FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: Cut Fire Service Pay on October 07, 2009, 09:57:17 PM
-
I have been reading alot lately about various brigades leaving fires to 'burn out under control'. What a load of tosh, basicly it's cheeper isn't it?
Cant get water, can't risk the enviroment, blah blah
Why not do what we used to do and get stuck into the job? I think the reason is because 'managers' are to busy spending the money on lease cars, new uniforms, fire control rooms and new job titles. Or perhaps crews are too busy putting up smoke alarms to put out fires?
What do you think?
-
I have been reading alot lately about various brigades leaving fires to 'burn out under control'. What a load of tosh, basicly it's cheeper isn't it?
Cant get water, can't risk the enviroment, blah blah
Why not do what we used to do and get stuck into the job? I think the reason is because 'managers' are to busy spending the money on lease cars, new uniforms, fire control rooms and new job titles. Or perhaps crews are too busy putting up smoke alarms to put out fires?
What do you think?
Well yes, it can be cheaper to allow some fires to burn themselves out and just have one crew stand by to make sure it stays under control whilst burning. Some fires can burn for much longer if you attempt to extinguish, as you probably know. It may be cheaper but it does make sence most of the time. Why use valuable resources to try to extinguish a fire in a building which has effectively been destroyed by the fire anyway.
Getting stuck in to the job is long gone me old dinosaur. Thats life.
-
What I think is quite simple. I think you are bitter and twisted and would be of better use relieving your frustrations on more pressing issues. I means whats wrong with fitting smoke alarms if they help protect or save life?
Dinosaurs dont come any grizzly than me. I invented the term. Im the worst there is for moaning and remembering the good old days, the kick the door down and fight a fire days. None of that dynamic risk assessment rubbish then. I remember those good old days when firemen used to get drunk on station simply as it was the done thing - you remeber those dont you? Or when my DO used to have to be driven home by an on duty fireman because he'd come on station and get trollied at our station bar after a hard day at the office.Then there were the beds, the naught videos at night, the snooker, the sick jokes played.
The good old days were actually the bad old days. We needed to be brought into line. Trouble was it went too far the other way. Our own fault mind, like I said miost tiook the mickey
I can never and will never understand how a fire officer could be called a manger rather than commander - sounds civillian and non operational. I cant understand why beds were taken away. Whoopsadaisy yes I can actually. Its because lazy arsed firefighters would tell control they were mobile before the pump went out the door. Lets not even try to pretend that never went on cos we all know it did in most brigades.
Some, not all took the mickey, we got caught out, then shafted by the unions during the strike, the government got us by the short and curlies and this is the result.
I dont like and will never like modernisation or change. Please dont harp on about a practice which has been in place for donkeys years. When I was operational we only ever left one pump to maitain a watching brief for a non salvagable building. Let's Moan about genuine stuff.
Deep down we golden oldies all know that UK Fire and Rescue service has gone mad, of course Managers or is that commanders at higher level like to kiss butt and make change for changes sake simply to bolster their CV. Of course things eventually go full circle.But actually this has been going on since the year dot. What you need to accept is that the unions have lost any influence since the strikes. What will be will be whether we like it or not and most of all you have a job...for now.
Yes ok silly things like waiting for water rescue unit before entering water to rescue a drowning person is silly. Yes half arsed policies which place too much importance on elf and safety over genuine controlled acts of common sense or doing what the public expects us to do.
Its easy to gripe abut the job and how some ex PM called Tony "lets run everything as a business" Blair has ruined alot of otherwise good things. But if you think the brigade has it bad then just thank god you dont work for the NHS because let me leave you with no illusions the NHS is very much up that famous creek not without just a paddle but without a boat. There are other public services much worse than the brigade. So think on and just bear in mind who reads these forums!
Let me put it in simple terms for you. We did what the public expected , and always got the job done, but on station we had the good life for far too long, we took the mickey in those good old days, now we're paying for it. The status quo is almost inevitable wouldnt you say?
-
2 kids died in a house fire last week down in my neck of the woods, the reporting fire officer said no working smoke alarms were fitted!!! I don't think fitting smoke alarms is an incorrect priority - after all 'Mr. Cut fire service pay' the fire service did put the fire out - unfortunately it was too late.
As for letting things burn I remember back in the 80's and 90's being sent into unoccupied buildings to put them out - getting stuck in as you say - on one occasion I was lucky to get away with my life when the building collapsed around me.
If I was being asked to do the same sort of thing today without any life safey objective I'd be straight over to see the OIC!!?? to give him a peice of my mind.
-
The issue is about command and the safety of firefighters due to the implementation of H&S legislation. Enough firefighters have lost their lives due to poor management on the fire ground and protecting poor risk to take this stance. However, their will be a time when this is reviewed and quite rightly the public will ask what firefighters are being paid for if they are not able to save life and property. If things are left to burn out and people lose their lives because little action is taken other than setting up command and control functions then questions at high levels will be asked about the relevance of a reactive firefighting service.
Of course the provision of smoke and heat alarms will assist as will domestic sprinklers in the right scenarios for domestic premises where the loss of life occurs. Sprinklers will control fire growth in commercial premises and allow the FRS to attack a fire where necessary. However, as most people die from smoke inhalation perhaps more attention should be paid to smoke venting.
There is another considration of course and that is having control of building practices and ensuring that provision placed for fire control and escape are maintained and effective.
-
As an addendum to the above, the ABI is liaising with the Government about the increasing costs of fires. Perhaps more intervention will take place or better builidng design for the protection of occupants and firefighters.
-
However, their will be a time when this is reviewed and quite rightly the public will ask what firefighters are being paid for if they are not able to save life and property. If things are left to burn out and people lose their lives because little action is taken other than setting up command and control functions then questions at high levels will be asked about the relevance of a reactive firefighting service.
If there is life involved Jokar and it is saveable then there will be plenty of firefighters who will go beyond what is expected of them in an attempt to do so. Firefighters will pull out all the stops whilst C&C is being set up, and many will take risks, in an attempt to save a savable life. They will not do so to save a body regardless of what the public expectation is.
In the case of an unsavable building all attempts will be made to prevent fire spread to adjoining properties.
-
No one is denying that fact. However, senior officers taking command will pull out firefighters doing that task and start again.
-
No one is denying that fact. However, senior officers taking command will pull out firefighters doing that task and start again.
I would agree.
There is a culture at the moment in the service where it seems Incident Commanders are reluctant to commit crews into even mildly dangerous situations which they might otherwise have done years before.
I fully appreciate there is no gain risking life and limb for an unsavable life, and to carry out operations as safely as possible, but life isn't alays that black and white.
Take the scenario of someone drowning as Clevelandfire mentioned - does the OIC commit a firefighter to rescue the drowning person - knowing that if it all goes wrong s/he will be on hot water and could be sacked or worse.
Or does s/he wait for a water rescue unit which may be some half an hour away knowing that the victim may not survive that long.
The public would expect you to go straight in and attempt to rescue, whereas the brigade would say this is a last resort and you should await back up. Infact I know some brigades where firefighters would point blank not be allowed into the water, and that crews MUST await water rescue teams - breaching policy would be a disciplinary offence. And I think that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of most firefighters.
I recall attending an incident where a poor old sheep got stuck in a canal. Fifty minutes, 4 pumps, a water rescue unit (and its support vehicle) later I was beginning to think the Brigade had gonme mad. So did the sheep who was by now quite cold and most bewildered. Using a bit of good old firefightership (done safely) we could have resolved the poor sheep's plight quickly without tying up so many resources. I did wonder if the sheep was rescued only to die of hypothermia later on that day!
It was embarrassing - members of the public walked past asking why there were so many fire engines for such a little sheep - and one member of the public commented " I wonder how much this little lot is costing me"
The funniest was a little girl who was walking along the towpath with her dad " Daddy " she asked, "why is there a cloud in the canal?"
-
Jokar
What H & S is about is giving the facts to people at the sharp end, giving them the tools, and training them to allow them to make a considered assessment of the actions needed.
Senior officers should trust them to make that judgement and back them confident in their abilities.
Command courses seem more and more to be about politics and less and less about reality.
davo
imho
Clevey
The Met Police have a DVD called the Red Mist. Its all about the consequences of not thinking ahead, and includes officers going into a burning building to attempt rescue, you should see it :o
-
No they won't. They may chnage decisions, or implement controls that weren't in place, but pull out all Ffs and start again at a PR job? No way. Finding Ffs in an unsaveable building they would, and should, get them out. But then again the intial IC should have not allowed them in the first place.
The principles are well known and detailed in ICS manuals, procedures and training:
We will risk our lives to save saveable lives
We will risk our lives a little to save saveable property
We will not risk our lives to save, or property that is already lost
H&S is importnat - look at recent firefighter deaths, should the Ffs have been there?
As to the sheep in a canal - had the initial IC sent Ffs into the water, without the specialist training and equipment, and they had become trapped in the water what then? Think of the debris likley to in the average canal and the bottom conditions (normally deep mud) and what is the chance of their injury? I would wait for specialists, Firefighters are not trained for water rescues, less for for animals, who are highly unlikley not cooperate when you get to them and this be a further hazard to the rescuers!
-
No they won't. They may chnage decisions, or implement controls that weren't in place, but pull out all Ffs and start again at a PR job? No way. Finding Ffs in an unsaveable building they would, and should, get them out. But then again the intial IC should have not allowed them in the first place.
The principles are well known and detailed in ICS manuals, procedures and training:
We will risk our lives to save saveable lives
We will risk our lives a little to save saveable property
We will not risk our lives to save, or property that is already lost
H&S is importnat - look at recent firefighter deaths, should the Ffs have been there?
As to the sheep in a canal - had the initial IC sent Ffs into the water, without the specialist training and equipment, and they had become trapped in the water what then? Think of the debris likley to in the average canal and the bottom conditions (normally deep mud) and what is the chance of their injury? I would wait for specialists, Firefighters are not trained for water rescues, less for for animals, who are highly unlikley not cooperate when you get to them and this be a further hazard to the rescuers!
I agree with all you say.
Reference the sheep in the canal.
Firstly various options could have been pursued which wouldn't have involved a firefighter having to set foot in the water.
Secondly using a dynamic risk assessment why couldn't firefighters (all of whom have had phase 1 water rescue training ) have gone in - also the canal hass still rather than moving water. We carry dry suits, floatation devices and life jackets on our pumps - so whats the point of having them if we don't use them?
I agree just wading in fire kit withiout analysing the situation first would be silly, but come on 4 pumps, water rescue and a support unit - that is ridiculous, that has gone too far the other way!
-
Module (phase?) 1 water training is about safely working near water. It includes teaching Ffs land based rescue echniques and that they should never ENTER water.
Module 2 is land based and wading - would not include canals as the bottom could be hazardous. Plus canal water is not still, it flows, though slowly and not necessarily noticeably form its surface condition.
Module 3 is swift water technician - trained for full water entry
So these Ffs could have worn lifejackets and used throw lines and inflatable hose from the banks, but the sheep is unlikely to grab them. Unless you have SRT training you shouldn't enter water to rescues, I assume your service bought the equipment to keep staff dry in flooding incidents. Perhaps, unless all your staff are SRT (in which case why wait for the team?), this aids the position that many others have taken - which is don't give people equipment that they aren't trained to use as they might try to.
-
Need I say more.
-
I'm afraid that since the Services have been told to be an international rescue level organisation the appliances have run out of room for all the specialist gear.
Best thing is to have the concerned public make the additional financial contribution to the setting up of an elite squad of sheep savers in each town, if it concerns them so. Until then them and they will have to make do with what them and they have.
-
It appears to me that we are now so aware of health and safety issues and so professional in our approach that it is now too risky for the fire and rescue service to fight fires or carry out rescues.
I am glad to have served in the good old days where you stood and fell by your own decisions on the spot without being hampered by all this red tape. I can think of several successful rescues where if we had been prevented by SSOWs from improvisation then lives would have been lost.
Having said that none of us is immune to the red mist at times and thats where the comradeship and teamwork, respect and consideration for other team members generally tempered and controlled our actions.
-
Kurnal - Couldnt have put it better myself.
Davo - why would I need to see a DVD called "Red Mist"?
Midland Rotweiler - Correct 4 machines and goodness knows what else for a sheep rescue is well over the top. I bet the tax payer would be really pleased to know this sort of thing goes on. And I bet your brigade harps on about saving the environment and cutting down costs yet it will needlessly send several gas guzzling machines to a minor incident.
Fireftrm - Why would we chuck a line at a sheep. You have a training need mate.Never heard of improvisation and good firemanship thinking of different ways to use bits of kit off the wagon- incidentally aint allowed to do that anymore because Her Madge's Government doesn't like us think for ourselves. Lets call half the brigade out to deal with a sheep. You couldnt make this stuff up you really couldnt. Im not being funny Firetrm but you just sound like a brigade robot quoting management policies. Have you had the microchip inserted? Are you a middle manager by chance? Well hey here's a radical idea how about think you ought to credit fire crews and watch commanders with a bit more common sense, and trust them to take calculated risks where needed.I'm with Kurnal and glad im out of this circus show now. The fire and rescue service these days is no longer a fire and rescue service. The word rescue should be removed from the title as it surely breaches the trades description act. Make pumps 12 a dragonfly has just collided with a daffodil.
-
Clevey
Not personally ;D
Its about dynamic risk assessment, when the risk is acceptable, when to call the cavalry, when to back off, that sort of stuff, all easily translated to FRS.
Prof
Your first para seems to strike a chord............. ::)
Our latest survey indicated 44% of the public sorry customers are happy with us, the 'highest yet' since surveys began a few years ago. You couldn't make it up...
davo
-
See the lifeboat service doen't have all that stuff. They know that they could die when they go but they do it anyway and they are volunteers. Perhaps that is the issue, if you pay people to do things they have to consider it all and if you volunteer, well!
The RNLI, the proper rescue service.
-
Yes Davo we had the same dynamic approach to risk assessment introduced into the fire service, to be fair it was introduced following serveral tragic and avoidable losses of fire fighters at operational incidents.
It was intended to temper the rash and ill considered actions that can be taken when commanders focus only on the task in front of them and not on the potential consequences, and is so often driven at emergency incidents by the need to be seen to be doing something to help. You arrive on the big red truck, bystanders expect you to get straight to work and make things better. Often you can but sometimes you can't. The critically important thing is of course not to make matters worse and above all to get all your staff safely home at the end of it. Anything else is then a bonus.
-
The dynamic risk assessment process is an excellent tool. Unfortunately it has largely been taken out of context and misinterpreted by both rank and file.
The interpretation Davo has given is absolutely spot on. Yet alot of Commanders out there are frightened of DRA either through perceived or actual fear of repraisals from principal officers when things go wrong or because of the lack of support the incident commander receives if a firefighter gets injured (or worse).
This is leading to real problems - trust issues between front line officers and management - crews perception - feeling undervalued and athat they are not allowed to do the job the public expects. I can see this leading to huge problems in the future.
Firetrm it seems training differs in your brigade to that of mine (or what was mine as Ive now left).
I will quote what you have already said "We will risk our lives to save saveable lives"
I'll use that other magic phrase "Dynamic Risk Assessment"
You exhaust all other options before entering the water (to which there are many as you will be aware). If those options fail then we would consider entering the water with the necessary PPE and safeguards.
To wait possibly thirty minutes in some cases for a water rescue team is absolutely unacceptable when a casualty is imminent danger of drowning.
Someone told me once (and I'm not sure how true this is) that a member of the emergency services (I wont say which one) came across someone drowning in a canal. The emergency worker wanted to assist but was aware of his employers procedures which dictated under no circumstances should he enter the water. Whilst considering his dilema a member of the public jumped in and got the casualty out. Think on!
-
Clevelandfire - Fireftrm - Why would we chuck a line at a sheep. In repsonse may I ask if you are perhaps someone needing literacy help? Ask JM for assistance on reading and understanding information. Alternatively get a life, a sense of humour, or both. You might then spot that I said you could throw a line, or use inflated hose, but I doubt the sheep will grab hold - in other words a joke. Humour. Or don't you have that down on Teesside?
I, too, consider 4 pumps for a sheep to be ridiculous and think that the DRA and practical firefighter's skills may have come up with a solution. Having said that I still wouldn't be happy about sending Ffs in to a canal to rescue a sheep, which was clealry not drowning if it took 50 mins for a team to arrive and get it out. Perhaps if all the people weren't on the bankside it would have swum out, no doubt fearful of all the humans. I have not noticed sheep being particularly friendly and approachable, watch yourself if walking on the moors - they usually run/move away.
Midland Retty - the water rescue levels I quoted are national, not local.
DRA should be used and it should be supported by the service, however if a Ff gets injured, or worse, it will be under the greatest scrutiny and so it should. That injury occured may indicate a failure to properly carry out a DRA, or apply the controls. The main issue here is proper training for all ICs, at all levels. Too often staff are put in charge with insufficient training, how many RDS crews are still allowed to turn out with untrained Ffs acting up, or have WMs/CMs that haven't had formal ICS training? Quite a few I suspect. These crews are often the first on scene at water related incidents and likely to be the furthest form any specialist crews.
-
Hi Firetrm
I do appreciate what you are saying. But equally subject to a DRA it may well be that a FF could safely enter the water.
It would seem theerefore our Brigade doesn't follow National Guidance in that case. Firefighters wouldn't ordinarily be permitted into moving water - still water is generally not an issue - but moving water automaticaly meant that water rescue would be summoned.
Again however if the casualty was imminent danger of drowning everything would be done to save that life. So I still stand by my comments that Firefighters can and should enter the water subject to all other options being exhausted first and when a casualty is in imminent danger of death.
-
Hi Firetrm
I do appreciate what you are saying. But equally subject to a DRA it may well be that a FF could safely enter the water.
It would seem theerefore our Brigade doesn't follow National Guidance in that case. Firefighters wouldn't ordinarily be permitted into moving water - still water is generally not an issue - but moving water automaticaly meant that water rescue would be summoned.
Again however if the casualty was imminent danger of drowning everything would be done to save that life. So I still stand by my comments that Firefighters can and should enter the water subject to all other options being exhausted first and when a casualty is in imminent danger of death. and after - promptly sacked for endangering his and the lives of others.
-
Yes, the stand, wait and watch approach, still doesn't float my boat. If you do not do anything you can not be in trouble because you haven't done anything, strange isn't it. I am still not sure that the public will look on any situation where action isn't taken by FRS staff kindly. Their view, antiquated as it may be, is that FRS is a reactive service and they pay through their taxes for personnel to put their lives on the line to save others otherwise you could do what they did before and sign up for insurance companies to come and rescue things.
-
Perhaps, to satisfy the public need for a quota of firefighters to perish trying to rescue sheep or a body, we should have a public execution of the outstanding balance of members of the emergency services at the end of every year as a warning and reminder that not enough are risking their lives to save the unsavable?
Just a thought.
-
Oi Nearlythere dont you start as well!
Im not suggesting we commit firefighters to save unsaveable lives, Im just saying subject to a DRA, exhausting all other options for a saveable life we should do everything possible to help that oerosn indistress.
Unfortunately sometimes there is nothing that can be done, but in cases where there is chance to give assistance we should do so!.
I think its a sad day when we put brigade red tape before life
-
Or maybe the Government could consider starting a dedicated 'rescue service'.
This would be a group of highly-trained and motivated persons willing to risk life and limb where necessary for the benefit of those in need of rescuing.
They would always put 'service' before 'self'. The general public would recognise them as a group of real-life heroes and accord them the respect they deserved.
Obviously these Rescuers would be paid well for their 'risk taking' and be led by management of the very highest calibre. They would also have access to the best rescue equipment available.
I'd be willing to pay more tax for such a service.
However, I think that it wouldn't be long before the Government would start undermining the service by cutting wages and resources or the H&S executive began saying 'you don't wanna do it like that - think of the risk, and don't do anything!
-
If we have to start rescuing the rescuers then we're in real trouble - we only have to look across the big pond to see how not to do it. They kill countless scores of their firefighters every year by letting themselves self commit etc. Fire fighters I know will all undoubtedly save life that is saveable but there's a fine line between hero and zero!
-
I understand all of that, but what about public perception. Firefighters want to be professional and earn professional salaries and thererfore the publix expevt a professional reactive service from them. If it is a DRA and wait and see you may as well go round and knock at the neighbours house. They will be there quicker, have a go, have some water from a nearby supply and in a lot of cases rescue people and get good deed praise from all and sundry.
-
I think the crux of the issue is the recruitment and promotion processes. We now have a system where more training is done to "embrace diversity" than on rescues and firefighting. The promotion system is nothing short of a farce , people get put in charge having been asked only "managerial issue" questions at interview and then get sent on a course to learn "empathic listening".!!
Examinations for all officers should be made compulsory again, it is the only way to stop the rot, and it will never happen!!
Bungle
-
I am also told that despite all the hullaballoo of regional recruitment schemes for firefighters and for selecting the right candidates, people get on a recruits course and then find they cant hack it. I only have anecdotal evidence of this but am told that the number dropping out of courses is far higher than ever it was before? Anyone got any stats?
-
The trouble is that all the questions and personal qualities and atttributes are geared towards CFS and other such peripheral subjects and as such we end up with well meaning but not suitable recruits. . Twenty years ago I joined the emergency services and I now find myself working in social services. I wish I had never joined.
-
but what about public perception
Jokar - Public perception is based on phycological interpretion.
Take for example the following two examples:
- A contained fire has started in a building to which the fire service turns up to. For various reasons the OIC makes a number of decisions which allows the fire to develop and spread to subsequent buildings. After some considerable time and resource the fire is eventually extinguished. Headlines in the following days paper reads "Brave fire crews extinguish huge fire - Local community says thank you."
- Police attend a murder scene, the police force tries with all of its resources and best men to catch the killer. In the meantime a further 3 murders are commited by the same individual. Eventually and against all odds the police pick up on a clue which secures the capture of the murderer. The headlines in the next day's paper reads - why did police take so long to bring murderer to justice.
In essence the police dealt with their situation effectively but public perception interpreted it negatively and vice versa for the fire service. This type of interpretation is something the fire service has relied on for a very long time and continues to do so.
I guess a lot of time, communication and understanding is required by all so that the best actions are taken opposed to doing just what is percieved as to be the best for the good of public relations.
-
I am all for dynamic risk assessment. Its something that the best firefighters have done instinctively since time began. In the old days we had a limited range of equipment and this led us to become masters of improvisation. We could do anything with almost nothing. I remember the details of a rescue from a burning factory where the ladder was too short to reach the trapped person at the window so a short extension ladder was lashed to the head of the main ladder and a rescue successfully carried out. Would that happen today? Or would it be more than the OICs job was worth?
The old drill book was very sparse. It had some very basic procdedures in it which deliberately left wide scope for improvisation. Then as the years went by equipment became more sophisticated and wide ranging and in some cases the consequences of misuse were much more significant (eg jacking and winch systems, complex breathing apparatus) together with legislation such as the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations made it essential for the Service to devise far more written procedures and safe systems of work.
Once a procedure is written down and prescriptive even the brave and diligent operational OIC has nowhere to hide. They cannot be creative and inventive as we had to be in the past. Fact of the matter is even if they carry out a successful rescue and save a life that would otherwise be lost - if they vary from written procedures they will most likely be for the high jump.
OICs know this and so are very cautious about using a dynamic risk assessment to vary from these written standard procedures. Even if they are branded heroes by the press it is very likely that an internal inquiry and politics will take over, in some areas union officials will see it as a chance to have a go at management and demand action. And usually none of the people banging the drum were within miles of the incident.
Many brigades now send out monitoring officers to operational incidents simply to ensure written procedures are followed.
The outcome is most unsatisfactory from a public perception- when the red engine turns up the crew may recognise that the book says they must work in a certain way so rather than carry out the DRA and consider probability and consequence of rolling up their sleeves they most likely will wait till all the kit arrives on the scene.
-
Hightower
The whole idea of DRA means that you should never be in a position where the rescuer needs to be rescued
Let me make it absolutely clear. Fire crews should do everything possible (including taking calculated risks) to save a saveable life. If this means risking life and limb then so be it. To my mind and unless anyone can correct me that is exactly what firefighters are paid to do, and whether we like it or not what the public expects them to do.
Im certainly not saying that crews should make futile attempts to rescue an unsaveable life or risk themselves needlessly, but you have to give the OIC some flexibility and trust them to make those kind of decisions based on what faces them when they turn up at an incident.
What is unhelpful are the prescriptive brigade procedures and policies which bring with them the inherent fear that they could come and bite the OIC on the bottom for otherwise trying to do his / her job in extraneous circumstances.
I'm concerned that this trend may lead to effectively a 'passive' rather than 'active' fire service response, and that the public will loose faith in a service they pay for because OICs will become to worried about committing crews at incidents where there are grey areas in how they fit in with brigade procedures.
The balance needs to be restored, the scales have tipped too far the other way, and to be honest I miss operational life that much, because of silly incidents such as the 4 pump sheep in the canal.
Gone on the days where fire crews would improvise as Kurnal points out, which is all rather sad. It is interesting to note that the amount of firefighter deaths actually seems to be rising under the "modernised fire service".
-
MR
Our police RAs list the foreseeable hazards, controls etc etc but also instruct to DRA on site based on what you see and what info you are given, etc
Every new recruit over the last few years has a three hour input on DRA.
Provided the DRA can be explained there should be no comebacks. Obviously the downright stupid/foolhardy etc would be dealt with
davo
-
Hi Davo
That sounds like a workable common sense approach - thats supposed to be how the Fire Servces DRA process works too, alas it doesn't seem tobe the case.
-
but what about public perception
Jokar - Public perception is based on phycological interpretion.
Take for example the following two examples:
- A contained fire has started in a building to which the fire service turns up to. For various reasons the OIC makes a number of decisions which allows the fire to develop and spread to subsequent buildings. After some considerable time and resource the fire is eventually extinguished. Headlines in the following days paper reads "Brave fire crews extinguish huge fire - Local community says thank you."
- Police attend a murder scene, the police force tries with all of its resources and best men to catch the killer. In the meantime a further 3 murders are commited by the same individual. Eventually and against all odds the police pick up on a clue which secures the capture of the murderer. The headlines in the next day's paper reads - why did police take so long to bring murderer to justice.
In essence the police dealt with their situation effectively but public perception interpreted it negatively and vice versa for the fire service. This type of interpretation is something the fire service has relied on for a very long time and continues to do so.
I guess a lot of time, communication and understanding is required by all so that the best actions are taken opposed to doing just what is percieved as to be the best for the good of public relations.
Nah sorry that argument doesn't hold true for me one bit and is a back handed way of looking at this.Lets not compare ourseslves to the boys in blue who's public perceptions are incomparable. You can say what you like, but lets look at another headline: " Firecrews told to wait for water rescue unit while man drowns". The fire service has gone to rat poo, and im just waiting for the public to click whats going on because the mess will hit the fan then. WHy is it this government has to wrap people up in cotton wool. Infact its not only the fire service thats gone to rat poo i think the country has.
-
MR
I think we both agree on the same stance - DRA and commit where life can be saved. As i said earlier I remember in the past being committed with BA to buildings with no life risk and lucky to come out of them alive.
Its a fine balance, when its got right not many people know, of course when it goes wrong everyone knows.
-
MR
I think we both agree on the same stance - DRA and commit where life can be saved. As i said earlier I remember in the past being committed with BA to buildings with no life risk and lucky to come out of them alive.
Its a fine balance, when its got right not many people know, of course when it goes wrong everyone knows.
Totally agree
-
There seems to be much scaremongering here. It is easy to make up theoretical stories where due to DRA crews are not committed to a building to save lives. But, I fully believe, the boys and girls on the red lorries, given a fire with persons reported, would be straight in there, doing what they all joined up and are trained to do, with the full approval of the OIC as it is what he/she joined up for too. How many times per year do you see it reported in the paper that some firefighter(s) risked their life and saved someone? Probably none apart from a small section of the local paper. The results of the X Factor and the behaviour of our MP's and celebrities seems to be far more newsworthy.
With regards empty properties, how would any of you react if the OIC sent your son/daughter into the building and they got killed or injured for nothing. Would you think that is what they signed up for, or would you be condemning the behaviour of the OIC? Atherton-on-Stour is a prime example. Some people were quick to condemn the decision to send firefighters in, well before any facts of the case had been proven. Had the OIC not sent anyone into the building and just let it burn down, there would have been no casualties, but in absence of the knowledge of what could have happened, people would have taken the same line of moaning as has appeared here. "They/we don't fight fires any more.. Blah blah blah."
-
There seems to be much scaremongering here. It is easy to make up theoretical stories where due to DRA crews are not committed to a building to save lives. But, I fully believe, the boys and girls on the red lorries, given a fire with persons reported, would be straight in there, doing what they all joined up and are trained to do, with the full approval of the OIC as it is what he/she joined up for too. How many times per year do you see it reported in the paper that some firefighter(s) risked their life and saved someone? Probably none apart from a small section of the local paper. The results of the X Factor and the behaviour of our MP's and celebrities seems to be far more newsworthy.
With regards empty properties, how would any of you react if the OIC sent your son/daughter into the building and they got killed or injured for nothing. Would you think that is what they signed up for, or would you be condemning the behaviour of the OIC? Atherton-on-Stour is a prime example. Some people were quick to condemn the decision to send firefighters in, well before any facts of the case had been proven. Had the OIC not sent anyone into the building and just let it burn down, there would have been no casualties, but in absence of the knowledge of what could have happened, people would have taken the same line of moaning as has appeared here. "They/we don't fight fires any more.. Blah blah blah."
Who is that aimed at Civvy? The thrust of most of the comments made on the thread isn't about scaremongering at all.
There is no point commiting crews needlessly into a burning building as you suggest and no one is arguing any differently.
What we are concerned about is red tape and needless beaurocracy that prevents firefighters doing their job effectively .
Imagine your son or daughter drowning but crews standing watching saying "sorry we aren't allowed to go in to rescue them - we have to await water rescue teams which are 15 mins away"
One of the brigades I served with had a truly first class water rescue team - but it was 30 minuites away from my station area even on blue lights. What use is that?
Ok in real life the fact is the firefighters probably would go in to save a person drowning but they risk landing up on disciplinary charges for doing so REGARDLESS of the outcome, and that is worrying thing.
DRA should allow flexibility for crews and their commanders to take calculated risk based on what they find when they turn up. The system in its current form doesn't allow for that, and it is becoming a huge problem Civvy. Its not scaremongering it is exactly for the reason you said second line in on your post about lads and lasses do everything possible to save a saveable life everytime. We arent talking about racing into a fire without considering the risks, we are saying where there is any chance at all of helping save a life then we MUST be allowed to do so without fear of reprisal from Senior Management.
On the point of the Atherton on Stour job you mention it is widely reported that fire crews were told that people were still inside the building and that is why firefighters went in wearing BA.
-
Apologies. I didn't mean it to sound like it was aimed at all of you. There seem to be a few with the perception or even just hinting that even when lives are at risk, the fire service will sit around calculating the risks and then say "too risky mate". There is the theoretical argument that if they obeyed instructions/policies, that might happen. As you say, in reality it won't.
The "empty properties" was simply aimed at anyone who thinks that the fire service should risk lives of their employees just to save property, in particular the creator of the thread.
Like Hightower says, many are quick to complain, not in such a hurry to give any praise though.
It is not like it used to be, but neither is child labour, my chimney is filthy nowadays.
-
There seem to be a few with the perception or even just hinting that even when lives are at risk, the fire service will sit around calculating the risks and then say "too risky mate". There is the theoretical argument that if they obeyed instructions/policies, that might happen. As you say, in reality it won't.
But that is exactly what we are talking about OICs and firefighters won't run the risk of facing disciplinary action or losing their jobs by going outside of overly restrictive or ill thought out brigade policies, policies which often have been a knee jerk reaction to concerns by HM Government (and to some extent the HSE).
As somebody has already stated several brigades will not allow firefighters into water to undertake a rescue (even if subject to a DRA they could take a calculated risk). Instead they must await a water rescue team. As I said the teams are great but often too far away.
Of course there are other options to attempt rescue without going into the water, but if all those other options are exhausted what do you do then? Let the person drown? I'd hope and expect the brigade to do everything possible to render assitance to someone in trouble, and take a calculated risks to save a saveable life. But blame culture and the inability for fire crews to be given the flexibility to diversify or improvise at an incident due to restrictive policies is jeopardising the whole ethos of what the brigades is all about.
And dont apologise Civvy - healthy debate is always good! Ive harped on about this long enough, and will be quiet now.
-
Midland Rotweiler for prime minister!!!!!
-
Good debate!
One question ..... how many posting comments are the decision makers - the ones taking command of the incident?
I think that a point has been missed here ... take a water rescue as the example - most comments are about exhausting all possibilities and waiting for the water rescue unit, yet no-one had mentioned that as an incident commander, you'd be asking for the resources if it isn't already mobilised. There are things that can be done while waiting .... establish cordons, prepare the area, follow the pholosophy of water rescue - Talk, reach, throw, row, go.
As the Incident commander, the decision has to be made on whether to have one casualty or just add the the numbers. Service porcedures are there for good reason, although at times limiting.
As an incident commander, decision have to be made .... difficult and sometimes against our natural instincts. Yes fire fighters can be committed to building on fire but with approporiate control measures in place.
Have we forgotten during this thread that we are still losing fire fighters in buildings, despite all the procedures. Why?
I also note that the starter of the thread has made no further contribution, other than to light the fuse as it were ..... and clearly some find it difficult to accept the way of the modern service.
-
Baldy isn't it the point that the public sector has become so health and safety bonkers. I would be reassured that Firefighters understand that during the course of their career they might be put in harms way to save life. I mean you don't hear Soldiers moaning about the dangers of being shot at in Helmand or HR risk assessing the Taliban. So if my son was having difficulties in water id sure as well would like a fire-fighter to try and save him.
When I was a lad firefighters were heroes.
By the way ive noticed that the personal qualities needed to become a firefighter bravery doesn't feature among them. Is the answer a change of government to knock some common sense back into the brigade (is brigade a political incorrect term these days)
-
The problem is not so much that the public sector is health and safety bonkers it is more about a blame culture. If something goes wrong someone must be to blame and the most obvious guy is the OiC.
However the roots of the problem are often not investigated whether it be lack of training, lack of team work or lack of confidence. Everyone must be fully trained in the use and misuse of equipment, one of the great strengths of the fire service used to be improvisation.
Everyone must trust everyone else on the team and this included the OiC who must not only trust the team to do as it is told but must also trust the team to add in their experience. I was always grateful when one of my team came up with a suggestion during a job.
Finally everyone must be confident in what they are doing and in the support they will get, too many times the hunt is for a scapgoat and the opportunity for senior officers to play lawyers during disciplinary procedures.
Yes Health and Safety is used as an excuse not to do things. What Health and Safety should mean is that you are aware of what you are doing and of the risks you are taking. Then how can you minimise the risks and still achieve the objective, and is the objective worth the risk?
Finally if it does go wrong, people must understand that it is a lot more complex than the fault of the OiC.
-
Good debate!
One question ..... how many posting comments are the decision makers - the ones taking command of the incident?
I think that a point has been missed here ... take a water rescue as the example - most comments are about exhausting all possibilities and waiting for the water rescue unit, yet no-one had mentioned that as an incident commander, you'd be asking for the resources if it isn't already mobilised. There are things that can be done while waiting .... establish cordons, prepare the area, follow the pholosophy of water rescue - Talk, reach, throw, row, go.
As the Incident commander, the decision has to be made on whether to have one casualty or just add the the numbers. Service porcedures are there for good reason, although at times limiting.
As an incident commander, decision have to be made .... difficult and sometimes against our natural instincts. Yes fire fighters can be committed to building on fire but with approporiate control measures in place.
Have we forgotten during this thread that we are still losing fire fighters in buildings, despite all the procedures. Why?
I also note that the starter of the thread has made no further contribution, other than to light the fuse as it were ..... and clearly some find it difficult to accept the way of the modern service.
Somehow Baldyman I dont think you have even bothered to read all of this thread. We all know why the policies and procedures are in place. So you call for your water rescue unit then as soon as you turn up at a water rescue incident. Isnt that agiven? And does that mean they will be there in 5 minutes? will they get there in time to save the casualty.
No one is saying you take a risk needlessly. Theres no point in a rescuer becoming a casualty themselves but that also doesnt mean courage bravery inprovisation and team work should go out the window. fire service procedures dont allow for flexibility after the Talk, reach, throw, row, go procedure has been exhausted. How can "go" come into it when alot of brigades wont allow firemen to enter the water under any circumstances.
Do you understand the terms "rescue" and "calculated risk" or " trusting your colleagues". Should SubO's, Leading Firemen, Station Officers not be trusted to commit crews to save a saveable life. Throughout this thread people have talked about options available before even entering the water. If that fails and you are left with when a casualty who is about to be lost what do you do if your brigade says you dont enter water. Still waiting for the water rescue team are you? If you answered yes its either cos the rescue is just not going to achieve anything and will mean the rescuer themselves get into trouble,or that you are in fear of doing anything in case it comes back down from above or you dont know how to do your job properly and dont trust the people you work with.
As for you Mike Buckley youre my kind of guy, couldnt have put it better myself. The fire brigade has gone health and safety mad do you think such restrictions are imposed on our armed forces? I really hope not.
And finally as Retty has already said you baldyman talk about firemen still getting killed well theres seems to be a hell of a lot more dying under the modernised fire service that we dinosaurs are supposed to loath so much than there was in the previous decade. So thanks for pointing that out I think you have kicked yourself up the backside with that statement.
-
First, I have read all of this thread.
My comments appear to have been jumped upon .... I used water rescue as 'the example', thats all. To clarify, 'go' is the use of a boat in water rescues, not personnel entering the water as it has been interpreted.
I agree that health and safety can become restrictive, I fully understand the application of dynamic risk assessment, the terms "rescue", "calculated risk" and "trusting colleagues". I am more than familiar with the current Incident Command System and I have worked in both the archaic and modernised fire and rescue service.
I understand fire development, growth and behviour and how it affects structure and will make command decisions which I will stand by if questioned.
Forgive me for being so modernised, but while I accept change, that doesn't mean to say I agree with it, but I have one objective which is to make sure that I , and personnel I work with are safe at work while delivering the service expected by the public I serve.
-
Thats fair enough baldyman. I agree with your last paragraph and appreciate where you are coming from
I know life isnt clear cut and incident commanders sometimes have to make very tough decisions knowing their career may be on the line. Thats what they are there to do. What I resent is the lack of thought about policy and procedure which seems to go against the very thing you talk about - doing the job the public expects as safely as possible. That is what the vast majority of people have been saying on this thread, even though it may not seem like it and thats why I wondered if you had read all the thread.
Come on lets be honest if we saw someone drowning we would do everything possible to help, regardless of any rollockings that may follow from the management in their ivory towers. Bless their cotton socks. I would never ask my watch to do something i wasnt prepared to do myself, and i knew every single one of them like family. To me that is exactly what the fire service was all about.
-
It worries me that incident commanders are concerned about their career when making decisions at incidents. IMHO this is the cause of the problem. Incident commanders should be worrying about their crews, the job, the everybody's safety, the resources available etc., the last thing they should be worrying about is how will this look on my record.
If everyone is doing their job and supporting and looking after each other then the incident will progress satisfactorily. People need to have the confidence to make decisions when necessarily. For example if you are entry control and it looks as if the building is starting to collapse you should start evacuation if you can't contact the incident commander immediately.
Yes incident commanders will make mistakes, so will everyone, but these should be seen as part of the learning process not a threat to career. A team working together will make fewer mistakes than throwing all the responsibility on the incident commander.
I remember I had to slap the wrist of one of my subos over BA procedure when they were carrying out a snatch rescue, I did admit that given the same circumstance I would have done the same as him, but procedure was procedure and it was there for a reason. End of story he knew what he had done was technically wrong, I had done my job by confirming it wasn't just laziness and we both had learnt.
-
Yes incident commanders will make mistakes, so will everyone, but these should be seen as part of the learning process not a threat to career.
A good officer would Mike but generally principal officers use it as a means of covering their own asses from the attention of the H&S Ex.
-
Mistakes should not be used to apportion blame, they should be used to learn from and improve .... surely thats why we have debriefs.
-
Hi Baldyman youre absolutely correct. Nearlythere I also agree with your comments.
And this is why I raised the issued midway through the thread. We are not advocating that firefighters be reckless, but we are asking that the ability to improvise at an incident be reintroduced for the benefit of the crew and victims alike.
-
Hi Baldyman youre absolutely correct. Nearlythere I also agree with your comments.
And this is why I raised the issued midway through the thread. We are not advocating that firefighters be reckless, but we are asking that the ability to improvise at an incident be reintroduced for the benefit of the crew and victims alike.
Thats it MR. But until initiative and improvisation is acknowledged as an acceptable system of work nobody is going to stick their neck out for someone to put a noose around it
-
Absolutely NT. Sad state of affairs really. Maybe things will change after our new government is voted in ;)
-
Absolutely NT. Sad state of affairs really. Maybe things will change after our new government is voted in ;)
Doubt it MR. There are more important things for any new Government to do first like award themselves an inflation busting pay rise and invent new expenses scams.
-
At the risk of being too modern again, I appreciate Mike Buckley's comment about Incident Commanders being concerned about their career when making decisions, but in a way, disagree.
Most services have standard operating procedures for generic incidents, there to give guidance but ultimately to ensure safe systems of work are used and implimented. The problem is when you step away from the SOP's .... nothing goes wrong, fine, but perhaps a few questions to answer. It's when it all goes wrong that the individual will be accountable and maybe that is what worries people.
The incident commander must be able to make decisions, sometimes using the knowledge and experience of his/her crews to come up with ideas when the incident is not quite 'run of the mill'.
I was in the fire service when kit was used for all manner of jobs and tasks, but we mustn't forget that the kit has evolved so we have specilaist tools for tasks. Again, use the kit for something it isn't intended for and all goes well, not a problem. use it and break it or injure someone, expect the consequences.
Perhaps the days of 'practical firemanship' are drawing to a close as the old school numbers are leaving and the skills from back in the day are not passed on.
;D
-
Perhaps the days of 'practical firemanship' are drawing to a close as the old school numbers are leaving and the skills from back in the day are not passed on.
;D
Remember BM. Two pies and chips Prescott modernised the UK Fire Brigades with the overwhelming support of the electorate.
"qu'ils mangent de la brioche"
-
How can we forget? :o
My comment refers more to the numbers that are retiring after their service ..... and the lack of ability for 'traditional'fire fighter skills to be passed on.
-
I think thats very true the old skill set is being lost to kids who dont know much about fire behaviour, building construction or firemanship. They are great at putting up smoke detectors though.
-
They are great at putting up smoke detectors though.
Thats what is saving lives C3.
-
They are great at putting up smoke detectors though.
Thats what is saving lives C3.
Civilians yes, firefighters no?
SOPs are not a new thing, they were about in my day (OK the stone tablets were a bit heavy), but the problem is incidents are not generic, each one has its own traps. The SOP has to be interpreted and modified according to the incident, that is the skill of command and control.
The more specific SOPs become, the more numerous they become until there are so many it is impossible. Until you reach the stage where the OiC is trying to remember which SOP to use. The situation will not be helped by different officers having different ideas and writing different SOPs for essentially the same incident.
The old adage "Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men" comes to mind.
-
Absolutely NT. Sad state of affairs really. Maybe things will change after our new government is voted in ;)
Doubt it MR. There are more important things for any new Government to do first like award themselves an inflation busting pay rise and invent new expenses scams.
It has begun.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/northern_ireland_politics/8380998.stm
-
the old skill set is being lost to kids who dont know much about fire behaviour, building construction or firemanship
If so this is a failure of the FRS they work for. These areas are explicity required for completion of the NOS so any service that has competent Firefighters should have ensured this skill and knowledge. I would, however, agree that too many are not doing their job, but this is not the fault of the Firefighter's youth or putting up detectors (which is explicity NOT in a firefighter's role)
-
Point taken. Ive nothing against CFS it definately has its pace but the NOS as i understand them has dumbed down alot of training that the old hands used to get. Not the youth firefighters fault though I agree.
-
Not read all of this thread but i believe that too much emphasis is being put on filling in portfolios and the like and not actually knowing the practical aspects of the job. We also need to look at the fallout from the strike and where we are as a result of this. Some Firey's who joined during and just after the industrial action never had the same training from the experienced fireys and Officers that I had received more than 20 years previous. This was because moral was low and people felt extremely undervalued.
So we are now some 6 years after the strike and some of the Officers nowadays who have joined post strike, are making decisions with less practical knowledge than we had the benefit of in my era. This is compounded by the fact that when good experienced firey's start to switch off and not keep their practical skills up to date, they cannot just turn it back on in an emergency situation. The current OIC's now have to be even more reliant on their own practical skills when the chips are down than I had to as I knew my crews had a wealth of experience. Most Services have mad keen junior ranks that need guided and supported and if they are not given input on key practical skills, how are they meant to know them?
PS. I was always taught that SOP's were designed for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools- how right this has become.
These are my own personal opinion and not necessarily the views of my Service.
-
Hey welcome back Billy good to know you are still around bangin the drum :)
-
The other problem with experience is that the bulge of men taken on when the 48 hour week was reduced to 42 hr have now reached retirement so all that experience has gone as well. ::)