BY MICHAEL KENNEDY
According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) June 2006 report, U.S. Firefighter Deaths Related to Training, “Between 1996 and 2005, 100 firefighters in the U.S. died while engaged in training-related activities (10 percent of all on-duty firefighter deaths).”1 In pursuing our national fire service goal of reducing line-of-duty deaths (LODDs), training is one arena where reduction is achievable. All LODDs are horrific, but those that occur during training are particularly egregious.
When firefighters arrive on the scene of a residential fire where smoke is pushing from the eaves and a frantic mother is saying that her children are still inside, it is time to go to work. This scenario merits risking firefighters to attempt the rescue of viable victims. That is part of the oath we take; sometimes, firefighters pay the ultimate price in trying to save a citizen. If LODDs occurred only when firefighters were engaged in operations with legitimate rescue profiles, annual LODDs would be easily reduced to a quarter of their current rate. Accordingly, a substantial reduction in aggregate LODDs is easily attainable if training-related deaths are reduced.
Training safety officers (TSOs) should be a strategic part of a fire department’s risk management and training efforts and should be instructors who meet NFPA 1041, Standard on Fire Service Instructor Professional Qualifications. They need not to be the most senior or educated instructors. This officer’s personal traits are the most crucial aspect.
TSOs are the final line of defense between safe training and tragedy. They function as what Chief (Ret.) Alan Brunacini of the Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department would call the “designated adult.” Even if a training exercise, such as a ladder evolution, does not seem to involve dangerous activities, a TSO should be involved to set a cultural norm for safety consciousness (photo 1). Otherwise, this officer will be playing catch-up during training exercises that involve an increased potential for personal injury. Having a TSO regularly present also provides another set of eyes to spot student deficiencies before those weaknesses surface during an immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH) event and to ensure compliance with NFPA 1403, Standard on Live Fire Training Evolutions (photo 2).
 (1) Photos by author. |
null
 (2) |
Although someone may make an excellent incident safety officer (ISO), that does not qualify him to be a TSO. Although certain individuals may excel in both areas, sending an ISO to the training academy for the day will often create turmoil and fail to improve the overall safety of that day’s training. The skills and expectations of an ISO, who works with experienced firefighters on the fireground, might not translate well in working with new recruits at the training academy. Also, a TSO is one of the last positions to assign to someone who is retired in place (RIP) and is just looking to coast until he attains his 25 years. This position demands a high level of mental and physical acuity. In addition, he should have the following personal traits: a passion for the fire service, integrity, tact, competence, vigilance, and the ability to motivate others.
INSTRUCTOR SUPERVISION
A TSO must take seriously phrases such as “Let’s place the old couch from Station 2 in the burn tower,” “Let’s surprise the brand-new recruit class with a firefighter down scenario during its first live fire training,” and0. “This recruit needs a ‘hot one’ so he realizes he is not cut out for this job.” Another classic is when instructors mistake themselves for nuclear physicists and load a burn room with enough fuel to rival the energy output of a fission reactor.
The TSO obviously needs to immediately suspend the training exercise when instances such as these arise. However, just preventing these actions alone is not enough. The officer must use this opportunity to educate the proponents of such action as to why such attitudes and behavior must be modified. It is through these opportunities that true cultural change will occur. Additionally, when an instructor makes an unsafe decision, the TSO should discuss with that member what thought pattern (or lack thereof) resulted in that decision. Ultimately, there needs to be personal accountability.
LESSON PLAN OVERSIGHT
Among the TSO’s core functions is ensuring adherence to the lesson plan’s educational objectives. Signs that a training evolution is on its way to becoming the subject of a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) report include a nonexistent lesson plan or training that deviates from the plan without the unified and deliberate consent of the lead instructor, the support instructors, and the TSO. Document such a deviation whenever it occurs. Ideally, all concerned parties should initial a document acknowledging this deviation, even if it is just a piece of scratch paper. When someone initials a document, it helps to prevent amnesia if the decision leads to a less-than-desirable result.
The International Fire Service Training Association’s Fire and Emergency Services Instructor (7th edition) manual defines a lesson plan as “an instructional document that outlines the information and skill to be taught (a prelude to instruction) and makes effective use of available resources (personnel, time, space, and materials).”2 The lesson plan in training is equivalent to an incident action plan at an incident. Without one, the training (or incident) is unlikely to have a desired outcome.
Job performance requirements (JPRs) are the tactics used to accomplish the lesson plan’s designated objectives. NFPA 1041 Annex C (2) lists the following components of a JPR: The task to be performed; the tools, equipment, or materials that should be provided to successfully complete the task; and the evaluation parameters/or performance outcomes.
RECRUIT EVALUATION
It is common in career and volunteer recruit training for instructors to find students whose best fire service contribution is not at the working end of a hoseline. The reason for these predicaments is a topic of another article. What matters is fostering a safe learning environment for the student to either master the material or for the instructor to objectively document student deficiencies. This is where the TSO comes in. This officer should make sure that instructors are not aggressively pushing students. Some rogue instructors will decide a student is not mastering the curriculum, so an instructor will foster a hostile environment in the hope that the student will quit on his own initiative.
JPRs are a universal metric for instructors to use in evaluating recruits. All students should receive an equal and fair chance to master material, but those who cannot must not be allowed to continue. JPRs take personalities and biases out of the equation. Additionally, they serve as a powerful tool to prove to chiefs, human resources departments, and city managers that a student is not meeting the department’s firefighter criteria. The TSO must be willing to go before these stakeholders and make the case for removal if a recruit is not meeting the JPRs. This is a much safer and appropriate method than trying to push recruits to the brink.
PEER PRESSURE
In acting as the TSO, as a great friend and mentor says, “If you want a friend, buy a dog.” A TSO must be able to stand up to his friends and peers, who may also be his students during training evolutions. When the A shift rescue or truck company shows up at the training academy, there can be pressure to deviate from the lesson plan. These highly trained, motivated (and occasionally unbalanced) individuals are normally eager to add to their legendary status by modifying the lesson plan. But the TSO must stand firm. There will assuredly be initial resistance, but ultimately the TSO will gain a reputation and respect for being consistent; fair; and, most importantly, safe.
TRAINING CULTURE
Of the available NIOSH investigation reports of LODDs involving training, none is limited to a single recommendation that would have prevented the tragedy had it been implemented. A predominant theme of training deaths is what Fire Engineering Editor in Chief Bobby Halton refers to as the “drift into failure.”3 Training deaths are often the result of seemingly unnoticeable incremental changes that involve taking once unacceptable risks and allowing them to occur as part of regular practice. This drift can lead to the Nuremberg defense by instructors: “I was just doing what I was told” or “That’s the way we have always done it.” These answers are not acceptable to the grieving family of a student who needlessly died in what should have been a safe, controlled environment.
The first of the 16 Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives is, “Define and advocate the need for a cultural change within the fire service relating to safety, incorporating leadership, management, supervision, accountability and personal responsibility.”4 Instructors have a responsibility to train their students in a safe environment. Designating a training safety officer is one way for fire departments to ensure that “supervision, accountability, and personal responsibility” are engrained within their training programs. Like fire prevention division personnel, the TSO often has an unrecognized and thankless job, yet this person is able to save more lives than the busiest and bravest fire companies.
Endnotes
1. Fahy, R. (2006). U.S. Firefighter Deaths Related to Training, 1996-2005. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association.
2. Stowell, F. (2006). Fire and Emergency Services Instructor (7th ed.) (B. Adams, Ed.). Stillwater: Oklahoma State University.
3. Halton, B. Editor’s Opinion: “The King Has No Clothes…or Firefighters.” Fire Engineering, July 2008, 8.
4. National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. (2004). Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report. Emmitsburg, Maryland.
MICHAEL KENNEDY is a firefighter/paramedic with the Ann Arbor Township (MI) Fire Department, an instructor with the Michigan Fire Fighters Training Council, and a 14-year veteran of the fire service. He has a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and a master of public administration degree from Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti.
