Was a Battalion Chiefs job more dangerous back in the day then it is today?

Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
184
Check the LODD dates, this literally has nothing to do with First and Second Due battalions. But good question. And I don't got a clue. Irvington just sends the Deputy Chief to all initial Alarms.
It most certainly does. A battalion chief or 3 is inside at every job. Its just not usually the 1st due chief. It doesnt make it any less dangerous.
 
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
314
It most certainly does. A battalion chief or 3 is inside at every job. Its just not usually the 1st due chief. It doesnt make it any less dangerous.
Thank you bxengine! I was hoping someone would speak up and back me! I finally got fed up and started acting dumb 😂. Whoever says it doesn’t matter or there’s a difference from back then to now has absolutely no idea what they are talking about!!! I try to be humble and patient, but this whole thread is pure speculation and has nothing to do with reality!!!
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2023
Messages
705
pretty sure your head was "spinning" before you asked the question
No not really, I was confused on how 2 battalions lose 2 chiefs each in less then 11 years. I don't know how this turned into what do First and Second Due Battalions do.
 
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
314
No not really, I was confused on how 2 battalions lose 2 chiefs each in less than 11 years. I don't know how this turned into what do First and Second Due Battalions do.
Read the thread. It began with you asking a question of was it more dangerous to be a battalion chief in the past. The thread started down the path that it is less dangerous today because the chiefs don’t go into the fire area.

I brought up the point that chiefs DO go into the fire area. That’s when you reassured me that they don’t, unless they care about their guys who are injured and then they do the job of the FAST truck! 🤕😮😩🤔😂
 
Top