Author Topic: Dynamic Risk Assessment  (Read 36866 times)

Offline Old legend

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« on: October 15, 2007, 02:05:49 PM »
Hi folks,
Just starting an MSc dissertation and thought I'd use this forum for some anecdotal research.  My belief is that firefighters are now unsafe because the craft knowledge and skill required to apply Dynamic Risk Assessment has eroded.  Would anybody care to agree or disagree with me by answering one of the following questions:
"I think new crew managers/commanders understand how to apply DRA because..."
"I think new crew managers/commanders don't understand how to apply DRA because...."

Offline Dragonmaster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2007, 03:12:45 PM »
"They don't understand the question!"
"Never do today what will become someone's else's responsibility tomorrow"

Offline Old legend

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2007, 02:16:59 AM »
OK, thanks, as you can tell I'm new at this. I've given it another approach but not much different I'm afraid.  My fear is that someone's going to get hurt because they don't understand the concept of DRA.

Offline Dragonmaster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2007, 08:26:06 AM »
Sorry, i just couldn't resist. But seriously, my experience has always been that if the crews were outside it got defined as defensive, and inside squirting water as offensive. Many, if not all, FRAs require a DRA to be carried out (that's why firefighters are not Relevant Persons under the RRO when engaged in emergency work), but i suspect that it comes down to a simple tick list, such as have you turned off the electrics and gas, provided a covering jet etc.

The actual concept of carrying out a risk assessment, dynamic or not, is not one to be taken lightly, and requires certain skills and training for someone to be competent at it - just ask many of the correspondents on this forum! I'm sure that crew managers will eventually become more competent in this area, but by stating a defensive/offensive mode, Brigades can claim a DRA has been carried out. It would be interesting to know if any FRAs audit the DRAs to see if they are 'suitable and sufficient', and compare them to accident and near-miss stats on the fireground.
"Never do today what will become someone's else's responsibility tomorrow"

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2007, 08:44:02 AM »
Quote from: dragonmaster
It would be interesting to know if any FRAs audit the DRAs to see if they are 'suitable and sufficient', and compare them to accident and near-miss stats on the fireground.
How can you audit something that is dynamic without having a safety officer to monitor and audit the actions and decisions at the time they were carried out?  I know some brigades do have monitoring officers but these usually attend the incident separately from the first attendance so their use is limited.

The tactical mode is just one outcome  and very coarse summary of the significant findings.

What is really important is if offensive mode is selected, what are the hazards and  the risks at the time of arrival, how are they being controlled,  which SSOW are appropriate to this incident, are we working inside the  SSOW and do the benefits of selecting offensive mode outweigh the risks?

Offline fireftrm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2007, 09:47:52 AM »
ALL FRS require DRA is carried out and by ALL staff. That 'many, if not all' was siad should be entirely disregarded. The importnace of the DRA in achieving the safe person is not something that any FRS would disregard. It is set as a crucial elemnt in allt he training and development we deliver, at every level. The modern CM is far more likley to apply the principles than his forebears, who, while doing basic RA that is common sense, was never trained in what it actually was. From the mid 90's onwards DRA has become core to what we do, indeed every single member of the FRS was sent a glossy A4 booklet and handy card on DRA, and we still issue these as partof every trainee course. The present day Ff knows what DRA is, applies it constantly and their managers get further training (such as IOSH) to aid supervisory decision making. That the FRS on scene are now far more likely to take a defensive role at soem incidents clearly demonstrates that DRA is now embedded within the service. Indeed such a move was unheard of in the not-too-distant past. Declaring the operational mode is the way that all FRS now ensure that they have a record of the DRA by the IC, and is a reminder to the IC that he/she must so declare, but is not DRA itself. DRA starts when you get up in the morning and select correct clothing, come to work and check equipment, when you then turn out, en route, don relevant PPE, on arrival and throughout every action that subsequently take splace - that is why it is DYNAMIC. (Not complete just examples).

Out of interest defensive does not mean outside suirting water in, no more than offensive means inside. You are operating in an offensive mode at any tiem where the RA has determined that additional control measures are required (we always wear fire kit so anything more than that) - so that you would be offensive if standing outside with a jet but having either a safety officer watching for building collapse (you are close enough you could eb affected) or wearing BA becasue thereis smoke present in your area - again examples. Defensive is water from monitors well back able to work without any additional controls.

Also there is no 'tick list' to do a DRA - it maybe includes awareness of hazards such as services supplies to a premises, but they are simply some of the hazards and subsequent risks that the person carrying out the DRA will consider. The Ff, in the building wearing BA in smoke and heat, has no tiem to use a checklist, or record the findings, they apply DRA by examining the situation using their skill, knowledge, training and experience to determine what controls they need apply - such as gas colling, door entry techniques, BA search pattern, withdrawal etc.

It is also a complete nonesense to suggest any FRS requires a DRA and there is therefore a connection with the RRO. The RRO does not include Ffs as relevant persons is that we are not going to be there while the premises are in normal use - it will already be on fire/other emergency event and normal risk reduction by the occupier could not be reasonable. It isn't our DRA, but the unfairness of placing the risk assessment upon the premises occupier that is the rationale for our exclusion from the RRO. We are covered when carrying out duties such as  FS Act inspections (7 2 ds) and we would carry out DRA even then such is the meaning of DRA!

DRA is what any employee of any employer is requiured to do under HASAW and ours is more formalised through training, demonstration and some recording because of the very dynamic nature of our work. Other organisations have far more rigid working conditiosn so their RAs can be more readily written and the DRA is more a dra. If we didn't have our set DRA procedures, training na dbasic recording we would still be required, by law, to achieve safe working at any incident.

I conclude by saying that DRA is now widely understood, applied and embedded in everyting we do. The skills and knowledge of risk assessment of all staff are well above that of thos ein the past and development of managers has further H&S training at its core. Furthermore risk assessment is now a key performance criteria in every unit of every role within the FRS, sonot only is the individual intially trained they are constantly assessed against heir skill and knowledge. As a result the Ff of the 21st century is safer than his predecessors.

Sir the basic belief, on which your dissertation is based, is misheld.
My posts reflect my personal views and beliefs and not those of my employer. If I offend anyone it is usually unintentional, please be kind. If it is intentional I guess it will be clear!

Offline The Lawman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« Reply #6 on: October 16, 2007, 09:59:21 AM »
I would suggest that every potential OIC should get themselves to Moreton for the IMF course as providing a basis for new officers being competent as an OIC at an incident..

Offline Nearlybaldandgrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2007, 04:50:09 PM »
To add to Fireftrm's already comprehensive post ....

Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations requires all employers to carry out suitable and sufficient risk assessments. Unfortunately, when outside a burning building or at an RTC, it is dificult to carry out a suitable and sufficent risk assessment when what is being assessed is in a continually changing state.

The HSE recognised this and allowed us to carry out a dynamic risk assessment in order to implement the necessary controls to minimse risk. The declaration of a tactical mode in the first message to service control identifies that this has been done. It does not negate the need for a full and proper risk assessment to be carried out and recorded at some time in the incident (depending on the nature of course).

The IMF is a base course ... it provides the basics.  It does not make you competent.

Offline toidi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2007, 08:02:25 PM »
Old Legend

Well I agree with your assessment of the current situation for the following reasons. I think most fire authorities are just playing at risk assessment because as you say, the core firefighting skills are being eroded due to a reduction in incidents and most firefighters perception is that their managers feel that practical firefighting skills are secondary to IPDS and the gathering of a portfolio, Which is again secondary to Community Safety initiatives and Performance indicators (as they were called, I think)
Most people who can quote DRA inside out have never really had to apply it where it matters and that is in a life or death situation.
The reduction in the number of instances where new Crew Managers can apply DRA for example, and learn and develop their skills in a real-life situation will mean that their knowledge will be reduced.

the ideal scenario is an experienced person who has gained that knowledge through dealing with a vast number of fires and can use that experience to develop Crew Managers and explain how DRA really works- not quoting it verbatum from the book which means nothing to most firefighters if the truth be told.

Again, like yourself Old Legend, I will probably be classed as a Dinosaur but I served my "apprenticeship" in an era when Glasgow and most surrounding areas had really poor housing schemes and these created serious fires, usually with persons reported on most occasions. You learned by your experiences and this on the job training made you better at dealing with this type of incident.

PS.
 we still used DRA but it was more related to practical firefighting skills and building construction and how it affects  a fire as opposed to all this theory that most quote without really having had to apply it.

Offline Nearlybaldandgrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« Reply #9 on: October 16, 2007, 08:26:56 PM »
Interesting comments ........

How can you say that "most fire authorities are just playing at it"?

Based on what evidence might I ask?

This is not something to "play" at, it is a requirement of law and must be applied. All firefighters must be able to identify hazards and risks and apply appropriate control measures ...... perhaps they don't realise that it is risk assessment.

Learning by experience is, in my opinion not acceptable. You gain experience by dealing with incidents and become adept at identifying hazard and risk. It is also not acceptable in this day and age to expose firefighters to unnecessary risk, even at a persons reported incident. Appropriate control measures must be applied and if that means defensive tactics, then that is what should be used.

Let us not forget that firefighter safety is paramount and we will take no risk to save life or property that is considered to be already lost. A harsh statement, but a fact of life.

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2007, 09:07:46 PM »
Quote from: baldyman
Let us not forget that firefighter safety is paramount and we will take no risk to save life or property that is considered to be already lost. A harsh statement, but a fact of life.
Thats the easy bit though isnt it. The hard bit comes when  on balance of evidence it seems possible that a life may be saved but this involves committng firefighters into a risk situation. The DRA system says its  ok to take a little risk to save a life.  Nobody has ever quantified what a little risk is.

Number games would be useful for example -
-Consequences
-Liklihood of something going wrong
-Liklihood of success
-number of persons at risk needing rescue
-number of firefighters exposed to risk
 and that would be a good subject for someones PHD.

Offline Nearlybaldandgrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« Reply #11 on: October 16, 2007, 09:33:50 PM »
Not wanting to appear pedantic here, but I think this subject should contain the correct information.

The philosophy of the fire services approach to risk assessment (and this is taken directly from the Fire Service Manual Volume 2 (Fire Service Operations) Incident Command) is:-

Fire fighters will take some risk to save saveable life,

Fire fighters will take little risk to save saveable property

Firefighters will not take any risk at all to try to save lives or property that are already lost.


Personally, I don't think the decision to commit personnel is that easy. As an Incident Commander I have to accept the risk to my crew(s) and consequences should it all go the shape of a pear. No-one should be committed to a risk area until there are adequate resources and control measures in place to ensure their safety.
It's the balancing act of benefit and risk.

On the balance of evidence, there are other factors which I would look at, not just the hazards and risks. Again, a difficult call, but an assessment has to be made of the survivability of the conditions presented, information gathered on location of those missing, resource requirements etc etc ....
Modern houses are better insulated, construction techniques have changed and evolved and they themselves pose different risks when involved in fire to a "traditional" build.

Modern training course such as the IMF centre around incident command and risk assessment ...... and operating using safe working practices to ensure the safety of personnel.

There is no doubt that this is a good subject not just for a dissertation, but for a healthy debate also.

Offline Dragonmaster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2007, 08:36:25 AM »
If DRA is to ensure the safety of crews, why do we still suffer loss and injury? The use of the word ensure is a misnoma on the fire ground - surely it's got to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' to use a legal analogy?
"Never do today what will become someone's else's responsibility tomorrow"

Offline Mike Buckley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2007, 10:12:12 AM »
Ok I am a dinosaur but the job is dangerous and always has been. If we want to avoid loss and injury on the fireground, leave the crews in the station!

I always found that the major decision I had to make as an Incident Commander was to stop people entering the risk area and not whether to commit people. I had to trust on the experience and training of my crews not to over commit themselves and to withdraw if they thought fit. The whole thing was a team effort and relied on the training and experience of everybody.

As an Incident Commander I was always glad when one of the experienced firefighters sidled up to me and said "Guv would you like me to do..... or wouldn't it be a good idea if you....." and most of the time I took the advice. If I didn't I had a good reason not to.

At the end of the day the difference between a hero and a bloody idiot is that the hero got away with it!
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it.

Offline Nearlybaldandgrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
Dynamic Risk Assessment
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2007, 11:48:17 AM »
The other key words in the risk assessment process are "as low as is reasonably practicable"

Unfortunately loss and injury occurs because, despite every effort to reduce, eliminate and control risk, the environment is changing and there are occurances which cannot be predicted or contolled.