FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: Clevelandfire 3 on June 19, 2010, 01:57:40 PM
-
The Government have announced today that the needless red tape and silly health and safety legislation will finally be exempted from UK Police and Fire Services following very sad and needless fatalities where emergency service personnel were not allowed to attempt rescues for fear of losing their jobs
Maybe, just maybe common sense is beginning to come through once again.
For you disbelievers out there and those who felt safety was paramount, what about the job we joined up to do. People expect the emergency services to do all they can when someone's in trouble and now they can once again. No more needless deaths. People who join the armed forces or emergency services know what they are getting themselves in for whne they sign up to the job. Sometimes we have to take calculated risks. Theis heralds the start of the return of the old fire service as we knew it . Thank god! Let us get on with our jobs !
-
Haven't you retired from the service though ? Still someone will need to train us on hook ladders etc.
And before you go getting aggresive etc yes H&S can be an issue I think we all agree with that, I'd be interested to know of a genuine example you have as opposed to a friend of a friend or a newspaper saying when something was not done due to H&S concerns? (puts on crash hat now)
-
Gee thanks Stevo, that was nice of you. Yes Im retired but still take an interest in the service, and i could state several times when H&S has gone overboard but if you read today's papers maybe you will accept more from them rather than listen to me apparently talking to friends of friends of friends.
-
It seems to me from observation, news stories and from speaking to a number of former colleagues, that senior management have greater concerns over potential charges of corporate manslaughter if things go wrong than perhaps the level and quality of service to the public at operational incidents. For this reason I cautiously welcome the new intitiative.
It also seems to me that those senior managers who have not come up through the operational ranks are these most likely to focus on corporate issues rather than the task in hand, and impose and enforce lengthy and inflexible safe systems of work for all manner of sitations, which inhibit improvisation.
It is right and proper that all operational decisions be based on dynamic risk assessment. This has saved a number of lives and controls the red mist- but the only focus of the risk assessment should be to give the best help to someone in danger and at the same time getting all your crew members home safely at the end. Any relaxationand indemnity against prosecution must not be abused as something for poor management to hide behind.
Our greatest strengths used to be flexibility, adaptabity and the ability to improvise- to use basic equipment safely in different ways and combinations. In my view the worry over H&S and corporate manslaughter have stifled this.
-
Sounds spot on really Kurnal
-
Yes absolutely spot on. Particulalrly "Our greatest strengths used to be flexibility, adaptabity and the ability to improvise- to use basic equipment safely in different ways and combinations. In my view the worry over H&S and corporate manslaughter have stifled this".
-
I write this wearing full P.P.E ....
It also seems to me that those senior managers who have not come up through the operational ranks are these most likely to focus on corporate issues rather than the task in hand, and impose and enforce lengthy and inflexible safe systems of work for all manner of sitations, which inhibit improvisation.
I agree with this, but just to throw something else into the mix ........
Improvisation of kit is all well and good until it goes wrong and it is highlighted that it was not being used for the purpose it was intended. That said, it shouldn't be discouraged as it is sometimes the only thing to do and can be justified, especially when it gets damaged.
Health and Safety on the incident ground is important and commanders need to have some to make operational decisions based on risk. I was recently on a course at the FSC where 'appetite for risk' was discussed and the fact that newer managers have been 'brought up' in the current culture, not knowing any other way than to be cautious and ensure safe systems of work are implemented because of the very issues highlighted.
Senior managers have a different awareness of the corporate accountability, both on the incident ground and day to day. They operate at a corporate/strategic level so decisions they make are more accountable and could have an adverse effect on the organisation and it's reputation. This is something which is not necessarily a priority or even thought about by those attending as the initial incident commanders.
I still believe in 'traditional' fire fighter skills - improvising to solve a problem etc ..... as long as it's justified and the individual making the decision can stand by that decision.
-
Well said Kurnal. I think H&S has to be used in connection with common sense. Lately it seems that judgements/decisions based on common sense has gone out of the window and not just in the Fire Service. The Police is the same. I believe part of this is due to people being afraid of getting sued for not following procedure and being able to cover their backs. As long as you can justify why you do something then why shouldn't you try it, within reason of course? We are after all part of the emergency services to help preserve, protect and save lives primarily. If due to legislation we are prevented from doing this then surely there is a problem?
My understanding and lack of experience may be over simplifying the situation, however when we get to a stage where for me as a Police Officer I am not allowed to ride a pedal bike because I have not been on the course to prove I can safely ride a bike and ensure it is fit for purpose (No joke there!) I think It is time for a change. Hopefully these government proposals will be for the better.
-
Without wanting to labour the point there used to be occassions where the 135 or 105 ladders were used to bridge obsticles, such as a canal, for instance.
This practice has long since banned. A blanket "no" from senior officers stopped crews from using bits of kit which ordinarily performed one role to do another .
But why?, I accept the ladders weren't designed for bridging obstacles but it always baffled me why my brigade wouldnt do some controlled tests, or get the manufacturer to do tests, to see how that equipment behaved when used in such a way. Or how about when buying new bits of kit you ask the suppliers to manufacture it so that it is able to withstand doing dual roles safely.
Now alright I know it isn't quite that simple, but firstly part of the firefighters role is to improvise in various situations. To me if you can carry stuff on a fire appliance which can perform two or maybe three roles, then it makes sense to do so.
I have to hark on about a shout i attended where a sheep was stuck in the canal. After 2 hours ,4 fire appliances, the rescue boat and its support vehicle in attendance we were just about ready to look at getting the poor old sheep out, who by this time was suffering from sheep hypothermia.
Members of the public thought it was farcical. That was health and safety gone mad, and such a waste of resources, as well as needless environmental impact of sending all of those gas guzzlers out.
The officer in charge was approached on the matter and agreed the attendance was OTT but said "its health and safety isn't it, I had to go down this route"
Its things like that which make a mockery of the system, and how it is perceived. Health and safety actually is about common sense for the most part, and it is that element of common sense which has been taken away.
-
I might be a Dinosaur But most of us 'more experienced personnel' still remember the 4 main Duties.
To save life
To protect property
To render humanitarian services
To protect the Environment
These are still what the public expects from us when they call us out to everything and anything remotely dangerous.
We carry out Risk Assessments because, you, me and the public know that the job is risky and we should use skills, training, experience and control measures to reduce the risk.
When I hear people talking about 'protecting the organisation' I have always thought that the best way an organisation could be protected is getting the right people with the right skills and sound Operational experience in the right jobs so when the time comes, they can use their prior experiences to decide what is best for all concerned.
I remember getting good advice from a Senior Officer I worked with years ago who said that
"Procedures are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools"
and this is more true today than it has ever been.
I have always kept this in mind on the occasions I have had to work on the periphery of procedures to save life or property whilst protecting the organisation in the process.
Anyway, rant over, lunch over, now back to work.
-
Billy I must be an older Dinosaur than you we didn’t give a S**t about the environment, except when we might get a rollicking for allowing grunge to get in the drains or the water course ::)
-
Latest score.......
Dinosaurs 2 Jobsworth United 0
Well said ;D
Cat
Our cycle test involves a quick pedal round the yard.(Unless you use the bike for pursuit)
As for bikes, a simple checklist before you go out just like you would in a car- tyres, horn, mirrors etc
Simples ;D
davo
-
Davo,
Yikes, I wonder which course I have been put on then??? I haven't been signed off on the Introduction to Police bike riding module yet which included the details below.
They said I have to show proficiency in getting safely on and off the human powered pedal vehicle and be able to sit with correct posture i.e with back straight, hands out in front gripping the handle bars but not so tight so as to cause strain or sress on the hands and fingers with feet comfortably placed on the moving foot supports whilst in perfect balance i.e not falling off.
I also have to be able to show awareness and understanding of the dangers of moving objects either on the bike i.e pedals etc and to avoid catching oneself on them and also moving objects coming towards me such as homo sapiens on foot inc younger members of our community in prams and also our 4 legged friends. I must also show an understanding of the dangers of entagling oneself with the 4 wheeled motorised counterparts and what one should do should one encounter one such vehicle.
I can't think why I have failed so far although they did mention something about getting on the bike the correct way. It might have something to do with it although they never mentioned anything about that in our safety briefing which also incurred a test which you had to pass before you could even contemplate going near a human powered pedal vehicle.
;D
-
Cat you are not trying to ride side saddle are you? Ive seen Davos bikes they have blue flashing lights but no sirens- thats down to the rider.
Flishy flashy woo woos just what you always wanted. But you have to do the woo woo.
Davo says the requirement is for a Fervent Audible Resonating Tone.
It appears though that these seem more effective when the rider is standing on the pedals rather than in the seated position.
-
Why of course Kurnal, you cannot expect me to ride astride surely? Its so undignified and un-lady-like! As to standing on the pedals has there been a risk assesment done first and can I see it please?
Do I have to pass a test with the woo woos? If so I think I may need a bit of practice to meet the Fervent Audible Resonating Tone.
Woo woo, woo woo, woo woo, woo woo, woo woo. Hows that?
-
It appears though that these seem more effective when the rider is standing on the pedals rather than in the seated position.
I take it this is Kurnal's Law gained from practical experience? Can we expect to see a paper published soon?
-
Has anyone seen any details of how these exemptions for the emergency services would actually be delivered?
I would think they are unlikely to change the underpinning legislation or the Management Regs to make exeptions for the Services, due to European directives.
Presumably the Secretary of State will issue guidance on enforcement instead? Or a new code of practice for the emergency services?
-
The Government have announced today that the needless red tape and silly health and safety legislation will finally be exempted from UK Police and Fire Services following very sad and needless fatalities where emergency service personnel were not allowed to attempt rescues for fear of losing their jobs
If red tape is needless and health and safety legislation silly, should everyone in the country not be excempt from it?
-
The following is an excerpt taken from a presentation, and accompanying paper, written by Patrick Stanton, a seasoned USAR officer, former firefighter, and soldier, and currently the Director General of "British Civil Defence".
He is also a senior figure within the Institute of Civil Defence and Disaster Studies. He talks about the role of rescuers and delivered a speech to USAR delegates in Italy in 2008
In it he says:-
"Health and Safety (H&S) Rules
In major events many dual roll rescuers are forced by senior officers to obey H&S rules that were
designed for everyday situations. Any experienced rescuer knows that in extraordinary circumstances
such rules may not only be inappropriate but that in obeying them, lives will be lost. In the UK there
are countless examples of this.
- They slow down the work to a totally unacceptable level.
- They may inhibit access to known trapped or injured casualties.
- Being forced to obey rigid, inappropriate rules can cause severe stress in many situations.
- In some services inappropriate working periods, e.g., four hours on duty, four off, is also a known
stressor for rescuers. UK Fire Services are a good example of this problem in mass emergency
situations."
Full excerpt can be seen by following http://www.impact-kenniscentrum.nl/index.php?pag=775&userlang=en
-
So when the Officer in charge sends a bunch of firefighters to certain death he would be exempt from prosecution?
-
A reversal back to the old days eh? Don't you believe it. It's just another media friendly soundbite to lull the masses into submission while they bite yer arse.
Psuedonym will not be allowed back on this forum until he has accepted the truth behind our great and glorious leaders vision for you.
Big brothers still watching you.... :-X
-
Thats a very interesting link Retty thanks for that. The author does not like dual roles though, I would be interested know the full background to that. Can any nation afford a dedicated USAR / Civil defence capability? The emergency services and armed forces rely on people performing dual roles in their core functions - the TA and RDS.
Wee B there are two extremes and both indefensible.
1- Sending fire fighters to a certain death
..............................
100-Doing nothing and watching somebody die needlessly who could be saved.
We are looking for the middle ground say at the 40-60 mark. Authorising crews to take some element of risk in a credible and considered attempt to save a life that can be saved, but not taking any risk to save a life where there is no hope, or property. Thats how the concept of dynamic risk assessment was originally sold.
-
One of the major points to be considered is that we now live in a vastly different world to twenty, thirty or forty years ago when lots of us joined the fire service (brigade). Things that I have seen done or heard of would almost get you imprisoned these days & I'm talking about things that were done with good intentions.
Ambulance chasers exist , if people die or are injured relatives etc rightly want to know why. This has to be dealt with, its no good just saying thats the job you joined up to do, I agree that I expect to have my life put in extreme risk on occasions and could never willingly stand by watching any one die or be severly injured but who joined to be killed or maimed by gung ho stupidity?
A well trained knowlegdable officer & well trained firefighters will overcome problems.
The H&S culture wont go away, managed properly the emergency services will cope after all haven't many of us on here commented on our inventiveness?
-
The author does not like dual roles though, I would be interested know the full background to that. Can any nation afford a dedicated USAR / Civil defence capability?
I think his comments derive from past experiences, particular back in the days when firefighters weren't given much USAR input. Today of course the UK Fire Service has a dedicated International SAR team, and most (if not all) Brigades have their own dedicated USAR technicians at county level. Perhaps Patrick's opinion of firefighters undertaking USAR may have changed.
But he makes an important point. The point is that if you are expected to undertake a role you should be capable of actually forfilling that role, and not just have a well meaning "stab at it", which i think the fire service probably did in days gone by with regard to USAR to some extent.
The Government "New Dimension" project has meant that dedicated teams of firefighters are now specifically trained in USAR, and are much more skilled, knowledgeable, and seasoned in this field than ever before.
-
Stevo
I agree with your points and I come predominately from a training background.
Prior to that I was a Firey, LFF, sub and Stn/O in areas of Strathclyde where some housing estates were being torched on a regular basis. This is where we served our 'apprenticeship' and learned our trade.
We learned from our experiences, good and bad and were judged on how good you were at dealing with fires.
Health and Safety was known as common sense and "Ahm no putting anybody in there cos its gonnae collapse" equates to "I have carried out a DRA and am going to adopt defensive firefighting" nowadays.
So if we concede that H&S was always considered, why does everyone think that there is even more emphasis on it nowadays..?
The cynic in me can give first hand accounts where people have quoted health and Safety reasons for not commiting crews when the real reason is that they have limited experience and have erred too heavily on the side of Safety.
This in my opinion is an organisational issue but trying to justify this to good experienced crews who would have been in there and extinguished the same type of fire 10 years ago is difficult.
I have always said that as our exposure to operational incidents decreases, we must increase our training proportionately to maintain our skills.
This includes Health and Safety training and replicating realistic scenarios to challenge personnel and develop them.
We always have and always will be judged more critically in relation to how we perform at an incident so we need to make sure that we support and develop our personnel in this area.
-
Having done health and safety both in a brigade and outside in industry, the major part of the problem is not the legislation itself but the way it is used.
Too often H&S has been used as a reason to stop something which the management or the workforce didn't like. I have been asked to stop the lunchtime kick around on the grounds of health and safety, the basic reason was the MD didn't like it but he didn't want to ban it himself because of the aggro.
Similarly there have been a number of times when employees have refused to do something on the grounds of health and safety but really because they didn't want to do it.
In my view the real key is to have competent people i.e. people who have the knowledge, the training and the experience to carry out the task. It is up to management to make sure that the people are competent to do the job and not just ban things. This is going to mean more training and exposing people to a risk but making sure that risk is under reasonable control. Yes things are going to go wrong but it should be learning experience and if it is properly planned nothing too serious should happen.