Pelham 2nd Alarm

[efdcapt115 1,511]

(From The Florida Keys Tropical Storm Center/Buff The Job in Pelham via RadioReference.com and the Incident Alerts)

Tropical Depression Three turned into Tropical Storm Bonnie, and we were in the middle of the tracking cone; most of the computer models bringing it here, but it hit north and east of us, more towards the mainland....and Chaos Central MyAmMe...

"Standing-by" for the storm, I picked up and listened in on the Pelham job. Made some notifications to some retired members and pretended to be JBE with the Nextel BB for a while...

Since we're talking about dispatch in the Scarsdale thread I just wanted to compliment 60-Control dispatchers, and on scene 614 did a pro job on the radio with Batt. 18.

2353 I think was IC. But really, the way they rolled the units in southern Westchester at this job and got something like 18 Units (rigs, command units, and EMS) in to work quickly and stop the fire. I'm going to leave it at that and hope we can get some comments from people that were on the scene. But it sounded to me like a really pro job from the CP up to Control, as I listened on Tach 18.

From South Command Hurricane Watch...Nice job fellas!!!!!!!!

[turk182 37]

What is the deal with a dispatcher being on scene. I do not see the Field Comm as being on scene on the IA. Just curious is this something new, or is part of Pelhams response plan.

[JAD622 40]

2353 I think was IC.

2353 is the working Lt.(company officer) not the intended IC for a working fire. The IC (2351) was "Unavailable" that's ALL I'm gonna say!

[Guest Firediver]

(2351) was "Unavailable"

I see! (no pun intended)

[efdcapt115 1,511]

2353 is the working Lt.(company officer) not the intended IC for a working fire. The IC (2351) was "Unavailable" that's ALL I'm gonna say!

Roger that. Please excuse the terminolgy in my post if it is inacurate. The intent of the post was to offer support to all the brothers at this fire. And we've been told a few times that IAs are not neccesarily accurate. But I started the thread hoping to hear from those that did the work, in that they have might some valuable firefighting lessons learned to share with the membership.

[Bnechis 3,961]

2353 is the working Lt.(company officer) not the intended IC for a working fire. The IC (2351) was "Unavailable" that's ALL I'm gonna say!

So when ConEd's onscene supervisor asked who the IC was and the answer was ................................

[JAD622 40]

Roger that. Please excuse the terminolgy in my post if it is inacurate. The intent of the post was to offer support to all the brothers at this fire. And we've been told a few times that IAs are not neccesarily accurate. But I started the thread hoping to hear from those that did the work, in that they have might some valuable firefighting lessons learned to share with the membership.

George, no Apology necessary Brother! I know what you were saying. My post was directed at the "Irony" of our situation and the way we are forced to operate!

[JAD622 40]

So when ConEd's onscene supervisor asked who the IC was and the answer was ................................

"We interrupt your regularly scheduled program to bring you a "Special" presentation of "The Emperor has NO Clothes"!!!

Good Night Gracie!

Edited July 24, 2010 by JAD622

[efdcapt115 1,511]

George, no Apology necessary Brother! I know what you were saying. My post was directed at the "Irony" of our situation and the way we are forced to operate!

Maybe that needs to be addressed too boss.

Peace

[efdcapt115 1,511]

"We interrupt your regularly scheduled program to bring you a "Special" presentation of "The Emperor has NO Clothes"!!!

Good Night Gracie!

LMAO.

[JAD622 40]

Maybe that needs to be addressed too boss.

Peace

Believe me, it's been beaten like a Dead Horse! No one is home!

[Bnechis 3,961]

"We interrupt your regularly scheduled program to bring you a "Special" presentation of "The Emperor has NO Clothes"!!!

Good Night Gracie!

Perfect. ROFLMAO

[firecapt32 282]

2353--the Woking Lt did an excellent job-- limited manpowwer on the initial call--16 stores with common cockloft, tough for any department,mutual aid was the right call form the very begining, manpower was needed in a hurry. You can always say why they were there but hard to explain why they arent.

With no IC-- no village manager,only the police--and they were very helpful. All involved should be commended. All the mutual aid companies worked hard to contain this to the store of orgin. 60 control handled this properly and efficently.

[61MACKBR1 222]

I know that I will probably be slammed by some concerning the comments I am going to make, but I will make them anyway. The successful handling and response from yesterday's Pelham Fire is an example of how a regionalized fire service here in Westcheter County makes allot of sense. The response times from those companies who came into the incident as part of the mutual aid request all arrived in a timely and efficient manner. The manpower and apparatus were all properly assigned and used. Kudos to New Rochelle, Mount Vernon, Eastchester, Mamaroneck, and all of the other municipalities that helped out. 60 Control did an outstanding job in handling the dispatch and assignments, based on the direction provided at the scene. This is just another example of how Westchester County could take advantage of equipment, apparatus and manpower from several Fire Districts in the area, on a regular basis to support fire supression. Again, looking at a Southern Regional Fire District consisting of New Rochelle, Pelham, Pelham Manor, Mount Vernon, Yonkers, Eastchester, Greenville, Scarsdale, Larchmont and Mamaroneck appears to make sense, and thus saving the taxpayers allot of money. I certainly hope that the discussions continue and the egos can be placed asside in order to make it work

Again, kudos to all who help minimize the loss of property and made the scene a safe one for all who worked it yesterday in Pelham!!!

2353--the Woking Lt did an excellent job-- limited manpowwer on the initial call--16 stores with common cockloft, tough for any department,mutual aid was the right call form the very begining, manpower was needed in a hurry. You can always say why they were there but hard to explain why they arent.

With no IC-- no village manager,only the police--and they were very helpful. All involved should be commended. All the mutual aid companies worked hard to contain this to the store of orgin. 60 control handled this properly and efficently.

Edited July 24, 2010 by 61MACKBR1

[helicopper 1,050]

2353--the Woking Lt did an excellent job-- limited manpowwer on the initial call--16 stores with common cockloft, tough for any department,mutual aid was the right call form the very begining, manpower was needed in a hurry. You can always say why they were there but hard to explain why they arent.

With no IC-- no village manager,only the police--and they were very helpful. All involved should be commended. All the mutual aid companies worked hard to contain this to the store of orgin. 60 control handled this properly and efficently.

There was an IC, it was just the FD Lieutenant and not a Chief. Can't that happen in a lot of departments (especially volunteer) during working hours?

The IC isn't "the Chief", it's the most qualified person on the scene. That may be the Chief it may not. Unless the Village Manager is also a fire behavior expert it certainly wouldn't be him/her.

I don't know why people get so wrapped around the axle about this or why we cultivate the misconception that only the Chief is/can be the IC.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

I know that I will probably be slammed by some concerning the comments I am going to make, but I will make them anyway. The successful handling and response from yesterday's Pelham Fire is an example of how a regionalized fire service here in Westcheter County makes allot of sense. The response times from those companies who came into the incident as part of the mutual aid request all arrived in a timely and efficient manner. The manpower and apparatus were all properly assigned and used. Kudos to New Rochelle, Mount Vernon, Eastchester, Mamaroneck, and all of the other municipalities that helped out. 60 Control did an outstanding job in handling the dispatch and assignments, based on the direction provided at the scene. This is just another example of how Westchester County could take advantage of equipment, apparatus and manpower from several Fire Districts in the area, on a regular basis to support fire supression. Again, looking at a Southern Regional Fire District consisting of New Rochelle, Pelham, Pelham Manor, Mount Vernon, Yonkers, Eastchester, Greenville, Scarsdale, Larchmont and Mamaroneck appears to make sense, and thus saving the taxpayers allot of money. I certainly hope that the discussions continue and the egos can be placed asside in order to make it work

Again, kudos to all who help minimize the loss of property and made the scene a safe one for all who worked it yesterday in Pelham!!!

Who would "slam" you for a post in support of a job well done by the professional firefighters of the jobs you mentioned?

Nice post.

[61MACKBR1 222]

Thanks Captain. I was referring to my opinion related to the regionalization of fire departments, specifically in Southern Westchester County. (Knowing that the subject of Regionalizing the Fire Service in Westchester County is a sore subject with many here on EMTBravo.net). CHRIS - Excellent point raised. An I/C doesn't necessarily have to be a Chief. It is the most experienced Firefighting Officer/Professional available at the scene. In this case, the Pelham Lt. did an outstanding job. If a Regionalized Southern Westchester Fire Service were to be set up, maybe you would have had either a Chief or Asst. Chief as the IC, but in this case, it was the Lt, who again, did a great job.

Who would "slam" you for a post in support of a job well done by the professional firefighters of the jobs you mentioned?

Nice post.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

There was an IC, it was just the FD Lieutenant and not a Chief. Can't that happen in a lot of departments (especially volunteer) during working hours?

The IC isn't "the Chief", it's the most qualified person on the scene. That may be the Chief it may not. Unless the Village Manager is also a fire behavior expert it certainly wouldn't be him/her.

I don't know why people get so wrapped around the axle about this or why we cultivate the misconception that only the Chief is/can be the IC.

You're right of course. One thing I do know about the local Politik in Pelham (I interviewed for the job) is that they hired a paid**9-5 Monday to Friday** Chief, and did so out of the normal civil service promotion ie; test, because they never had a paid chief before. I think the chief is a retired Lt from the City, but I'm not sure.

I guess the legitimate question hiding behind the curtain here might be; if the covering Lt. is the IC, and they have a paid chief, where was he? Of course even chiefs take vacations, but then if the Lt is covering, is that out of title now?

PS: This post is just my opinion and conjecture. It could be totally wrong, and is not meant to distract from the officers and firefighters who handled this taxpayer so well.

**Edit: I have been informed the chief position that was eventually established is a "part-time" position of 19 hours per week by Capt. Nechis.

Edited July 25, 2010 by efdcapt115

[wraftery 1,275]

There was an IC, it was just the FD Lieutenant and not a Chief. Can't that happen in a lot of departments (especially volunteer) during working hours?

The IC isn't "the Chief", it's the most qualified person on the scene. That may be the Chief it may not. Unless the Village Manager is also a fire behavior expert it certainly wouldn't be him/her.

I don't know why people get so wrapped around the axle about this or why we cultivate the misconception that only the Chief is/can be the IC.

Why we get wrapped around this axle is this; The NFA had a very good ICS course for FF's specifically. When the Feds decided that everybody, not only FF's should be using ICS, they went Generic and basically dumped the NFA course.

I agree, there was an IC, the Lt, but there was probably no written document that defines the progression. I don't agree that it is the most qualified person on-scene. Hopefully the IC is smart enough to know the IC Syatem and to put the qualified people in the right ICS positions. Could it be the Village manager? I would say if there is no provision written for the FD, then the Village Manager is the responsible party. Remember, it falls back to the highest elected official. Obama is The "Commander-in Chief" even if he won't salute the flag, but that's a different problem.

Even if they decided to bring in an IC from someplace else, let's say the FDMV DC, for example. The designation is supposed to be in writing from the village.

So how the begeezes did this fire wind up with all these people and appparatus, and how did it get put out?

It was done by good decision making on the part of the LT, who, if the conditions were in writing like I stated above, may have ACTUALLY been the IC.

OR

An unauthorized, but operational Unified Command System, made up by very professional people, who decided to put the fire out and haggle out the details later.

OR

All of the above. Which I suspect is the way things went down.

GOOD STOP, GUYS

[helicopper 1,050]

Why we get wrapped around this axle is this; The NFA had a very good ICS course for FF's specifically. When the Feds decided that everybody, not only FF's should be using ICS, they went Generic and basically dumped the NFA course.

I agree, there was an IC, the Lt, but there was probably no written document that defines the progression. I don't agree that it is the most qualified person on-scene. Hopefully the IC is smart enough to know the IC Syatem and to put the qualified people in the right ICS positions. Could it be the Village manager? I would say if there is no provision written for the FD, then the Village Manager is the responsible party. Remember, it falls back to the highest elected official. Obama is The "Commander-in Chief" even if he won't salute the flag, but that's a different problem.

Even if they decided to bring in an IC from someplace else, let's say the FDMV DC, for example. The designation is supposed to be in writing from the village.

So how the begeezes did this fire wind up with all these people and appparatus, and how did it get put out?

It was done by good decision making on the part of the LT, who, if the conditions were in writing like I stated above, may have ACTUALLY been the IC.

OR

An unauthorized, but operational Unified Command System, made up by very professional people, who decided to put the fire out and haggle out the details later.

OR

All of the above. Which I suspect is the way things went down.

GOOD STOP, GUYS

We seem to be in agreement on most points but I would argue that even if there was a Chief serving as IC it is very likely that there would be no written documentation on the progression either. We are all notoriously BAD at documenting initial operations especially at a job like this one. I would submit that we could query the Chief's (IC's) for the last months worth of working jobs and have virtually no real-time documentation. Sure, reports may have been prepared retrospectively but the way I read your post you're suggesting that because the IC was the Lt. there's no real-time documentation.

It sounds as though there may be other labor issues at work but I won't specualate on them. I would guess though that there is something in the Village charter relating to the fire department.

With regard to the training curriculum for ICS, there were a couple of really good programs out there before the standardization brought about by NIMS. I will argue that the failure isn't in the curriculum but the implementation of it in two specific areas -

1. The proliferation of self-proclaimed experts teaching ICS and the revolving door training program at FEMA (EMI and NFA) for ICS instructors. You can't learn everything about ICS this week and start teaching it next week but that's what they've done. It's been so watered down that many of the critical concepts are being lost.

2. The failure of most municipalities/agencies to actually use ICS in the manner it is designed/intended. We pay it lip-service but there are still fundamental misunderstandings and poor applications of the system on a daily basis all over the place.

Some other thoughts...

You can have a delegation of authority without putting it in writing. It's a slippery slope but on a job like this one they aren't going to go back to Village Hall to draw one up.

As for unified command, why would it be unauthorized? Again, I'll submit that our understanding and application of unified command is flawed but this may be fodder for another thread in the scenario section.

Regarding the IC and his/her qualifications, I think we're trying to make the same point. Mine is that the IC should be the most qualified person on scene. You stated that that is incorrect. If not the most qualified, who then?

I'm in no way criticizing the Pelham job either; from what I read it was an outstanding stop. This has just evolved into an interesting discussion on scene management.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Regarding the IC and his/her qualifications, I think we're trying to make the same point. Mine is that the IC should be the most qualified person on scene. You stated that that is incorrect. If not the most qualified, who then?

The simple answer is the highest ranking officer. And he SHOULD be the most qualified.

Ask a firefighter on the line and he's apt to say the most qualified guy to run a job might be another firefighter who happens to be at the pump panel, but has also worked 200 more fires than any other person on the fireground.

But there were chiefs from other departments at this fire, who might have been technically more qualified than the lieutenant (if going by a narrow definition of qualifications, accredidation, experience, etc), but they were not IC; that goes from radio transmissions, to the State report, to the courtroom if needed. Simple reason; department, Village boundary.

[antiquefirelt 994]

The simple answer is the highest ranking officer. And he SHOULD be the most qualified.

To echo this, I'd add that regardless who's the stated IC, the highest ranking FD officer onscene will be held responsible. There's a lot of FD's trying to combine NIMS into their ICS structure and failing. ICS is a component of NIMS, but you don't need NIMS to use the ICS system most of us have used for all of our careers.

I have no knowledge of this incident or Pelham FD, but I can attest that there's times when a Lt. could be the IC at any incident in our first due. It would be extremely rare that a chief officer would not respond to anything greater than a first alarm, but in theory with vacations, mandatory meetings and other commitments, it's possible. While the Lt. may opt to illicit assistance from a M/A chief per our adopted city emergency management ordinances, our officer will serve as IC.

[Bnechis 3,961]

2353--the Woking Lt did an excellent job--

Yes he did.

limited manpowwer on the initial call--16 stores with common cockloft, tough for any department......With no IC-- no village manager,only the police--and they were very helpful. All involved should be commended. All the mutual aid companies worked hard to contain this to the store of orgin. 60 control handled this properly and efficently.

Yes it went well, but the issue is lack of an IC. Who was incharge at this incident?

There was an IC, it was just the FD Lieutenant and not a Chief. Can't that happen in a lot of departments (especially volunteer) during working hours?

The IC isn't "the Chief", it's the most qualified person on the scene....I don't know why people get so wrapped around the axle about this or why we cultivate the misconception that only the Chief is/can be the IC.

Chris the issue is not can a Lt. be the IC. The issue is the job of the IC. The Lt. of the 1st arriving engine (along with 1 ff on the engine & 1 on the truck) was involved in stretching the 1st attack line and was also working to open up the roof. He did an excelent job, but he was not the IC once he was forced to operate as a firefighter.

When I arrived there was 1 fire chief & 1 Assistent FC onscene, neither from Pelham and niether accepted command, nor was command established or passed to anyone. Shortly after that there was a descusion between the 2 fire chief that were there and niether accepted command for Pelham. Eventually there was a command board set up and their where 2 Fire Chiefs, 1 AC, 1 DC & 1 ADC plus Coordinators from DES and Pelham PD in the area of the command board but still no IC.

Its a good thing that everyone knew what they should be doing and there were no surprises. Because it actually went well.

You're right of course. One thing I do know about the local Politik in Pelham (I interviewed for the job) is that they hired a paid 9-5 Monday to Friday Chief, and did so out of the normal civil service promotion ie; test, because they never had a paid chief before. I think the chief is a retired Lt from the City, but I'm not sure.

Pelham hired a part time "Chief" he only works 19 hours per week.

It could be totally wrong, and is not meant to distract from the officers and firefighters who handled this taxpayer so well.

Yes they handled it well, but what happened in terms of command and the way the village handles it (not the FD) is going to get someone killed.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Pelham hired a part time "Chief" he only works 19 hours per week.

Is that so? The position changed a lot from the original job proposal.

Yes they handled it well, but what happened in terms of command and the way the village handles it (not the FD) is going to get someone killed.

You know more about the chief's position and the situation in Pelham, than those of us initiating the conversation.

[wraftery 1,275]

We seem to be in agreement on most points but I would argue that even if there was a Chief serving as IC it is very likely that there would be no written documentation on the progression either. We are all notoriously BAD at documenting initial operations especially at a job like this one. I would submit that we could query the Chief's (IC's) for the last months worth of working jobs and have virtually no real-time documentation. Sure, reports may have been prepared retrospectively but the way I read your post you're suggesting that because the IC was the Lt. there's no real-time documentation.

It sounds as though there may be other labor issues at work but I won't specualate on them. I would guess though that there is something in the Village charter relating to the fire department.

With regard to the training curriculum for ICS, there were a couple of really good programs out there before the standardization brought about by NIMS. I will argue that the failure isn't in the curriculum but the implementation of it in two specific areas -

1. The proliferation of self-proclaimed experts teaching ICS and the revolving door training program at FEMA (EMI and NFA) for ICS instructors. You can't learn everything about ICS this week and start teaching it next week but that's what they've done. It's been so watered down that many of the critical concepts are being lost.

2. The failure of most municipalities/agencies to actually use ICS in the manner it is designed/intended. We pay it lip-service but there are still fundamental misunderstandings and poor applications of the system on a daily basis all over the place.

Some other thoughts...

You can have a delegation of authority without putting it in writing. It's a slippery slope but on a job like this one they aren't going to go back to Village Hall to draw one up.

As for unified command, why would it be unauthorized? Again, I'll submit that our understanding and application of unified command is flawed but this may be fodder for another thread in the scenario section.

Regarding the IC and his/her qualifications, I think we're trying to make the same point. Mine is that the IC should be the most qualified person on scene. You stated that that is incorrect. If not the most qualified, who then?

I'm in no way criticizing the Pelham job either; from what I read it was an outstanding stop. This has just evolved into an interesting discussion on scene management.

Chris

The document I was describibg is the local FD's progression of command at Incidents. Something like (bottom to top)Senior arriving FF-LT-Capt=Dep Chief-Chief. The lowest on that list remains as IC until the arrival of a higher-up.

Re: Unauthoried unified command: If there was technically no one authorized to call mutual aid then the M/A companies were operating out of their jurisdiction without proper request.

RE: IC not necessarily most qualified. In a hazmat situation, the hazmat officer is usually most knowledgable on scene but he is not IC. IC must gather his info from his sources to make decisions.

Did I clarify things I said? I think we are on the same page. Best communications are fact-to-face.

Hope we are done, I'm heading to the REHAB UNIT for a Bud.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Hope we are done, I'm heading to the REHAB UNIT for a Bud.

And on a lighter note: YFD was assigned by 614 to Rehab for the duration of the incident.

[wraftery 1,275]

You can have a delegation of authority without putting it in writing. It's a slippery slope but on a job like this one they aren't going to go back to Village Hall to draw one up.

LOL Chris- FYI Village Hall is 1/2 block away in this hypothetical scenario.

[gpeifer 89]

Where was the helicopter?? Could have had some great roof shots.

[heavy hitter 0]

I think the ic was the dc from mount vernon.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I think the ic was the dc from mount vernon.

PFD, PMFD, NRFD, EFD & GFD were onscene, while MV was covering Pelham (including a water cond call) before they got called up to the scene and MVFD's DC had their command board set up. That does not make him the IC