10-92 signal
- Thread starter den114
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2018
- Messages
- 3,444
Just like “send the ticket”…. “ Reset the MDT it’s there”
Last edited:
And dropping down to a 10-18. From what are they dropping down from?
Yes, automatic 10-18, unless single engine response, then automatically a 10-19.
Yes. A 10-92 is a worker for the first due engine and truck or if a single unit response then for that unit.
This misunderstanding is by well intended but unaware officers.
It started because some felt they are getting "no credit" for the work of the investigation. It was kind of brought up through the unions and dealings with the city - to show them we are doing work - not false alarms. However as stated above a 10-92 is in fact a worker for certain companies.
You may also hear "make it a 10-31 for an investigation". That is not the purpose of the 10-31 signal. The 10-92 signal is in fact "an investigation". If the call is in fact a "malicious false alarm" the box should be made a 10-92 not a 31.
One issue units have is that once the 10-92 is transmitted, units are immediately placed "in-service/available". This is an issue because there may be an EMS run, or any other run, in your response area that is "holding" and once the 92 is transmitted you are immediately placed on the assignment. You may be on the 85th floor and not yet "in service/available", but the computer immediately assigns you to the box. You will often hear a dispatcher calling a company and asking them "did you get the run?" However, the members may all be off the rig putting away equipment, etc.
There should be a better way, but right now there isn't. Sometimes dispatchers may say, we will reassign you to the box.
This misunderstanding is by well intended but unaware officers.
It started because some felt they are getting "no credit" for the work of the investigation. It was kind of brought up through the unions and dealings with the city - to show them we are doing work - not false alarms. However as stated above a 10-92 is in fact a worker for certain companies.
You may also hear "make it a 10-31 for an investigation". That is not the purpose of the 10-31 signal. The 10-92 signal is in fact "an investigation". If the call is in fact a "malicious false alarm" the box should be made a 10-92 not a 31.
One issue units have is that once the 10-92 is transmitted, units are immediately placed "in-service/available". This is an issue because there may be an EMS run, or any other run, in your response area that is "holding" and once the 92 is transmitted you are immediately placed on the assignment. You may be on the 85th floor and not yet "in service/available", but the computer immediately assigns you to the box. You will often hear a dispatcher calling a company and asking them "did you get the run?" However, the members may all be off the rig putting away equipment, etc.
There should be a better way, but right now there isn't. Sometimes dispatchers may say, we will reassign you to the box.
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Messages
- 16,314
Yes a 9-2 is a "Worker" for the !st Due E & T.....also on the subject of making a 10-31 for the investigation although well intended does take away from the focus on a chronic false alarm box at times....for instance in QNS Center Mall if a Manual Pull Station is falsely pulled but is made a defective alarm rather than a false alarm this skews a record of chronic boxes....also back in the heavy Pull Box era in South Jamaica many well intentioned Officers were making an intentional 9-2 a 10-33 again skewing the record of where the chronic Boxes were....all done for the right reason but not always resulting in a positive outcome.....JMO.
Jack, I concur but when we were covering LT’s, I was assigned to 35 Bn & while working a 9x we had a pull box in a commercial building, just inside the entrance door & ran off. I investigated & told the chauffeur to transmit a 10-92. He did, but once on the rig told me BC Larry Lee doesn’t like giving 92’s. I told the chief what happened & he let it slide.
I guess he would of given a 10-35. Great Chief but his decision.
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Messages
- 16,314
^^^^ Den I have a friend who when as a new covering LT was on a Run with the same Chief & the LT gave the 9-2 & the Chief who was behind him in the block got annoyed that he was there & the LT didn't give him the 9-2 on the HT & the Chief would have given it over the Radio....... he was a well Respected Chief just wanted certain things ( which I understand ).
All companies would automatically be 10-8 on the 92 transmission, no matter who gave it.
Relating to this 10-92 discussion, last night Tuesday, June 4th, Retired FDNY Supervising Dispatcher # 56 Gary G., gave an EXCELLENT PRESENTATION of the entire history, photos, policy, and procedures for the FDNY on the NYC Firenet ZOOM MEETING, filling in for the scheduled speaker who was NOT able to be there.
Along with Gary, there was our Administrator, "Atlas", also a Retired High Ranking Supervising Dispatcher, and a Retired Brooklyn Supervisor Dispatcher, along with I believe two other Retired FDNY Dispatchers.
By the way, regarding Brooklyn, it was brought up that just the Boro of Brooklyn Dispatchers alone, cover 3.5 Million People - the population of the entire State of Connecticut.
Then we add in the Boro's of Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island.
I sure want to THANK THEM ALL, especially Retired Dispatcher # 56, Gary G., in explaining the system and answering our many questions.
No doubt a group of highly trained dispatchers, who in my opinion, certainly earned their pay and a well deserved retirement.
Along with Gary, there was our Administrator, "Atlas", also a Retired High Ranking Supervising Dispatcher, and a Retired Brooklyn Supervisor Dispatcher, along with I believe two other Retired FDNY Dispatchers.
By the way, regarding Brooklyn, it was brought up that just the Boro of Brooklyn Dispatchers alone, cover 3.5 Million People - the population of the entire State of Connecticut.
Then we add in the Boro's of Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island.
I sure want to THANK THEM ALL, especially Retired Dispatcher # 56, Gary G., in explaining the system and answering our many questions.
No doubt a group of highly trained dispatchers, who in my opinion, certainly earned their pay and a well deserved retirement.
Last edited:
True, the most dedicated, professional, experienced FDNY Dispatcher’s taking us through the “War Years” & 9/11 with exceptional poise & knowledge of boroughs they cover & continue to do so. Thank you & Tally-Ho!
Like what we/I said above.
The 92 is a final disposition. All units have completed their investigation. There was no cause for the alarm. It was an MFA. And all units are available. The results of the investigation were that it is a 10-92
Perhaps they misspoke
This Bothers Me - Caller Reports: 'Lock Out - Food on Stove'
o/s Unit Reports: Lock Out - 'No Food on Stove, 10-31 for the Lock Out'.
If a Caller Reports 'Food on Stove', Generates 3&2 FDNY Emergency Response.
If there is No, (& Never Actually Was), 'Food on Stove', Isn't that Actually a
'Malicious False Alarm', (10-92) ?
o/s Unit Reports: Lock Out - 'No Food on Stove, 10-31 for the Lock Out'.
If a Caller Reports 'Food on Stove', Generates 3&2 FDNY Emergency Response.
If there is No, (& Never Actually Was), 'Food on Stove', Isn't that Actually a
'Malicious False Alarm', (10-92) ?
FDNY Response Videos
FDNY Response Videos
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2017
- Messages
- 1,069
One would assume a mixed bag of both honest forgetfulness & malice (or better yet, selfish impatience) when it comes to calling for a lockout w/ food on stove.This Bothers Me - Caller Reports: 'Lock Out - Food on Stove'
o/s Unit Reports: Lock Out - 'No Food on Stove, 10-31 for the Lock Out'.
If a Caller Reports 'Food on Stove', Generates 3&2 FDNY Emergency Response.
If there is No, (& Never Actually Was), 'Food on Stove', Isn't that Actually a
'Malicious False Alarm', (10-92) ?
We’ve all had those moments where we blank on something we did or did not do mere seconds or minutes prior.