nothing says lawsuit like chiefs investigations... or how about when no chiefs come out for the chiefs investigations and it goes to a general alarm those ones are my favorite.
You really need to have at least something else to respond (Engine/Truck). What happens if the Chief gets into trouble. Trouble is a very broad term - ranging from allegations of inappropriate behavior (Miss XYZ says that he groped her) to being incapacitated by a hazardous environment (an odor not perceived as lethal). Probably the most dreaded is pulling up to a chronic location and being greeted by flames as the public watches. Its gonna seem like a really long time until that first engine pulls up. Just my 2 cents.
They should eliminate the investigations, just send an Engine on a special call, be proactive. The worst has to be the "odor" inside the house, or the Co alarm is beeping. How many times do we chalk it up as a defective battery on the alarm. how often do you calibrate your CO meters? Is an accurate log kept?
Rule #2 – Invite all your friends that have guns to come with you.
If I’m going on a run I want all the resources that I might need to safely get the job done. You can always return to quarters if not needed. This is also why it is a good idea to be proactive when requesting a fast truck. If you think you need one, call it!
But when is enough enough... there are some districts out there for example Roslyn and Uniondale who cover college campuses where there could be anywhere from 0-10 AFA's a day. To send the rig, in Roslyn's case, lights and sirens to the opposite side of the district for complete BS because college students like to play with fire extinguishers and pull fire alarms at is ridiculous.
If that AFA turns into something more, there is without a doubt the alarm will be upgraded as it has in the past before or just as the chief is getting out.
Bottom line...BS is BS and to have members responding for that BS will only turn them away from coming to every day AFA's and other calls.
THE ONE THING I DO NOT AGREE WITH IS AFA's THAT ARE PD RESPONSE ONLY... NOW THAT IS A LIABILITY
Uniondale's situation is unique, Hofstra secruity used to check to see if the alarm was real and then they would notify UFD if it was not false. I believe NYS ordered them to transmit all alarms after last fire they had on campus.
A couple of years ago Uniondale had a call on Super Bowl Sunday and the police were dispatched to check and advise. 18 minutes later somebody called the fire department when they realized they weren’t there. Not a knock on our brothers in blue, they were trying to save the person trapped but never called for help. I guess they thought somebody else was doing it.
As far as college campus’ go… I bet the Seaton Hall fire came in as an automatic alarm. We all know how that one turned out.
How about departments that have their dispatchers call the location on receipt of auto alarms first? Would you consider that to be a liabilty issue? Any out of state or off Island f/f's know of other departments who follow this sort of practice?
While i agree that you leave your self open for an issue, but you have to think about why you are going back numerous times.
If we go to an address for an initial AFA and its been determined there is definetly a malfunction and that they are awaiting the repair co, i am not going to waste my members time if the alarm continues to go off, we;ll respond and if needed we'll upgrade. And besides, if your members are already aware there is a malfunction there, they are most likely not going to come out on the initial anyway. We've also had situations in which we had 14 go if it really becomes a nusance. I'm talking about a situation such as a faulty system and the owner refuses to respond or do anything about it till say monday. And i am talking about an alarm that can't be reset and just continues to activate. Now, i know everyone is going to say you can't rely on the cops and in most cases you are all right. However, in some situations and this doesn't happen all the time, actually very rare in my dist, perhaps having them respond before my dept is alerted and putting people at risk while responding for nonsense may be warranted.
Good points have been made on both sides of the argument.
I agree with Zeroone - for the call where the likelihood of intervention is zero, but your Department wants to verify the information received (i.e., repeated AFA with occupant asserting that there is no fire), then it is ok in my opinion to send a Chief or a Fire Inspector to verify. This type of response should be reserved to no-risk calls (NOT the AFA at the nursing home or school). (In our Department, if a crew is in quarters, they are free to respond to these calls).
The other role for Chiefs Investigations is for the clearly non-firematic calls that we receive from time to time - I have been to calls for a squirrel in the attic, and a broken sprinkler system pipe this year. We usually respond to these calls as "good neighbors", but a Department response is hardly warranted.
[quote=5803;216311]Good points have been made on both sides of the argument.
I am not a big fan of chiefs investigations.. I dont like the idea of afa's being toned out as chiefs investigations because I wouldnt wanna be on the recieving end of a tremendous lawsuit. Lets look at it this way. Chiefs Inv. for 123 mainstreet AFA.. Chief gets there and its a confirmed fire now with someone trapped on the second floor. Now the Chief transmits and then guys respond to the house, and respond.. Probably a good 5 min later. Now that father / mother / child perishes because from the time the chief was alerted to the time the engine got there, there 10 min into the fire. I would assume there would be a lawsuit for delaying response. Its not a likely story but theres the potential. I like the idea of just assigning rotating companies for certain repeat alarms. So that in the event of a situation is found on scene, resources are not far behind. Just my opinion.
What about this? What do you think when a responding chief puts all his units a SIG 6 ( Standy in Quarters or whereeve they are ) when the dispatcher reports to him that the homeowner reports food on the stove, or unknown why alarm is sounding.??? Its kinda the same situation.. I think theres no problem slowing resources down but not to cancel them or not allow them to respond at all. I think the OIC is taking a big chance... Situations do arise from AFA's. Not common but they do happen.... Let me know..
Don't get me wrong, most of our AFA's are toned out as generals or duty crew calls. But for the location that has had multiple AFA malfunctions in the same month, with a keyholder on scene reporting no fire -- why have the Department respond?? That is not a likely scenario for civilian injury -- unless one of our rigs gets into an accident on the way there.
No 911 phone calls, zero not one, only thing that saved the family was automatic alarm.
2 kids, 2 adults rescued. One adult presented himself(and i use the term loosely) at the window and was removed via portable by the engine chauffer (after the line was in place) the female was removed in respiratory arrest, and the 2 children were removed by TL 313 and LT 325's crews.
Now you say do call backs for automatic alarms.
#1 firecom doesnt have the resources to handle this
#2 this family as listed above would probably be dead right now if they waited the extra 15-30 seconds to do the call back.
Lawrence-Cedarhurst does alot of bull s**t automatic alarms, but even if the ratio is 1:4000, that 1 time was justified by above.
I don't think anyone is disputing the fact about going to AFA's. I think the issue on the table is if lets say Burger King on 123 Main St has a faulty alarm and you go there 3 times in an hour and THEN make it a chiefs investigation. Why turn out companies if they are waiting for the alarm company to come?
While GOTUM makes some points about a single incident, I wonder if we can look at it from a different angle.
Some disagree with the call back procedure, and that is fine. However, I have seen it work first hand and I think the Risk vs Reward factor needs to be considered.
How many firefighters and civilians have been "silently" saved by not placing multiple 30 to 40 ton fire apparatus on the road plus the 20 or so volunteers who are responding to the firehouse to man the apparatus. I bet that number will never be able to calculated.
Here is one link to a tragic story. Would a simple phone call have saved this firefighter's life? Does this story cancel out your Family of 4 saved?? How many more stories are there out there like this? June 26, 1984 comes to mind when a Nassau Volunteer was killed responding to a false automatic alarm.
There is more than one side to this issue. Any department that I know of that does call backs has a strong set of unambiguous guidelines that dictates the fire dispatch actions for response to automatic fire alarms. I know in my shop that if there is any indication that there is or was fire, that the alarm is Dispatched Immediately. If there is a reason why the alarm was tripped in error, like the famous one, the alarm company failed to take the system offline and this is verified by the building manager, then why put the apparatus on the road?? it is not reasonable and prudent to do so and there is greater risk vs reward.
The Bottom line is that not every call that is received by a fire department requires a "full" department response. Responses should be based on the callers description of the incident. Many departments have "cut down" responses to many routine emergency type alarms simply because the risk vs reward wasn't worth it.
As far as "Chief Investigations", I really feel that it should be based on the callers description. If it is a beeping smoke detector, 1 beep every 2 minutes with no smoke, no fire. One could argue that responding lights and sirens with 3 or 4 pieces of apparatus is more of a danger to the public and firefighters than sending a single chief going with the flow of traffic.
this has been a perpetual argument in the fire service...and will most likely continue to be...ALL ALARMS should bring the appropriate apparatus and the proper response level...if the calls are bogus it falls on us to report negilgent homeowners...THEY ARE THE ONES WHO SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE...not the guys doing their jobs...we shouldnt hand pick or sugar coat alarms...you take the good with the bad...not every call will be a raging inferno you can tell salty stories about...
it's happened in east rockaway a couple of times before the district engine was assigned to back up the chief.
look at what happened 3 years ago on 2nd avenue. 404 rescue and the chiefs were alerted for a somke detector sounding, upon arrival of one of the deputies they had a fire in a bedroom on the 2nd floor.
it's better to be proactive then reactive. TONE IT OUT.
Not to stir it up even more but it seems there are different views on this from a Dept. that does 5 fire calls a week...all that are automatic alarms compared to a Dept. that does 30 fire calls a week. The dept. that runs less wants to go to them, but the dept. that does more is in favor of calling the premise first, having the on duty fire inspector respond only, making it a Chiefs call.
An engine should be assigned to a Chief's investigation..
Then it wouldn't be a chiefs investigation then would it?
There is really no point to a chiefs investigation. It is openly admitting that you can't get a piece of apparatus on the street.
Just send the engine company, it is their job as firemen. It puts a good public image out, and it also is great for the next time, when its not a defective CO meter, but fire from the rear windows.
More Information
"Chiefs Investigations"
Linear Mode
