No Night Closures for FDNY

[M' Ave 1,466]

NEW YORK — New York's City Council has persuaded the mayor not to close 20 fire companies at night as part of budget cuts.

Link to full story:

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP12880725e9ef44f69ef9116af06506d5.html

However, it seems to be a done deal that the 60 fully staffed engine co's will loosed the 5th firefighter and be down to 4+officer.

Edited January 6, 2011 by helicopper
Copyright restrictions, link to story added

[NWFDMedic 58]

A question for those more familiar with FDNY than I am... Is it currently the case that every house is currently staffed 24 hours, regardless of the volume of calls? I would think that it would just make good sense that there are more personnel and units on staff during the day than at night.

[JohnnyOV 2]

A question for those more familiar with FDNY than I am... Is it currently the case that every house is currently staffed 24 hours, regardless of the volume of calls? I would think that it would just make good sense that there are more personnel and units on staff during the day than at night.

Most of your fatal fires occur at night, although a majority of your runs occur during the day. Closing companies or preforming rolling blackouts is just a bad idea all around, regardless of whether it occurs during the day, or at night.

[NWFDMedic 58]

Most of your fatal fires occur at night, although a majority of your runs occur during the day. Closing companies or preforming rolling blackouts is just a bad idea all around, regardless of whether it occurs during the day, or at night.

While this may be true, how many fatal fires could the FD have saved the deceased with a minute or 2 quicker response? I think the City needs to look at an "acceptable" response time for an FD engine, for a second alarm, for an all-hands fire, etc. If this can be accomplished with less companies at night, then so be it. They may actually realize they need even more staffing during the daytime to accomplish their goals. The FD needs to be run more like a business. Just because they've always done it this way doesn't mean it's the right way. Conversely, a good analysis might show that the way they are doing it IS the right way. The one thing that I'm sure of is that looking at call volumes and reports that tell only half the story isn't the right way to make a decision.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

While this may be true, how many fatal fires could the FD have saved the deceased with a minute or 2 quicker response? I think the City needs to look at an "acceptable" response time for an FD engine, for a second alarm, for an all-hands fire, etc. If this can be accomplished with less companies at night, then so be it. They may actually realize they need even more staffing during the daytime to accomplish their goals. The FD needs to be run more like a business. Just because they've always done it this way doesn't mean it's the right way. Conversely, a good analysis might show that the way they are doing it IS the right way. The one thing that I'm sure of is that looking at call volumes and reports that tell only half the story isn't the right way to make a decision.

SAY WHAT?!

[Anesti 329]

While this may be true, how many fatal fires could the FD have saved the deceased with a minute or 2 quicker response? I think the City needs to look at an "acceptable" response time for an FD engine, for a second alarm, for an all-hands fire, etc. If this can be accomplished with less companies at night, then so be it. They may actually realize they need even more staffing during the daytime to accomplish their goals. The FD needs to be run more like a business. Just because they've always done it this way doesn't mean it's the right way. Conversely, a good analysis might show that the way they are doing it IS the right way. The one thing that I'm sure of is that looking at call volumes and reports that tell only half the story isn't the right way to make a decision.

Mayor bloomberg I didn't realize you had a emtbravo account.

[M' Ave 1,466]

While this may be true, how many fatal fires could the FD have saved the deceased with a minute or 2 quicker response? I think the City needs to look at an "acceptable" response time for an FD engine, for a second alarm, for an all-hands fire, etc. If this can be accomplished with less companies at night, then so be it. They may actually realize they need even more staffing during the daytime to accomplish their goals. The FD needs to be run more like a business. Just because they've always done it this way doesn't mean it's the right way. Conversely, a good analysis might show that the way they are doing it IS the right way. The one thing that I'm sure of is that looking at call volumes and reports that tell only half the story isn't the right way to make a decision.

THANK GOD(!!!!!) That you are not in any position of authority. A minute or two of quicker response isn't the difference between life and death, that's the difference between MANY lives and deaths! In my particular area of the city, we are fairly well covered. What I mean is, there are a lot of companies per square mile. However, with only one full assignment out 20 blocks north, we become second due engine to box locations 10 minutes away. Do you know what that does to overall response times? Forget the public, how about that truck company that arrives 2 or 3 minutes before an engine in some cases? Those guys need to get in there to begin searching and the longer they have to do this without the protection of a hose line, the better the chances of catastrophe become. Considering we are losing our 5th man on many engine co's, the second due engines role of backing up the first hose line becomes that much more essential.

One thing that I must completely refute is your assertion that the FDNY needs to be run more like a business. This is wrong, plain and simple. It needs to be run in a professional manner of productivity and accountability, but it is not a business. A fire department is a drain, an expense. It is a cost that the municipality must incur in order to provide safety to the public. What we have now is, just barely, the resources to perform this task. To reduce in the face of cost would be criminal. It may appear that we could reduce our resources, but we cannot. Only in comparison with poorly staffed fire departments does this appear so. The simple fact is that most FD's are not properly staffed. Not at all. Staffing and resource conditions are the most important aspect of proper fire protection. The level of staffing in many areas and the idea of reducing staffing in NYC is an insult to the single greatest resource that most fire departments have and that is an extremely dedicated work force. How about bolstering that with the tools and manpower needed to perform the task and stop trying to figure out how you can best stretch and abuse the personnel on the street.

In New York City, the FDNY uses about 3% of the annual operating budget. For that small change, the 8.5 million residents and numerous businesses the best insurence policy money can buy. That's what a fire department is to it's municipality. The biggest and most versatile Swiss Army knife you've ever seen.

[NWFDMedic 58]

THANK GOD(!!!!!) That you are not in any position of authority. A minute or two of quicker response isn't the difference between life and death, that's the difference between MANY lives and deaths! In my particular area of the city, we are fairly well covered. What I mean is, there are a lot of companies per square mile. However, with only one full assignment out 20 blocks north, we become second due engine to box locations 10 minutes away. Do you know what that does to overall response times? Forget the public, how about that truck company that arrives 2 or 3 minutes before an engine in some cases? Those guys need to get in there to begin searching and the longer they have to do this without the protection of a hose line, the better the chances of catastrophe become. Considering we are losing our 5th man on many engine co's, the second due engines role of backing up the first hose line becomes that much more essential.

So you're saying that with one full box out that your company is the second due to areas that are 10 minutes away? That sounds pretty good to me.

[JohnnyOV 2]

While this may be true, how many fatal fires could the FD have saved the deceased with a minute or 2 quicker response? I think the City needs to look at an "acceptable" response time for an FD engine, for a second alarm, for an all-hands fire, etc. If this can be accomplished with less companies at night, then so be it. They may actually realize they need even more staffing during the daytime to accomplish their goals. The FD needs to be run more like a business. Just because they've always done it this way doesn't mean it's the right way. Conversely, a good analysis might show that the way they are doing it IS the right way. The one thing that I'm sure of is that looking at call volumes and reports that tell only half the story isn't the right way to make a decision.

God forbid your family is trapped in a fire that turns fatal, and there is a brownout company on your block thats closed for the night. Live that horror, then rethink your post and get back to all of us please. Life safety should be the LAST item cut from any budget especially, over butterfly gardens, skate parks and landscaping. Its crap

[efdcapt115 1,511]

So you're saying that with one full box out that your company is the second due to areas that are 10 minutes away? That sounds pretty good to me.

Woeith...the sounds of a man digging a deeper hole....the scratching of the shovel against the frozen hard tundra.....

[NWFDMedic 58]

God forbid your family is trapped in a fire that turns fatal, and there is a brownout company on your block thats closed for the night. Live that horror, then rethink your post and get back to all of us please. Life safety should be the LAST item cut from any budget especially, over butterfly gardens, skate parks and landscaping. Its crap

Seriously? At least you can come up with a better argument. I guess we should just build an engine and truck company onto every house that is built.

[FireMedic049 597]

While this may be true, how many fatal fires could the FD have saved the deceased with a minute or 2 quicker response? I think the City needs to look at an "acceptable" response time for an FD engine, for a second alarm, for an all-hands fire, etc. If this can be accomplished with less companies at night, then so be it. They may actually realize they need even more staffing during the daytime to accomplish their goals. The FD needs to be run more like a business. Just because they've always done it this way doesn't mean it's the right way. Conversely, a good analysis might show that the way they are doing it IS the right way. The one thing that I'm sure of is that looking at call volumes and reports that tell only half the story isn't the right way to make a decision.

And what "business model" do you suggest?

I certainly don't disagree that analyzing your operation to see if changes are warranted is appropriate. However, an inherent problem with the "run it like a business" line of thinking is that FD deployment and working conditions are not like most business operations.

Probably one of the closest comparables is the food service industry. Typically, a restaurant will have a dynamic plan regarding their operation. Their staffing will typically peak around the "normal" meal times and then shrink back between meal times. This makes sense since you know when your highest demand periods will be each day and you can adjust for it. Now, there will be times when you get an off-peak rush, but you can generally handle it and the main consequence is generally a dining experience that isn't as efficient with the smaller staff. Additionally, if a meal period isn't as busy as predicted, some staff may be sent home early.

This type of planning doesn't lend itself well to the fire service. The main problem is the inherent unpredictability of the work and the varying levels of personnel needed to perform that work. You can look at call volume and see that "more" calls occur during the daytime than at night, but you'd be foolish to base staffing on just that. Most calls aren't going to be very labor intensive and require large sums of personnel, however some will and you will need those people in order to effectively and efficiently mitigate that problem. Another problem is that we also don't know where to problem will occur. The restaurant will always know that they will be feeding people in that one location. The fire service doesn't. Like call volume, we can identify areas that have historically had higher requests for service than others, but that doesn't provide enough information for deployment.

A large factor in FD deployment is response time. NFPA 1710's standard for the response of the first company is 4 minutes travel time and the full alarm in 8 minutes. If we knew where/when our calls were going to occur and what they would be in advance, then the fire service could reasonably tailor a dynamic deployment plan to match. Unfortunately, that's not possible, so the goal is to be able to provide a somewhat uniform response.

So, the inherent problem with closing fire companies at night, rolling brownouts, etc. is not so much with handling call volumes or handling "minor" calls, but rather for "serious" calls like building fires where the "extra" delay because those companies are closed becomes a big factor in terms of fire spread, civilian safety, etc.

[NWFDMedic 58]

And what "business model" do you suggest?

I certainly don't disagree that analyzing your operation to see if changes are warranted is appropriate. However, an inherent problem with the "run it like a business" line of thinking is that FD deployment and working conditions are not like most business operations.

Probably one of the closest comparables is the food service industry. Typically, a restaurant will have a dynamic plan regarding their operation. Their staffing will typically peak around the "normal" meal times and then shrink back between meal times. This makes sense since you know when your highest demand periods will be each day and you can adjust for it. Now, there will be times when you get an off-peak rush, but you can generally handle it and the main consequence is generally a dining experience that isn't as efficient with the smaller staff. Additionally, if a meal period isn't as busy as predicted, some staff may be sent home early.

This type of planning doesn't lend itself well to the fire service. The main problem is the inherent unpredictability of the work and the varying levels of personnel needed to perform that work. You can look at call volume and see that "more" calls occur during the daytime than at night, but you'd be foolish to base staffing on just that. Most calls aren't going to be very labor intensive and require large sums of personnel, however some will and you will need those people in order to effectively and efficiently mitigate that problem. Another problem is that we also don't know where to problem will occur. The restaurant will always know that they will be feeding people in that one location. The fire service doesn't. Like call volume, we can identify areas that have historically had higher requests for service than others, but that doesn't provide enough information for deployment.

A large factor in FD deployment is response time. NFPA 1710's standard for the response of the first company is 4 minutes travel time and the full alarm in 8 minutes. If we knew where/when our calls were going to occur and what they would be in advance, then the fire service could reasonably tailor a dynamic deployment plan to match. Unfortunately, that's not possible, so the goal is to be able to provide a somewhat uniform response.

So, the inherent problem with closing fire companies at night, rolling brownouts, etc. is not so much with handling call volumes or handling "minor" calls, but rather for "serious" calls like building fires where the "extra" delay because those companies are closed becomes a big factor in terms of fire spread, civilian safety, etc.

Thanks for the intelligent reply. It's much better to see that some actually can think rather than put out the old argument of "what if your family lives next to a fire house that's closed?"

You are right that "call volume" isn't the best way to allocate staffing. However, I'm fairly certain that the FDNY would track things such as personnel used and manhours per incident. That, along with response time and a few other factors can lead to a better analysis of the system's needs. As far as knowing "when and where" your calls are going to be, you obviously cannot plan the exact time and location but you can very easily model trends, especially in an area with as high a volume as NYC. That's the principle behind system status management, generally predicting the area of the next call and positioning resources to handle that call.

One of the previous posters said that his company is second due for a structure fire that is 10 minutes away if a first structure fire is already going. My next question to that would be how often does this happen. If it happens once a year, then it may not pay to add resources. If it happens once a week, then staffing might have to be increased. This is all learned through proper analysis of the system, something which nobody appears willing to do. The government just wants to cut; the Union just wants to save jobs ... neither is a productive view.

[helicopper 1,050]

This is all learned through proper analysis of the system, something which nobody appears willing to do. The government just wants to cut; the Union just wants to save jobs ... neither is a productive view.

WIthout comment on the rest of this debate, the one thing I will say is in this case the Union isn't looking to "save jobs", it's looking to save lives. These lives are their members and the constitutents they're protecting.

[mstrang1 213]

NWFD- Doing a quick search, I found the population density of New Windsor is about 650 per square mile. New York City has a population density of 27,532/sq mi. That is 42 TIMES more dense than New Windsor. A 10 minute response time covers maybe a few hundred thousand people. This IS a big deal.

[firebuff860 54]

The FD needs to be run more like a business. Just because they've always done it this way doesn't mean it's the right way. Conversely, a good analysis might show that the way they are doing it IS the right way. The one thing that I'm sure of is that looking at call volumes and reports that tell only half the story isn't the right way to make a decision.

If the FD were run like a business they would be out of business they are not cash positive, they are life positive. Think of the FD as a "loss leader" for a business. You might not make money on it, but you need it to survive.

[NWFDMedic 58]

NWFD- Doing a quick search, I found the population density of New Windsor is about 650 per square mile. New York City has a population density of 27,532/sq mi. That is 42 TIMES more dense than New Windsor. A 10 minute response time covers maybe a few hundred thousand people. This IS a big deal.

Relevance = 0.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

WIthout comment on the rest of this debate, the one thing I will say is in this case the Union isn't looking to "save jobs", it's looking to save lives. These lives are their members and the constitutents they're protecting.

Chris, you are talking about Honorable People being motivated to do Honorable Things. According to the latest press releases and from the statistical data collected...."Honorable" does not qualify as a "job motivational factor" anymore. On top of being a cop, a firefighter, or emergency medical officer (hey I like that name for a catchall phrase for all EMS peeps) an "E.M.O."....the professions now carry the weight of doing the right thing for all of gov't to remember....'lest they forget...

[NWFDMedic 58]

If the FD were run like a business they would be out of business they are not cash positive, they are life positive. Think of the FD as a "loss leader" for a business. You might not make money on it, but you need it to survive.

I wasn't equating "like a business" to "profitable". What I meant by more like a business is that they need to constantly analyze needs and to correlate expenditures to those needs. It makes no sense to keep a firehouse open at night because its needed during the day. It does make sense to keep that firehouse open at night if there is a proven need for it. I find it extremely hard to believe that FDNY needs the same amount of resources at 0300 than it does at 1500.

[mstrang1 213]

Relevance = 0.

Actually, this is VERY relevant. Population density has a direct relationship with call volume. From another post on this website "FDNY 489,354 total incidents. 213,292 EMS Runs. 26,595 Structure Fires." NWFD (from their own website) "269 Fire Calls. 502 EMS." Way different worlds.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

I wasn't equating "like a business" to "profitable". What I meant by more like a business is that they need to constantly analyze needs and to correlate expenditures to those needs. It makes no sense to keep a firehouse open at night because its needed during the day. It does make sense to keep that firehouse open at night if there is a proven need for it. I find it extremely hard to believe that FDNY needs the same amount of resources at 0300 than it does at 1500.

....Let the back-pedaling begin....start with a redefinition of what "business" is.....

[NWFDMedic 58]

Actually, this is VERY relevant. Population density has a direct relationship with call volume. From another post on this website "FDNY 489,354 total incidents. 213,292 EMS Runs. 26,595 Structure Fires." NWFD (from their own website) "269 Fire Calls. 502 EMS." Way different worlds.

I don't know what website you got that from. We don't do EMS.

[Danger 160]

Sounds like a commercial EMS supervisor is thinking of a different commercial business plan. How about we do some system status management and move some engines from Staten Island to street corners on the UES. Genius.

[FireMedic049 597]

I wasn't equating "like a business" to "profitable". What I meant by more like a business is that they need to constantly analyze needs and to correlate expenditures to those needs. It makes no sense to keep a firehouse open at night because its needed during the day. It does make sense to keep that firehouse open at night if there is a proven need for it. I find it extremely hard to believe that FDNY needs the same amount of resources at 0300 than it does at 1500.

In the abstract, it's probably true that overall the FDNY uses less resources at 0300 than it does at 1500. However, the fire that occurs at 0300 will likely require the same amount of resources as the one that occurs at 1500. There may be a population shift between night and day, but the number of buildings remains static.

As I said earlier, we never know where or when that next fire will break out. That's why the firehouse would still be needed at night even if it's "needed" more during the daytime because of higher call volume during those hours.

[NWFDMedic 58]

In the abstract, it's probably true that overall the FDNY uses less resources at 0300 than it does at 1500. However, the fire that occurs at 0300 will likely require the same amount of resources as the one that occurs at 1500. There may be a population shift between night and day, but the number of buildings remains static.

As I said earlier, we never know where or when that next fire will break out. That's why the firehouse would still be needed at night even if it's "needed" more during the daytime because of higher call volume during those hours.

But how many more resources could get to that fire at night within the NFPA 8 minutes for full assignment with nighttime traffic as opposed to daytime traffic. And yes, I realize that pulling resources from a larger geographical area would mean more relocation/backfill to prepare the system for the next call. Maybe those resources aren't available in the current system, maybe they are. I don't know the answer to that question because all you hear is mandates from the City and anecdotal evidence from the Union.

I haven't once said that there need to be cuts but it amazes me how quickly people shoot down the idea of trying to do things better versus doing things traditionally when it comes to the fire department. All I know is that every time cuts are suggested, the Union says lives are at risk and the City says the cuts are necessary and won't impact operations. Neither, however, gives out facts to support their claims.

[M' Ave 1,466]

But how many more resources could get to that fire at night within the NFPA 8 minutes for full assignment with nighttime traffic as opposed to daytime traffic. And yes, I realize that pulling resources from a larger geographical area would mean more relocation/backfill to prepare the system for the next call. Maybe those resources aren't available in the current system, maybe they are. I don't know the answer to that question because all you hear is mandates from the City and anecdotal evidence from the Union.

I haven't once said that there need to be cuts but it amazes me how quickly people shoot down the idea of trying to do things better versus doing things traditionally when it comes to the fire department. All I know is that every time cuts are suggested, the Union says lives are at risk and the City says the cuts are necessary and won't impact operations. Neither, however, gives out facts to support their claims.

I'm going to start by saying one thing; NFPA is a broad baseline that does not always apply well in large urban settings. Furthermore, their 8 minute response ideal is pathetically long. Second portion of your post about saving lives vs. the city's claim of cuts having no impact on response times. This is incorrect. The fire commissioner stated plainly that operations would be impacted if his cuts were in acted.

Going back a bit you asked how often we respond well outside of our area when multiple company's are tied up at once. The answer to that question is: Daily. That's right, every day companys are 40 and 50 blocks outside of their regular response area. Guess what that means? The response is longer due to distance, it is also longer because the chauffeur isn't familiar with that area. You are now dealing with a company that doesn't know the buildings or quirks that may exist there. This is also true during relocations. On average, every company is relocated due to a multiple alarm fire, approx. 8-12 times a month. Sometimes it's as high as 20 times. Now you're operating well outside of your area on unfamiliar streets. If that multiple is up to a 3rd alarm or higher, that can put us into fall-back step 3. This means 1 and 1 on structural responses. This is a bad thing, very bad. Two weeks ago my company was operating with one other company at a 10-75. Do you know how long it takes on engine company to stretch a line to the 5th floor of an old law tenement? Who was checking and venting the floor above the fire? NO ONE.

The simple fact is, you are speaking from a position of ignorance. You suggest that operations be curtailed or adjusted a night and that we might not need as many resources. You are simply wrong.

How would you respond if I stated that most of the time I see medics from EMS show up, they don't have a critical patient and it's a simple transport to the hospital. I think that we should probably drop down to 1 medic alone on every ambulance. Why do we need two? Strap the guy in the back and then get up there to drive!

Now, I don't agree with the above statement one bit. Nor do I feel there is anything wrong when 2 buses and a supervisor show up at a diff. breather. Who knows? Maybe that person is having a heart attack and the next minute you're going to be doing CPR and need all the help you can get. I'm simply pointing out that you're assessing an extremely sensitive situation from a disadvantaged position. You have no operational reference with regard to the FDNY, or any fire department for that matter.

[mstrang1 213]

I don't know what website you got that from. We don't do EMS.

My bad. I looked up New Windsor FD(in NY), but the one in Maryland came up and I did not look closely enough to recognize the difference. Just for the record, how many runs did NWFD do last year?

[NWFDMedic 58]

My bad. I looked up New Windsor FD(in NY), but the one in Maryland came up and I did not look closely enough to recognize the difference. Just for the record, how many runs did NWFD do last year?

I think we did just over 200 (no EMS).

[NWFDMedic 58]

I'm going to start by saying one thing; NFPA is a broad baseline that does not always apply well in large urban settings. Furthermore, their 8 minute response ideal is pathetically long. Second portion of your post about saving lives vs. the city's claim of cuts having no impact on response times. This is incorrect. The fire commissioner stated plainly that operations would be impacted if his cuts were in acted.

So now you're saying that the NATIONAL STANDARD of 8 minutes for full response to an alarm is pathetically long? If I had the full first alarm assignment at my house within 8 minutes with another fire going on in my district, I'd be jumping for joy.

Edited January 6, 2011 by NWFDMedic

[FireMedic049 597]

But how many more resources could get to that fire at night within the NFPA 8 minutes for full assignment with nighttime traffic as opposed to daytime traffic.

Have you ever been to NYC? There's a reason it's been referred to as "The City that never sleeps".

I haven't once said that there need to be cuts but it amazes me how quickly people shoot down the idea of trying to do things better versus doing things traditionally when it comes to the fire department. All I know is that every time cuts are suggested, the Union says lives are at risk and the City says the cuts are necessary and won't impact operations. Neither, however, gives out facts to support their claims.

The Union typically says that "lives are at risk" because they are. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you remove resources from the system, then you will always get a reduced response in some fashion whether that be less units, personnel, increased response time or a combination of these. If you shut down one of the companies at night, then the people in that company's 1st due area clearly have a higher "risk" level since the closest engine company WILL NOT be responding and they will be waiting for one from further away to arrive. When they arrive the fire WILL be bigger than it would have been for the closed company. Bigger fire = more danger to civilians (and FFs for that matter).

The City says that the cuts "won't impact operations" because that's what their "handbook" says they are supposed to say to "calm" the masses in these situations.