Why doesn't the fire service put out fires?

[kurnal]

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.

[Clevelandfire 3]

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.

[Davo]

Clevey

Not personally
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

[jokar]

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.

[kurnal]

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.

[Midland Retty]

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!

[fireftrm]

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.

[Midland Retty]

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.

[nearlythere]

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.

[jokar]

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.

[nearlythere]

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.

[Midland Retty]

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

[Wiz]

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!

[Hightower]

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!

[jokar]

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.