3/5/26 Bronx 4th Alarm Box 3607

The thought, "Above" on military "echelon" FDNY relocations makes sense. BUT Years ago, normally relocators did NOT respond to the original fire in the FDNY, unless very unusual situation existed. The reason was there were so many fires at one time in one area, that Relocators were required to be available for other fires in the same area. One incident comes to mind when I was in TL-18 on the "Then very Busy" Lower East Side of Manhattan. I was the Roofman that night in TL-18 and we were at a "Good" 2nd Alarm on Clinton Street. I looked down the block to the north and there was heavy fire in 2 other, sperate buildings a block further down Clinton Street. Yes 3 separate working Fires in 2 Blocks. If relocators had been sent into OUR 2nd Alarm who would have attacked the other 2 fires.? The answer-Units coming from a great distance would have fought the fires, that most likely would have reached multiple alarm severity. Now multiple serious fires in the same area are alot less common.
Captain Bob Rainey FDNY Engine 26 retired
 
As for relocations, I was a mutual aid dispatcher for years and here’s what I learned and assume is similar everywhere. I hope an FDNY dispatcher can share their thoughts.

1) I don’t believe all in-borough units sign on for relocations, so they don’t appear in the coverage assignments. (Bronx engine relocating in the Bronx.)
2) When the 2nd Alarm (and subsequent alarms are struck) my guess is units are dispatched and moving toward the vacated firehouses. Again, we may not hear that.
3) Travel time is often compressed. A unit from Brooklyn may be anywhere in their travel.
4) Dispatchers have a “sense” of where things are in the timeline of events. An engine in a firehouse in the Bronx may be closer than a relocating engine from Brooklyn. The dispatcher would dispatch the closest engine “in the timeline”. But if it’s 15 minutes later that whole timeline may change.
5) In general, covering units are relocated for the best coverage of a whole area. If there are 5 engines being sent to cover 8 firehouses, hopefully they will be spaced for the quickest response in the geographic area as a whole (with 197 engines, once a 4th Alarm is stuck, there is no way to cover all 197 engine houses without mutual aid or recalls, which wouldn’t make sense financially).
6) Without AVL to be 100% sure, the concept usually comes down to who is closest to the scene. Whether an out of borough engine, a relocated engine from in-borough, or a unit coming from their own firehouse, the closest units should be sent for an escalating incident. Then keep feeding in back-fills as necessary for coverage.
7) Dispatching in large scale incidents is chaotic with many, many moving parts. It really is an art that is far from perfect.
 
Extra One & One said:
As for relocations, I was a mutual aid dispatcher for years and here’s what I learned and assume is similar everywhere. I hope an FDNY dispatcher can share their thoughts.

1) I don’t believe all in-borough units sign on for relocations, so they don’t appear in the coverage assignments. (Bronx engine relocating in the Bronx.)
2) When the 2nd Alarm (and subsequent alarms are struck) my guess is units are dispatched and moving toward the vacated firehouses. Again, we may not hear that.
3) Travel time is often compressed. A unit from Brooklyn may be anywhere in their travel.
4) Dispatchers have a “sense” of where things are in the timeline of events. An engine in a firehouse in the Bronx may be closer than a relocating engine from Brooklyn. The dispatcher would dispatch the closest engine “in the timeline”. But if it’s 15 minutes later that whole timeline may change.
5) In general, covering units are relocated for the best coverage of a whole area. If there are 5 engines being sent to cover 8 firehouses, hopefully they will be spaced for the quickest response in the geographic area as a whole (with 197 engines, once a 4th Alarm is stuck, there is no way to cover all 197 engine houses without mutual aid or recalls, which wouldn’t make sense financially).
6) Without AVL to be 100% sure, the concept usually comes down to who is closest to the scene. Whether an out of borough engine, a relocated engine from in-borough, or a unit coming from their own firehouse, the closest units should be sent for an escalating incident. Then keep feeding in back-fills as necessary for coverage.
7) Dispatching in large scale incidents is chaotic with many, many moving parts. It really is an art that is far from perfect.
Click to expand...
1. Relocations show up in the incident history for the run they relocated to. They also say when they are in the response area of the company they are relocating to. Once they are in the area they'll either go 10-8 on their own or tell the dispatcher they are.
2. I think units monitor a multiple alarm relocating due to the chance of getting assigned to the job or just like to listen in.
 
3511 said:
I get this recent policy of assigning relocators into the incident since they are that much closer. Makes sense. Why just have a relocator sitting nearby? Put 'em to work where needed the most.

But might it be better to move relocating units incrementally, what we would call in the military by "echelon". In this case, have other Bronx units relocate towards the incident and then backfill them from the other boroughs. I would think it would be a tighter operation and reduce the number of long hauls on the road. Not to mention less expensive by reducing fuel consumption and wear and tear on the apparatus.

Any thoughts out there?
Click to expand...
That’s good info. I didn’t see many Bronx units relocating on the rundown, that’s why I made that assumption.
 
3511 said:
I get this recent policy of assigning relocators into the incident since they are that much closer. Makes sense. Why just have a relocator sitting nearby? Put 'em to work where needed the most.

But might it be better to move relocating units incrementally, what we would call in the military by "echelon". In this case, have other Bronx units relocate towards the incident and then backfill them from the other boroughs. I would think it would be a tighter operation and reduce the number of long hauls on the road. Not to mention less expensive by reducing fuel consumption and wear and tear on the apparatus.

Any thoughts out there?
Click to expand...

F

Post in thread '11/28/22 Queens 3rd Alarm Box 7186'

tperez102 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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...
  • Like

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.
 
Adding to the discussion above, the common practice I observe seems to be that 1-alarm first in most boros (except maybe northern SI) rely almost exclusively on relocators from within the boro. A second alarm is more of a mix of in-boro and out-of-boro relocates, while the greater alarms rely heavily on out of boro relocations. This makes sense when you consider all the dynamics involves including how many units are must-fill, do-not-relocate, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top