The American fire service can be accused of many things. Unfortunately, being high-tech or cutting-edge is not on the list. Fueled by strong personalities, strong opinions, and strong traditions, firefighters are, by and large, a skeptical lot who tend to figure out a good way to do something and stick with it. In some cases, we might even have a sketchy way to do something but keep doing it that way because, well, that’s just the way it has always been done. Remember the old saying, “200 years of tradition unimpeded by progress”? Yes, that’s us.
We’re a group that loves our own, unless they work for another department, and enjoy debating things like EMS in the fire service, positive-pressure ventilation, and whether or not Lloyd Layman was right. We taunt, torture, and tease the guys at the fire station but would go straight through hell for each and every one. We’ll complain about the department’s not giving us time off for a class and then take a vacation day and fly 2,000 miles for a brother’s funeral. We close ranks when the time comes, don’t like outsiders messing in our business, and get up every day to do the job—even when the politicians don’t like us. Yes, that’s us, too.
We’re a fickle lot, aren’t we? A wonderful collection of contrasts. And that’s just our internal culture. How about what’s going on outside the fire station—things we can’t control but that greatly influence our profession—like terrorism or the impact domestic preparedness is having on our day-to-day operations? I’m certain your agency is doing some training it wouldn’t be doing or buying something it wouldn’t be buying if 9/11 hadn’t happened. It would be interesting to have a parallel universe where we could step back and see what we’d be doing if that terrible day never happened, what our profession would look like without knowing the horrible things that might happen.
THE IMPACT OF TERRORISM
Look at what has been created by the threat of terrorism and how it’s impacting the fire service. Think of how much money is being spent on equipment we may never use but have to have just in case, like all the weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-specific training, emergency decon showers, and biological agent detectors. It’s a huge undertaking, especially with shrinking budgets and growing responsibilities, leveraged against our original mission to fight fires and save lives. The Feds are throwing money at the problem, and the vendors know it. Everyone wants a piece of the action. It’s not bad or wrong; it’s just business.
And all that “business” stuff—i.e., sales and marketing and everything else—is something the fire service is inherently cynical about. In the past, the guy who wanted to sell you a nozzle had better know what he was talking about because you sure knew about nozzles. If he had no credibility or experience, he got your courteous attention, a cup of coffee, and the bum’s rush. When he left, he got crucified at the dinner table and dismissed as a wannabe.
Things have changed, though. In many cases and in many areas of WMD preparedness, the tables are turned. Now, the salesman might have a Ph.D. in genetics and speak intelligently about handheld portable fluorescence thermocyclers, false positive rates, real-time polymerase chain reaction technology, and how to prepare a sample specimen for analysis. What? Fluorescence thermocyclers? Specimens? Sounds like something out of a science fiction movie. The salesman is using words you’ve never heard of, and you find yourself feeling dazed and confused when he leaves, wondering if $30,000 is too much for something that looks like something out of the movies.
This isn’t the case across the board. Some departments are totally dialed in and actually understand the high technology. Even with a good handle on it, odds are that many of you have never been to and will never go to a significant WMD event. So if the battle happens, both of you will hope the equipment performs as expected.
Before this goes any further, I want to make something perfectly clear: I’m not knocking the fire service or saying we’re uneducated or backward. I’m not saying we shouldn’t prepare for a WMD event or that the fire service has its head in the sand and is unwilling to change or that all vendors are evildoers because they’re trying to sell us something. And by the way, I don’t think all new products are bad or that high technology is bad or that we shouldn’t be fully prepared to handle another terrorist event—whatever it may be. However, I do believe this: The fire service is in a period of renaissance perpetuated by the gizmos and gadgets on the market driven by the threat of terrorism. We do realize the boundaries have changed in terms of our responsibilities and that there is a distinct possibility of a nasty event happening. We’d be crazy not to look objectively at the tools available and not to equip ourselves to the best of our budgetary abilities.
Despite the best efforts of those tasked with preventing acts of terrorism in the United States, the underlying assumption is this: We can’t stop them all. One shot, maybe more, is going to get through. There’s much speculation about what that shot will be, but the “what-if” thinking of days gone by has shifted to “when-and-where” thinking. And, when something does happen, the game instantly shifts from prevention and planning to consequence management.
A CHANGE IN MINDSET
So how do we make that hopefully seamless transition from preparing ourselves to respond to actually dealing with the event, and how does high technology fit into that transition? How do you know you’re investing in solid reliable equipment instead of buying the next lemon?
In many cases, we end up turning to the salesman for answers or looking to the marketplace for guidance. If a piece of equipment is selling like hotcakes, it must be good, right?
Let’s take a look at the Edsel for a little historical perspective. The Edsel was viewed as a high-technology marvel with lots of gizmos and gadgets. More than 100,000 people agreed and bought the hype, only to learn the car was a maintenance nightmare, had many design flaws, and didn’t come close to performing as promised. The idea sounded good at the time, but time itself revealed the weakness of the car. The teletouch transmission, a push-button gear shifter, was so advanced and complicated that mechanics of the day weren’t able to get parts or make repairs. The hood ornament flew off at highway speeds, and the car hemorrhaged fluids. The name Edsel eventually became an acronym for Every Day Something Else Leaks.
Do you remember the DeLorean or the 1980 Season of “Saturday Night Live”? How about the movie Ishtar or the Tacoma Narrows Bridge that collapsed in a windstorm? At some point, each of these examples showed promise and had support in the marketplace.
We have to be very cautious about where we place our trust. If your car breaks down or doesn’t function, you might be stranded or otherwise inconvenienced. If your specialized piece of WMD equipment fails, it might be at the worst possible time with no way of fixing it or changing your game plan and may cause some mission-critical failure that will haunt you for the rest of your career.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t be looking to the marketplace for help or that new technology is bad. I am saying we need to be wary consumers, do our homework when it comes to purchasing equipment, and avoid the lure of the bells and whistles to solve our problems.
From a first-responder perspective, the million-dollar question is this: What equipment do we really need to respond to an event involving WMD? Just as importantly, how do we distinguish between an Edsel and reliable technology? Ask 50 people, and you’ll get 50 answers. The problem is there are so many new products on the market and so many new ones on the way that it becomes difficult to choose. Unfortunately, there is no magic list or guaranteed process for deciding how to best outfit your agency. For now, it falls squarely on your shoulders to decide what’s going to be in the toolbox. What complicates matters even further is that the needs differ according to the profile of your fire department and the potential threats. A one-station volunteer department is not in the same boat as the major metropolitan area that has hundreds of line personnel and a sizeable budget.
In both cases, there may be a weakness— a technology seduction—that causes a department to open the wallet and buy a sexy piece of gear without really understanding the ramifications of the purchase. For whatever reason, it hears a siren song that lures it to the rocky shores of bad purchase land. Unfortunately, a bad choice will make it the proud owner of an expensive brick that sits on a shelf or inside a compartment on the engine. Sometimes, there are some really good reasons for buying the brick. Most times, however, there are just a few okay reasons, and those responsible for buying the device will secretly hope they are never asked if the company ever used it. “Um, well, no, not really” is the answer, followed by “We didn’t buy it to be used every day—it’s sort of a special-use thing.” “I see,” the chief will say, “a special-use thing.” There is, however, a line of questioning to use when implementing new technologies or new products into your response plan.
THE DECISION CUBE
First, theoretically place the proposed item in the appropriately sized box and close the lid. Each of the six sides will represent a series of questions. Looking at whether to invest in the technology or adopt the new equipment and all that comes along with it then becomes an exercise in looking at the situation from a six-sided perspective. Money is a major factor but is not included in this thought process.
On the lid: How will it fit into our current operations? Any new device introduced will affect the entire organization. Will this “thing” fit in with what the agency is currently doing? Will it effectively expand the current capacity to deliver services? Does it fit into the existing mission? Will it change the mission and take the agency in a new direction; if so, can the agency go in that direction? Essentially, it takes an upper management-level decision based on the overall direction of the department and what it can realistically do with the new item to weigh the pros and cons of implementation. It might not make sense to invest in a piece of equipment that is so specialized it can be used for only one thing.
On the bottom: How will it fit into regional activities? All emergency response agencies must accept a simple fact: If the incident has widespread impact, a single jurisdiction won’t handle it alone. The nuts and bolts of making the emergency go away will be enough to overwhelm its individual system. Even if the event is manageable within the jurisdiction, the post-incident onslaught of interested and responsible agencies, including the media, will swamp all but the largest municipalities. Either way, an event of any magnitude is certain to bring a tidal wave of people. So, the question of preparing for a WMD event must be answered from a regional perspective, and the cornerstone of that perspective must revolve around a key concept—interoperability.
The concept of interoperability in the emergency response community boils down to this: the ability of different agencies to work together before, during, and after the incident. Working together includes joint training, the ability to communicate across the board, an interconnected cache of equipment, and common goals and objectives. Essentially, interoperability is the creation of a seamless response mechanism that may encompass entire geographic regions. To accomplish this, we must look outside our own boundaries and buy equipment that can be used regionally.
Side #1: Are we committed to the training? Jerome M. Hauer, executive director of the Response to Emergencies and Disasters Institute at George Washington University, offers his perspective on domestic preparedness training: “Adding a piece here and there doesn’t work. Training programs must be built around an overall plan. If the training doesn’t support the plan, you run the risk of getting off track.”
The challenge in implementing new technology, especially detectors and monitoring devices, is to be able to use the gear when the time comes. The manufacturers are looking for ways to make the machines user-friendly, but an agency must commit the time and money to keep people current on the training. This is tough. Most agencies already have a plate full of fire and EMS training in addition to all the other daily demands placed on line personnel. Additionally, training should not consist solely of fire station coffee-table training—the talking kind of training. Get out and simulate the actual conditions in which the piece of equipment might be used or the conditions under which you might be called to respond. Shake the bugs out before the moment of truth arrives. You shouldn’t know more about your deferred compensation program than you know about the fire engine, pumping water, or using a chemical detector.
Side #2: How about the maintenance, upkeep, and operational costs? Any piece of equipment you buy requires some level of use, care, and feeding. Chemical and biological detectors are especially needy and cannot be left on the shelf. They must be continually bump tested to function properly; they contain certain internal parts that require annual service or replacement. For example, you can’t go out and buy a detector for WMD agents, leave it on the shelf for two years, and then expect it to work properly. These things are sensitive, sophisticated devices and cannot be left in a glass case to be used only in an emergency. This means spending the almighty dollar as well as the most important nonrenewable asset on earth—time.
Most machines should be sent to the manufacturer annually, and it seems that $1,000 is the ballpark figure for each trip. This doesn’t take into account extra sensors, replacement batteries, or the repair costs incurred when somebody accidentally draws a nasty liquid into the sample chamber of a four-gas monitor. You should also inquire about a loaner program—i.e., will the vendor provide a replacement unit while yours is out of service?
The reality is that buying the machine is the easy part. Learning to use it and keeping up on the maintenance are the challenges. Ask the salesman about projected maintenance costs and what the company is willing to do if the thing goes down in the middle of an incident. Are there regional distributors that will get on the road and be at your side in two hours, or are you on your own once the check clears at the bank?
Side #3: Do we understand the science and research behind the product? This is a “whodunit” question. Is the manufacturer telling you this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, or is there a third-party surety group telling you how fantastic it is? Most vendors love to say their device is the favorite at the Dugway or Aberdeen proving grounds or is being used by all branches of the military. These are good endorsements and may offer some peace of mind if you’re worried about owning an Edsel. If you’re in the chemical or biological detector market and are baffled by the technology, hire an industrial hygienist to school you in the different technologies. It’ll be money well spent, and you’ll ultimately make a more informed decision. In short, do the homework before you spend the money. It may take longer to get what you want, but you’ll end up with a purchase that fits your needs.
Another factor influencing the detector market is the market itself. High-tech markets are complex and evolve faster than traditional markets. They’re very competitive, characterized by rapid change and innovation; in many cases, the innovations are driven by changes in the technology itself rather than customer demands. Go to any trade show and talk to a guy selling a detector, and he’ll tell you why this machine is great and follow that up by letting you know the next generation will be out in a few months and that it’ll be faster, easier to use, and able to withstand a fall from a 50-story building. Do you buy now or wait? It’s almost like buying a computer—the market changes so fast that the machine you buy today is already slower than what’s on the drawing board. Will your biological detector be in the same boat?
Side #4: What happens if it fails at a mission-critical time? This is the worst possible scenario. You spent the time to make a wise purchase, did your training, and feel very confident that you’re ready. The big day comes, and the thing breaks. Now what? How do you recover and keep going? Can you make repairs in the field? Does the vendor offer a 24-hour help line with good tech support—a number that actually goes to somebody who knows something? What’s your fallback position? Will the manufacturer send someone on a helicopter, boat, or rickshaw to be there and offer product support? We “what if” and preplan various incidents but seldom preplan equipment failures. If you rely too heavily on the technology and it fails, then what?
Tools and equipment don’t solve your problems. They help you solve them. A department with solid officers and well-trained firefighters, accompanied by good incident leadership, can solve problems regardless of the obstacles. If your agency is good at handling structure fires and other emergencies, it will more than likely handle the “big one” just as well. If your basic emergency operations are a disorganized mess, all the toys in the world won’t make you perform like a well-oiled machine.
The rest is simple. If the answers come back favorable, then it makes sense to look at putting the item in service. If the answers are unfavorable, leave the device in the box and send it back to whoever sent it to you in the first place. It may very well be the best product on the market, but even the best product isn’t the best if it’s not right for your agency.
KEEP IT SIMPLE
William of Ockham, a 14th century philosopher and writer, came up with an interesting thought, which later became known as “Ockham’s Razor.” It loosely states: All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the right explanation. In other words, and in terms we all understand, keep it simple. Our challenges today are complicated for a number of reasons; applying Ockham’s Razor to all available solutions may be wise. When faced with a complex problem, like when, where, or what the next terrorist event might be or how to arm ourselves to respond, we should avoid an overly complicated solution, including getting too fancy with our tools and equipment. We shouldn’t shun high technology or high-technology solutions, but we should be careful of becoming too dependent on gizmos and gadgets.
All around the country you hear firefighters say, “Let’s get back to the basics—we need basic training on the basic stuff we do every day.” I think those words ring true and should extend to WMD preparation. Cover the basics, understand the threats, and arm yourself with good reliable tools that are there when you need them.
ROB SCHNEPP is a captain/paramedic with the Alameda County (CA) Fire Department and serves as a hazardous materials specialist with the Region 4 Task Force of the FEMA Urban Search & Rescue team based in Oakland, California. He is the primary author of Hazardous Materials: Regulations, Response & Site Operations (Delmar Publishing, 1999) and is an editorial advisory board member of fireEMS and Fire Engineering.
