Canceling Responding Units?

[SageVigiles 1,194]

The Chief shouldn't be entering the structure when he/she arrives at a call, so he/she cannot declare the structure safe and the fire put out.

Reasons:

2-in/2-out

First officer on scene is IC, and should remain outside where he/she can direct incoming units.

[khas143 13]

Our tow company just tows, sometimes they sweep up the glass. But hazardous fluid spills on a road way they will not touch.

Just FYI on the parkways, the tow companies are required to provide speedy-dri (or equivilant) and have them available when the respond on the parkways.

[NWFDMedic 58]

I believe he is stretching the 'origin of all fires' law to fit this question, which would be incorrect.

Actually, it is not incorrect, and it is not the origin of all fires law. The fire chief is responsible for the safety of all property upon dispatch to the location. It is the fire chief's responsibility to make sure the property is safe before it's turned back over to the property owner. If the fire chief illicits a cancellation from a police officer relating a false alarm and 2 hours later the building burns down because of a fire in the walls that was not investigated and kills 3 people, you can bet for sure that the fire chief and fire district are going to be found liable.

[Bnechis 3,961]

The Chief shouldn't be entering the structure when he/she arrives at a call, so he/she cannot declare the structure safe and the fire put out.

Reasons:

2-in/2-out

First officer on scene is IC, and should remain outside where he/she can direct incoming units.

The chief should not be entering a structure if its a working fire, so he can direct incoming units.

2-in/2-out only comes into play if there is a potential or actual IDLH atmosphere. If this is the normal (99%) A/A the chief can and should be protecting both his personnel and the rest of the public by slowing everyone down.

[INIT915 1,119]

Actually, it is not incorrect, and it is not the origin of all fires law. The fire chief is responsible for the safety of all property upon dispatch to the location. It is the fire chief's responsibility to make sure the property is safe before it's turned back over to the property owner. If the fire chief illicits a cancellation from a police officer relating a false alarm and 2 hours later the building burns down because of a fire in the walls that was not investigated and kills 3 people, you can bet for sure that the fire chief and fire district are going to be found liable.

I'm just curious, because frequently on this site, people quote "State Law", when in fact its not. (I'm not saying it was done in this case.) However, frequently, after a little research, I can either find that it was something other than State Law, i.e. NFPA, Dept. SOP's, etc., or just plain old rumor/non-sense.

I personally believe, when anyone cites "State Law" in their argument, they need to back it up with specifics. Other Members can be negatively impacted if they leave this site, thinking future decisions they may make are based on “State Law” that they ‘learned’ on EMTBravo. Am I off base?

[Remember585 815]

POLICE:

Should a Police Officer/Police Dispatcher cancel a responding Ambulance or Fire Apparatus to

the scene of a call if he/she feels they are not needed?

Right or wrong, it gets done all the time. I don't agree with it. The PD should only be able to "suggest" a cancellation, not actually implement it.

FIRE:

Should a Fire Chief who is responding and not yet on scene cancel responding units to a

report of a structure fire,smoke in a structure, car fire, car accident, etc if notified by dispatcher the

alarm has been downgraded? (i.e. reported structure fire extinguished by the homeowner)

A downgrade of resources is one thing, but an all-out cancelling is dumb. Now, this applies to those of us in volly-land, but IMHO, keeping units on the assignment, even if a non-emergency response, is the right thing to do. You're asking people to drop what they are doing and go to the call, but you keep them in quarters - why would anyone show up? For example, we dispatch one Engine, the Truck and Rescue to automatic alarms, and many times we get calls from the alarm company that it is a false, proper code received, PD on scene with burnt food, etc. We will keep at minimum one apparatus coming, sometimes the whole assignment, non-emergency mode to verify. We learn something every call we go to - right? My philosiphy is that the Truck may not be needed, but coming to the call and getting an idea of where they can and can't setup THEN is better then waiting until we have a real emergency later. Same goes for the Engine companies, they can learn where the hydrant is or even an FDC. The key is to SLOW 'EM DOWN and proceed without using the warning devices.

Should you keep everyone coming in? What happens when you do cancel a unit or all units and you get on scene to find smoke showing or a working fire? Whoops!

Keep them going, even if only one rig. And anytime you have a report of an actual fire or smoke in the home, I would personally never cancel anyone until we are CERTAIN of what the situation is.

EMS:

Should a Fire Chief who is not a CFR, EMT, or Paramedic cancel Advanced Life Support?

No, but they can "suggest" a downgraded response, ASSUMING THE MEDIC ACTUALLY MONITORS YOUR RADIO.

Another question... Should an EMT cancel Advanced Life Support that has been dispatched to a call because they feel it's BLS?

As EMT's we can however why not keep them coming in?

I'm with ALS on this one. An EMT should be trained well enough to know if ALS isn't needed. If it is something "questionable" and "uncertain," keep them coming. Bottom line - don't delay transport to wait on ALS if you are unsure and they have an extended or unknown ETA.

Good topic. Makes me wonder if RWC started it based on a call we had yesterday...

[Oswegowind 17]

I agree with INIT915...right on the ball! If it ain't fact, people can be mislead...if you feel you are 100% correct, prior to finishing your post, cite your source with a "hotlink" so that all can read it themselves and better understand what is going on.

We cancel EMS to certain calls if PD or FD is already on scene and requests we do so. We update FD as to the conditions at the site and allow the OIC (Batt Chief) to make the decision on what response is necessary anymore. We do not cancel EMS based on what a caller says, once they have called for help they get it. We do cancel PD on non-priority jobs or jobs that are handled internally. We never cancel PD based on request regarding disputes, more importantly Domestics! We always attempt to update units enroute if further information has been received! We do cancel alarms (burglar alarms only) whether they may be residential or commercial if the alarm company calls in a request for cancel and the reason is "good". If an address has a BOLO attached to it, we consult the BOLO and make an informed decision. That is basically for Yonkers ONLY! I cannot speak for anyone else...each department's procedures vary so the Question, Rob, is a loaded one!

[Guest alsfirefighter]

10-20 was always supposed to mean, proceed under normal driving rules. But it did not fit nice on the cheat sheets, so it was written "proceed with caution".

Everytime 60 Control uses the plain speak with this line, I cring. since we should always proceed with caution, isn't that the law. I think that term, just makes it more likely you'll end up talking to lawyers.

Barry...isn't that exactly what I said in my post? LOL.

I've posted many times that there are 2 phrases that should be banned from emergency services..."Proceed with caution" and "expedite."

INIT...great point.

NWFD...I think I know what law your citing...but I think its a big stretch as how its written.

What someone cited about Chiefs "can't" go in. What your referring to is sound fire service principles of being a incident commander and leader vs. a firefighter with red lights. If there is no apparant problem from the exterior and not a potential IDLH atmosphere they can enter. If there is a actual or potential IDLH and there is a life safety risk then it goes out the window.

[meat441 43]

WOW! What a hot topic and then some?

About the towing company. Why wouldn't a towing company have speedy dry on hand to handle fluid clean up? Or brooms for sweeping debris? They want the business of towing and holding to make money. Correct? They deal with clean up at their own facilities and for disposing of these products with in the law. Correct? If you as the responding agency spread speedy dry down at an accident scene aren't you also required to clean it up and dispose of it properly? You can't tell me that there aren't departments out there that just leave speedy dry down and leave the scene. I have scene this time and time again. There will come a day when those agencies are reported, then what? I would love to see the fine they will receive from state or federal agencies incharge.

If towing companies want to tow, then let them clean it up too. If they wanted they could also bill for the clean up and disposal to the insurance companies? Large incidents of course are a different matter. That's why we have Hazmat Teams.

The one word i hate is ACCIDENT! When is it ever an accident? Motor vehicle collision yes. But somewhere, somehow, someone screwed up. Just my 2 cents, maybe less.

[jack10562 414]

I threw in "10-20" before, to see if I'd get any nibbles... who knew I'd get so many bites!

[NWFDMedic 58]

I've posted many times that there are 2 phrases that should be banned from emergency services..."Proceed with caution" and "expedite."

NWFD...I think I know what law your citing...but I think its a big stretch as how its written.

Agreed with the "proceed with caution" and "expedite". I have lobbied to have an expedite button put into all of my ambulances, but it has yet to happen. There are 2 modes, emergency and non-emergency. In both modes, you should be proceeding with caution.

As far as the law, I hope I can quote it to you guys exactly. It "should" be in my files from a law and the fire service seminar I went to that was taught by a fire department lawyer type guy. If I tried looking through books of Town Law, I might be able to get you an answer by the year 2050.

[Bnechis 3,961]

If there is a actual or potential IDLH and there is a life safety risk then it goes out the window.

The chief went out the window....Hope he bought that bailout system....lol

[Bnechis 3,961]

About the towing company. Why wouldn't a towing company have speedy dry on hand to handle fluid clean up? Or brooms for sweeping debris? They want the business of towing and holding to make money. Correct? They deal with clean up at their own facilities and for disposing of these products with in the law. Correct? If you as the responding agency spread speedy dry down at an accident scene aren't you also required to clean it up and dispose of it properly? You can't tell me that there aren't departments out there that just leave speedy dry down and leave the scene. I have scene this time and time again. There will come a day when those agencies are reported, then what? I would love to see the fine they will receive from state or federal agencies incharge.

Yes, responding agencies are required to remove the material, however how many do? I looked in to this and found out that DEC requires anyone transporting these "products" be a "licenced hazardous waste desposal operation" How many FD's are? How many tow services are? So if you leave it your violating regs and if you pick it up your doing the same, unless licensed to do it.

If towing companies want to tow, then let them clean it up too. If they wanted they could also bill for the clean up and disposal to the insurance companies? Large incidents of course are a different matter. That's why we have Hazmat Teams.

If the community requires it, thats fine. NYS Thruway Auth does not, since we bring the speedy dry there.

What hazmat teams clean up the spill?

The one word i hate is ACCIDENT! When is it ever an accident? Motor vehicle collision yes. But somewhere, somehow, someone screwed up. Just my 2 cents, maybe less.

Accident just means no one ment to have an MVA...otherwise it would be called a deliberate.

And hitting a NYC cab with a rig is no accident...its a deliberate..... "did I say that out loud?"

[Guest]

How do you have and UNK MED?

maybe when someone other than the pt calls for ems?

[dougeng41 1]

Duties of a Fire Chief - State Law

New York State General Municipal Law Article 10 Section 204D

Link from NYS Senate

Edited February 3, 2008 by dougeng41

[INIT915 1,119]

Duties of a Fire Chief - State Law

New York State General Municipal Law Article 10 Section 204D

Link from NYS Senate

That's a good reference, but not exactly the "State Law" cited in the earlier post.

[dougeng41 1]

Correct, it doesn't cite the Law as to the PO having jurisdiction to turn the FD around. I believe though that this is the law that NWFDmedic was referring to in post #20

[RWC130 594]

WOW! What a hot topic and then some?

That's why I started this thread.

Good discussions like this is what EMTBravo is all about!!!

We have a lot of VERY GOOD points here.

[Guest]

That's why I started this thread.

Good discussions like this is what EMTBravo is all about!!!

We have a lot of VERY GOOD points here.

OK AS A 911 DISPATCHER, WE USE EFD AND EMD. THESE QUESTIONS ARE DESIGNED TO TAYLOR THE RESPONSE OF THE AGENCY. I KNOW AT MY 911 CENTER THE FD RESPONDS ACCORDING TO THE EFD CARDS. CERTAIN QUESTIONS ARE ASKED TO DETERMINE THE SEVERETY OF THE CALL. AS WELL AS EMD QUESTIONS. AS AN OFFICER IN THE FD, IF THAT PERSON WANTS TO CHANGE THE ASSIGNMENT OR CANCELL, IT IS ON HIM, I NEVER RECOMMEND CANCELLING UNLESS A QUALIFIED FD,EMS OR POLICE MEMBER IS ON THE SCENE. OTHER THAN THAT I WOULD DOWNGRADE BASED ON THE INFORMATION. HOWEVER EMD AND EFD ARE USED WIDELY THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES TO ENSURE PROPER RESPONSE FROM POLICE/FIRE/EMS. THERE ARE GLITCHES BUT WORKS VERY WELL.

[helicopper 1,050]

I'm just curious, because frequently on this site, people quote "State Law", when in fact its not. (I'm not saying it was done in this case.) However, frequently, after a little research, I can either find that it was something other than State Law, i.e. NFPA, Dept. SOP's, etc., or just plain old rumor/non-sense.

I personally believe, when anyone cites "State Law" in their argument, they need to back it up with specifics. Other Members can be negatively impacted if they leave this site, thinking future decisions they may make are based on “State Law” that they ‘learned’ on EMTBravo. Am I off base?

No, you're not off base! Citations to laws or other references should be backed up with a link so that others can follow-up on their own. The problem with laws is that they're subject to interpretation!

The text of the GML previously cited follows and it makes no reference to the points previously highlighted.

§ 204-d. Duties of the fire chief. The fire chief of any fire

department or company shall, in addition to any other duties assigned to

him by law or contract, to the extent reasonably possible determine or

cause to be determined the cause of each fire or explosion which the

fire department or company has been called to suppress. He shall file

with the office of fire prevention and control of the department of

state a report containing such determination and any additional

information required by such office regarding the fire or explosion. The

report shall be in the form designated by such office. He shall contact

or cause to be contacted the appropriate investigatory authority if he

has reason to believe the fire or explosion is of incendiary or

suspicious origin. For all fires that are suspected to have been ignited

by a cigarette, within fourteen days after completing the investigation

into such fire, the fire chief shall forward to the office of fire

prevention and control information detailing, to the extent possible:

(a) the specific brand and style of the cigarette suspected of having

ignited such fire; (B ) whether the cigarette package was marked as

required by subdivision six of section one hundred fifty-six-c of the

executive law; and (c ) the location and manner in which such cigarette

was purchased.

It's also interesting that this law requires the fire chief to report whether or not a cigarette pack was properly marked if a cigarette started the fire!

[helicopper 1,050]

Actually, it is not incorrect, and it is not the origin of all fires law. The fire chief is responsible for the safety of all property upon dispatch to the location. It is the fire chief's responsibility to make sure the property is safe before it's turned back over to the property owner. If the fire chief illicits a cancellation from a police officer relating a false alarm and 2 hours later the building burns down because of a fire in the walls that was not investigated and kills 3 people, you can bet for sure that the fire chief and fire district are going to be found liable.

I'm really interested to see the law you're referring too. Someone once told me something similar (in fact, he said the "title of the property was transferred to the FD during an emergency" which I've NEVER heard of before).

If the FD and Fire Chief are following an established policy they may or may not be found liable of anything. That's pure speculation.

If the FD gets to an alarm that is apparently false does he/she as a matter of policy check all the walls with a TIC? If not, how is that any different than if he/she is cancelled because nothing is visible?

[jcoppola 52]

We have this discussion all the time at work. I strongly believe in the "with traffic" concept. In my opinion, I believe there are 2 and only 2 ways to respond...cautiously with lights/siren/air horns, and "with traffic". When there is an emergency, we respond, be it a ripping house fire or an activated alarm. We need to remember, we did not cause the tragedy, fire, accident, we are only called to change the outcome. If we never get there, the outcome will not be changed. We need to try to keep this in our heads when it gets as bad as it can get. I am not insinuating that we don't "turn it up" a few notches when it sounds like something "good", but we must remember to keep it under control and not injure others or even more importantly, US.

JVC

[firemoose827 324]

The Chief shouldn't be entering the structure when he/she arrives at a call, so he/she cannot declare the structure safe and the fire put out.

Reasons:

2-in/2-out

First officer on scene is IC, and should remain outside where he/she can direct incoming units.

How would this apply to your 360 degree size-up of the structure? Couldnt the IC take a quick look inside to ascertain the size and location of fire? This, in my eyes, fits size-up, one of the main arguments made by members of this site as being a crucial one in the initial stages. Just something to think about brother.

[crcocr1 8]

In an earlier post, a Member referenced citing statutory law so that it can be relied upon in the field. As a law student, I caution anyone to rely on any statute without the advice of counsel. In failing to do so, a Member or its agency may subject itself to criminal and civil liability due to any inaccuracy. With that said, I agree with many posts that caution must be exercised in responding to calls and that certain persons control the scene depending on the circumstances. I hope you all are safe and return home safe after each of your respective tours of duty.

[firemoose827 324]

204D was a law established for determining the cause of fires, and established rules for the control of a scene and when it is gained and lost. It stems from a court case called "Michigan V. Tyler" where a fire chief/investigator left a scene, got home and realised he forgot to take pictures of something, went BACK to the scene and took pictures of what ended up being incriminating evidence it was arson, but the case was thrown out due to the fact he didnt have permission of the owner to return onto his premises.

It just states that possesion of a scene is lost as soon as you leave. As long as a FD unit is on scene it remains in FD possession as an emergency scene. Once you leave you need either permission, or a warrant.

Correct me if Im wrong guys, please!! Its been a while since my last Investigation Training!!

Moose

[helicopper 1,050]

204D was a law established for determining the cause of fires, and established rules for the control of a scene and when it is gained and lost. It stems from a court case called "Michigan V. Tyler" where a fire chief/investigator left a scene, got home and realised he forgot to take pictures of something, went BACK to the scene and took pictures of what ended up being incriminating evidence it was arson, but the case was thrown out due to the fact he didnt have permission of the owner to return onto his premises.

It just states that possesion of a scene is lost as soon as you leave. As long as a FD unit is on scene it remains in FD possession as an emergency scene. Once you leave you need either permission, or a warrant.

Correct me if Im wrong guys, please!! Its been a while since my last Investigation Training!!

Moose

Great insight, thanks!

Does the FD have some statutory authority to collect evidence from private property without a warrant and without permission of the property owner? General Municipal Law 204D states that the fire chief shall notify the appropriate investigative authority if a fire/explosion is suspicious or incendiary, it is silent about the collection of evidence leading me to wonder about the Constitutional issues and search warrant requirements if it is to be used in a criminal case?

[INIT915 1,119]

Chris,

This touches a bit on your point:

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/lawyers/opinion...rmal/2006-4.pdf

[AFS1970 504]

Years ago in Stamford, we had a big problem with agencies canceling other services. In some cases this turned into a big turf war, in others the agencies got called back because they were canceled impropperly. This lead to a couple of orders in the Dispatch center that basically do not allow one service to cancel another.

There has to be room to adjust to various situations however. The chief example I can think of is UNFOUNDED calls. Especially if multiple services are responding to a reported serious emergency, which turns out to be unfounded or worse maliciously false.

Motor Vehicle Colisions (with reported injuries) are a great one for both the pro's and cons of canceling other services. In Stamford these calls get a Police, Fire & EMS Response. Most reports of injuries are from passers by who thought it looked bad and people must therefore be injured. The Police get on scene, all involved say they are not injured, so Police Cancels EMS & FD. A while into the investigation someone suddenly decides they have back and neck pain, which usually coincides with the ticket they just received, so EMS gets called back. Apparently some people think they will not get charged if they go to the hospital. Of course I remember hearing of one where EMS arrived first, found no injuries, canceled FD due to no extrication and left once PD arrived on scene. PD called FD back because the car had struck a building and severed a gas line when it hit. So no agency or service is immune for such problems.

What is really needed is a little bit of cross training so that each service is aware of ALL the Duties that the other services are responsible for at scenes. Canceling the service becasue one of the tasks they do is not required is what leads to having to recall the service later in the incident. FD tends to think of PD as traffic control, but often ignores thier investigative role which is usually more important. EMS tends to think of FD as first responders or only for extrication and often ignores the haz mat or supression aspects, especially if it is ignition prevention and not supression that is needed. Everybody tends to think of EMS as a transport service, and ignores the fact that each potential patient is actually assessed and thsoe that refuse are RMA'd thus forgetting the triage part of the scene, especially if the incident does nto start out as a medical call.

The sad thing is that our egos will not allow this kind of awareness training, simply because we all like to think that we know it all in our respective fields and attending such classes would be admiting to a shortcomming, or worse, yielding land in the ongoing turf war.

[Guest paramedico987]

Everybody can go ahead and cancell me... I'm going back to sleep!

[RWC130 594]

As NYPD would say "KEEP EM' COMING CENTRAL"