Save lives and property
James J. Keating
Firefighter
South Farmingdale (NY) Fire Department
Fire Engineering is one magazine that has articles and information that all of the fire service–paid and nonpaid–can use. I hear it argued about and quoted the most whenever anyone is discussing tactics, apparatus information, and new products. Keep publishing articles that make people think.
As to the arguments put forth by Captain Bill Gustin (How Much Risk Is Too Much? November 1996), numerous statements bother me, but I will address just what I feel is the general tone of the article. After 29 years in a suburban volunteer fire department outside of New York City, I thought the days of fighting fires from the outside had disappeared. I know that was not advocated in the article, but statements such as “As a practical matter … what difference will it make if we delay fire attack a few more minutes until sufficient resources are on the scene?” are basically saying “Do nothing, and let the fire get bigger.”
Most fire departments` charters state that they exist to protect life and property. Not just life, but life and property. A policy of waiting to put our resources in place for one fire can permeate the character of the company or department. Once we slow down a fire attack, it is hard to speed it back up. In my experience, firefighters cannot turn their aggressiveness on and off like a switch. You either fight fires aggressively or you do not–it becomes the characteristic of the company or the department.
The challenge for the department and company officers is to channel that aggressiveness into smart, safe firefighting strategies. I have been to too many fire department funerals to needlessly advocate risking a firefighter`s life. Every firefighter should realize there is a vast difference between a vacant building and a viable commercial establishment that is unoccupied. If government workers–firefighters, police officers, sanitation or clerical workers–are off and the building they work in burns to the ground, they will go to work the next day and be told to report to a temporary location and work from there. If that same building houses a couple of small industries, there is a good chance that the workers of those industries will be out of work for a long time. Keep that in mind if you are standing outside waiting for additional resources before entering the building.
I agree with Gustin that experienced firefighters do not attack every fire with the same intensity or level of risk. That is learned over a period of time–it cannot and should not be regulated by SOP (except in the case of abandoned buildings), only by fire conditions. The key word in this section was and is experience. You have to fight fires to get that experience.
In the two scenarios Gustin uses, I argue that better fire department SOPs would have allowed for a safe and quick aggressive attack on both fires. In the residential fire scenario, his engine company went to work with only two individuals on the line, unless the MPO left the rig in pump and went to help. This is or should be unacceptable for a paid or part-paid/on-call fire department, or any fire department. If you must ride that short, it is the responsibility of the department officers to establish a response that does not allow any engine company to operate for less than one minute alone. Any fire call occurring in a department with such low staffing would require a two-engine, one-truck response immediately. This brings nine firefighters to the scene, not three. The two engines should arrive within a minute or two of each other. The second engine can help bring the first line in while the truck company finds the fire and initiates ventilation.
In the second scenario, the officer waits until he sees the fire conditions before he calls for mutual aid. If a department has to call for mutual aid when only one rig is at the scene, there is something wrong with that department`s response. A safer operation would call for immediate automatic mutual aid from neighbors on all calls to commercial establishments. Nothing changes about the fire conditions in the commercial building by putting some people into it, other than civilian lives are in jeopardy. The great risk to the firefighters due to an inadequate response would still be the same and, in my opinion, too great a risk. Immediate automatic mutual aid has those departments on the move at the same time as the department involved. It shortens the response time, ensures adequate backup, and allows for the setup of an aggressive firefighting attack.
Too often we hear people in the fire service saying that we do not have enough personnel for that kind of attack or response, but it is the duty of the command officers to ensure that all calls receive adequate staffing. If that means more companies on the road or early calling of automatic mutual aid, then that is what is necessary. Fire code enforcement and preplanning are two other ways commercial fires can be fought more safely. It is not the firefighters` aggressiveness that is at fault; it is the department officers` lack of aggressiveness–officers who back off in demanding stronger fire codes and larger staffing standards or who are too lazy to establish SOPs and mutual-aid responses that will create effective and safe firefighting strategies.
Firefighters should never be ordered into any situation that puts them at too grave a risk. But having said this, it is the nature of our profession that there will always be firefighters willing and able to take that extra step, to put their lives on the line. You get part of that from experience, and you get experience by aggressively and safely attacking fires.
Bill Gustin responds: Keating raises some very important issues with which I completely agree. As for our philosophical differences concerning risk taking, I wonder if they are not more differences in perception than in opinion.
His recommendations for adequate personnel at a fire scene are indisputable. That is the way things should be. In comparison, the staffing levels in my two scenarios reflect, unfortunately, how things really are. Through my articles and classes, I try to relate to what I believe to be the “typical” fire department of the `90s–that is, largely suburban, understaffed, and “ate up” with EMS. Understaffed departments must adapt their strategies and tactics to maximize their limited resources and minimize risk to personnel. As a result, they may have to deviate from conventional “textbook” firefighting, traditionally used by big-city fire departments.
The average engine company today, paid or volunteer, is turning out with no more than three individuals and often has to operate alone for several minutes before help arrives. Unacceptable? Of course it is! But, unfortunately, that`s the way it is, and no SOP can ensure that all companies will arrive within a minute of each other unless the first-due company intentionally delays its response.
I would love to see a truck company on every structure fire–firefighters who, as you suggest, will locate the fire and establish ventilation. Sadly, many departments cannot staff a truck company (unless it is a quint responding as an engine). Consequently, truck work is performed by engine companies, in addition to their regular duties.
I know of several departments in which the truck company doubles as an ambulance crew, placing the truck out of service every time they respond to a medical call. It`s a shame, but that`s the way it is.
I must disagree with two of the comments regarding my commercial fire scenario. Is it realistic to request automatic mutual aid for a report of smoke in the area? With no additional information, neighboring departments would frequently respond to what turns out to be a dumpster fire. I maintain that beginning a fire attack with just two firefighters in a closed commercial structure can do more harm than good. After forcing entry, air would freely enter the building, accelerate combustion, and spread the fire burning in the cockloft beyond their capabilities.
I wish that every fire department had the resources to operate as he so correctly suggests. This, however, is impossible for a growing number of departments that have no control over how many people they hire or recruit. Without adequate personnel, fire departments would greatly benefit by following his recommendations for enhanced mutual aid, increased code enforcement, and prefire planning.
