Automatic Alarm Response

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Doug E brings up another good and important point. Never cancel totally from a AFA when enroute. At least send one engine in to confirm what dispatch reports. Never know if someone on scene didn't check out house correctly and just doesn't want the attention in the neighborhood or if a arsonist is trying to buy time.

[JBE 328]

Well said als. If an alarm company calls us back and advises it's a false alarm, the units are not advised. We still keep them going to check the premises.

[Guest]

then on the other hand we get into the upscale areas. the tude! i called back the alarm co. and cancelled, what's all this stuff doing here? am i getting charged for this because i cancelled? does everyone have to come through my house? yes! command to attack make sure you leave your protective gear at the door please. not!

[DMA327 12]

Good Example: My Dept. got dispatched to a local nursing home for an activated fire alarm. Half way there the police started telling units to return and they said it was a false alarm. Luckily we continued in to make sure it was a false alarm...to our surprise when we arrived we were met by an employee holding a fire extinguisher reporting to us they had just extinguished a fire on the 5th floor.

To say nothing about the fact that they tried cancelling us from responding to a high occupancy building!!!

SO MUCH FOR A FALSE ALRM!!! ](*,) :roll:

(and that came from a police dept... Jus think about what a homeowner in an upscale house would say)

[doug_e 0]

Unfortunately, here in Westchester it seems there isn't a time when the alarm company calls back that we don't start returning apparatus. A bad habit for sure.

I wish our dispatchers did what you mention JBE.

[pjm1733 22]

Fire Alarms

1 Engine 1 Ladder

2 Engines 1 ladder to schools, hospitals, non sprinkler, non stand pipe older mfd's

Full Assignments

3 Engines 1 Ladder Rescue

when the alarm co's call back we always update the responding units but they never get turned back and must check the house or building.

[JBE 328]

My only advice to you there, doug, is to maybe suggest a change in policy to the people running 60, or whoever dispatches you. Real simple, either not advise responding units of the false alarm, have all units with exception of the Chief respond on a 10-20(no lights or sirens and obeying all traffic rules) or, advise units the alarm company reports an unwarranted alarm and all units continue in normally.

We simply just don't tell them so we avoid a situation that others have explained here, or so we don't have a situation where the Fire officer comes over the air and asks if they should continue in. Too much liability for us. They're the ones with the bars and stars on the collars, let them make that call.

[Remember585 815]

DMA - does 100 Truesdale ring a bell?

Good thing the CPD was on the ball that day....NOT!

Our alarm response is Engine, Tower, Rescue. PD Desk Idiot, er, Sergeant, sent only an Engine. Once they got an update from 60 Control of a possible fire, they toned out again, for ONLY AN ENGINE! Shortly after that the smarter members of the CFD manned the remaining CFD units.

On this same exact day, Montrose had a working fire that came in as a residential alarm.

Treat them all as "something," until you prove otherwise!

[doug_e 0]

JBE - My opinion is that 60C and local juristdictions who dispatch are too concerned about the liability of having too many rigs responding "balls to the walls" for a possible "nothing" alarm.

It's time for everyone to revamp our response policies and recognize that we live in a different time.

A 10-20, or silent response reduces the chance of an accident enroute by 4 times and reduces the chance of a fatal accident by 10 times. While a silent response increases response time by only 40 seconds, on average.

Simply changing our SOP's to have the 1st due Engine and Chiefs responding L&S and the rest silent will make things safer. If there is something upon arrival then we can expidite.

It's interesting that we throw caution to the wind to "protect and serve."

My opinion is that most civilians, driving these days, are idiots and they're so self important that they won't let a fire truck pull ahead of them for fear of getting stuck if we have to close the road (for their safety) ](*,) .

[SEC92 0]

Alot of good comments in this forum. As the years have gone by most departments have gone from no response with PD's checking alarms to full department responses.

The ultimate responsibility lies with the FD to develop protocols as to how they want an alarm handled in their jurisdiction. My company operates that we continue into an alarm until told different by the incident commander. We will take any updates from the dispatcher under advisement as to whether we go 10-20 or not, but continue in until an FD officer advises different.

You can't blame the PD or 60 control dispatchers if they relay info to you and the incident commander doesn't at least have someone from the FD check the location to determine the cause.

Too many homeowners and business's will attempt to cancel to save getting hit with a fine.

[doug_e 0]

COMMENT EDITED OUT BY DOUG_E

We should double the fine if they try to cancel!!!

If it goes badly the IC ultimately will be held responsible, though.

:-P Hey SEC - And here all this time we thought you were turning down the volume . . . go figure!:twisted:

[emt301 4]

Doug e.....

Not to argue with anything you're saying, as I agree with many of your posts...but regarding 60-control, in the 13 months I've been dispatching there I have never recommended, nor have I witnessed any of my co-workers recommending a cancellation of a response due to information from the premise or alarm company. I'm real curious to know exactly when this has occured and who made the recommendation, as it's definately not our policy. We merely pass along pertinant information to the responding units...it's up to the fire department's discretion as to how this update information is actually put to use.

[doug_e 0]

:oops: Y'know you're right, I don't have exact details so I guess I'd better retract my statement.

I don't mean to offend or in any way impune 60 Control or their dispatchers. They do a hell of a job overall.

Suffice to say I have heard dispatchers, in general, advising of a call back from the homeowner or alarm company stating that the call is unneccessary. I know I've heard this on 46.26 and my opinion is that it is incumbent on the presiding FD to see the premisis first hand before making a determination on the call.

[doug_e 0]

:ihearu: See above, I fixed it....Thanks for keeping me honest EMT301

[emt301 4]

Doug e....

No offense taken !!! Thanks for the clarification.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I've also never have heard control cancel units. They will only give a update and what the resident asked for. They are not there to make decisions for your department. "Resident advises set off by cooking and wishes to cancel your response." That is your cue to make a decision of what you want to do.

Doug e: Excellent post about fire alarms and response. If you get a callback and update that the alarm was an error, malfunction or reason for activiation by a homeowner, why keep 2, 3 or 4 units going code 3 and run the risk of mulitple accidents. Any complaints you get wallking through the door is our own fault for lack of public education. And no you do not need everyone in that house. If they try to cancel, a officer or someone acting as one should be the only one to make contact with the homeowner. Explain the reasons why you still come and check and would just like to check the system to ensure we won't get another alarm and ask if there is anything else they can assist them with while they are there. If at all possible, they wanted to cancel you, if they give you a good reason why it was an accidental trip, wear your coat and a helmet or dept. hat and just check the system and take a quick look around. There is no reason to drag mud, soot and everything else through their house, including 4 or 5 or I've even seen more firefighters to stare at a pot on the stove or dust from renovations.

[Lieut2 0]

White Plains dispatches 1 and 1 on automatic alarms, and 2 and 1 on higher risk occupancies such as nursing homes, and hospitals. We used to sent 3 and 1, and 3 and 2 on high risks, but with approx. 4300 calls a year and climbing, (no ems) you quickly run out of companies, so that when a working fire comes in there are no or few rigs available, as has happened. Yes you can turn rigs around and redirect them but the first rig still has to reach the scene and confirm a false alarm. 43% of our calls are similtaneous, numerouse calls at once which presents more of a problem. we run 5 engines, three trucks and 1 rescue, but you would be suprised how quickly you can run out of rigs. I guess the bottom line is do the best you can within your system. We do however treat all calls as if they were real and members are dressed out before the rig leaves the station and they bring in all the tools.

[Guest]

. Yes we run 5 engines, three trucks and 1 rescue, but you would be suprised how quickly you can run out of rigs.   I guess the bottom line is do the best you can within your system.  We do however treat all calls as if they were real and members are dressed out before the rig leaves the station and they bring in all the tools.

It's about time the city of White Plains adds more manpower. =D>

sounds like the FD is way understaffed. and with all of the new high rises, just to go check for a pot on the stove is going to take alot of time on the top floors. ](*,) Time to hire more manpower. PUBLIC SAFTEY is the city's responsibilty. (also FIREFIGHTER SAFTEY)

[x648eng119 2]

PUBLIC SAFTEY is the city's responsibilty. (also FIREFIGHTER SAFTEY)

True - but in reality, it's everybodys responsiblility

[CAM502 6]

Mt. Vernon had a worker this morning, and you'll never guess how it came in. Just goes to show you never know what you will find. Oh yea... this was after 2-3 false auto alarms earlier in the morning.