01/27/10 51 W, 1 I - + 21 - 12 Hillsborough Street

From this afternoon's structure fire at 3011 Hillsborough Street with Engines 5, 8, 13, 1, Ladder 4, Rescue 3, Battalions 3, 4, Cars 10, 21, Air 1, EMS 51, 4, and District 2. Two-story, wood-frame restaurant. Former dwelling, built in 1920! Fire in upstairs bathroom fixture. Quickly extinguished. Dispatched about 5:00 p.m. Hillsborough Street closed during duration. Photos from Legeros forthcoming. Click to enlarge:

On the spot Mike – great pics (especially of the 8-Team)!! I’m partial for some reason. Look, how do you travel so fast??? ...must be a Star Trek transporter thingy or something like that, right? See ya around!
A.C. Rich - 01/27/10 - 22:52

Is Air 1 missing the RFD patch on the back or was it ever there…I can’t remember.
rookie - 01/28/10 - 09:54

Will it get counted as a working fire even if the lines never got charged?
question? - 01/28/10 - 12:53

Working fire is an arrival designation. There are three (and only three) used by RFD. Nothing showing, working fire, and major working fire. So, in that regard, the subsequent action of charging/not charging lines doesn’t change what was declared at start
LJM - 01/28/10 - 12:58

So would smoke showing in Raleigh be designated as working fire since it can’t be nothing showing?
rookie - 01/28/10 - 14:21

Rook, unfortunately “smoke showing” isn’t an arrival/size-up designation in the CAD. So, it would have to be a working fire, because something is indeed “showing”. This issue is being discussed, and possibly revamping our “size-up” options. One suggestion was made, by a Southern gentleman not a damn yankee, to set it up this way; nothing showing, working fire (used instead of the “hold up on notifications”), working fire/fill the box (giving you the safety engine, air unit, yada yada yada), working fire/ second alarm.
After going on a tour with the Engine Ops Committee to the Comm. Center, we found that it would actually even help out the communicators if we switched to something like this.
Silver - 01/28/10 - 14:32

Wait a second…so y’all committee folk are trying once again to change the size-up codes? And you, errr, y’all are wanting to switch to “working fire/fill the box” as a designation as opposed to a simple “working fire”. I find it hard to believe that a “southern gentleman” made that suggestion since the term “box alarm” is so widely used in the south.
RescueRanger - 01/28/10 - 21:09

Yes, it was a southern gentleman, and a well respected Captain at that. If you think I’m the one that’s full of “s”, I’m the one posting my name, and have no reason to lie about it. Says something about credability, doesn’t it? If you’d ever man up and show yourself, I’d be glad to call you and explain more “face to face” and talk like men, or is that too real for you? If you’d re-read my previous post again, it was ONLY DISCUSSED to add in that term, and keep the term “working fire” as an option for a size up as well.

Maybe one of my friends from the Comm. Center (Mr. R) can enlighten you as to how this would help streamline things. No, “WE” aren’t trying to change things for sake of change. It’s about enhancing the system to make it operate more efficiently. I love the type like yourself; once a system is in place there’s no reviewing it because it’s set in stone and there’s no better or more efficient way.

Nice try to call someone out with the “you” reference. To open your eyes a little, the term “box” is actually used in Charlotte and several Virginia departments, and at last check they’re in the south. You’re a coward “bro”, probably one that “hey buds” people to death to their face, then whips out the Spyderco and sticks it right in that person’s back when they walk away. Keep that “positive” attitude you have there fella’, eventually it’ll come full circle and bite you.
Silver - 01/29/10 - 01:40

By the way, we are “trying once again”? This committee never changed the size-up’s before, so I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Silver - 01/29/10 - 01:42

First of all I am not the official spokesperson for the ECC but I was asked to comment so here goes. The reason behind what the committee is looking into makes sense to me. The way it is now, we are instructed that if the size up is “smoke showing” to send out a working fire which includes AIR1, an extra engine, CAR20, and CAR10. Also, you need not forget the notifications of Progress Energy and PSNC. We also have to upgrade the EMS call and send additional units as well as putting in a call for RPD and sending them. There is a lot to do behind the scenes that you dont hear on the radio. The suggestion of using the “working fire” size up I guess could be considered an “all hands” (yankee term) which would allow RFD units to continue on 10-39 till the investigation could be done by the first due company. That way were not sending and doing all this stuff when its not needed only to cancel everything two minutes later when its a pot on the stove because it makes double the work for us. If the first due company wants it all, he can just say “working fire, transmit the box” or “major working fire” (Personally I prefer “2nd alarm”). From my perspective, it streamlines everything, makes it more simple, and I think it sounds pretty cool too! But then again, I am a Yankee and the son of a retired FDNY Captain so my bias is obvious.
"Mr. R" - 01/29/10 - 02:34

Hey, change is not bad and it actually helps us develop. That’s what it’s all about!! “Box”, “alarm”, “task force”, whatever… doesn’t matter in the grand scheme, as long as it works. I did forward a recommendation to change the RFD size-up procedure about 2 years ago (up the chain) – to add “smoke showing” to the options. No response yet. Still got it saved on file. Oh well, maybe it will come to pass… or something that is a little more reflective of what we actually do. Stay safe y’all… oops, I meant “you’s guys!”
A.C. Rich - 01/31/10 - 16:32

“The key to success is often the ability to change and adapt” author unknown
gen3fire - 02/01/10 - 14:01

Remember personal info?

/ Textile

Comment moderation is enabled on this site. This means that your comment will not be visible on this site until it has been approved by an editor.

To prevent spam we require you to answer this silly question

  (Register your username / Log in)

Hide email:

Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.