Automatic Alarms-Question on past topic.

[firemoose827 324]

I KNOW, I KNOW, Its already been discussed. I read the post from back in 2004 because I was curious to see how each dept handled their response to these incidents. I noticed while reading the post that there are a lot of members not active in the forums any more, and wanted to hear from the newer members about the subject.

Ive noticed around here that the Auto Alarm gets mixed responses from different people. I myself always treat them like a structure fire untill someone gets on scene and confirms it. Usually you see the "rolling eyes" whenever we are dispatched to one, and the overall attitude is a poor one. Usually you see people not even respond at all to the firehouse, thinking "Oh man, were just going to be cancelled anyway, so why go." Its a scary thing to see, and I'm cringing at the fact that one day it will be the "Boy who cried wolf". I can see it now; the chief, interupted at dinner, responds code 2 to an auto alarm at an apartment house mumbling the whole way to himself, "Got to go to these stupid alarms, interupt my meal, and it ends up some stupid mistake, ' I thought it was a light switch', got to wait for the responsible...." and as he goes he tells dispatch to "Hold all equipment." As he pulls up, still thinking its a false alarm, he is suddenly confronted with smoke showing from the first floor windows, and people hanging out the second floor windows threatening to jump, and his station only has 2 guys because everyone stayed home and shut their pagers off. Sound like something that can happen to you?

I just wanted to spark some more conversation about this topic, and hopefully drive home the point that we should still consider these calls as "hot" untill further investigation reveals the facts.

How does everyone feel about this topic? Officers out there, do you instruct your FF's to "stand by" or respond?

Just Curious, hope everyone is staying cool in this heat!!

Moose.

[ny10570 745]

Two days ago here in Pleasantville we had an AFA turn into food on the stove with PD rescuing the occupant. No AFA, and best case we would have had a good kitchen fire with a seriously injured pt before a neighbor would have noticed. Worst case, a dead occupant and extension to bad scenario garden apartment style building. Like every where else AFA's don't get nearly the attention structure fires or smoke in the residence calls get. Luckily once in a while an AFA turns into something real and guys pay attention for a while. As for those guys who slack off just keep on doing what you do and remind them that one time it will be something. Sadly eventually you'll be right and at least you'll be ready to go to work.

[Fex404 0]

This problem is everywhere, and it really does bother me. People getting caught up in routine and gunna end up caught with their pants down when it does end up being something. The fire alarm goes off for a reason and thats why FD is called. I hate seeing ppl in my own department who just get on the truck and dont put packs on and treat it like a nice joy ride.

We had one where we got on scene and the house was filled with smoke. What happened was the family was on vacation and their sub-pump had shorted and started to catch fire and melt, so the smoke set off the fire alarm and we were able to go correct the problem.

You never know - so always be on your toes -

[Danger 160]

Anytime I get on a fire apparatus for any firematic alarm, I completely don all PPE, hoods on, collar up, tools, TIC, high-rise pack where applicable, etc. Consider all size up factors. A fire alarm is a fire alarm even if it's 3 am and the same college dorm we always go to. Complacency kills.

[Guest]

Whats the purpose of a fire alarm system? To alert the residents or building occupants that there is a fire (problem) in the building. Until it is confirmed not to be the case it is a real alarm, thinking anything other then that can be deadly at worst case.

[robert benz 344]

along those same lines when i hear "workers on the scene" i always assume the worst plumbers roofers floor sanders you got to be prepared

[x129K 1,393]

I sure hope anyone responding to my home treats it as a fire if my alarm goes off.....

[maisela 0]

I think AFAs tend to get a mixed response from people in the fire service. They tend to become real nuisance alarms (especially "repeat offenders"). I have been to automatic alarms that have turned into confirmed structure fires, so personally I try not to become complacent or take these calls lightly. What kills me is hearing from some fellow firefighters that they choose not to respond to the BS calls (including fire alarms). My personal opinion is that all automatic fire alarms should receive at least a one engine/one ladder response (two engines for departments without aerials) and perhaps more apparatus depending on the circumstances (limited water source, high occupancy, etc.) Apparatus can always be cancelled based on updates or confirmation from chief officers on scene.

[Fireman488 57]

In the past few years we have had a number of active fires that were reported by automatic alarm systems;

with at least two extinguished by activated sprinkler systems.

Stay safe.

[firemoose827 324]

Good. Im glad to see everyone feels the same way I do about this. Im curious about the ones who arent answering the post though?

We had an alarm one night at a real estate building that ended up being a working structure with someone in the second floor. The owner of the business was up there doing some work, it was 3 am, he fell asleep, and the wood stove downstairs caught some papers and wood on fire getting the whole place ripping. Our chief was first on scene and helped him get out right before the whole place got going. We were there for 10 hours.

Stay Safe Everyone.

Moose

[firebuff08 29]

As a recently retired 911 dispatcher, I would like to note a couple of things that no one has mentioned in previous posts...

1 --- Over the last 5 years, 10, years (pick a time period) how many automatic alarms did your department receive? How many of those automatic alarms turned out to be actual fires? And of those automatic alarms that turned out to be actual fires, how many of them also resulted in phone calls to dispatch (911 or regular line) reporting a fire and how many did not result in a phone call? Until you have that kind of information in front of you, you can not make an informed decision about whether a reduced response to automatic alarms is the correct way to go.

2. --- The risk factor. Once you have the information about real vs false alarms from automatic alarm systems, then you must weigh the risk factor for the department and the public, of several apparatus responding with lights and sirens to every automatic alarm. There is a body of evidence regarding apparatus accidents while responding to alarms that shows there is signigicant risk every time there is a response.

If the study in your fire district produces the same results that studies in communities elsewhere in America have produced, the finding will be that an automatic alarm, with an actual fire, that is NOT accompanied by one or more phone calls, is a statistical oddity and therefore automatic alarms DO NOT warrant a full structural response. So far, all of the comments in this thread have been based on anecdotal accounts without any hard evidence and not one person has mentioned whether any phone calls were received in connection with those alarms that were for actual fires.

In those communities where studies have been done and call-by-call data is reviewed on a regular basis, a limited response to automatic alarms (those NOT accompanied by a phone call reporting an actual fire) has proven to be the correct way to respond. Placing firefighters and the public at risk 100 times a year with a full structural response to automatic fire alarms not accompanies by a phone call reporting a fire, when your department's records show such alarms result in an actual fire once every 5 years or 6 years or never, is gross mismanagement of assets, a waste of taxpayer dollars and could be a major legal liability if an apparatus is involved in a serious crash while responding.

It is these same types of studies that have led most forward thinking fire service managers to eliminate street alarm boxes. They are a throwback to the days when people did not have telephones. The cellular telephone made the street alarm box un-necessary.

[dfcic 0]

In response to firebuff - I'm sure your experience dispatching, coupled with the empirical studies you point to would make a compelling argument, were it not for two cases where I truly think I've personally seen otherwise.

I have been, in the past two years, to 2 working fires where alarms made a difference for the better.

The first was an AFA that I responded to where the house was at the end of a long private driveway - the family was sleeping at the other end of their home while a fire was moving from incipient stage toward free burn on the outside of the home, and the residents were unaware of the eminent danger. The alarm tripped as the fire started to autoexpose, alerting them and the FD. As the fire moved inside the structure it threatened to compromise the only clear means of egress - a staircase. Having the 2-3 headstart (thanks to the AFA) we were able to arrive at a scene at a less-progressed stage, and from which the residents escaped without injury. It was only as we were well on our way to arriving that we started to get calls from neighbors through the woods about a smell of smoke.

About complacency - this can certainly be a problem of motivation. My feeling has always been that, if we go fully ready to each seemingly minor alarm, we'll be even that much more familiar with our equipment, and our fellow personnel. Also, we should take each minor alarm as a means of learning about our respective districts and personnel. What sort of building construction are we encountering? What kind of occupancy? Where's the nearest water source(s)? Did we make a mistake in apparatus placement? Which guy (volunteer or paid) knows his role confidently, and which guy looks like a deer in headlights, and needs more training/familiarization?

I've long thought that complacency shows more in departments that treat AFA's as non-life-threatening incidents; why would you show up for a fire alarm if you knew you'd likely remain in quarters, not get to don you pack and grab your tools? I'd rather get the chance to do so, over and over, even if it proves to be only a "dress rehearsal."

[maisela 0]

A full structural response to an AFA may or may not be necessary, but certain conditions may warrant it. I understand the increased risk with putting additional apparatus on the road responding lights and sirens. One idea that's been tossed around my department is a hot/ cold response. The first out apparatus will respond lights and sirens, while second and third due pieces respond either at a reduced speed or non-emergency. With a 12+ square mile district operating out of one station, having the ladder and second engine halfway to the scene is great, espcecially if updates confirm something more dire than an AFA.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Jonsey...I agree with you partly. You must have a heightened suspicion while responding and operating on a AFA. However, I do not believe that every AFA needs to be run "hot." Many departments send multiple pieces of apparatus to AFA's and it is an unnecessary risk. Not to mention according to NYS V&TL 1104 emergency response is suppose to be for "true emergencies." Is an AFA with a 99.99% malfunction, nuisance rate a true emergency? I just do not honestly see a need for every unit to run "hot," nor with much of the apparatus numbers that are being run. I like the concept of running the first due unit hot and the others respond cold. They can always upgrade if something is showing and can easily turn around if its nothing.

[antiquefirelt 994]

As ALS said, we treat every AFA as if it was a true fire with regard to what gets sent, how we dress and our attitude. The difference is Hot or Cold. We made a sincere attempt to send only the first due engine hot, but unfortuneately for us, when all units leave the same house at the same time, the three following units responding cold, made the traffic situation more confusing. We had to go back to all hot. But we are currently re-evaluating this with thought toward sending the first due engine hot and waiting 1 min for the rest of the units to respond cold. This again for AFA's with no other info. Most of the time we get the call stating burned popcorn, kid pulled the box, workers forgot to cover the detector and then immeidately reduce our hot response to cold. In the end we could respond cold to 80% of our alarms and the travel time would be less than one minute more given most of our district lies within 4 miles of the station and the furthest point has only 8 controlled intersections.

[firemoose827 324]

OK, some discussion evolves...GOOD.

Replies to some of your opinions;

Firebuff08, although I respect the hell out of your experience and wisdom, and your opinion was read, examined, and understood to the best of my limited brain capacity, you totaly misunderstood my original question....the overall Attitude of FF's when the AFA comes over the air. Not whether or not a full or partial assignment should respond. Sorry if I didnt clarify that.

And one thing you all are misconstruing here is the whole paid Vs. Volly thing again...[b]NOT my intentions. Some of you discuss the full structure assignment? Not all of us have engine co.'s and ladder co.'s or rescue co.'s for that matter. Some of us just respond in the first piece of equipment we can adequately staff, usually our engine. The whole point of the thread was to see about the overall attitude towards receiving the Automatic Fire Alarm over the pagers.

Sadly enough, in our county the first chief officer on the air will usually respond to the scene to check it out and they ALWAYS hold the equipment at station. I think we should always respond at least one engine untill the determination is made. I like maisela's idea, respond the first truck hot, and all additional units respond "Incident Under Control", that way if you pull up on scene with the fire blowin out a couple of windows and all hell is breaking loose you get the engine on scene with the first attack line, and the additional units are not far behind.

But overall, my question was misunderstood. What is you depts Attitude towards receiving the Automatic Fire Alarm. Goes with the whole Complacency topic we started.

Thanks for the replies, talk about this with your home dept, youll be surprised about what they say.

Stay safe

Moose

[RichC 0]

I am glad to see some discussion here that is moving away from this send everything as often as possible mindset and that departments are attempting to alter how they respond. I believe we have to guard against complacency but at the same time the factors of our safety, the publics safety and yes, the taxpayers money should all be factored in when weighing the risk factor as firebuff put it.

I think its a step in the right direction and is being progressive (a word many are very fond of on here) when departments take a look at how they are responding now as to how they responded 25 years ago when an alarm had a much greater probability that you were going to work. Obviously that does not include the false alarms from pulled street boxes that was a problem in some urban areas years ago.

[Guest partyrock]

Just to reiterate what Moose said, what apperatus get sent and how they respond is a different story. When responding to what your dept deems a fire emergency (whether it be an AFA, multiple reports of, or smoke in the structure) we should be responding the same way with our gear on ready to go to work. We have the same problems in the 5 boroughs, oddly enough it seems the oldest guys and the youngest guys are the ones most likely to be ready for everything.

[firebuff08 29]

Here is my two cents worth on the issue of complacency. It is a bad thing. If you are going to respond to an alarm, automatic or not, you must make the assumption that it could be the real thing and be dressed for the the potential that there will be a job at the end of the run. Responding to any fire alarm without full turnout gear makes no sense. You wouldn't respond on a pumper that didn't have a hose load in the bed, would you? Then why not don your turnout gear before leaving the station.

Of course there is one area of full turnout that now is being re thought by fire service leaders across the country and that is donning SCBA while in the apparatus. There now is mounting evidence that it was a mistake to install seating with SCBA equipment inside the apparatus cab. It is believed that SCBA's have been responsible for serious injuries and deaths of firefighters in apparatus crashes. It appears likely there will be some reform coming down that will put SCBA equipment in a cabinet outside the apparatus cab and the fire service will return to the old practice of donning SCBA AFTER arrrival at the fire scene, strictly for safety reasons.