Archives for

See all posts in the network tagged with

Rules of Engagement for Structural Firefighting

The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) is committed to reducing firefighter fatalities and injuries. As part of that effort, the IAFC Safety, Health and Survival (SHS) Section has developed DRAFT “Rules of Engagement for Structural Firefighting” to provide guidance to individual firefighters and incident commanders regarding risk and safety issues when operating on the fireground.

The intent is to provide a set of model procedures to be made available by the IAFC to fire departments as a guide for their own standard operating procedures development.

The direction provided to the project team by the Section leadership was to develop rules of engagement with the following conceptual points:

• Rules should be a short, specific set of bullets
• Rules should be easily taught and remembered
• Rules should define critical risk issues
• Rules should define “go” ‐ “no‐go situations
• A champion lesson plan should be provided

Early in development the rules of engagement, it was recognized that two separate rules were needed –one set for the firefighter, and another set for the incident commander. Thus, the two sets of rules of engagement described in this document.

Each set has several commonly stated bullets, but the explanations are described somewhat differently based on the level of responsibility (i.e., firefighter vs. incident commanders).

The draft documents are currently open for public comment until the FRI conference in Dallas (August 25‐29, 2009).

The reader may direct comments to Chief Gary Morris, the project lead, at mercurymorris@hotmail.com.

The originating IAFC Rules of Structural Engagement, HERE
IAFC Safety, Health and Survival Section Home Page, HERE

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 25, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: "Situational Awareness" assessment, building construction, Christopher Naum, command, firefighting, IAFC, operations, risk

Structural Anatomy; Operational Safety at Deconstruction & Demolition Sites

2 comments

Structural Anatomy; Operational Safety at Deconstruction & Demolition Sites

Fire operations for structures undergoing construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovations present significant risks and danger to operating personnel. This reality was clearly validated when; two FDNY firefighters died in the line-of-duty during a seven-alarm fire that tore through the abandoned Deutsche Bank skyscraper in lower Manhattan, next to ground zero in New York City on Saturday August 18, 2007.

The Deutsche Bank Building located at 130 Liberty Street adjacent to the quarters of FDNY Engine 10, Ladder 10, was once a 40-story high-rise structure that had been systematically reduced to 26-stories at the time of the fire. Significant building contamination from numerous toxic substances that included asbestos and lead resulting from the destruction of the World Trade Center during the September 11th attacks required the deliberate floor-by-floor dismantling effort as part of the deconstruction process that would ultimately remove the building from its present site.

The two FDNY firefighter fatalities were Fr. Joseph Graffagnino, an eight year veteran and Fr. Robert Beddia a twenty-three year veteran, both assigned to Engine 24 and Ladder 5 in SoHo. The seven alarm fire was being worked with a contingent of over 275 firefighters when the pair became trapped on the 14th floor of the building after being overcome by blinding concentrations of dense smoke after their air supply was depleted during the course of combat fire suppression operations.

Post incident investigations, providing insights into fire department operations, physical building conditions, risk profiles, hazards and deficiencies. The fact that the Deutsche Bank building was being dismantled floor by floor- that it was undergoing “Deconstruction” meant that the building was a primary target hazard containing significant operational vulnerabilities, hazards and dangers posing life threatening risk to unsuspecting firefighting personnel. The fact that this building was undergoing asbestos abatement further compounds the degree of risk present.

Following preliminary investigations, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg stated that “The failures have many owners, and they are both in the private sector and in the public sector.”

Mayor Bloomberg further stated failures of oversight, responsibility and judgment may have contributed to the deaths of the two firefighters at the former Deutsche Bank AG building at Ground Zero.

Preliminary investigations, interviews and reviewed transcripts of radio transmissions made by the hundreds of firefighters who responded to the multiple alarm incident, identified faulted lapses in pre-incident planning and preparedness, mandated periodic inspections by the fire department and documented building hazards and operational recommendations, identified by a fire commander that may have been neglected to be acted upon by upper command. In the wake of the tragic events, three New York Fire Department officers were relieved of their commands, pending further investigation two weeks after the incident. Three particular failings were cited, which New York City officials stated were “simply not excusable”:

First, FDNY Engine Company 10 had responsibility for inspecting the Deutsche Bank building but stopped inspecting it in the year 2006. The reasons for the lack of periodic inspections are pending further investigation.
Second, city regulatory requirements mandated the Fire Department conduct inspections of the building standpipe every fifteen days when a building is being demolished. This had not been performed at all since demolition began in March 2007.
Third, and finally, despite the hazards concerning the Deutsche Bank building, which were well publicized and documented following the events of September 11th, senior FDNY fire officers did not act upon creating a unique pre-fire plan for the building. Published documents that were released to the media apparently identified that a Battalion Chief had recommended doing so on three separate occasions to a Division Commander.

New York Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta stated careless smoking was attributed as the caused the fire. Smoking was prohibited in the building during the asbestos abatement and deconstruction efforts. However it was discovered that smoking was allowed to take place unabated on the 17th floor of the building. Additional published reports by City officials stated that the incident commanders acted appropriately, considering what they knew at the time. But it’s what they didn’t know that contributed to the enormous difficulties they encountered: specifically, a broken standpipe, a non-functioning sprinkler system and building deconstruction and decontamination operations that exacerbated the fire and caused unacceptably hazardous conditions.

Its these types of unique and dangerous elements confronting incident commanders, company officers and operating forces that demands a clear understanding that fire suppression operations in buildings during construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovations present significant risks and consequences that require a methodical and conservative approach towards incident stabilization and mitigation.
You cannot implement conventional tactical operations in these structures. Doing so jeopardizes all operating personnel and creates unbalanced risk management profiles that are typically not favorable to the safety and wellbeing of firefighters.

Operational factors present at the Deutsche Bank building fire;
(Please note; any of these factors may be present in any building or occupancy undergoing deconstruction and demolition.)

Deconstruction; the high-rise steel frame structure was being systematically dismantled from the top down.
Structural assemblies, systems and components were being removed as part of the asbestos abatement and decontamination efforts, creating varying levels of system integrity, exposures and vulnerabilities.
Various deconstruction stages throughout the building created exposed structural systems, incomplete or compromised structural & building components/ features that posed significant safety risk to personnel.
The building’s exterior was shrouded in a scaffolding system, with limited accessibility and worker travel volume and unprotected external scaffold support systems that were present.
Asbestos Abatement Plans created; Abatement Zones, Buffer Zones and Deconstruction Zones- Each Asbestos Zone with significant operations risks and hazards.
Interior abatement zones were constructed that created undefined and maze-like conditions.
Due to the Asbestos Abatement work, internal HVAC/ ventilation system operations may have been modified in such a manner to contribute to the migration and distribution of smoke and products of combustion to impact fire operations.
Officials said that in addition to the nonfunctioning stand pipe, fighting the fire was made difficult by the asbestos abatement, which created “maze-like conditions.”
Many areas were partitioned off with plastic, and hallways and walls one would find in other buildings had been torn out.
Enclosed exterior window walls that were replaced with plywood sheathing creating impenetrable enclosures, limiting egress paths, ventilation paths and providing susceptible fire loading and flame sp
read potential.
Introduction of significant transient combustible loading, i.e., plywood sheathing and panels, poly sheeting and plastics and the introduction of other Class A materials.
Access and egress systems were changed or removed, creating no level of certainty in movement and travel paths, access and exiting routes and ability to “read” area profiles and configurations during limited visibility operating conditions
Stairwells were eliminated, boarded-up or enclosed. Deconstruction and Asbestos abatement zones and buffers created sealed areas that could not be readily accesses without labor extensive forcible entry and extrication.
Compartmentation, enclosures, fire separations and fire barriers were compromised, dismantled or removed, creating undefined open areas, extensive horizontal and vertical voids, plume ways and travel paths.
Workers stated they had been stripping asbestos from beams that created gaps and voids in the structural assemblies and systems that fire officials stated may have contributed to the rapid fire spread through these unprotected gaps and holes in the structure.
Designed active and passive fire protection and suppression systems, coatings, enclosures and features were in varying stages of removal, dismantling or non-functional.
The fire standpipe system was non-operational, compromised and disconnected. An entire of piping was found missing
The fire sprinkler system was non-operational
There were no apparent controls of potential ignition sources as mandated by regulatory codes and standards: i.e., evidence of discarded cigarette butts in non-smoking areas.
The cause of the fire was determined to be careless smoking based upon published reports.
This was a known problem based upon worker practices and lack of compliance controls.
Staging of compressed gas cylinders, flammable and combustible liquids; i.e. Acetylene, oxygen, oils, diesel and gasoline fuels etc.
Temporary power distribution and lighting systems, devices and equipment
Construction machinery, equipment, motorized apparatus, tools and devices.
The state of the building, the asbestos abatement hazard and heavy smoke made conditions especially difficult for firefighters
Firefighters had to resort to using ropes to haul hoses up from the street to support the fire attack. The lack of an operational sprinkler or standpipe system contributed toward deployment of extensive manpower to implement operational water supplies and suppression lines.
Firefighters were forced to operate without the protection of handlines in rapidly changing and unpredictable building conditions due to configurations.
Getting out was no easier than getting in. Only one of the two construction elevators was working and could carry only five or six men at a time, sources said. Yet dozens of firefighters were inside.
The fire apparently started in the 17th floor according to workers who first reported the fire. The worst of the fire was on floors 14 though 19, but construction holes and vents created unchecked condition that allowed the fire to travel unabated up and down through the floors, igniting floors 20 through 26 as well.
Firefighters on the 14th floor thought they were safely below the blaze – and in a prime position to tackle it – when they were suddenly surrounded by fire and dense black smoke.
The two firefighters became trapped in the building and died from exposure to carbon monoxide.
The two firefighters were found on the 14th floor close to a hose line after numerous Mayday alerts were communicated and rapid intervention rescue efforts initiated by command.

Side Note; Deconstruction work was halted for a week in May, 2006, when a 22-foot-long section of pipe fell from one of the 35th floor and went through the roof of a neighboring quarters of FDNY Engine 10, Ladder 10. It was determined at the time the subcontractor responsible with bringing the building down had little experience in bringing down large towers in urban settings

Safety Considerations
Bottom line, buildings undergoing construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovations can pose significant risk to suppression operations and lead to firefighter injuries and fatalities. This can not be stressed enough.

The unique and dangerous elements confronting incident commanders, company officers and operating forces demands a clear understanding that fire suppression operations in buildings during construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovations present significant risks and consequences, requires a methodical and conservative approach towards incident stabilization and mitigation. You cannot implement conventional tactical operations in these structures. Doing so jeopardizes all operating personnel and creates unbalanced risk management profiles that are typically not favorable to the safety and wellbeing of firefighters.

The National Fire Protection Association- NFPA Standard 241 for Safeguarding Construction, Alternations, and Demolition Operations provides fire service personnel with good insights into what constitutes planning, preparedness, prevention and mitigation methods to prescribe minimum safeguards for construction, alteration, and demolition operations in order to provide reasonable safety to life and property from fire during operations.

Command and company officers should consider a number of crucial factors in accessing and determining acceptable risk management profiles, situational awareness management profiles (SAM) and operational deployment modes that may lead to the most error likely tactic (MELT) that may require the most needed change in incident command management or tactical deployment.

Assessment consideration for Structures undergoing construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovations

The following are assessment considerations that may provide insights in the assessment, risk profile and development of pre-fire plans, operational procedures and field directives to prevent history repeating events (HRE) such the Deutsche Bank with similar conditions and attributes;

Construction Type

What is the construction type or mixed application? How does this affect suppression, rescue, special operations and typical daily operations?
Stage and/or Phase of construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovations
The Stage and/or phase of construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovation has, SIGNIFICANT impact on firefighter safety and operational integrity.
Understanding these stages and phases can provide mission critical decision-making considerations to incident management teams and company officers.

Site conditions and accessibility

Considerations for both horizontal, vertical and grade conditions.
Considerations during changes in stages and phases. Expect changes
Conduct periodic command and company level inspections and walk-through’s

Exposures

These will be specific to the commonality or uniqueness of the structure and occupancy.

Resources

Do you have enough of what’s going to be needed? Plan for it now, before you’re in the street needing it “yesterday”.
Think BIG, as the adage goes, you can always send the companies back. Don’t under estimate the types and kind of resources needs, based upon the structure profile and the potential of undetermined conditions. (reinforces need for pre-planning)
Share the Knowledge, Situational Awareness and Pre-planning inf
ormation with other agencies (resources) you may call upon to support escalating or multiple alarm events.

Operating procedures
Again, response and operations at these types of structures demands that pre-fire plan considerations, dialog, discussions, communications and what ever else is appropriate to you organization is identified and disseminated BEFORE an alarm response occurs. Take advantage of pre-gaming and table top a target occupancy, to increase preparedness and reduce risk potential.

Conduct periodic command and company level inspections and walk-through’s
Update the plans as conditions change
Share the information with other agencies (resources) you may call upon to support escalating or multiple alarm events.

Knowledge and Situational Awareness

Understand, explore, research and obtain ALL the necessary information on the structure(s) undergoing construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovations
Conduct periodic command and company level inspections and walk-through’s
Communicate the observations, findings, conditions and considerations.

Communications

What ever you identify- COMMUNICATE this throughout the organization.
Share the information with other agencies (resources) you may call upon to support escalating or multiple alarm events.

Special and Unique Conditions

Identify and plan for the Special and Unique Conditions that may exclusive to you jurisdiction’s structure undergoing construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovations.

Contingency Plans

Plan of the unexpected and have contingent plans in place.

The magnitude and complexity of an incident involving a structure undergoing construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovations will be directly proportional to the size of the building/construction site and corresponding age profile (vintage) of the existing building, if under renovation, and degree of construction. Operational deployment and the Incident Action Plan- IAP must be addressed during strategic and tactical incident management, risk profiling and pre-incident and on-scene intelligence, reconnaissance and planning considerations:

Degree of exposed construction, systems, assemblies
Degree of incomplete connections, systems, assemblies
Transfer and integrity of structural dead loads and support systems
Civilian Occupancy Load/ or at risk
Numbers of exposures and vulnerability
Transient Combustible Fire loading
Flammable/combustible materials
Compressed gases and vessels
Exposed electrical and utility services
Unprotected openings
Obstructions
Accessibility, movement and transport
Lighting Conditions
Fire protection suppression system integrity
Availability of internal and operable standpipe systems
Availability of water supply sources
Degree of Compartmentation
Presence of temporary structural support systems
Construction equipment, appliances and apparatus present
Presence of fire zone separations or fire cut-offs
Presence of Special Hazard Operations; i.e., asbestos, lead or toxin abatement
Environmental and Weather factors

Proactive engagement, preparedness and planning can offer safe and effective success paths when addressing structures undergoing construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovations. The key here is not to assume these buildings and environments can be managed strategically and tactically under the same premises as other day-to-day occupancies and structures.

If recognition primed decision making (RPDM) gives us one truism that is predicable, it’s the fact that fire suppression operations in structures undergoing construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovations are;

High Risk/ High Consequence,
High Degree Situational Awareness Based
Operations in these types of structures can and will kill firefighters
Are Predictably- Unpredictable, BUT Manageable
Demand competent incident management
Require effective company officer leadership
Necessitate skilled Firefighters
Can be (under circumstances) written-off
Assume rapid and unchecked fire travel
Assume unpredictable transient combustible fire loading
Assume increased fire flow demands for suppression effect
Assume rapidly changing
Consider hose stream deployment time in the absence of supporting fixed standpipe or sprinkler systems.
Other internal building systems such as HVAC/ Ventilation may be compromised or function in an unexpected manner.
Require Pre-Planning Awareness and Pre-incident Knowledge
Demands Air Management Considerations
Timely deployable resource; manpower and equipment
Mobilization/ Reflex Capabilities of Response Companies
Incident Command Flexibility
Conservative Risk Management Profiling AND Conservative Tactical Deployment
Situational Awareness Management – SAM
Identification of the Most Error Likely Tactic- MELT

Take a look at what’s going on in your first or second due area. What about your battalion, the adjacent district or community or area? Chances are there’s a lot in the way of structures undergoing construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovations.

Are you prepared? If not, what needs to be addressed?
What can you implement to reduce the risk & increase the safety margin for your personnel?
Are your personnel adequately trained to deal with these types of situations and occupancies?
How can the training gaps be closed?
Are Skills sets, Situational Safety Awareness and knowledge adequate?
What are the Most Error Likely Tactics (MELT) that you think would be deployed if you responded to a incident involving structures undergoing construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and Renovations?
What needs to be implemented, changed or communicated?
Identify and Discuss your local risk factors and what can be done strategically & tactically

Take the time to look at structures undergoing construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovations. The message is clear;

Their unique and dangerous elements confronting incident commanders, company officers and operating forces demands a clear understanding that fire suppression operations in buildings during construction, alterations, deconstruction, demolition and renovations present significant risks
Create consequences that requiring a methodical and conservative approach towards incident stabilization and mitigation.
You cannot implement conventional tactical operations in these structures.
Doing so jeopardizes all operating personnel and creates unbalanced risk management profiles that are typically not favorable to the safety and wellbeing of firefighters.
Pre-plan, inspect, predict and plan
Firefighter survivability and Incident Safety demands it.

Post Script; In light of the preliminary investigation in the weeks following the Deutsche Bank building fire and line-of-duty deaths, FDNY Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta ordered the following actions implemented on August 27, 2007 in connection with the fatal fire at the former Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street in Manhattan:
· Deputy Chiefs in the Department’s nine Divisions have been directed to order surveillance by every fire unit in their respective administrative areas of all buildings under construction/demolition.
· The purpose of these inspections is to insure that all rules and regulations regarding fire protection and p
ublic safety are being adhered to.
· Divisions are also ordered to review all existing pre-fire plans in their respective administrative areas, and to have units and Battalions canvass their areas for any potential structures that might require the creation of such plans.
· Borough Commanders are ordered to oversee and coordinate all field fire inspection activities in their respective boroughs.
· The Chief of Operations will conduct a review of the Department’s field inspection program with emphasis on insuring accountability at all levels and making recommendations to strengthen and improve the quality and frequency of inspections by field units.

Additional References;
Vacant or Idle Properties or Properties Under Construction or Demolition or RenovationNational Fire Protection Association- NFPA Publications August 2001Selections from the U.S. Overview Report on structures that are vacant or under construction, renovation or demolition, Occupancy Cause Tables, and selected published incident descriptions.

New York Times Photos of Deutsche Bank Deconstruction Work http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/08/16/nyregion/20070817_BANK_SLIDESHOW_17.html
Power point program on Operational Safety and Awareness at Deonstruction and Demolition Sites, HERE

PDF file of the PPT program Power point program on Operational Safety and Awareness at Deonstruction and Demolition Sites Structural Anatomy Safety OPS at Demo Sites

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 24, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: "firefighter safety", building construction, Christopher Naum, deconstrucion, demolition, FDNY, high-rise, inspections, LODD, pre-planning, standpipe

FDNY Disciplines Seven Officers in Fatal Deconstruction Blaze

1 comment

FIRE COMMISSIONER SCOPPETTA ANNOUNCES PENALTIES AGAINST SEVEN FIRE OFFICERS AFTER REVIEW OF DOI REPORT ON FIRE AT 130 LIBERTY STREET

Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta today announced that two fire officers have been permanently relieved of their commands and reprimanded, and five chief officers have also received reprimands, in connection with their failure to insure required inspections were performed at 130 Liberty Street prior to the August 2007 fire that took the lives of two firefighters, Robert Beddia and Joseph Graffagnino. All seven officers agreed to accept these penalties in lieu of formal charges and an administrative trial before the city’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH).

Today’s announcement followed the release last week of a report by the City’s Department of Investigations (DOI) on the results of an investigation of the Fire and Buildings Departments’ actions leading up to the 130 Liberty Street fire. DOI’s administrative investigation began after a 16-month criminal investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau that resulted in indictments against the John Galt Corporation and three of its workers. No criminal charges were filed against any City employees.

Once demolition of 130 Liberty Street began, Fire Department regulations required inspections of the building every 15 days. Fire officers in FDNY Division 1, Battalion 1, and Engine 10, who had responsibility for conducting inspections, failed to inspect 130 Liberty Street between the commencement of demolition in March 2007 and the fire on August 18.

Since the August 2007 fire, the Fire Department has made numerous changes to improve its inspectional program, including the following:

A new 25-member Construction, Demolition and Abatement (CDA) inspection unit has been created in the Bureau of Fire Prevention and is now performing inspections and enforcing safety regulations at CDA buildings.
The FDNY is engaged in a comprehensive overhaul of its field inspection program that will result in a shift from cyclical to risk-based inspections.
IBM is working under a four-year, $24 million contract to create a central database for all FDNY building inspection and safety information that will be shared with and connected to other city agency databases (DOB and DEP). The resulting technology will drive an inspection program that will prioritize based upon factors such as violations, hazards and other risks.
Fire Department field units have a new computerized system of logging and tracking CDA buildings in their respective administrative districts. The system has significantly improved compliance with required inspections.
Borough Commands – previously not directly involved in the inspectional activity and reporting structure – now have oversight of all field unit inspectional activity within their boroughs.
33 initiatives proposed by the Mayor’s CDA Task Force are being implemented. These wide-ranging initiatives have already improved procedures and information-sharing between the three agencies with jurisdiction over CDA buildings (FDNY, DOB and DEP).
Key changes include a ban on smoking at CDA sites; training of DEP inspectors on fire safety at abatement sites; and notifications by DEP and DOB to FDNY when either large/complex abatement permits or construction/demolition permits are issued.
FDNY increased by 50 percent the amount of time allotted for building inspections by field units, from 6 hours to 9 hours.
Training on inspectional duty has been upgraded in all ranks, from probationary firefighter to deputy chief.

Power point program on Operational Safety and Awareness at Deonstruction and Demolition Sites, HERE

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 24, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: building construction, Christopher Naum, FDNY, firefighting, Highrise, LODD

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Eight + 193; “There is No Day of Rest”

No comments

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Eight + 193; “There is No Day of Rest”

Going Forward in 2009 and Beyond-Protecting Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week, 2009 officially came to a close yesterday, culminating a week, a moment in time dedicated to a focus on the mission critical and life sustaining functional areas of our fire and EMS profession.

During this week, there were on average, over 10,173 structure fires in the United States. According to NFPA statistics the following occur on average in the U.S;

• A fire department responded to a fire every 20 seconds.
• One structure fire was reported every 59 seconds.
• One home structure fire was reported every 79 seconds
• One civilian fire injury was reported every 30 minutes.
• One civilian fire death occurred every 2 hours and 33 minutes.
• One outside fire was reported every 41 seconds.
• One vehicle fire was reported every 122 seconds.

During Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week, the flags over the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial in Emmitsburg, Maryland were flown at half-staff in honor of four (4) Fire Service Line-of-Duty death notifications that occurred during this week;

June 14, 2009
Firefighter Conrad Mansfield
Delaware Township Volunteer Fire Department
Defiance, Ohio

June 16, 2009
Firefighter Lyle Lewis
Osborne County Fire District #3
Alton, Kansas

June 16, 2009
Firefighter Jimmy E. Cameron
South Chester Fire Department
Blackstock, South Carolina

June 18, 2009
Firefighter William Thompson
Dushore Fire Company
Dushore, Pennsylvania

These fallen firefighter notifications increases this year’s Line-of-Duty Deaths to a total of Fifty-One (51). Take a moment to reflect upon these firefighters by visiting the USFA fatality notices, HERE or the NFFF, EGH Notifications, HERE.

Not everyone made it home this week.

In 2004 the culmination of the first proceedings from the National Fire Fighter Life Safety Summit held in Tampa established the objectives of reducing the national firefighter fatality rate by 25% within a five year period and by 50% within ten years. The Tampa Summit produced an agenda of initiatives and formulated the 16 Firefighter Life Safety initiatives that were identified to be addressed to reach those milestones and to gain the commitment of the fire service leadership to support and work toward their accomplishment.

The Fallen Firefighter LODD Notifications;
• 2004 – 114
• 2005 – 119
• 2006 – 106
• 2007 – 118
• 2008 – 114
• 2009 – 51 (YTD)

Although the milestone for reducing the annual firefighter fatality rate has fallen short of its original goal for the first five year period, there have been tremendous strides and accomplishments made through the continuing initiatives and efforts of the collation of organizations, agencies, departments and institutions-all working tirelessly and collectively towards the goals of firefighter safety.

Although, Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week has come and gone, there must be continued efforts to maintain these initiatives and carry on the transformation process with conscientiousness efforts to make the cultural safety improvements and enhancements required of the fire service profession.

The fire service is beginning to fully recognize the merits in adjusting, altering, and changing our strategic and tactical ways of doing business in the streets. The traditional attitudes and beliefs of equating aggressive firefighting operations in all occupancy types coupled with the correlating, established and pragmatic operational strategies and tactics MUST not only be questioned, they need to be adjusted and modified; risk assessment, risk-benefit analysis, safety and survivability profiling, operational value and firefighter injury and LODD reduction must be further institutionalized to become a recognized part of modern firefighting operations.

It’s no longer just brute force and sheer physical determination that define structural fire suppression operations. Aggressive firefighting must be redefined and aligned to the built environment and associated with goal oriented tactical operations that are defined by risk assessed and analyzed tasks that are executed under battle plans that promote the best in safety practices and survivability within know hostile structural fire environments, while maintaining the values and tradition that defines the fire service.

There are clearly defined areas for the fire service to draw its attention and efforts for firefighter safety. The 16 Firefight Life Safety Initiatives provides that clarity, unity and purpose. The responsibility is thrust upon each and every one of us to recognize, we have a duty and obligation to work collectively towards these mutual goals and objectives of fire service and firefighter safety, health and survivability.

There are no days of rest; there is no waiting for “next year’s” Fire/EMS Safety Week. There is only the recognition and realization that we still have a long road ahead of us, and yes we may be running against the wind, but we know we can institute the cultural safety changes necessary to have the wind at our backs.

There are 193 days of opportunity remaining in 2009. There are 365 days of opportunity until the 2010 Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week. Don’t miss these opportunities to make a difference or to influence and change destiny; You have that ability.

Going Forward in 2009 and Beyond-Protecting Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility. Take that responsibility and run with it…even if you’re running against the wind.

Post Script: Check out Chief Ben Waller’s; “Don’t Save Safety for the Critique”, HERE

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 21, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: "firefighter safety", "health and safety", "Safety Week", "Situational Awareness" assessment, building construction, Christopher Naum, risk, training

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week Postings from FFN

No comments

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week postings from Firefighter Nation

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week; T minus One; “The Opposing Spectrum of Fire Service Safety Culture”
http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/fireems-safety-health-and-1

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week; Day-One; “What’s It All About?”
http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/fireems-safety-health-and-2

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Two. “Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety”; Know Your District and its Risk
http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/fireems-safety-health-and-5

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Three: “Dynamic Management of Risk during Combat Fire Engagement”
http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/fireems-safety-health-and-8

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Four: “History Repeating Events”
http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/fireems-safety-health-and-9

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Five: “From Waldbaum’s to Hackensack- Worcester to Charleston; Legacies for Operational Safety”
http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/fireems-safety-health-and-12

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Six: “Situations, Size-Up, Actions and Entertainment”
http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/fireems-safety-health-and-15

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Seven; “The Courage to be Safe”
http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/fireems-safety-health-and-17

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Eight + 193; “There is No Day of Rest”
http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/fireems-safety-health-and-20

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 21, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: "firefighter safety", "health and safety", building construction, Christopher Naum, LODD, risk, Safety, Safety Culture

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Seven; “The Courage to be Safe”

No comments

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Seven; “The Courage to be Safe” Protect Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility

Today is June 20th, the seventh day in the Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week. This is the culminating day of what hopefully has been an opportune week to dedicate time and energies to focus on the mission critical and life sustaining functional areas of our fire and EMS profession.

The theme this year was Protect Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility and encouraged chiefs and fire/EMS personnel to focus on what they personally could do to manage risk and enhance their health and safety. This year’s theme reflected the need for personal responsibility and accountability within a strong safety culture.

There were recommended activities and materials provide that would incorporate four key areas where standard operating procedures, policies and initiatives—along with the training and enforcement that support them—can limit fire/EMS personnel’s risk of injury or death.

These focus areas consisted of;

Safety: Emergency Driving (enough is enough—end senseless death)
• Lower speeds—stop racing to the scene. Drive safely and arrive alive to help others.
• Utilize seat belts—never drive or ride without them.
• Stop at every intersection—look in all directions and then proceed in a safe manner.

Health: Fire Fighter Heart Disease and Cancer Education and Prevention
• Don’t smoke or use tobacco products.
• Get active.• Eat a heart-healthy diet.
• Maintain a healthy weight.
• Get regular health screenings.

Survival: Structural Size-Up and Situational Awareness
• Keep apprised of different types of building materials and construction used in your community.
• Develop a comprehensive size-up checklist.
• Always complete a 360° walk of the structure to collect valuable, operational decision-making information.
• Learn the practice of reading smoke.
• Be familiar with the accepted rules of engagement.
• Learn your accountability system and use it.
• Master your tools and equipment.
• Remain calm and concentrate.

Chiefs: Be the Leader in Safety
• Become personally engaged in safety and make it part of your strategic vision for the department.
• Be willing to make the tough decisions regarding safety policies and practices and their implementation.
• Hold members of the organization accountable for their safety and the safety of those with whom they work.
• Ensure that resources are available to accomplish activities safely and effectively.

The IAFC and IAFF encouraged all fire/EMS departments to devote the period of this week to;
• review safety policies,
• evaluating the progress of existing initiatives and
• discussing health and fitness.
• Fire/EMS departments were encouraged to make a concerted effort during the week to correct safety deficiencies and
• provide training as needed.

The Consciences Observer or Activist
So the operative question this Saturday is this: What did you do, participate in, contribute, join in, share, lead, promote, instruct, present, facilitate, help, assist, aid, or neglect, disregard, undermine, abuse, challenge, demoralize, undercut, damage, torpedo, circumvent, or avoid?

A considerable and tangible effort was made by most organizations, departments and staff I had the opportunity to talk to around the nation this week. It was clearly evident that a majority of online fire service trade magazines, journals, services, blogs and eMedia, social + networking communities also dedicated editorial attention and perspectives towards the themes and focus of Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival week.

With that being said, it also doesn’t take long to also see what I alluded to in the, “what did you do this week question?”. Many organizations, personnel and leaders specifically preferred, NOT to participate or did so under a thin veil of apparent involvement. To think otherwise, would be naive and ignorant. For let us not forget, these are the times in which the culture of suppression is contending with the culture of safety…..But, I digress; we’ll leave that alone for the time being.

Were you an active participant, engaged and contributing or were you the consciences observer, passively or aggressively sitting on the sidelines of the apparatus floor? Campaigner or militant; advocate or protester? Where do you stand?I began this discussion today with one distinct, poignant contemplation and value; Do YOU have the Courage to be Safe? The resonating theme that challenged all of us and carried the banner of the week was; Protect Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility. YOUR Responsibility-Not someone else’s, but your; responsibility, task, job, duty, charge, accountability conscientiousness, and obligation.

.• We have a tendency to treat a lot of things as equal and very routine based upon the periodicity and frequency of the alarm type and the typical, inconsequential nature of the incident outcome or the commonality of the fire and suppression efforts that routinely are employed by our operating companies.
• We seem to do a lot of things at times out of common practice and repetition, you know; “We’ve always done it that way….” syndrome.
• There’s a resonating theme that is making its way around the fire service dealing with an apparent “culture of extinguishment” and the suggested and inaccurately described “diametrically opposing” fire service safety culture promoted by those on the “Dark Side”
• There’s the daily experience, expectations, and our comfort zone;
• We’re pretty good at what we do-Regularly….
• We develop profound habits and methods…
• We treat a lot of things as equal in many respects…

• We’ve grown accustomed to certain operational modes..
• We don’t really think anything is going to happen to us, certainly nothing so adverse that I don’t go home after the call.
• Nothing is going to happen to YOU; it happens to someone else….
• BUT to everyone else-YOU are the other Guy!

On any give day, at any give alarm, the dynamics around us at times may be in or out of our direct control. We may not be able to see what the cards have in store for us, BUT we must ensure we use every fragment of training, fortitude, knowled
ge, skills, courage, bravery, insights, luck and sometimes (other divine) intervention to get us through. We must have the fortitude and courage to be both safety conscious and measured in the performance of our sworn duties while maintaining the appropriate balance of risk and bravery.

The demands and requirements of modern firefighting will continue to require the placement of personnel within situations and buildings that carry risk, uncertainty and inherent danger. As a result, risk management must become fluid and integrate all personnel. We must manage dynamic risks with a balanced approach of effective assessment, analysis and probability within command decision making that results in safety conscious strategies and tactics.

Stop and reflect today, where do you stand? What are your true beliefs and convictions in regards to the developing safety culture that is being forged and institutionalized within our fire service? Are your professing one thing, but implementing or allowing another circumstance?

Think about the following and attach you own significance or connotation;
• The Courage to be Safe
• Setting the Example
• Doing the Right Thing, at the Right Time for the Right Reason
• Courage to do the right thing in order to protect yourself and other firefighters
• Fortitude & Limitations
• Consequences of Actions
• Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
• Balanced Risk Management
• Command Presence & Leadership
• Role & Responsibility
• Life and Death-REALITY
• Measured counteracts Aggressive
• Be Measured in your suppression assignments and task duties
• Know When to Alter the Mode and When the Risk Profile is Appropriate
• Understand the Calculated Risks- And When they are Appropriate
• Know YOUR Companies/ Teams Limitations & Capabilities

• Don’t Over Extend – Don’t Push the Envelope-Right Time/Cause
• Learn from the Past (HRE)

• Don’t Fall under The “Superman Syndrome”
• Courage to Improve our Culture…

The Courage to be Safe….if not now….When?
Take a look at the video HERE, you’ll hopefully understand…..
Remember: “ Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety”

Take the time to check out these excellent programs and initiatives from the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation and the Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives Program; HERE

The Courage to Be Safe SM Program
Firefighters must have the courage to face a multitude of risks in order to save lives and protect their communities. Their courage allows them to willingly risk their own lives so that others can be saved. A different type of courage is required to stay safe in potentially dangerous situations, avoiding needless risks and tragic consequences.

This provocative and moving presentation is designed to change the culture of accepting the loss of firefighters as a normal occurrence. Building on the untold story of LODD survivors, it reveals how family members must live with the consequences of a firefighter death and provides a focus on the need for firefighters and officers to change fundamental attitudes and behaviors in order to prevent line of duty deaths. The central theme promotes the courage to do the right thing in order to protect yourself and other firefighters and ensure that “Everyone Goes Home” at the end of the day.

Courage to Be SafeSM consists of a PowerPoint presentation on a CD, as well as an instructor guide and sample handout materials. The CD includes embedded video clips of fire service leaders and excerpts of the emotional presentation made at FDIC-2005 by Reverend Bevon Smith, father of Paul Smith, a firefighter who in died in the line of duty in 1989.

The Safety Through Leadership Program
In the summer of 2006, National Fallen Firefighters Foundation Executive Director Ron Siarnicki and the Everyone Goes Home® Life Safety Initiatives (LSI) Team attended a meeting in San Diego of the National Wildland Coordinating Group to look at the leadership material the NWCG had developed for the Wildland community. The LSI Team crafted a proposal to develop a course for the structural firefighter based on the NWCG model.

Shortly thereafter, Lieutenant Tony McDowell, company officers’ section of the Virginia Fire Chiefs Association, contacted the LSI Team seeking help to develop a leadership course that would embody the 16 Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives. The VFCA was invited to collaborate with the LSI Team in the development of a leadership program that would include relevant aspects of the NWCG model and embody the 16 Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives.

In order to fully understand the NWCG L-380 Leadership sequence, the Everyone Goes Home® Program sent two safety officers, one from Montgomery County Fire Rescue Service and the other from the Virginia Beach Fire Department, to the San Diego Fire Department to participate an L-380 course being conducted there. The two officers reported the experience as life-changing in terms of what they learned and what they came to believe about the linkage between firefighter safety and leadership.

The pilot was presented in June (2007) at the University of Richmond’s Jepson School of Business, to thirty students from across the state of Virginia and five others who had seen the course advertised on the VFCA website and applied. Over one hundred students applied for the course. By any measure, the Safety Through Leadership was a phenomenal success.

Over the next year, FLSI course developers carefully evaluated the material from Virginia with an eye toward developing a national curriculum. While most of the format of the VFCA was retained (including material from the L-380 course) new material was developed and added to the national model curriculum.

A call was put out in the winter of 2008 for thirty students to come to the National Fire Academy. Quickly, all the seats were spoken for, including the return of three who had attended the Virginia pilot. The Train-the-Trainer program commenced on June 24-27, 2008 on the campus of the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Md.

Safety Through Leadership focuses on the company officer and his or her attitude toward the safety of firefighters within their span of authority.
It is a role-play based curriculum which begins with several cooperative exercises, including the naming of the fire department under which all activities will proceed for the duration of the training program.

Five modules regarding safety and leadership were presented to the students, ranging from effective supervisory practices to threat and error management (utilizing the model of crew resource management).The modules are meant to make the program both easy to deliver (one a month, for example) and scalable to the particular audience. A series of excellent video role-plays were developed to reinforce discussions.

The central goal of the Safety Through Leadership program is to create an emotional impact within company officers so they are encouraged to reflect on their own leadership styles and create changes always with a mindset toward safety.Safety Through Leadership is not meant to replace other leadership programs that may be in place. Rather, it is a value-added approach that requires company officers and other supervisors to set the example of safety in every behavior they model for the firefighters they supervise.

This means that safety and leadership are linked not only on the fireground (where we would expect it) but also in training and in the long hours of “everyday living” in the station.• The Train-the-Trainer, therefore, spent a good deal of
time reviewing and reinforcing the 16 Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives so that the trainers will become living ambassadors for Everyone Goes Home®.

Safety Through Leadership is a program appropriate at both the station-level and to broader audiences such as regional or state training opportunities.
It can be delivered as a four day academy, or it can be sequentially delivered via the modules.

• The bottom line is that company officers hold the key to modeling a safety attitude and for doing everything they can to make sure their firefighters go home safe after every call.

The Safety Through Leadership program is one way this burden can be lightened, and this responsibility wholeheartedly endorsed.

If you would like more information about Safety Through Leadership, please contact the Everyone Goes Home® program directly via the website at www.everyonegoeshome.com

End Note: I had the profound privilege to participate with an exceptional cadre of national instructors in the Safety Through Leadership Train-the-Trainer program in 2008 at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Md. I can attest that this program and content will stimulate, enlighten and inspire you to comprehend and embrace the values of safety within the modern fire and emergency services. Take the time to check it out.

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 20, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: "Safety Week", building construction, Christopher Naum, command, commander, compentencies, operations, risk, Safety, Safety Culture

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Six: “Situations, Size-Up, Actions and Entertainment”

1 comment

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Six: “Situations, Size-Up, Actions and Entertainment”

Protect Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility

I had the opportunity this past April to present a large body of original research in the form of a comprehensive presentation at this year’s Fire Department Instructors Conference (FDIC) in Indianapolis. During the ensuring research phase of the program development, I was immersed in some research and in reviewing a number of case studies and line of duty death reports, while furthering my concepts related to a new methodology on fireground operations and command risk management that I call Five Star Command TM .

This process and review encouraged me think a lot about the manner in which the modern fireground is managed, the way the current generation of firefighters and officers see themselves, and the manner in which strategic and tactical battle (Incident Action Plans-IAP) are developed and executed. It also prompted me to begin thinking about what, we as firefighters are thinking when we find ourselves in the center of a “good” rockin’ job….you know what I mean, the kind of interior firefighting that we’ve come to define as the essence of being a firefighter, but are attempting to redefine.

I have been giving a lot of thought over the past couple of months to the continuing challenges and issues surrounding firefighter LODD and the issues of dynamic risk assessment, command decision-making and company level accountability. My recent lecture at the South Carolina Fire Academy’s annual Firefighter Safety and Health Conference provided an enlighten forum with a wealth of critical thinking and dialog amongst the attendees on firefighter safety, command risk assessment and tactical accountability related to opinions on the emerging new model of modern fire suppression strategies and tactics.

I went further back in time and began to visualize and think about the manner in which I functioned as a company officer when I first got promoted and the kinds of things we used to do; when we were young and both naïve to the true risks of fireground operations and filled with a sense of fireground invincibility. I know, I placed myself or found my company in positions and places of greater risk, “back in the day”, for the sake of getting more nozzle time in a well involved structure fire, or extended our stay-times in hostile places that were not safe or acceptable by today’s standards. WE, were lucky.Any one of us could have then or even in the present day, find ourselves in an instant, in the wrong place, operating under the wrong plan for all the wrong reasons. We looked for ways to increase our “playtime” for the pleasure, enjoyment, adrenaline rush, exuberance and at times euphoric pleasure doing what we do best; and that was fighting fires.

To think that this is not happening in today’s fire service would be absurd and illogical. If we look at the ways many departments, companies or personnel are operating on the fireground during structural fire operations and the places we are assigning and directing them to operate within, we would be asking ourselves, WHY?There are tremendous national, state and locally efforts and initiatives directed at enhancing firefighter safety, reducing firefighter line of duty deaths and injury rates, on effective command management, skill development, competencies and cultural changes to improve and enhance the fire service. But it all has to start with the basic unit of operation; the Company, the Officer and personnel.

Today’s incident scene and structural fires are unlike those in past decades and will continue to challenge us operationally when confronted with structural fire engagement and combat operations. Operationally, We need to be doing the right thing, for the right reason in the right place to increase our safety and incident survivability.

We need to stop “entertaining” ourselves, the job is dangerous, it has risks, we are not invincible, and we can die; at any alarm, in any fire, at anytime for any number of reasons…..Let me leave you with some new thoughts and concepts related to operational safety and the definitions that I’ve come to develop that may support apparent or contributing causes to many of the fire service’s undesired events or incidents. Think about the definitions; think about how they apply to you, your company or your operations; past, present or future.

TACTICAL AMUSEMENT *tak-ti-kəl ə- *myüz-mənt
1: of or relating to structural fireground tactics: as a (1) a means of amusing or entertaining during fire suppression, support tasks or operations that places personnel at risk
2: the condition of being amused while engaging in fire suppression, support tasks or operations that places personnel at risk
3: pleasurable diversion while engaging in fire suppression, support tasks or operations: entertainment; that places personnel at risk

TACTICAL DIVERSION *tak-ti-kəl də- *vər-zhən
1: the reckless act or an instance of diverting from an assignment, task, operation or activity while engaging in fire suppression, support tasks or operation for the sake of amusing or entertainment; that places personnel at risk
2: the reckless act of self determined task operations that diverts or amuses from defined risk assessment and incident action plans; that places personnel at risk

TACTICAL CIRCUMVENTION *tak-ti-kəl sər-kəm- *ven(t)-shən
1: to deliberately manage to get around especially by ingenuity or approach that diverts for the purpose of amusing; assignment, operations or tasks that countermand or disregard defined risk assessment and incident action plans; that places personnel at risk
© 2009 Christopher J. Naum

Let me further reiterate on some elements for consideration related to the issues surrounding situational awareness, dynamic risk assessment and size-up. I discussed these in greater detail on Day Three this week: Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Three: “Dynamic Mana…

Although each occupancy type presents variables that dictate how a particular incident is handled, most company operations evolve from basic strategic and tactical principles rooted in past performance and operations at similar structures. This basis is based upon Predictability of Performance.

• Modern building constru
ction is no longer predicable
• Command & company officer technical knowledge may be diminished or deficient
• Technological Advancements in construction and materials have exceeded conventional fire suppression practices
• Some fire suppression tactics are faulted or inappropriate, requiring innovative models and methods.
• Fire Dynamics and Fire Behavior is not considered during fireground size-up and assessment
• Risk Management is either not practiced or willfully ignored during most incident operations
• Some departments or officers show and indifference to safety and risk management
• Command & Company Officer dereliction
• Nothing is going to happen to me (us)

360 DEGREES OF SEPARATION
The fireground often has competing or conflicting incident priorities, demands or distractions before a complete appreciation of all mission critical or essentialinformation and data has been obtained. The effective assessment of the incident scene is much more than the three-sided size-up methodology of past fireground practices. In fact the term size-up doesn’t align with the newest directions in firefighter safety and incident command management.

The 360 degree assessment has become the generally accepted standard from which risk assessment is performed and incident action plans derived. The fact that many LODD case studies and reports repeatedly indicate the lack of an effective 360 degree assessment of the incident scene where structural fire engagement is being initiated was a contributing factor or may have contributed to a different incident outcome.Think about the effectiveness and value that the 360 ◦ Degree assessment brings to the development of an effective and valid incident action plan and the tactics that are driven by those identified and assumed assessment indicators. The question is: Are you conducting a 360 upon arrival, and if not WHY?

REMEMBER
All command and supervisory personal and operating companies must be able to recognize and appreciate the risks which are present at an incident in order to carry out an effective dynamic risk assessment. The 360 Degree assessment is a mission critical element for effective and safety incident operations.Don’t for a moment think, “it takes too long to perform” or that you don’t have time to conduct, especially from a company officer perspective when you’re deploying and initiating tactical assignments. That extra minute to conduct a “three-sixty” may make all the difference in the world…..There may be three hundred and sixty degrees of safety margin that separate you and your company between injury or death….think about it.

Situational Awareness and Risk Assessment
Situation Awareness related to Building Construction, Command Risk Management and Firefighter Safety is another mission critical element. Situation Awareness (SA) is the perception of environmental elements within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future. It is also a field of study concerned with perception of the environment critical to decision-makers in complex, dynamic situations and incidents. Both the 2006 and 2007 Firefighter Near-Miss Reporting System Annual Reports identified a lack of situational awareness as the highest contributing factor to near misses reported.• Situation Awareness involves being aware of what is happening around you at an incident scene to understand how information, events, and your own actions will impact operational goals and incident objectives, both now and in the near future.

• Lacking SA or having inadequate SA has been identified as one of the primary factors in accidents attributed to human error.
• Situation Awareness becomes especially important in the structural fire suppression and firefighter domains where the information flow can be quite high and poor decisions can lead to serious consequences.
• Dynamic Risk Assessment is commonly used to describe a process of risk assessment being carried out in a changing or evolving environment, where what is being assessed is developing as the process itself is being undertaken.
• This is further problematical for the Incident Commander when confronted with competing or conflicting incident priorities, demands or distractions before a complete appreciation of all mission critical or essential information and data has been obtained.
• The dynamic management of risk is all about effective, informed and decisive decision making during all phases of an incident at a structural fire.

• Traditional phased incident scene size-up and monitoring is antiquated and no longer appropriate or applicable to modern fire service operations.
• Situational awareness is a combination of attitudes, previously learned knowledge and new information gained from the incident scene and environment that enables the strategic commanders, decision-makers and tactical companies to gather the information they need to make effective decisions that will keep their firefighters and resources out of harm’s way, reducing the likelihood of adverse or detrimental effects.

Command and company officers and firefighters MUST understand the building, the occupancy features and the inherent impact of fire within and on the structure, AND be able to identify, communicate and take actions necessary to support the incident action and battle plans, mitigate incident conditions and provide for continuous safety protection to themselves, their team, their company and the entire alarm assignment operating at the incident scene.

Everyone on the incident scene MUST stay alert to changing conditions, obvious or latent conditions or escalating factors that require prompt identification, comprehension and appropriate implementation of actions. To the Incident Commander, fire officer or firefighter, knowing what’s going on around you, in and around the building structure and understanding the consequences of building, construction, assembly, fire load and fire development and growth is mission critical to incident stabilization and mitigation and profoundly crucial in terms of personnel safety. Maintain a three-sixty sphere of observation and awareness at all times.

A PDF Activity program is available at the following link HERE, that provides you with a series of incident scene images and questions that can be utilized for enhancing skill sets in the areas of Situational Awareness, Size-up and Risk Assessment and Profiling. It’s attached as a PFD File. If your interested in obtaining an electronic file as a Power Point Program, please submit an email request at; Christopher.naum@gmail.com

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 19, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: "Situational Awareness" assessment, "time on task", building construction, Christopher Naum, command, operations, risk, size-up

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Five: “From Waldbaum’s to Hackensack- Worcester to Charleston; Legacies for Operational Safety”

2 comments

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Five: “From Waldbaum’s to Hackensack- Worcester to Charleston; Legacies for Operational Safety”

Protect Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility

Today is June 18th, the fifth day in the Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week. Today also commemorates the anniversary of the Sofa Superstore in Charleston, South Carolina, in which nine firefighters lost their lives while engaged in aggressive interior operations at a commercial building, occupied and operating as a furniture store and warehouse.

On the evening of June 18, 2007, units from the Charleston Fire Department responded to a fire at the Sofa Super Store, a large retail furniture outlet in the West Ashley district of the city. Within less than 40 minutes, the fire claimed the lives of nine firefighters and changed the lives of countless others. The incident galvanized the nation’s fire service and to this day, continues to generate commentary and observations within a wide latitude of functional areas.

I started this article with the title “From Waldbaum’s to Hackensack- Worcester to Charleston; Legacies for Operational Safety”. I still find it surprising during my travels around the country lecturing and presenting programs on building construction, that when the audience was asked, “What do the Walbaum’s Fire and Hackensack fire share in common?”, the response typically were blank stares. The more seasoned and experienced veterans (translation; Older firefighters) when present, were able to convey some information on the subject. But yet, the true essence of the basic incident particulars and the lessons learned fail to be fully conveyed. We’re not remembering the past!

I recently spoke about History Repeating Events (HRE), and the common themes related to LODD. Events that resonate with common issues, apparent and contributing causes and operational factors that share legacy issues that the fire service fails to identify, relate to and implement. In other words, we fail a times to learn from the past, or we make a deliberate choice to ignore those lessons due to other internal or external influences, pressures, authority, beliefs, values or viewpoints. We make choices and we determine our direction, path and destiny.

When you look over these LODD events over the years (NIOSH, NFPA, USFA Reports), it doesn’t take long to identify that many LODD events share similarities, and that specific incident events, deficiencies, outcomes and recommendations are identical in every way, except for the fire department name and geographical location. In other words, we have History Repeating Events (HRE).

What have we learned from the past? What is it that we’re passing down to each incoming recruit class and probationary firefighter? What are Company and Commanding Officers recalling and considering in their dynamic risk assessment, size-up and decision-making (IAP) process when looking at a particular building, occupancy and fire? Are mission critical operational elements & HRE factors being recollected? (Naturalistic/ Recognition-Prime Decision-making).

Are the fire service legacies of the past and the lessons learned from those incidents and the sacrifices that were made transcending time? Or are they lost in the immediacy of day to day challenges, issues and operations. Or are these events, lessons and operations issues dismissed and disregarded as a result of their “time and place” not being relevant to “today’s” operations and modern fire service advancements.

The reality is, we, the present generation of veteran firefighters and officers at times neglect or fail to recognize the importance of passing along the lessons of our life’s journey through our fire service careers, the events of our day and the profound tough lessons and sacrifices learned the hard way. We sometimes need a receptive, sympathetic and compassionate audience that is willing to listen, hear and comprehend the messages conveyed. There needs to be a high degree of empathy related to these past History Repeating Events. For each event, each and every line of duty death has a message and a Legacy of Operational Safety.

Throughout the past thirty-two years (1977-2009), a total of 3998 firefighters have lost their lives in the course and conduct of their duties as firefighters and officers within the fire service. Although there are numerous LODD fire incidents and events that could be discussed, all distinguished and exemplified by heroism, nobility, cause and fortitude. There are four that stand out when related to the lessons learned and the significance and impact each LODD incident had at the time to the national fire service.

Make the time to research, learn and understand the factors of these events, the lessons and opportunities that are borne from each and how they relate to the theme, message and initiatives that make up Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week and beyond. Learn and Educate Yourself. Protect Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility.

Each of these incidents also have significance as they relate to the building, occupancy, use, construction features, inherent structural systems, fire behavior and fire dynamics; coupled with interrelated elements of strategic and tactical fire suppression operations and incident management . Again, “Building Knowledge=Firefighter Safety”.

The Waldbaum’s Supermarket Fire: Brooklyn, New York August 3, 1978
Six LODD

Six FDNY firefighters died at this fire when the wood bowstring truss roof collapsed, 34 were injured. The fire started at 8:40 hrs. in Waldbaum’s Supermarket, Ave. Y and Ocean Ave., Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, NY. Nearly 23 electricians, plumbers etc were in he process of renovating the building, while it was still open and operating when the fire started in the mezzanine area. An All hands was transmitted at 08:49 hrs., the 2nd alarm at 09:02 hrs. Shortly after 09:20 hrs., with 20 firefighters on the roof a crackling sound was heard and the center portion of the bow string trussed roof fell into the smoke and flames. A total of 12 firefighters fell into the inferno, six were rescued, six were died in the line of duty.

Honor and Remembrance
· Lt. James Cutillo, 33rd Battalion
· Firefighter Charles Bouton, Ladder Co. 156
· Firefighter William O’Conner, Ladder Co. 156
· Firefighter James P McManus, Ladder Co. 153
· Firefighter George Rice, Ladder Co. 153
· Firefighter Harold F. Hastings, Ladder Co.153

References: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE,

Hackensack Ford: Hackensack, New Jersey July 1, 1988
Five LODD
Five fire fighters from the Hackensack, New Jersey Fire Department were killed in the line-of duty while they were engaged in interior fire suppression efforts at an automobile dealership when portions of the building’s wood bowstring truss roof collapsed.

Honor and Remembrance<
br />· Captain Richard Williams
· Lt. Richard Reinhogen
· Firefighter William Krejsa
· FireFighter Leonard Radumski
· Firefighter Stephen Ennis

Note: The 1988 Hackensack Ford Fire occurred almost ten years to the date of the Waldbaum’s FDNY Fire in 1978. (History Repeating Event…)

As a result of this incident passage of a NJ State law mandating the clear demarcation of truss roofs and other structural hazards with warning signs (placards) on building with truss roofs was. In 1991 NJ State law required the State Bureau of Fire Safety to investigate all fires in which a firefighter dies or is seriously injured. See National Truss Placarding references, HERE

References: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE,

The Worcester Cold Storage and Warehouse Fire: Worcester, Massachusetts, December 3, 1999
Six LODD
On December 3, 1999, the vacant, six-story Worcester Cold Storage and Warehouse Co. building in Worcester, Massachusetts, was set ablaze by two homeless people knocking a lighted candle into a pile of ragged clothes. The Worcester Fire Department responded at 6:13 p.m. to Box Alarm 1438. The Rescue 1 team of Firefighter Paul Brotherton and Firefighter Jerry Lucey entered the building searching for occupants. Fire conditions worsened in the building at an alarmingly unexpected rate. Paul and Jerry, on the fifth floor, became disoriented in the smoke-filled building. Lost, and running low on air, they called for help. Several teams began searching for the lost fire fighters.

Two teams reaching the fifth floor also found themselves disoriented in the smoke and trapped by the maze of interior walls — Lieutenant Tom Spencer and Firefighter Tim Jackson from Ladder 2, and Firefighter Jay Lyons and Firefighter Joe McGuirk from Engine 3. Though many more brave fire fighters attempted to locate their missing brothers, their efforts proved futile. Their deaths marked the worst loss of fire fighters’ lives in more than 20 years in a building fire in America, and the third worst fire in Massachusetts’ history. Six days after they died, a memorial service drew 30,000 fire fighters and 10,000 civilians in what was believed to have been the largest such service for fire fighters killed on duty.

Honor and Remembrance
· Firefighter Paul A Brotherton, Rescue Co.1
· Firefighter Timothy P. Jackson, Ladder Co.2
· Firefighter Jeremiah M. Lucey, Rescue Co.1
· Firefighter James F. “Jay” Lyons III, Engine Co. 3
· Firefighter Joseph T. McGuirk , Engine Co. 3
· Lt. Thomas E. Spencer, Ladder Co.2

References: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE,

Sofa Superstore Fire: Charleston, South Carolina, June 18, 2007
Nine LODD
On the evening of June 18, 2007, units from the Charleston Fire Department responded to a fire at the Sofa Super Store, a large retail furniture outlet in the West Ashley district of the city. Within less than 40 minutes, the fire claimed the lives of nine firefighters. The highly flammable characteristics of the materials that were stored in the loading dock and throughout the premises provided an ample supply of fuel and caused the fire to spread rapidly, affecting the building’s structural integrity and adversely affecting manual fire suppression activities.

Honor and Remembrance
· Bradford Rodney “Brad” Baity – Engineer 19
· Theodore Michael Benke – Captain 16
· Melvin Edward Champaign – Firefighter 16
· James “Earl” Allen Drayton – Firefighter 19
· Michael Jonathon Alan French – Engineer 5
· William H. “Billy” Hutchinson, III – Captain 19
· Mark Wesley Kelsey – Captain 5
· Louis Mark Mulkey – Captain 15
· Brandon Kenyon Thompson – Firefighter 5

References: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE,

Commemorate and Remembrance
On the evening of June 18, 2007, units from the Charleston Fire Department responded to a fire at the Sofa Super Store, a large retail furniture outlet in the West Ashley district of the city. Within less than 40 minutes, the fire claimed the lives of nine firefighters.

The executive summary of the FIREFIGHTER FATALITY INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Sofa Super Store Fire, Phase II Report issued MAY 15, 2008 provided critical insights into the apparent and contributing causes that culminated in the event. The Sofa Super Store was a large property that incorporated a very significant potential for a major fire to occur. It’s appropriate at this time to revisit those key factors described within the report in order for provide the opportunity for departments or agencies to recognize or identify similar gaps that exist, and take the necessary corrective actions. These gaps may be precursors to potentially significant or serious future events and extend in operational, training, administrative, managerial, construction, prevention and regulatory and codes.

· The fire risk factors associated with the Sofa Super Store exceeded the limits prescribed by the applicable building and fire codes. An automatic sprinkler system should have been installed to reduce the level of fire risk or the buildings should have been divided into manageable fire compartments by a system of fire walls.
· If a sprinkler system had been installed, the fire probably would likely have been controlled within the loading dock area.
· If effective fire walls had been provided, the fire probably would not have spread beyond the loading dock.
· The highly flammable characteristics of the materials that were stored in the loading dock and throughout the premises provided an ample supply of fuel and caused the fire to spread rapidly. The burning contents released copious quantities of heat and toxic smoke.
· Significant quantities of flammable and combustible liquids that were stored in the loading dock likely contributed to the severity and rapid spread of the fire.
· The fire had extended to the loading dock when firefighters arrived.
· Charleston Fire Department members attempted to fight the fire by initiating an offensive interior attack into the loading dock.
· The offensive attack was launched from two directions. One attack line entered the loading dock from the exterior, while a second line was stretched through the showrooms and into the loading dock.
· The offensive attack failed to control the fire. The fire extended into adjoining areas on three sides of the loading dock.
· At least 16 firefighters, who were operating deep inside the showrooms, became enveloped in heavy smoke.
· Conditions inside the showrooms became critical as the fire began to involve this part of the building. Several firefighters became disoriented and were running short of air. Radio messages requesting assistance were not heard.
· Seven firefighters managed to find their way out of the showrooms. The nine deceased firefighters were unable to find their way out as the fire spread rapidly from the rear of the building to the front.
· The size and layout of the building, inadequate exits, and the highly flammable nature of the contents likely contributed to the inability of the lost firefighters to escape from the building. Rescue efforts were attempted when the situation inside the showrooms was recognized. In spite of valiant efforts, it was too late to save the missing firefighters before the store became fully involved in flames.

The analysis of operations conducted by the Charleston Fire Department includes the following observations and findings:

· Fire fighting operations at the Sofa Super Store did not comply with Federal occupational safety and health regulations, recommended safety standards, or accepted fire service practices.
· The Charleston Fire Department failed to provide adequate direction, supervision, and coordination over the operations that were c
onducted.
· The documented duties and responsibilities of an Incident Commander were not performed and risk management guidelines were not adequately applied to the situation.
· The culture of the Charleston Fire Department promoted aggressive offensive tactics that exposed firefighters to excessive and avoidable risks and failed to apply basic firefighter safety practices.
· Insufficient training, inadequate staffing, obsolete equipment and outdated tactics all contributed to an ineffective effort to control the fire with offensive tactics during the early stages of the incident.
· The Charleston Fire Department continued to apply offensive tactics after the situation had evolved to a point where risk management guidelines called for defensive strategy.
· Factors that should have caused firefighters to be removed from interior tactical (offensive) positions were not recognized.
· There was a lack of accountability for the location and function of firefighters who were operating inside the building. The Charleston Fire Department did not have appropriate Mayday procedures to be followed by firefighters in distress, for dispatchers, or for command officers on the scene.

All of the listed factors and many others were analyzed and discussed in detail within the body of the issued report. If you haven’t found the time or reason to read the report, do so; it would make for a good task activity for Safety Week. The report document presented the dedicated and conscientious efforts of the review team to honor the nine fallen firefighters by making every possible effort to learn from their sacrifice. The operative question is this; “What factors or attributes are comparable to situations or conditions that presently exist within your Department, Organization or community? What are you going to proactively do to address these issues or conditions in a timely manner?

Understanding the Building Profile and Risk
The Sofa Super Store occupied a complex of interconnected structures that had been constructed in several phases. The showroom building, facing Savannah Highway, was actually an assembly of three separate structures. The front wall was a façade, with a parapet extending above the roof line, creating the appearance of one large building when viewed from Savannah Highway. (Refer to the Report for diagrams, plans and photographs)
· The front wall, including the parapet, was approximately 23 feet tall, while the roof behind the parapet varied from 12 to 14 feet above grade.
· The main showroom was originally constructed as a grocery store, probably during the 1950s or 60s. The original building was approximately 125 feet in width and 130 feet deep, with a rectangular extension in the southwest corner (right-rear facing the building from Savannah Highway).
· The front wall was brick construction with large storefront windows, while the side and rear walls were constructed of concrete block.
· The original structure had a flat metal deck roof, supported by lightweight steel bar joists (trusses), spanning from east to west across the store. The side walls supported the ends of the bar joists, while two rows of steel beams and columns provided intermediate support.
· A suspended ceiling was installed below the roof trusses.

After the property was converted to a furniture store, two pre-engineered metal buildings were added-on to the original structure to expand the showroom area. Each showroom addition was approximately 60 feet in width and 120 feet deep. The first showroom addition was constructed on the west side of the original building in 1994 and the second was added on the east side in 1995. (The add-on structures are referred to as the east and west showrooms in this report, while the original structure is identified as the main showroom.) Six large openings in the concrete block side walls, three on each side of the original building, provided connections between the showroom areas; their combined floor area was in excess of 31,000 square feet. An additional pre-engineered metal structure was erected at the rear of the property in 1996 to serve as a warehouse. This structure was approximately 120 feet wide by 130 feet deep and 29 feet tall. Furniture was stored on steel racks, 20 feet in height, inside the warehouse.

Fire/EMS Safety Week Initiative
The Monroe County (NY) Fire Marshals and Inspectors Association (MCFMIA) conceptualized an idea following a presentation on the Charleston Fire at the National Fire Academy during the recent PARADE (Prevention Advocacy Resource and Data Exchange) Conference, to commemorate and honor the fallen Firefighters and to prevent a similar tragedy from occurring and align with the anniversary of the Sofa Superstore. The suggested actions for all fire departments to perform were this:

· Inspect – Between June 9 and June 18th we ask all local municipalities to conduct a fire safety inspection of all furniture stores in their jurisdictions
· Pre-Plan – Between now and June 18th we ask all fire departments to update or complete a pre-plan on all the furniture stores in their first due areas. Share the pre-plan with neighboring departments, companies or stations that would respond on a fire with you.
· Get Out and Examine, Inspect, Inquire and Report your findings.
· Complete a web survey located at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kOOGDvMDPpn0IaadXaiwDQ_3d_3dAnswering the few short questions will allow the MCFMIA to compile a final action report. The report will show the number of inspections completed, violations issued and pre-plans completed.
· Questions can be directed to William Timmons, President of the Monroe County Fire Marshals and Inspectors Association (MCFMIA) president@mcfmia.org MCFMIA located in Rochester, New York

Remembrance & Honor
On this, the anniversary date of the Sofa Super Store Fire, take a moment to reflect on the incident, the factors that lead to the incident and more importantly the men who valiantly fought that fire and who gave the supreme sacrifice to their community in the endeavor to protect both lives and property.

The Charleston Nine
· Bradford Rodney “Brad” Baity – Engineer 19
· Theodore Michael Benke – Captain 16
· Melvin Edward Champaign – Firefighter 16
· James “Earl” Allen Drayton – Firefighter 19
· Michael Jonathon Alan French – Engineer 5
· William H. “Billy” Hutchinson, III – Captain 19
· Mark Wesley Kelsey – Captain 5
· Louis Mark Mulkey – Captain 15
· Brandon Kenyon Thompson – Firefighter 5

Going Forward: The Structural Anatomy of Building Construction
The following are quotes from Fire Chief Anthony Aiellos (ret) Hackensack (NJ) Fire Department
Fire Chief during the Hackensack Ford Fire, July, 1988

“If you don’t fully understand how a building truly performs or reacts under fire conditions and the variables that can influence its stability and degradation, movement of fire and products of combustion and the resource requirements for fire suppression in terms of staffing, apparatus and required fire flows, then you will be functioning and operating in a reactionary manner.”

“This places higher risk to your personnel and lessens the likelihood for effective, efficient and safe operations. You’re just not doing your job effectively and you’re at RISK. These risks can equate into insurmountable operational challenges and could lead to adverse incident outcomes. Someone could get hurt, someone could die, it’s that simple, it’s that obvious. “

Risk Based Response Assignments

The buildings, structures and occupancies that comprise typical response districts pose unique and consistent challenges during structural fire attac
k. The variety of occupancies and building characteristics establish varying degrees of risk potential, with defined and recognizable strategic and tactical measures to be taken-sometimes uniquely to each occupancy type. Although each occupancy type presents variables that dictate how a particular incident is handled, most company operations evolve from basic principles rooted in past performance and operations at similar structures. This is based on what I define as; “predictability of performance.”

When we look at various buildings and occupancies, past operational experiences; those that were successful, and those that were not, give us experiences that define and determine how we access, react and expect similar structures and occupancies to perform at a given alarm in the future. Naturalistic (or recognition-primed) decision-making forms much of this basis. We predicate certain expectations that fire will travel in a defined (predictable) manner that fire will hold within a room and compartment for a given duration of time, that the fire load and related fire flows required will be appropriate for an expected size and severity of fire encountered within a given building, occupancy, structural system.

We used to know with a measured degree of predictability, how our buildings would perform, react and fail under most fire conditions. This is what our years of fireground experience provided us, and how we ultimately would predict, assess, plan and implement our incident action plans and ultimately deploy our companies-based upon the predictable performance expected. Conventional Construction Structures (CCS) had this “predictably of performance.” You know, that typical residential structure, the 2-1/2 story wood frame, the three story brick and joist type III occupancy, the four story frame multiple occupancy, etc., etc. Unlike Engineered System Structures (ESS) whose predictability is rooted in the fact that they are unpredictable.

The emerging fire service issues affecting buildings, occupancies and structural systems related to ESS is only beginning to take hold a prominent role and level of significance that is long overdue. The fire service has been dealing with the operational issues and line-of-duty deaths related to ESS since the 1980s and now in 2009, we’re finally raising these ESS issues to a dialog point that is influencing firefighter safety, survival and operations. ( Refer to the Underwriters Laboratory’s (UL) UL University on-line training module for a state-of-the art presentation on Structural Stability of Engineered Lumber in Fire Conditions and performance results that correlate towards redefining fire suppression operations)

The fire service is beginning to fully recognize the merits in adjusting, altering, and changing our strategic and tactical ways of doing business in the streets. It’s becoming self evident in the fire service that it’s no longer acceptable to think that ESS buildings and occupancies will perform in the same manner as CCS buildings and occupancies and that tactics deployed in both CCS and ESS buildings and occupancies will react under similar strategic and tactical plans and tasks. These unique and inherent factors within the ESS profiles must give us a new standard for operational deployment; strategies and tactics that are defined by the risk profile of the building, its engineered structural systems, materials and methods of construction and the fire loading present.

Considerations for changing fire flow rates, the sizing of hose line and the adequacies for fire flow demand and application rates, staffing needs for safe operations, considerations for defensive positioning and defensive operating postures must be considered, and it warrants repeating again; Reckless-Aggressive firefighting must be redefined in the built environment and associated with goal oriented tactical operations that are defined by risk assessed and analyzed tasks that are executed under battle plans that promote the best in safety practices and survivability within know hostile structural fire environment- with determined, effective and proactive firefighting.

Risk-Preferring and Self-indulging Firefighting

Don’t mistake determined, effective and proactive firefighting with that of reckless, baseless and risk-preferring and self-indulging firefighting. There is a difference, a big difference! When we address relationships of Building Construction, Command Risk Management and FireFighter Safety with the occupancy and structural environment, all personnel, regardless of rank, need to equate the occupancy risk with strategic and tactical incident action plans. These safely compliment the identified firefighting operation risk, with the projected building risk profile and interface appropriate behavioral characteristics in the task level firefighting activities. Again, equating building, occupancy risk profiles with determined, effective and proactive firefighting.
The traditional attitudes and beliefs of equating aggressive firefighting operations in all occupancy types coupled with the correlating, established and pragmatic operational strategies and tactics MUST not only be questioned, they need to be adjusted and modified; risk assessment, risk-benefit analysis, safety and survivability profiling, operational value and firefighter injury and LODD reduction must be further institutionalized to become a recognized part of modern firefighting operations.

It’s no longer just brute force and sheer physical determination that define structural fire suppression operations. Aggressive firefighting must be redefined and aligned to the built environment and associated with goal oriented tactical operations that are defined by risk assessed and analyzed tasks that are executed under battle plans that promote the best in safety practices and survivability within know hostile structural fire environments. Consider the following definitions as they relate to defining structural combat fire suppression operations.

Aggressive and Measured Approach.

Aggressive: Assertive, bold, and energetic, forceful, determined, confident, marked by driving forceful energy or initiative, marked by combative readiness, assured, direct, dominate…

Measured: Calculated; deliberate, careful; restrained, think, considered, confident, alternatives, reasoned actions, in control, self assured, calm…
You be the judge as to what should be appropriately defining interior fire suppression operations.

It’s all about understanding the building-occupancy relationships and integrating; construction, occupancies, fire dynamics and fire behavior, risk, analysis, the art and science of firefighting, safety conscious work environment concepts and effective and well-informed incident command management. This is what it’s going to take to truly provide a means for “everyone to go home”.
Occupancy Risk not Occupancy Type Many of today’s incident commanders, company officers and firefighters lack the clarity of understanding and comprehension that correlate to the inherent characteristics of today’s buildings, construction and occupancies. We assume that the routiness of our operations and incident responses equates with predictability and diminished risk to our firefighting personnel.

Our current generation of buildings, construction and occupancies are not as predicable as past conventional construction, therefore risk assessment, strategies and tactics must change to address these new rules of structural fire engagement. You need to gain the knowledge and insights and to change and adjust your operating profile in order to safe guard your companies, personnel and team compositions. Again strategic firefighting operations; Strategies and tactics must be based on occupancy risk not occupancy type.

With this being stated, another primary consider
ation that must be deliberated and changed as it relates to firefighting and the built environment is the long held fire service tradition and practice of Structural Fire Alarm Response (resources) Assignments being based upon the Occupancy Type. Sending the two Engine Companies and one Truck Company assignment with a Battalion Chief and a RIT team to a reported structure fire in an occupied single family residential structure; is not acceptable.

As I previously stated, the rules for structural fire engagement have changed. Structural Fire Alarm Response (resources) Assignments should be based upon the Risk Profile the occupancy has related to Building construction, systems and projected or determined fire loading. Sending the four Engine Companies, two Truck Companies, a manpower Heavy Rescue Company, two additional Battalion Chiefs, a Safety Officer and support staff assignment with the assigned Battalion Chief on the alarm assignment to a reported structure fire in an occupied single family residential structure, that happens to be 5000 square feet in size with ESS components; IS Acceptable.

· There is an acute understanding and corollary of technical knowledge and inter reliance on occupancies, construction, strategy, tactics, risk, safety, physics, engineering and fire suppression theory, This is a fact.
· Previous, historical parameters and Building/Structural Performance always provides a postulated measurement to gauge operational tasks and form the basis for the Incident Action Plan. These parameters must be recognized and integrated
· There is a need to integrate performance based incident indicators derived from engineering, physics, fire dynamics, historical and statistical basis
· Basic Size-Up is Antiquated for Firefighting and the Built Environment. – Start Thinking in terms of Dynamic Risk Assessment and Command Risk Management
· USFA Annual Report on Firefighter Fatalities in the United States “More firefighters using an aggressive interior attack in enclosed structures die more often, in greater numbers, and with greater multiple line-of-duty deaths than those using the same tactical approach in opened structure fires.”

Situational Awareness and Risk Assessment Situation Awareness related to Building Construction, Command Risk Management and Firefighter Safety is another mission critical element. Situation Awareness (SA) is the perception of environmental elements within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future. It is also a field of study concerned with perception of the environment critical to decision-makers in complex, dynamic situations and incidents. Both the 2006 and 2007 Firefighter Near-Miss Reporting System Annual Reports identified a lack of situational awareness as the highest contributing factor to near misses reported.

Situation Awareness involves being aware of what is happening around you at an incident scene to understand how information, events, and your own actions will impact operational goals and incident objectives, both now and in the near future. Lacking SA or having inadequate SA has been identified as one of the primary factors in accidents attributed to human error (Hartel, Smith, & Prince, 1991) (Nullmeyer, Stella, Montijo, & Harden, 2005). Situation Awareness becomes especially important in the structural fire suppression and firefighter domains where the information flow can be quite high and poor decisions can lead to serious consequences.
Dynamic Risk Assessment is commonly used to describe a process of risk assessment being carried out in a changing or evolving environment, where what is being assessed is developing as the process itself is being undertaken. This is further problematical for the Incident Commander when confronted with competing or conflicting incident priorities, demands or distractions before a complete appreciation of all mission critical or essential information and data has been obtained. The dynamic management of risk is all about effective, informed and decisive decision making during all phases of an incident at a structural fire.

To the Incident Commander, fire officer or firefighter, knowing what’s going on around you, in and around the building structure and understanding the consequences of building, construction, assembly, fire load and fire development and growth is mission critical to incident stabilization and mitigation and profoundly crucial in terms of personnel safety.

The integration of Situational Awareness and Dynamic Risk Assessment related to the building and occupancy is a mission critical element in managing structural fires and in the strategic command management and company level tactical operations as we go forward into the next decade. Traditional phased incident scene size-up and monitoring is antiquated and no longer appropriate or applicable to modern fire service operations.

Situational awareness is a combination of attitudes, previously learned knowledge and new information gained from the incident scene and environment that enables the strategic commanders, decision-makers and tactical companies to gather the information they need to make effective decisions that will keep their firefighters and resources out of harm’s way, reducing the likelihood of adverse or detrimental effects.

It’s Not about Our Entertainment Value

When we focus out attention on the interdependent functional domains of Building Construction, Command Risk Management and FireFighter Safety and the essence of combat structural fires; Structural firefighting is what it’s all about, is it not? The reason we have such veneration for firefighting and the fire service and all it entails; has a lot to do with going into burning buildings and fighting fire. We enjoy it tremendously; we have fun at, because of who we are and what we do-as firefighters. But, firefighting has its adverse consequences, with all too familiar costs, in the form of injuries, debilitating accidents and line of duty deaths.

As a firefighter, to say that we love firefighting would be an understatement, BUT one issue that we need to address is the fact that there are many individual firefighters, companies and organizations that employ fireground operational practices that promote the “enjoyment and entertainment” of working a good job within the occupancy compartment of a structural fire in the building environment. Staying too long in the wrong place, operating tactically in an adverse environment with known hazards that do not have value, other than the enjoyment of nozzle time and operating time in the fire.

If the fire service can significantly increase proficiencies in building knowledge and equate that to other fundamental operational aspect in structural fire operations, then there would be a direct enhancement to firefighter safety, through injury and LODD reduction. If we understand buildings, occupancies and construction, and balance this
with our understanding of fire dynamics and orchestrate it with appropriate strategies, tactics and command management, then we made the new safety equation work; Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety (Bk=F2S).

Its all about the Structural Anatomy of Buildings.

The Charleston Nine
Bradford Rodney “Brad” Baity – Engineer 19

Theodore Michael Benke – Captain 16
Melvin Edward Champaign – Firefighter 16
James “Earl” Allen Drayton – Firefighter 19
Michael Jonathon Alan French – Engineer 5
William H. “Billy” Hutchinson, III – Captain 19

Mark Wesley Kelsey – Captain 5
Louis Mark Mulkey – Captain 15
Brandon Kenyon Thompson – Firefighter 5

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 18, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: "Safety Week", building construction, Charleston, Christopher Naum, command, dynamics, fire behavior, LODD, risk, Safety Culture, structure fires

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Three: “Dynamic Management of Risk during Combat Fire Engagement”

2 comments

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Three: “Dynamic Management of Risk during Combat Fire Engagement”

Protect Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility

Of the four (4) Key Focus areas in this year’s Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week, that include Safety, Health, Survival and Chiefs, the focus area of Structural Size-Up and Situational Awareness within the Survival element become compliment, when combined with the mission critical operation function of Dynamic Management of Risk during Combat Fire Engagement.
•In our previous installment, we posed the operative question that stated: “What do you “really” know about the buildings in your district?”
•The Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week focal point that reinforce the provision for all personnel to keep apprised of different types of building materials and construction used in your community.
•It was also stated that, Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety” and that it was imperative to Know Your District and its Risk.
•But what about the Dynamic Management of Risk during Combat Fire Engagement?

The continuing emphasis on improving our safety culture and the reemergence of Safety as a strategic pillar is evident and self-revealing in various facets of current fire service operations, discussions or initiatives. I say reemergence, due to the fact that Safety was THE Fire Service issue in the mid to late 1980’s with the development of the NFPA 1500 Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program and the emerging focus, at the time on firefighter-personnel safety, effective incident operational practices and company officer development.

Following the first National Fire Fighter Life Safety Summit and subsequent publication of the Sixteen Firefighter Life Safety initiatives (2004), coupled with the escalating adverse trends in Firefighter Line-of-Duty Deaths, significant attention and dialog has been directed at the generally accepted fire service practices, culture and, at times; indifference towards safety, combat fire suppression operations & methodologies and command risk management.

THE REAR VIEW MIRROR
The fundamentals of Fire fighting have not drastically changed over the past 75 years. However, the Rules for Combat Structural Fire Suppression Have Changed… Didn’t anyone tell you? Structures, Buildings, compartments, materials, structural systems, assemblies, designs, occupancies, fire loading, fire dynamics and behavior; all have changed-dramatically in the past seventy-five years. In the years since Chief Lloyd Layman’s (1940) Fundamentals of Firefighting Tactics and his groundbreaking “Little Drops of Water” presentation at FDIC in 1950, and the ensuing formulative “firefighting war years” of the 1970’s the fundamentals of firefighting and combat fire engagement have continued to emphasize aggressive interior operations, at times directly opposed to qualitative risk indicators, elements and behaviors. The firefighting doctrines and methodologies of the 1970’s and 1980’s shaped and influenced our culture and have brought us to these crossroads in 2009.

Combat fire suppression and rescue is considered a primary tenet of fire and emergency service agencies. We plan, prepare, train, outfit and anticipate the call for fire suppression services – that alarm dispatch that communicates a possible or actual report of fire in a structure and occupancy and the need to dispatch, deploy and orchestrate the equipment, resources, manpower and expertise necessary to safely handle the fire and incident. Combat fire suppression and interior rescue and support operations, incident severity, magnitude and frequency can vary widely in their application and potential as an incident response factor and with the associated risk that is present to operating companies.

Common themes have promoted risk management and command decision making over the years, related to buildings, occupancies and their relationship to structural firefighting and combat engagement. Since 2008, I have been promoting the mantra that Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety be added to our continuing efforts for LODD reduction and firefighter safety, aligning with command risk management and the Sixteen Firefighter Life Safety initiatives;

•Brannigan (1971) The Building is the Enemy
•Dunn (1985) No Building is Worth the Life of a Firefighter
•Brunacini (1985) “We Will Risk” Doctrine
•Brennan (1995) Make the Building Behave
•IAFC (2001) Risk Assessment & Rules of Engagement
•Goldfeder (2001) Everyone Goes Home
•NFFF (2004) 16 Firefighter Live Safety Initiatives
•Naum (2008) Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety

There is one element that is a constant in deployment, response and operations during combat structural fire operations and command risk; and that is the interface and interaction with the structure, the occupancy and its inherent features, hazards, risks and performance characteristics. Chief Alan Brunacini (1985, 2002) wrote; “We will risk our lives a lot, in a highly calculated and controlled manner, to protect a savable human life; We will risk our lives a little, in a highly calculated and controlled manner, to protect savable property. We will not risk our lives at all to protect lives or property that is already lost.”

Of the first four Firefighter Life Safety initiatives, initiatives #3 and #4 provide dominant importance related to combat firefighting and command management and risk;

1.Define and advocate the need for a cultural change within the fire service relating to safety; incorporating leadership, management, supervision, accountability and personal responsibility.
2.Enhance the personal and organizational accountability for health and safety throughout the fire service.
3.Focus greater attention on the integration of risk management with incident management at all levels, including strategic, tactical, and planning responsibilities
4.All firefighters must be empowered to stop unsafe practices.

The integration of effective command risk management is an integral element in developing our fire service safety culture and creating a safety conscious work environment (SCWE). Understanding building performance, construction and fire dynamics are the other mission critical elements for a SCWE. Expanding and promoting the dynamic management of risk during combat fire engagement and institutionalize this into our strategic and tactical decision-making during combat structural fire operations will provide for enhanced focus and continuing assessment of building structural integrity, fire behavior and construction performance to ensure the safety and integrity of tactical company missions within the incident action plan at all buildings and structures, regardless of their construction type, materials, occupancy classification, age or size.

IAFC’S 10 RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
The International Association of Fire Chief’s (IAFC), in 2001, developed and published its “10 Rules of Engagement for Structural Firefighting” that apply to all fires: r />
Acceptability of Risk
1.No building or property is worth the life of a firefighter.
2.All interior fire fighting involves an inherent risk.
3.Some risk is acceptable, in a measured and controlled manner.
4.No level of risk is acceptable where there is no potential to save lives or savable property.
5.Firefighters shall not be committed to interior offensive fire fighting operations in abandoned or derelict buildings.

Risk Assessment
1.All feasible measures shall be taken to limit or avoid risks through risk assessment by a qualified officer.
2.It is the responsibility of the Incident Commander to evaluate the level of risk in every situation.
3.Risk assessment is a continuous process for the entire duration of each incident.
4.If conditions change, and risk increases, change strategy and tactics.
5.No building or property is worth the life of a firefighter.

The integration of Acceptability of Risk and the aspect of Risk Assessment continue to challenge the fire service in determination, acceptability, applicability and implementation. The critical questions that must be asked is; Does your organization effectively use Risk Management, is it an integral part of command decision making process, and is it practiced amongst ALL operating personnel on the emergency incident scene, at all times? The IAFC Safety, Health and Survival Section is presently working to revise and expand the original “10 Rules of Engagement for Structural Firefighting” and align them with current fire service operational issues and challenges.

IT’S MORE THAN JUST SIZE-UP; SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AND DYNAMIC RISK ASSESSMENT
Dynamic Risk Assessment is commonly used to describe a process of risk assessment being carried out in a changing or evolving environment, where what is being assessed is developing as the process itself is being undertaken. This is further problematical for the Incident Commander when confronted with competing or conflicting incident priorities, demands or distractions before a complete appreciation of all mission critical or essential information and data has been obtained.

The dynamic management of risk is all about effective, informed and decisive decision making during all phases of an incident.Situation Awareness [SA], is the perception of environmental elements within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future. It is also a field of study concerned with perception of the environment critical to decision-makers in complex, dynamic situations and incidents. Both the 2006 and 2007 Firefighter Near-Miss Reporting System Annual Reports identified a lack of situational awareness as the highest contributing factor to near misses reported.

Situation Awareness (SA) involves being aware of what is happening around you at an incident to understand how information, events, and your own actions will impact operational goals and incident objectives, both now and in the near future. Lacking SA or having inadequate SA has been identified as one of the primary factors in accidents attributed to human error (Hartel, Smith, & Prince, 1991) (Nullmeyer, Stella, Montijo, & Harden, 2005). Situation Awareness becomes especially important in work related domains where the information flow can be quite high and poor decisions can lead to serious consequences.

To the Incident commander, Fire Officer or firefighter, knowing what’s going on around you, and understanding the consequences is mission critical to incident stabilization and mitigation and profoundly crucial in terms of personnel safety. The integration of Situational Awareness and Dynamic Risk Assessment is a mission critical element in strategic incident command management and company level tactical operations as we go forward into the next decade. Traditional incident scene size-up is antiquated and no longer appropriate or applicable to modern fire service operations.

According to a 1998 published Tri Data study report, “Situational Awareness is one of the most difficult skills to master and is a weakness in the fire community. The report goes on to state that “The culture must change so that [personnel] are observing, thinking, and discussing the situation constantly.” It’s all about implementing effective human performance tools; perceptions versus reality, expectations versus realization, comprehension and forecasting, informed decision-making and calculated and formulated risk. It’s a whole lot more than just “Size-Up”. Although size-up has helped us manage risk to some degree, significant cultural and technological impediments to firefighter safety still exisit.

DYNAMIC RISK ASSESSMENT
The term ‘Dynamic Risk Assessment’ is commonly used to describe a process of risk assessment being carried out in a changing or evolving environment, where what is being assessed is developing as the process itself is being undertaken. This is further problematical for the Incident Commander when confronted with competing or conflicting incident priorities, demands or distractions before a complete appreciation of all mission critical or essential information and data has been obtained.

The dynamic management of risk is all about effective, informed and decisive decision making during all phases of an incident. All command and supervisory personal and operating companies must be able to recognize and appreciate the risks which are present at an incident in order to carry out an effective dynamic risk assessment. The definition of a dynamic risk assessment is: “The continuous process of identifying hazards, assessing risk, taking action to eliminate or reduce risk, monitoring and reviewing, in the rapidly changing circumstances of an Operational incident.”

In the early 1990s the United Kingdom (UK) Fire Service embarked upon a campaign to introduce effective systems of command, based upon a foundation of risk assessment and evaluation. The initiative was due to the large number of firefighter fatalities, which resulted in extensive investigations by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), a quasi-autonomous government agency which has significant statutory powers in relation to the Health and Safety of the U.K. workforce. The level of scrutiny to which the HSE exposed the UK Fire Service was unprecedented in its history and resulted in a fundamental root and branch evaluation of operational safety and performance. This is not unlike the current issues facing the United States Fire Service and our adverse LODD trends, impacts and initiatives.

Deputy Chief Fire Officer Mark W. Smitherman, Nottinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service stated. “The process heralded a difficult and, to some extent, a traumatic time for many brigades throughout the U.K. A considerable level of resources was focused on addressing the many problems that were uncovered in [fire brigade] systems and procedures. Most importantly, the self evaluation [is] still ongoing and is firmly embedded into the U.K. fire service dimension as a dynamic and continuous process. In essence, the impetus for change stemming from the early 1990s has embedded within the U.K. fire service a structured and all-encompassing approach to operational risk management.”

Deputy Chief Smitherman goes on to state that, at the strategic and systematic level, through a process of vertical and horizontal managerial integration, provides the support necessary to ensure that operational personnel are able to
remain safe in dynamic and hostile environments. However, the foundation of Dynamic Operational Risk Assessment is the ability of individual firefighters to make professional judgments about the appropriate use of available resources in order to maintain their own safety and to contribute to the safety of others.Therefore all firefighters must be:
•Competent to perform tasks assigned,
•An effective member of a team,
•Self-disciplined to work within accepted systems of work,
•Adaptable to changing circumstances, and
•Able to recognize his or her own abilities & limitations

“Selection, training, and competency programs must ensure that each of these prerequisites are embedded within individual firefighters. In reality, the ability of an officer to command an incident is inextricably linked to the ability of individual firefighters to operate as a Safe Person and to be part of the total command process and not merely a result of it.”

The Incident Commander, in effect, is dependent on the command vision of all participating firefighters and officers for success. Therefore, each firefighter must fully understand and continually make dynamic assessments within their area of operations. All firefighters in the U.K. have received structured training inline with this risk assessment methodology.

MODERN ENVIRONMENT
The built-environments that form and shape our response districts and communities pose unique challenges to the day-to-day responses of fire departments and their subsequent operations during combat structural fire engagement. With the variety of occupancies and building characteristics present, there are definable degrees of risk potential with recognizable strategic and tactical measures that must be taken. Although each occupancy type presents variables that dictate how a particular incident is handled, most company operations evolve from basic strategic and tactical principles rooted in past performance and operations at similar structures. This basis is based upon Predictability of Performance.
•Modern building construction is no longer predicable
•Command & company officer technical knowledge may be diminished or deficient
•Technological Advancements in construction and materials have exceeded conventional fire suppression practices
•Some fire suppression tactics are faulted or inappropriate, requiring innovative models and methods.
•Fire Dynamics and Fire Behavior is not considered during fireground size-up and assessment
•Risk Management is either not practiced or willfully ignored during most incident operations
•Some departments or officers show and indifference to safety and risk management
•Command & Company Officer dereliction
•Nothing is going to happen to me (us)

STOP THE ENTERTAINMENT
But there’s another factor contributing to unsafe practices, one that we rarely talk about. In short, we need to stop “entertaining” ourselves during fire suppression operations and instead focus on comprehending and reacting to evolving risks.

What do I mean by “entertaining” ourselves? Rather than practicing appropriate risk management, I believe many individuals employ adverse behaviors that occur on a tactical level while ICs believe firefighters are completing their assigned tasks, thus compromising accountability.

These behaviors include:
• Tactical amusement: engaging in any practice or tactic during fire suppression, support tasks or operations that places personnel at risk for the sake of entertainment.

• Tactical diversion: diverting from an assignment while engaging in fire suppression, support tasks or operations in such a way that places personnel at risk.

• Tactical circumvention: deliberately “getting around” an assignment or disregarding risk assessment and incident action plans.

If we’re going to reduce firefighter injuries and deaths, we must be doing the right thing, at the right time, for the right reasons, and in the right place. We must stop the entertainment.

Fortunately, there is a strategy to help us overcome the limits of the traditional size-up: dynamic risk assessment, a continuous process of identifying hazards and taking action to eliminate them. The IC employing dynamic risk assessment doesn’t complete a size-up, form a plan and move on. They constantly monitor and review the fireground conditions, which are usually in a rapidly changing state, and they adjust their plan accordingly. The management of dynamic risk comes down to effective, informed and decisive action during all phases of an incident.

Within the dynamic risk assessment model, two concepts stand out: risk recognition and communication of risk. All command and supervisory personnel and their operating companies must be able to recognize and appreciate the risks present at an incident. At the same time, they must be able to communicate what they see. Unlike conventional size-up, dynamic risk management requires a fluid flow and integration of observations throughout the command structure up to the IC level.

We must manage dynamic risks with a balanced approach of effective assessment, analysis and probability within command decision making that results in safety conscious strategies and tactics. Remember; Dynamic Risk and Command Management and the integration of BECOME SAFE concepts, ingredients for safer operations.

RESOURCES
Phoenix AZ, FD; Safety and Risk Management Profile SOP, HERE
IAFC; Rules of Engagement, HERE
Renton Fire and Emergency Services Department Risk Management Standard Operating Procedure, HERE
Firefigher Survival Resources, IAFC, HERE

REFERENCES
Identifying Leadership and Management Best Practices for Reducing Firefighter Deaths & Injuries Phase I Report. (2006) John Granito, Nancy J. Trench, Robert England, Christopher Neal Fire Protection Publications, Oklahoma State University

Mark W. Smitherman, “British Styles of Incident Safety: Command Decision making and Team Knowledge”

Dynamic Management of Risk at Operational Incidents Health and Safety; A Fire Service Guide. UK Home Office (1998)

Dynamic Management of Risk, Health Safety & Welfare, UK Fire Services Examination Board (2003)

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 17, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: "Situational Awareness" assessment, building construction, Christopher Naum, command, firefighting, risk, size-up

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Four: “History Repeating Events”

No comments

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Four: “History Repeating Events”

Protect Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility

Today is June 17th, the fourth day in the Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week. To many of you, today is unlike so many other days. Whether it’s going on or off-shift, going to your “day” job; common rituals and activities define our day and are a part of your typical schedule or routine, activities, occupation, trade, leisure or everyday jobs.

On any given day, we expect some fairly simple and basic things; Simple and basic from a firefighter’s perspective that is. Let’s clearly put this discussion into firefighter terms and context. We hope that we have a busy day, for the most part; that the alarms and incidents allow us to practice our skills and do what we do best. Deep down inside, we also hope that we have a good “job” come in that allows us to work the job, to fight the fight and put into practice all that we train and prepare to do, we the bell hits and we are called to duty.

Not that we hope or wish undue miss-fortune, distress or sorrow on anyone, but, IF a fire is going to happen, let it happen on my shift, my tour or while I’m at the firehouse and able to make the first-due. It’s a pretty fundamental hierarchy of need, and it’s what makes us tick at times. Because of who we are and what we do. Right?

But today is much more than that. June 17th marks the anniversary of two significant fire service incidents that resonate with the values, doctrine and philosophy that define the principles of Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week.

Both of these incidents resulted in firefighter line-of-duty deaths at seemingly routine fires, in relatively ordinary structures and occupancies, each with unusual building construction features and conditions that would contribute to the adverse circumstances of the incident operations, and ultimately contribute to the LODD events.

Hotel Vendome Fire-1972
On June 17th, 1972, a typical routine day was unfolding for the Jakes in the Boston Fire Department. At 14:35 hours, Box 1571 was received at Boston Fire Alarm Office. It would be the first of four alarms required to extinguish an intense fire at the former Hotel Vendome on Commonwealth Avenue at Dartmouth Street, City of Boston, Massachusetts. It took nearly three hours to contain the blaze. The four alarm fire required a compliment of 16 engine companies, 5 ladder companies, 2 aerial towers and 1 heavy rescue company, with all companies operating with a full complement of personnel staffing.

Following extensive and strenuous suppression operations, the BFD commenced routine overhaul operation. Then, at 17:28 hours, without warning, all five floors of a 40 by 45 foot section southeast corner of the building collapsed, burying a ladder truck and 17 firefighters beneath a two-story pile of brick, mortar, plaster, wood and debris.

More than any other event in the three hundred year history of the Boston Fire Department, the Vendome tragedy exemplifies the risk intrinsic to the firefighting profession and the accompanying courage required in the performance of duty. Nine firefighters were killed on that day, eight more injured; eight women widowed, twenty-five children lost their fathers; a shocked city mourned before the sympathetic eyes of the entire nation.

The Hotel Vendome fire and the Nine Line-of-duty deaths, two Company Officers and seven firefighters
• Lieutenant THOMAS J. CARROLL, E-32.
• Lieutenant JOHN E. HANBURY, JR., L-13.
• Firefighter THOMAS W. BECKWITH, E-32.
• Firefighter JOSEPH E. BOUCHER, JR., E-22.
• Firefighter CHARLES E. DOLAN, L-13.
• Firefighter JOHN E. JAMESON, E-22.
• Firefighter RICHARD B. MAGEE, E-33.
• Firefighter PAUL J. MURPHY, E-32.
• Firefighter JOSEPH P. SANIUK, L-13.

Built in 1871 and massively expanded in 1881, the Hotel Vendome was a luxury hotel located in Boston’s Back Bay, just north of Copley Square. During the 1960s, the Vendome suffered four small fires. In 1971, the year of the original building’s centennial, the Vendome was purchased. The new owners opened a restaurant called Cafe Vendome on the first floor, and began renovating the remaining hotel into condominiums and a shopping mall.

Although the cause of the original fire was not known, the subsequent collapse was attributed to the failure of an overloaded seven-inch steel column whose support had been weakened when a new duct had been cut beneath it, exacerbated by the extra weight of water used to fight the fire on the upper floors.

References and Documents
• Boston Fire Department, HERE
• Vendome, Wikipedia, HERE
• Building Photos and the Firefighter’s Memorial, HERE
• Gendisasters, Historical Perspective, HERE
• Boston Globe, HERE
• Boston FD Ladder 15, HERE

FDNY Father’s Day Fire-2001
The relative calm of a quiet Sunday, Father’s Day, June 17th , 2001 was broken at 14:19 hours with a phone call to the FDNY Queens Central Office reporting a fire at 12-22 Astoria Blvd, in the Astoria Section of Queens, New York. For almost 80 years, the Long Island General Supply store has been a fixture in the Long Island City section of Queens serving local contractors and residents with all of their hardware needs. Unfortunately, that included propane tanks and other flammable liquids.

Two structures were involved in this incident. Both buildings were interconnected on the first floors as well as the cellars.

• Both structures were built prior to 1930 of ordinary (Type III) construction, and were two stories in height, each with a full cellar.
• Building 1 measured 2035 square feet and was triangular in shape.
• Building 2 measured 1102 square feet and was rectangular in shape.
• Building 1 and Building 2 shared a common or party wall and were interconnected on the first floor and the cellar.Building to building access in the cellar was through a fire door. The fire door was blocked open to allow free movement between the cellars which were used for storage. The hardware stored occupied the first floor and cellars of both buildings. Building 1 had two apartments on the second floor.

Building 2 had an office and storage space on the second floor. Note: A third uninvolved building was attached to the west side of Building 2. The flat roof system sheathing consisted of 5/8-inch plywood covered by felt paper and rubber roof membrane. The foundation was constructed out of stone and mortar. The support system was a combination of steel masonry posts/lolly columns and wooden support beams.

FDNY Units arrived within 5 minutes of the dispatch and gave the signal for a working fire. Fire fighters were making good progress but at 14:48 hours something went terribly wrong. Witnesses on the scene report hearing a small explosion followed by a huge blast. The shock wave from the blast blew d
own every fire fighter on the street and knocked down the exposure 1 wall onto the sidewalk, right on top of fire fighters venting the building.

As members started sifting through the rubble, the chief ordered a second alarm followed almost immediately by a fourth alarm when a radio transmission was received from FF Brian Fahey from Rescue 4. He was in the basement under tons of collapsed material.

“I’m trapped in the basement by the stairs. Come get me.” This was a battle cry to everyone on the scene. Every capable member frantically began removing debris to try and get to Brian and the others. The chief ordered more help. Numerous special calls were made.

There were 144 pieces of apparatus at the scene: 46 engines, 33 ladders, 16 battalion chiefs, 2 deputy chiefs, all 5 rescues, 7 squads, and many more. In fact, with the exception of the fire boats, the JFK hose wagon, the Decon unit, and the thawing units, every type of special unit was at the scene.

Even with the vast resources of the Department, the task took several hours. The members that were on the sidewalk were quickly recovered.
• Fire fighters Harry Ford (R4) and John Downing (L163) were removed in traumatic arrest and brought to Elmhurst Hospital were they succumbed from their injuries.
• Back at the scene members still were trying to get to Brian while others were trying to put out the smoky fire. The battle went through the afternoon and into the evening.
• The fire was being fueled by some of the flammables in the building.
• After about four hours they finally reached the basement, but again, it was too late. FDNY Firefighter Brian died in the Line-of-duty.

Subsequent investigations revealed that two local kids were in the rear yard of the building when unbeknownst to them they knocked over a can of gasoline. The gasoline ran under the rear door, into the basement eventually finding an ignition source in the form of the water heater.

When the water heater kicked in, it ignited the gasoline. As fire fighters began working in the building the fire caused the explosion of a large propane tank illegally stored in the basement. The resulting blast leveled the building and caused what will be forever known as the worst Father’s Day in FDNY’s history. (Excerpt of the event description published in www.fdnewyork.com).

The supreme sacrifice was made that day by;
• FDNY Firefighter Harry S. Ford, Rescue Co.4
• FDNY Firefighter Brain D. Fahey, Rescue Co. 4
• FDNY Firefighter John Downing, Ladder Co. 163

Take the time to read the NIOSH Report, and learn the lessons from that event

References
NIOSH Report F2001-23, HERE
FDNEWYORK, HERE
Steve Spak, Photos, HERE
The Late, FDNY Firefighter Andy Fredrick’s Account, HERE
Online Service Accounts and Coverage, HERE
Buffalo, NY FD North Division Street Explosion, HERE, HERE and HERE

Note: The Buffalo, NY, Fire Department experienced a similar event on December 27, 1983 in North Division Street Fire and Explosion that resulted in five firefighter line-of-duty deaths.

As BFD firefighters arrived at the scene of a reported propane leak in a three-story radiator warehouse (Type III ordinary construction), a massive explosion occurred, killing five firefighters instantly and injuring nine others, three of them critically. The force of the blast blew BFD Ladder 5′s tiller aerial 35 feet across the street into the front yard of a dwelling. BFD Engine 1′s pumper was also blown across the street with the captain and driver pinned in the cab with burning debris all around them. Engine 32′s engine was blown up against a warehouse across a side street and covered with rubble.

Two civilians were also killed and another 60 to 70 were injured. While operating at the rescue effort, another 19 firefighters were injured. The blast and ensuing fire ignited 14 residences and damaged as many as 130 buildings over a four block area. The explosion occurred when an employee was moving an illegal 500-lb. propane tank with a forklift truck and dropped it, breaking off a valve. The gas leaked out, found an ignition source, and the explosion occurred. Killed in the line of duty were all assigned to Buffalo FD Ladder Company 5; F/F Michael Austin, F/F Michael Catanzaro, F/F Matthew Colpoys, F/F James Lickfield and F/F Anthony Waszkielewicz.

Taking it to the Streets
The adage that the fire service has more recently adopted states; “There are no “routine calls”; referring to the safety consciousness that all responding companies should endeavor to consider when responding to an incident, that all too often appears; upon our arrival to be routine in every sense of the word. Whether it’s an alarm system activation, a report of food on the stove, a report of a smoke detector alarming or a report of a gas odor or leak, we have a tendency to treat a lot of things as equal and very routine based upon the periodicity and frequency of the alarm type and the typical, inconsequential nature of the incident outcome or the commonality of the fire and suppression efforts that routinely are employed by our operating companies.

We seem to do a lot of things at times out of common practice and repetition, you know; “We’ve always done it that way…” syndrome. There’s a resonating theme that is making its way around the fire service dealing with an apparent “culture of extinguishment” and the suggested and inaccurately described “diametrically opposing” fire service safety culture promoted by those on the “Dark Side”

The daily experience, expectations, our comfort zone;
• We’re pretty good at what we do-Regularly….
• We develop profound habits and methods…
• We treat a lot of things as equal in many respects…
• We’ve grown accustomed to certain operational modes..
• We don’t really think anything is going to happen to us, certainly nothing so adverse that I don’t go home after the call.

Nothing is going to happen to YOU; it happens to someone else….
BUT to everyone else-YOU are the other Guy!

Take the time today or this evening to visit and download selective reports from the NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program. The lessons learned from these reports and the important recommendations that are written as a direct result of the supreme sacrifices made by our brother and sister firefighters that died in the line of duty speaks volumes. In reality, the words written in these reports are the words from our fallen, they convey the messages to correct deficiencies, close gaps and increase and enhance are
as of operations, training, education, administration, management, supervision, resources, equipment, protocols, preparedness, perspectives, culture and values.

When you look over these events over the years, it doesn’t take long to identify that many LODD events share similarities, and that specific incident events, deficiencies, outcomes and recommendations are identical in every way, except for the fire department name and geographical location. In other words, we have History Repeating Events (HRE). Events that resonate with common issues, apparent and contributing causes and operational factors that share legacy issues that the fire service fails to identify, relate to and implement. In other words, we fail a times to learn from the past, or we make a deliberate chose to ignore those lessons due to other internal or external influences, pressures, authority, beliefs, values or viewpoints. We make choices and we determine our direction, path and destiny.

History repeating itself is nothing new to society, it is apparent and self revealing in much of written history and recorded legacies, and as defined by a popular quote states; “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

An interesting series of quotes from noted historian Gerda Lerner states the following;
“What we do about history matters. The often repeated saying that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them has a lot of truth in it. But what are ‘the lessons of history’? The very attempt at definition furnishes ground for new conflicts. History is not a recipe book; past events are never replicated in the present in quite the same way. Historical events are infinitely variable and their interpretations are a constantly shifting process. There are no certainties to be found in the past.”

She goes on to state; “We can learn from history how past generations thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems. We can learn by analogy, not by example, for our circumstances will always be different than theirs were. The main thing history can teach us is that human actions have consequences and that certain choices, once made, cannot be undone. They foreclose the possibility of making other choices and thus they determine future events.”

We must learn for the part, so that we limit or eradicate the opportunity for History Repeating events aligning themselves again and providing emergency incident circumstances to lead to another line-of-duty death, injuries or large loss incident.

History Repeating Events share may common and familiar themes. Research exemplifies the following shared commonality causes related to History Repeating Events;
• A lack of pre-incident planning
• Ineffective or lack of risk management
• No Incident action plan• Free-lancing
• Inadequate Training/Skills• Faulted Strategies and/or Tactics
• Deficient Resources/staffing
• Lack of Accountability• Insufficient Fire Suppression versus Fire Loading affect• Ineffective or non-existent Supervisory oversight
• No effective span of control / management
• Not understanding Building Construction
• Not understanding Structural Assemblies and Systems
• Not understanding Construction & Occupancy factors• Not understanding Engineered Building Systems and relationship to Tactics
• Lacking understanding of Fire Behavior and Fire Dynamics
• Ineffective Company level supervision
• Lack of Situational Awareness• Command Dysfunction
• Failure to implement periodic in-situ reassessments

Think about your actions, think about what you can do to make a difference or to alter or change the course of a situation. We sometimes have a greater hand in destiny and how the cards are dealt than we think. Take a look and discuss the HRE causal factors listed above, share these with you officers, with you company level personnel or the department as a whole. Pose the question, “What do these mean to you?” See what the different feedback might illustrate and how they may be viewed from a different set of perspectives, generations or rank and assignments.

Safety Considerations for Operations involving Ordinary or Heavy Timber Type Construction.
In support of the two (2) incident events discussed in this article related to the Hotel Vendome and the Astoria Queens Hardware Store Explosion. Both of these structures were Type III, Ordinary Construction. This is a good opportunity for you to introduce yourself to or refresh yourself on the Safety Considerations for Operations involving Ordinary or Heavy Ti…

A comprehensive power point program is available for download from the Near Miss Reporting System web site, HERE

An accompanying narrative report and its alignment with a Near Miss Report related to a type III occupancy and incident response and close call support the power point presentation, HERE

Don’t forget, the Near Miss Reporting System, HERE, has exemplary resources, case studies, close calls and lessons to be learned and institutionalized. The same is true about the resources at the NFFF Everyone Goes Home Program, HERE and the IAFC Fire/EMS Safety week web site HERE.

Take the time to learn something about Ordinary or Heavy Timber Type Construction. As I stated earlier this week, Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety. No more History Repeating Events!
Here’s a closing quote from the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy;“Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.”

Be safe, have a great tour or stay at the firehouse today or this evening. Remember this week’s message: Protect Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 17, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: "pre-fire planning", "Safety Week", building construction, Christopher Naum, compentencies, dynamics, LODD, risk, Safety, Safety Culture, training

Firefighting and the Built Environment

1 comment

If you don’t fully understand how a building truly performs or reacts under fire conditions and the variables that can influence its stability and degradation, movement of fire and products of combustion and the resource requirements for fire suppression in terms of staffing, apparatus and required fire flows, then you will be functioning and operating in a reactionary manner.

This places higher risk to your personnel and lessens the likelihood for effective, efficient and safe operations. You’re just not doing your job effectively and you’re at RISK. These risks can equate into insurmountable operational challenges and could lead to adverse incident outcomes. Someone could get hurt, someone could die, it’s that simple, it’s that obvious.

Risk-preferring and self-indulging firefighting
Don’t mistake determined, effective and proactive firefighting with that of reckless, baseless and risk-preferring and self-indulging firefighting. There is a difference, a big difference! When we address relationships of Building Construction, Command Risk Management and FireFighter Safety with the occupancy and structural environment, all personnel, regardless of rank, need to equate the occupancy risk with strategic and tactical incident action plans. These safely compliment the identified firefighting operation risk, with the projected building risk profile and interface appropriate behavioral characteristics in the task level firefighting activities. Again, equating building, occupancy risk profiles with determined, effective and proactive firefighting.

The traditional attitudes and beliefs of equating aggressive firefighting operations in all occupancy types coupled with the correlating, established and pragmatic operational strategies and tactics MUST not only be questioned, they need to be adjusted and modified; risk assessment, risk-benefit analysis, safety and survivability profiling, operational value and firefighter injury and LODD reduction must be further institutionalized to become a recognized part of modern firefighting operations.

It’s all about understanding the building-occupancy relationships and integrating; construction, occupancies, fire dynamics and fire behavior, risk, analysis, the art and science of firefighting, safety conscious work environment concepts and effective and well-informed incident command management. This is what it’s going to take to truly provide a means for “everyone to go home”.
There are new elements being introduced into the fireground operational formula related to structure fires and the buildings and occupancies that defined them. The axiom of Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety (Bk=F2S) continues to form the basis for effective operations, for it’s the knowledge of the building and it’s anatomy that defines the level of operational safety and incident success share by all personnel and operating companies at the incident.

Risk based response assignments
The buildings, structures and occupancies that comprise typical response districts pose unique and consistent challenges during structural fire attack. The variety of occupancies and building characteristics establish varying degrees of risk potential, with defined and recognizable strategic and tactical measures to be taken-sometimes uniquely to each occupancy type. Although each occupancy type presents variables that dictate how a particular incident is handled, most company operations evolve from basic principles rooted in past performance and operations at similar structures. This is based on what I define as; “predictability of performance.”

When we look at various buildings and occupancies, past operational experiences; those that were successful, and those that were not, give us experiences that define and determine how we access, react and expect similar structures and occupancies to perform at a given alarm in the future. Naturalistic (or recognition-primed) decision-making forms much of this basis. We predicate certain expectations that fire will travel in a defined (predictable) manner, that fire will hold within a room and compartment for a given duration of time, that the fire load and related fire flows required will be appropriate for an expected size and severity of fire encountered within a given building, occupancy, structural system.

Occupancy risk not occupancy type
Many of today’s incident commanders, company officers and firefighters lack the clarity of understanding and comprehensio
n that correlate to the inherent characteristics of today’s buildings, construction and occupancies. We assume that the routiness of our operations and incident responses equates with predictability and diminished risk to our firefighting personnel.

With this being stated, another primary consideration that must be deliberated and changed as it relates to firefighting and the built environment is the long held fire service tradition and practice of Structural Fire Alarm Response (resources) Assignments being based upon the Occupancy Type. Sending the two Engine Companies and one Truck Company assignment with a Battalion Chief and a RIT team to a reported structure fire in an occupied single family residential structure; is not acceptable.

There is an acute understanding and corollary of technical knowledge and inter reliance on occupancies, construction, strategy, tactics, risk, safety, physics, engineering and fire suppression theory, This is a fact.
Think about the results of the Charleston, S.C., Sofa Super Store (Routley) Report (part one and part two) and the results and recommendations published in the recent NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program Report F2007-18 for the June 18, 2007, fire in which nine career firefighters died in rapid fire progression at a commercial furniture showroom.
There are extensive and numerous examples of issues affecting Building Construction, Command Risk Management and FireFighter Safety. The performance of a building, structural systems, occupancy, fire behavior and interaction of firefighters under combat fire suppression operations clearly frames our focus on the building, occupancy and Firefighting and the Built Environment.
Occupancies & Associated Risks
Each occupancy type has inherent risk factors. Are you aware of this fact and do you employ appropriate tactics in your operations to operate effectively and safely?

 Single Family Residential

 Multiple Occupancy

 Multiple Occupancy -Transient

 Multiple Occupancy -Special

 Business

 Mercantile

 Industrial

 Storage

 Assembly

 Institutional

 Miscellaneous

The predictability of performance
Risks & Containment; Firefighting and the Built Environment.
What are your considerations
Beyond the Fire Compartment
Fire Analysis of ESS versus CCS
Exposure to Products of Combustion & affects
Fire Dynamics and predictability of Fire Behavior
Personnel Exposure Risks- Aggressive versus Reckless versus Pro-Active
Structural Degradation, Compromise and collapse
Previous, historical parameters and Building/Structural Performance always provides a postulated measurement to gauge operational tasks and form the basis for the Incident Action Plan.

These parameters must be recognized and integrated

There is a need to integrate performance based incident indicators derived from engineering, physics, fire dynamics, historical and statistical basis
Basic Size-Up is Antiquated for Firefighting and the Built Environment. – Start Thinking in terms of Dynamic Risk Assessment and Command Risk Management
USFA Annual Report on Firefighter Fatalities in the United States “More firefighters using an aggressive interior attack in enclosed structures die more often, in greater numbers, and with greater multiple line-of-duty deaths than those using the same tactical approach in opened structure fires.”

That’s all Folks – It’s Not about Entertainment

When we focus out attention on Building Construction, Command Risk Management and FireFighter Safety and the essence of combat structural fires; Structural firefighting is what it’s all about, is it not? The reason we have such veneration for firefighting and the fire service and all it entails; has a lot to do with going into burning buildings and fighting fire. We enjoy it tremendously; we have fun at, because of who we are and what we do-as firefighters. But, firefighting has its adverse consequences, with all too familiar costs, in the form of injuries, debilitating accidents and line of duty deaths.

Staying too long in the wrong place, operating tactically in an adverse environment with known hazards that do not have value, other than the enjoyment of nozzle time and operating time in the fire.

Fire suppression tactics must be adjusted for the rapidly changing methods and materials impacting all forms of building construction, occupancies and structures. The need to redefine the art and science of firefighting is nearly upon us. Some things do stand the test of time, others need to adjust, evolve and change. Not for the sake of change only, but for the emerging and evolving buildings, structures and occupancies being built, developed or renovated in our communities. As Chief Brunacini stated; “We will risk our lives a lot, in a highly calculated and controlled manner, to protect a savable human life; we will risk our lives a little, in a highly calculated and controlled manner, to protect savable property. We will not risk our lives at all to protect lives or property that is already lost.”

If we understand buildings, occupancies and constructions, and balance this with our understanding of fire dynamics and orchestrate it with appropriate strategies, tactics and command management, then we made the new safety equation work; Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety (Bk=F2S).

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 16, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: "Situational Awareness" assessment, building construction, buildings, Christopher Naum, command, LODD, management, risk, Safety Culture, size-up, strategies, structure fires, tactics

Building Construction, Command Risk Management and Firefighter Safety

No comments

Building Construction, Command Risk Management and Firefighter Safety; three functional domains common to the fire service, each having a profound influence and interdependent relationship to fire operations, safety and incident management. When we talk about structural fires, combat fire suppression and interior operations, the discussions tend to revolve around the issues affecting strategy and tactics, engine, truck and rescue company operations, tactical assignments, task level protocols, methods and operating procedures.

The dynamics of firefighting and the interaction within a structure during combat structural fire engagement has a correlating dependency between command and company officers; between dynamic risk assessment and management, situational awareness, building construction and firefighter survival.

The relationships of Building Construction, Command Risk Management and Firefighter Safety are interdependent and formulative to all facets of structural fire operations. These three domains and the functional areas that make up these domains must be mastered in order for any significant changes to the continuing adverse trends in firefighter line of duty death and injury rate can be substantially made within the fireground operations setting.

The mantras of building construction A variety of themes and mantras have been prompted to support various initiatives for the past 30 years related to building construction and in the support of firefighter safety improvements.

Some examples include:
Brannigan, “The Building Is the Enemy” (1971)
Dunn, “No Building Is Worth the Life of a Firefighter” (1985)
Brunacini, “We will Risk” Doctrine (1985)
Brennan, “Make the Building Behave” (1995)
IAFC, “Risk Assessment & Rules of Engagement” (2001)
Goldfeder, “Everyone Goes Home” (2001)
NFFF, “Sixteen Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives” (2004)
Naum, “Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety” (2008)

Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety (Bk=F2S) is the mantra and axiom I began promoting in 2007 and expanded in 2008 that takes into account the true need for the fire service to have a deep seated understanding and technical proficiencies not only in building construction, but the allied functional areas as defined in the core fundamentals.

If the fire service can significantly increase proficiencies in building knowledge and equate that to other fundamental operational aspects in structural fire operations, then there would be a direct enhancement to firefighter safety, through injury and LODD reduction. If we understand buildings, occupancies and constructions, and balance this with our understanding of fire dynamics and orchestrate it with appropriate strategies, tactics and command management, then we made the new safety equation work; Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety (Bk=F2S). We’ll discuss this axiom further in the near future.

Chief Alan Brunacini, in his “We will Risk” Doctrine (1985) wrote, “We will risk our lives a lot, in a highly calculated and controlled manner, to protect a savable human life; we will risk our lives a little, in a highly calculated and controlled manner, to protect savable property. We will not risk our lives at all to protect lives or property that is already lost.” The simplicity of this doctrine prompted a significant change in perspective within the fire service.

Long held beliefs, established and pragmatic operational strategies and tactics began to be questioned; risk, benefit, safety, survivability, assessment, value and firefighter injury and LODD reduction were being introduced into the fireground operational formula related to structure fires and the buildings and occupancies that defined them.

When coupled with the NFFF Firefighter Life Safety Initiative #3 — Focus greater attention on the integration of risk management with incident management at all levels, including strategic, tactical, and planning responsibilities — we can optimistically begin to identify with the necessary areas to focus on training, skill development and operational competencies.

Situational awareness and risk assessment Situation Awareness related to Building Construction, Command Risk Management and Firefighter Safety is another mission critical element. Situation Awareness (SA) is the perception of environmental elements within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future.
It is also a field of study concerned with perception of the environment critical to decision-makers in complex, dynamic situations and incidents. Both the 2006 and 2007 Firefighter Near-Miss Reporting System Annual Reports identified a lack of situational awareness as the highest contributing factor to near misses reported.

Lacking SA or having inadequate SA has been identified as one of the primary factors in accidents attributed to human error (Hartel, Smith, & Prince, 1991) (Nullmeyer, Stella, Montijo, & Harden, 2005). Situation Awareness becomes especially important in the structural fire suppression and firefighter domains where the information flow can be quite high and poor decisions can lead to serious consequences.Dynamic Risk Assessment is commonly used to describe a process of risk assessment being carried out in a changing or evolving environment, where what is being assessed is developing as the process itself is being undertaken. This is further problematical for the Incident Commander when confronted with competing or conflicting incident priorities, demands or distractions before a complete appreciation of all mission critical or essential information and data has been obtained. The dynamic management of risk is all about effective, informed and decisive decision making during all phases of an incident at a structural fire.

According to a 1998 published Tri Data Corporation repor
t, “Situational Awareness is one of the most difficult skills to master and is a weakness in the fire community. The report goes on to state that, “The culture must change so that [personnel] are observing, thinking, and discussing the situation constantly.” It’s all about implementing effective human performance tools; perceptions versus reality, expectations versus realization, comprehension and forecasting, informed decision-making and calculated and formulated risk.

The defining questions you should be asking yourself are;
What do you know about building construction?
Do you have a knowledge base on fire dynamics and fire behavior?
Are you implementing situational awareness into your operations and assignments?
Are you utilizing appropriate and continuous risk assessment (RA) and analysis?
Do the risk assessment indicators influence your incident action plan AND modify it when needed?
Does firefighter safety come first?

Or does tactical “fireground entertainment” permeate your structural fire operations?

Did anyone tell you the Rules for Structural Fire Suppression and Engagement have changed? Do you comprehend the importance of this statement as it relates to your personal safety, your team, your company and your organization? Think about it.

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 16, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: "Situational Awareness" assessment, buildings, Christopher Naum, Collapse, command, construction, risk, Safety, training

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Two. “Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety”, Know Your District and its Risk

No comments

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Two. “Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety”, Know Your District and its RiskProtect Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility. There are Four (4) Key Focus areas in this year’s Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week, which include Safety, Health, Survival and Chiefs. Within the focus area of Survival and the elements of Structural Size-Up and Situational Awareness, a specific key functional component is;

•Keep apprised of different types of building materials and construction used in your community.
•The operative question today is this: “What do you “really” know about the buildings in your district?”

As you drive about your response district today, coming back from an alarm, heading to the firehouse tonight or running errands around your community, take a good look around. Ask your self a simple question; “How well do you know the buildings, structures and occupancies in your response jurisdiction?”

•Be honest, do you really understand how those “older residential” structures were built and understand how fire travels and impacts your fireground operations?
•Are your aware of the newest features of engineered structural support systems being constructed within that new set of homes going up in your second-due area?
•Are you aware, that vacant office building is being converted into a light manufacturing and assembly business?
•How about those unoccupied store fronts and businesses that have recently closed up due to the tough economic times…. any special hazards or operational concerns to your company should you get a dispatch to respond?
•Have the senior members of your station or department shared their stories of operations and incidents at various buildings around your district or community?
•Did you listen to them, or were you quick to dismiss those “old war stories”. There’s a wealth of “pre-planning’ nuggets hidden in those stories. Take the time to listen, remember or postulate.

Take a good look around….think about any given building, the one across the street that you’re looking at while you waited for the traffic light to change; Think about a fire in that same building.

•Do you really understand how it will truly perform under combat structural fire conditions?
•What’s the building’s collapse profile?
•How much operational time will you have?
•What dynamic risk assessment factors will you have to deal with?
•How safe is it for you to engage in interior operations upon your arrival?
•How can this building, its occupancy and structural system hurt, my team, my company, my firefighters, my department, me?

Sometimes things aren’t as obvious as them seem. You may have responded and operated at numerous incidents at a wide variety of buildings in your response area, or very few; some routine, others maybe more demanding…the question remains, “What do you really know about your buildings?” Your life may one day depend on what you actually do know or recollect. Take a good look around.

Pre-Incident planning is formulative to any effective fire service organization. A good staring point is to look at the NFPA 1620 Recommended Practice for Pre-Incident Planning document. ( NFPA Codes and Standards, HERE)

The purpose of the NFPA 1620 Recommended Practice for Pre-Incident Planning document is to aid in the development of a pre-incident plan to help responding personnel effectively manage emergencies with available resources and should not be confused with fire inspections, which monitor code compliance.

The Pre-Incident Plan document is developed by gathering general and detailed data used by responding emergency service personnel to determine the necessary resources and actions necessary to mitigate anticipated emergencies at a specific facility, structure or occupancy.The Pre-Incident Plan document can contain a variety of useful information related to the construction features and systems, building materials and components, occupancy, layout and floor plan, access/egress, built-in protective, detection and suppression systems, special hazards, fire loading, fire suppression flow needs, pre-determined resource needs, exposure factors, etc.The Pre-Incident Plan document can be as simple or detailed as occupancy and/or operational factors dictate.

The import issue here is that you HAVE Pre-Incident Plan documents available for at the very least targeted or high hazard occupancies and buildings, and that they have been updated at some periodic frequency. There’s nothing worst that arriving at a particular box alarm, pulling open the pre-fire “binder” and finding the occupancy was last planned twenty years ago at best.

The 2007 Deutsche Bank Building fire in lower Manhattan, New York City that resulted in the LODD of FDNY Fr. Joseph Graffagnino and Fr. Robert Beddia, stressed the need for timely and accurate pre-incident plans, when a seven alarm fire progressed through the 40 story high-rise building that was in the process of being deconstructed.An informative Training PDF download is attached that provides Operational Safety Considerations at Demolition and Deconstruction sites.

The full power-point version is available for direct download HERE.

Think about your Buildings and Occupancies and correlate your incident operations using an effect acronym called BECOME SAFE.

Our world has evolved and changed. There are a variety of technological and sociological demands that create a continuing element of change in the built environment and our infrastructure. With these changes and demands come the requirements to assess these vulnerabilities, hazards, threats and dangers with effective and dynamic risk management and competent command and control.

These changes influence the way we do business in the street, the interface-up close and personal with the buildings in your community and equate to the risks and hazards you and your personnel will be confronted with and the level of safety afforded them during incident operations. Dynamic Risk and Command Management and the integration of BECOME SAFE concepts, ingredients for safer operations.

•Building
•Evaluation
•Construction/occupancy
•Operational hazards
•Manage time and elements
•Engagement
•Situational awareness
•Assessment and risk analysis
•Fire behavior and effects
•Evaluate and execute

With the advancements in technology, software and programs, there is a vast extent of options and financial levels available to all organizations to develop publish and revise pre-incident planning documents. The key safety message here is that Pre-Fire Plans and Incident Plans can provide a significant margin of support to you during incident operations and can increase firefighter safety, reduce operational risk and aid in the risk
management and command management of a give incident.

Regardless of your agency and respond district size, complexity of simplicity, Pre-Incident Plans are a necessary part of modern firefighting and all-hazards operations. An informative planning flow chart is available within the NFPA 1620 document, Figure 4.2.3. ( Order the NFPA 1620 document through the NFPA HERE)

•Attached is a copy of the Tempe, AZ Fire Department Pre-Incident Planning SOP
•The Phoenix, AZ Fire Department Pre-Incident Planning SOP is available HERE
•An informative Pre-Fire Planning article by Battalion Chief Michael Lee is available HERE

Spend time touring through construction sites as you monitor the progress of a building or occupancy going up. Look at the manner in which structural support systems are fabricated and assembled. Observe the types of materials that are being used and how they are assembled to form rooms and compartments within the structure.

Take a good look at the manner in which floor and roof systems are constructed, these will become mission critical informational items that can be used to determine your operational profile and formulate your incident action plans. Keep abreast of changes, renovations and alternations to buildings and structures, especially as commercial and business occupancies change owners. These are special areas of concerns on wide latitude of safety and operational considerations.

With the continued challenges in these economic times, pay very close attention to the state of your vacant and unoccupied structures. A change in strategic and tactical deployment considerations MUST be instituted; it shouldn’t be business as usual in these structures.

•Keep apprised of different types of building materials and construction used in your community.
•Document those conditions and aspects and train your personnel to understand the occupancies within your community.

•Understand the Structural AnatomyTM of your buildings and occupancies.
•The operative response to the opening question this time next year will be this: “What do you “really” know about the buildings in your district?” …The answer will hopefully be…”A lot!”

•Here’s my New Safety Formula; Bk = f2S, Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 16, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: "pre-fire planning", "Safety Week", "Situational Awareness" assessment, Christopher Naum, command, compentencies, dynamics, risk, Safety Culture

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week; Day-One; What’s It All About

No comments

Today is the first day of Fire and EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week. Did you know that? If so, then you’ve already kicked off a full week of focused activities for your companies and personnel within your organization or in concert with your surrounding jurisdictions and agencies. If you haven’t AND haven’t heard about this, then you need to get with the program and check out the IAFC, Safety, Health and Survival Section and the National Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival web page.

This year’s theme and focus is Protect Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility, encouraging all chiefs and fire/EMS personnel to focus on what they personally can do to manage risk and enhance their health and safety.This year’s theme reflects the need for personal responsibility and accountability within a strong safety culture. In case you missed it, here’s some highlights; Recommended activities and materials will incorporate four key areas where standard operating procedures, policies and initiatives—along with the training and enforcement that support them—can limit fire/EMS personnel’s risk of injury or death:

Safety:

Emergency Driving (enough is enough—end senseless death)

Lower speeds—stop racing to the scene.

Drive safely and arrive alive to help others.

Utilize seat belts—never drive or ride without them.

Stop at every intersection—look in all directions and then proceed in a safe manner.

Health:

Fire Fighter Heart Disease and Cancer Education and Prevention

Don’t smoke or use tobacco products.

Get active.

Eat a heart-healthy diet.

Maintain a healthy weight.

Get regular health screenings.

Survival:

Structural Size-Up and Situational Awareness

Keep apprised of different types of building materials and construction used in your community.

Develop a comprehensive size-up checklist.

Always complete a 360° walk of the structure to collect valuable, operational decision-making information.

Learn the practice of reading smoke.

Be familiar with the accepted rules of engagement.

Learn your accountability system and use it.

Master your tools and equipment.

Remain calm and concentrate.

Chiefs:

Be the Leader in Safety

Become personally engaged in safety and make it part of your strategic vision for the department.

Be willing to make the tough decisions regarding safety policies and practices and their implementation.

Hold members of the organization accountable for their safety and the safety of those with whom they work.

Ensure that resources are available to accomplish activities safely and effectively.

The IAFC Safety, Health and Survival Section encourage all fire/EMS departments to devote this week to reviewing safety policies, evaluating the progress of existing initiatives and discussing health and fitness. Fire/EMS departments should make a concerted effort during the week to correct safety deficiencies and to provide training as needed. An entire week is provided to ensure that each shift and volunteer duty crew can spend one day focusing on fire fighter safety, health and survival.

Here are some significant areas that are a MUST for anyone who is serious about safety, health and survival in their organization and for their personnel. I know many of you frequently visit and utilize these web site, but or those personnel who have yet to come to identify with these sites and wealth of resources and insights they provide, there are those operation crucial resources areas;

• NFFF, Everyone Goes Home, HERE

• IAFC, National Fire and EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week web site, HERE

• IAFC Safety, Health and Survival Section, HERE

• National Near Miss Reporting Systems, HERE

• NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program, HERE

• NFPA, HERE

• FDSOA, HERE

• ISFSI, HERE

• USFA, HERE

• NFFF, HERE

The basis for firefighter and fire and emergency services safety, health and survival is predicated and casted in this, the 21st century by the unprecedented gathering of the leadership of the American fire service that occurred on March 10 – 11, 2004 when more than 200 individuals assembled in Tampa, Florida to focus on the troubling question of how to prevent line-of-duty deaths.

Every year approximately 100 firefighters lose their lives in the line of duty in the United States; about one every 80 hours. The first ever National Fire Fighter Life Safety Summit was convened to bring the leadership of the fire service together for two days to focus all of their attention on this one critical concern.

Every identifiable segment of the fire service was represented and participated in the process.The National Fallen Firefighters Foundation hosted the Summit as the first step in a major campaign. In cooperation with the United States Fire Administration, the Foundation has established the objectives of reducing the fatality rate by 25% within 5 years and by 50% within 10 years. The purpose of the Summit was to produce an agenda of initiatives that must be addressed to reach those milestones and to gain the commitment of the fire service leadership to support and work toward their accomplishment.

iv>

The Summit marks a significant milestone, because it is the first time that a major gathering has been organized to unite all segments of the fire service behind the common goal of reducing firefighter deaths. It provided an opportunity for all of the participants to focus on the problems, jointly identify the most important issues, agree upon a set of key initiatives, and develop the commitments and coalitions that are essential to move forward with their implementation.

Take a look at some of the Summit reports HERE.

The most significant outcome from the Tampa Summit was the development and publication of the NFFF, Sixteen Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives.

Since 2004, these have become the basis from which the majority of safety efforts and initiatives are striving to be aligned from and coordinated with.

1. Define and advocate the need for a cultural change within the fire service relating to safety; incorporating leadership, management, supervision, accountability and personal responsibility.

2. Enhance the personal and organizational accountability for health and safety throughout the fire service.

3. Focus greater attention on the integration of risk management with incident management at all levels, including strategic, tactical, and planning responsibilities.

4. All firefighters must be empowered to stop unsafe practices.

5. Develop and implement national standards for training, qualifications, and certification (including regular recertification) that are equally applicable to all firefighters based on the duties they are expected to perform.

6. Develop and implement national medical and physical fitness standards that are equally applicable to all firefighters, based on the duties they are expected to perform.

7. Create a national research agenda and data collection system that relates to the initiatives.

8. Utilize available technology wherever it can produce higher levels of health and safety.

9. Thoroughly investigate all firefighter fatalities, injuries, and near misses.

10. Grant programs should support the implementation of safe practices and/or mandate safe practices as an eligibility requirement.

11. National standards for emergency response policies and procedures should be developed and championed.

12. National protocols for response to violent incidents should be developed and championed.

13. Firefighters and their families must have access to counseling and psychological support.

14. Public education must receive more resources and be championed as a critical fire and life safety program.

15. Advocacy must be strengthened for the enforcement of codes and the installation of home fire sprinklers.

16. Safety must be a primary consideration in the design of apparatus and equipment.

Think about how each of these sixteen FF LSI relate to your organization and to YOU personally. Take the time to discuss these with your company, line offices or command officers. Share these with your firefighters and get thier imput and identify what safety, health and survival” means to them.

Sixteen Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives, Resources HERE

Check out this informative posting from Chief Billy D. Hayes, the Advocate Program Manager for the Everyone Goes Home® campaign through the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation where he has served as a State and Region IV Advocate. HERE

If you haven’t developed a program for this week’s focus, don’t worry, take a look at some of the resources and select one area to provide a concentrated focus on this week in your organization or company.Start thinking more about safety and how it relates to your department’s needs, risks and operational, administrative and managerial needs or gaps.

Remember, Fire and EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week is time period to focus a concentrated effort toward a wide latitude of safety, health and survival themes and subjects,

But in reality, we know that safety must be a central theme in our fire service culture and manifest itself into every part of daily efforts, operations and tasks.

Check out these Firefighter Nation Groups and join if you haven’t done so. Stay Informed-Get Active…..

http://www.firefighternation.com/group/buildingconstructionfirefigh…

http://www.firefighternation.com/group/commandsafety

http://www.firefighternation.com/group/iafcsafetyhealthsurvivalsection

http://www.firefighternation.com/group/everyonegoeshome

http://www.firefighternation.com/group/firechief

http://www.firefighternation.com/group/theofficersclub

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 14, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: "Safety Week", Christopher Naum, IAFC, IAFF, LODD, Safety, Safety Culture

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week; T minus One; The Opposing Spectrum of Fire Service Safety Culture

No comments

The Evolving Fire Service Safety Culture lies somewhere between two conflicting and opposing spectrums, marked by traditionalist emotions and conservative perspectives.

It’s all about firefighter safety, survivability and doing the “job”; however we need to identify the common defining ground….Let me offer this for consideration today, with T minus One day until the start of the annual Fire/EMS Safety Week.

Aggressive: Assertive, bold, and energetic, forceful, determined, confident, marked by driving forceful energy or initiative, marked by combative readiness, assured, direct, dominate…

Measured: Calculated; deliberate, careful; restrained, think, considered, confident, alternatives, reasoned actions, in control, self assured, calm…

The shifting paradigms of the fire service, over 1484 LODD in the period of 1999-2009, evolved building construction, occupancies, construction and materials, fire behavior, fire loading, community profiles, fire dynamics, risk, staffing and resource levels, personnel and skills sets…

What’s the optimum definition that would define a highly skilled, knowledgeable and dedicated firefighter in 2009? Where do you fit in? With the Theme of this year’s Fire/EMS Safety Week focused on Protect Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility.It is ALL About You!….

How you fit in to the dynamic and orchestrated emergency incident scene, the defined and fluid incident command structure and performance based function of your task and company level assignments? What’s YOUR perspective on Safety? Are you merely going with the status quo, staying politically correct…or defining who you are as a firefighter, a leader, or a mentor?

How do YOU commit to safety during field operations, or more importantly are you elevating yourself as a leader in this, the 21st century, with knowledge, skills and abilities that both embraces and respects the proud tradition of the fire service but also transcends the bounds of time with new insights, wisdom and visionary fortitude that continues to define who we are in today’s society as firefighters, but also assimilates our profession to a higher plateau in these changing and evolving times.

With the start of Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week this Sunday, take a minute to pause and reflect. Stop and think about safety in the context of what you do within your fire, rescue or EMS organization. Your roles, your responsibilities; your brother and sister firefighters and emergency service personnel; the fire and emergency services and the sacrifices of those that paid the supreme sacrifice for the principles that define our profession.Stop and think about your family, the significant people in your life and more importantly, think about what lies before you in your life. It’s all about YOU and all those Around You, AND the public we protect. It’s about Protecting Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility.

Understanding how to integrate personal responsibility and accountability within a strong safety culture within the fire service, while still providing the requisite services to protect the lives and property of our communities that we are sworn to protect; is the challenge before each and everyone of use.Superman, Ironman, Batman, Fireman, Human…We have a tendency- at times to momentarily lapse in recognizing we “Fireman” (and this is related to all gender of firefighters) are Human.

Everyday, firefighters throughout America and the world perform extraordinary feats of bravery and heroism, much of it unheralded, unnoticed and underappreciated. It’s part of our job, it’s what we do, after all, we are fireman (firefighters).

I’ll be publishing a number of postings each day during the week to support the Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week focus and activities.

Just remember; YOU have a significant role in each and every alarm you respond to. Do the Job, push the envelope; for the right reasons, for the right cause and the most noblest of circumstances. Do it for the right reasons-BUT don’t do it for the entertainment.

Accept personal accountability and responsibility. Understand your limitations. Think about it.

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 14, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: "Safety Week", Christopher Naum, IAFC, IAFF, risk, Safety Culture

Technology and Future Demands, today; “But Did You Know?”

No comments

http://www.blogger.com/img/videoplayer.swf?videoUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvp.video.google.com%2Fvideodownload%3Fversion%3D0%26secureurl%3DpgAAAPCZD0ddCGBZjZs6HcCGJYcKmW2XJZJvZEIqGvjXVDjszyJLzOub79Oaxf-JX00fAlSSFjXl4wFUqQn9rqEReD-SuYUebKw6O_BoW5MR_65fSQXma9uBCnf9XMxJLqyt4uQ5Dqv3N7jrS_f6rcHp7RgbQn6K6-9QWbS4-5zsxg1IqYrcZjFUXXbpoTLGluIoYc6TD0TY0dc8-t3LWxCbbGR_PM_dv1zQGZ1xUshg5GzT%26sigh%3DVxWiD6YlH_SGy9RN9uDcNuwPfyc%26begin%3D0%26len%3D86400000%26docid%3D0&nogvlm=1&thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2FThumbnailServer2%3Fapp%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D48723829d100fb1%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw320%26sigh%3DVa86BqtbwyyVMwl0sI8YoZeM5Cs&messagesUrl=video.google.com%2FFlashUiStrings.xlb%3Fframe%3Dflashstrings%26hl%3Den

Technology and it’s impact and the benefits of those impacts are being felt more and more with each passing day. Sometimes cognitively, other times without realization. We need to stop for a moment and fully grasp and comprehend where we are and more importantly, where we’re going AND how we’re going to get there. A bigger question is what are we going to do when we do arrive. Are you prepared, now?

How are you assimilating within your own organization with the current generation of firefighters. The future impact is even more unimaginable, But Did You Know?…..
The bigger Question is…”Are You Prepared?”

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 12, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: Christopher Naum, Future, Generations, Planning, Technology

2009 Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week

No comments

Protect Yourself: Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility June 14-20, 2009

Protect Yourself:

Your Safety, Health and Survival Are Your Responsibility encourages chiefs and fire/EMS personnel to focus on what they personally can do to manage risk and enhance their health and safety. This year’s theme reflects the need for personal responsibility and accountability within a strong safety culture.

Recommended activities and materials will incorporate four key areas where standard operating procedures, policies and initiatives—along with the training and enforcement that support them—can limit fire/EMS personnel’s risk of injury or death:

Safety:

Emergency Driving (enough is enough—end senseless death)
Lower speeds—stop racing to the scene. Drive safely and arrive alive to help others.
Utilize seat belts—never drive or ride without them.
Stop at every intersection—look in all directions and then proceed in a safe manner.
Health: Fire Fighter Heart Disease and Cancer Education and Prevention
Don’t smoke or use tobacco products.
Get active.
Eat a heart-healthy diet.
Maintain a healthy weight.
Get regular health screenings.

Survival:

Structural Size-Up and Situational Awareness
Keep apprised of different types of building materials and construction used in your community.
Develop a comprehensive size-up checklist.
Always complete a 360° walk of the structure to collect valuable, operational decision-making information.
Learn the practice of reading smoke.
Be familiar with the accepted rules of engagement.
Learn your accountability system and use it.
Master your tools and equipment.
Remain calm and concentrate.

Chiefs: Be the Leader in Safety
Become personally engaged in safety and make it part of your strategic vision for the department.
Be willing to make the tough decisions regarding safety policies and practices and their implementation.
Hold members of the organization accountable for their safety and the safety of those with whom they work.
Ensure that resources are available to accomplish activities safely and effectively.

EMS General Operations
Fire General Operations
Firefighter Survival 2009 key area
Health and Wellness 2009 key area
ICS/Accountability
Near-Miss Includes 2009 key area: Resources for chiefs
Vehicle Safety 2009 key area
Wildland
Planning resources

IAFC Safety, Health and Survival section Web Page

Near Miss Reporting Systems, HERE

Everyone Goes Home, HERE

Posted by Christopher Naum on June 12, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized

Without understanding the building-occupancy relationships and integrating; construction, occupancies, fire dynamics and fire behavior, risk, analysis, the art and science of firefighting, safety conscious work environment concepts and effective and well-informed incident command management, company level supervision and task level competencies…You are derelict and negligent and "not "everyone may be going home". Our current generation of buildings, construction and occupancies are not as predictable as past conventional construction; risk assessment, strategies and tactics must change to address these new rules of structural fire engagement. There is a need to gain the building construction knowledge and insights and to change and adjust operating profiles in order to safe guard companies, personnel and team compositions. It's all about understanding the building-occupancy relationships and the art and science of firefighting, Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety (Bk=F2S)

Archives for

Rules of Engagement for Structural Firefighting

Structural Anatomy; Operational Safety at Deconstruction & Demolition Sites

FDNY Disciplines Seven Officers in Fatal Deconstruction Blaze

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Eight + 193; “There is No Day of Rest”

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week Postings from FFN

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Seven; “The Courage to be Safe”

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Six: “Situations, Size-Up, Actions and Entertainment”

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Five: “From Waldbaum’s to Hackensack- Worcester to Charleston; Legacies for Operational Safety”

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Three: “Dynamic Management of Risk during Combat Fire Engagement”

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Four: “History Repeating Events”

Firefighting and the Built Environment

Building Construction, Command Risk Management and Firefighter Safety

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Two. “Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety”, Know Your District and its Risk

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week; Day-One; What’s It All About

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week; T minus One; The Opposing Spectrum of Fire Service Safety Culture

Technology and Future Demands, today; “But Did You Know?”

2009 Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week

CommandSafety.com

CommandSafety.com

CommandSafety.com

The Tombs

Around the Web

The New Safety Formula: Bk = F2S

Buildingsonfire.com on Facebook

2010 NATIONAL FALLEN FIREFIGHTERS MEMORIAL WEEKEND TRIBUTE

FirefighterNetCast on Blog Talk Radio

Blogroll

FireEMSBlogs.com Community

Featured from across Fire/EMS

Cliff Rescue in Delaware…

What’s your story?…

Upcoming Curriculum Changes…

Return of the Geordie…

Archives for

CommandSafety.com

CommandSafety.com

CommandSafety.com

The Tombs

Around the Web

The New Safety Formula: Bk = F2S

Buildingsonfire.com on Facebook

2010 NATIONAL FALLEN FIREFIGHTERS MEMORIAL WEEKEND TRIBUTE

FirefighterNetCast on Blog Talk Radio

Blogroll

tags Across CommandSafety.com

Tags Across FireEMSBlogs.com

FireEMSBlogs.com Community

Featured from across Fire/EMS