Correction by the Chemnitz professional fire brigade to today's reporting of the Chemnitzer Morgenpost
The Chemnitz professional fire brigade expressly rejects today's reporting in the Chemnitzer Morgenpost, which gives the impression that the fire brigade does not prioritise reported emergency calls. This discredits the work of the fire brigade in a way that is unacceptable.
Correction by Chief Fire Officer Dirk Schneider, deputy head of the Chemnitz professional fire brigade, on the fire service operation at the weekend
In a disaster situation like the one at the weekend, the top management has absolutely nothing to do with the decision as to which operations are to be dealt with and in what order. In the technical operations control centre, which I held during the disaster, hundreds of emergency calls arrive via the rescue control centre within a very short period of time, have to be viewed, booked electronically, sorted according to urgency and sent to the appropriate emergency services. The decision as to which missions are dealt with first is based on the reporting pattern, from which we derive the urgency and prioritise accordingly.
Operations of the same priority are then dealt with in the order of the time the emergency call was received, if possible also geographically contiguous and taking into account marginal parameters. Flooded cellars have a low priority, people in dangerous emergencies have the highest priority. A pregnant woman's water breaking, a suffocating child or a house fire is much more important than a wet cellar. As a result, it can happen that units in action have to be moved immediately, even though the work site of a lower priority has not yet been dealt with. Emergency crews also have to take a break and get refreshments or fuel and therefore also "leave" lower-priority operations.
In the event of a disaster, where it is no longer possible to help every citizen immediately as usual because the number of requests for assistance is simply too great, no one can be given priority for technical, professional, organisational and tactical reasons. In addition, the decision as to which call is processed in which order is not made by a single officer or, as assumed, by the mayor, but runs through an entire reporting chain, from the emergency call control centre to the dispatcher, from there to the evaluator and from there to the centre that triggered the alarm, which again consists of two employees. Addresses and report images are recorded in this reporting chain, but no names, with the exception of rescue service call-outs.
The fact that one of the hundreds of alarm addresses is a building in which Mrs Ludwig happens to live simply goes unnoticed with such a high number of emergency reports and is also of no interest from a technical point of view. And even if it were known that a "celebrity" lives in a building, the priorities for processing the operation would not be changed. This is neither permissible nor possible.
In the case of the allegation made against Mrs Ludwig, I can also confirm that Mrs Ludwig did not make an emergency call, nor did she request emergency services or third parties to drive to Hauboldstrasse. Furthermore, I can state that Mrs Ludwig fulfilled the official duties imposed on her in the context of a disaster and therefore, like many emergency services, was not to be found at home.
And there is certainly no celebrity bonus. To claim that is false and malicious.
We had five call-outs in Hauboldstrasse on Sunday and Monday: On Sunday we were at no. 44 at 9.54 a.m., at no. 35 at 11.52 a.m. This was followed on Monday by no. 33 at 11.52 a.m., no. 42 at 1.24 p.m. and no. 8 at 9.56 p.m. For no. 33, the fire brigade was alerted by a third party, but not by Mrs Ludwig. This can be proven beyond doubt on the basis of the electronically unalterable emergency call data.