It seems a large majority including me got "C" for the answer, anybody recall what that questions was?
JustWonderin said
Nov 22, 2011
Pretty sure this was the dept. 53 with the discipline. C.O.'s duty to discipline; should be a throwout
RISING IDIOT said
Nov 22, 2011
C here for #47
JustWonderin said
Nov 22, 2011
I also got C, can anyone confirm what the question was?
-- Edited by JustWonderin on Tuesday 22nd of November 2011 02:59:57 PM
JRG said
Nov 22, 2011
Question #47 was definitely the department vehicle accident (217-06). I believe the DCAS answer was to "issue a CD and send for retraining"...I dropped it, too.
NextLtTest said
Nov 22, 2011
I got it "dcas right". But I do not think it was the DEPT 53. I did not give a CD, but I sent them to retraining.
Inspector71 said
Nov 22, 2011
This was the question regarding the Dept. vehicle accident and the findings by the supervisor.
Gripes4Stripes said
Nov 22, 2011
Then it couldn't have been the Dept Vehicle one. I picked no CD but retraining. I don't know what choice that was but I picked C and got it wrong.
JRG said
Nov 22, 2011
I picked "C" and if I remember correctly, the answer I picked stated "find the cops at fault and send them for retraining". I definitely did not pick the choice that said to issue a CD and send them for retraining.
My logic was that they were responding to a crime in progress and that disobeying a traffic control device was warranted. I knew we would get a department vehicle accident question, but never would have guessed that they would ask us about a captain's duty...either way, I'm protesting it!
oneadditional said
Nov 22, 2011
I got C
oneadditional said
Nov 22, 2011
Count this one as a throw out
s2h said
Nov 23, 2011
its in the additional data sec of 217 06
nycop80 said
Nov 23, 2011
If the need to interview a member of the service under the provisions of P. G. 206-13, Interrogation of Members of the Service becomes apparent and a serious violation is alleged or sufficient justification is present, although the violation is minor, a member will be permitted sufficient time to have a representative respond prior to start of interview. Members of the service who were involved in Department vehicle accidents in which it has been determined that the members driving ability was a contributory factor to the incident would benefit from the Driver Training Units Accident Retraining Course. However, depending upon the circumstances, other corrective measures such as disciplinary action may be more appropriate. Therefore, to insure that only those members who would benefit are scheduled for retraining, the following guidelines are offered. Driver retraining should be implemented only if the operator of a Department vehicle is determined to be at fault due to a driving deficiency, based on factors such as: a. weather conditions which e. mirror usage (vans) affect the road surface f. avoiding obstructions, debris, potholes b. loss of control g. braking c. backing h. turn negotiation d. fender judgment The precinct/unit commander will be responsible for ensuring that appropriate individuals attend accident retraining within ninety (90) days of the accident. These provisions will be strictly adhered to absent exigent circumstances, i.e., extended sick leave or other valid reasons preventing timely retraining. Commanding officers are reminded that the Driver Training Unit is a tool best utilized to improve a members overall driving performance. It should not be viewed as disciplinary action. The Commanding Officer, Driver Training Unit, is available to all commanders for conferral whether scheduling a specific member for retraining would be appropriate. New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (Section 1104 A - V.T.L.) allows the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when involved in an emergency operation, to disregard regulations with certain conditions. These conditions include proceeding past a steady red signal, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation, or exceeding the maximum speed limits as long as life and property are not endangered. However, it should be noted that disciplinary action would be more appropriate than driver retraining for those members who are involved in vehicle accidents which occurred as a result of their unsafe disregard of such regulations, as opposed to the member merely having deficient driving skills.
ImDrained said
Nov 23, 2011
I picked C, cant remember the question
1534sux said
Nov 23, 2011
C for # 47
innocent1 said
Nov 23, 2011
i picked C as well. protest protest protest!
Mrclean said
Nov 24, 2011
i picked C for 47....lets throw it out or double answer.
oneadditional said
Nov 24, 2011
That question will get thrown out
PFB said
Nov 24, 2011
C here!!
innocent1 said
Nov 25, 2011
i dont remember the question but i put C as well
MN50 said
Nov 25, 2011
If 47 is the dept mva, there could be an issue. It states in the pg that is a COs duty, but a lieutenant could be a CO of a unit, so DCAS might screw us. I don't remember the particulars of the question, but if the cops were assigned to precinct we can argue that a lieutenant can not be the CO of a precinct, therefore it is not within the scope of his duties.
oneadditional said
Nov 25, 2011
I'm convinced that all the lieutenants that wrote this test are house mice.
NextLtTest said
Nov 25, 2011
It says Precinct C.O. No Lt. Pct. C.O.s
Horseman said
Nov 25, 2011
I got C for question 47. I'm very confident that was the answer.
MN50 said
Nov 25, 2011
If you look at what nycop80 posted(I don't have a pg on hand), it states precinct/unit commander. Technically a lieutenant can be a unit commander. Not trying split hairs here but i believe it can be thrown out based on the cops being assigned to a precinct, meaning a Lt can not be a CO.
RISING IDIOT said
Nov 25, 2011
All final determinations regarding department vehicle accidents will be made by the PCT. COMMANDING OFFICER
MN50 said
Nov 25, 2011
Thats what im getting at, a Lt can not be a precinct commander, so the question should be thrown out
oneadditional said
Nov 25, 2011
Are we still going back and forth over this ? We established this the day after the test. The department vehicle accident question will get tossed and so will the pins. We just have to break down their stupid loop holes in the other 98 questions.
RISING IDIOT said
Nov 25, 2011
oneadditional wrote:
Are we still going back and forth over this ? We established this the day after the test. The department vehicle accident question will get tossed and so will the pins. We just have to break down their stupid loop holes in the other 98 questions.
Not so fast....just palying devils advocate, consider this:
Lt's are part of the accident review board. People on the accident review board make reccomendations regarding the outcome of dept vehicle accidents. This is where they could get us.
I got it wrong so I hope it gets tossed but don't consider it a done deal yet
WTF2011 said
Nov 25, 2011
The question asked what the Lt. should do not what he should recommend. Two different things. The decision is up to th C.O. The question made it as if what the Lt. decides is final. Throw out!
RISING IDIOT said
Nov 25, 2011
Are you sure it asked what he would DO or what would be APPROPRIATE.
I'm with you on the throw out. Lets just be ready to fully explain why. Guys are talking about some questions like we have them in the bag already
WTF2011 said
Nov 25, 2011
Regardless the additional data statement applies to precinct/unit commanders. There are many additional data statements that only apply to commanding officers. Are they implying we should know them all for a Lt's test?
oneadditional said
Nov 25, 2011
Under step 35 under Precinct Commander in 217-06 is states implement disciplinary ( or other action ), if warranted. Also read step 33 under precinct commander, the precinct xo recommends everything and the precinct co puts the stamp on it.
oneadditional said
Nov 25, 2011
They can say additional data but I'll refer to precinct commander and I'll live with a double answer.
Sgtfahlife said
Nov 25, 2011
I say question #47 will be a throwout,....lets fight fight fight!!!
NeedOutOfNarcotics said
Nov 25, 2011
I had "D", guess I'm screwed on that one, LOL
Mes018 said
Nov 26, 2011
NeedOutOfNarcotics wrote:
I had "D", guess I'm screwed on that one, LOL
Same here. And I have no idea what choice D even said now.
Mes018 said
Dec 2, 2011
MN50 wrote:
If 47 is the dept mva, there could be an issue. It states in the pg that is a COs duty, but a lieutenant could be a CO of a unit, so DCAS might screw us. I don't remember the particulars of the question, but if the cops were assigned to precinct we can argue that a lieutenant can not be the CO of a precinct, therefore it is not within the scope of his duties.
Question made you lieutenant platoon commander. That would eliminate the possibility of them saying a lieutenant can be a co for this question.
oneadditional said
Dec 2, 2011
You're the man MESO18
NYPD231 said
Dec 2, 2011
Mes018 wrote:
MN50 wrote:
If 47 is the dept mva, there could be an issue. It states in the pg that is a COs duty, but a lieutenant could be a CO of a unit, so DCAS might screw us. I don't remember the particulars of the question, but if the cops were assigned to precinct we can argue that a lieutenant can not be the CO of a precinct, therefore it is not within the scope of his duties.
Question made you lieutenant platoon commander. That would eliminate the possibility of them saying a lieutenant can be a co for this question.
Plus the PG states the duty is for the "Precinct Commander," not just CO, which could leave it open to some LT led unit.
Mes018 said
Dec 2, 2011
I aim to please. I won't get enough thrown out to pass, but hopefully some of you guys will. 4 years in rank and I have barely moved on the seniority list. Gotta get you crusty old bastards promoted!
Hangingonbyathread said
Dec 2, 2011
I got this one wrong too. I think the protest angle should be that we don't issue a command discipline, we prepare a supervisors complaint report. A CO initiates the Command Discipline process. Everything else in the question is actually correct. The xo ENSURES that the at fault is properly stated, since there is no injuries we are the Investigating supervisor and we indicate fault in the ARPdv steps 17 to 21. Sucks but we have to stick to what was in the stem of the question.
-- Edited by Hangingonbyathread on Friday 2nd of December 2011 03:34:13 PM
Hangingonbyathread said
Dec 2, 2011
Btw. You are the plt commander in the stem, but you are recommending to the patrol sergeant what should be done.
nycop80 said
Dec 3, 2011
I protested this question. Sighting several areas. I think Dcas tried to be cute. They read the note after step 22 where it says if it's minor injuries the patrol supervisor does steps 17-21. This is correct. But in steps 17-21. All that is done is finding fault. It does not give authority to discipline. Step 35 precinct commander implements discipline . This should be a throw out question. Again Dcas dropped the ball an made a very poor question.
Hangingonbyathread said
Dec 3, 2011
Exactly. Good point. Like I said the discipline has to be the angle. There is some reference to considering discipline in the additional data. It's vague. The right points have to be protested to get it thrown out. I need this one.
Mes018 said
Dec 3, 2011
I'm protesting this one too. The discipline angle is the way to go. Everyone is focused on the patrol guide. I think we all need to submit form PD 301-153 Accident Report-Police Department Vehicle. The sergeant might be the one filling out part A and finding the operator at fault, but the recommendations section is under part B. The form itself states part B is "prepared by the Executive Officer, Precinct of Occurence, under the supervision of the Precinct Commanding Officer. The question was you as platoon commander advising the patrol sergeant what to do. You would most certainly not recommend him to perform XO's duties.
It seems a large majority including me got "C" for the answer, anybody recall what that questions was?
I also got C, can anyone confirm what the question was?
-- Edited by JustWonderin on Tuesday 22nd of November 2011 02:59:57 PM
Question #47 was definitely the department vehicle accident (217-06). I believe the DCAS answer was to "issue a CD and send for retraining"...I dropped it, too.
This was the question regarding the Dept. vehicle accident and the findings by the supervisor.
Then it couldn't have been the Dept Vehicle one. I picked no CD but retraining. I don't know what choice that was but I picked C and got it wrong.
I picked "C" and if I remember correctly, the answer I picked stated "find the cops at fault and send them for retraining". I definitely did not pick the choice that said to issue a CD and send them for retraining.
My logic was that they were responding to a crime in progress and that disobeying a traffic control device was warranted. I knew we would get a department vehicle accident question, but never would have guessed that they would ask us about a captain's duty...either way, I'm protesting it!
Interrogation of Members of the Service becomes apparent and a serious violation is
alleged or sufficient justification is present, although the violation is minor, a member will
be permitted sufficient time to have a representative respond prior to start of interview.
Members of the service who were involved in Department vehicle accidents in which it has
been determined that the members driving ability was a contributory factor to the incident
would benefit from the Driver Training Units Accident Retraining Course. However,
depending upon the circumstances, other corrective measures such as disciplinary action
may be more appropriate. Therefore, to insure that only those members who would
benefit are scheduled for retraining, the following guidelines are offered.
Driver retraining should be implemented only if the operator of a Department vehicle is
determined to be at fault due to a driving deficiency, based on factors such as:
a. weather conditions which e. mirror usage (vans)
affect the road surface f. avoiding obstructions, debris, potholes
b. loss of control g. braking
c. backing h. turn negotiation
d. fender judgment
The precinct/unit commander will be responsible for ensuring that appropriate
individuals attend accident retraining within ninety (90) days of the accident. These
provisions will be strictly adhered to absent exigent circumstances, i.e., extended sick
leave or other valid reasons preventing timely retraining.
Commanding officers are reminded that the Driver Training Unit is a tool best utilized to
improve a members overall driving performance. It should not be viewed as disciplinary
action. The Commanding Officer, Driver Training Unit, is available to all commanders for
conferral whether scheduling a specific member for retraining would be appropriate.
New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (Section 1104 A - V.T.L.) allows the driver of an
authorized emergency vehicle, when involved in an emergency operation, to disregard
regulations with certain conditions. These conditions include proceeding past a steady red
signal, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation, or exceeding the
maximum speed limits as long as life and property are not endangered. However, it should be
noted that disciplinary action would be more appropriate than driver retraining for those
members who are involved in vehicle accidents which occurred as a result of their unsafe
disregard of such regulations, as opposed to the member merely having deficient driving skills.
C for # 47
C here!!
Not so fast....just palying devils advocate, consider this:
Lt's are part of the accident review board. People on the accident review board make reccomendations regarding the outcome of dept vehicle accidents. This is where they could get us.
I got it wrong so I hope it gets tossed but don't consider it a done deal yet
Are you sure it asked what he would DO or what would be APPROPRIATE.
I'm with you on the throw out. Lets just be ready to fully explain why. Guys are talking about some questions like we have them in the bag already
Plus the PG states the duty is for the "Precinct Commander," not just CO, which could leave it open to some LT led unit.
-- Edited by Hangingonbyathread on Friday 2nd of December 2011 03:34:13 PM