During these economic times, staffing is one of the most controversial issues facing fire departments. For instance, in many metropolitan departments crews are being reduced to four members garnering considerable outrage. In Report 09-485, the entire full assignment doesn’t equal an engine and truck’s worth of staffing in many metropolitan departments. An equal assignment would bring four times as many firefighters.
NFPA 1710 and 1720 explicitly lay out the number of firefighters required to fill out the necessary task assignments for structure fires. However, staffing is a local issue woven with a multitude of variables widely divergent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The bottom line is firefighters have limits. The limits are often reached before the fire reaches its limits. This week’s featured report revives the debate in graphic fashion.
“A total of seven personnel staffing 2 Engines, 1 Squad and a Chief Officer were dispatched to an automatic water flow alarm supported by a 911 telephone call at a local fast food restaurant. Once on scene, a cold smoke situation was encountered and two firefighters were assigned to locate and extinguish the fire. Visibility inside the building was zero and a thermal imaging camera was used to identify the seat of the fire. It was determined that the fire was in the attic space above the kitchen. Due to the visibility issue it was determined that vertical ventilation needed to be conducted to support the attack. The interior crew exited the structure and one of the firefighters was reassigned to the roof for vertical ventilation. After ventilation was completed the initial two interior firefighters were ordered back into the structure to locate the seat of the fire. Visibility was still zero. The interior crew made several attempts t o pull ceiling and locate the seat of the fire but were unsuccessful in their efforts. Two additional firefighters were assigned back to the roof to extinguish visible fire in the attic. While attempting to assess the extent of the fire in the attic, one of the firefighters operating on the roof fell through the weakened roof decking…”
Staffing levels impact performance. A limited number of firefighters arrive at the scene of 09-485 and try to do the work of many more. The end result is a near miss due to staffing that led to too few firefighters performing multiple tasks, fatigue that led to corrupted decision making, which then led to the firefighter working on the weakened roof and so on. The links in this near-miss chain are clearly identified. Once you have read this week’s report (CLICK HERE), consider the following:
1. How does your department’s first alarm response compare to the incident in 09-485 in relation to completing the tasks these firefighters were required to complete?
2. If your department responded to this incident with seven firefighters, what is the reflex time involved in assembling an additional seven? How about an additional 14?
3. Does your department have a philosophy of “self-sufficiency” or does it readily call for automatic and mutual aid to build personnel complements?
4. Would you characterize this incident as “typical?” If so, does the “typical” nature of the incident suggest that the department will or will not change practices?
5. At what point would you as a firefighter in this incident, speak up to address the issues here: on the incident scene, at a department meeting, or through a grievance process?
Have a near miss where staffing was a contributing factor? Submit the report to www.firefighternearmiss.com today to help improve the case for adequate staffing.
Note: The questions posed by the reviewers are designed to generate discussion and thought in the name of promoting firefighter safety. They are not intended to pass judgment on the actions and performance of individuals in the reports.
