FIRE GROUND ACCOUNTABILITY: THE PHOENIX SYSTEM

FIRE GROUND ACCOUNTABILITY: THE PHOENIX SYSTEM

NICK BRUNACINI

LYNN WHALEY

Fireground personnel accountability is a vital safety issue for the American fire service. In the future, the fire service will see increased pressure from litigation, other court action, and regulationand standard-setting bodies to improve the manner in which we account for our firefighters operating in life-threatening work environments.

Why the need for improved accountability? Sadly, today, you can more accurately account for a Federal Express or UPS package than you can firefighters on the fireground. A 10-year study of firefighter deaths conducted by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) found that 34 of 134 firefighter fireground deaths not related to heart attacks reflected a failure to account for personnel. That’s a 25 percent fatality figure related to accountability. That should not be happening.

This article describes the Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department’s (PFD’s) efforts to improve fireground accountability. The resulting system, which has been in place for more than two years, combines practicality and simplicity to greatly enhance personnel accountability. This article is not a tacit recommendation of a particular system, since different departments have different needs and there are numerous systems available; however, it is important to remember that thorough analysis and testing are paramount in establishing an effective system, and that there are common elements in every effective accountability system.

OUR EARLY ATTEMPTS

The PFD long has had an interest in fireground accountability. A system that involved name tags fastened with VELCRO brand touch fasteners to the underside of protective coat collars and designed to be turned in to a sector officer had been in place for more than 10 years. Further accountability tracking was accomplished through the use of tactical worksheets maintained by the incident commander and sector officers. In addition, the department had long-standing procedures specifying that crews enter and exit the building together, a minimum crew size of two firefighters, and that all crews be equipped with a portable radio.

Hie weakness of that system was that the tags often were not used, except during high-rise fires or special hazard incidents such as confined-space rescue. The name tags also were difficult to manage.

The tactical worksheet also had limitations when it came to tracking personnel. The worksheet was designed to note which crews were assigned to a sector and could note their approximate geographic location on the fireground (i.e., north sector, somewhere on the north side of the incident, and so forth). The worksheets could not, however, easily reflect which crews were in the building and which were outside at any given moment.

furthermore, experience demonstrated that accurately tracking on paper the fireground movements of personnel was very difficult. Poor lighting at night created additional problems; wind created problems; and, once the paper got wet, it was impossible to write on.

ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT TEAM OBJECTIVES

In April 1991, the PFD assembled a three-member project team to upgrade the department’s fireground accountability system. Throughout the research and development phases, the project team included members of the seven Phoenix metro area fire departments who were part of the Phoenix regional dispatch system. Because of the automatic aid dispatch process, several fire departments could be dispatched to the same incident. We determined that the final product had to be acceptable to all fire departments to be effective.

The project team was asked to design a fireground personnel accountability system that would achieve the following objectives:

• Have the ability to identify at any given moment where each firefighter is on the fireground and, within a small geographic assignment area, within the “hazard zone,” as defined later.
• Provide the ability to identify when a firefighter is delayed or missing from an assignment and initiate a search, rescue, and recovery effort.
• Be simple to use and easily initiated so it can be used on a frequent and routine, basis.
• Lend itself to integration into the existing incident management system.

The team searched internationally for accountability systems already used by fire departments that it felt would meet all four objectives. After several months of, research, the team focused on three basic models.

The British model. The most common model was the British model, which involves a single plastic name tag turned in by individual firefighters at a point of entry to the building. Examples of this) model were found in many countries of the old British empire. The system has been in place for more than two decades. (See sidebar on page 52.)

The PASSPORT™ system. In the United States, two significant systems were found. One was the PASSPORT system, devel oped by the Seattle (WA) Fire Department! and at the time popular with several neighboring fire departments in the Northwest. This system utilizes a smalL plastic card with the company’s identification number etched on it. Individuals; assigned to that company place their individual name tags on it. The company officer is responsible for confirming thej accuracy of the “passport.” At the fire scene, the company officer turns in the I passport at a point of entry to the building (see sidebar on 48.).

the PAT system. On the East Coast, the] Prince Georges County (MD) Fire Department developed a “personnel accountabil-j ity tag” (PAT) system. The PAT system, incorporates laminated wallet-size identification cards featuring a picture of the individual firefighter and a bar code. A scanner using an integrated computer system can be used to provide information such as a personal medical history of the firefighter. The tag is turned in at a point of entry to the fire building in the same way as the British model.

The project team also conducted a detailed analysis of what was needed to provide complete accountability of firefighters on the fireground. From that analysis, 14 key components were identified. They are described as follows.

The hazard zone

We recognized that it would be very difficult to track all personnel arriving at the incident. Our objective, therefore, became to track only those personnel at risk — i.e., those who enter the fire building, for example. The existing tactical worksheet could effectively track the “exterior” support personnel. The hazard zone was roughly defined as any area requiring the use of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) that posed a special risk to firefighters.

Procedures

Written standard operating procedures that describe components of the accountability system, the system’s implementation process, and its escalation for use at a major incident would be needed. These procedures were to emphasize the routine use of the system, crew integrity, and the need for radio communications. The procedures also were to demonstrate management support and set policy regarding accountability.

Training

Under the system, training would be required of all personnel. ‘Training must “sell” the system’s life safety benefit to firefighters. Command staff would need additional specialized training regarding managing accountability as an incident escalates from small-scale to a major event involving dozens of crews.

Crew integrity/supervision

Crew integrity and company supervision have always been major elements of any fireground accountability system. The company officer must ensure that his crew remains closely assembled and intact at all times. He must prohibit freelancing on the fireground by crew members. Crews always should go in together and come out together.

Communications

All firefighters working in the “hazard zone” must have a means to communicate by radio with command and sector officers. The company officer or other team leader must be equipped with a portable radio. If a crew suffers a radio failure, procedures should require its members to withdraw from the hazard zone. Ultimately, all individual firefighters should have their own personal radios when working at an incident. The PFD is in the process of equipping all on-duty firefighters with portable radios.

Company/crew identification

Company members or crews must have some form of visual identification that tells command and sector officers which crews are in the hazard zone. Helmets are a logical piece of equipment on which to place identifiers. Whatever the means, the visual “identifier” must reflect the company or crew to which the member is currently assigned.

Hardware

The “hardware” of an accountability system, such its passports, tags, etc., should identify the company to which a crew member is assigned and list the member by name. These items must be maintained at a point of entry by a responsible caretaker. Whatever the design, the hardwareshould meet the following criteria.

• Be simple to use.
• Should not slow down the initial attack operation.
• Be of a size easily handlc-d by a gloved hand.
• Be brightly colored so as to be visiblein poor lighting.
• Identify the company and individual crew members.
• Affix easily to some form of status board.

Caretaker/accountability officer

The system must have a “caretaker,” or accountability officer, who remains outside the hazard zone at each point of entry . The accountability officer is responsible for collecting the hardware of crews assigned to that point of entry, managing the accountability process, returning the hardware to the crews as they exit the hazard zone, and alerting command when a crew or crew member is delayed or missing. The accountability officer must have radio communications.

The accountability officer should never enter the hazard zone. An accountability sector officer also may be implemented to supervise all the accountability officers and coordinate the total incident accountability process, especially at large incidents.

Incident management system

Accountability cannot be maintained without an incident management (command) system. Firefighter accountability has always been a responsibility of the incident commander and sector officers. Accountability management at the incident site must be integrated into the incident management organization. Use of accountability “hardware” simplifies the management of this responsibility and creates enhanced accuracy.

As an incident escalates, additional staff may have to be assigned to fill accountability officer positions. Arriving staff officers may be thus used, or a company may be called from staging and a crew split up. (Accountability officers do not enter the hazard zone. Thus, it is safe to split up the crew.) Other sources for staff are special calls or mutual-aid requests for chiefs or staff officers only.

Point-of-entry control/incident operations

Accountability must be maintained at points of entry to the hazard zone (i.e., doorways, etc.). Hardware must be turned in at the point of entry and retrieved as crews leave the hazard zone. Only the crew currently in the hazard zone should be listed on a status board.

Rescue/recovery

A written rescue/recovery plan or procedure is an integral part of all accountability systems. Frequent search and rescue training must be provided.

A fresh, unassigned crew must be maintained on site in a ready status (in full protective clothing and with SCBA donned) for rapid intervention during major or high-risk operations. Should the need for rescue arise, this crew will be the first one assigned to the rescue effort, followed by additional resources called from staging or additional alarms struck.

.Any firefighter suspected to be missing must be assumed lost in the hazard zone and immediately reported to command. Simultaneously with a roll call, command must initiate a search-and-rescue effort, starting at the last reported location of the missing firefighter. An additional alarm should be struck to obtain additional resources. There can beno hesitation since the window of survivability for the lost firefighter is very narrow.

An accurate means of coordinating and documenting search efforts must be developed (e.g., grids searched, ways to avoid duplication of or missing grids). Very strict control over firefighting personnel must be maintained during rescue efforts to control “panic actions” and freelancing by crews.

Tactical benchmarks roll call

At certain points during the incident, when hazardous events occur, or when tactical benchmarks are achieved, a roll call of personnel must be taken. The objective would be to account for firefighters at certain points during the incident. A list of recommended “benchmarks,” as used by Phoenix, is given later in this article.

Phoenix uses the term “personnel accountability report (PAR)” as part of the roll call process. Command may request a PAR from sector officers or individual company officers at any time. Companyofficers would visually confirm that their crews are intact and accounted for and report a PAR (i.e., “Engine 4 to command. 1 have a PAR”). These benchmarks and PAR reports are a routine part of dailyoperations in Phoenix.

Behavior/atfitude

Firefighters’ attitudes regarding fireground accountability must be changed. Firefighters need to be sold on the lifesaving benefits of accountability. They must appreciate that accountability is a caretaker system that ensures someone is always looking out for their welfare. They also need to understand that failure to adhere to standard accountability practices places them —and any rescue personnel — at unusual risk.

Poor accountability performance can best be corrected through motivation and training. Forcing human beings to accept something they don’t fully understand has never resulted in high performance levels.^

Evaluation/revision

Once implemented, the accountability system must be evaluated continuously. Command officers must monitor the accuracy of hardware (passports, tags, etc.) and their routine use. Accountability musL be evaluated during every critique (including the mini critique conducted onsite at routine, small-scale fires). It has been demonstrated repeatedly that if management isn’t interested in accountability (or anything else, for that matter), the troops won’t be interested, either.

Revision of the system or hardware maybe necessary based on local experience and changes in the availability of hardware or other components. As more “hightech” elements such as bar coding, laptop computers, satellite locating/tracking sys-. terns, and so forth become available, the accountability system will have to be upgraded where appropriate.

TESTING A PROTOTYPE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM

With fireground accountability fully analyzed and its major components identified, the department’s project team next moved to develop prototype models for field testing, draft operating procedures, and design evaluation procedures. Two of five battalions were selected for testing purposes.

Two models were designed and issued—one to “A” shift and another to “C” shift, at the same stations in the two battalions. Field testing involved 17 engine companies, four ladder companies, two battalion chiefs, and five ambulance companies. The test period was six months.

Of the two models selected for testing.’ model A (shift A ) was based on the British system. It incorporated single, yellow, oneby four-inch plastic tags with the firefighters” names on them. Two backup tags, one orange and one red. also were Issued to each firefighter (the color indicated that they were “backup” tags). The primary yellow tag had a four-inch VELCRO* tail on it. allowing it to be fastened to a strip on the firefighter’s bunker coat collar. This location was easily accessible to the firefighter but was also “handsfree.” Individual firefighters were responsible for turning in their tags at a point of entry at the hazard zone.

Model C, assigned to the C shift, was based on Seattle’s PASSPORT’” Accountability System. It incorporated a twob three-inch plastic card with the company’s identification number etched on the tag. A VELCRO* strip adhered to the front allowed individual firefighters to affix their personal identification tags. Each by 1 Vi-inch plastic name tag had the firefighter’s name etched on it. Five name tags were issued to each firefighter, to ensure a backup supply would be available should tags become lost. The tags had VELCRO* on the back. Spare tags were affixed to a VELCRO* strip on the underside of the helmet’s rear brim.

Draft operating procedures were based on the need for point-of-entry control, maintaining records (name tags or passports) at the point of entry, and implementing the accountability system at any working incident. Point-of-entry control was established by the first engine to each geographic side of the incident. The engineers of these companies became the initial accountability officers.

As initial accountability officers, engineers collected the tags/passports of their crew members As additional units arrived at these locations, the arriving crews delivered their tags/passports to the engineer as they entered the hazard zone. As crews exited the hazard zone, the engineers then collected their tags/passports.

During field testing, all working incidents in the test battalions were immediately reported to the project team. Each company involved in the fire was contacted directly by a project team member to obtain an evaluation of the accountability process and hardware. Numerous routine residential fires and two multiple-alarm incidents occurred during the field testing.

During this field-testing period, a magnetic tag system to mark helmets with the proper company identification also was to be tested. By using a magnetic company identification tag for helmets, “rovers,” or personnel assigned temporarily (due to sick leave, vacation, and so forth) could easily affix the proper company identification to their helmets, ensuring an up-todate means of identifying crew members by the company to which they were assigned. There was such strong, immediate support for this system that we implemented this magnet tag company identification system departmentwide even before the test period was complete. It has worked extremely well ever since.

Following the six-month field test, the project team met with each individual company involved in the test. The two models also were reviewed with all captains of the department, who showed overwhelming preference for the passport model. During this review process, crews offered several excellent recommendations regarding hardware modifications and changes in procedures that were adopted later.

SYSTEM HARDWARE

“Passport” perfectly describes the fireground accountability system we chose. Approval to enter is based on a valid “passport.” Several other pieces of hardware used to allow for effective management of accountability include the following.

• Company passport (2V-* by 3V-* inches).
• Individual name tags ( by 2½ inches).
• Company identification magnetic helmet tags.
• Status boards (eight by 1 1 inches) for all companies).
• Accountability kits (issued to chief officers).
• large status board for chief officers (l-i by 18 inches).

The passport is a white plastic card with the company’s identification number etched on its top. It is attached by VELCRO® to the dash of all apparatus, adjacent to the company officer’s position. VELCRO® allows individual name tags to be attached to the passport.

Each firefighter is issued five name tags with VELCRO® strips on their backs. The tags are fastened on the rear underside of the helmet brim. For personnel permanently assigned to the company, a separate strip of fastener on the dash allows each off-duty personnel to leave the name tag adjacent to the passport. Experience has shown that this is convenient for permanently assigned personnel. Those temporarily assigned remove a name tag from their helmet brim and place it on the passport as they report for duty. At the end of the shift, it is removed and returned to the helmet.

As previously mentioned, individual name tags are maintained on the helmet brim. Because they arc always with the firefighters, a passport can be assembled quickly at the point of entry should a firefighter’s passport be lost or forgotten.

The magnetic helmet company identification tags have proven to be very effective. As temporary assigned personnel report to duty, the company’s identification tag is easily affixed to the helmet. Upon departure, their tags are removed. Several extra sets are maintained in each station. This ensures that all helmets reflect the company to which the firefighter is presently assigned.

Status boards are assigned to each company. These eightby 1 1-inch boards have VELCRO® on both sides, permitting passports to be easily affixed to the board. Status boards are maintained on the inside of the driver’s (engineer’s) door. VELCRO* strips on the door allow the board to be attached to the door and removed easily as needed. Status boards on each apparatus ensure that the engineer will be able to manage passports if his is the first unit to arrive at one or the other side of the incident.

A larger status board ( 14 by 18 inches) is assigned to each battalion chief’s vehicle. Its design is similar to the smaller board. Status boards for rehab and haz-mat vehicles have a somewhat differently designed board to manage their specialized needs.

Fifty accountability kits were issued to command vehicles and staff chief officers. Convenient availability of these kits permits rapid control of the accountability process These kits are of a fabric briefcase design and carry the following equipment:

• eightby 11-inch status board;
• felt-tip marking pens;
• spare, preassembled passport cards;
• spare, blank name tags to create name tags;
• clipboard, paper, and pencils;
• a vest marked “accountability”; and
• a small, battery-operated strobe light to mark the accountability location during nighttime operations.

The department’s command post vehicle carries a bank of six portable radios dedicated for accountability use. These are issued, as needed, to accountability officers.

THE FINAL SYSTEM

The foundation of the system is the point-of-entry control. Crews must turn in their passports upon entry to the hazard zone and retrieve them upon exit. To achieve this operation, control must be established with the arrival of the first companies on the scene. This is accomplished by the following rule of thumb:. The first engine company to each side of the incident, or each point of entry, becomes the initial accountability location. The engineer becomes the initial accountability officer.

Our experience showed that, after the first few minutes of hooking up hoselines’ and getting water to the initial attack line(s), engineers agreed that they easily could take on this responsibility.

As the incident escalates, the incident commander notes on his tactical worksheet which companies are serving as the initial accountability locations. As additional units are assigned to each area (sector), they are advised of which unit is serving as the accountability location. This allows arriving crews to go directly to the apparatus to turn in their passports en route to their assignments.

In the case of routine, small-scale incidents (i.e., residential fires), in which the few responding units park in the same location (front street), it is somewhat awkward for these initial crews to go out of their way to deliver passports to one location —especially during initial attack. If these units are parked within 50 feet of the initial engine, our procedures allow the passports to be left on the dash. The engineer of the initial engine company (accountability location) collects the passports as soon as he can.

To effectively manage accountability during major operations, accountabilityofficers are assigned. Generally, staff officers and other chief officers are assigned these duties.

Where these officers are not yet on the scene, the incident commander may pull a company from staging and split up the crew to serve as “accountability officers.” As mentioned, spare portable radios are maintained in the command vehicle for issue to these personnel, if needed. Extra accountability kits are also maintained in the command vehicle and are issued for accountability use.

Occasionally, sector officers may assume accountability responsibilities. .However, this is allowed only if the sector officer is operating in a defensive mode ‘and at the exterior or perimeter of the hazard zone.

Accountability officers report to each sector area, collect all passports, verify crew locations and status, and manage all accountability for the sector. Radios are used to communicate among the accountability officers, sector officers, command, jand so forth. Accountability officers assume a position on the exterior, or perimeter, of the hazard zone.

For major operations, an “accountability sector” officer is implemented to supervise accountability officers and manage the incident accountability. These /officers are assigned to a separate, predesignated radio channel. The accountability sector officer is located at the command post.

The point-of-entry principle is maintained in the cases of multistory or highrise incidents. The first companies on the scene typically park close together at the building’s one or two key entry points. As a result, the passports remain on the dashboards of the apparatus of these first crews. Once the lobby sector officer (who takes control of elevators and stairwells) is assigned, the passports are collected from the parked apparatus as the sector officer enters the building. Once in the building, the lobby sector officer collects passports from all additional crews that enter the building.

Shortly thereafter, a resource sector officer is assigned. He is established on a safe floor below the fire floor and serves as a forward staging area for crews and an equipment depot. This officer collects from the lobby sector officer the passports for those crews assigned to fire combat or other activities in the “hazard zone” above the ground floor.

The resource sector officer reports to the resource floor (perhaps the 15th floor) and manages accountability for the hazard zone (the resource sector area and the fire floors and those above it at the point of entry). The point of entry will be at the doors to the stairwells. Accountability officers may be assigned to each point of entry.

Crews sent from staging to the resource sector will take their passports with them to the resource sector area. As crews arc assigned to firefighting duties, they turn their passports in to the appropriate accountability officer Crews retrieve their passports upon return to the resource sector (for fresh SCBA or for rehab, and so forth).

ACCOUNTABILITY BENCHMARKS

As mentioned previously, after reaching certain benchmarks during the incident, a roll call of all personnel within the hazard zone should be initiated. Following a detailed analysis of fireground operations and firefighter risk, the PFD adopted the following benchmarks that require a roll call [personnel accountability report (PAR)].

• A change from offensive to defensive operations.
• Any sudden, hazardous event at the scene (e.g., flashover, partial collapse, etc.).
• A report of a missing firefighter.
• At the time search and rescue crews report search and rescue completed (at this point, a roll call is taken of search and rescue crews only).
• At 30-minute elapsed time intervals (the dispatcher automatically notifies the incident commander of elapsed five-minute intervals).
• At the time the fire is reported to be under control.
• Any time the incident commander initiates a roll call.

TRAINING PROGRAMS

Training for use of the final accountability system took place at two levels. The first level included all companies. The second level included chief officers and staff’personnel. In addition to the material taught to the companies, chief officers were instructed on overall accountability management at the scene, particularly with regard to escalation to a major incident.

An additional tool used during initial and ongoing training was the “phantom” passport kit. This training kit consisted of passports for a three-alarm assignment of 12 engines, six ladders, six chief officers, and six staff officers. The passports were the same size as the standard passports and had “phantom” company identification numbers etched on them but did not contain name tags.

We developed scripts describing company arrival sequence and instructions of where to turn in the passport (one script was developed for a ground-level fire and another one for a high-rise incident). The scripts allowed instructors to walk crew members through the proper use of the system for a major incident. The kits were issued to each battalion chief for ongoing training in his battalion. The training academy also has a kit.

LESSONS LEARNED

With more than two years of experience using the accountability system, we have learned several lessons, described as follows.

• It takes time for a system to become second nature. Crews will occasionally forget to take the passport with them as they leave their apparatus for an assignment, or a firefighter may forget to put his name tag on the passport.
• Constant reinforcement of the system’s importance will help ensure its proper use. Quick-assembly kits will help solve on-site problems. We predict that the accountability system must be in use for several years before its use becomes completely “natural.”
• Accountability must be fully integrated into everything the department does. It must be initiated at all working incidents,, constantly monitored and evaluated by chief officers, and included in all training. All critiques must include a review of the accountability process.

To reinforce accountability, the FFD uses the following method.

All fire simulator training (i.e., multiple-screen slide projector simulations) now includes the processing of (phantom) passports. The passports are physically moved around the auditorium. simulating the entering and exiting of the hazard zone.

All field training incorporates passports.

Chief officers randomly check company passports for accuracy.

All critiques include an accountability component. Included are the mini critiques, conducted on site at small-scale incidents. Formalized critiques of major incidents receive an expanded review of accountability.

In addition to a specific accountability procedure, all related pro-, cedures now have appropriate references to foreground accountability.

• The project team underestimated the amount of training needed for chief officers and staff personnel. These officers required expanded training on the overall management of accountability for the entire scene. As more and more companies arrive, tracking a few dozen crews constantly entering and exiting the hazard zone can become a complex task.
• Develop a regional system. Accountability will not be effective if all departments in the region are not using the same procedure and the same basic hardware. In addition to the original eight fire departments involved in the project, the accountability system policy has now expanded to include a larger group of mutual-aid fire departments in the Phoenix area.
• Obtain a centralized source for hardware manufacture. The passport and name tags must be considered a high-priority safety item, requiring immediate replacement if necessary . Many businesses manufacture the hardware. Establish an agreement with a selected business to allow for rapid replacement as needed.

Because of the volume of passports and name tags in use, we chose to purchase our own machine to manufacture hardware to cut costs. The machine has a computerized memory containing all employee names and dimensions for all hardware. Phoenix manufactures the hardware for all fire departments in the system and charges an at-cost fee, eliminating the markup of a private contractor. This way, we ensure systemwide standardization, provide convenience to all departments involved, and become a major “buy-in” influence for a regional accountability system. Replacement hardware can be ordered and delivered within hours.

VOLUNTEER VS. PAID APPLICATION

The PFD chose and designed an accountability system that met the needs of a large, paid, urban fire department. The passport design reflects a work environment with on-duty crews assigned to particular pieces of apparatus. It emphasizes crew integrity. Volunteer and combination fire departments do not always have fully assembled on-duty crews. These departments, however, need an accountability system as much as (if not more than) paid departments.

Our experience indicates that either one of the models we field-tested would work in a volunteer environment. Procedurallv, accountability management at the scene would remain the same as previously described. For example, as firefighters arrived at the scene in private vehicles, they would first report to the command post or staging area for an assignment. Once assigned to a company, or assembled as part of an additional crew on scene, they would turn in their tags or passports to the engineer of the first engine to each side of the incident, another identified accountability location, or an assigned accountability officer. All other accountability criteria (such as benchmarks. status boards, etc.) would apply.

For regions with a mix of paid, combination. and volunteer fire departments, both models are compatible with each other | and can be managed together. What is | essential are standardized procedures that | specify point-of-entrv control, hardware management, and a responsible “caretak| er“ to manage the hardware.

THE FUTURE

What lies ahead with regard to fire! ground personnel accountability? Count j on an NFPA standard that addresses the j area. Key elements of the standard will address required use of an accountability | system, some form of hardware document, point-of-entry control, scene management of hardware, benchmarks for roll calls, and communications.

Bar codes also may have a future in accountability. As computer hardware becomes smaller and more portable, expect an interface with a handheld scanner that will instantly read the code and log it into the computer.

Experts in the bar-code industry indicate that bar codes could be imprinted on firefighter bunker coats. A scanner installed near the doors of the apparatus could automatically scan the bar code and log the firefighter dismounting. Further, a scanner could be integrated with the department’s on-board mobile digital computer |part of a computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system]; and the information, logged automatically, would be entered into the computer history of that incident. 1 landheld scanners could do the same. Imagine being able to supply a retiring firefighter with a 20-year history of all incidents—particularly haz-mat events—that the firefighter worked!

Satellite technology is another area of possible use, but it is distant on the horizon. The PFD is upgrading its CAD system to include the use of satellites for automatic vehicle location. By use of a small transponder on vehicles, the system will constantly track, within a few feet of accuracy, all vehicles in the system. Similar technology may be available for tracking individual firefighters by use of a transponder attached to an SCBA.

PASS devices also will be upgraded to include an emergency radio transmitter that will send an alert to a master receiver in the command vehicle or dispatch center. Simultaneously with the audible alert, an encoded radio signal will be sent to the command post, causing an emergency alarm to go off. The encode signal will be able to identify by name the firefighter who is in trouble. The PASS also will be able to receive from the command post an emergency evacuation radio signal that activates a different sounding audible signal. Such prototype PASS devices are already being tested.

The future also may bring portablelocating devices that would allow rescuers to track the emergency signal from a PASS device to direct the rescuers to the downed firefighter. Mountain climbers and cross-country skiers have used small battery-operated avalanche victim locator radios for decades. The radio has an international frequency designation.

SCBA will become integrated safetysystems. Along with a long-term air supply. an SCBA will include a built-in radio communications system, with a “lip mike” in the face piece and a built-in PASS device with radio transmitter. The SCBA also will be equipped with instruments to track a radio signal from a downed firefighter and locate him.

Whatever the future holds, one thing is certain right now. Accountability has always been the responsibility of the incident commander, sector officers, and the company officers. The manner in which we have managed accountability in the past has been ineffective. This is illustrated by the number of firefighters who die each year at fires before command and sector officers even know they are lost.

Firefighting is a high-risk business with a very narrow window of survivability for those who become lost on the job. We must improve our practice of personnel accountability. The system and experience described in this article are not the final answer to accountability. It is. however, a system that works reasonably well and allows command and sector officers to manage accountability more accurately. With time, experience, and technology, the system will be refined and improved. Fire departments that need to upgrade their accountability system should research a wide variety of systems in use and on the market.

For more information on the Phoenix I-‘ire Department’s accountability»system, write to the authors at the Phoenix Fire Department; 541 West Encanto Bird.; Phoenix, AZ 85003; (602) 262-5031, fax (602) 495-2089