Chief Vs. Incident Command Markings

[x635 4,066]

Rather a trivial issue...

Should Chief's cars markings say "Incident Command" instead, with Chief de-emphasized or deleted?

In my opinion, Chief is kind of an old school term. Especially when you have departments with 3 or 4 vehicles marked as "Chief".

As far as public perception and modernization on this issue, wouldn't "Incident Command" or "Incident Commander" more accurately relflect not only the role the person driving the vehicle, but the vehicle's purpose as well.

[calhobs 110]

Rather a trivial issue...

Should Chief's cars markings say "Incident Command" instead, with Chief de-emphasized or deleted?

In my opinion, Chief is kind of an old school term. Especially when you have departments with 3 or 4 vehicles marked as "Chief".

As far as public perception and modernization on this issue, wouldn't "Incident Command" or "Incident Commander" more accurately relflect not only the role the person driving the vehicle, but the vehicle's purpose as well.

Must be a slow day in Round Rock LOL. No dont think so he may not always be IC.

[ex-commish 490]

Rather a trivial issue...

Should Chief's cars markings say "Incident Command" instead, with Chief de-emphasized or deleted?

In my opinion, Chief is kind of an old school term. Especially when you have departments with 3 or 4 vehicles marked as "Chief".

As far as public perception and modernization on this issue, wouldn't "Incident Command" or "Incident Commander" more accurately relflect not only the role the person driving the vehicle, but the vehicle's purpose as well.

What happens when a car marked "incident commander" goes mutual aid to another jurisdiction?

[x129K 1,393]

LOL...sorry -t oo much caffeine....

Edited September 13, 2011 by x129K

[Dinosaur 844]

edited by original poster

Lighten up there sport. Nothing to get so fired up about. And I think a lot people in town would get upset if it said head mother anything.

The vehicle should say chief for the chief, assistant chief for the assistant chiefs, and so on.

Trucks shouldn't say "incident commander" because they're not and they shouldn't say "incident command" because when you have ten of them parked all over the place you'll have no idea where the IC actually is.

And there are times that the fire chief isn't the IC so it's just simpler and easier to leave it "chief". (I always told my bosses to just give me a plain white truck with no markings at all but they said our town's codes required that it be marked so it said chief, just chief, and with no gold lettering.

Edited September 13, 2011 by jack10562
Quote edited for clarity

[wraftery 1,275]

You can have 3 or 4 vehicles named CHIEF.

You can't have more than one Incident Commander.

Maybe all 8 extra cars at the scene should be marked JUDGE because they show up, rate (or berate) the IC, and tell the world how they would have done it better. Didya ever see one of those JUDGES go up to the IC and say "Need a hand?"

My best score was only a 8.2. How did you guys do?

[vtach39680 23]

I know that in NJ. The car that it is the IC fir the event has a green light lit on the roof.

[lad12derff 283]

Rather a trivial issue...

Should Chief's cars markings say "Incident Command" instead, with Chief de-emphasized or deleted?

In my opinion, Chief is kind of an old school term. Especially when you have departments with 3 or 4 vehicles marked as "Chief".

As far as public perception and modernization on this issue, wouldn't "Incident Command" or "Incident Commander" more accurately relflect not only the role the person driving the vehicle, but the vehicle's purpose as well.

Well hopefully the one driving is the Chiefs aide and not the Chief. Or in this case the Incident command aide. He plays a big role and Chief officers in my opinion should not be driving themselves.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Well hopefully the one driving is the Chiefs aide and not the Chief. Or in this case the Incident command aide. He plays a big role and Chief officers in my opinion should not be driving themselves.

Wouldn't that be nice! A very functional position that's been decimated in so much of the fire service.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Wouldn't that be nice! A very functional position that's been decimated in so much of the fire service.

Often because the chiefs (both of dept and those in the car) have not mad it clear how critical the position is. Most managers/politicians see it as a driver (perk) that they dont get so why should BC's, AC's or DC's get them.

[helicopper 1,050]

[sigh] The vehicle is nothing more than the conveyance for a person or persons to a scene. It shouldn't matter what the side of the vehicle says.

[abaduck 123]

[sigh] The vehicle is nothing more than the conveyance for a person or persons to a scene. It shouldn't matter what the side of the vehicle says.

Well said. I don't care if he shows up in a gold-lined SUV with a green light on top, or a wheelbarrow, so long as he's at the CP and knows what he's doing!

Mike

[wraftery 1,275]

Wouldn't that be nice! A very functional position that's been decimated in so much of the fire service.

Decimated was when budget cuts came and the aide was the first to go because the powers that be thought he was just a driver.

Without even going into the on-scene duties of an aide. think about what a duty chief does just driving to a fire by himself:

Drive the car

Talk on the radio

Insure assignment is responding

Read the computer

Drive against traffic

Size up the building

Text while driving

Listen to arrival report of first due company

Etc, etc.

Naw, the Chief doesn't need an aide

[wraftery 1,275]

[sigh] The vehicle is nothing more than the conveyance for a person or persons to a scene. It shouldn't matter what the side of the vehicle says.

Me too...Big Sigh