Why doesn't the fire service put out fires?

[bungle]

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

[kurnal]

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?

[bungle]

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.

[Hightower]

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.

[kurnal]

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.

[Midland Retty]

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".

[Davo]

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

[Midland Retty]

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.

[Clevelandfire 3]

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.

[Hightower]

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.

[Midland Retty]

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

[CivvyFSO]

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."

[Midland Retty]

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.

[CivvyFSO]

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.

[Midland Retty]

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.