and knock or critique FDNY or other departments, unlike the pure venom often spewed at us. We simply want to do our jobs. ARFF is, like it or not, for better or worse, our job. Might that change in the future? Possibly. That?s for the unions and the PA to decide. And as I?ve seen bashing of the PAPBA, think about this: would you as a UFA or other union member simply give up one of your job responsibilities and walk away for nothing? I don?t think so. Why should PAPD guys?
Oh, and before anyone brings it up YES, PAPD escorts are required on the aircraft operations side of the fenceline. The agreement is for FDNY to respond to the staging areas upon transmission of box 37 or box 269. For other fires & emergencies the FDNY responds directly to the location. If it is in the secure areas (behind a screening point in a terminal for example), a PAPD escort is required. FEDERAL regulations, not made up PA rules or ?protecting our turf.?
My only real problem is we don?t do enough inter-agency drills. We should train on a regularly set scheduled basis. Multi-unit drills should be held at the airport. That would go a long way in improving operations and ultimately personal relations between the actual ground troops so to speak.
Once again, feel free to ask questions, I will be more than happy to provide any information I can.
Bulldog
Bulldog
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,305
KEB525, what advantages do you see of the present arrangement over that of every other airport in the United States with the ARFF being a completely separate element that is either part of the local fire department or completely standalone? What disadvantage do you see if the airport for departments are brought under the control of FDNY or other local fire departments in the areas where they are located? To me it seems like integration with the local fire departments would be very advantageous because of some of the items you brought up in your post. Better training between the groups, a single command-and-control organization instead of having conflict interests. The same fire department responsible for both aircraft firefighting and structural firefighting and the airport facility etc. It works everywhere else in the nation why would it be the best to do for the reports that the PA manages?
Does not work that way in Boston. Massport runs the show at Logan. I see all of the positives in what you say. The only downside I see is when you people out sick/vacation. You need to fill with the same qualified firefighters. Something that does not happen in big cities.
Bulldog said:
Well PA ARFF is now "completely stand alone." Other than our uniforms, we are completely separated from police patrol officers. So we can continue to be trained on par with municipal, military or contract ARFF personnel. Our focus IS solely ARFF.
From a personal standpoint, being from a fire department background I agree with a lot of what you say. I didn't make the system, I took a test and got called for the PAPD (and in all honesty I was called for that before FDNY otherwise I'd be there). The real advantage with the present system is the initial response manpower wise. ARFF trucks across the nation are staffed mostly with 1 sometimes 2 members per truck. The PA puts out 2 man RIV's and 3 man major pieces. At JFK that gives 14 initial responders in 3 minutes with 12,000 gallons of product. I doubt FDNY or any other local would have that kind of initial on scene staffing. From am economical standpoint our previous response arrangement I think was much more economical and efficient.
I'm also not a hypocrite. I realize that after the initial few minutes where we are on our own FDNY will come in and essentially take over. We are not designed for an extended operation. You guys are clearly the best at what you do. But we are pretty darn good at our little niche in the firefighting world.
I honestly see the merits to both sides.
69 METS said:
Same story in other cities which have independent airport authorities. Example - Boston
Massachusetts has Massport, a state authority which runs the airports and has a lot of autonomy because it makes money for the state. Making money does not mean it operates efficiently or effectively. Massport maintains its own police even thought the Mass State Police has primary jurisdiction at Logan Airport (Boston). Massport also has its own fire department (100 members, 3 firehouses, 7 engines, ladder, rescue, 3 fireboats) even though the Boston Fire Department could provide contracted fire protection service to Logan located in East Boston.
It would seem that both police and fire protection for the airport might be more cost-effective and maybe better if provided by larger and better resourced organizations. Massport police and fire jobs, by the way, are also not civil service and are subject to political connections.
Example of police issues with redundant department (extends beyond the airport_ - buildings in Boston are protected by Massport police instead of Boston PD:
http://www.metro.us/local/boston-police-massport-at-odds-over-seaport-jurisdiction/tmWncf---c7MfU2YPKkgxo/
Example of Boston airport fire coverage issues:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/06/14/getting-airport-fast-issue-firefighting-flap/oR3wBTgAWZNvboA1hxyGwL/story.html
Example of politics involved with fire and police departments which offer high salaries:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/19971201/News/312019974
69 Mets solution would seem to benefit Boston and the taxpayers of Massachusetts.
Massport Fire Department info:
Equipment: http://www.firenews.org/mass/m/massport/massport.html
FF application: http://agency.governmentjobs.com/massport/job_bulletin.cfm?JobID=199798
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 292
If the plane had gone another 50 feet or so and ended up in Flushing Bay the PAPD fire/rescue would have been in over their head and it would have been the FDNY running the scene .The PAPD is a total duplication of services , the FDNY and NYPD are more the capable of providing the same if not better service and probable cheaper too.