No, all the local stations are there, each with all the equipment that they have today, prepositioned close to the fire. Only the firefighters get ferried. How many firefighters respond to a typical house fire? 20?
10,000 sq miles is a lot but no point is more than 70 miles from the center and most of the area is 40 miles. How long does it take for a helicopter to cover 40 miles?
Pilots do appear to be a lot less expensive than firefighters. Helicopter pilots, I dunno.
I don't know if this would work as well as the existing system. But the cost-benefit might work out better.
For example, the city of Los Angeles FD has 3,600 uniformed personnel, 107 fire stations, 7 helicopters (manned 24x7). The stations are manned by 1100 firefighters at all times. The average LAFD firefighter earns $117K/yr in salary plus overtime.
I can't quickly find out how many fires the LAFD actually responds to each year. The vast, overwhelming, majority of responses are medical, not fire.
So perhaps using the centralized airmobile system, you could have 1,000 uniformed personnel instead of 3,600? And still get the first engine to a fire quickly enough? Even if it is not quite as quickly as the current system?
This brings up another issue. Should the fire department be used to handle medical responses? Is that the efficient system, or is it a system that just sort of evolved because the fire department had the stations and the manpower? If you were designing a public safety system from scratch, would you do this?
Quote:
|
Quote de jyl
In some smaller cities, almost all of the municipal budget is consumed by having their own fire and police departments. When those cities go bankrupt, they contract with neighboring cities or the county for fire and police services. I haven't seen any evidence on whether that results in better or same or worse service. My suspicion is that it is at least the same.
Here's a slightly wacky idea. Suppose every fire station in a 100 mile by 100 mile area has a full set of equipment and vehicles but is otherwise unmanned, with a helipad on the roof. There is a central command location with firefighters on duty 24x7 and two helicopters on standby, with a light plane in the air. When a fire is reported, the plane (w/ thermal imaging equipment) or the local police respond and verifies that there is a fire. Meanwhile a helicopter is ferry-ing firefighters to the nearest fire station, if the fire is verified they they take the vehicles and respond. There are also volunteer firemen throughout the area. If there are many fires, or a really huge fire, the volunteers are mobilized and respond to back up the initial response. Perhaps this way you could reduce the number of full time fire fighters by 90%, offset by the cost of several pilots (aren't pilots cheap to hire nowadays?) and aircraft. Of course, weather would be a problem . . . maybe when aircraft can't fly, some of the volunteers are mobilized to man some of the local stations.
100 mile x 100 mile? 10,000 sq. miles? One set of equipment? What is the equipment? 80' ladder, 3500 gal pumper, ambulance, 4x4's and Emt's? And a Helipad? With 2 helicopters, and pilots and staff and fuel? Central location, in 10,000 sq miles? 24x7 firefighters? Light plane in the air, with a pilot and fuel? How about A&P's to keep everything in the air?
This has to be in green....
Pilot's may be plentiful today, but their not cheap or stu......
What in the world would the response time be?.......:>)
Karl
88 Targa
|