Division Chief Reports

[efd274]

When the Brooklyn Division reports to the Brooklyn dispatcher the reporter always identifies the Chief by name and usually gives a rather lengthy report - I would say it is generally a little more formal than the boros of Manhattan and Queens. I find it informative to get the DC's name.

Does anybody know the genesis/evolution of this?

 

[catry]

It just varies from Aide to Aide, the ones at Div 15 and 8 just do that more than the others.

 

[efd274]

Thanks for the insight!

 

[811]

I thought it may have come from an older Communications Manual.  I just checked mine (c1960) and found no requirement for the Chiefs' name in the "Chief Officers Responsibilities" on radio procedures.

I also checked my Regs (revised to 1947) it gives requirements for Chiefs when issuing reports to Dispatchers [by telephone in those days], and does not require the name. 

I always thought it was required in one document or another, but can't locate it.  It was a custom that was much more common years ago, surprised that anyone on the job today even remembers, but then maybe their grandpa did it.

 

[efd274]

Thanks 811 for that background

 

[anesti]

i know one of the aids from batt 18 and the 19 do it.

 

[69 METS]

It was very common in the 60's and 70's for the aide to give the name of the B.C. or the D.C. who was in command of an incident when giving a progress report on the Department radio. 

 

[tbendick]

Just a side note.. With the computers and intranet and everthing in the firehouse.  The DC always knows who's the BC's for the tour and FDOC will also know.

So HQ can hear the 19 give an All Hands and they can look at the list and know which BC is working.  I know alot of the bosses I work with always look to see who will be the BC's in the near by Bn's and the DC.