TimesUp

Responding to cover

51 posts in this topic



I know of some departments that respond RLS to stand by cverage and I don't know why. I certainly don't think any reasonable person could say that it was a true emergency. But probably half the calls we respond to aren't true emergencies that wuld require or warrent RLS.

Questionable insurance filings aside, if you blow through a red light responding to a stand by, you should be ticketed.

Tanker 10eng likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why there is opposition to responding in emergency mode to cover. Clearly you shouldn't respond as you would to a 10-75, but you need to get where you're going and quickly. When we relocate to another company to cover, we respond in emergency mode, slow and steady, but lights and siren non the less.

You're relocating to another area because at that moment there is inadequate fire protection there. What good am I to the people in, say Riverdale, if I'm 150 blocks away and a 1st due alarm comes in for fire, or anything else? When return, you drive with traffic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the way I see it if you get into an accident at anytime you have some questions that have to be answered.

I sure the response to mutual aid it is easily answered in every dept's sop's. :wacko:

BFD1054 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing NYC to Westchester is like apples to oranges. In NYC, companies can move from one borough to another. In Westchester, it's usually a neighboring department moving over - sometimes only a mile or two.

Here in Westchester, the majority of relocates usually move over to another district, where they generally don't go anywhere else or on any runs in that district they're covering, with some exceptions. Sometimes, resources get relocated that aren't even usually in that district... but I'll digress. And sometimes units that are relocated aren't even moved up to the scene of a working fire, while others are called from several towns away and PASS THE ONES COVERING! Again, I won't elaborate.

Being requested to cover another district while they operate at an incident or multiple incidents is a PRECAUTION. It's moving things around and getting them closer in the event something else happens or additional help is needed at a pre-existing event. It is NOT an emergency. If you are driving from your quarters to someone else's and you get sent to that scene or to another call in their district, you can easily throw a switch and light it up.

Some of us have districts that are larger or spread out uniquely, requiring 10-15 minute responses. Should we turn out lights and siren on to get back to quarters in case another call may happen on the other end of the district?

When you send an apparatus out for repair, do you always have an apparatus to cover that unit? For example, if your department has only one Tanker, do you have a Mutual Aid Tanker come sit in your fire station until it returns? Do you drive back from the repair shop lights and siren because there might be a fire it needs to go to? I doubt it.

I'm sure I won't make friends here and will offend some of you, but let's be realistic. Going from one firehouse to sit at another firehouse isn't an emergency.

Chief Benz - you're 100% right that an accident can happen anytime, and we ALL know that we'll usually be the ones getting the s*** end of the incident. But - to me and me only - relocating to someone's firehouse is not an emergency and not worth me risking an accident.

As for the Greenville incident - I call bullshit and feel there is some other issue / underlying agenda here. Hopefully this incident passes, no wrong-doing is cited and Greenville gets the money the need and deserve.


I sure the response to mutual aid it is easily answered in every dept's sop's. :wacko:

When did you take up comedy, Chief?

BFD1054, Fireman488 and SteveC7010 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Websters defines an emergency as immediate threat to life and limb. A big chunk of real estate that happens not to have any available fire engines in it, but also has no call pending, in my tiny brain is not an emergency. Pretty much everyday (if not all day) in this (Westcheste) County a town or large city may have ALL of its EMS resources out on calls or otherwise unavailable. The likelyhood of another call coming in is high, and the chance of it being serious is also high, yet the thought of moving another ambulance in from out of town to cover would NEVER happen, and when it does it is NEVER RLS. Yet when a Town's fire resources are all commited, it is like, Holy Crap, we gotta get crews and trucks over there ASAP, even though there is amost no chance of another call coming in, and the chance of it being serious is tiny. In the above situation, Pelham gets less than a call a day and less then a fire per year, I believe.

Can anyone tell me why we fear burning to death so much more than dieing of dieing by or sudden illness, even though the latter is like 1000X more likely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Comparing NYC to Westchester is like apples to oranges. In NYC, companies can move from one borough to another. In Westchester, it's usually a neighboring department moving over - sometimes only a mile or two.

2) Here in Westchester, the majority of relocates usually move over to another district, where they generally don't go anywhere else or on any runs in that district they're covering, with some exceptions. Sometimes, resources get relocated that aren't even usually in that district... but I'll digress. And sometimes units that are relocated aren't even moved up to the scene of a working fire, while others are called from several towns away and PASS THE ONES COVERING! Again, I won't elaborate.

3) When you send an apparatus out for repair, do you always have an apparatus to cover that unit? For example, if your department has only one Tanker, do you have a Mutual Aid Tanker come sit in your fire station until it returns? Do you drive back from the repair shop lights and siren because there might be a fire it needs to go to? I doubt it.

1) When I worked in NYC going to a call from Manhattan to Queens or the Bronx was closer than Many of our Westchester Relocates .

2) The incident in question was going to Pelham. That means GFD would not be going "to the next district" but driving through Scarsdale, Eastchester, Mt Vernon to get to Pelham. It also means that Pelham has a Job and already committed PFD, PMFD, NRFD, EFD and MVFD. Also means that they will be covering both PFD & PMFD.

3) That's the reason the ISO standard is that you have spare apparatus. Unfortunately with 58 departments we duplicate so much, but still most depts. have no spares. and can not justify them. When it comes to the ISO 9 (non-hydrant) departments/areas of the county most have more engines than needed and none have enough tankers.

M' Ave, AFS1970 and boca1day like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Websters defines an emergency as immediate threat to life and limb.

2) A big chunk of real estate that happens not to have any available fire engines in it, but also has no call pending, in my tiny brain is not an emergency. Pretty much everyday (if not all day) in this (Westcheste) County a town or large city may have ALL of its EMS resources out on calls or otherwise unavailable. The likelyhood of another call coming in is high, and the chance of it being serious is also high, yet the thought of moving another ambulance in from out of town to cover would NEVER happen, and when it does it is NEVER RLS.

3) Yet when a Town's fire resources are all commited, it is like, Holy Crap, we gotta get crews and trucks over there ASAP, even though there is amost no chance of another call coming in, and the chance of it being serious is tiny. In the above situation, Pelham gets less than a call a day and less then a fire per year, I believe.

Can anyone tell me why we fear burning to death so much more than dieing of dieing by or sudden illness, even though the latter is like 1000X more likely?

1) than 90% of all police, fire and EMS calls should not have RLS.

2) Because you can't even get them to respond for a real call, much less a stand-by. Paging any available driver for the 36th time for the mutual aid call.

3) in most cases, because we have not been to a fire in like forever and going mutual aid to cover gets us so much closer to a working fire..... Or in the busy departments we understand the likely hood of being moved up (to the scene because we are needed) before we even get to the standby.

When we go stand-by in Yonkers, we have 18 rigs (engines, ladders, rescues) committed and 4 or 5 rigs covering the whole city. We have been redirected many times before we even get to the city to respond directly to other life threatening calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is that most of the time they're running lights and siren to stand-by in a house but the house is usually empty as is their own.

The notion that the stand-by is an emergency is weakened substantially by the fact that there is nobody standing by in the firehouse most of the time.

Bnechis likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being requested to cover another district while they operate at an incident or multiple incidents is a PRECAUTION. It's moving things around and getting them closer in the event something else happens or additional help is needed at a pre-existing event. It is NOT an emergency. If you are driving from your quarters to someone else's and you get sent to that scene or to another call in their district, you can easily throw a switch and light it up.

IMHO this is 100% true. Responding to another agency's quarters to stand-by is not an emergency. There's no reason to throw on the lights and cause more traffic headaches because you need to move an engine or ladder from point A to point B. And, if you get called somewhere/to the scene, it's so easy to hit that master switch to go RLS to the scene.

I remember upstate we (my hometown) never went RLS to stand-by. Other departments would, and they did so because departments are much further apart. I only think my department had our policy because we rarely went to another's quarters as we were normally dispatched to the scene.

velcroMedic1987 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) than 90% of all police, fire and EMS calls should not have RLS.

I don't know that the percentage would be that high but probably close. I have very little ( but not none) experiance in PD, but in fire or ems then yes, a very large percentage of the calls do not require RLS under the definition of a true emergency. Do we always know that at time of dispatch? Rarely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even responding to an Emergency all apparatus must obey all V&T laws. After all what good are we doing if we are not going to make it to the scene because of an accident. Those red lights and sirens on the rigs does not give us the right to be reckless. Always and I do mean ALWAYS respond with caution. Anyone who has driven in an emergency mode knows that the lights and the noise from sirens also short circuits the public that shares the road with us.

Bnechis and Capejake72 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry:

1: We agree, 90% should be no RLS. I believe the FDNY union raised a fuss a year or so back becasue they the City wanted things like outside water leaks made into NO RLS, but the Union insisted that such things are RLS. Not sure who won. I believe somewhere on the NYS DOH BEMS site is a 'suggested' policy that states to the effect, 'no RLS unless there is info indicating a true emergency'. So, no RLS for hip Fx, EDP, trip and falls, sick, fever, gen malaise, vomting, abd pain, weak and dizzy, flu, head pain, minor bleeding, dehydration,. Yup, that's pretty close to 90%. And I agree- NO RLS for ANY of those. I offer this to all those "But what if" folks... In 30 years on the bus, I have NEVER had a situation where pt outcome would have been better if the ambulance had been faster. ( not including a few where folks died waiting for an ambulance for like, an hour due to availability.)

Found it:

Emergency Operations - shall be limited to any response to the scene or the hospital where the driver of the emergency vehicle actually perceives, based on instructions received or information available to him or her, the call to be a true emergency. EMD dispatch classifications6, indicating a true or potentially true emergency should be used to determine the initial response type. Patient assessments made by a certified care provider, should determine the response type (usually C or U as an emergency) to the hospital. In order for a response to be a true or potentially true emergency, the operator or certified care provider must have an articulable7 reason to believe that emergency operations may make a difference in patient outcome. During an emergency operation headlights and all emergency lights shall be illuminated and the siren used as necessary.

2. Not even talking about volunteers- could you imagine if New Rochelle asked for a cover ambulance each time every NR ambulance was busy on a call? Or Mt Vernon? But if the last fire truck in those cities was then sent on a call, it would be Holy Hell- there are no fire engines in NR!!! We need to alert DES, the State, the next 3 agencies need to shift resources in there RIGHT NOW! With lights and sirens apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading a lot of continuing talk about why NOT to respond "RLS", yet all the reasons I read seem to highlight the failings in the system of adequately covering an area and not questioning the method of getting there. If the system is set up to spread coverage to even out a geographical area, then a neighbor shouldn't be moved one town over.

If the fire is in Dobbs Ferry and Irvington, Tarytown and Hastings are operating, then an engine should be moved there from, say, Port Chester and a ladder from say, Peekskill. Thats just an abstract idea, but that's how you spread coverage efficiently. You move people from COMPLETELY uneffected areas to a central location to offer coverage to a group of municipalities that are committed to an emergency. Also.....those relocated units should NOT be sent to the scene, if it can be helped.

The above is why relocating in emergency mode becomes necessary. You need those units to get to the area that needs coverage quickly. When there is a fire in midtown Manhattan, the relocations come from Harlem and Queens. Who says you can't compare this to Westhchester? Forget the municipality, this is just how it should work.

Is, "the odds of there being another emergency are slim" really the argument? If that's the case, then just pack up your fire department to begin with, because there's only a slim chance of disaster......

Stop with the defining of an emergency....too many gray areas. A serious hole in emergency service coverage IS an emergency. No one says to go bombing through red lights, but stop, look and proceed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry:

1: We agree, 90% should be no RLS. I believe the FDNY union raised a fuss a year or so back becasue they the City wanted things like outside water leaks made into NO RLS, but the Union insisted that such things are RLS. Not sure who won.

No, this is incorrect. In fact, the union is always on the side of responding with more caution while the city is constantly pushing for reduced response times. The FDNY did initiate the modified response policy a few years ago. There are several non-emergency responses, but there are fewer than were outlined in the initial plan. There was some pushback form field units. Response to manhole emergencies were returned to emergency status as were water leaks. The plan is pretty nuanced and has improved to be more realistic. It has certainly reduced minor accidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thinking is this about responding, just because you are r/l/s doesn't mean you have to drive any faster then "normal" there is a saying you don't make up time on the road you make it up in the firehouse getting ready. Traffic being what it is you will never get where you are supposed to if you don't make noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't have any accidents, kill any innocent motorists, or maim any children in min-vans because you're on the way to someone else's firehouse to drink their coffee.

calhobs, TimesUp and FirNaTine like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. Not even talking about volunteers- could you imagine if New Rochelle asked for a cover ambulance each time every NR ambulance was busy on a call? Or Mt Vernon? But if the last fire truck in those cities was then sent on a call, it would be Holy Hell- there are no fire engines in NR!!! We need to alert DES, the State, the next 3 agencies need to shift resources in there RIGHT NOW! With lights and sirens apparently.

This is just untrue. It is very common that we have every rig assigned to a call and we do not call for "coverage". The only time we do is if we have a "Working Structure Fire" At a 2nd alarm or higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't have any accidents, kill any innocent motorists, or maim any children in min-vans because you're on the way to someone else's firehouse to drink their coffee.

From my take on all of this banter about how to respond, are your drivers that bad? So out of control that you don't trust them to get from one location to another?

If it is the driver that is reckless, and the officer doesn't have the balls to control him, that is the real problem. If it is the officer that is out of control, and the driver lets him get away with it, that is another problem.

IT IS ONLY ANOTHER CALL WE ARE ASKED TO RESPOND TO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry: I assume and you can correct me, that this is because many fire alarm calls are of short duration. If 3 and 2 are on a nursing home automatic alarm and 2 and 1 are on another alarm, the feeling is that one company will be able to free up very soon. ( I assume you still use 5/3 in the Queen city). Good, idea as one of your companies would likely be free before mutual aid would even leave their own city.

I think ambulance calls take much longer- esp if they have to transport to a burn/OB/Trauma center. Could you find out from DES how often all NR EMS units are tied up and for the total amount of time they are tied up (# of hrs per month?) and how often anyone orders coverage. I go mutual aid into NR from my other job pretty often and it is always to the scene, never to cover, and several have been life and death.

PS: I am so sorry I kinda hijacked the thread

Mr M'av: I apologize for getting these older details wrong. I thought I had heard that the Union was opposed. I am not sure what you mean by "Pushback from units in the field".

Could you say what calls are low enough to be NON RLS here? Now I am curious...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NR only has Ambulances cover during major emergencies (when our units will not be available for hours)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading a lot of continuing talk about why NOT to respond "RLS", yet all the reasons I read seem to highlight the failings in the system of adequately covering an area and not questioning the method of getting there. If the system is set up to spread coverage to even out a geographical area, then a neighbor shouldn't be moved one town over.

If the fire is in Dobbs Ferry and Irvington, Tarytown and Hastings are operating, then an engine should be moved there from, say, Port Chester and a ladder from say, Peekskill. Thats just an abstract idea, but that's how you spread coverage efficiently. You move people from COMPLETELY uneffected areas to a central location to offer coverage to a group of municipalities that are committed to an emergency. Also.....those relocated units should NOT be sent to the scene, if it can be helped.

The above is why relocating in emergency mode becomes necessary. You need those units to get to the area that needs coverage quickly. When there is a fire in midtown Manhattan, the relocations come from Harlem and Queens. Who says you can't compare this to Westhchester? Forget the municipality, this is just how it should work.

Is, "the odds of there being another emergency are slim" really the argument? If that's the case, then just pack up your fire department to begin with, because there's only a slim chance of disaster......

Stop with the defining of an emergency....too many gray areas. A serious hole in emergency service coverage IS an emergency. No one says to go bombing through red lights, but stop, look and proceed.

Truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so bringing it back full circle: Using NR as an example, EMS resources are NOT moved into the city RLS or otherwise even when all city EMS is unavailable UNLESS it is predicted to be hours before a city unit will be free. This is despite a constant and predictable steady drumbeat of 911 demands for EMS calls, about 3% of which are truly life and death.

In the Greenville scenario that started the thread (remember back then?) a fire unit had to travel all of 10.2 miles (21 mins per Mr. Google) to cover two (Pelham and the Manor) agencies that COMBINED respond to 2 fire calls per day and maybe 2-3 actual fires per year. The crew used lights and sirens and become involved in a crash that caused $4000 in damage to their truck. (pure guestimate that RLS cut 25% off the response time= 5 minute 15 second time savings)

May I assume that the response was terminated by the crash? And that no alarm came was received by PFD/PMFD while ANOTHER mutual aid company was found to replace disabled the GFD rig?

And, really kidding here, did anyone respond RLS INTO Greenvile to cover until they got their rig fixed?

Tanker 10eng and INIT915 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My last 24 hour tour we did 8 runs which included 2 back to back reported structure fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why?

Because one person's opinion, standing alone by itself, with nothing to strengthen or support their argument, is obviously always correct.

Bnechis likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr M'av: I apologize for getting these older details wrong. I thought I had heard that the Union was opposed. I am not sure what you mean by "Pushback from units in the field".

Could you say what calls are low enough to be NON RLS here? Now I am curious...

No worries, just clarifying. When I say field units, I mean individual fire companies and the guys that work "in the field" as opposed to at Headquarters or at The Rock or any other off-line position.

Our non-RLS runs are things like a no contact street pull box. More often the modified response effects the 2nd and 3rd due units. What I mean is, a response to an automatic fire alarm ringing gets a 3 + 2, but only the first engine and truck respond with lights/sirens.Bottom line.... RLS was wrong for this response....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't have any accidents, kill any innocent motorists, or maim any children in min-vans because you're on the way to someone else's firehouse to drink their coffee.

Is that why you're relocating, to drink coffee in someone else's qts? Why go at all then?

Bottom line.... RLS was wrong for this response....

That's exactly the opposite of what a lot of people are saying. Are we reading the same thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any standard or law that would dictate wether or not you should use RLS on a mutual aid cover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.