11/28/22 Queens 3rd Alarm Box 7186

rangermsg1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
678
How does it make no sense, there’s a job going on and they are trying to get the closest units there to put out the fire. Would you rather be waiting on a unit thats 8 blocks away or 80.

I think that the is main purpose that operations is trying to achieve. A lot of times you will hear dispatch ask relocators for location to determine if they are closer to the job than companies who would be normally assigned.
 

doneleven

Active member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
101
Back in the day, we had an interchange program. It's main purpose, whether it was a workload interchange at midnight or a scheduled every third night interchange, was to give the super busy companies a breather. Needless to say, neither the busy end nor the slower end of the interchange liked it, but that's a discussion for another day. But what it did do was spread the work around. Guys in companies on the slower end of the spectrum would catch work they normally would not catch. Maybe then they'd look to go to a busier place. Maybe they'd just become better firemen. Nothing wrong with that. So while I'm sure that's not the intention of the higher ups in implementing this new "send the relocator to the job", in a sense it does accomplish the same goal of spreading things around. Again, I'm sure it's an unintended consequence and as I've said in previous posts, if I'm next up for a job and have a relocator jump over me...I'm pissed. But it is what it is. Stay safe.
 

Extra One & One

Active member
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
119
This whole thing about who responds on a greater alarm stumps me. Where I come from, the 2nd Alarm companies are the cover companies. They are moved closer to the fire by relocating and are the closest by default when the next alarm is struck. Then the 3rd Alarm companies move in to the closer empty houses and are pre-positioned to respond.

Maybe I’m missing something. To me it wouldn’t make sense for Engine 10 to relocate to the closest firehouse to the fire and not send them to the fire. If instead Engine 20 comes from 5 miles further away because they are listed on the runcard and pass Engine 10, sitting on the ramp, to me that is a poorly designed runcard.

Caveat: Companies may be tied up on other calls, apparatus breaks down, cover companies may get a call in the district they are covering. So it’s very fluid no matter if it’s a department as big as FDNY or as small as Mayberry RFD.
 

dan

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2014
Messages
98
There are a few factors involved....Dispatchers determine relocations based on several factors.....It is a very dynamic process....The other major change is the new Fire CAD which is basically a super Starfire designed by the FDNY for the needs of the FDNY. The Fire CAD will recommend the next closest available units including relocators which Starfire did not. There are several reasons for this....some of which have been mentioned and some that have not. And yes many companies were straight out hairbags turning out and responding to relocations.....which agree or disagree are emergency responses. It is a new job with new ways of thinking. A lot of behind the scenes work with Operations and Communications went into these projects and it is dictated by data from 7th and 8th floors.
 

fdhistorian

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2013
Messages
773
Sig73 when will this new practice stop? Are they looking at this? Just assigning the relocator because they are in the response area? The relocator is providing coverage. The Dispatcher should wait and assign those companies normally due. Am I wrong?
Assigning companies pre-determined by distance to respond on multiple alarms and having relocators assigned separately from beyond the 5th alarm was a clever solution to a simple problem. Prior to radio communications, once a company was assigned to respond or relocate via telegraph, they could not be contacted until they arrived at their destination. If next alarm companies were being relocated, they could not be contacted and redirected to respond to the next alarm until they arrived at their destination firehouses. The problem would have been worse when multiple alarms were struck in rapid succession.

This approach was unique to FDNY primarily because it was one of the very few cities that had resources available beyond the 5th alarm. Even in New York, the concept was modified. Staten Island only had 3 alarms worth of companies so the 4th and 5th alarms were relocators.

Radio made it possible to redirect companies even if they were on the road.

In the late 1970’s, coverage was determined by Response Neighborhoods (RNs). With the heavy activity of the time and multiple simultaneous fires, dynamic (not pre-determined) relocations were made to minimize uncovered RNs. Uncovering an RN to cover a different RN was not the best solution, so distant RNs had to be considered. The computer also calculated the relative value of potential relocations as a function of time. Since relocators frequently went to work also, staging companies in strategic firehouses was another solution.

Where responses are determined dynamically from actual company locations (by radio or AVL), companies ‘on the air’ have no turnout time while companies in quarters are assessed a turnout time. A company on the street in front of the firehouse will have a shorter potential response time than a company dispatched from within that firehouse.
 
Top