Special Units Relocating

Jakethejake said:
I'm not FDNY, so anything that I say is obviously related to me second hand. However, it was related to me by someone who was in SOC at that time. It was noted that they were on the roof of a second alarm, and Manhattan Dispatch contacted the unit officer and told them that they needed to pull them off of the job, and to head towards the Hudson for reports of a plane in the water. I'm assuming both R1 and SQ18 were operating. I'm not sure why the times are off, and really the whole point of me relating the story as told to me, was to discuss whether FDNY Dispatchers would pull SOC units from a fire to put them on a special job. I would surmise that an experienced truck company could replace a SOC unit at a fire so the special units could operate at a specialized rescue incident such as the Hudson crash.
Click to expand...
You make some good points, however, I think (not know) that dispatch would go through the IC and not the company officer. After all, it would/should be the IC that releases any piece. Getting away from that particular day, I would like to think that the fire service in general espouses situational awareness and common sense. Any dispatch should be able to query an IC and ask them if any units can break away because “the mother of all incidents” is occurring. If the IC says “no” then that’s that. Many IC’s would look at what is in front of them and ask, “Can I do without the (fill in the blank).” When you think about it, FDNY does this on a daily basis. You may hear on the radio, “Bronx to Battalion 19, can you make 3rd due E48 available, I have a structural response coming in?.” The battalion may come back and say, “I only need 1 & 1, you can have the rest” OR “Not at this time.”
 
I agree that there are two aspects of the story that give me a bit of pause. First, is the times not lining up. Second, is the fact that as stated above, Manhattan would never go around command to pull a unit off of a job. So, I'll leave it that the member was mistaken, or having a bit of sport with me. I have been on fires where my own unit was pulled off of one fire and sent to another by dispatch. But this was done on the operations channel with command being fully informed of what was taking place. Again, I'm not FDNY, so I'll defer to the members here who say that the story did not occur as related to me.
 
Not a firefighter but I fully agree, unless Dispatch went through the IC, no one should be getting pulled off of a job, though if there not 10-84 I think thats a different story.
 
Years back FDNY Dispatchers had the authority to re-direct fire companies to a second job before they arrived at the scene of an incident.

Example, a call in the Riverdale section of the Northwest Bronx saw normally the response of 2&2 ( Eng 52 & 81 with Lad 52 & 46). If a second incident was reported at a different location the dispatcher would take the second due Eng & Truck & send them to the second call. At that point the Batt Ch responding to the first call would be notified & the dispatcher could special call the next available Eng & Truck to replace the missing companies. (Most likely Eng 95 & Lad 36 or Eng 79 & Lad 37 depending the incident location.) This was done many times in the Bronx in the areas of the 15th, 19, & 20th Batt's where companies are spread apart & response times are greater. The policy was done boro-wide.

Once at the scene, the incident commander has to release a company.
 
I believe there was a retired staff chief on the GSE podcast who was on scene very early to the downed plane (can’t remember his rank at that time) but I seem to remember him stating he just went 10-8 from another job in Manhattan when the plane box came in. If memory serves me right his name was Daly
 
www.nycfire.net

1/15/09 Manhattan Box 868 - 10-60

Hudson River between NY and NJ, 1/15/09 Location: Hudson River @ W50 st 15:34 hours Phone Box 868 - Report of a plane in the water Engs. 54, 34, 65 TL21, L4 Battalions 9, Rescue Rescue 1 Squad 18 Tactical Support 1 Marine 1 Alpha 15:35 hours Also receiving reports of plane in the water @...
www.nycfire.net www.nycfire.net
 
lfdlt31 said:
I believe there was a retired staff chief on the GSE podcast who was on scene very early to the downed plane (can’t remember his rank at that time) but I seem to remember him stating he just went 10-8 from another job in Manhattan when the plane box came in. If memory serves me right his name was Daly
Click to expand...
Yep, Chief Daly Division 1 relayed his experience starting here at 2:04:30
 
Out of curiosity, does anybody have up to date information on current SOC relocation policies? I know this has been discussed on this site above, but I am curious about the current state of this policy as I know some changes were made, i.e. squads only relocating to squads now. Here are a few things I'd be curious to know:

- Understanding that most relocations will be squad to squad, can rescues be relocated under the current system in any circumstance? Certainly it would be rare but for example if four rescues were tied up across one or multiple incidents, would they try to ensure the last remaining rescue is centrally located, say, at R2 or R4?

- Does anybody know if there is specific criteria that causes a SOC relocation? I've noticed on calls in SI lately, sometimes SQ8 gets covered by an engine, while other times they relocate a squad into the borough.

- Is anybody aware of a case where they relocated a HMTU for the purposes of maintaining HAZMAT coverage? To give an example of what I mean, let's say SQ270 has a first due fire which becomes a HAZMAT incident - SQ288 assigned as the squad, ENG274 assigned as HMTU (HM1 and HMB also assigned). Would the depletion of three HMTUs in Queens be cause for a relocation? Or perhaps this consideration is covered by the squad-to-squad relocation policy.

I find the nuances of relocations interesting so any insight would be much appreciated.
 
HFN01 said:
Out of curiosity, does anybody have up to date information on current SOC relocation policies? I know this has been discussed on this site above, but I am curious about the current state of this policy as I know some changes were made, i.e. squads only relocating to squads now. Here are a few things I'd be curious to know:

- Understanding that most relocations will be squad to squad, can rescues be relocated under the current system in any circumstance? Certainly it would be rare but for example if four rescues were tied up across one or multiple incidents, would they try to ensure the last remaining rescue is centrally located, say, at R2 or R4?

- Does anybody know if there is specific criteria that causes a SOC relocation? I've noticed on calls in SI lately, sometimes SQ8 gets covered by an engine, while other times they relocate a squad into the borough.

- Is anybody aware of a case where they relocated a HMTU for the purposes of maintaining HAZMAT coverage? To give an example of what I mean, let's say SQ270 has a first due fire which becomes a HAZMAT incident - SQ288 assigned as the squad, ENG274 assigned as HMTU (HM1 and HMB also assigned). Would the depletion of three HMTUs in Queens be cause for a relocation? Or perhaps this consideration is covered by the squad-to-squad relocation policy.

I find the nuances of relocations interesting so any insight would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...
in terms of the rescues if 2 or more rescues are operating at a major incident,rescues would be relocated in the following order if 3 rescues are available R1 R2 R4 would be covered , if 2 R1 and R4 ,if one only R4
in terms of soc relocation the criteria is as follows if both the rescue and the squads are operating at a incident for more then 30 minutes which is basically a second alarm or a 10-60 a squad company will be relocated in to the boro so if R1 and SQ18, or if R5 and SQ8 were operating at a second alarm a squad company will be relocated in to the boro , squad 8 is unique that if a squad company isn't being relocated in to it a engine company must fill the house due to the large response area
 
airbusboeing said:
in terms of the rescues if 2 or more rescues are operating at a major incident,rescues would be relocated in the following order if 3 rescues are available R1 R2 R4 would be covered , if 2 R1 and R4 ,if one only R4
in terms of soc relocation the criteria is as follows if both the rescue and the squads are operating at a incident for more then 30 minutes which is basically a second alarm or a 10-60 a squad company will be relocated in to the boro so if R1 and SQ18, or if R5 and SQ8 were operating at a second alarm a squad company will be relocated in to the boro , squad 8 is unique that if a squad company isn't being relocated in to it a engine company must fill the house due to the large response area
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks for the info. A couple of followup questions:
1) Does anybody know the last time a rescue was relocated? What you're saying makes sense, but the last few 10-60s or similar incidents where two rescues would be assigned it doesn't seem like a rescue was relocated. Perhaps it is simply that both rescues weren't required at the 10-60.

2) Does anybody know anything more about why the change was made for squads to only relocate to squads? Does it have anything to do with the second pieces? When R1 and SQ18 become tied up, and, say SQ288 comes over to cover, R1 seems like a more central location than SQ18. Curious about the logic.
 
I believe there is A policy that no more then 3 rescues can be assigned to the same incident.
They want each borough to be as self sufficient as it can be which is why if all SOC companies are operating a Squad is relocated.
Even when Squads were relocated to and therefore acting as a Rescue, they still were not sssigned as the Rescue so I think to avoid that confusion they changed to Squads go to Squads.

All of this is what I got from this website so I could be remembering or understood wrong so tank any info with a grain of salt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top