2nd alarm, 3rd alarm, etc.
Person
mean, and how is it determined?
Rob
----------
To email me, throw in an extra "x", and spell the domain correctly.
Brian Humphrey
> I always hear about x-alarm fires, but what exactly does each alarm
> mean, and how is it determined?
Rob:
Thanks for visiting the alt.firefighters newsgroup. Your question appears
from time to time, and I'm pleased to be among the first to offer what might
be considered a generic response. Lest I be mistaken, I doubt you wanted a
vast number of individual answers as to how your question might apply
individually to the *many* Fire Departments that stretch from the Aleutian
Islands to Zanzibar.
While *some* nomenclature is standardized in *many* Fire Departments
[emphasis added], especially national systems such as those in Great
Britain, such is not always - and dare I say rarely in North America. The
quick and dirty answer?
In North America, there is no Fire Service standard for the numbering of
alarms. As in the rest of society, the Fire Service technology and policies
for dispatching, controlling and coordinating the response of Firefighters
has steadily evolved but is rarely standardized.
In brief and general terms...
In most agencies then as now, the first wave of apparatus dispatched to a
primary notification of an incident might be considered to be answering "the
first alarm". Not all agencies will officially use the term "first alarm",
but it is a phrase widely understood by Firefighters in general conversation
to specifically include those resources first dispatched to the scene.
This sadly however, is where logic or commonality departs. For to properly
answer your question, we must be agency specific from this point forward.
There is no formal standard for the numbering of alarms in North America,
and the systems in place may vary by community or region.
In fact, while still nodding to the term "First Alarm" as mentioned above,
many progressive Fire Departments stopped the numbering of alarms as a
reference and operational tool many decades ago,
Back to technology for a moment...
Before the days of radio communications and the like, when there was a quick
need for additional resources on the fireground, it was common to dispatch
fire apparatus in predetermined groups as needed. Hence the most common
reference to "2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. Alarm" - which then as now (where
applicable) is generally an agency specific request. Some agencies to this
day "strike an additional alarm" *every* time there is an additional request
for any type of resource, while in others, the clearly antiquated practice
brings a specific and pre-determined group of vehicles and/or personnel
(i.e. each additional alarm might mean three engines, an aerial ladder truck
and a Chief Officer). Again, there are no standards. What might constitute a
"Five Alarm Fire" for one agency might be an "Eighteen Alarm Fire" for
another... and a "General Alarm" or "Greater Alarm" for others.
Rob, when all is said and done, you do indeed deserve a specific answer to
your question. To make it relevant to your daily life, I would encourage you
to visit *your* Neighborhood Fire Station and ask how your local Fire
Department escalates an incident and coordinates response. I think you will
find it intriguing.
If you happen to live in Los Angeles, visiting a Fire Station is no more
difficult than clicking:
Respectfully Yours in Safety and Service,
Brian Humphrey
Firefighter/Paramedic
Public Information Officer
Los Angeles Fire Department
E-Mail: beh...@lafd.lacity.org
LAFD Website: http://www.lafd.org
Person
[detailed answer to my question]
>If you happen to live in Los Angeles, visiting a Fire Station is no more
>difficult than clicking:
>
>http://www.lafd.org/visit.htm
>
>
I live in NY, but thanks for the info.
Kurt Ullman
<beh...@lafd.lacity.org> wrote:
>In most agencies then as now, the first wave of apparatus dispatched to a
>primary notification of an incident might be considered to be answering "the
>first alarm". Not all agencies will officially use the term "first alarm",
>but it is a phrase widely understood by Firefighters in general conversation
>to specifically include those resources first dispatched to the scene.
And, lest the original poster thinks that some semblance of order can be
brought to this conversation, the first alarm apparatus changes depending on
where it is going. For obivous reasons the first alarm response for a house
fire is considerably different from that sent to a big factory or warehouse.
--
It has been my experience that many of those who most loudly proclaim
their right of free speech would be better served invoking their right
to remain silent.
fire1
"Brian Humphrey" <brian.h...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:RsUYa.41$zj2.2...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> "Person" <br...@rokketmail.com> wrote...
>
> Before the days of radio communications and the like, when there was a
quick
> need for additional resources on the fireground, it was common to dispatch
> fire apparatus in predetermined groups as needed. Hence the most common
> reference to "2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. Alarm" - which then as now (where
> applicable) is generally an agency specific request. Some agencies to this
> day "strike an additional alarm" *every* time there is an additional
request
> for any type of resource, while in others, the clearly antiquated practice
> brings a specific and pre-determined group of vehicles and/or personnel
> (i.e. each additional alarm might mean three engines, an aerial ladder
truck
> and a Chief Officer). Again, there are no standards. What might constitute
a
> "Five Alarm Fire" for one agency might be an "Eighteen Alarm Fire" for
> another... and a "General Alarm" or "Greater Alarm" for others.
>
Thanks to Brian for the usual thorough treatment of the subject -- it's
almost like being able to hear Ben Franklin speak.
However, in his historic treatise on alarms excerpted above, I hope he
didn't really mean to use the term "antiquated" --as in, obsolete, unneeded,
outdated, etc. "Ancient" would perhaps be the more proper term -- suggesting
old, but time-tested and successfully used even today -- for those
departments who do continue to successfully use it, and who have the sad
misfortune of not being Los Angeles.
Brian Humphrey
> Thanks to Brian for the usual thorough treatment of the subject -- it's
> almost like being able to hear Ben Franklin speak.
Did Ben Franklin ever grab his quill and hastily put incomplete thoughts to
paper while sipping a pint o' Black and Tan? <grin> Your kind comments are
appreciated, but certainly without my earning or being worthy of them.
> However, in his historic treatise on alarms excerpted above, I hope he
> didn't really mean to use the term "antiquated" --as in, obsolete,
unneeded,
> outdated, etc. "Ancient" would perhaps be the more proper term --
suggesting
> old, but time-tested and successfully used even today -- for those
> departments who do continue to successfully use it, and who have the sad
> misfortune of not being Los Angeles.
Right you are, and indeed my poor choice of words - and equally
inappropriate verbiage that might be inferred as my believing that that LAFD
and its practices should be benchmarked. I can assure you that in my mind,
nothing is further from the truth.
While I find the practice of numbering alarms to be "dated", it is for many
agencies *far* from "outdated". Some hang on to it for practical purposes,
while others purely for nostalgic reasons. Such is neither right or wrong -
but rather simply the way things are. In some situations it does indeed make
perfect sense, even at agencies which long ago abandoned the practice of
numbering alarms.
A perfect example of such is the "Strike Team" concept widely used in
California and other regions for master coordinaton of Mutual Aid during
wildfires and other large remote emergencies - events where the Special Call
concept would be inefficient.
Again, thanks for seeking a clarification.
Stay Safe and Be Well,
Brian