|
Post by flamethrower on Mar 4, 2006 12:54:59 GMT -5
Why do we as a county sometimes create a disaster waiting to happen with mutual aid and cover-up assignments? For example if there was a working fire in XYZ coverage area, this company may have 2 or 3 mutual aid departments on scene assisting them, but in turn each of those 2 or 3 departments have someone covering for each of them. Before long an entire geographic area is shuffled and if another alarm were to happen the area is taxed. Some departments have limited resources, like South Waverly and Ridgebury only have 1 engine. Would it make sense to skip over these agencies when asking for an engine to cover your agencies area so resources are not spread as thin?
|
|
|
Post by canton1 on Mar 4, 2006 16:03:31 GMT -5
Yes it would. That is what I try to do if I am on a scene as Fire Coordinator. It makes some mad when you do it, but makes so much more sense.
|
|
|
Post by 911wacker on Mar 4, 2006 21:41:15 GMT -5
I smell a large can of worms here!! ;D I think that it would be smart to keep resources in mind when making these types of requests. Any department that has duplicate equipment, say like 2 tankers or 2 engines would be a better chioce then somebody who has all of their eggs in one basket so to speak. But then agian the main concern on a CFO during the heat of the battle is the task at hand, many times they may just overlook the "big picture". This topic is certianly something that many have just overlooked because they never thought of it that way. When Kim and I worked the comm center the night of Wysox's station burning we skipped several departments to bring in resources that would not tax the system......all its takes is a few seconds to remember what you have left in certian parts of the county. Not every station needs coverage, you can do it by geography. Instead of XYZ department moving an engine and crew to your station, they could stand by with a crew at their own station covering both area's (if you aren't to far apart).
|
|
Fire / EMS
Full Member
These words are MY opinion only, not that of my colleagues or my "Company". God Bless America!!
Posts: 44
|
Post by Fire / EMS on Mar 5, 2006 15:21:31 GMT -5
Do you think this goes back to the "BOX ALARM" thing? If a department has the box alarms set up corectly, this whole mess can be avoided. Yes or No.
|
|
|
Post by flamethrower on Mar 5, 2006 18:27:20 GMT -5
Do you think this goes back to the "BOX ALARM" thing? If a department has the box alarms set up corectly, this whole mess can be avoided. Yes or No. I would think no and here is why: Many departments have a cover up built into their box alarm, the department is paged along with the departments requested to respond on the initial dispatch. I suspect the reason for this is, if a second alarm is struck these units are already on the way and can divert to the scene making their arrival more expeditious. These units are usually the next closest department and IMHO would only conitnue to create the same problem.
|
|
|
Post by FIREFIGHTER16 on Mar 5, 2006 20:54:38 GMT -5
there actually isnt that many departments that in the county that use a cover up assingment on the first alarm, trust me i know get bored at the comm center about 03:00. its either come or dont. some departments in the county have them set up correctly. even better not having them at all
|
|