When Do You Need A Chief?

[x635 4,066]

I've been listening on and off to Westchester feeds, and I keep hearing certain calls.

These calls are for wires down, car fires, dumpster fires, simple MVA's etc. What is interesting to me is some departments in the volunteer sector will send 1-3 Chiefs to this type of call.

In many of these departments, they have multiple Chiefs and multiple officers. When is it going to be the time to eliminate some of these "way too many" command positions?

And, how are line officers supposed to learn when there's always a Chief on scene? If these line officers are being voted in, they should have the experience, knowledge, and training their fellow members have placed in the to handle the "simple" incidents. Since they are always being "babysat" or cancelled by Chiefs, how do they learn and progress?

I understand that everyone is not available in district at all times in the volunteer fire service, and the redundancy is sometimes needed to ensure there is command staff available for each call.

Also, shouldn't a Chief be an administrative position nowadays?

This is not a knock at the volunteer sector, just an observation and an opinion and being posted to try and spark a discussion.

[wraftery 1,275]

Some Chiefs think most people under them are dumb.

Other Chiefs think most people under them are smart.

[Remember585 815]

In another thread, everyone is whining there aren't enough people going to calls. You all need to decide if you want your cake and if so, whether you want to eat it or not.

Having two, three or four elected Chiefs seems to be the norm around here. Do all of them NEED to go to every call? Nope, but what happens when all of them decide not to go because they assume the other one is going? Now you have no Chiefs, which will stem a new "Where's Department X's Chiefs" thread on this site. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

For every incident you need an Incident Commander. This can be a Chief, a Captain, A Lieutenant or just Joe Firefighter who happens to be "in the seat" of the first arriving unit. It doesn't have to be an elected officer or even an appointed one, but someone has to take command of the call. This is why solid training programs combined with minimum training requirements and electing/appointing the right people is critical. You never know who is going to be in charge and what they may be in charge of.

Prime example, we were sitting on a wires down call last week and found a restaurant on fire. Now what would happen if the only unit on scene was an Engine without a competent boss? Again, it doesn't need to be a Chief, but be smart about who sits in the seat of your rigs EVERY CALL.

Since Chiefs are elected to lead their departments, ideally it would be nice for at least one of them to show up at calls, right? After all, they have the Fire SUV and all of the radios. I know that in our department, as well as many others, a Chief may ride the seat of an apparatus instead of sending multiple command vehicles into the scene. I know some are against this and others like it - personally I don't care what others think of how we operate, because it works and we know it.

Bottom line, we don't always "need" a Chief at an incident, but Seth is 100% right, they're needed to handle all of the non-incident business of the department. This includes record keeping, meeting training requirements, developing, implementing and enforcing policies and procedures, buying stuff, repairing stuff, replacing stuff, and above all - making sure everyone is happy and gets home safe.

Some Chiefs think most people under them are dumb.

Not always true.

Other Chiefs think most people under them are smart.

Again, not always true.

But I will say this - I would put up most of my members and Officers against many others any day of the week. That's how much faith I have in them.

[Bnechis 3,961]

In many of these departments, they have multiple Chiefs and multiple officers. When is it going to be the time to eliminate some of these "way too many" command positions?

I understand that everyone is not available in district at all times in the volunteer fire service, and the redundancy is sometimes needed to ensure there is command staff available for each call.

Just because a chief is on-scene does not mean he is "in command". If he arrived after a Jr. officer is he in command or does command need to be transferred (formally or informally)? And the redundancy is needed to a) guarantee a volunteer response 24/7 and on the administrative side, there is much more to be done than 1 or 2 people should be handling.

And, how are line officers supposed to learn when there's always a Chief on scene? If these line officers are being voted in, they should have the experience, knowledge, and training their fellow members have placed in the to handle the "simple" incidents. Since they are always being "babysat" or cancelled by Chiefs, how do they learn and progress?

While I agree that Jr. Officers need to learn the ropes, playing devils advocate here:

Some of the smaller depts. handle fewer than a couple hundred calls per year. Now the chiefs been a member for 20 years and has gone on 50% of the calls each of those years (I think thats a high average) thats 2,000 calls before in his entire career. I suspect only a very small percentage is for anything serious. now when he was a Lt. & a Capt. the chiefs then responded on everything so he never got command experience till he became a 2nd asst. So of his 2,000 calls he didn't get to command anything till 2 or 3 years ago, so he has only been to 200-300 calls as a command officer (and a sr. one might have also been there running things).

While I agree the Jr. officers need training and experience, in many depts. the chiefs need it also.

[Remember585 815]

While I agree the Jr. officers need training and experience, in many depts. the chiefs need it also.

Agreed. Problem is that many people wearing officer's shields and chief's shields refuse to think they need to sit in on some classes to better themselves in the interest of the department. It's these people that I wish we could all just kick in the nuts.

[helicopper 1,050]

In another thread, everyone is whining there aren't enough people going to calls. You all need to decide if you want your cake and if so, whether you want to eat it or not.

Having two, three or four elected Chiefs seems to be the norm around here. Do all of them NEED to go to every call? Nope, but what happens when all of them decide not to go because they assume the other one is going? Now you have no Chiefs, which will stem a new "Where's Department X's Chiefs" thread on this site. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If anyone is basing their agency's operational decisions on whether or not a thread will pop up on EMTBravo they need serious help!

Seriously, there is a problem when there are multiple white helmets standing around one of the ubiquitous SUV's but they're not operating as FF and instead calling for mutual aid crews for fire suppression.

You're spot on that there needs to be an Incident Commander. That's ONE. Is there any reason that the other available chiefs can't/won't/don't serve in another supervisory position or even as an FF?

[TRUCK6018 50]

You're spot on that there needs to be an Incident Commander. That's ONE. Is there any reason that the other available chiefs can't/won't/don't serve in another supervisory position or even as an FF?

Depending on the extent of the incident, they should. For a large scale incident there are plenty of supervisory rolls that other officers should be filling. Example: large structure fire. The IC oversees the operation as a whole and delegates others to supervisory tasks such as fireground operations, sector op's, dump site and fill site op's (if a tanker shuttle is in place), etc.

None of this will happen unless the IC assigns these tasks. If these tasks are not assigned then it's one IC (chief) trying to run the whole show and that's when freelancing happens and problems start. The IC should be running the incident as a whole, not micromanaging every aspect of the incident.

There were more times than not when I was chief and arrived on a scene that I did not take command. I either observed a junior officer (captain or lieutenant) if it was a minor incident such as a car fire or sometimes asked to go to work. Other times if there was another chief responding that was closer to a minor incident I would put myself back in service because as stated before, there is no reason for a bunch of SUV's sitting at some of these jobs tying up traffic, wasting gas.

The same goes for mutual aid calls. If a department called for a tanker under mutual aid, there is no reason for a tanker and three chiefs to respond. After all, should a chief or two be left behind to protect their own town?

Maybe having one chief respond and being assigned to tanker op's or some other supervisory roll, but why have chiefs needlessly stand around with their hands in their pockets making sure the ground doesn't pop up where they are standing???

Edited November 6, 2011 by TRUCK6018

[x635 4,066]

Isn't it a legal liabilty if something goes wrong if you are a Chief on scene just observing? Wouldn't they hold the highest person in the department that established command on the scene liable?

[Bnechis 3,961]

Isn't it a legal liabilty if something goes wrong if you are a Chief on scene just observing? Wouldn't they hold the highest person in the department that established command on the scene liable?

Only if the more Jr. officer made errors that were highly questionable and resulted in major unwanted consiquenses. Prior to that occuring the chief can always step in.

But a great chief, lets his officers make errors and then learn from them.

[Dinosaur 844]

Isn't it a legal liabilty if something goes wrong if you are a Chief on scene just observing? Wouldn't they hold the highest person in the department that established command on the scene liable?

Yes. If something happens the highest ranking person will be held accountable but in many cases they'll be held responsible whether they're on the scene or not (vicarious liability).

A chief should absolutely stand back and let subordinates learn how to manage/supervise. If the incident escalates or changes they can always step in and assist the junior officer.

I was fortunate and had some crusty old dinosaurs allow me to fall flat on my face as I was moving up in the ranks. You learn a lot that way!

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Good thread and something I've been discussing in classes forums or anywhere else I could or when it would come up.

Another angle to this discussion is when you have persons who become chief and don't utilize, trust or allow their company level officers or those acting in that role in the IMS (next topic below) to be their eyes and ears and can't do what they should and that is command the incident. I came from a system that used IMS on every incident with the exception of general EMS calls and it allowed everyone to learn the system, operate in it and become sharp. I was also lucky to have chief's and an experienced captain from Fairfax county who would let a firefighter run incidents with their supervision and support which made better officer candidates.

And while we're at talking about having 3 chiefs at a wires down call...how about we just stop pretending we use IMS because someone gets on the radio and establishes (note I didn't say "assume" you can't assume what hasn't been made) command. IMS works...it works to aid in accountability, to limit radio traffic when used and makes your officers and firefighters acting as supervisors use their heads, make decisions and to gain trust across the board.

[x129K 1,393]

With that many Chiefs on scene, all i see is an IC and a few firemen with pretty helmets....now get to work!

[TRUCK6018 50]

Isn't it a legal liabilty if something goes wrong if you are a Chief on scene just observing? Wouldn't they hold the highest person in the department that established command on the scene liable?

The highest person that established command will be liable but it won't stop there. If the chief is thousands of miles away on vacation he still has the same legal liability from an administrative standpoint than if he was on the scene. Just possessing that title gives you automatic liability no matter who is directly at fault.

Edited November 7, 2011 by TRUCK6018

[wraftery 1,275]

Isn't it a legal liabilty if something goes wrong if you are a Chief on scene just observing? Wouldn't they hold the highest person in the department that established command on the scene liable?

Everything in life is a liability issue.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Everything in life is a liability issue.

Sir your statement is completely slanderous…..

[cbfire25 9]

Do any departments around the area run duty chiefs? This usually clears up the issue of who is command at minor incidents and usually clears the radio of all unnecessary chatter... Chiefs x, y, and z don't all sign on the air for wires down. It also clears up who goes to the scene and who doesn't; if chief x has the duty than everyone else goes to the station to staff the apparatus, so there aren't 5 fire SUVs and no fire engines on scene..

This also allows some of the prospective chiefs and senior officers to get command experience. If you give the duty shift to a captain or lieutenant, a chief can keep an ear open for calls that may need a more senior officer in charge but allow a captain or lieutenant to run most of the minor incidents. This way you breed more independent line officers who can gain some confidence in themselves so one day they don't get caught up in the fact that they are in charge of 'the big one' and forget that they need to focus on decision making. A lieutenant or captain should, by nature, be able to handle most minor incidents and common emergencies without a chief's supervision, else they should never have attained that position. Of course, we all know that the popularity contests don't always lead to that, but I digress...

[x129K 1,393]

Good post IMO

[PEMO3 523]

Isn't it a legal liabilty if something goes wrong if you are a Chief on scene just observing? Wouldn't they hold the highest person in the department that established command on the scene liable?

You can delegate the task downward but you can delegate the responsibility that goes with that task.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

And while we're at talking about having 3 chiefs at a wires down call...how about we just stop pretending we use IMS because someone gets on the radio and establishes (note I didn't say "assume" you can't assume what hasn't been made) command.

Oh my God thank you for saying this. "Establishing Main Street Command" and properly using NIMS are too very different things. It also drives me nuts when departments establish Operations Section Chief for every call. If you're under your span of control, there's absolutely no reason to create the position. The point isn't to fill out boxes, its to organize the resources you need. The needs of the incident dictate your organizational chart, your organizational chart shouldn't be dictating the incident.

[Jybehofd 85]

some departments the chief is the only one responding in the volunteer departments.. they try to cut down there response times to get on scene faster. since they take the cars home with them they don't have to go to the firehouse to pick up the truck or engine

[Monty 35]

And while we're at talking about having 3 chiefs at a wires down call...how about we just stop pretending we use IMS because someone gets on the radio and establishes (note I didn't say "assume" you can't assume what hasn't been made) command.

Just a very minor point, the definition of 'assume' according to google allows 'begin to have' command, so while I agree establish is clearer - I wouldn't say that assume is completely wrong.

as·sume/əˈso͞om/

Verb:

Suppose to be the case, without proof: "afraid of what people are going to assume".

Take or begin to have (power or responsibility): "he assumed full responsibility for all organizational work".

[CHIEFPHIL 90]

You have to remember that the chief is still a firefighter, regardless of how much paperwork he or she has. Many times when I was chief, I ended up being on the first due pump as I was in the station doing paperwork. As for all the chiefs going tot he scene, now days with the declining volumes of volunteers we have to be more aware that 3-6 white hats on scene are not going to get the BRT out the door. During the daytime, I would arrive onscene a little into the job and I would let me A/C or Capt run the job and I would go an relieve a hose crew or overhaul. My BWH is pretty brown . If things didn't look right or I thought they would go down-hill, I would take command and that person would stay with me and I though that was a good learning experience. My first experience running a job was as a LT and no chiefs showed up. I was a little lonely out there in the street.

My dept as well as the town I live in has the role of a duty officer. That person's role is to respond with a command vehicle to the scene, all other officers need to insure the BRT get out and act as part of the crew as needed. To remain an officer in my department , you must be Interior qualified, if you fail to make mandatory training or fail your medical eval... your position is terminated. All mandatory training is conducted in Jan-March and all physicals be concluded in same time frame.

As for the paperwork, the way I look at it and always thought was why is the 2nd and 3rd chiefs called assistant's .... they are there to assist. Breakdown the paperwork, give everyone a little to do.

This is how I did it and I still had 15-20 hours week of paperwork to do, plus respond to alarms

Chief:

Budget

Correspondence

Meet with town and state officials

1st Assistant:

Physicals

workers comp claims

insurance claims - both town and company

LEPC

Town Safety Committee representative

2nd Assistant:

review run forms/log into computer - before it became FM office task

blue light permits

planning site review with bldg dept

Bottom line, get the BRT out, the SUV does not put fire out. Be active, lead from the front, go to the training do what you expect your troops to do.

[x129K 1,393]

When I was a Lieutenant, I was the IC for several "major" calls, including several structure fires and a fatal MVA with pin involving a NYSP car...In all incidents but one, there were two Chiefs on scene, the CHIEF and the Deputy..the first few, the Chief sttod next to me to make sure I was doing the right stuff...but once I proved myself as an adequate IC, they started coming on scene and taking an operations role and in one case, the initial attack team..THAT experience and trust really helped me to become a stronger Officer and I am forever grateful for it.

So in my eyes, no, a chief, even though they may be on scene, does not have to be the IC

[JohnnyOV 2]

BRT = Big red truck?

[x129K 1,393]

BRT = Big red truck?

Beer Response Team.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Just a very minor point, the definition of 'assume' according to google allows 'begin to have' command, so while I agree establish is clearer - I wouldn't say that assume is completely wrong.

Exactly..which if I established command and announce I am passing it to you...you are "assuming" command which means you are beginning to have command.

[Remember585 815]

Exactly..which if I established command and announce I am passing it to you...you are "assuming" command which means you are beginning to have command.

Establish it, assume it, embrace it, love it.

Someone, whether they say over the air they're in charge or not, has to be "the guy" (or gal) making the overall decisions. If they don't and allow everyone to do whatever they feel like doing, it becomes what the Germans call a "clusterfookin."

And don't kid yourselves, if you've got any kind of legit incident, you can not effectively run it if you're part of the operation. If you're a hands-on Chief or Officer, that's fine, but make sure someone stays put and runs a Command Post.

[x129K 1,393]

On a side note, although somewhat related - my pet peeve - one of them at least - is when a responding Chief over rides a Junior Officer who is on scene, and makes a request.

Jr Officer; "Captain 1 to Dispatch - I need a mutual aid ladder truck to the scene"

Responding Chief; WEEWOOO WEEE WOOO WWWWOOOOOO (siren) "Stand by on that ladder truck, I will be on scene in a few minutes, I will determine if it is really needed"

Jr. Officer; "Sonuva................."

[Guest alsfirefighter]

On a side note, although somewhat related - my pet peeve - one of them at least - is when a responding Chief over rides a Junior Officer who is on scene, and makes a request.

Jr Officer; "Captain 1 to Dispatch - I need a mutual aid ladder truck to the scene"

Responding Chief; WEEWOOO WEEE WOOO WWWWOOOOOO (siren) "Stand by on that ladder truck, I will be on scene in a few minutes, I will determine if it is really needed"

Jr. Officer; "Sonuva................."

Couldn't agree more..had that done to me more then a few times over the years. Even had a chief attempt to change an LZ I requested for a medevac...to one that I knew was under water as I drove by it not more then 10 mins prior going to the call. Some just can't get over themselves.

[JohnnyOV 2]

Beer Response Team.

Oh thank god, for a second I thought we were going to have to bring it ourselves...