FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: Rich on January 09, 2008, 08:20:02 PM
-
Is anyone else out there fed up with doing home fire safety checks and fitting smoke alarms? Now I'm not saying for a moment that they are without doubt the best device on the market for giving people an early warning of a fire, but it is carrying out these checks that is now at the expense of operational training. Because we have targets to meet - 60 HFSC's a month, with a minimum of 4 visits to 'get in each property via cold calling - yes door knocking at all times of the day and evening our training is suffering. The powers at be are only interested in how many smoke alarms we have fitted, they don't seem bothered that our IPDS (training records) haven't been signed off.
Is this common across the country or are my 'managers' extracting the urine?
-
Rich you are quite right. Worthy though it is, ops crews should be busy contingency planning, training etc not sticking detectors on ceilings.
-
Forgive my non fire service ignorance, but if the government really cared only about the distribution of smoke alarms to those who need it, would there not be a most cost effective and efficient means of doing so than tying up the resources of highly trained fire fighters? Seems a bit odd to me, as an outsider.........
-
Chris this is the fire brigade you are talking about. They are masters at managing crisis- but crisis management abounds.
The Government says jump and many managers eager to win their brownie points say yes sir how high rather than looking for others to do the jumping for them.
That is a general observation - there are pockets of excellent lateral thinking and partnerships in operation.
-
We must have a more brutal government. Law was passed saying all residences must have at least one smoke alarm - owners then had to go out and do it. There was some assistance offered to the elderly, but with most of the State being covered by volunteers there's no way that we could get out and do inspections/installations! To have career FF's spending a lot of time out doing this seems to me to be a waste. Are your retained firies expected to do this sort of thing too? Following up a direct request from some elderly or impaired person, that's a different thing.
One of the things we have to report on after a fire is, were alarms installed and working? OK, often for the working side we're just checking for a batery in the remains of an alarm... I've wondered what the insurance companies do when we say 'no alarm' or 'no battery'?
-
Chris this is the fire brigade you are talking about. They are masters at managing crisis- but crisis management abounds.
The Government says jump and many managers eager to win their brownie points say yes sir how high rather than looking for others to do the jumping for them.
.
Unfortunately the Principle Managers within the fire service have arrived in post where - as Kurnal says- historically you don't question what comes down from above.
However it is these officers who are the only ones who could say no to some of the Govt's antics, but often they are usually coming towards the end of their careers.
With a big fat pension just around the corner they are in the worst possible position to make waves. (And who can blame them?)
Perhaps with the current trend for non service senior management who will not be able to grab their pensions until they're 6o+, there might be a little backbone shown in the future
-
To have career FF's spending a lot of time out doing this seems to me to be a waste. Are your retained firies expected to do this sort of thing too?
Home fire safety was mentioned at my drill night yesterday, we're going to be given the training in the next month or so, then be expected to do 4 per week...
-
My local retained certainly carry out smoke alarm fitting and home safety checks. They also get involved with activly encouraging local people to have a check and smoke alarm fitted - promoting this service at local events, posting items in local papers etc.
-
My local retained certainly carry out smoke alarm fitting and home safety checks. They also get involved with activly encouraging local people to have a check and smoke alarm fitted - promoting this service at local events, posting items in local papers etc.
And this is as far as we go. Pushing out the message whenever we do any community work, the good old "Smoke Alarms Save Lives". We'll do the installation if needed, but we try to direct people who need help to the community Service organisations (Lions, Rotary) as they're happy to help. So far I haven't installed any (as a fire, that is).
-
Not only do Brigades fir these themselves but some Brigades enter into financial partnerships to get other groups to do this for them as an addition. Cost management does not seem to be part of the equation.
-
Messy, surely you are not saying that Principal managers are inverterbrates are you?
-
Well spotted Chris. Unfortunately the whole process is a box ticking exercise to keep the auditors at bay and score a few brownie points for senior management. If there was a tick box for operational planning things would change. Domestic detectors could be fited by any number of trained people at half the cost and twice the amount, freeing up operational people to get on with the job they should be doing.
-
Well, someone (senior management) should have the courage to say "no" there are better ways to do this.
-
Well spotted Chris. Unfortunately the whole process is a box ticking exercise to keep the auditors at bay and score a few brownie points for senior management. If there was a tick box for operational planning things would change. Domestic detectors could be fited by any number of trained people at half the cost and twice the amount, freeing up operational people to get on with the job they should be doing.
Like visiting local risks to gather info on premises that might prove useful in a fire!
-
If there was a tick box for operational planning things would change............are you really that out of touch with the job description and requirements of a modern day firefighter????????????????
There is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is called the Firefighter role map, unit FF6, elements 6.1 and 6.2
-
fireftrm the elements you identify are quite correct and should be used to there full capacity but are left floundering in the world of IPDS, BARS, Rank to Role, ITOP, ADC's. A balance between community safety and operational preparedness is necessary but sadly lacking in the modern fire service where role maps are only used when it suits.
-
I think it is worth asking a coupe of questions, as I am sure there are many misconceptions at the base of the counter arguments.
1. Where did IPDS come from?
2. When did the roles appear and where from?
3. What are BARS, ADC and ITOPs?
Please answer honestly with your opinions, I am not trying to catch anyone out, but hope that I can show my point as a result of the answers given.
-
So I take it, then, that everyone now sees that the 'new systems' aren't to blame?
I tried to call the bluff of the counter arguers, it seems well and truly called?
-
Well, someone (senior management) should have the courage to say "no" there are better ways to do this.
You are absolutely correct Chris
Unfortunately no one will do so , its the classic case of high ranking officers not wanting to upset apple cart, for they fear they will either loose brownie points or their promotion prospects or their pensions.
Its a dog eat dog world and the powers that be seem to want management that will say "yes" everytime.
-
So I take it, then, that everyone now sees that the 'new systems' aren't to blame?
I tried to call the bluff of the counter arguers, it seems well and truly called?
I don't think that the comment that seems to have encouraged you back on to your soapbox was intended as such. Indeed I suspect it had absolutely nothing to do with the firefighters' role map and everything to do with the (ridiculous) targets set by the un-seeing eye of government and which our principal managers seem determined to meet at ALL costs. 7(2)(d)s now seem to come well down the list of priorities.
(Perhaps you can guess what my favourite soapbox subject is)
-
So, pray tell, where is the evidence that (your example) 7.2.ds were given a reduced priority? Rather than people saying how CS targets and work have meant that ops training and preparedeness is not being done, show where the FRS have actually said don't do this, do that. I go back to my assertion that there is plenty of time for both (look at what I was doing as a Ff yet still training). I also stick by my gut feeling that those who whinge about IPDS, role maps etc don't actually understand what they are, or where they came from. That, to date, no one has tried to answer either rather supports my instinct.
-
cost management does not seem to be part of the equation.
I know of an appliance crew from Wolverhampton fitting a detector in a property in Solihull, very cost effective!
-
So, pray tell, where is the evidence that (your example) 7.2.ds were given a reduced priority? Rather than people saying how CS targets and work have meant that ops training and preparedeness is not being done, show where the FRS have actually said don't do this, do that. I go back to my assertion that there is plenty of time for both (look at what I was doing as a Ff yet still training). I also stick by my gut feeling that those who whinge about IPDS, role maps etc don't actually understand what they are, or where they came from. That, to date, no one has tried to answer either rather supports my instinct.
All I can tell you is that there is plenty of evidence that 7(2)(d)s are not being completed in this brigade and that a principal officer circulated a message (last week) 'banging the drum' about stations not doing enough to ensure that we fit our target of 35,000 smoke detectors this year.
-
So Big A that sounds like a move toward some evidence, but saying 'there is plenty of evidence that 7.2.ds are not being completed' is a little like me saying there is plenty of evidence of lfe in the universe. Surely you would want a bit more, like the evidence itself and not just my word for it? Justa s the 35,000 smoke detectors you have a target to fit sounds a lot, but if you work for LFB I suggest it is a tiny target of 78 per watch, there again if you work for IOW that's a damn lot. Stats only work if they refer to something tangible.
-
I'm sorry, I really can't be bothered to continue with this, besides I've got to get some more referrals.
-
Some years ago my brigade set targets for the fitting of smoke alarms and as a Watch Manager I was often asked why we hadn’t reached the required amount for the month. Now if the old lady we visited hadn’t seen anybody that week and wanted to talk we let her, if this was the only occasion that she had to ask a question that may save her life then I didn’t have any problem with that. Quality not quantity. Fortunately my brigade now shares this philosophy.
With regards to 7 (2) (d)s twenty years ago I was told the fire service is 90% preparation - we train for the event that might happen. We know every risk in our patch. This doesn’t happen now. But it is my guess that with the increasing number of deaths of firefighters the HSE might just start looking at the fire service and how we operate. Not being prepared is not acceptable.
-
But it is my guess that with the increasing number of deaths of firefighters the HSE might just start looking at the fire service and how we operate. Not being prepared is not acceptable.
It already is - see Improvement Notice to Warks FS
-
Justa s the 35,000 smoke detectors you have a target to fit sounds a lot, but if you work for LFB I suggest it is a tiny target of 78 per watch, there again if you work for IOW that's a damn lot. Stats only work if they refer to something tangible.
78 per watch per month is a damn lot if you are doing your job correctly, it's not just a case of door open, alarm gets slapped on ceiling in a slam dunk style and bugger off. The visits should be a home safety risk assessment, going around the home and giving sound advice and guidance, highlighting not only the problems, but also explaining the reasons why it is a problem and how to resolve the problem.
If all watch work is done correctly, such as daily routines, station duties, standard tests, 7, 2 d's, during use inspections, school visits, drilling, lectures, meal breaks.......................... oh yes, we do still have them.... incidents including fire calls, then this number of smoke alarms is stupidly high regardless of geographical location. The problem is that so many senior officers see the targets as a competition between themselves and other officers and don't give a crap about standing up to anybody and explaining that the targets are unrealistic for fear of being held back in their career. If half the officers were held as accountable for the poor training of the firefighters in their responsibilty as they are for the numbers of smoke alarms that get put up, maybe, just maybe, standards would raise back in the right direction.
-
Kaiser, a maths lesson maybe? 78 x 4 x 112 = 34944 (nearest whole number was used to get 78), 78 is per ANNUM!!. So that is 6.5 per MONTH, maybe 3 HFRAs, plenty of time to do them properly!
Your last sentence hits the mark, though. That is a really important point, though I stress that it starts with CMs.
-
It all goes to show that counting detectors is a hopeless indicator of the value of the fire prevention work carried out by fire crews and may even be harmful if crews start number chasing for the sake of the targets as they do.
One HRA carried out in a deprived part of lewisham is probably worth 10 in knightsbridge in terms of its contribution to reducing the risk to life from fire. And probably 10 times harder to win.
A better indicator may be the number of persons engaged with combined with the number of hours spent per crew member qualified with deprivation factors, ethnic and age issues and type of housing?
-
YEs much more sensible, many FRS are now looking at out sourcing smoke alarm fitting and using Ffs to do 'proper' education preventative work.
-
YEs much more sensible, many FRS are now looking at out sourcing smoke alarm fitting and using Ffs to do 'proper' education preventative work.
Fireftrm, if there is 'plenty of time' to meet these targets then surely there is no need to outsource this work. In fact let's outsource the 7(2)(d)s.
-
In our brigade our district has set a target of 5 a month cos we have 2 pumps and the 1 pump stations have a target of 3 but in other districts these figures can vary. These figure are set for the r/t but i am not sure what the w/t or day crewed are set at. At our station we do meet these figures and do more only because of a handful of crew that do have time to carry these out.
I know of some stations that have never met the figures and proberly will never be able to due to work commitments or family commitments. The answer being given from management is these have to be achieved and can be because everyone is required to do community safty as part of their ff rolemap 2 times a year. so if you carry out 2 home fire safty checks a year on a station that has 20 personel that is 40 strait away and only leaves 20 for the rest of the year.
Most people understand how important community safty is but because of time restraints this is not always possible to spend time in the community. I would rather if personnel had more time carry out extra training as 2 hours a week is really not enough time to cover every thing that is set out in ipds training.
-
Big A there IS plenty of time, outsourcing of smoke alarm fitting will allow that time to be redirected to giving more safety advice, demonstration and instruction. Outsourcing 7.2.ds would mean no Firefighters receiving the correct level of knowledge of their station/service area risk, or for that matter competent rate pay.
-
My mistake, I took this figure as per month, my reason for this is, up until last year, we were expected to do 12 per tour, making 48 a month. This was on top of all of the jobs I listed. With regards to the work organisation and training being down to the CM's & WM's, I only agree to a certain extent, but not completely. They can only achieve all of their objectives if they have support from their SM's, GM's and principle officers. I don't just mean, the gaffers saying, "Yes , you are right, it needs to be done" What I mean is, not coming and dumping every hair brained scheme and new initiative on watches and expecting them to do it effectively whilst carrying out all of their station duties, fire calls, standard tests, home safety risk assessments, smoke alarm fitting (4 a day), assisting the probationer with his NVQ, on station training, etc. etc.
I believe that so many JO's are as afraid as their superiors to tell the people above them that they simply can't complete the work correctly and maintain standards of training and balance skill levels.
The fact that so many senior officers don't inform their line managers that some tasks are unrealistic if they are to be achieved correctly means that in the truest sense of the word, "Crap rolls downhill" . I for one stopped hitting targets for smoke alarm fitting a long time ago because I insisted that the job was done correctly including giving sound home safety advice where it was needed. I also ensured that my crew were giving all the training that was required in order to maintain competency levels. I was hauled in to the office on several occasions by the station manager telling me to "Just get it done, the targets must be met". I remained calm on every occasion and asked him if he wished me to not do my job correctly in order to make these targets, each time , he accused me of being insubordinate.
I am in no way shape or form, some raving militant unionist, but I do feel that it is time that targets for other work were put secondary to maintaining operational readiness. It is clear to most of the firefighters that have served 10 years or more that standards are very often not being maintained to a suitable level. The scary thing is that in a few years time, the firefighters that are developing now with insufficient knowledge and skills are going to be the mentors and JO's in charge of new trainees and probationers. When skills and knowledge are no longer there, it's gone for good. The loss of the fire service promotion exams means that there are so many people being promoted without proper knowledge of vital information for junior officers. We will all be fantastic at running airport terminals and sports complexes but no bloody good at commanding stressful and dangerous operational incidents where underpinning knowledge can often save lives by creating a more efficiently run and safe incident ground.
I am a firm believer that we should carry out community safety work, I embrace putting up smoke detectors and I value the aims and objectives of my brigade, but let's all remember that when the bells, whistles, pips and sirens go, we are driving to the unknown and our skill levels better be good enough or someone could very easily get seriously hurt or killed. I for one am not prepared to put the safety of myself, my crew or the public I serve at risk, so that some manager gets a star next to his name for hitting targets.
Sorry for going on a bit but the soap box was very stable and I didn't want to get off.
Kaiser, a maths lesson maybe? 78 x 4 x 112 = 34944 (nearest whole number was used to get 78), 78 is per ANNUM!!. So that is 6.5 per MONTH, maybe 3 HFRAs, plenty of time to do them properly!
Your last sentence hits the mark, though. That is a really important point, though I stress that it starts with CMs.
-
I couldn't agree more Kurnal, this is why I would rather do my job right the first time, every time and forget about the numbers. For me it's more about the positive impact on my community than number chasing and doing a poor job to please others who obviously are more interested in their career paths than the folks we serve.
It all goes to show that counting detectors is a hopeless indicator of the value of the fire prevention work carried out by fire crews and may even be harmful if crews start number chasing for the sake of the targets as they do.
One HRA carried out in a deprived part of lewisham is probably worth 10 in knightsbridge in terms of its contribution to reducing the risk to life from fire. And probably 10 times harder to win.
A better indicator may be the number of persons engaged with combined with the number of hours spent per crew member qualified with deprivation factors, ethnic and age issues and type of housing?
-
Big A there IS plenty of time, outsourcing of smoke alarm fitting will allow that time to be redirected to giving more safety advice, demonstration and instruction. Outsourcing 7.2.ds would mean no Firefighters receiving the correct level of knowledge of their station/service area risk, or for that matter competent rate pay.
I think I agree with this comment but only if the people who are fitting the alarms are given full and correct training not only in the fitting of smoke alarms, but also in the identification of hazards and how to deal with those hazards correctly. In addition to this, number targets should be realistic enough to prevent slackers and shirkers whilst at the same time giving the employee the time to carry out realistic home safety risk assessments that are of value to the public. It should also be noted that some of the premises we enter are where extremely vunerable people live, if we are inviting others to do work on our behalf, they will be representatives of the brigades we serve, therefore it is of paramount importance that we select the right people for the job and not just any old Tom, Dick or Harry off of the street.
The outsourcing of 7.2.d's would be a catastrophic mistake in my opinion, there is no better information than local in depth knowledge of a premises combined with the back up written information gained from these visits. Firefighters that have local knowledge of the premises are way more informed of hazards, layout and water supplies associated with these premises and can respond much more effectively at incidents
-
It seems that one or members of the forum have taken me at face value when I facetiously suggested outsourcing 7(2)(d)s to allow more time to fit smoke detectors (I was wrong about LFB target, it's actually in excess of 80,000 for 2007/8 + more invarious partnership schemes). Nothing could be further from the truth. (I thought that would have been evident enough from my previous postings in this thread)
-
80,000, a much more unachievable and terrifying target, I can see why this upsets operational crews. Takes it to the nearly impossible 178 detector fittings per annum, per watch. With 45 sets per year that is 4 per set. With two fitted in most HFRAs, where the house had none before, that is an incredibly time consuming and training-preventing 2 HFRAs per set. How can they cope?