Skip to content

Archives for command

See all posts in the network tagged with command

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.

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.

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.

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. 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 on June 17, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , ,

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.
  • 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.

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.

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 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 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 on June 16, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 on June 16, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

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

2 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 on June 16, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

Leadership

No comments

Leadership; It certainly isn’t about the number of bars or collar brass horns you have on your collar, the color of your helmet, or the “title” you have. Although there are many who would argue that point and feel that they are THE Leader specificially because they DO have the title, rank and brass. Some do and some don’t, stop and think about those that do (and why) and those that do not (and why)…..

An interesting take on leadership came from the acclaimed cinema Director Robert Altman’s 2006 Lifetime Achievement Oscar acceptance speech, in which he stated simply; “The director allows an actor to become more than they’ve ever dreamed of being.”

How do you think this applies to the Fire Service?

Take a few minutes to look at management guru Tom Peter’s video on The Definition of Leadership.

The transcript of the Tom Peters video clip is available HERE.

Some Leadership Definitions HERE.

What are your definitions of leadership?
Where does your Leadership start and stop?
What about those around you?

Posted by on May 20, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , ,

There are NO Routine Calls

No comments

http://www.blogger.com/img/videoplayer.swf?videoUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvp.video.google.com%2Fvideodownload%3Fversion%3D0%26secureurl%3DqAAAAKXn9zyzXTyW6NoE_4ojujpCcNk–Eka9cj6vL_U3qHanrwscOGzfZuh08OF6qkR6kW9Jc_R_JBEG13KvX92PowsfusPMeTzVF4rVddN4O1uKs1QVKrFdkPgkoA0QnBemSmWWV8LrUvJLYbZzbhQ9cxjlZ9YqtN9YbYoi8FTOYpnb77jcm-FBoAojURgBy1hIluwsqpdNZIMyePaXKPYIKSHrdl0Gl3Ehc4RubOXbBRp%26sigh%3DDmU6f34sLsc9sWYhKeA0EqlRZ2c%26begin%3D0%26len%3D86400000%26docid%3D0&nogvlm=1&thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2FThumbnailServer2%3Fapp%3Dblogger%26contentid%3D308c77b1506fe63b%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw320%26sigh%3DVXx_5kQaxJGg3jH-_5EcxU7ZQy8&messagesUrl=video.google.com%2FFlashUiStrings.xlb%3Fframe%3Dflashstrings%26hl%3DenThe 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, or a report of a smoke detector alarming, we have a tendency to treat a lot of things as equal an very routine, based upon the periodicity and frequency of the alarm type and the typical inconsequential nature of the incident outcome.

This was far from it on Thursday May 7th, when Prince George’s County, Maryland, Firefighter/Medics were dispatched on a call that no one is soon to forget. Firefighters were alerted to respond to the Penn-Mar Shopping Center, a large 1-story strip mall, in the 3400 Block of Donnell Drive in Forestville and arrived at 12:59 PM.First arriving crews initiated an investigation into a strong odor of natural gas inside the businesses.

Firefighters evacuated 5 of the 6 stores that were in the area of the odor, a sixth store was vacant. Forty-five people were evacuated from the 5 stores and firefighters then started ventilation efforts and called for assistance of the Washington Gas Company.Firefighters discovered natural gas bubbling up from the ground on the exterior rear of the vacant store and minutes later reported that there was a fire on the interior.

Within a minute, at about 1:20 PM, a massive explosion occurred. A MAYDAY call was sounded and additional resources including paramedics and a second alarm assignment.

Go HERE, HERE and HERE for additional photos and incident details. More follow up HERE at STATter911, Map HERE and Audio HERE

The video clearly depicts the unassuming conditions prior to the explosion, which is quickly followed by the explosion and debris flying and subsequent fire ball. Large plate glass windows blew shattered glass and other debris 60-70 feet into the front parking lot, the roof assembly appeared to have been lifted up and then fell back into place and the rear brick and block wall was completely blown out. Firefighters were in the direct line of the explosion and suffered burns and injuries from flying debris.

Firefighters were wearing their personal protective gear which is believed to have minimized injuries. A total of eight firefighters sustained a variety of injuries ranging from lacerations to second degree burns. Four Firefighters were transported to the Washington Hospital Center Burn Unit where two were treated and released and two were admitted for additional treatment.

The lessons here are clear. Use your personal protective equipment effectively; don’t assume the routine nature of a given alarm will always result in a routine outcome. A good safety drill sheet for gas leak OPS from FFClosecalls.com HERE

Use the STAR method- Stop, Think, Act and Review.

Assume, “what’s the worst that can happen?”, and consider the options available to you as an incident command, company officer or as part of an operating team in your dynamic risk assessment and incident action planning. Stay safe out there in the streets today….

Follow-Up Breaking News: Six firefighters and one police officer were injured in an explosion in Providence RI on Saturday May 9th, when a blast happened around 12:30 a.m. on Pavillion Avenue in the city. companies were responding to a car that crashed into the front of an apartment complex. The Providence Fire Department said crews smelled a gas leak when they arrived at the scene of the crash. Just moments after firefighters shut off the gas line, something caused the explosion. One firefighter was thrown into the street and others were hurt when debris fell on top of them.

Posted by on May 9, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Next Step; Size-up Must Evolve into Dynamic Management of Risk during Fire Attack

No comments

The Next Step; Size-up must evolve into dynamic management of risk during fire attack

The continuing emphasis on improving our safety culture and the reemergence of “safety” as a strategic pillar is evident in current fire service operations and initiatives. The 16 Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives (LSIs), first developed in 2004, provide a basis to further refine and improve areas of fireground operations. The LSIs have refocused attention on fire service practices and culture, which have, at times, demonstrated an indifference toward safety, including the management of risk at the command level. But despite the LSIs and other efforts, incident commanders (ICs) still employ inconsistent practices and exhibit cultural indifference related to the management of risk during structural fire suppression.


The Rearview Mirror
In 1952, Chief Lloyd Layman first published “Fundamentals of Firefighting Tactics,” in which he presented the formulative principles of fireground size-up—the foundation of risk management in the fire service today. Chief Layman stated, “Size-up is the mental evaluation made by the incident commander, which enables the IC to determine the course of action and to accomplish the mission.” Size-up factors were subsequently expanded to include facts, probabilities, situation, decisions, plans and operations. ICs primarily made decisions based on what they
knew about fire behavior in certain types of construction and occupancies; they used this information to determine fire suppression needs, resources and operational deployment.

The ensuing “war years” of the mid-1960s through the 1970s, firefighting size-up and structural fire engagement continued to place an emphasis and acceptability on aggressive interior operations, at times directly opposed to qualitative size-up risk indicators that suggested marginal or defensive operating profiles. In other words, we continued to promote and justify interior operations, in the face of high-risk operations.

These aggressive firefighting doctrines translated into the operational culture we struggle to modify today. Through several common themes, size-up and risk began to be related to building construction.
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); and
NFFF: 16 Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives (2004).

As a result of these concepts, long-held beliefs and established tactics began to be questioned. Risk/benefit, safety, assessment, and firefighter injury and LODD reduction were introduced into the size-up formula.

Today, we’re at a crossroads when it comes to risk management on the fireground. The risk-preferring traditional practices are being reassessed in today’s fire service at the command and company level. Size-up has evolved into “fireground risk assessment and management.”

Size-Up Isn’t Enough
Changes in building construction, occupancy profiles, materials and construction assemblies and systems make a “traditional” size-up inadequate for effectively managing risk on today’s fireground. Fire behavior principles from the last 75 years are no longer valid. The predictability of performance within our buildings and occupancies is significantly
challenged in today’s fireground setting. Although size-up has helped us manage risk to some
degree, significant cultural and technological impediments to firefighter safety still exist.

These include:
• Modern building construction is not predictable;
• Command and 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 faulty or inappropriate, requiring innovative models and methods;
• We don’t consider redundancy in firefighting operations;
• Fire dynamics and behavior aren’t being effectively considered during fireground size-up;
• Risk management is either not practiced or is willfully ignored during most incident operations; and
• Some departments or officers show an indifference to safety and risk management.

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.

Dynamic Risk Assesment
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.

In Sum
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.

Posted by on May 3, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

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 around the table today;

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?

Posted by on May 3, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

Risk versus Close Call, What are We Doing?

1 comment

Here’s one for timing. My recent post today on risk related to vacant or unoccupied structures…. Check out the series of photos for a close call incident involving a trailer fire, HERE. Photo sequence by Patrick Scott.

Again, the question before us; Why the risk, What’s the value, Who is looking out for our safety?Are we engaging in Tactical Entertainment….are we setting ourselves up for an injury or worst?

Posted by on May 3, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , ,

What’s in The Cards Today?

No comments

On any given day, we expect some fairly simple and basic things; Simple and basic from a firefighter’s perspective that is. 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.

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?

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 May 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 are in or out of our control. We may not be able to see what the cards have in store for us, BUT we must ensure we use every bit of training, fortitude, knowledge, skills, courage, bravery, insights, luck and sometimes (other divine) intervention to get us through.

There have been a lot of bad things that have happened over the course of the past few weeks in the fire service, with the continuing trgic loss of brother firefighters in the line of duty, accidents, injuries and other situations both directly and indirectly.

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. Be safe, have a great tour or stay at the firehouse today.

Posted by on May 3, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Running Against the Wind

No comments

It seems like yesterday..But it was long ago. Against the wind, We were running against the wind. We were young and strong, we were runningAgainst the wind..And the years rolled slowly past. And I found myself alone.. Surrounded bv strangers I thought were my friends, I found myself further and further from my home.. And I guess I lost my way There were oh so many roads I was living to run and running to live…

There’s something familiar and haunting about Bob Seger’s song, “Against the Wind”. I was working late the other night on a series of training programs specific to command decision-making and risk management and safety. With the radio on in the back ground, I found myself stopping for a moment while Seger’s song played on.

Ok, I know what some of you are thinking. Here we go again; Firefighter Safety! Safety Culture! change what we’re doing… But you know, it certainly seems like the years have rolled slowly past and yes with so, so many roads, paths and directions that time has taken us from and to.I think back and we all were living to run [calls] and running to live.

I remember when we were running calls and working jobs at a far greater pace and frequency than anything of recent. And with those call, the risks we would take and the places we would find ourselves,many without goor reason, other than for the love of fighting fire and doing what we did best.

But it does seem like we were running against the wind in so many ways.Here we find the fire service looking at our culture, attitudes and statistics in the escalating firefighter LODD and firefighter injury rates. There’s an awful lot of time, energy and resources being committed and directed towards fire service safety. Is anyone really listening? Does anyone really care? Is the fact that it happens-Somewhere else; not here, not to me, not my department! Are You and your company paying attention? are you doing something to correct the trend?

With all my travels and lectures across the country, hearing the conflicting dialog amoungst us; it sometimes feels like I’m against the wind . I’m still runnin’ against the wind . I’m older now but still running…..Against the wind.

Posted by on March 28, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , ,

Houston FD Mayday Operations & RIT

No comments

In case some of you missed the excellent video that depicts the operations of the Houston FD at a Four Alarm Fire in an office building on March 28, 2007 HERES some information.

The fire resulted in three civilian fatalities with three firefigher injuries. There was a significant mayday and RIT operation that evolved during the incident that was produced into a DVD with scene video and radio communications. The DVD was produced by the bravestonline.com

This is a must see video. Get the HFD After Action Report of the fire at 9343 North Loop East, which makes understanding the scope and magnitude of the event clearer HERE. While battling the high-rise fire, Capt. Joel Eric Abbt, assigned to Station 8, was on the fifth floor of the building searching for victims when he ran into trouble. His first mayday call was all but drowned out by the chatter of other firefighters engaged in rescues. The DVD of the 27-minute search and the captain’s frantic calls for help is now available though a website, The Bravest Online as tagged above.

The image above is the office building before the fire.

Firehouse.com coverage: http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/News/DVD-Recounts-Houston-Mayda…$55959
http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id;=54084

Posted by on March 15, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Incident Melt-down and Command Failures

No comments

Check out the story and references to the controversial 8-alarm fire that occured on December 14, 2007 at the Lorraine Apartment Building in Gloucester, MA. The fire, just across the street from the Central Fire Station, left a 70-year-old man dead, destroyed the apartment building and a synogogue. The fire chief announced his retirement just minutes after the city released the results of the investigative report into the fire department’s actions during a fatal fire in December, 2007.

Firegeezer and STATer911 have extensive coverage and media information, video and clips….

Some Report findings…

  1. There was no formal incident command.
  2. Companies were operating on the interior without adequate communications.
  3. No safety officer was assigned or even found to be included in the operating procedures of the department.
  4. Scene security was inadequate to nonexistent.
  5. Interagency organization and the liaison to outside agencies was nonexistent
  6. Crews were operating unsafely above the fire floor without access to charged hose lines.
  7. The Fire Department was unprepared to battle a fire of this size; report also indicates that personnel had not been sufficiently trained.
  8. Since the incident, neither the fire chief nor the department had initiated any changes to the department’s standard operating procedures.

After the report was released Barry McKay, who has been the Gloucester chief for 25-years, retired. The critical report findings called for major reform of the fire department. A member of the department for 35 years — and its chief for nearly 26 — McKay, 58, made no direct reference to the Lorraine fire or the after incident report in his letter of retirement, which becomes effective March 29. “My retirement comes with mixed emotions,” McKay’s letter said. “I can only praise and thank the firefighters of this city for making due with the limited resources and maintaining the fire and emergency services. The firefighters I have worked with since the early 1970s have truly been the finest public servants and best people I’ve ever known.” as published in the gloucestertimes online edition .

  • Investigative Report
  • Report Appendices
  • Read the latest report on this development in the Gloucester Daily Times HERE.
  • Firegeezer’s friends at FireVideo.net sent along this raw video of the infamous upside-down ladder raise.

http://www.blogger.com/img/videoplayer.swf?videoUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvp.video.google.com%2Fvideodownload%3Fversion%3D0%26secureurl%3DqAAAAEbqiT-pXmimn7VDny7-dKqZpLEubF2JepF2gT2mAr42Ef1q6WP780bLdcGdo6DENVioawOtlnw3EbQowQSdMeYPzb-GLNG17hpTDSWK0WiwAMwtHuR3fs-04wAKs3jIu4ifqHYi6qqyA8Sh2YISZhJrntWsWWkBLNw93ptVpu-5AvP65aDmt8j0K3wpBVETTJNBCkvB5naPF0rW1cvHrzBM306AY_GRe6BRlB9juVaV%26sigh%3Dzfb5cg7g-KLNba8iIb5kdL5JRLQ%26begin%3D0%26len%3D86400000%26docid%3D0&nogvlm=1&thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2FThumbnailServer2%3Fapp%3Dblogger%26contentid%3Decab8a352b3a641e%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw320%26sigh%3DjIuICDMOQIXUgqt6RSdkukytUBk&messagesUrl=video.google.com%2FFlashUiStrings.xlb%3Fframe%3Dflashstrings%26hl%3Den

Posted by on February 27, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Situational Awareness and Risk during Fireground Operations

No comments

On the February, 2009 edition of Firehouse.com, Training and Tactics Talk, host Chief Douglas K. Cline looks at the role of size-up in today’s “strategy and tactics” on the fireground.

Chief Cline and Christopher J. Naum focus this program on equipping fire officers and firefighters with the tools needed to understand and perform effective size-ups with true situational awareness. They help incorporate the critical risk/benefit analysis tool in this global perspective look at incidents.

The chief’s add real world experience into this program bringing experience and responses into a dynamic mix for effective training.

Posted by on February 27, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , ,

360 Degrees of Separation

No comments

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 essential information 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.

Posted by on February 27, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , ,

New Tactical Definitions: Where do you fit in?

No comments

I spent a large part of this past week, and the entire day and evening this past Saturday conscientiously working on refining sections of my lecture program that will be presented at this year’s Fire Department Instructors Conference (FDIC) in April.

I was deeply 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 got me thinking alot 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 (IAP) are developed and executed. It got me thinking about what, we as firefighers are thinking when we find ourselves in the center of a “good” rockin’ job….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 & 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 got to thinking 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. Anyone of us could have then or even in the present day, could 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, at the right time and 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. I’ll share more insights on these evolving definitions in upcoming postings.

TACTICAL AMUSEMENT ˈtak-ti-kəl ə-ˈmyüz-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 ˈtak-ti-kəl də-ˈvər-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 ˈtak-ti-kəl sər-kəm-ˈven(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

Posted by on February 27, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

Command and Company Officers

No comments

Company and Command Officers are crucial to the mission critical effectiveness and safety of company level operations, crew integrity and incident command management and successful mitigation.

What are the key elements that set apart those that can be considered “average” officers from those that are exceptional?

What key knowledge, skills, abilities and traits do they have that sets them apart?What knowledge, skills, abilities and traits do you have that contribute towards your effectiveness as an officer or those that you wish to aspire to?

How are you viewed by your personnel, by your peers, by your self? Are there area(s) for improvement?

Leadership, character, fortitude, skills, training, abilities, quality, temperament, strength, vision, courage, humility, modesty, compassion, authority, empathy……

“Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are” John Wooden

Posted by on February 16, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

NIOSH issues the Charleston LODD Report

No comments

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Division of Safety Research, Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program, issued its long awaited report on the Charleston, SC Sofa Store Fire that occurred on June 18, 2007, in which nine career fire fighters died in the line of duty, when they became disoriented in rapidly deteriorating conditions inside a burning commercial furniture showroom and warehouse facility. At least seven other municipal fire fighters and two mutual aid fire fighters barely escaped serious injury.

NIOSH issued thirty-five (35) fire service based recommendations and eight (8) industry, organizational and municipal recommendations.

How many of these recommendations could apply to your organization?

NIOSH investigators concluded that, to minimize the risk of similar occurrences, fire departments should:

  • develop, implement and enforce written standard operating procedures (SOPs) for an occupational safety and health program in accordance with NFPA 1500
  • develop, implement, and enforce a written Incident Management System to be followed at all emergency incident operations
  • develop, implement, and enforce written SOPs that identify incident management training standards and requirements for members expected to serve in command roles
  • ensure that the Incident Commander is clearly identified as the only individual with overall authority and responsibility for management of all activities at an incident
  • ensure that the Incident Commander conducts an initial size-up and risk assessment of the incident scene before beginning interior fire fighting operations
  • train fire fighters to communicate interior conditions to the Incident Commander as soon as possible and to provide regular updates
  • ensure that the Incident Commander establishes a stationary command post, maintains the role of director of fireground operations, and does not become involved in fire-fighting efforts
  • ensure the early implementation of division / group command into the Incident Command System
  • ensure that the Incident Commander continuously evaluates the risk versus gain when determining whether the fire suppression operation will be offensive or defensive
  • ensure that the Incident Commander maintains close accountability for all personnel operating on the fireground
  • ensure that a separate Incident Safety Officer, independent from the IncidentCommander, is appointed at each structure fire
  • ensure that crew integrity is maintained during fire suppression operations
  • ensure that a rapid intervention crew (RIC) / rapid intervention team (RIT) is established and available to immediately respond to emergency rescue incidents
  • ensure that adequate numbers of staff are available to immediately respond to emergency incidents
  • ensure that ventilation to release heat and smoke is closely coordinated with interior fire suppression operations
  • conduct pre-incident planning inspections of buildings within their jurisdictions to facilitate
  • development of safe fireground strategies and tactics
  • consider establishing and enforcing standardized resource deployment approaches and utilize dispatch entities to move resources to fill service gaps
  • develop and coordinate pre-incident planning protocols with mutual aid departments
  • ensure that any offensive attack is conducted using adequate fire streams based on characteristics of the structure and fuel load present
    ensure that an adequate water supply is established and maintained
  • consider using exit locators such as high intensity floodlights or flashing strobe lights to guide lost or disoriented fire fighters to the exit
  • ensure that Mayday transmissions are received and prioritized by the Incident Commander
  • train fire fighters on actions to take if they become trapped or disoriented inside a burning structure
  • ensure that all fire fighters and line officers receive fundamental and annual refresher training according to NFPA 1001 and NFPA 1021
  • implement joint training on response protocols with mutual aid departments
  • ensure apparatus operators are properly trained and familiar with their apparatus
    protect stretched hose lines from vehicular traffic and work with law enforcement or other appropriate agencies to provide traffic control
  • ensure that fire fighters wear a full array of turnout clothing and personal protective equipment appropriate for the assigned task while participating in fire suppression and overhaul activities
  • ensure that fire fighters are trained in air management techniques to ensure they receive the maximum benefit from their self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)
  • develop, implement and enforce written SOPS to ensure that SCBA cylinders are fully charged and ready for use
  • use thermal imaging cameras (TICs) during the initial size-up and search phases of a fire
    develop, implement and enforce written SOPs and provide fire fighters with training on the hazards of truss construction
  • establish a system to facilitate the reporting of unsafe conditions or code violations to the appropriate authorities
    ensure that fire fighters and emergency responders are provided with effective incident rehabilitation
  • provide fire fighters with station / work uniforms (e.g., pants and shirts) that are compliant with NFPA 1975 and ensure the use and proper care of these garments.

Additionally, federal and state occupational safety and health administrations should:

  • consider developing additional regulations to improve the safety of fire fighters, including adopting National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) consensus standards.

Additionally, manufacturers, equipment designers, and researchers should:

  • continue to develop and refine durable, easy-to-use radio systems to enhance verbal and radio communication in conjunction with properly worn SCBA
  • conduct research into refining existing and developing new technology to track the movement of fire fighters inside structures.

Additionally, code setting organizations and municipalities should:

  • require the use of sprinkler systems in commercial structures, especially ones having high fuel loads and other unique life-safety hazards, and establish retroactive requirements for the installation of fire sprinkler systems when additions to commercial buildings increase the fire and life safety hazards
  • require the use of automatic ventilation systems in large commercial structures, especially ones having high fuel loads and other unique life-safety hazards.

Additionally, municipalities and local authorities having jurisdiction should:

  • coordinate the collection of building information and the sharing of information between building authorities and fire departments
  • consider establishing one central dispatch center to coordinate and communicate activities involving units from multiple jurisdictions
  • ensure that fire departments responding to mutual aid incidents are equipped with mobile and portable communications equipment that are capable of handling the volume of radio traffic and allow communications among all responding companies within their jurisdiction.
Posted by on February 12, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s more than just Size-Up; Situational Awareness and Dynamic Risk Assessment

No comments

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.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.
According to a 1998 published TriData 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”.
What do you think?
Posted by on February 11, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

BECOME SAFE

No comments

Can the Command and Company Officer truly make a difference in the outcome
during structural fire combat?
If they can make a difference – what tools are required to succeed?
What are the relationships to; Knowledge, Experience, Technical skills, Proficiency, Core values, Depth and degree of separation, Maturity and stability, Cue-based mastery, Learning curves, Variables of liabilities, Community-based risks…
There are basic sets of parameters that can provide all operating personnel at structural fire operations with effective tools to increase operational effectiveness, safety and enhance incident stability and lead the forward progress towards event mitigation.
This includes the effective integration of BECOME SAFE (Naum, 2004) concepts;
Building,
Evaluation,
Construction/occupancy,
Operational hazards,
Manage time and elements,
Engagement,
Situational awareness,
Assessment and dynamic analysis,
Fire behavior and effects,
Evaluate and execute
The best defense firefighters have against building collapse is to understand the principles of building construction and the effects that fire has on a building; then apply this information on the fireground. Sometimes collapse indicators are evident in the initial size-up, but more often they are discovered by members operating in and around the fire building.
Posted by on February 2, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized • Tagged: , , , , , , ,