Mark Whitaker mentioned some interest in this topic/statistic.
Essentially, calls come in that are ostensibly about a fire, but turn out to not be a significant fire emergency, or a fire at all.
I don't recall the causes of these, or what exactly PF&R would use the information for, but I seem to remember a hypothetical being discussed where, say, some building had had PF&R called out repeatedly but they'd turned out to be false alarms. So, PF&R might send some people out to discuss what's going on (faulty hardware, etc.) to try and reduce the number of false calls.
Does anyone remember (or know) if this information appears in the data? I.e., do calls show the original expectation, then a 'what it really was' summary that could be compared?
How would we want to present this information, given that we aren't doing anything personally (or even building-level) identifiable? Is it useful at the fire block/FMA resolution?
Mark Whitaker mentioned some interest in this topic/statistic.
Essentially, calls come in that are ostensibly about a fire, but turn out to not be a significant fire emergency, or a fire at all.
I don't recall the causes of these, or what exactly PF&R would use the information for, but I seem to remember a hypothetical being discussed where, say, some building had had PF&R called out repeatedly but they'd turned out to be false alarms. So, PF&R might send some people out to discuss what's going on (faulty hardware, etc.) to try and reduce the number of false calls.
Does anyone remember (or know) if this information appears in the data? I.e., do calls show the original expectation, then a 'what it really was' summary that could be compared?
How would we want to present this information, given that we aren't doing anything personally (or even building-level) identifiable? Is it useful at the fire block/FMA resolution?