Automatic aid agreements-Perpetuating the Bureaucracy

[Too_Old]

No, it is not redundant. Each chief knows his district. Different areas require different protection, this meas varying amounts of taxation. You are the one who needs to figure it out, figure out that you are now the laughing stock of this forum!

We often have more than one chief officer on a mutual aid call. If the call is outside of their first-due area, they just act as company officer for the piece they arrive on. If its a larger incident and the IC needs a supervisor for something, he will pull one of the chiefs and assign him to that role.

[FyredUp]

Two or more Fire Chiefs for a single fire response is redundant.

Laughing stock of this forum. Now that's funny.

Each Cief wants to keep their job is all.

This by you is proof that you were either a really **** poor firefighter or never one at all. Major incidents call for more than one Chief to serve in support roles to the IC.

Your post makes me believe you have never viewed a fire with the FDNY, Chicago, Boston, or LA. Every major incident has several chiefs there to help run the scene. Even in the area of myh rural volly FD a major incident will get multiple chiefs to help run the scene. I'm sure you will have some nonsensical response to this.

[Too_Old]

In the Tri Cities with their auto aid agreement there are 8-9 FD's involved. They have a single auto aid fire response with 8-9 Fire Chiefs, 8-9 assistant or deputy Chiefs (probably more), 8-9 training Officers, etc. and so on.

Is it your claim that every department in the mutual aid agreement sends every chief and training officer on every call ?

If they were to merge instead of use auto aid they would lose 7-8 Fire Chiefs, 7-8 Assistant or Deputy Chiefs (probably more), 7-8 training officers, etc. and so on. That's a lot of money in Fire Admin Salaries for a single fire response.

As I said further up, the number of people with the title 'chief of the department' would go down to one. There would still be a number of deputy chiefs, a deputy chief for training, several training officers across the system, a training coordinator, a chiefs aide etc. You would need leaders at the individual stations (captains) and several supervisors on the EMS side of the operation.
So maybe you could save on chief officer salaries, but maybe not.

[FyredUp]

Won't bother finding it; That's rich!!!!

ROFLMAO

But you seemed so sure.

ROFLMAO

In Wisconsin, and actually multiple states in the midwest, we have MABAS. It is the Mutual Aid Box Alarm System a multi-state mutual aid system that includes preordained box alarm assignments in your local region as well as the potential for mutual aid companies from outside your region and even from outside your state if the size of the incident calls for it. It has been in place in Illinois since the late 1960's and has spread from there. It works and works very well.

[tree68]

He's laboring under the delusion that the reason districts/departments don't merge is because the leadership is trying protect their bureaucracy, yet the article from Kitsap that he linked says that it was the leadership of the districts in question that sought the merger.

I'd put parochialism higher on the list of reasons for not merging than protecting a bureaucracy.

And Fyred's comment about incident command is why I mentioned NYC (ie, FDNY). A good worker here might justify an officer for each side, an operations officer, an accountability officer, interior attack manager(s), truck ops, and (as we're rural) a water supply officer. That's at least nine incident management positions that may need to be filled. And we still have to have troops on the ground to actually fight the fire.

What better use for all those white hats converging on the scene than filling those needs.

Some time back, there was a video on-line somewhere from a traffic incident. Many of the commenters wondered why the chief was directing traffic. He wasn't - he was managing the incident. Traffic control was needed, and a mutual aid chief was assigned.

[Bigjohn24]

He's laboring under the delusion that the reason districts/departments don't merge is because the leadership is trying protect their bureaucracy, yet the article from Kitsap that he linked says that it was the leadership of the districts in question that sought the merger.

I'd put parochialism higher on the list of reasons for not merging than protecting a bureaucracy.

And Fyred's comment about incident command is why I mentioned NYC (ie, FDNY). A good worker here might justify an officer for each side, an operations officer, an accountability officer, interior attack manager(s), truck ops, and (as we're rural) a water supply officer. That's at least nine incident management positions that may need to be filled. And we still have to have troops on the ground to actually fight the fire.

What better use for all those white hats converging on the scene than filling those needs.

Some time back, there was a video on-line somewhere from a traffic incident. Many of the commenters wondered why the chief was directing traffic. He wasn't - he was managing the incident. Traffic control was needed, and a mutual aid chief was assigned.

Perpetuating the bureaucracy is done by Chiefs protecting their jobs with auto aid that does not follow State Law merging fire agencies only fire response. Leaving redundant fire admins in place and costing the different taxpayer groups differing tax dollars for tthe same all for one fire response. Something you seem almost proud of.

The Chiefs in that article using lawful merger to combine FD''s were able to put community fire service first and their position second. And even in the one story that was aided by one Chief' approaching retirement.

So merging instead of auto aid turns your dept into FDNY huh? ROFLMAO

Somebody is delusional here and it's not me.

And I am sorry to hear you work for a failing FD having to rely on other FD's for first response. Maybe you just need more Chiefs/? ROFLMAO

Chief was directing traffic for something to do no doubt. So with autoi-aid you have plenty of Chiefs for traffic control. Quita a system you got.

And somebody was going to show me automatic aid in their state law, but they couldn't. Go Figure. Why don't you show us auto aid in your State Law for FD's. Everybody is doing it, it must be covered in State Law like the other ways FD's can lawfully and really join forces, including turning multiple Fire Admins into one fire admin.

[Bigjohn24]

This by you is proof that you were either a really **** poor firefighter or never one at all. Major incidents call for more than one Chief to serve in support roles to the IC.

Your post makes me believe you have never viewed a fire with the FDNY, Chicago, Boston, or LA. Every major incident has several chiefs there to help run the scene. Even in the area of myh rural volly FD a major incident will get multiple chiefs to help run the scene. I'm sure you will have some nonsensical response to this.

Sure it does troll.

[Bigjohn24]

We often have more than one chief officer on a mutual aid call. If the call is outside of their first-due area, they just act as company officer for the piece they arrive on. If its a larger incident and the IC needs a supervisor for something, he will pull one of the chiefs and assign him to that role.

So the Chief is paid Chief's wages working as a company level fire officer? Sweet Deal just not for the taxpayers.

[Bigjohn24]

In Wisconsin, and actually multiple states in the midwest, we have MABAS. It is the Mutual Aid Box Alarm System a multi-state mutual aid system that includes preordained box alarm assignments in your local region as well as the potential for mutual aid companies from outside your region and even from outside your state if the size of the incident calls for it. It has been in place in Illinois since the late 1960's and has spread from there. It works and works very well.

MABAS stands for MUTUAL Aid Box Alarm System, not auto aid box alarm system. Then it would be called AABAS

And even that unified mutual aid system has minimum staffing requirements that is part of the system

[tree68]

So merging instead of auto aid turns your dept into FDNY huh? ROFLMAO

You're so focused on this redundant thing that you missed the point entirely.

The references to FDNY serve to point out that your statement that no one needs more than one chief at an incident show that you are completely out of touch with the reality of firefighting.

Chief was directing traffic for something to do no doubt. So with autoi-aid you have plenty of Chiefs for traffic control. Quita a system you got.

Wasn't my call - and maybe that MA chief (coulda been an assistant) was part of one of your mega departments responding mutual aid to another of your mega departments for a major incident near their shared border. I really don't recall. At what point do the mergers end? When the whole country is one big fire department?

And somebody was going to show me automatic aid in their state law, but they couldn't. Go Figure. Why don't you show us auto aid in your State Law for FD's. Everybody is doing it, it must be covered in State Law like the other ways FD's can lawfully and really join forces, including turning multiple Fire Admins into one fire admin.

I did a little research for NY. Automatic mutual aid hasn't showed up, but mutual aid definitely does. One county's mutual aid plan includes the following:

Each participating fire department or fire company may request assistance from another fire company or fire department pursuant to the provisions of this Plan. Requests shall take the following forms: 

The request of a fire chief or officer in charge of any fire or other emergency. 

The pre-planned and/or automatic pre-planned response to any building, area, or district agreed upon by all agencies involved and filed in writing at the County?s Emergency Communications Center

Automatic mutual aid is just a subset of regular mutual aid.

Many departments in my county have extra alarms defined (it's not universal - not all departments want to do the planning necessary to set up the extra alarms, or prefer to wait and see what they've got). Should my department's second alarm be merged in as well? The third alarm?

There are departments that should merge - I can't deny that. There are departments whose raison d'etre expired long ago that should be merged in with someone.

But, as I asked earlier in this post - when does it end?

[Too_Old]

I did a little research for NY. Automatic mutual aid hasn't showed up, but mutual aid definitely does. One county's mutual aid plan includes the following:


Automatic mutual aid is just a subset of regular mutual aid.

Well, there is a difference when it comes to the ISO process. Resources in a automatic aid plan which arrive from an immediately adjacent territory can be counted towards your capabilities. E.g a tanker on an auto-aid run-card counts towards your water supply. A mutual aid company that has to be ordered does not provide the same level of credit.

[tree68]

MABAS stands for MUTUAL Aid Box Alarm System, not auto aid box alarm system. Then it would be called AABAS

In practice, it IS an automatic aid box alarm system.

It was modelled after the Chicago Fire Department (which makes it like most big city dispatch systems).

For an incident at a given location, appropriate units from departments X, Y, and Z will all be dispatched, based on preplanned "cards" on file at dispatch.

It's been running that way since the 1960's.

Dispatching in many areas follows the same format - PG County in MD being a case in point.

When it comes right down to it - the public doesn't care who shows up at their door when they dial 9-1-1. They don't care if the tax rates aren't the same, whether the chief has one secretary or three, whether the white hats are from one department or four. They just want someone to show up and fix their problem.

[tree68]

Well, there is a difference when it comes to the ISO process. Resources in a automatic aid plan which arrive from an immediately adjacent territory can be counted towards your capabilities. E.g a tanker on an auto-aid run-card counts towards your water supply. A mutual aid company that has to be ordered does not provide the same level of credit.

Very true.

[Too_Old]

When it comes right down to it - the public doesn't care who shows up at their door when they dial 9-1-1. They don't care if the tax rates aren't the same, whether the chief has one secretary or three, whether the white hats are from one department or four. They just want someone to show up and fix their problem.

And that's the bottom line.

[FIRE117]

Before saying that one jurisdiction pays more for fire protection than another, you have to look at many factors of the tax base and the level of service of neighboring fire departments/jurisdictions.

1. One jurisdiction may have a larger taxable valuation and the next may not.
2. Some jurisdictions may have special hazards or situations. A major medical care facility may be in one jurisdiction and the next adjoining jurisdiction may have a chemical facility located there. The FD protecting the major medical facility may need a truck company, while the FD with the chemical facility in its jurisdiction may need a hazmat team. One FD may offer its aerial ladder on auto aid, while the adjoining FD may offer its haz mat unit on auto aid.
3. One jurisdiction may receive funding to protect a tax exempt property (military complex, university, etc.) and the neighboring jurisdiction may not. Also, some FD's have fundraisers (donation appeal, carnival, bingo, etc.), to defray the costs of fire protection, while the neighboring one may not.
4. One FD may receive special funding (Homeland Security funding, etc.), that the adjoining may not receive.

Therefore, stating that one jurisdiction is subsidizing the next jurisdiction may not be true. You could actually be comparing apples to oranges. Each fire protection jurisdiction is unique in property values, hazards and revenue it receives.