Simulated Propane Leak Explodes Fallacies
In a project designed to show the values of pre-fire planning for hazardous material emergencies, many perplexing concerns which have plagued the fire service for years were clearly depicted and certain new concepts were disclosed. The project was simple, accurate and most rewarding while it pointed out serious shortcomings or misgivings which are assumed to exist throughout the fire service.
A Petrolane distribution station was chosen to be the site of a simulated unignited propane leak. Although this site is a target hazard for the responsible fire department, no documented pre-fire plan existed. For purposes of the simulation, plumbing was installed that replaced and resembled that which was actually used to fill portable propane cylinders. This fake plumbing was connected to a concealed 75-pound bottle of carbon dioxide. A small crack was made in the plumbing to allow vapors to escape when the liquid CO2 was allowed to flow. By dropping a few drops of propane odorant in the immediate area, the characteristic aroma of propane was added to the site. Thus, when the simulator was activated, a realistic duplication of a propane leak was created.
Relating this to pre-fire planning and the customary training that is conducted for such situations, this approach provided the real thing, so to speak, at the actual site of a potential problem. All tactical and strategic concerns were present for fire fighters to cope with while nothing was jeopardized by a possible ignition.
Didn’t know it was mock-up
With this stage set, the fire department responded to this simulator without knowing that it was a mock-up. The only person in the department who was aware of the exercise was the chief, and he was conveniently absent at the time. The operations of the department were videotaped from concealed positions with several observers in the area tape-recording observations. The simulation was so accurate that it wasn’t until six weeks later (when they were told) that the members of the department knew what had actually happened.
Thus, we accumulated detailed records of the performance of a fire department in what, to them, was a stressful situation. Unlike training grounds or classrooms, we had the real situation (for all intents and purposes) to reflect on and to analyze. We went a step further in gathering information by tape-recording, in confidence, the fire department’s critique of the handling of this emergency. (The purpose of the critique was to improve future operations of the department.)
We recorded it all, from alarm to round table discussion; and in reviewing this material it was astonishing to see what this routine, so widely used by the fire service, had accomplished.
What happened that day is not important. What is important is that this routine, often used in lieu of pre-fire plans, accomplished absolutely nothing of any lasting educational value. Even if this routine were used in conjunction with pre-fire plans, some key elements for consideration were brought to bear by the exercise which should influence future operations of departments that do employ pre-fire plans.
Thus, the following remarks are directed to improving all operations by scrutinizing those which exist. This includes not only those on the fireground, but also those in the classroom and in the drill yard. If the following contentions are not convincing and leave room for doubt, it is strongly suggested that you conduct a similar exercise. You, as we were, may be surprised by the results.
Reevaluation time
It is no revelation that classroom instruction does not make fire fighters. But the same holds true of training ground exercises. Both are instructional tools, at best, which serve only as a foundation. Maybe it’s time for the fire service to redirect or reaffirm its concept and opinion of training grounds if it believes that this is all that is necessary to educate our fire fighters and prepare them for emergencies. For, as valuable as they are, training grounds have some drawbacks. They lack the realism of the fireground experience. They simulate only a fire—not a true situation.
With the instructor backing up the students and providing direction as well as all the needed equipment and resources, the students merely perform, for the most part, with no weight of decision-making comparable to that of an actual situation. Training grounds and their simulators are introductory tools of technique. A person is not a fire fighter simply because he correctly controlled a prop.
Also, props sometimes distort the characteristics of what they are intended to resemble. The pit fire is an excellent example, for truly it does not exemplify an ignited spill in an open area. If an instructor fails to point such things out, the future training ambitions of his students may be squelched by a false sense of security. When the student returns home, pre-fire plans are not viewed as a valid need because the student feels he is now an expert.
Don’t misunderstand, for it is emphasized that training grounds and simulators are vitally needed in as many numbers as we can acquire them, but alone they are not the answer. It goes without saying that the same holds true of routine drills typical of those conducted either in volunteer or paid fire departments. But there is one crucial concern about this type of training when it is related to the value of pre-fire planning. Pre-fire plans are excellent instructional tools as well as tremendous aids on the fireground.
Piecemeal approach
Almost everyone trains at a routine drill on one piece of apparatus or equipment. Maybe the drill focuses on a particular method or technique, but this is a piecemeal approach to fire fighting when you consider that on the fireground several things are happening simultaneously. Many other professions have practice games or exercises where all the necessary skills and talents are tested and examined at one time. The fire service, unless it employs prefire plans, does not.
If a department trains around pre-fire plans, it gains area knowledge, develops teamwork and coordination, and shares the duties and responsibilities of all fireground positions. That wornout excuse of “due to lack of communication” may thus be silenced in the fire service.
There are many possible side effects from the use of pre-fire plans in training programs as well. For example, departments would become more visible to the public they face daily, and we should all be aware of the emphasis that is now being placed on public education. Pre-fire training would disclose problems that you would have trouble coping with during an actual emergency— maybe something your normal SOP wouldn’t handle or a special hazard that your inspections failed to disclose.
One big issue that relates more to the volunteer than the paid department is that of interest. Many departments are plagued with a continual turnover in membership, probably due to a lack of interest. If the instruction were conducted out in the neighborhood, dragging hose, rather than in the classroom where topics are repeated routinely, membership might stabilize and grow.
Weakness of critiques
As for after-the-fact critiques, they, too, do not replace pre-fire plans. Because they often do not result in documentation, they are of little or no lasting instructional value. Often they are just bitch sessions where their true intent is lost in ego battles. If they are conducted in an organized manner, how often do participants disclose problems and recommendations that never again are addressed because of the comment, “We’ll look into that later”? Critiques have a strong tendency either to pass on bad information from one generation of fire fighters to another, or to give no information at all.
As an example, in the critique which was recorded in this project, never was a mention made of the neglect to either control the source of the leak at the main valves or shut off possible ignition sources. The men involved knew better, but lacking a pre-fire plan and in a stressful situation, their knowledge left them. Had they had a pre-fire plan to use as a guide or reference in their critique, these major points would not have been overlooked a second time, after the fact.
Does a person’s pride interfere with his confessing to a problem even if it is for the future betterment of his department? Maybe. But the real shortcoming of critiques is that they’re generally conducted by the officer who was in charge of the fire. Certainly, he should have some light to shed on the critique, but for him to provide direction and control the tone of the critique is expecting a bit much of him personally. He is a biased observer at best; and if he was truly doing his duties on the fireground, he is in no position at critique time to rate the overall performance of the department.
Would it be possible to have someone in the department (maybe the training officer) stand by on the scene with a stopwatch and note pad to later analyze the operation? If the manpower doesn’t allow this, how about that retired member of the department who hangs around all the time?
Value of plan as checklist
As for pre-fire plans, wouldn’t they provide a checklist for comparison to see if the operational concerns were really met rather than wasting time discussing matters of no direct bearing on the issues at hand? Certainly all phases of the operation should be discussed, but there are definite priorities. Critiques, as training grounds, have a place in the fire service, but we do ourselves a big injustice if we rely solely on them to govern our operations.
So where does this all lead us? In this simulation, we observed what can be called, in traditional terms, a welltrained, well-equipped and knowledgeable fire department, but when the chips were down, they couldn’t cope primarily because of the absence of a pre-fire plan. As a matter of fact, they would have blown themselves sky high had it been the real thing.
In their critique, they said they were lucky, didn’t change a darn thing, and essentially are waiting for it to happen again. This complacency, we feel, is mainly due to the absence of a pre-fire plan.
The concern now is, how often does this happen elsewhere? Why aren’t pre-fire plans more widely used? Unless you are in the minority, you, as we were, may be surprised by a thorough, unbiased examination of your routine training and critiques.
Hopefully, this approach to pre-fire planning will stimulate you to think about newer and bigger applications and techniques for its implementation. Unlike many existing training programs, one involving pre-fire plans as outlined here will disclose major problems before a tragedy occurs. It is true that we can’t scientifically prove the contentions we’ve made, but we defy you to disprove them. There are two ways you can do it!
