1. #1
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Unhappy Think about this the next time "It's just a fire alarm"

    This was a brand new structure that cost the state over $1,000,000 to build. These homes are all equipped with fire alarm systems. We routinely are called out for these alarms. This was in an adjacent county.

    Four dead in Hamilton County group home fire

    Staff reports
    Last updated: 6:32 p.m., Saturday, March 21, 2009

    WELLS -- Four residents of a group home died in a fire in Hamilton County this morning, Gov. David Paterson said.


    The fire started around 5:30 a.m. at the Riverview Individualized Residential Alternative group home, which is operated by the state Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. There were 11 residents and supervisors in the home at the time of the fire. The residents are mentally or developmentally disabled.

    The cause of the fire is not yet known, state and fire officials said. However, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union, "the blaze appears to have been an electrical fire and the sprinkler system was knocked out immediately."

    Two survivors are in hospitals and three have been moved to a nearby group home, state officials said. Both staff members are being treated at a local hospital, he said.

    One of the staff members was in the kitchen and started evacuating residents when a smoke detector went off, according to Paterson spokeswoman Marissa Shorenstein.

    "On behalf of all New Yorkers, I wish to extend my heartfelt condolences to the families, loved ones and friends of the four victims and to continue to pray for the full recovery of those five people and two staff members who survived this incident," Paterson said. "I also want to express my thanks and appreciation for the first responders and volunteers who worked swiftly and diligently to respond to this tragedy."

    Five of the residents of the home were members of the Willowbrook Class, the plaintiffs in 1972 class-action case that asserted constitutional rights for people with developmental disabilities who had lived at the Willowbrook State School on Staten Island, according to the NYCLU. Two of those residents died, according to the NYCLU.

    The NYCLU called for "an immediate investigation into the causes of and contributing factors of the fire."

    The large, one-level home is located on Route 30, about a mile south of Route 8 in Wells, which is about 65 miles from Albany. The facility opened in June 2008.
    Last edited by ScareCrow57; 03-21-2009 at 10:18 PM.

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    An "electrical fire knocked out the sprinkler system almost immediately?" This must not have been a fully NFPA 13 system? Was this a tank fed 13R with no back-up generator?

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    bharer75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    West Coast Pride!
    Posts
    352

    Default

    this is another reason why you respond full PPE and your fire ready.. even for a routine fire alarm that always goes off.

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    thats odd an electrical fire would knock out the sprinkler system, maybe just someone who doesn't know what they are talking about mouthing off.


    Excellent example of why ideas to not respond to AFA's until we get a back up call, or to send someone in a passenger car to investigate, or other bogus cost cutting measures are bogus.


    I know this particular department doesn't subscribe to this, but lets transplant this to what was it? Henderson County, NV? Have the Fire Chief explain how the cost savings were worth your family member's life.

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Dickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,112

    Default

    We are not getting the full story....

    there is nothing electrical that would affect the operation of the sprinkler system. Someone is misunderstanding something.
    Jason Knecht
    Assistant Chief
    Altoona Fire Dept.
    Altoona, WI

    IACOJ - Director of Cheese and Whine
    http://www.cheddarvision.tv/
    EAT CHEESE OR DIE!!

  6. #6
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Interesting how this things get twisted

    The cause of the fire is not yet known, state and fire officials said. However, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union, "the blaze appears to have been an electrical fire and the sprinkler system was knocked out immediately."
    We have the New York Civil Liberties Union (sounds like a good source ) saying that there was an electrical fire AND the sprinkler system was knocked out immediately. Key here is that they are not saying the electrical knocked out the sprinkler.

    However, this is a very remote area. There isnít even any cell service there, at least last summer there was none. The town of wells has 800 residents; next closest towns are 16 and 18 miles away. Iím sure there are back up generators. But if the electrical to the pump was gone then there is no water flowing. Rest assured, this house is on its own well, so if the power goes out they get no sprinkler system. One really has to question the wisdom of building these million dollar facilities out in the middle of no where.

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    I think this is a poor example to make your point with. There's alot of unknowns regarding what actually took place other than a tragic loss of life.

    The article doesn't indicate anything regarding how notification of the incident took place. Was it dispatched as an AFA or did someone call it in as a fire? If the "electrical problem" took out the sprinklers "immediately", could it also be possible that the alarm system was disabled and unable transmit the alarm?

    Could the fact that this facility was located in what appears to be a rather remote area and thus possibly had somewhat limited fire resources immediately available have been a much bigger factor? Would the outcome have been the same if this facility had been located within a city, even if the initial dispatch was a general AFA and units had responded non-emergency initially?

  8. #8
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I think this is a poor example to make your point with. There's alot of unknowns regarding what actually took place other than a tragic loss of life.

    The article doesn't indicate anything regarding how notification of the incident took place. Was it dispatched as an AFA or did someone call it in as a fire? If the "electrical problem" took out the sprinklers "immediately", could it also be possible that the alarm system was disabled and unable transmit the alarm?

    Could the fact that this facility was located in what appears to be a rather remote area and thus possibly had somewhat limited fire resources immediately available have been a much bigger factor? Would the outcome have been the same if this facility had been located within a city, even if the initial dispatch was a general AFA and units had responded non-emergency initially?
    These always come in as a fire alarm activation. There is usually a follow up with the staff calling additional information to the dispatch center. Since the smoke detector was going off the alarm was called in.

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    bum291's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    POHA, Finland
    Posts
    159

    Default

    A few weeks ago the full timers in our city crashed their engine while going to an automatic alarm, it was just an alarm, no fire. The firefighters were all right but 4 people got injured in the car that crashed with the engine.

    http://www.vasabladet.fi/story.aspx?storyID=36905

    But the engine was out of use for a week, among other things the transmission had to be changed. During this time, they borrowed our engine and we took their hoselayer in it's place. No need to make a scene before getting to the scene. But we ALWAYS respond in full PPE, it's our policy.

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    These always come in as a fire alarm activation. There is usually a follow up with the staff calling additional information to the dispatch center. Since the smoke detector was going off the alarm was called in.
    So what. You didn't actually answer any of the questions I asked or provide any additional information to substantiate your initial post.

    What happened this time? If the initial dispatch was for something other than an automatic fire alarm, then it's kind of hard to use the incident to substantiate an argument against alternative response policies for AFAs.

    So far there's been no evidence of what the initial dispatch was nor that an alternative response policy had any bearing on the handling of the incident.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Not responding to calls, or reducing a response to certain types of calls in the name of avoiding accidents is totally backwards. If we are such horrible drivers that we are a hazard on the road, perhaps we should revist driver training. Reducing responses so we are just as dangerous, just less often, is not fixing anything.

    You could get in an accident going to get lunch. The risk thereof should not be any more or less when responding to an alarm.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nmfire View Post
    Not responding to calls, or reducing a response to certain types of calls in the name of avoiding accidents is totally backwards. If we are such horrible drivers that we are a hazard on the road, perhaps we should revist driver training. Reducing responses so we are just as dangerous, just less often, is not fixing anything.

    You could get in an accident going to get lunch. The risk thereof should not be any more or less when responding to an alarm.
    This isn't just about OUR driving skills, but also about those of the general public. A lot of accidents involving fire apparatus are not specifically the result of poor driving on the part of the apparatus driver, but the result of poor driving by civilians. Sometimes we can have an impact on the safety of others without actually being involved in a collision.

    I've witnessed accidents that fire apparatus "have caused" despite driving properly and not actually being involved in the collision. In one case, we stopped for a red light, one vehicle on the cross street stopped for us, but the vehicle behind them didn't!

    Every call doesn't need the same response, whether talking about the rate of response, the number of apparatus or both. If you send less apparatus or reduce the rate of response to specific types of incidents (in which doing so would be reasonable), then the exposure of risk should be reduced.

    Now what those types of calls that should/could receive a reduced response will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

    Additionally, considering the number and types of apparatus accidents that we are still seeing all too frequently, additional focus on driver training/re-training may be in order.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Sometimes we can have an impact on the safety of others without actually being involved in a collision.

    I've witnessed accidents that fire apparatus "have caused" despite driving properly and not actually being involved in the collision. In one case, we stopped for a red light, one vehicle on the cross street stopped for us, but the vehicle behind them didn't!
    The apparatus in an incident like that had NOTHING to do with the accident. The one and only cause of the accident was a driver following too closely or not paying attantion. The fire truck had nothing to do with either and it would have happened whether the car stopped for a fire truck or a school bus or a stop sign.

    This again furthers my point. We should be driving safe enough that we don't cause accidents. And we shouldn't be modifying our responses to prevent accidents that have nothing to do with us. We should be sending the apparatus that are necessary in a mode that is necessary, and there should be no other deciding factors. If there are, then someone is doing something wrong.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nmfire View Post
    The apparatus in an incident like that had NOTHING to do with the accident. The one and only cause of the accident was a driver following too closely or not paying attantion. The fire truck had nothing to do with either and it would have happened whether the car stopped for a fire truck or a school bus or a stop sign.
    Sorry, but you're wrong. Yes, somebody wasn't paying enough attention and that is why the stopped vehicle was hit, however the FIRE TRUCK is why that vehicle stopped at a green light.

    Since you appear to have missed my point...........if we weren't responding to that call, then that accident would not have taken place at that time. Sure, maybe the accident could've taken place down the road somewhere because the driver wasn't paying attention, but it wouldn't have involved a vehicle stopping unexpectedly to yield the right of way for a fire truck.

    This again furthers my point. We should be driving safe enough that we don't cause accidents. And we shouldn't be modifying our responses to prevent accidents that have nothing to do with us.
    You're right that we should be driving safe enough that we don't cause accidents. In the example I cited, our driver was driving safely. He came to a complete stop at the red light and was waiting for the intersection to be clear before proceeding. Can't drive much safer than that, yet an accident still occurred and our presence WAS a contributing factor.

    We should be sending the apparatus that are necessary in a mode that is necessary, and there should be no other deciding factors. If there are, then someone is doing something wrong.
    You're right that we should be sending the necessary apparatus in the proper response mode. That's the heart of my point. If we're sending 4 apparatus to every call simply because "that's what we do", then on calls in which only 2 apparatus would be sufficient, we have twice as much "exposure to risk" than necessary.

    So, tying this into my example, if were in fact an "unnecessary" unit for the call, then we created an unnecessary risk to ourselves and the public by responding to the call.

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    735

    Default

    This is just another prime example as to why we should always keep air in our tires.
    Just another one of the 99%ers looking up.

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    You're right that we should be sending the necessary apparatus in the proper response mode. That's the heart of my point. If we're sending 4 apparatus to every call simply because "that's what we do", then on calls in which only 2 apparatus would be sufficient, we have twice as much "exposure to risk" than necessary.

    So, tying this into my example, if were in fact an "unnecessary" unit for the call, then we created an unnecessary risk to ourselves and the public by responding to the call.

    Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight....what exactly constitutes an "unnecessary" response?

    It isn't "unnecessary" until after you have responded and investigated and determined that no action was required. If it had been a fire, those units WOULD have been necessary.

    Making the determination about what is and what isn't "sufficient" prior to responding will only come back to bite you in the end.

    But no matter how many times that is proven to be true, there are still those talk out of both sides of their mouth in regards to safety.

    The same people that suggest a reduced response in the name of "safety" will now be trying to handle an actual emergency in the critical inital stages with significantly reduced manpower therefore INCREASING the inherent danger to themselves and REDUCING safety for the entire operation.

  17. #17
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    47

    Default More

    Desperate scramble, deadly result
    Agencies probe fire that killed 4 at group home

    By DAVID FILKINS AND SHARON HONG, Staff writers
    Click byline for more stories by writer.
    First published: Sunday, March 22, 2009

    WELLS ó The smoke alarm went off Saturday morning more than an hour before the sun would rise over the tall pines to the east.
    Two staff members were on duty. They heard the alarm, smelled smoke and ran from the kitchen to the back of the building. Flames devoured the walls and roof, turning the darkness to light.

    Nine developmentally disabled adults were inside the Riverview group home. Some were seniors; some used wheelchairs and were immobile without assistance.

    The two staff members each led a resident out the front door. Then they ran back inside and grabbed two more. On a third trip inside, they were turned back by thick smoke and flames.

    Four residents would not survive.

    ***

    The state-run Riverview group home is 56 miles northwest of Albany, on State Route 30, in a sleepy lakeside town of 730.
    It was built in June, carved into a section of pines along the bank of the Sacandaga River.

    The facility had nine beds, smoke alarms, a sprinkler system and handicapped-access ramps. It met code requirements when it opened. Two staff members were on duty at all times to watch the mentally and physically disabled adults, meeting state standards.

    Two Wells Volunteer Fire Department officials live across the street.

    A fire hydrant was built on the property.

    Just in case.

    ***

    Firefighters arrived just after 5:30 a.m. The flames reached high over the tops of the trees. The two staff members, injured during their escape, were on the lawn along with the four residents who had been evacuated.
    Two miles down the road, a woman left her home to take her dog for a walk. She could see smoke coming from the direction of Riverview.

    "The sky was red," she said.

    By then, a local fire chief said, the temperature inside the building could have exceeded 1,600 degrees , hot enough to melt aluminum nails. Smoke inhalation, which causes vomiting and confusion, singes nose hair and causes saliva to heat and burn the inside the mouth, would have been imminent.

    State troopers and firefighters rushed inside the burning building, found three residents and dragged them outside.

    Off-duty workers from Riverview and two other group homes in the area came to help.

    Two people watched the scene unfold from lawn chairs that had been placed on top of a snow bank across the road from Riverview.

    Helicopters roared over the town, where on any given day the loudest noise is a fisherman yelling as he hooks a largemouth bass just down the road on Lake Algonquin.

    The helicopters landed on Route 30 and the three residents removed by troopers and firefighters were loaded inside. A man, 32, and woman, 43, died on the way to Albany Medical Center Hospital. A woman, 71, was in stable condition at St. Elizabeth Hospital in Utica. The two residents who could not be reached, a man, 52, and a woman, 60, died inside the building. The injured staff members ended up in stable condition at Nathan Littauer Hospital in Gloversville.

    The four residents evacuated by the staff members, a man, 64, and three women, two ages 54 and the other 46, were moved to a nearby facility.

    The Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities initially released the names of the residents, then asked that they not be published, citing Mental Health Law. The Times Union is complying with the request.

    As the chaos unfolded, the Rev. Shane Lynch led Saturday Mass just down the road at St. Ann's Catholic Church. He and the congregation prayed for the injured and dead.

    ***

    This is not the first time some of the Riverview residents have experienced tragedy at a state-run group home.
    Five Riverview residents once were housed at the infamous Willowbrook State School on Staten Island, the New York Civil Liberties Union said.

    In 1972, an investigation by Geraldo Rivera, then working at New York City television station WABC-TV, revealed deplorable conditions at Willowbrook. The facility housed 5,000 patients, but was designed to hold just 2,000. Some had been physically and sexually abused. Bathrooms were unsanitary.

    A class-action suit was filed against the state and a settlement was reached in 1975. The violations were corrected and publicity from the case led to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980.

    The last resident left Willowbrook on Sept. 17, 1987.

    ***

    Few firefighters were still on the scene Saturday afternoon. They ate peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches and leaned on trucks parked on Route 30.
    Yellow police tape blocked the Riverview driveway. State Police fire investigators combed through the rubble, searching for a cause, which had not been released by nightfall. Agencies investigating the fire include OMRDD and the State Police.

    The helicopters were gone.

    An assistant fire chief's voice cracked as he read a prepared statement.

    An OUT OF ORDER sign hung on a fire hydrant that had been emptied during the battle.

    A man in a red shirt removed the lawn chairs from the top of the snowbank.

    A thin smoke rose over the trees.

    David Filkins can be reached at 454-5456 or by e-mail at dfilkins@timesunion.com.

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    47

    Default The latest

    State says fatal fire cause still unknown

    By LAUREN STANFORTH, Staff writer
    Click byline for more stories by writer.
    Last updated: 6:28 p.m., Sunday, March 22, 2009

    State officials said today the cause of a deadly fire at an Adirondack group home remains unknown despite an advocacy group's assertion the fire was caused by an electrical malfunction.
    The fire early Saturday killed four of nine residents who lived at the state-run facility in Wells, Hamilton County, about 15 minutes south of Speculator.

    The New York Civil Liberties Union released a statement saying the fire was electrical in nature and knocked out the sprinkler system at the ranch house-style facility, which opened just last year. The group also said a generator that was supposed to be a backup source of power may have been inadequate for operating the sprinkler system.

    Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman said today a group called the Consumer Advisory Board told the NYCLU about the fire's alleged cause. The Consumer Advisory Board is charged by court order with ensuring the welfare of members of the Willowbrook Class, the plaintiffs in a landmark 1972 class action lawsuit filed by the NYCLU on behalf of people with developmental disabilities.

    The name comes from the former Willowbrook State School for the developmentally disabled. Poor conditions at the school sparked the NYCLU lawsuit. Five Wells group home residents were former Willowbrook residents and two of them died in the fire.

    Nicole Weinstein, spokeswoman for the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, said the agency conducted a fire inspection at the home in February, that the home had an automatic sprinkler system and that there had been evacuation drills. Weinstein said today investigators had not determined the cause of the blaze.

    While the state Department of State's Office of Fire Prevention and Control and the State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation are leading the investigation, the NYCLU has called for the state attorney general's office to launch its own probe. Lieberman said the attorney general should look into if the ''residence was in compliance with the level of services that were supposed to be provided.''

    John Milgrim, a spokesman for the attorney general's office, said the union's request will be reviewed.

    Weinstein wrote in an e-mail today that her agency knows of no instance of the attorney general investigating a fire at a state-operated facility.

    At the scene this afternoon, a state trooper said fire investigators had not found a cause. Pedestrians were blocked from the site of the group home, but about two dozen state fire investigators could be seen sifting through the home's rubble.

    Two staffers at the home, called the Riverview Individual Residential Alternative, were able to save four residents after a fire alarm sounded at 5:30 a.m. Saturday. Two residents were dead at the scene, while another two died while being transported to Albany Medical Center Hospital. The fifth survivor is recovering at St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Utica.

    The Times Union is not releasing the names of the victims at the request of the state, which is citing Mental Hygiene Law for keeping the residents' identities from the public. The state will also not release where the victims are from.

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    47

    Default we all know

    We all know press reports - no matter how hard they try are not always accurate.

    It sounds like everyone did their role... and tragic outcome still happened. I will be interested in seeing what State fire comes up with. I am grateful that we do not have one of these homes in our first response area but they are certainly throughout the State... It certainly seems like a much better plan than the past but it does add more pressure to local responders.

  20. #20
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Whitehall Pa. USA
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    An "electrical fire knocked out the sprinkler system almost immediately?" This must not have been a fully NFPA 13 system? Was this a tank fed 13R with no back-up generator?

    Yeah something dosent make sense on this one.
    Totally Unacceptable !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  21. #21
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Sorry, but you're wrong. Yes, somebody wasn't paying enough attention and that is why the stopped vehicle was hit, however the FIRE TRUCK is why that vehicle stopped at a green light.

    Since you appear to have missed my point...........if we weren't responding to that call, then that accident would not have taken place at that time. Sure, maybe the accident could've taken place down the road somewhere because the driver wasn't paying attention, but it wouldn't have involved a vehicle stopping unexpectedly to yield the right of way for a fire truck.



    You're right that we should be driving safe enough that we don't cause accidents. In the example I cited, our driver was driving safely. He came to a complete stop at the red light and was waiting for the intersection to be clear before proceeding. Can't drive much safer than that, yet an accident still occurred and our presence WAS a contributing factor.



    You're right that we should be sending the necessary apparatus in the proper response mode. That's the heart of my point. If we're sending 4 apparatus to every call simply because "that's what we do", then on calls in which only 2 apparatus would be sufficient, we have twice as much "exposure to risk" than necessary.

    So, tying this into my example, if were in fact an "unnecessary" unit for the call, then we created an unnecessary risk to ourselves and the public by responding to the call.

    Well in that case. I suppose the postal service should cut delivery to maybe every other day? After all, I'm sure someone has gotten in an accident going around them. And we should eliminate school buses for sure.

    The accident had nothing to do with the fire truck no matter how hard you want to make it. If the traffic light was red, the car would have gotten hit anyway.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  22. #22
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erik3911 View Post
    Yeah something dosent make sense on this one.
    I know that due to the remote nature of the facility they were on their own water system. If the electric were to go off, then the pump would not run. Part I don't understand is just what was supplying the hydrant. I have asked a couple of people, none of whom knew the answer.

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,701

    Default

    Been there, done that. 1981.

    Prayers for all involved.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  24. #24
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    17

    Default

    The fire hydrant would have been fed off of the same private well as the house was on. We see it around here sometimes too, put a commercial building out in the middle of nowhere and they put a hydrant on the house water pump.

    lose the power, lose the well pump, lose the spriklers, lose the hydrant.

    All tied directly together and it would take a hell of a generator to run that water pump, 5-15 horsepower electric motor would be my guess for a commercial building that size. (large ranch style single floor construction.)

    Its a sad story for sure, my guess is that the only solution would be to keep the well pump running you would maybe need a separate small wellhouse with its own power supply and backup generator independant of the house?

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jakesdad View Post
    Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight....what exactly constitutes an "unnecessary" response?

    It isn't "unnecessary" until after you have responded and investigated and determined that no action was required. If it had been a fire, those units WOULD have been necessary.

    Making the determination about what is and what isn't "sufficient" prior to responding will only come back to bite you in the end.

    But no matter how many times that is proven to be true, there are still those talk out of both sides of their mouth in regards to safety.

    The same people that suggest a reduced response in the name of "safety" will now be trying to handle an actual emergency in the critical inital stages with significantly reduced manpower therefore INCREASING the inherent danger to themselves and REDUCING safety for the entire operation.
    You're reading too far into what I wrote.

    I was discussing sending an appropriate response to calls (both in terms of apparatus and rate of response). I wasn't talking about any one specific call type. There are some types of calls that do not need the full first alarm response that would be sent to a building fire. A couple that come to mind are "wires" calls, CO calls, outside odor investigations. As such, sending that "building fire" response to these types of calls would likely include "unnecessary" apparatus for the call.

    In these cases, scaling back to a more appropriate response would reduce the "risk" exposure for us and the public by having less apparatus on the street.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Game time: Are you a "fire wacker"?
    By AHAPPYMOM in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 09-25-2008, 11:10 PM
  2. Define "Attacking a fire" opposed to a "defensive"
    By WannabeFDNY in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-31-2006, 01:58 PM
  3. South Amboy NJ 3 Alarm Fire "We Finally Made FH.COM"
    By Engine58 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-17-2004, 05:31 PM
  4. "Alright, quit fooling around, its time to come back in from recess..."
    By WannabeintheFD in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-17-2003, 06:00 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-11-2003, 08:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register