Indicating A Chiefs Car

[x635 4,066]

I've noticed several chiefs cars with no car number on them, or rank.

I know we all basically know the chiefs cars in our communities, but should a Chief or IC's vehicle be required to cleary and prominetly display the rank and number of the person riding in the vehicle? Especially in departments with multiple officers cars?

And I'm curious why a department wouldn't put a number on a car? (Besides the chief changing number every couple of years...which is a lame excuse because lettering can easily be changed) License plates don't cut it either.

This applies to ACTIVE IC's cars, not staff or administrative vehicles.

Edited December 23, 2006 by x635

[x635 4,066]

I guess I'm more reffering to the number. You are right that it really doesn't matter, but I feel it is similar to marking appartus numbers....when someone arrives on scene, you know who it is, especially in departments that have multiple identical or similar chiefs cars. Maybe a non-issue for some, but just a thought. Same reason why PD's mark cars, or we mark our apparatus roofs.

And you're right about the "Required By" statement, not many FD's in this county have to answer to a standard except for their own, and there's no way to enforce or require such. So in every community, operations can be significantly different...making interoperability even harder. Especially since there's not really even a logical,organized numbering system.

Edited December 23, 2006 by x635

[TRUCK6018 50]

My opinion on the county number on the vehicle is it's an academic piece of information. If a chief pulls up to the scene one number higher than another chief doesn't make him automatically in charge. A chief isn't in charge until he (or she) assumes command and identifies himself on the fire ground as the IC.

Don't forget, properly done, the chiefs numbers do not get used on the fire ground at all. It's only used as a radio identifier when responding. Once on the scene, NIMS takes over.

[x635 4,066]

My next somewhat related question:

At a scene with multiple chiefs vehicles with open back doors, how do you indicate which vehicle is being used as the "Anyplace Street" command?

[Scottyk107 9]

I agree with x635 what if you are unfamilliar with a department and are called mutual aide I think you would want to know who to report to and who is there. A lot of departments also have macthing vehicles w/o a number you cannot tell. The recent fire in Greenville being a prefect example with multiple departments responding who do you report to at the fire scene any car looking like an IC if it was marked would make it eaiser.

Edited December 23, 2006 by Scottyk107

[DOC22 1]

I agree with x635 what if you are unfamilliar with a department and are called mutual aide I think you would want to know who to report to and who is there. A lot of departments also have macthing vehicles w/o a number you cannot tell. The recent fire in Greenville being a prefect example with multiple departments responding who do you report to at the fire scene any car looking like an IC if it was marked would make it eaiser.

←

That's why the green (or whatever color) light above the roof of the command IC's vehicle.

[ex-commish 490]

My next somewhat related question:

At a scene with multiple chiefs vehicles with open back doors, how do you indicate which vehicle is being used as the "Anyplace Street" command?

←

Look for the vehicle that has the coffee, donuts, etc....

[CPFD91206 0]

OK here's my rant

A chief isn't in charge until he (or she) assumes command and identifies himself on the fire ground as the IC.

He or She doesn't a**/U/ME command it is relinquished or transferred.

As for the multiple units operating and not knowing where the command is, thats just

asinine. You mean to tell me that if there is a M/A call NONE of the responding units will know or recognize any fellow firefighters. Where is this M/A coming from Angolia?

Since day 1 in school they taught you " If you are not sure ....ASK QUESTIONS!" So when you get to the call the first few guys you see "Hey who's running the show and where are they located?"

WOW and this is almost year 2007

[TRUCK6018 50]

OK here's my rant

A chief isn't in charge until he (or she) assumes command and identifies himself on the fire ground as the IC.

He or She doesn't a**/U/ME command it is relinquished or transferred.

←

You are correct, I was too distracted with other things when I posted that.

To define my statement better:

If a department's second assistant chief is the IC of an incident and the chief arrives, he is not automatically in charge. The chief should not take command until he goes up to the command post and is briefed on the operations of the incident.

There was times that if I arrived on the scene of a job, I didn't take/request/assume/transfer command at all! If the person in charge is doing a good job, and there is no strain on manpower I may have stood back and assist. This (in my opinion) is a good learning experience for those coming up through the ranks. In going back to the chief's number, this confused dispatchers also. If I radioed out, dispatch automatically started calling me. I told them they need to go through command!

If an individual is looking for the command post and sees the vehicles of 2**1 and 2**2, is 2**1 automatically in command? NO!

[antiquefirelt 994]

OK here's my rant

A chief isn't in charge until he (or she) assumes command and identifies himself on the fire ground as the IC.

He or She doesn't a**/U/ME command it is relinquished or transferred.

←

I'm not sure I'd agree with this statment. 1. It assumes a perfect world where everyone follows ICS/NIMS just as its written. 2. Even done correctly, when a chief arrives and is briefed he/she can and often will assume command. They do not wait for it to be relinquished or transferred. Maybe this is just a terminology conflict, but make no mistake if I'm taking command for whatever reason, I do just that. It is not a reflection of how the current IC is doing yet part of the formal transfer process that takes place. Relinquishing command has sort of a negative connotation and transferring command is generally to an equal or lower ranking officer. But, if for whatever reason it may be, if I or the Chief assumes command on the air, consider the transfer of authority and respnsibility complete regardless of the wording.

[antiquefirelt 994]

double post sorry!

Edited December 23, 2006 by antiquefirelt

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Makes no difference to me either, whether a number is on a car. Means squat.

1. You would know who to report to if we got everyone to actually utilize it properly along the NIMS model. The IC should be at a fixed location on a mobile radio when talking to their dispatch, it should be clearly stated what the command post is and where. For some of your comments you act like it would be difficult to find a command post if there are no car numbers. Unless the IC is like where's f***!ng Waldo....a CP isn't that hard to find, especially when you ask "hey who's in command and where is he/she?"

2. Command is announced that it is assumed...once it is passed from the person WHO ESTABLISHED THE COMMAND. Those of you who are arriving first and "assuming" command....how can you take, assume or whatever if it hasn't been established yet. I have one person I know of, arrives and "assumes" command, even though its been established and never does a face to face and tells dispatch that he is not the commander. Under solid ICS the dispatch wouldn't accept him as IC until the original IC states he is passing command.

3. Funny enough that we're having a conversation about car numbers, when I've heard some joking about some people using their title/name when establishing command. This isn't incorrect if that is how your department wants to do it. Not everyone has a ridiculous unit number supposedly assigned to their name. Anyone can call in as a chief number, doesn't mean its the "chief." Or if you utilize car numbers for career officers, that changes ever shift. The ICS system I can from, you used your title "firefighter" name "smith, establishing Route 3 command" No question who was in charge of the incident. "Firefighter Smith passing command to car 1" "Car 1 to dispatch, Chief Jones assuming Route 3 command." Sound a bit ridiculous to some of you? Of course this is NY and we do things our way, we've been doing it for years....and of course that is why we often lead the country in firefighter deaths every year. Why do we do it? ACCOUNTABILITY AND UNITY OF COMMAND. The system works if you work it...numbers or no numbers on cars.

[helicopper 1,050]

I'm not sure I'd agree with this statment. 1. It assumes a perfect world where everyone follows ICS/NIMS just as its written. 2. Even done correctly, when a chief arrives and is briefed he/she can and often will assume command. They do not wait for it to be relinquished or transferred. Maybe this is just a terminology conflict, but make no mistake if I'm taking command for whatever reason, I do just that. It is not a reflection of how the current IC is doing yet part of the formal transfer process that takes place. Relinquishing command has sort of a negative connotation and transferring command is generally to an equal or lower ranking officer. But, if for whatever reason it may be, if I or the Chief assumes command on the air, consider the transfer of authority and respnsibility complete regardless of the wording.

←

When the chief "assumes" or otherwise acquires command from a subordinate on the scene it is a transfer of command. Perhaps its just terminology or semantics but the reality is one officer is transfering command to the chief.

Not a big deal, really - but since we're discussing it...