Manpower Usage During Working Fires?

[Bnechis 3,961]

This week a group of fire service leaders had an interesting round table and the following questions were raised:

After the intitial response is onscene of a working fire and the IC beleives he does not need more personnel at that moment:

1) Do the IC's request enough additional personnel to staging to provide timely relief if needed (or to handle a change in the situation or tactics)?

2) How is the above question change if you have additional companies available inhouse vs. having to call mutual aid?

3) Do firefighters, company officers and even IC's avoid putting the staged resources to work, because "we can hamdle it without them"? Do we consider giving our troops a break by using those staged or is it more important to release them (particularly if they are mutual aid).

4) If IC's do not request enough personnel, does this come to light during critiques or post incident reports? Do members or in the case of a career dept. the union complain about this?

5) Now lets move on to what is the purpose of Mutual Aid move up to cover the vacant station? Would it be better to move them to staging as the potential for use at the scene (particularly if a mayday occurs) is far greater than the potential of a 2nd incident in the community (particularly in a smaller community)?

6) If you are using mutual aid to move up to cover your station, who is covering the units moved up? I find this particularly interesting when FD A has a fire and FD B moves its only ladder into A's station, but not B's area has no ladder.

I expect the answer will vary based on the size of the dept and by the staffing. VFD's and career depts may also have slightly different answers, but I encourage all to participate.

[FireMedic049 597]

This week a group of fire service leaders had an interesting round table and the following questions were raised:

After the intitial response is onscene of a working fire and the IC beleives he does not need more personnel at that moment:

Career Department. Our initial response is the 6-7 firefighters on-duty. Most of the time, once the IC has confirmed a working fire, some or all off-duty personnel are recalled which can take upwards of 15 minutes or so until all of the additional personnel arrive on scene.

]1) Do the IC's request enough additional personnel to staging to provide timely relief if needed (or to handle a change in the situation or tactics)?

Typically, no, but it does happen.

2) How is the above question change if you have additional companies available inhouse vs. having to call mutual aid?

We have no other companies in-house at that point and calling for mutual aid is the only option for more personnel. All mutual aid are VFDs and I believe there is a reluctance at times to use them as "relief staging".

3) Do firefighters, company officers and even IC's avoid putting the staged resources to work, because "we can handle it without them"?

Yes, oftentimes it seems that way.

Do we consider giving our troops a break by using those stagged or is it more important to release them (particularly if they are mutual aid).

Releasing them doesn't seem to be an overriding concern, but we seem hesitant to take a break and use them at times.

4) If IC's do not request enough personnel, does this come to light during critiques or post incident reports?

No, largely because we really don't conduct them.

Do members or in the case of a career dept. the union complain about this?

Yes. I've personally voiced my concerns for a number of years regarding this reluctance to request additional help whether in-house or mutual aid when we have fires. A few more are starting to become more vocal about it now, so hopefully some change will be coming along soon.

5) Now lets move on to what is the purpose of Mutual Aid move up to cover the vacant station? Would it be better to move them to staging as the potential for use at the scene (particularly if a mayday occurs) is far greater than the potential of a 2nd incident in the community (particularly in a smaller community)?

In our situation, moving them into the stations is sufficient. If we need them, they can be on scene within a couple of minutes as our city is fairly small - 5 sq miles. Additionally, given the access to the parts of the city in which the bulk of our fires occurs and what would likely happen if staged at or close to the scene, keeping them in the stations is good.

6) If you are using mutual aid to move up to cover your station, who is covering the units moved up? I find this particularly interesting when FD A has a fire and FD B moves its only ladder into A's station, but not B's area has no ladder.

Our stations are somewhat close to our primary mutual aid company districts. So, for the most part, they may respond to their own call from our stations or have another company cover that unit depending on the nature of the call. Their mutual aid is pretty close by too.

I expect the answer will vary based on the size of the dept and by the staffing. VFD's and career depts may also have slightly different answers, but I encourage all to participate.

[TimesUp 148]

Barry, Was this a meeting were fire service leaders are now saying they don't get called to the scene enough? Or don't get called for mutual aid enough? As far as one of the things you mention above, I cant understand how a department is ok with sending a piece of apparatus out of town when it leaves their town or city without coverage or a high percentage of their manning.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Barry, Was this a meeting were fire service leaders are now saying they don't get called to the scene enough? Or don't get called for mutual aid enough?

No. Actually the complaint was that their own IC's (captains & DC's) are not calling enough outside personnel to make the scene safer and trying to make do with less than they should.

[TimesUp 148]

Theres not a department around here thats not trying "to make do with less than they should" That goes for all of Westchester. Steve Cassidy will tell you the same thing also. Everybody is in the same boat. I'm sure your aware of that. Although its a good thing that this department is coming to grips with their problems.

[FFPCogs 863]

This week a group of fire service leaders had an interesting round table and the following questions were raised:

After the intitial response is onscene of a working fire and the IC beleives he does not need more personnel at that moment:

1) Do the IC's request enough additional personnel to staging to provide timely relief if needed (or to handle a change in the situation or tactics)?

This is rare in my experience although there have been incidents where personnel were called in to relieve exhausted crews or replace those on scene, often FAST crews, if they become committed.

2) How is the above question change if you have additional companies available inhouse vs. having to call mutual aid?

In my experience this hasn't made a big impact, but I know there are dept's that will not use certain other depts for mutual aid...and this is career not wanting vollies, vollies not wanting career and vollies not wanting other vollies

3) Do firefighters, company officers and even IC's avoid putting the staged resources to work, because "we can hamdle it without them"? Do we consider giving our troops a break by using those staged or is it more important to release them (particularly if they are mutual aid).

Here again in most instances I'm familiar with the only real "staged" crews are FAST and they are not there as relief personnel

4) If IC's do not request enough personnel, does this come to light during critiques or post incident reports? Do members or in the case of a career dept. the union complain about this?

In my FD at home it would if that situation were ever to arise. Here at work it's a non sequiter..there's only 10 of us structural boys and we're it inside the wire.

5) Now lets move on to what is the purpose of Mutual Aid move up to cover the vacant station? Would it be better to move them to staging as the potential for use at the scene (particularly if a mayday occurs) is far greater than the potential of a 2nd incident in the community (particularly in a smaller community)?

I have to say that for me calling mutual aid in for station coverage is perfectly acceptable so long as the units sent don't compromise the effectiveness of the department sending them and the scene is operating. While the chances of a 2nd fire may be remote it is by no means unthinkable and should be planned for. I also think that there are times when it makes far more sense to call in a mutual aid company to the scene rather than wait for one from your own department to travel all the way across town to get there.

6) If you are using mutual aid to move up to cover your station, who is covering the units moved up? I find this particularly interesting when FD A has a fire and FD B moves its only ladder into A's station, but not B's area has no ladder.

As I said and it has been my experience that mutual aid should only be sent if the sender can continue to provide for their own area either with their own non committed resources or through the use of the automatic redistribution of resources from neighboring districts/towns. One need not have a county wide FD to have automatic regional mutual aid for on scene resources/station coverage. This of course leads to the "qualifications" of that mutual aid, but that's another discussion.

I expect the answer will vary based on the size of the dept and by the staffing. VFD's and career depts may also have slightly different answers, but I encourage all to participate.

And now I will be soundly trounced upon:

I happen to be one of those dinosaurs that thinks that sometimes..not always by any means...but sometimes we have reached the point of overkill with the number of personnel on a scene. Now yes we must have FAST, and safety officers, and so on, but I can remember a time not so very long ago when fires were handled with far less than what is considered the norm today. What was once a single alarm job has now become a multi alarm situation as a matter of course in many instances. I'm not advocating being unsafe, but alot of fires I go to or buff seem to have an awful lot of people standing around looking important, but doing very little and that cuts across all lines young and old, career and vollie, jeez even red trucks and white trucks. It just seems to me that maybe, at times, we are overloading fire scenes with rigs and manpower and thus stretching our resources unnecessarily.

Good topic, thanks B.

I look forward to reading everyone else's opinons.

Cogs

Edited January 22, 2012 by FFPCogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

And now I will be soundly trounced upon:

I happen to be one of those dinosaurs that thinks that sometimes..not always by any means...but sometimes we have reached the point of overkill with the number of personnel on a scene. Now yes we must have FAST, and safety officers, and so on, but I can remember a time not so very long ago when fires were handled with far less than what is considered the norm today. What was once a single alarm job has now become a multi alarm situation as a matter of course in many instances. I'm not advocating being unsafe, but alot of fires I go to or buff seem to have an awful lot of people standing around looking important, but doing very little and that cuts across all lines young and old, career and vollie, jeez even red trucks and white trucks. It just seems to me that maybe, at times, we are overloading fire scenes with rigs and manpower and thus stretching our resources unnecessarily.

Thanks Cogs.

On your last comment I agree that today we have more alarms and more rigs at an incident, but In many cases I see a similar number of firefighters. As staffing per rig has dropped &/or the vol. turnout is not what it was.

As an example in the 1970's & 80's my dept dispatched 2 eng., 1 lad., & DC. With 5 men per engine (officer, driver, nozzle, Hydrant & breakman), 3 on the ladder, chief & Aide. thats 15.

Today we send 4 engines, 2 ladders, Chief & Aide. but we have 3 man engines. So now we have 20, with 3 of them assigned to fast. So we went from 15 to 17 who are attacking the fire. Not a big difference, but construction has changed and tactic have as well. There is more to do on todays fire ground. Also, today we are more proactive about the safety of the members.

[thebreeze 194]

Theres not a department around here thats not trying "to make do with less than they should" That goes for all of Westchester. Steve Cassidy will tell you the same thing also. Everybody is in the same boat. I'm sure your aware of that. Although its a good thing that this department is coming to grips with their problems.

There's no reason that we should try to do more with less. There's no reason for us to be breaking our backs and possibly putting ourselves in danger because some politicians are trying to cut costs. They look to cut staffing because it looks good on a spreadsheet and they view it as an acceptable risk. The plain and simple fact of it however is that with less men it takes more time to stretch a hoseline, do a search, or ventilate. We are only men, and we can only push ourselves so far before we stop functioning at our peak level or injure ourselves. One fireman can't do the work of three as much as we would all like to pat ourselves on the back and say otherwise. The most important thing for us is to operate safely and effectively, we all want to go home to our families at the end of the day.

[TimesUp 148]

There's no reason that we should try to do more with less. There's no reason for us to be breaking our backs and possibly putting ourselves in danger because some politicians are trying to cut costs. They look to cut staffing because it looks good on a spreadsheet and they view it as an acceptable risk. The plain and simple fact of it however is that with less men it takes more time to stretch a hoseline, do a search, or ventilate. We are only men, and we can only push ourselves so far before we stop functioning at our peak level or injure ourselves. One fireman can't do the work of three as much as we would all like to pat ourselves on the back and say otherwise. The most important thing for us is to operate safely and effectively, we all want to go home to our families at the end of the day.

I couldn't agree more with you Breeze. Well said!

[Bnechis 3,961]

There's no reason that we should try to do more with less. There's no reason for us to be breaking our backs and possibly putting ourselves in danger because some politicians are trying to cut costs. They look to cut staffing because it looks good on a spreadsheet and they view it as an acceptable risk. The plain and simple fact of it however is that with less men it takes more time to stretch a hoseline, do a search, or ventilate. We are only men, and we can only push ourselves so far before we stop functioning at our peak level or injure ourselves. One fireman can't do the work of three as much as we would all like to pat ourselves on the back and say otherwise. The most important thing for us is to operate safely and effectively, we all want to go home to our families at the end of the day.

Well said. That is why I asked the questions if the IC's are actually asking for the help.

[FD7807 59]

Pride gets people hurt. Not calling mutual aid for pride reasons is stupid. Having FF"s in staging might not only be for relief purposes but it can also be there if things get out of hand. A good IC anticipates that things MAY get out of hand. Do not fault someone for thinking ahead or thinking with the worst case scenario in mind.

[16fire5 693]

And now I will be soundly trounced upon:

I happen to be one of those dinosaurs that thinks that sometimes..not always by any means...but sometimes we have reached the point of overkill with the number of personnel on a scene. Now yes we must have FAST, and safety officers, and so on, but I can remember a time not so very long ago when fires were handled with far less than what is considered the norm today. What was once a single alarm job has now become a multi alarm situation as a matter of course in many instances. I'm not advocating being unsafe, but alot of fires I go to or buff seem to have an awful lot of people standing around looking important, but doing very little and that cuts across all lines young and old, career and vollie, jeez even red trucks and white trucks. It just seems to me that maybe, at times, we are overloading fire scenes with rigs and manpower and thus stretching our resources unnecessarily.

I will happily be the first to trounce.

If you have no reserve and a truck finds extension on the floor above or the cockloft of the adjacent building who stretches the next line?

When a victim is discovered and that seach team leaves the building with the victim who continues the search?

When the nozzle teams recieves burns who takes over their line?

These are all things that happen at fires frequently enough that we should be prepared to address. If you have no reserves I know the answer you end up using the FAST. In which case you have no one available if someone really gets into trouble. Oh and your breaking the law.

If you have reserves in the street behind you all you have to do is look at your clip board see who's up next turn to them and put them to work. Once the fire is under control you can use them for relief or release them. They might actually learn something from just standing there observing.

Call all the help you need and a little more. It's easy to tell from the IA's most departments around here play catch up.

Don't worry about what they say on EMT Bravo worry about the safety of your members and the public you serve.

[FFPCogs 863]

I will happily be the first to trounce.

If you have no reserve and a truck finds extension on the floor above or the cockloft of the adjacent building who stretches the next line?

When a victim is discovered and that seach team leaves the building with the victim who continues the search?

When the nozzle teams recieves burns who takes over their line?

These are all things that happen at fires frequently enough that we should be prepared to address. If you have no reserves I know the answer you end up using the FAST. In which case you have no one available if someone really gets into trouble. Oh and your breaking the law.

If you have reserves in the street behind you all you have to do is look at your clip board see who's up next turn to them and put them to work. Once the fire is under control you can use them for relief or release them. They might actually learn something from just standing there observing.

Call all the help you need and a little more. It's easy to tell from the IA's most departments around here play catch up.

Don't worry about what they say on EMT Bravo worry about the safety of your members and the public you serve.

Great response, thanks

You make very valid and prudent points, all of which should be on the mind of any IC. But unfortunately most departments do not have that kind of manpower reserve on which to draw without negatively affecting addtional resources. Yes we'd all like to have a number of crews staging ready to go at the drop of a hat to deal with the unexpected, but where did they come from? Another in town Company or Dept thus depleting their response area. Mutual aid thereby affecting that town or city's capabilites to handle their own incidents, not to mention taking resources away from those taxpayers who have paid for them to ensure their own protection. At some point we must draw the line between safety and reality. All resources are finite and we can only prepare as best we can with what we have for the unexpected, which is where preplanning and automatic mutual aid come in to play. In most circumstances for a bread and butter job a crew held in reserve in addition to FAST to take on the challenges you describe would be ideal, and not only from a safety standpoint. But beyond that for most bread and butters any more becomes overkill IMHO. And if resources do not allow for additional on scene crews above and beyond FAST from the start well then that's too damn bad, we have a job to do and the sooner we go about doing it the less we will need those additional resources in the end.

As I said I'm something of a dinosaur in many respects and make no apologies for it. So while it may not be popular to buck the safety trends by disagreeing with many "modern" and "enlightened" views on the nature of our work in the 21st century IMO safety on the fireground starts with the individual and extends to the department. 50 inexperienced and untrained FFs thrown at a house fire will not make that fire go out any faster or safer, in fact it will make the situation worse. A smaller number of dedicated, highly motivated, well trained and experienced FFs can do a hell of alot of work...safely and effectively... without undo risk or punishment. As with all things balance is the key including balancing what we need, what we have and what we want.

Take care

Cogs

Edited January 23, 2012 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

And now I will be soundly trounced upon:

I happen to be one of those dinosaurs that thinks that sometimes..not always by any means...but sometimes we have reached the point of overkill with the number of personnel on a scene. Now yes we must have FAST, and safety officers, and so on, but I can remember a time not so very long ago when fires were handled with far less than what is considered the norm today. What was once a single alarm job has now become a multi alarm situation as a matter of course in many instances. I'm not advocating being unsafe, but alot of fires I go to or buff seem to have an awful lot of people standing around looking important, but doing very little and that cuts across all lines young and old, career and vollie, jeez even red trucks and white trucks. It just seems to me that maybe, at times, we are overloading fire scenes with rigs and manpower and thus stretching our resources unnecessarily.

I would tend to agree with your observations for my area too. Not so much for my department, because I think we tend to "understaff" our fireground. I see it a fair bit with the VFDs in the area. There's a few websites/facebook pages that put up pictures from fires in the area. There always seems to be a large number of people in fireman suits congregating about the scene not doing much in the pictures.

[16fire5 693]

But unfortunately most departments do not have that kind of manpower reserve on which to draw without negatively affecting addtional resources. Yes we'd all like to have a number of crews staging ready to go at the drop of a hat to deal with the unexpected, but where did they come from? Another in town Company or Dept thus depleting their response area. Mutual aid thereby affecting that town or city's capabilites to handle their own incidents, not to mention taking resources away from those taxpayers who have paid for them to ensure their own protection. At some point we must draw the line between safety and reality. All resources are finite and we can only prepare as best we can with what we have for the unexpected, which is where preplanning and automatic mutual aid come in to play. In most circumstances for a bread and butter job a crew held in reserve in addition to FAST to take on the challenges you describe would be ideal, and not only from a safety standpoint. But beyond that for most bread and butters any more becomes overkill IMHO. And if resources do not allow for additional on scene crews above and beyond FAST from the start well then that's too damn bad, we have a job to do and the sooner we go about doing it the less we will need those additional resources in the end.

Here's the problem I have with this arguement. Most departments don't have any issue calling for more and more resources as the fire continues to progress. What I am arguing is that they should have the help there earlier.

An example I think of is a chief waited to call a second alarm. He ran out of resources and the fire grew to 4 or 5 alarms. If the second alarm had been called quickly he would have hand the resources there when needed and it is easily concievable that the fire would have been controled with the second alarm assignment.

Shortly after I was promoted a senior deputy chief stopped by to see me and he wanted to lend a little advice about being an acting battalion chief. His advice was if your considering a second alarm "give it" and listen to the voice in the back of your head. On a side note it is an excellent thing for senior chiefs to visit new officers and express their confidence.

[ex-commish 490]

Barry to answer your questions in one simple answer better to have or have not, never know when the situation could change.

[Remember585 815]

Wouldn't planning ahead (pre-planning), knowing your district, knowing your own resources and having knowledge of available Mutual Aid resources be the grounds for calling or not calling in more help?

Let me try to explain this better...

I know my own district fairly well. I know where we have hydrants, where we don't, where I can send units to find water. I know (just by growing up in my town and driving around it) what areas have new construction, which are illegal multi-families with probable ballong construction and exposure issues. I know that certain streets are barely wide enough for our rigs to pass on a normal day and which are impassable when we get snow.

If I get dispatched to a structure fire in our district, the wheels in the ol' noodle start spinning. Based on my information from dispatch, updates from the PD, the location, the time of day, the weather and a few more things - I know whether we need more help right away or if it's something that should be manageable with our usual first alarm resources. If it's in a building that presents itself to be more complex to us or if we encounter exposure issues or some other gifts from Mr. Murphy, then I know I can call for resources to the scene to stage.

But, to be humble and honest, if you give me a "bread and butter" private dwelling fire in one of the capes or ranch homes we have in town - I don't think I'm going to need more to the scene then we already get on a first alarm. In some cases over the years I have called an extra Engine or a Truck to fire scenes because I needed manpower or I wanted to be proactive and have them there in case things went south. But I don't think I'm going to start calling stuff to the scene to stand around if the potential of putting them to use is minimal.

Fire away.... but that's my opinion.

[firecapt32 282]

When I first got into the Fire Service ohh so many years ago. we had a fire in a building at the top of Beekman Ave. I was in the ladder company (lad 38) and working at venting the roof-after venting we were going back down the aerial ladder when I noticed a whole lot of fire apparatus, I went to the Chief who I knew pretty well actually very well I asked him what all the trucks wwere there for. answer was short and simple.

[b]"I CAN ALWAYS EXPLAIN WHY THEY ARE HERE AND TURN THEM AROU ND IF I DONT NEED THEM BUT I WILL HAVE A HARD TIME EXPLAINING WHY THEY ARENT HERE IF I REALLY NEED THEM"

I have always thought that they were pretty good words of wisdom.

[firemoose827 324]

This week a group of fire service leaders had an interesting round table and the following questions were raised:

After the intitial response is onscene of a working fire and the IC beleives he does not need more personnel at that moment:

1) Do the IC's request enough additional personnel to staging to provide timely relief if needed (or to handle a change in the situation or tactics)?

2) How is the above question change if you have additional companies available inhouse vs. having to call mutual aid?

3) Do firefighters, company officers and even IC's avoid putting the staged resources to work, because "we can hamdle it without them"? Do we consider giving our troops a break by using those staged or is it more important to release them (particularly if they are mutual aid).

4) If IC's do not request enough personnel, does this come to light during critiques or post incident reports? Do members or in the case of a career dept. the union complain about this?

5) Now lets move on to what is the purpose of Mutual Aid move up to cover the vacant station? Would it be better to move them to staging as the potential for use at the scene (particularly if a mayday occurs) is far greater than the potential of a 2nd incident in the community (particularly in a smaller community)?6) If you are using mutual aid to move up to cover your station, who is covering the units moved up? I find this particularly interesting when FD A has a fire and FD B moves its only ladder into A's station, but not B's area has no ladder.

I expect the answer will vary based on the size of the dept and by the staffing. VFD's and career depts may also have slightly different answers, but I encourage all to participate.

I wanted to add to your #5 question in regard to calling mutual aid to stand in your station for coverage.

I have personally witnessed something of this topic and it was a bit of a nightmare. I think communications were non-existant, and dispatch was improperly trained at the time of this incident, but I would like to get your opinion on this.

It was a while ago, around 1999-2000 I believe. I was a younger firefighter for one of my past departments, we were a small to mid-sized volunteer department, and our neighbors then were a fairly big sized department covering a very large area with the village and town, and numerous outlying hamlets, but I cant remember the square mileage exactly. One night around 11:30PM they had a structure fire in a large, older farm house on the opposite end of their district from us. They ended up calling us in to cover their station with a fully staffed engine. We rolled our engine with a crew of five; a driver, our lieutenant, myself and 2 other firefighters. We were in their station and listening to the radio traffic in their radio room when we hear the dispatcher call for the IC on the air. They proceed to tell him that there was another reported structure fire in his district, what is his pleasure. Now, its my belief that by the dispatcher asking the IC for his pleasure for the second fire, the IC ASSUMED that the engine from our department was already enroute to the call...we werent. No one made contact with the station or called us on the air. We all looked at our lieutenant and one member of the other department who was a past chief who happened to be working the radio, he looked at our Lt and told us to roll, that he would take the blame if anything happened.

As dispatch was toning out another department to roll to the second fire we were rolling out the door with a full crew.

When you have a station fill-in like that, its for a purpose, and that is to handle any additional calls in the district. The dispatcher that night thought that we were standing-by for the initial call in case we were needed and never sent us.

Later on that night the IC from the neighboring department responded to the second fire scene and we told him what happened, he was furious. He called dispatch and explained it to them better. We laughed afterwords, the second house was saved, only moderate damage to the second floor bedrooms. The first house was gutted. It was a cold night, and things were freezing up, almost the whole county was involved with the two fires, and some out-of-county resources as well.

Today, we call for either of two things as far as coverage of the districts are concerned; either a stand-by, which is in your station with a staffed engine and tanker, or a stand-in, which is moving whatever requested equipment to the mutual aid station for coverage. In either instance, when you are called for coverage you are covering your area and the mutual aid district in case of a second call. Its very rare in my area for the dreaded second call, but as I experienced, it can happen, and I guess thats why we continue the practice today. Except the dispatchers are better trained in the way it works, and communications are more updated as well.

[Bnechis 3,961]

But unfortunately most departments do not have that kind of manpower reserve on which to draw without negatively affecting addtional resources.

I dont buy that, In Westchester the 58 FD's claim to have as many ff's as FDNY if we cant get enough ff's to an incident its time to reevaluate everything we claim to be.

Yes we'd all like to have a number of crews staging ready to go at the drop of a hat to deal with the unexpected, but where did they come from? Another in town Company or Dept thus depleting their response area. Mutual aid thereby affecting that town or city's capabilites to handle their own incidents, not to mention taking resources away from those taxpayers who have paid for them to ensure their own protection.

Since the "other town" has 10 times more than it needs, how is this hurting their capabilities? Unless of course they do not have the resources they have told the community they have (and asked for funding to suport).

At some point we must draw the line between safety and reality. All resources are finite and we can only prepare as best we can with what we have for the unexpected, which is where preplanning and automatic mutual aid come in to play. In most circumstances for a bread and butter job a crew held in reserve in addition to FAST to take on the challenges you describe would be ideal, and not only from a safety standpoint. But beyond that for most bread and butters any more becomes overkill IMHO.

Yes all resources are finite, but asking for an additional engine and truck to be in staging, when we have 200 engines and 75 ladders. Other counties around us also have substantial resources as well.

And if resources do not allow for additional on scene crews above and beyond FAST from the start well then that's too damn bad, we have a job to do and the sooner we go about doing it the less we will need those additional resources in the end.

Based on that, lets cut your resources again, because the politicians know that you will not complain and will do more with less, then we can cut and you will still do more with less and so on.

50 inexperienced and untrained FFs thrown at a house fire will not make that fire go out any faster or safer, in fact it will make the situation worse. A smaller number of dedicated, highly motivated, well trained and experienced FFs can do a hell of alot of work...safely and effectively... without undo risk or punishment.

Very true. This is the best argument for consolidation. Multiple departments going to very few fires means lots of firefighters with very little experience.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I would tend to agree with your observations for my area too. Not so much for my department, because I think we tend to "understaff" our fireground. I see it a fair bit with the VFDs in the area. There's a few websites/facebook pages that put up pictures from fires in the area. There always seems to be a large number of people in fireman suits congregating about the scene not doing much in the pictures.

Thats not stagging thats buffing.

[FireMedic049 597]

Thats not stagging thats buffing.

LOL

[TimesUp 148]

Cogs brought up a good point. When you call for mutual aid your taking away resources from a town or city's taxpayer. Now once in awhile this should not be a problem. But what if becomes too often? Just asking because I know this could be an issue. Then there's the city manager or mayor who thinks he can lower the Departments manning because he can just call mutual aid. Although I'm in full agreement that most if not all fire departments around Westchester start the tour understaffed. I also know this is why consolidation has been studied.

Edited January 24, 2012 by ltrob

[FFPCogs 863]

Excellent point/counterpoint discussion thus far.

"Consolidation" the infamous and much maligned dirty word of Northeast firefighting. For a very long time stretching back to the early 80's, my first few years in the fire service, I have been a proponent of a consolidated service, looking first only at the local level in Stamford, but now extending well beyond the City limits. Often ridiculed or dismissed at best, I have nonetheless maintained that belief to this day and most likely will carry it with me to the grave. Why? Well if for no other reason than because as time has passed and my experiences have become varied I have come to see that consolidating offers the best answer on so many levels. As "progressive" or "enlightened" as such a view may be it has also been tempered over time by the realities of the world in which we, in our little corner of it, live and operate. It may well be that consolidation offers many answers but those answers come at a price that, right or wrong, many are just not willing to pay. My current employment has given me the opportunity to work along side a group of UK firemen for whom consolidation and standardization have long since been a fact of life. Many times heads shake and eyes roll when the complexities of how our region operates are explained. What does all this have to do with the topic? Well for starters the very nature of the questions asked beg for consolidation as the answer. But as we all know it is not quite so simple for a number of reasons, one of which I will try to address, in as objective a way as I possibly can.

I stated that it seems to me it takes more resources now than to used to to handle fires. That is not quite right. It is not the numbers thrown at incidents so much, as they have stayed relatively the same, it is more the make-up of those numbers. Huh? Ok let me try to explain. As Barry pointed out staffing for his department has been reduced per rig, so therefore more rigs are required to bring the same number of FFs to a scene. This change in staffing is quite common in our region as Departments have either had to reduce an all career force or, in many more instances I think, career personnel have been added to or replaced volunteers. And it is this change that has caused friction that, when coupled with the more traditional impediments such as the independent mindset of home rule and unchecked egos, have led us to ignore the obvious..consolidation. No one wants to share or worse give up their "power" and that unwillingness casts it's very long shadow over both career and volunteer departments in our part of the world. As was pointed out, we in the NY metro area are literally awash in apparatus and members, so why then is the idea of having enough manpower even an issue? Because some traditions die hard, some grudges are not easily forgotten and maybe most of all, a divide which as always existed has become an almost unbridgable chasm. Yes I think you know where this is going, but rest assured it will be a non partisan rant since both "sides' share the blame for that chasm's existence in equal measure. Manpower shortages and consolidating resources to resolve them have a very large and very well entrenched nemesis...the career vs volunteer conundrum. If you don't think that is so just look at the posts that have graced these pages. That division is like the scourge of the plague clouding the ability of intelligent and rational FFs to do what's right..think of the public we serve first. The idea that consolidating would be the right move is almost universal here, yet there are always caveats attached. "Volunteers must be better trained" or "career members must let us maintain control" and so on and so on, the debates are endless. All these views have merit and are based in facts, but all neglect the prime objective..serving the public first.

Ok this may seem a stretch and way off base to the topic at hand, but it is not. We all know manpower shortages exist and that those shortages put us all at risk. There is not enough money to staff every City, town and hamlet with enough career FFs to effectively do the job, on a countywide basis or not. Nor is there enough volunteers in a time when numbers continue to drop to provide the levels necessary either. Hmm what then could possibly be the answer..how about combine the two. But alas that division, that almost insurmoutable chasm which we all know exists prevents us from combining because one "side" or the other will have to give...and neither one is prepared to. In my County we have the Fairfield County Chiefs Association made up of career and volunteer departments. They hold monthly meetings at which they have guest speakers, mingle, talk alot, visit with friends and enjoy a good meal, fun, fun, fun. But what they don't do..and in my experience what most similar organizations don't do...is devise a common strategy to work together in spite of our differences. In 2012 it is almost incomprehensible to me that every FD in my County and maybe yours as well is not fully prepared to deploy anywhere within the County or even across State lines at a moments notice..and be able to do so fully within the confines of a standardized set of procedures, guidelines and objectives. Why can't we do this? Because as this site so often shows we can't even agee that we're all FFs to begin with. And why is that so? Because an animosity that began years ago as a trickle has now become a flood. So yeah maybe this rant is a bit of a stretch but in the end we face manpower issues because we are our own worst enemy. We let what are in reality small and solveable differences overshadow the one prime similarity..we are ALL firemen here to serve.

A pointless rant? Maybe. But before anyone gets the wrong idea and thinks I'm reducing this to a simple career vs volunteer "thing" maybe take it for what it is...a look at one small yet very destructive piece of the larger picture and one which we alone CAN fix.

Stay safe

Cogs

Edited January 24, 2012 by FFPCogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

When you call for mutual aid your taking away resources from a town or city's taxpayer. Now once in awhile this should not be a problem. But what if becomes too often?

When you respond to an incident at one location you are also taking away resources from every other location in town, But thats considered acceptable, because we our main focus is the active fire. We relocate, use call back or mutual aid to cover the house, but ussually the community coverage is at a much lower level (i.e. 1 eng & 1 lad, when normal is 4 and 2). We think nothing of taking resources away from 99.9% of the taxpayers then.

Now if your dept. can not muster 12-20 firefighters for a working fire you either need to call mutual aid or you are shorting both your members and the community. And if you can not muster sufficiant members within the dept. then you need to call mutual aid. The key word being "MUTUAL". If you want it, then you need to figure a way to also pay it back. THat means taking away resources from your tax payers to cover someone elses taxpayers. If you don't want to d othat, then your taxpayers can support you to the point that you do not need mutual aid.

Then there's the city manager or mayor who thinks he can lower the Departments manning because he can just call mutual aid. Although I'm in full agreement that most if not all fire departments around Westchester start the tour understaffed.

There are lots of ways to deal with that, including getting the chiefs from the surrounding communities to jointly write that they will not cover that. We have seen it in Westchester. The dept itself needs to make it clear that having enough trained personnel in a timely manor is critical to everyones safety. To many times depts., chiefs and members are unwilling to say anything, because they are too busy pounding their chests.

[TimesUp 148]

When you respond to an incident at one location you are also taking away resources from every other location in town, But thats considered acceptable, because we our main focus is the active fire. We relocate, use call back or mutual aid to cover the house, but ussually the community coverage is at a much lower level (i.e. 1 eng & 1 lad, when normal is 4 and 2). We think nothing of taking resources away from 99.9% of the taxpayers then.

This is true but your still covering the taxpayers.

Now if your dept. can not muster 12-20 firefighters for a working fire you either need to call mutual aid or you are shorting both your members and the community. And if you can not muster sufficiant members within the dept. then you need to call mutual aid. The key word being "MUTUAL". If you want it, then you need to figure a way to also pay it back. THat means taking away resources from your tax payers to cover someone elses taxpayers. If you don't want to d othat, then your taxpayers can support you to the point that you do not need mutual aid.

I agree with this as well but how can a department that can't muster 12-20 firefighter even think of sending firefighter out of town. Making it "not mutual"

There are lots of ways to deal with that, including getting the chiefs from the surrounding communities to jointly write that they will not cover that. We have seen it in Westchester. The dept itself needs to make it clear that having enough trained personnel in a timely manor is critical to everyones safety. To many times depts., chiefs and members are unwilling to say anything, because they are too busy pounding their chests.

Are you saying there was a time when communities got together as a unit and wrote a letter to a particular Town, City , or department and said "they would no longer respond" as far as subsidizing one departments short comings, I.E. Manning? Sounds good in theory, I just don't see it happening around Westchester.

[Bnechis 3,961]

It may well be that consolidation offers many answers but those answers come at a price that, right or wrong, many are just not willing to pay.

To bad the price is not as bad as we would think, but the cost is our safety.

This change in staffing is quite common in our region as Departments have either had to reduce an all career force or, in many more instances I think, career personnel have been added to or replaced volunteers.

In Westchester thats not correct. Most career depts. have been reducing manpower since the 1970's. Almost every volunteer dept is having major manpower shortages. The combination depts. were set up with a few career members to augment the volunteers and in Westchester what has happened is they have not increased the career staffing, but the volunteers are almost gone. Thus leaving a massivly short career staffed dept. that has 1 18 y/o and 1 70 y/o volunteer who show up sometimes. The problem is the community still think they have volunteers so there is no need to add career members to replace them.

And it is this change that has caused friction that, when coupled with the more traditional impediments such as the independent mindset of home rule and unchecked egos, have led us to ignore the obvious..consolidation. No one wants to share or worse give up their "power" and that unwillingness casts it's very long shadow over both career and volunteer departments in our part of the world.

While this is very true in places like Stamford. In Westchester there is almost no suggestion of consolidating career & volunteer. We can not get career & career together or volunteer & volunteer. And in many cases its not the fire fighters or even the departments that are against it. In one community, they are against consolidation of the FD, because if it works, then we might have to consolidate the schools, and we dont want that because our kids are better than their kids and we dont want them to go to that "other" school".

Manpower shortages and consolidating resources to resolve them have a very large and very well entrenched nemesis...the career vs volunteer conundrum.....The idea that consolidating would be the right move is almost universal here, yet there are always caveats attached. "Volunteers must be better trained" or "career members must let us maintain control" and so on and so on, the debates are endless. All these views have merit and are based in facts, but all neglect the prime objective..serving the public first.

In my County we have the Fairfield County Chiefs Association made up of career and volunteer departments. They hold monthly meetings at which they have guest speakers, mingle, talk alot, visit with friends and enjoy a good meal, fun, fun, fun. But what they don't do..and in my experience what most similar organizations don't do...is devise a common strategy to work together in spite of our differences.

Its called failure to lead and a big part of the problem is time. Volunteer chiefs are rotated so often that they never learn to lead or have the time to develop into true leaders and in some cases career chiefs who have been in so long that they no longer have vision.

In 2012 it is almost incomprehensible to me that every FD in my County and maybe yours as well is not fully prepared to deploy anywhere within the County or even across State lines at a moments notice..and be able to do so fully within the confines of a standardized set of procedures, guidelines and objectives.

Its incomprehensible to me how many are not fully prepared to handle a simple room and content fire in their 1st due area.

A pointless rant? Maybe.

Nope lots of good points.

[helicopper 1,050]

Much is being said about not depleting someone else's resources to help with a major incident. We in the northeast enjoy some of the most abundant resources on the planet. If we deplete these resources we got bigger problems. We can always backfil and/or augment resources; that's what mutual aid, emergency management is for. We can always move someone else. to cover - NY has moved resources across the state for incidents and we've mobilized to other states when necessary. At no time did we ever diminish a local community's coverage.

Abuses of mutual aid are a different discussion.

[FirNaTine 370]

While I tend to agree with some of the views on this topic there is also the other side of the coin and that is your IC's callin mutual aid immediately to a scene or in for coverage many times before they even arrive to an Incident. I can recall on more then one occassion coming out of a "Bread and Butter" Job that is under control and seeing m/a Depts. staged outside and wanting to wring the IC's neck for embarrasing us. Then comes the ball busting later that day from your peers on the Job and within those m/a Depts. calling you "pathetic" and wanting to know "does anybody in your Group or on your Job know what the $uck they're doin?" Is it my Pride that is hurt and the answer is Yes and you know what there's nothing wrong with that. Yes your Pride can get you hurt but i've also seen it put out fires. Nothing wrong with a Depts. members wanting to handle their own and busting their asses. I'm not saying you should fight a Conflagration with a skeleton crew but for God's sake do you really need 2 to 3 neighboring Depts. for a 1 or 2 room Job? If your showin up with 5 to 7 members then yes you do and a solution has to be found to correct it but this should not be a problem for 15 to 20 dedicated members. I remember an FDNY senior and well respected Battalion Chief saying he'd rather fight your average house fire with 12 well dedicated, proud and most of all "competent" firefighters then 20 "jackasses" who can give a rats a** about the Job bumping into each other and having no clue what to do. Usually this is one of those instances where your average Job goes thru the roof and additional alarms are struck or m/a is requested. I'm not downplaying calling for assistance if it's required, I'm just wondering if it is needed as much as it is called for. I think the panic button in the IC's car may be pushed just a little too much and too early sometimes. JMO

[FireMedic049 597]

I remember an FDNY senior and well respected Battalion Chief saying he'd rather fight your average house fire with 12 well dedicated, proud and most of all "competent" firefighters then 20 "jackasses" who can give a rats a** about the Job bumping into each other and having no clue what to do. Usually this is one of those instances where your average Job goes thru the roof and additional alarms are struck or m/a is requested. I'm not downplaying calling for assistance if it's required, I'm just wondering if it is needed as much as it is called for. I think the panic button in the IC's car may be pushed just a little too much and too early sometimes. JMO

I can't speak for your area, but I think the "panic button" gets hit a fair bit in my area. I think in many cases it's a product of a lot of small VFDs who really don't see much fire and get a bit "worked up" when they do catch one.

As for the FDNY Chief's comment.........Having spent 9 years in the volunteer service and now almost 10 years in a small career department while also responding to a number of fires working my EMS side job and watching the area VFDs operate, I can attest that his comment is ABSOLUTELY TRUE! One highly motivated, competent firefighter willing to do whatever it takes to do "the job" is easily worth at least 2 trying to do it "half-assed" - whether it's because they "don't care" or just aren't capable enough.