Fire fighters entering a building

[Phoenix]

There have to comply with the DRA mantra (From memory)

•   We will risk our lives a lot to save saveable life
•   We may risk our lives to save saveable property
•   We will not risk our lives to try and save lives or property already lost.

I know you quote this from memory but we mustn't give people the impression that fire fighters will "risk [their] lives a lot" at any time.  They are not very good fire fighters if they continually risk their lives a lot, indeed, they won't last very long if they do.

The latest version is:

"In a highly calculated way, firefighters:

• will take some risk to save saveable lives
• may take some risk to save saveable property
• will not take any risk at all to try to save lives or properties that are already lost"

It doesn't commit them to much risk - but then, it shouldn't.

Stu

[SamFIRT]

Critique accepted Phoenix. 

The basic principle is the same. Provided the situation is risk assessed and there is a risk benefit analysis carried out, by RPD and the communication of prior gained intelligence, intertwined with pre-determined operational tactics, and SOPs, then there is no reason fire fighting staff could / should not enter buildings to carry out rescues, extinguish fires, carry out damage limitation exercises and salvage. There is too much comment eluding fire staff will these days always stand outside and watch your premises burn down.

They do not!

However, there is no reason firefighters should be killed or injured un-necessarily, and by saying that I am not wishing firefighters to be killed or injured at all; quite the reverse.

[nearlythere]

As armies have ceased going into battle in marching lines in sufficient numbers that by the time they meet the opposition face to face there are enough left to fight, firefighters have moved on from rolling up their beards and stuffing them in their mouths before entering burning building. Both very risky working practices to be sure, but we do seem to have an element in society, not on this forum, who seem to need a regular unnecessary sacrifice of an emergency worker so as to demonstrate an absolute  commitment to what others expect off them.
But we have moved on.
Unfortunately, people will get themselves into situations where they will certainly become unsavable and will perish. It will and does happen.
But I can tell you that very regularly, all over the country, firefighters carry out brave actions and deeds and do save savable people and property when involved in a fire. We rarely hear about it though because it ain't big enough news other than in local papers.
Rather than persecute fire fighters for being unable to do the impossible, attention should be focused on how the situation came about in the first place.

[Mike Buckley]

'I know you quote this from memory but we mustn't give people the impression that fire fighters will "risk [their] lives a lot" at any time.  They are not very good fire fighters if they continually risk their lives a lot, indeed, they won't last very long if they do.'

To paraphrase an old comment about pilots: 'there are bold firefighters and there are old firefighters, there are very few old bold firefighters'

[SamFIRT]

  True oh so true.

But with appropriate training and modern equipment, allied to communicated tactical intelligence, during firefighting;  along with suitable and satisfactory risk assessments, carried out before a fire occurs by competent, appropriate, responsible, people .......then perhaps they will not have to be quite so bold.

If I never have to look at another burnt out building or corpse it will the better. But I feel that is a forlorn wish.

sigh.

[Tom Sutton]

All the things required of today's fire fighters are the same things done yesteryear but we didn't give titles. DRA we called doing the Oic's job, risk assessments done before a fire was called 11d and so on. The major difference today is H&S if we got it wrong there was no fear of ending up in gaol which understandably makes the present day Oics more cautious.

[Golden]

"DRA we called doing the Oic's job"

Tom its everyone's job on the fireground to continually risk assess their environment - the old term used to be using your common sense. I still think there is a debate to be had about the clothing and protection afforded to fire fighters - DRA was also the earlobes job 'back in the day' - when they started to burn it was time to get out. Modern day fire fighters fall over with heat exhaustion before they know how hot their surroundings have become by which time its too late. I know there is protection from backdraught but there are now well known signs to warn you of impending danger (some of which you wouldn't realise with full PPE either) and in my opinion the modern ff is left without too many of his/her senses to understand their working environment.

When I was a BA trainer in hot houses I never had to tell a trainee to get down when entering a hot room - it was a reflex action if they weren't there already!

[Tom Sutton]

Tom its everyone's job on the fireground to continually risk assess their environment.

I fully agree but all I was trying to say most procedures done now was done then but without labels. The main difference we didn't have the sword of Damocles (H&S) hanging over our head to the same extent. 

[Phoenix]

Rather than persecute fire fighters for being unable to do the impossible, attention should be focused on how the situation came about in the first place.

NT's final point is very appropriate when viewed against what some large fire engineering companies are, as we speak (type), putting forward as acceptable design.

Stu

[SamFIRT]

most procedures done now was done then but without labels

No they weren’t Tom. When I first joined I was taught the diametrical opposite to what is taught now! H&S was introduced into firefighting in the 1980's and quite rightly too!

It is not a sword of Damocles. It is right and proper legislation to protect staff (at all levels )from poorly trained or gung-ho leaders.

Rather than persecute fire fighters for being unable to do the impossible, attention should be focused on how the situation came about in the first place.



NT's final point is very appropriate when viewed against what some large fire engineering companies are, as we speak (type), putting forward as acceptable design.

Stu

Could not agree more! Better to stop the fires occurring or developing. But they will and as Fire Safety legislation is watered down (based on H&S legislation by the way) in the name of reducing red tape and localisum, then there will be more and more fires. Nothing will be done about it in the name of not putting too much of a red tape (H&S?) burden or cost on private industry…. until there is a large body count. Why do we not learn from history?

 

[nearlythere]

Sam. I can't see meaningful H&S being watered down. What will happen is that areas of H&S Legislation which are rarely used, or have become irrelevant, will be subject to deregulation so that ministers can say to industry that they have removed hundreds of regulations from the statute books.

[Andy W]

From a H&S perspective:

There is no chance that any fire safety legislation will be watered down to reduce this so called "H&S burden".

Both reports commissioned by the Govt said that, for the most part, the legislation is not fundamentally flawed- and could only recommend that a few regulations be merged or revoked.

The problem lies with how people enforce the legislation. Like a council official who said that, under the Health & Safety at Work Act, a group of volunteers couldn't put on a fete unless they had risk assessments, had professionals in to do any work at height and so on.

The clue to the legislation is in its name, the at work bit. Volunteers are not at work.

H&S should, in any industry or service, should be proportionate to the risk.

Fire fighters should be protected by H&S legislation.

Just my opinion.

Andy

[Tom Sutton]

No they weren’t Tom. When I first joined I was taught the diametrical opposite to what is taught now!
H&S was introduced into firefighting in the 1980's and quite rightly too!

Sam I don't know which Brigade you belonged to but that wasn't the situation in my Brigade, you would have to give me some examples of any diametrical opposite teachings??

I always assumed the Fire Service were subject to H&S from the introduction of the Act and I believe its the application that has changed especially after the loss of so many firefighters from 2003 to 2007. I never ever considered I could end up in gaol if I got it wrong but those serving today must consider it.

[SamFIRT]

Tom.

When I joined we were taught never to put water on smoke as it will only cause water damage and not put the fire out. We were also taught to get in as close to the fire as possible and put water on the base of the fire and only the base of the fire. Incidentally, we were also taught to play a jet of water over the ceiling in order to bring down burning debris due to the fact a couple of O2 wearers had recently died due to this happening to them, ( that is what probably saved many a fire fighters life in our FRS but we did not know it as we did not understand compartmental fire development). Our commanders were taught never to ventilate until the fire was extinguished. I was not allowed to train in BA until I had completed at least one year on the back of the pump (in order to teach me what it was like to breath smoke.) Incidentally this was only allowed by the way because the H&S act was not implemented in the fire service at the time. Not to mention hook ladders!   Hose reels no better than garden hoses, plastic fire engine cabs, plastic leggings, wellie boots, wolley overcoat fire tunics, no gloves, nor flashoods, and cork helmets.

Compare and contrast this to modern fire fighting techniques and equipment such as gas cooling, PPV, NPV, Compressed air foam, PPBA, A26 spec PPE etc.
What a different place of work and quite rightly too.  

And as to H&S legislation in the FRS; if someone places someone else in danger of death at work without good cause and RA then they should quite correctly be prosecuted, I believe. With appropriate training and equipment and the application of that training, along with appropriate command and control, there is no reason modern fire fighting staff cannot efficiently carry out all the rescue and fire fighting duties they need to…………safely.  
 
Much more safely than I had to.  
 
Everyone has the right to go home after work.

Sorry for the rant everyone.

[kurnal]

Thats no rant Sam but a very detailed, illuminating and true review of the huge developments in fire fighting equipment and techniques over the last 40 years. I did not realise we had come so far. I can relate to so many of your earlier experiences. Hope the guys and gals have it better and safer now.