Why doesn't the fire service put out fires?

[Clevelandfire 3]

Midland Rotweiler for prime minister!!!!!

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Good debate!

One question ..... how many posting comments are the decision makers - the ones taking command of the incident?

I think that a point has been missed here ... take a water rescue as the example - most comments are about exhausting all possibilities and waiting for the water rescue unit, yet no-one had mentioned that as an incident commander, you'd be asking for the resources if it isn't already mobilised. There are things that can be done while waiting .... establish cordons, prepare the area, follow the pholosophy of water rescue - Talk, reach, throw, row, go.
As the Incident commander, the decision has to be made on whether to have one casualty or just add the the numbers. Service porcedures are there for good reason, although at times limiting.

As an incident commander, decision have to be made .... difficult and sometimes against our natural instincts. Yes fire fighters can be committed to building on fire but with approporiate control measures in place.

Have we forgotten during this thread that we are still losing fire fighters in buildings, despite all the procedures. Why?

I also note that the starter of the thread has made no further contribution, other than to light the fuse as it were ..... and clearly some find it difficult to accept the way of the modern service.

[wyngwili]

Baldy isn't it the point that the public sector has become so health and safety bonkers.  I would be reassured that Firefighters understand that during the course of their career they might be put in harms way to save life.  I mean you don't hear Soldiers moaning about the dangers of being shot at in Helmand or HR risk assessing the Taliban.  So if my son was having difficulties in water  id sure as well would like a fire-fighter to try and save him. 

When I was a lad firefighters were heroes. 

By the way ive noticed that the personal qualities needed to become a firefighter bravery doesn't feature among them.  Is the answer a change of government to knock some common sense back into the brigade (is brigade a political incorrect term these days)   

[Mike Buckley]

The problem is not so much that the public sector is health and safety bonkers it is more about a blame culture. If something goes wrong someone must be to blame and the most obvious guy is the OiC.

However the roots of the problem are often not investigated whether it be lack of training, lack of team work or lack of confidence. Everyone must be fully trained in the use and misuse of equipment, one of the great strengths of the fire service used to be improvisation.

Everyone must trust everyone else on the team and this included the OiC who must not only trust the team to do as it is told but must also trust the team to add in their experience. I was always grateful when one of my team came up with a suggestion during a job.

Finally everyone must be confident in what they are doing and in the support they will get, too many times the hunt is for a scapgoat and the opportunity for senior officers to play lawyers during disciplinary procedures.

Yes Health and Safety is used as an excuse not to do things. What Health and Safety should mean is that you are aware of what you are doing and of the risks you are taking. Then how can you minimise the risks and still achieve the objective, and is the objective worth the risk?

Finally if it does go wrong, people must understand that it is a lot more complex than the fault of the OiC.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Good debate!

One question ..... how many posting comments are the decision makers - the ones taking command of the incident?

I think that a point has been missed here ... take a water rescue as the example - most comments are about exhausting all possibilities and waiting for the water rescue unit, yet no-one had mentioned that as an incident commander, you'd be asking for the resources if it isn't already mobilised. There are things that can be done while waiting .... establish cordons, prepare the area, follow the pholosophy of water rescue - Talk, reach, throw, row, go.
As the Incident commander, the decision has to be made on whether to have one casualty or just add the the numbers. Service porcedures are there for good reason, although at times limiting.

As an incident commander, decision have to be made .... difficult and sometimes against our natural instincts. Yes fire fighters can be committed to building on fire but with approporiate control measures in place.

Have we forgotten during this thread that we are still losing fire fighters in buildings, despite all the procedures. Why?

I also note that the starter of the thread has made no further contribution, other than to light the fuse as it were ..... and clearly some find it difficult to accept the way of the modern service.

Somehow Baldyman I dont think you have even bothered to read all of this thread. We all know why the policies and procedures are in place. So you call for your water rescue unit then as soon as you turn up at a water rescue incident. Isnt that agiven? And does that mean they will be there in 5 minutes? will they get there in time to save the casualty.

No one is saying you take a risk needlessly. Theres no point in a rescuer becoming a casualty themselves but that also doesnt mean courage bravery inprovisation and team work should go out the window. fire service procedures dont allow for flexibility after the Talk, reach, throw, row, go procedure has been exhausted. How can "go" come into it when alot of brigades wont allow firemen to enter the water under any circumstances.
Do you understand the terms "rescue" and "calculated risk" or " trusting your colleagues". Should SubO's, Leading Firemen, Station Officers not be trusted to commit crews to save a saveable life. Throughout this thread people have talked about options available before even entering the water. If that fails and you are left with when a casualty who is about to be lost what do you do if your brigade says you dont enter water. Still waiting for the water rescue team are you? If you answered yes its either cos the rescue is just not going to achieve anything and will mean the rescuer themselves get into trouble,or that you are in fear of doing anything in case it comes back down from above or you dont know how to do your job properly and dont trust the people you work with.  

As for you Mike Buckley youre my kind of guy, couldnt have put it better myself. The fire brigade has gone health and safety mad do you think such restrictions are imposed on our armed forces? I really hope not.

And finally as Retty has already said you baldyman talk about firemen still getting killed well theres seems to be a hell of a lot more dying under the modernised fire service that we dinosaurs are supposed to loath so much than there was in the previous decade. So thanks for pointing that out I think you have kicked yourself up the backside with that statement.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

First, I have read all of this thread.

My comments appear to have been jumped upon .... I used water rescue as 'the example', thats all. To  clarify, 'go' is the use of a boat in water rescues, not personnel entering the water as it has been interpreted.

I agree that health and safety can become restrictive, I fully understand the application of dynamic risk assessment, the terms "rescue", "calculated risk" and "trusting colleagues". I am more than familiar with the current Incident Command System and I have worked in both the archaic and modernised fire and rescue service.

I understand fire development, growth and behviour and how it affects structure and will make command decisions which I will stand by if questioned.

Forgive me for being so modernised, but while I accept change, that doesn't mean to say I agree with it, but I have one objective which is to make sure that I , and personnel I work with are safe at work while delivering the service expected by the public I serve. 

[Clevelandfire 3]

Thats fair enough baldyman. I agree with your last paragraph and appreciate where you are coming from

I know life isnt clear cut and incident commanders sometimes have to make very tough decisions knowing their career may be on the line. Thats what they are there to do. What I resent is the lack of thought about policy and procedure which seems to go against the very thing you talk about - doing the job the public expects as safely as possible. That is what the vast majority of people have been saying on this thread, even though it may not seem like it and thats why I wondered if you had read all the thread.

Come on lets be honest if we saw someone drowning we would do everything possible to help, regardless of any rollockings that may follow from the management in their ivory towers. Bless their cotton socks. I would never ask my watch to do something i wasnt prepared to do myself, and i knew every single one of them like family. To me that is exactly what the fire service was all about.

[Mike Buckley]

It worries me that incident commanders are concerned about their career when making decisions at incidents. IMHO this is the cause of the problem. Incident commanders should be worrying about their crews, the job, the everybody's safety, the resources available etc., the last thing they should be worrying about is how will this look on my record.

If everyone is doing their job and supporting and looking after each other then the incident will progress satisfactorily. People need to have the confidence to make decisions when necessarily. For example if you are entry control and it looks as if the building is starting to collapse you should start evacuation if you can't contact the incident commander immediately.

Yes incident commanders will make mistakes, so will everyone, but these should be seen as part of the learning process not a threat to career. A team working together will make fewer mistakes than throwing all the responsibility on the incident commander.

I remember I had to slap the wrist of one of my subos over BA procedure when they were carrying out a snatch rescue, I did admit that given the same circumstance I would have done the same as him, but procedure was procedure and it was there for a reason. End of story he knew what he had done was technically wrong, I had done my job by confirming it wasn't just laziness and we both had learnt.

[nearlythere]

Yes incident commanders will make mistakes, so will everyone, but these should be seen as part of the learning process not a threat to career.

A good officer would Mike but generally principal officers use it as a means of covering their own asses from the attention of the H&S Ex.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Mistakes should not be used to apportion blame, they should be used to learn from and improve .... surely thats why we have debriefs. 

[Midland Retty]

Hi Baldyman youre absolutely correct. Nearlythere I also agree with your comments.

And this is why I raised the issued midway through the thread. We are not advocating that firefighters be reckless, but we are asking that the ability to improvise at an incident be reintroduced for the benefit of the crew and victims alike.

[nearlythere]

Hi Baldyman youre absolutely correct. Nearlythere I also agree with your comments.

And this is why I raised the issued midway through the thread. We are not advocating that firefighters be reckless, but we are asking that the ability to improvise at an incident be reintroduced for the benefit of the crew and victims alike.

Thats it MR. But until initiative and improvisation is acknowledged as an acceptable system of work nobody is going to stick their neck out for someone to put a noose around it

[Midland Retty]

Absolutely NT. Sad state of affairs really. Maybe things will change after our new government is voted in 

[nearlythere]

Absolutely NT. Sad state of affairs really. Maybe things will change after our new government is voted in 

Doubt it MR. There are more important things for any new Government to do first like award themselves an inflation busting pay rise and invent new expenses scams.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

At the risk of being too modern again, I appreciate Mike Buckley's comment about Incident Commanders being concerned about their career when making decisions, but in a way, disagree.

Most services have standard operating procedures for generic incidents, there to give guidance but ultimately to ensure safe systems of work are used and implimented. The problem is when you step away from the SOP's .... nothing goes wrong, fine, but perhaps a few questions to answer. It's when it all goes wrong that the individual will be accountable and maybe that is what worries people.

The incident commander must be able to make decisions, sometimes using the knowledge and experience of his/her crews to come up with ideas when the incident is not quite 'run of the mill'.
I was in the fire service when kit was used for all manner of jobs and tasks, but we mustn't forget that the kit has evolved so we have specilaist tools for tasks. Again, use the kit for something it isn't intended for and all goes well, not a problem. use it and break it or injure someone, expect the consequences.

Perhaps the days of 'practical firemanship' are drawing to a close as the old school numbers are leaving and the skills from back in the day are not passed on.