When Do You Need A Chief?

[antiquefirelt 994]

With regard to the assumption of command from the originally established command, how much emphasis do you put on the radio report of this transfer of command? My FD requires that when establishing command, the IC makes it a "Named Command" typically the side #1 street name or if it's a widely known property such as Walmart or FMC then it becomes that. So, from that point on, when one radios command, they ask for Main St. Command, or Walmart Command. On the the fireground freq. the name is not required, though if multiple incidents are happening, it ensures the traffic will get to the intended receiver.

I guess my question really is, does it matter who is on the other side of the "Command" radio? How will your knowing who is now answering to the responsibility of command change what you do? I suppose when you know who it is you can modify your operations to your comfort level? I'm just not convinced the whole transfer thing needs to be the big production we tend to make it.

I know if I'm the IC and my boss shows up on scene, I remain in command until we've talked (most often face to face), but if someone called Command and he jumped in and answered, I guess I'd know it had been transferred. This hasn't happened but I can see the potential where we have a Chief who responds with our normal first alarm response, but often arrives 30 seconds to a minute behind the first arriving A/C.

[CHIEFPHIL 90]

No one who is not on scene should overrule some one who is on-scene. That person is there, knows what is going on , both good and bad. I have had my dispatcher ask me if it was ok when one of the Lt's or Capt requested additional equipment ... my response was always, so and so is on scene, I'm not. he is in charge.

The only time a chief can and should [lets make that the senior fire officer responding] make decisions en route to a scene is when they are getting information from dispatch and no FD personnel is on scene. Size up begins when the tone/bell/whistle whatever hits. You need to know your response area, think time, occupancy, water etc. Think quickly about other resources needed - if needed at all.

When I started we had a chief who micro-managed from his bed. The tone go off at 3 a.m. for a fire in his district and the first thing he would do is cancel the 3rd due engine and tower. 15 minutes later he'd be screaming for those rigs, plus more. Needless to say, he has a few parking lots named after him.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

No one who is not on scene should overrule some one who is on-scene. That person is there, knows what is going on , both good and bad. I have had my dispatcher ask me if it was ok when one of the Lt's or Capt requested additional equipment ... my response was always, so and so is on scene, I'm not. he is in charge.

The only time a chief can and should [lets make that the senior fire officer responding] make decisions en route to a scene is when they are getting information from dispatch and no FD personnel is on scene. Size up begins when the tone/bell/whistle whatever hits. You need to know your response area, think time, occupancy, water etc. Think quickly about other resources needed - if needed at all.

When I started we had a chief who micro-managed from his bed. The tone go off at 3 a.m. for a fire in his district and the first thing he would do is cancel the 3rd due engine and tower. 15 minutes later he'd be screaming for those rigs, plus more. Needless to say, he has a few parking lots named after him.

Unfortunately...I witnessed that a few times over my career as well. Once when on scene saying to myself "this is crazy..." and once I was in an apparatus where you could see a column of smoke and the chief of the other dept. in my county cancelled us (which was common then as there was a rivalry/contention between our departments) and the officer on board didn't concur that we should just continue in and stage up the street...and then someone else over rode that chief and called us back.

I often say in classes...your first 20 seconds on the fireground..dictates your next 20 minutes....and those 20 minutes will dictate your next 2 hours.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

There was one chief out of many I worked for.....wish the heck he would have just stayed HOME.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Unfortunately...I witnessed that a few times over my career as well. Once when on scene saying to myself "this is crazy..." and once I was in an apparatus where you could see a column of smoke and the chief of the other dept. in my county cancelled us (which was common then as there was a rivalry/contention between our departments) and the officer on board didn't concur that we should just continue in and stage up the street...and then someone else over rode that chief and called us back.

Ah, we've had a few 1st alarm dumpsters and car fires due to over eager officers striking alarms on the sight of smoke. Most often this is a once in a career mistake given the ball busting they get. On the other hand, thankfully we haven't had anything downgraded for lack of smoke!

I often say in classes...your first 20 seconds on the fireground..dictates your next 20 minutes....and those 20 minutes will dictate your next 2 hours.

We have lesson plans, classes and shortly a new SOP specifically addressing exactly this (well close, we say the first 10 minutes). Edited November 8, 2011 by antiquefirelt

[x635 4,066]

This is something that needs to be, in the volunteer sector before elections, and the paid sector before promotions. Assess what your command needs are.

Another aspect this is using your resources efficiently at a larger incident. First in Chief can assume Command until relieved, if needed. The Command location should be remote from the scene. The second Chief should be the Safety Officer, who asseses and continues to reasses the scene for any safety concerns and sets up or appoints another officer for accountability. Third Chief could stay available in district with mutual aid in case another incident comes in. Some incidents need this, but not the everyday ones.

Also, some departments must request that when they call for an engine, that doesn't mean a Chief or two as well.

Sorry if I repeated any comments above, I've been in class all week and am checking these before I study for tommorow.

[x129K 1,393]

This is something that needs to be, in the volunteer sector before elections.... Assess what your command needs are.

Hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

I read that and see;

In the volunteer sector, vote for your buddy, even if he isn't the best choice for the position.

[x129K 1,393]

I also disagree with the CP being "remote" from the scene...it doesn't have to be in a position where the staff is "in the way" per se, but certainly close enough to have a visual of two sides of the incident.

Frequent full 360's should be done as well to keep an acurate check on conditions.

[wraftery 1,275]

This is something that needs to be, in the volunteer sector before elections, and the paid sector before promotions. Assess what your command needs are.

Another aspect this is using your resources efficiently at a larger incident. First in Chief can assume Command until relieved, if needed. The Command location should be remote from the scene. The second Chief should be the Safety Officer, who asseses and continues to reasses the scene for any safety concerns and sets up or appoints another officer for accountability. Third Chief could stay available in district with mutual aid in case another incident comes in. Some incidents need this, but not the everyday ones.

Also, some departments must request that when they call for an engine, that doesn't mean a Chief or two as well.

Sorry if I repeated any comments above, I've been in class all week and am checking these before I study for tommorow.

Let me massage that a little bit.

Fires come in boxes and boxes have six sides. The Fireground Commander should ordinarily be in the street in front of the building, but in larger incidents, far enough back (not remote) to be able to see the box. The second Chief is normally assigned the back of the building. Third Chief gets the most threatened exposure.

Oh, by the way, that's not my idea or Ics's. I got it from Emmanuel Fried's book on tactics, 1958. Manny Fried was way before my time, but his book is well worth comparing to today's command structure. He was a FDNY BC who also taught at the Westchester Career Firemen's School in Mt.Vernon, the predecessor of college degrees in Fire Science.

[CHIEFPHIL 90]

Let me massage that a little bit.

Fires come in boxes and boxes have six sides. The Fireground Commander should ordinarily be in the street in front of the building, but in larger incidents, far enough back (not remote) to be able to see the box. The second Chief is normally assigned the back of the building. Third Chief gets the most threatened exposure.

Oh, by the way, that's not my idea or Ics's. I got it from Emmanuel Fried's book on tactics, 1958. Manny Fried was way before my time, but his book is well worth comparing to today's command structure. He was a FDNY BC who also taught at the Westchester Career Firemen's School in Mt.Vernon, the predecessor of college degrees in Fire Science.

http://firechief.com...todo_list_0908/ - read the article, then find the book

Another good read..

"Chief Lloyd Layman proposed an answer to this dilemma as early as the 1940s. Locate a copy of his Firefighting Tactics, published in 1953, and read the introduction. While it may seem that no information so dated could possibly apply to today's firefighting, consider this: Layman's concepts of firefighting tactics created much of the basic foundation on which today's "modern" theories and practices have been built." I read this book 30 years after it was first published. Many lessons I learned and used in the 12 years as a chief officer.

Edited November 9, 2011 by CHIEFPHIL

[helicopper 1,050]

Another aspect this is using your resources efficiently at a larger incident. First in Chief can assume Command until relieved, if needed. The Command location should be remote from the scene. The second Chief should be the Safety Officer, who asseses and continues to reasses the scene for any safety concerns and sets up or appoints another officer for accountability. Third Chief could stay available in district with mutual aid in case another incident comes in. Some incidents need this, but not the everyday ones.

I also disagree with the CP being "remote" from the scene...it doesn't have to be in a position where the staff is "in the way" per se, but certainly close enough to have a visual of two sides of the incident.

Frequent full 360's should be done as well to keep an acurate check on conditions.

Fires come in boxes and boxes have six sides. The Fireground Commander should ordinarily be in the street in front of the building, but in larger incidents, far enough back (not remote) to be able to see the box. The second Chief is normally assigned the back of the building. Third Chief gets the most threatened exposure.

Oh, by the way, that's not my idea or Ics's. I got it from Emmanuel Fried's book on tactics, 1958. Manny Fried was way before my time, but his book is well worth comparing to today's command structure. He was a FDNY BC who also taught at the Westchester Career Firemen's School in Mt.Vernon, the predecessor of college degrees in Fire Science.

Herein lies one of my biggest issues with the implementation of ICS. It's the fundamental misapplication of the roles and responsibilities and titles of the players. These posts highlight the issue and part of why we still don't get ICS right.

The IC should absolutely be someone on the scene. If you're being overridden by someone who isn't even there, they don't understand the process. This isn't unique, it's sadly a common occurrence.

The command post can and in most cases should be located remote from an incident scene. Consider a large wildfire, how do you put the ICP in front? Or floods, or a winter storm... You get my point. As for the chief's around the structure, aren't those division supervisors (Subordinate managers of geographically located operational elements)? Don't get me wrong, there is a definite advantage to "seeing it" but that can still be accomplished even remotely and doesn't always have to be done by the IC.

I'm going to posit that most often the "fireground commander" isn't the IC but is rather an operational supervisor (division or group supervisor, task force leader, or something similar). I say this because he is rightfully focused on the fireground and not the entire incident; or shall I say tactics while the IC should be focused on goals and objectives, perhaps strategies, and the other higher level issues.

Great post, wraftery, and I'm certain Emmanuel Fried is right on the mark if you're recommending his book. However, if tactics are his focus, isn't that operations and not command? That's where most of the misunderstandings arise. If you're focused on tactics, you're not focused on command and are probably down in the weeds instead of up at a higher altitude looking at the big picture. I think the most common direction in ICS/IMS/Command and General Staff training is to stop going tactical and step back to the higher perspective.

Very often I think new officers are given an inadequate foundation on which to base command development and attending an ICS course or two does not bridge the gap. Sadly very few officers seek out the additional training available to them because the "guidance" says all they need to is a couple of entry level classes.

[/soapbox]

[x129K 1,393]

No matter what fancy new fangled terms you use and all the classroom classes in the world doesn't change the simple fact...at your everyday fire incidents..that there should be a Chief or qualified Officer leading the operation..and well qualified Junior Officers taking his orders and letting thier firemen take the actions..

The well trained Officer in charge should be positioned in such a fashion where he can observe 2 sides of the incident..fancy SUV with multiple blinky lights optional.

[antiquefirelt 994]

The one of the most basic premises of NIMS is that it's is to be sized appropriate for the incident. A remote command post is generally unnecessary for structure fires, and therefore the IC can be located onscene and may or may not be the operations officer, depending on the need.

[helicopper 1,050]

The one of the most basic premises of NIMS is that it's is to be sized appropriate for the incident. A remote command post is generally unnecessary for structure fires, and therefore the IC can be located onscene and may or may not be the operations officer, depending on the need.

You're right, I'm thinking more of larger incidents where this becomes a bigger problem and 90% of the time (probably more) at day-to-day structure fire the span of control doesn't require an Operations Section Chief. Thanks for pointing it out.

[x129K 1,393]

You're right, I'm thinking more of larger incidents where this becomes a bigger problem and 90% of the time (probably more) at day-to-day structure fire the span of control doesn't require an Operations Section Chief. Thanks for pointing it out.

Also what I was getting at...FWIW.

[wraftery 1,275]

Herein lies one of my biggest issues with the implementation of ICS. It's the fundamental misapplication of the roles and responsibilities and titles of the players. These posts highlight the issue and part of why we still don't get ICS right.

The IC should absolutely be someone on the scene. If you're being overridden by someone who isn't even there, they don't understand the process. This isn't unique, it's sadly a common occurrence.

The command post can and in most cases should be located remote from an incident scene. Consider a large wildfire, how do you put the ICP in front? Or floods, or a winter storm... You get my point. As for the chief's around the structure, aren't those division supervisors (Subordinate managers of geographically located operational elements)? Don't get me wrong, there is a definite advantage to "seeing it" but that can still be accomplished even remotely and doesn't always have to be done by the IC.

I'm going to posit that most often the "fireground commander" isn't the IC but is rather an operational supervisor (division or group supervisor, task force leader, or something similar). I say this because he is rightfully focused on the fireground and not the entire incident; or shall I say tactics while the IC should be focused on goals and objectives, perhaps strategies, and the other higher level issues.

Great post, wraftery, and I'm certain Emmanuel Fried is right on the mark if you're recommending his book. However, if tactics are his focus, isn't that operations and not command? That's where most of the misunderstandings arise. If you're focused on tactics, you're not focused on command and are probably down in the weeds instead of up at a higher altitude looking at the big picture. I think the most common direction in ICS/IMS/Command and General Staff training is to stop going tactical and step back to the higher perspective.

Very often I think new officers are given an inadequate foundation on which to base command development and attending an ICS course or two does not bridge the gap. Sadly very few officers seek out the additional training available to them because the "guidance" says all they need to is a couple of entry level classes.

[/soapbox]

Even for big incidents, the CP shouldn't be remote but back far enough to see the whole box. Nowadays that can be done with the help of electronics. But if the incident is the Whole Mountain, the best CP might be the next mountain.

In 1958, the Fireground Commander was the white hat in the street, and yes, the other chiefs I mentioned would be divisions today under ICS.

Fried's book was Fireground Tactics, but Strategy and tactics are closely tied. Strategy being the major goals, tactics the steps to achieve those goals. If the strategy is helicopter water drops, you need pilots who can tactically fly the helo with the bucket dangling around. The FC or IC has to know tactical capabilities of his people before coming up with a strategy.

So,helicopper, I think we are saying the same thing.

Like you said, a couple of entry level ICS courses doesn't catch it. Then you have another group that take ICS courses all the way to 400 so they can say they are trained IC's, then never put what they learned to use. Their firegrounds are neither organized or commanded, but they throw out a few ICS "words" over the radio and are happy with their fiasco.

Gotta stop. I feel like I'm working up to a rant.

[x129K 1,393]

Please...Rant on.

Those of us with a little command experience truly take the words of veteran fire officers to heart, and I know I for one file them for future use.

Everyday, we can pick up on stuff not taught in today's books if we look for it

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Even for big incidents, the CP shouldn't be remote but back far enough to see the whole box. Nowadays that can be done with the help of electronics. But if the incident is the Whole Mountain, the best CP might be the next mountain.

In 1958, the Fireground Commander was the white hat in the street, and yes, the other chiefs I mentioned would be divisions today under ICS.

Fried's book was Fireground Tactics, but Strategy and tactics are closely tied. Strategy being the major goals, tactics the steps to achieve those goals. If the strategy is helicopter water drops, you need pilots who can tactically fly the helo with the bucket dangling around. The FC or IC has to know tactical capabilities of his people before coming up with a strategy.

So,helicopper, I think we are saying the same thing.

Like you said, a couple of entry level ICS courses doesn't catch it. Then you have another group that take ICS courses all the way to 400 so they can say they are trained IC's, then never put what they learned to use. Their firegrounds are neither organized or commanded, but they throw out a few ICS "words" over the radio and are happy with their fiasco.

Gotta stop. I feel like I'm working up to a rant.

Nothing many of us aren't ranting in our own agencies and other outlets we have to our disposes to get such professionalism and IMS out there the way it should be. It truly does work...makes accountability and management on scene easier. Just have to get past some of the things that hold it back.

X129...you have a point...IMS also doesn't recognize titles that don't fit within proper common terminology of incident management. The only word you used that means anything to me is QUALIFIED and APPROPRIATE. I don't care if your a firefighter, captain, chief or supreme allied commander...if you can do it you should be under the proper IMS title. Still here people calling in as car number, unit number. What are they doing? What was there assignment...using IMS type functions..this is simplified..."roof to command" "attack 1 to command" "search 1 to command" yet we have those establishing...assuming...consuming (one of my favorites) but yet nothing else falls in line.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I think one of the things IMS stresses is that the CP can be remote where it is necessary. Given a complex incident, the range of entities represented may be such that being close by is a disadvantage. If we have qualified personnel working in the operations sector, a command post can function without seeing the incident as the decisions are not being made "spur of the moment" or even on tactics, but focusing on strategic goals within a operational/planning cycle. This typically doesn't fit into incidents that won't extend past a single operation period. Most of our routine incidents, even multiple alarm fires don't last long enough to fully stand up a remote CP, planning and logistics section. We may conduct planning and logistical tasks during routine incidents, but often they don't necessitate a larger separate section.The issue is realizing when the incident could progress beyond our "routine" and beginning to lay the foundation for the larger system when it becomes necessary. If we don't see the need until too late, we'll be playing catch up. This is especially difficult for smaller agencies where we assign most of our officers to operational groups or divisions leaving few or no qualified personnel o staff the rapidly needed sections.

Good discussion, albeit a little far from the original topic. A lot of this is still fairly new too us on the east coast as compared to the folks who have been using some form of the IMS more often on much larger incidents out west. Al the classes and exercises help, but those who have operated on some of the big wildland fires tend to have a better grasp of how it all actually plays out.

[wraftery 1,275]

Please...Rant on.

Those of us with a little command experience truly take the words of veteran fire officers to heart, and I know I for one file them for future use.

Everyday, we can pick up on stuff not taught in today's books if we look for it

Thanks for the compliment but be it known that like most, and not like the Bronx guys, I only had 3-4 good fires a year. Also, I think it is by far more difficult to stay organized on the fireground if you don't get a lot of jobs. I am happy with my fireground work over my 15 years as a Deputy. No parking lots, nobody seriously injured. I felt pretty calm on the fireground. Tommy Brennan once said that a fire officer has to fill his head with "stuff" and be able to pull that stuff out again at a moments notice. I tried to learn from those who did it every day, and in my case, it was from the Bronx guys who worked the "Burn Baby Burn" days of the late 60's and early 70's. Thank them. And I thank the great firefighters that worked for me over the years.

"Good discussion, albeit a little far from the original topic. A lot of this is still fairly new too us on the east coast as compared to the folks who have been using some form of the IMS more often on much larger incidents out west. Al the classes and exercises help, but those who have operated on some of the big wildland fires tend to have a better grasp of how it all actually plays out."

Be it known to all, FDNY has gotten a bad rap and people have accused them of not having an incident command system on 9/11. They have had probably the best incident command systems in the world. When FDNY went to a paid department back in the late 1800's, their officers were products of the military during the Civil war, and brought their organizational skills with them, including how to run a battle. THEY CERTAINLY HAD AN INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM, just not THE ICS as adopted by NIMS.

Yes, the CP can be remote...back far enough to "see the box." You may never have to establish Planning, Logistics and Admin, but you should know how..."stuff in your head." We may be more likely to establish Ops, but more often than not, I see it established just because it's there, not because it's needed.

Regarding ICS, it seems to me that the fire service likes to "talk the talk" but not "walkkng the walk." WE tend to play with ICS definitions and argue semantics to the extreme, but ignore the theories of ICS that are the base for the whole system: Span of control and Unity of command.

If we operate under those two items, our success rate will go up tremendously.

[x129K 1,393]

Regarding ICS, it seems to me that the fire service likes to "talk the talk" but not "walkkng the walk." WE tend to play with ICS definitions and argue semantics to the extreme.......

A little bit of knowledge can indeed be a very dangerous thing!