Fire Conditions vs. Victim Survival: Pushing Paradigms and Procedures

BY NICK LEDIN

Through the United States Fire Administration, we have decades of data on the location of civilian home fire fatalities; unfortunately, this information is very myopic. Through the Firefighter Rescue Survey (FRS) and more than 3,000 detailed submissions, we can bring more dimensions to our discussions. We have collected, calculated, and collated thousands of rescues, resulting in more than 142,000 data points. For the first time in American fire service history, we have collected tactical, actionable data on rescues. We dissected and distilled these data, which may challenge our current knowledge.

• Search and Rescue by the Numbers
• The Oklahoma City Story: Tracking Grabs with Firefighter Rescue Survey
• Tactical Supervision for Known Rescues
• Making the Case for Search on the Modern Fireground

Exterior Conditions and Survival

Here, we will look more closely at three data sets from the FRS, all focused on fire conditions. Survival percentage vs. conditions (exterior, interior, and at the victim location) have been some of the most surprising data sets that we’ve discovered thus far. Below are data showing the survival percentage relative to the exterior conditions on arrival of the first-due crew (Figure 1). Exterior conditions were defined on a spectrum ranging from nothing showing to smoke showing all the way to >75% fire involvement. FRS data show that the overall survival percentage decreases as the amount of fire showing increases. We have assumed this relationship for years but, until recently, this was just an assumption; the FRS demonstrates this correlation is valid. However, there is still a 34% recorded survival percentage when there is >75% exterior involvement, which many firefighters would describe as “fully involved” (we prefer “well involved”). That means that more than one in three of these civilians rescued from a “well involved” structure survived. This information reveals that even with significant fire showing from the exterior, civilians can still be alive on the interior. This has been paradigm shifting for many firefighters.

 

The two most important tools humans possess are an open mind and critical thinking. To learn as much as we can from any information, we must ask ourselves questions that push our paradigms; information is more important than affirmation. Questions catalyzed from this data set include, among others, the following:

• What term does our department use for a structure that appears >75% involved from the exterior?
• Does that term cause us to slow our operational tempo or to reprioritize search?
• Can we tell if a structure is >75% involved before we perform a 360°?
• What exactly are we looking for during our 360° size-up?
• Can we tell the extent of fire involvement before we get inside the building?
• Can we really rely on victim survivability profiling?

Although an exterior size-up is essential to enhance our operations, the view from the outside is only part of the picture. An interior size-up is at least as imperative but for some reason is much less emphasized. We can glean a lot of important information from outside the building (e.g., building construction and conditions, vent profile, fire conditions), although we could be missing much (e.g., tunneling, closed doors, burning regime, layout, possible victim locations). Thus, we must marry our exterior size-up with our interior size-up (as conditions allow) to improve our decision-making ability.

Interior Fire Conditions and Survival

Moving from the outside to the inside, Figure 2 shows the fire conditions on entry vs. victim survival percentage. Interior fire conditions were characterized as either incipient, room-and-contents, multiple rooms on fire, or structural involvement. These data validate that as fire size increases, the survival percentage decreases. Although we understand the broad-brush strokes of this relationship, we don’t see the detail. In this case, it is a 50% survival rate when fire is attacking the structural members, which means that for every two victims pulled out of a structural fire, one survived. This is significantly higher than what many of us were taught. These data also reveal that most of these rescues (52%) took place when multiple rooms or the structure was involved. This means that we are not just making rescues at “easy” fires.

 

This information should challenge our perspectives and procedures. When looking internally, organizationally, and operationally, questions we must ask ourselves among others are as follows:

• Does this change our thoughts on the importance of an interior size-up?
• How quickly are our members encouraged to get an interior size-up?
• Have we trained on performing a “Life, Fire, Layout, Callout”?
• Do we know what tunneling is and what it means?
• Does the first crew inside relay this information to everyone else?
• How does this information affect our search?
• How does this information affect our attack?

Fire Conditions at Victim Location and Survival

So far, we’ve discussed exterior conditions on arrival and interior conditions on entry. Now, let’s look at conditions at the victim’s location. Figure 3 shows the survival percentage corresponding to fire conditions at the victim’s location. Conditions at the victim were defined on a spectrum ranging from no smoke or fire to smoke only to fire and smoke and finally to fire only. These data confirm that the overall survival percentage seems to decrease as the amount of fire at the victim increases. Again, the pattern of more fire corresponding with lower survival percentages is repeated. Unexpectedly for us, and potentially startling to many firefighters, is that in 27% of recorded rescues, there was fire (with or without smoke) at the victim’s location, with an overall survival percentage of 47%. We really want to clarify and amplify this point for everyone: For the nearly 500 victims found with fire at their location, 47% (236/498) of them survived. We have been taught for years that if there is fire at the victim’s location, there is almost no chance for survival, but these data tell a different story.

 

These data also raise some important questions as follows:

• What does this information mean to you, your ideology, and your operations?
• How will this affect your training?
• How do we decide to “write off” a building or areas of a building?
• How does our crew define searchable space?
• Are all of us on the same page?
• Do we have a bias for action when conditions allow?
• How can a closed closet/bathroom/bedroom or other door affect a victim’s survival?

All three figures express and echo a simple fireground fact: As fire conditions increase, the overall survival percentage decreases, although “the devil is always in the details.” Specifically, those involving the high survival percentages for the extreme fire conditions (e.g., well-involved buildings, structural fires, and when fire/smoke was at the victim’s location) should cause most of us to question our beliefs. Being mission-focused requires us to keep pushing our paradigms. Since mindset steers skillsets, challenging our beliefs leads to better outcomes.

The fire service should use all the data available to us to give us the most accurate picture of both the fire building and the possible civilians trapped inside. The FRS’s aim is to reduce the unknowns during the fog of fire. These three data sets are just the tip of the iceberg. At www.FirefighterRescueSurvey.com, you can see all the graphs, analyzed data, and raw data that we’ve collected thus far. This data, when used properly, can change ideologies, operations, and outcomes. Although these experiential data are substantial, they are still only part of the picture and must be combined with other tools to enhance our understanding of such a complex environment. If data-driven decision making is our goal, FRS and the amazing data from FSRI are some of our best resources. As always, if anyone has any idea on how to enhance this survey to gather more accurate and applicable data, please reach out to us.

Finally, if you make a rescue, please fill out a survey at FirefighterRescueSurvey.com so we can all learn from your experience.

NICK LEDIN is a lieutenant with the Eau Claire (WI) Fire Department, assigned to Engine 2. A 16-year veteran of the fire service, he is a contributor to the Firefighter Rescue Survey (firefighterrescuesurvey.com) and a technical committee member for National Fire Protection Association 1700, Guide for Structural Fire Fighting.