The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Ten Minutes in the Street: “Dispatch to Chief..You’ve got Two Working Fires…”
Ten Minutes in the Street: “Dispatch to Chief..You’ve got Two Working Fires…”
It’s a weekday and a holiday…
The dispatcher gets a hold of you and informs you that you have companies working all-hands at two working fires; each one at different ends of the city.
Engine 21 is reporting a working fire and transmitting a second alarm at a Townhouse Fire with a report of a trapped occupant (HERE) and Engine 13 is transmitting a working fire at a large commercial building (HERE). You can tell by the transmissions, that both appear serious in nature and urgency. Greater alarm units and mutual aid companies are either enroute or are being dispatched. As you listen to the radio transmissions on the tactical channels both incidents are escalating in severity and magnitude.
As the Chief of the Department;
• Which alarm are you going to respond to, and why?
• If you’re not going to respond, why not and where are you going to go?
• With two major events transpiring simultaneously, as the Chief, what are the concerns and issues that you’d be thinking about?
• What information, if any would you be seeking and from who?
• What’s a stake, what’s your risk assessment of the incidents thus far based upon radio traffic? (read each scenario description, HERE and HERE)
Provides us some insights from a Chief Officer's perspective on what the concerns and issues are that would be going through your mind when confronted with such a series of events....
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
Chris? I usually just read your threads, just read. Sometimes I post, this is one of the latter. For me this one is simple. Big city, everything is on CAD, support units dispatched as requested, others dispatched to cover areas whose own units have been responded to either of the fires. I know, I took the easy way out :) Now I'll read how people who could possibly have this scenario would react.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Chris,
The decision tree on this one is binary - the two choices are the incident that's the worst right now versus the one that has the potential to be the worst in the long run. The town house is the worst right now, due to the entrapment. The long-term potential is a toss-up - the commercial fire might have hazmat or be a big economic factor for the city, while the town house fire might displace hundreds of people if it gets much worse.
I'm responding to the town house fire if I'm the chief. It gets 1.5 of the possible 2 decision tree points.
I'm going to recall my two deputy chiefs (holiday, remember) and the special operations chief.
The Operations deputy chief and the Special Operations battalion chief are going to the commercial fire and the Support Services deputy chief will go to the town house fire.
I'm also alerting the Emergency Management coordinator to open the EOC and get the liaison, PIO, weather/intelligence, and shelter support operations going, and I'm calling the city manger/mayor to let them know that we have two big problems and that I may need the Finance director to show up with the check book.
I also want to know what level of coverage the rest of the city has, has a recall for off-duty personnel been started, and where we can get additional rehab help since we're really only set up for one major rehab operation at a time.
If we don't have adequate coverage, it's time to get some mutual aid move-ups started.
I'm also going to have a quick chat with the I.C. at the commercial fire and suggest in my least micromanagerial tone that he/she let that fire burn and not generate a lake of contaminated runoff if that structure has a known hazmat problem.
Risk assessment on these will be held for another day.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Like Ben...if I were a chief and if I were to ever get in such a position I would take such trainings to heart.
In this situation I would go to where you have a person trapped, just because the resources needed and greater potential for injuries etc.
Also looking briefly at the pictures, the townhouse has a greater exposure problem whereas the commercial structure appears a bit more isolated. As Ben states there is HAZMAT potential etc with the commercial structure, but more likely it can go defensive, whereas the townhouse, with a trapped person etc, there will most likely be rescue attempts made increasing danger potential.
If this were us, quite simple, the city would be emptied for FD rigs, there would be automatic calls to all chief officers and a couple would start the call in procedures of off duty firefighters and start staffing reserve rigs. Mutual aid would be called in with some going to a scene while others would cover parts of the city.
Hope this makes some sense, not too many of these situations for the plain ass firefighter to do....good training and thinking nonetheless, but it will be years before I'm even in a company officer role.
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Ayotte on
-
• Which alarm are you going to respond to, and why?
The townhouse fire has the greater potential for life hazard.
• If you’re not going to respond, why not and where are you going to go?
See my answer above.
• With two major events transpiring simultaneously, as the Chief, what are the concerns and issues that you’d be thinking about?
Getting the "cavalry" on the road. In my community , we have a district wide preset mutual aid system that covers assignments up to 10 alarms, then the statewide fire mobilization plan kicks in upon request. The Department of Fire Services then puts into motion a predesignated task force plan.
• What information, if any would you be seeking and from who?
I would ask for situation reports from the first arriving officers at the both fires and make sure that the District's dispatch center had enough mutual aid coming in.
One thing for damn sure.. it's going to be a very long day....
-
Permalink Reply by Smoke Eater on
-
I chose to respond to the townhouse fire due to the fact of the resources already being called in and the fact that there is an entrapment meaning this will more than likely be an "all hands" fire.
-
-
"all hands" fire.
Someone want to educate me on what is considered an "All Hands" fire? I've seen this term with FDNY and east coast, but what does it really mean?
Here we use no such terms, if we have a fire, everyone is working. We have 18 showing up on an initial alarm and everyone has a job, everyone will be working, but we don't use the "All Hands" term. If we need more personnel we call for another alarm and those people would then be put to work too.
-
-
All hands just means that everyone is working. Sorry. I'm from Indiana but I love that term. LOL
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
John,
The term "All hands" simply means that all companies assigned to the Box are working. In many cases where a fire isn't particularly large, only a portion of the assigned companies will actually be put into service since "all hands" won't be needed. In those cases the additional companies stand by until they are recalled.
-
-
Thanks for the clarification, just goes with different terms for different parts of the country I guess.
For us, say it is a rubbish fire close to a structure, a full assignment is toned but if the first in rig can handle it they say so and send the rest back. If a call comes in for a structure fire and it is confirmed, all first alarm crews have a job, first in is typically attack, second in back up, third is RIT, truck and ambulance merge and become vent, search, etc, bat is command. If there is a confirmed structure fire, dispatch notifies the rest of the stations and move ups may ensue. We just don't use the "all hands" terminology here, but thanks again for clarifying.
-
Permalink Reply by James Higley on
-
If i were the cheif, I would send our companies to the first alarm fire. Our mutial aid companies that would be going to the scene of the first fire would continue in and our change of quarter equipment would be used to take on the second call. Once companies are free from the first call, they would then be sent to the second fire.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Shaw on
-
I was part of a response to a similar scenario, although at the firefighter level and not an officer level. Another district received two working fires back to back, the first a single family residence went to a second alarm, the second a multi-fatal was the one I responded on. Both of these were within an hour of a very bad single fatality motor vehicle collision in another part of town.
The on duty Chief went to the first fire as he was en route when it was first reported. He was advised of the need for a second alarm by the first engine on scene. That assignment was being set up when the second call came in. My depart was sent to fill out the remainder of the first alarm on the second box. The dispatch center called back an additional Chief who did not live that far away from the second scene, and an Aide for him, who picked up the spare command car and his gear and met him on scene. I think the on duty Chief made the right choice to stay with the first assignment and have the second assignment covered.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Cole on
-
"All hands working" may also indicate that the first-arriving company officer is involved with immediate suppression efforts, and is passing command, or acting in 'Fast Attack ' mode. All Hands may also indicate that there are no available staged companies, and that first-alarm assignment is being used to maximum potential, with the likely hood of a second alarm, or special call likely.
Consider a tactical box alarm assignment to a dwelling fire being two engines and two ladders, for example. With one line being used, as for a small, one room fire, and the first-due truck being used to ladder, and search and vent, the other ladder and engine are 'standing by' and not actually being used. Thus "1 and 1 in service". However with all four companies being used...that's "all hands working".
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
