Abstract
The most fundamental comparison made was between fire responses and EMS responses. We looked at Alarm handling time, a function of emergency dispatchers in the PSAP/Communication Center addressed by the NFPA 1221 standard; Turnout time, a function of fire and EMS crews within the ERF addressed by the NFPA 1710 standard; We bridged the two and looked at mobilization time overall to assess just how quickly the fire service, represented by our participant sample, actually “puts the rubber to the road” when the call for emergency aid is received.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
“…This is believed to be due to the fact that dressing in structural firefighting protective clothing prior to boarding the fire apparatus takes more time…. Because fire fighters do not need to dress in structural firefighting protective clothing for EMS responses, the extra 20 s of turnout time was not felt to be necessary for these responses” (NFPA 1710 ROC 2009, 1710-5).
- 2.
“The committee does not see the need to establish separate turnout times by time of day. Fire departments that experience significant differences depending on the time of day should evaluate what is going on during those periods and determine if there are ways to improve those response times” (NFPA 1710 ROC 2009, 1710–5).
- 3.
This criterion has been suggested informally in conversation with members of the NFPA 1710 committee.
- 4.
The “crosses sill” criterion is suggested in NFPA Structural Firefighting Strategy and Tactics: “The third segment is the turnout time. This is the time from the receipt of the alarm until the apparatus crosses the front door sill of the station” (Klaene and Sanders 2008, 125).
- 5.
With n = 38, mean “en route” times of 68 and 70 s respectively were recorded for “wheels rolling” and “crosses sill” criteria. A third criteria, “rear bumper crosses sill” (mean “en route” time of 74 s) was dropped from the standardized version of the exercise for this study to make it more portable (Upson 2009).
- 6.
With n = 8, that study cites a mean descending speed of 2.3 fps with a range of 1.5–3.6 fps and an interquartile range of 1.7–2.9 fps.
- 7.
Candidate Physical Ability Test Program (The IAFF/IAFC Wellness Fitness Task Force n.d.).
- 8.
With n = 131, mean walking speed was calculated at 5.7 fps (Upson 2009).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Fire Protection Research Foundation
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Upson, R., Notarianni, K.A. (2010). Primary Findings. In: Quantitative Evaluation of Fire and EMS Mobilization Times. SpringerBriefs in Fire. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4442-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4442-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4441-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4442-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)