4/29/22 Bronx 3rd Alarm Box 4148

Signal73

Signal73

Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
16,974
Fire Location: 3750 E Tremont Ave off Randall Ave

Box loaded up

Fire in a Commercial with extension to exposures

E-72,89,64,96
L-47,54,41(Fast)
B-20,18
R-3
Sq-61
D-7
Rac-3

2nd Alarm @19:28

2nd Alarm
E-90,97,45,66
E-324 w/ Sat. 4
L-58,61
B-3(FF)
B-26(RUL)
B-19(Safety)
RB,SB
FC
Tac-1
RM-1
CTU

3rd Alarm @19:47

3rd Alarm
E-94,295,88,82
L-50,48,144s/c,51s/c
L-45 Act. 41s/c
B-46(Staging)
B-17,27,14s/c
Rac-2
Mask
E-274 w/ 2nd Piece
Car-22E
Car-24
Car-23D
Car-4F

87FE45CB-964C-4D28-A649-DFBA833153A6.jpeg

501667CE-FF58-4B1A-94D2-A78D0395F65A.jpeg3AA5F42F-26DD-4D5C-8048-36E03CCF16D3.jpeg
 
Last edited:
M

Mike M

Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
335
Was 50 truck mechanical or something else that they didn’t get in till the 3rd?
 
S

STAjo

Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
3,838
19:47 Div.7: Transmit 3rd Alarm, 4 l/s/o - All Members being Evacuated Switching to Exterior Attack

20:30 FC Div.7 Reports 1* Searches Complete/Negative - Total 6 10-45 c. 4

s/c Haz-Tech for Lithium Battery Fire E-274 Hazmat Tech

20:58 UC
 
Last edited:
S

STAjo

Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
3,838
RubiconActual said:
Why is that? If the relocator is closest to the job when additional units are requested, doesn’t it make sense for them to be sent. Why would you assign a company that is further away?
Click to expand...
There seems to be On-going Debate that Assigning Relocators Requires New Relocators from further out.
 
8

8060rock

Joined
Feb 9, 2018
Messages
3,393
2 story, 70'x40' Class 3

E72 gave 10-75
E96 4th Engine

B20 gave 2nd alarm, fire on 2nd floor with extension to exposure 3

19:33 - B20: 3 L/S/O

19:41 - B20: 4 L/S/O

19:44 - B20: transmit 3rd alarm
19:45 - B20: as per D7, all members are being removed from b'ldg., going to exterior ops

Staging area: E. Tremont Ave. & Philip Ave.

19:57 - D7: AVFKD, hitting pockets of fire, we had heavy fire extension throughout 2nd floor, we need (2) add'l Trucks (L144/L51)

20:13 - D7: request (2) add'l Trucks (l45 act. L41/L160 act. L58)

20:55 - FC: (8) 10-45, (1) Code 3, (7) Code 4

20:57 - FC: as per Car 4F UC - duration 1 hr. 35 min.

FC: as per Car 4F, assign (1) Engine for a watch line (E68)

E75 act. E97
E79 act. E66
E320 act. E72
E53 act. E46
E262 act. E64
E307 act. E96
E325 act. E82
E258 act. E45
E71 act. E90
E60 act. E89
L117 act. L50
L160 act. L58
L44 act. L58
L45 act. L41
L22 act. L54
L29 act. L47
B16 act. B19
B10 act. B18
B53 act. B20
B46 act. B26
 
Last edited:
H

HFN01

Joined
Jan 14, 2022
Messages
187
Thought it was interesting when they called for HAZMAT for the batteries, E274 was assigned but also I believe BN14. HM1 and HMB were tied up at the marine incident in SI, and I believe I heard Bronx said something along the lines that BN14 was HAZMAT trained and coming in because HMB was unavailable. Anybody hear this? Is that the standard procedure when HM1 or HMB aren't available? Thanks.
 
S

scoobyd

Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
848
Difficult fire. 2nd floor was residential apts, only entrance was the wood stairs and deck in the rear, which had burned away. Companies had to enter the 2nd floor off portables and the aerial on the Tremont Ave side. They had to enter a tenable apartment and then breach the common wall to get a line on the fire.
Outstanding work!
 
R

RubiconActual

Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
4
Fdny000 said:
So a company that would normally be assigned as an extra E/T or 2nd alarm can do the first do companies bullshit runs at any time but when there’s a fire they can’t go

makes sense
Click to expand...
You’re saying those companies that would be the extra e/t or on the additional alarms are assigned to calls according to location proximity and availability. The normally regularly assigned companies are unavailable.

Why should the relocators not be assigned to the incident when the incident commander requests additional companies if they are the closest? The incident commander wants companies now. I don’t think they care if they are relocators.

Am I missing something?
 
F

FDNYSTATENISLAND

Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
9,379
RubiconActual said:
You’re saying those companies that would be the extra e/t or on the additional alarms are assigned to calls according to location proximity and availability. The normally regularly assigned companies are unavailable.

Why should the relocators not be assigned to the incident when the incident commander requests additional companies if they are the closest? The incident commander wants companies now. I don’t think they care if they are relocators.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Of course the IC needed a closest company is the most important thing. I think however, the other side of it is the fact that a relocator is in theory meant to provide coverage to a units area when they’re not there. If the relocator gets sent into the job too, sometimes a companies second relocator even, that area is left uncovered. Isn’t that the point in a way too? To provide coverage for an empty area of a borough or neighborhood? Just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top