Why doesn't the fire service put out fires?

[Cut Fire Service Pay]

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?

[nearlythere]

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.

[Clevelandfire 3]

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?

[Hightower]

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.

[jokar]

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.

[jokar]

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.

[nearlythere]

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.

[jokar]

No one is denying that fact.  However, senior officers taking command will pull out firefighters doing that task and start again.

[Midland Retty]

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?"

[Davo]

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

[fireftrm]

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!

[Midland Retty]

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!

[fireftrm]

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.

[jokar]

Need I say more.

[nearlythere]

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.