The Relevance of Structure Fire Standard Operating Guidelines

By JIM SILVERNAIL

Standard operating guidelines (SOGs) are essential for coordinating resources, implementing tactical strategies, and organizing the chaos at structure fires. It is critical to not only develop a game plan but also create an accurate set of procedures that reflect the relevant set of variables that represent the agency’s tactical capabilities and influential characteristics.

Ask yourself, can chaos be organized in a ritualistic and methodical manner? Is it possible to develop consistency? These are a purposely vague questions; all structure fires have a varying degree of perceived chaos. We can attempt to use our available resources to set up a system that gives our fire companies a strategic upper hand, coordinating actions for tactical effectiveness and establishing functional control for safety initiatives. Each structure fire is not the same—it represents different variables and conditions. Flexibility in implementation is essential, but we must have a basic template of coordinated operations based on fireground priorities. Fire agencies must also have the basic understanding of organizing impactful and supporting actions to achieve fireground objectives and mitigate hazards while also being adaptive to ongoing circumstances.

• Suburban Fire Tactics: Developing Functional SOGs
• Suburban Fire Tactics: Accounting for Truck Functions in a Non-Truck World

All agencies, regardless of their size or demographic, require a game plan. You must customize SOGs in relation to your agency’s circumstances. Three broad categories of influential variables include the following:

1. Resources.
2. Staffing.
3. Response area characteristics.

If you do not carefully design SOGs with respect to these factors, critical failures can and will occur. Agencies that operate at lower staffing levels and lack resources such as dedicated truck companies have additional challenges to require a “special attention to detail” in coordinating fireground functions. Their need for a game plan at structure fires cannot be overstated. Developing SOGs starts at the basic level of identifying and prioritizing the actions or functions that support tactical implementation and achieving strategic objectives.

“Short” Staffing Concerns and Lack of Resources

Many fire service agencies throughout the country operate at below-standard staffing levels established by National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, and NFPA 1720, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer Fire Departments. These standards reflect the preferred minimum staffing levels for responses to incidents such as structure fires. This situation makes the need for structure fire SOGs even more critical. We must identify the priorities of the fireground and use our limited staffing to accomplish the tasks that will immediately impact the situation and quickly accomplish fireground objectives. Often, however, we fall into the trap of trying to mimic agencies who have more staffing on each apparatus. Specific game plans must take this circumstance into account, and procedures must be developed to facilitate consistently effective practices.

To illustrate the need for customized tactical implementation, let’s look at the most impactful function on the fireground: placing and flowing the attack line. An agency that provides engine companies with the minimal NFPA 1710 standard of four personnel will often detail one engine company per attack line for a residential structure fire. This allows for a pump operator, a nozzle firefighter, a backup firefighter, and an officer. This setup allows for good hose movement by the firefighters and still allows the officer to keep good situational awareness and make command decisions without having to be fully dedicated to hose movement. The most ideal situation is to dedicate a fifth firefighter to corners and control, especially for challenging stretches with multiple bends, turns, and multigrade placement.

Next, let’s analyze and compare a three-person engine company to the previous example. The three-person engine company is detailed with a pump operator, a nozzle firefighter, and an officer. The officer in this scenario now assumes the role of boss, backup firefighter, and corners/control. Is this effective for completing challenging stretches that are above or below grade with multiple bends and turns? Is the officer effective at making command decisions and keeping a keen situational awareness for interior benchmarking while making the stretch?

The answer to these questions is definitely no. Unfortunately, we attempt to accomplish this feat 90 percent of the time without truly analyzing the effectiveness of the operation. Why? Because we develop bad habits by achieving our goals with bad tactics. We get away with this scenario by having success with rudimentary stretches that may occur nine out of 10 times. However, on the hypothetical 10th fire, we might meet a challenge. We are ultimately “rolling the dice” and gambling with disaster.

Regarding a lack of resources, many fire agencies throughout the country do not operate dedicated truck companies. Does this mean that truck company functions do not occur on a vast number of firegrounds? The answer is no. However, there must be a game plan in place that establishes a template to assign essential truck company operations. Dedicated truck and ladder companies are not the only companies that can conduct truck company operations.

In a functional system, it does not matter what is or isn’t on top of your apparatus that decides your function on the fireground; it is the arrival order and tasks prioritized that dictate the function of the crew. Assignments are given by necessity and may not be dictated by the type of apparatus on which you respond but will be assigned or assumed through arrival order and prioritization of functional needs. Technically, this is considered a “functional” system as opposed to a “positional” system of dedicated trucks and engines.

Mitigating the Hazard

The first step in developing SOGs is assessing the priority of functional need. Tactical implementation begins with the prioritization of fireground functions. In other words, what functions on the fireground contribute to the most effective attainment of fireground objectives? We must prioritize the functions that make the biggest impact and coordinate those functions that facilitate or assist this process.

Priorities begin with the objectives. Saving life, protecting property, and conserving the environment typically all have the same common theme: Remove the hazard, and the problem goes away. With the rare occurrence of initial rescues from an exterior location or qualifying vent-enter-search, the initial priority is to deploy an attack line for fire attack and search operations. Therefore, it can be stated, “No other action taken on the fireground saves more lives or property than selecting the proper size attack line, stretching it to the correct location, and placing it in service at the proper time.”

On the surface, this priority statement looks like the simple engine company function of deploying an attack line and flowing water. However, analyze the entire comment. There are three elements to this statement: (1) size, (2) location, and (3) time. Do not take the entire equation for granted. How do you get the right-size attack line in the correct location at the right time? What is the right time? The right time is as soon as possible. Fast water is always the right answer at any structure fire.

You must take into account the many functions that support or facilitate the attack line and suppression efforts. Examples of these supportive actions include the following:

• Establishing water supply.
• Forcible entry.
• Fire location.
• Search and rescue.
• Ventilation or building control (limiting ventilation until coordinated fire attack occurs).

In addition to developing a game plan for effective rescue and suppression efforts, you must also implement functions that coordinate a “safety net” for interior operations. Elements of the safety net include the following:

• Additional forcible entry for egress.
• Laddering for egress.
• Deploying backup lines.
• Controlling utilities.
• Establishing a rapid entry team.
• Establishing an effective command system.
• Establishing a standby EMS crew for advanced life support precautions.

Finally, consider and implement salvage and overhaul within the SOG. Remember, the second priority on the list of objectives is “protecting property.” Often, fire suppression activities can create additional damage to the property that we are trying to conserve. Although this can be considered an afterthought, it must be prioritized in relation to the objective.

Analyzing Influential Variables

As previously stated, customize SOGs to be consistently successful and effective for your specific agency. To customize a game plan or template for operations, understand your capabilities and influencing response characteristics or conditions. These variables will affect how the agency will deploy its resources or coordinate its actions to achieve fireground objectives. They will affect how you place attack lines, conduct supporting functions (truck company operations) and tactical implementation, and provide a safety net for operations.

The three “big” categories of influential variables include the following:

• Staffing.
• Available resources.
• Response area characteristics.

Let’s go even further and be more specific in analyzing these categories by providing further examples.

Staffing

• A minimal number of personnel per apparatus. (How many whole fireground functions can a company adequately accomplish or be assigned for immediate implementation?)
• Training level of personnel. (What is the staff’s proficiency level and what functions can they adequately affect?)
• Experience and leadership capabilities. (Do company officers have the expertise to make effective decisions interpreting the SOG or do they need to be directed by senior-level chief officers?)
• Reliance on automatic or mutual aid. (Are all personnel on the same game plan and do they have shared knowledge of SOGs? Do they have the same capabilities?)

Available Resources

• Available apparatus assigned to structure fires. How do you divide and adequately assign all the essential fireground functions? Can you safely implement all critical fireground functions, or do you need to realistically reevaluate objectives? For example, can you provide all the necessary safeguards to enter structures without confirmed or suspected entrapment? Keep in mind that all structures are occupied until fire crews determine they are not occupied. But, can you firmly guarantee protecting property with interior attacks with substandard resources that cannot provide the full safety net?
• Spacing between engine houses and arrival times. Do you rely on later-arriving apparatus for critical functions such as water supply or providing two-in/two-out?
• Reliance on automatic or mutual aid. Does the different setup of apparatus affect the game plan or tactical implementation?
• Lack of specialized equipment or truck companies. If you have a lack of truck companies, how do you incorporate facilitating or support functions into your fireground operations? Who does the truck tasks? Do you operate a functional vs. positional operational system?

Response Area Characteristics

• Water supply. If there is a lack of water supply, how do you incorporate tactics to develop an alternative water supply? Does it affect initial attack line deployment?
• Types of structures. Do you distinguish between commercial and residential tactics? Do you have tactical considerations for target hazards?
• High-rise operations. Do you have a special game plan for high-rise operations?
• Additional security features. Do you address special forcible entry functions in your SOGs?
• Topography. Do you address tactics to account for hard-to-access structures such as long setbacks, bodies of water, low-weight rated bridges, and terrain?

Ventilation Example

You can implement many forms of ventilation to support suppression fireground activities. Many agencies either rely on the tactic that they have traditionally performed or the tactic that is the most effective solution for their situation or capability.

For example, many of us see the positive advantages of properly timed and positioned vertical ventilation. However, many departments in suburban and rural demographics do not implement this type of ventilation. Often, we elect to perform horizontal. Why? The answer is capability and staffing. If you operate engines and even trucks staffed only with three members or less, this can lead to limited options. Three-person engine companies often must be initially supported on the fire floor, leaving the possibility for vertical ventilation later in the arrival order of apparatus. If an initial truck does arrive, it is often needed on the fire floor to assist with search and supporting suppression.

You can coordinate horizontal ventilation with these activities. It is challenging to properly time the vertical ventilation with the suppression efforts in this scenario, especially when the truck or assigned truck is also short-staffed.

After-Action Review: Assessing Effectiveness

What exactly does the word “effectiveness” mean in relation to structure fire SOGs? In the fire service, it is extremely challenging to develop concrete benchmarks to assess success or failure at structure fires. Many of us have heard the old saying, “The fire went out, and no one was hurt or injured.” This is a success, right? Not always. Many fires have gone wrong tactically and still the fire went out, and no one was injured or killed.

The essential components of fireground operations include the elements of being safe, effective, and efficient. If the objectives of the fireground were met with these parameters, it is a good indication that there was a good game plan and implementation. However, what is the main objective? It is removing the hazard and rescuing all trapped occupants in an expedient manner. Did attack line get placed quickly? Did searches get performed in the initial stages of the operation?

Fire service agencies must constantly assess their effectiveness and determine if their game plan or established SOGs set them up for success. It is difficult to establish concrete benchmarks, but each structure fire must be routinely assessed for operational proficiency. This is often accomplished through after-action reports or debriefs. I highly recommend them.

At all structure fires, there are several essential fireground functions you must not only implement but also coordinate in a timely manner. The key is to assess your conditions and agency’s capabilities at the single resource level, the engine or truck company, and develop a plan to account for all identified critical fireground functions.

Reference

Silvernail, J. Suburban Fire Tactics, p. 30. Tulsa, OK: PennWell Publishing. 2013.

---

JIM SILVERNAIL is a 25-year fire service veteran and chief of the Kirkwood (MO) Fire Department. He is also a graduate of the National Fire Academy’s EFO Program and is internationally accredited by the CPSE as a Chief Fire Officer. Silvernail is the author of Suburban Fire Tactics (Fire Engineering, 2013) and co-author of the video series Suburban Fire Tactics from the Right Seat (Fire Engineering, 2016). He was a lead instructor at the St. Louis County Fire Academy, specializing in truck company operations. Silvernail has written numerous articles for Fire Engineering, has been a workshop instructor at FDIC International since 2011, and presents at various regional conferences. He served on the board of the ISFSI and as a member of MO-TF1 (a FEMA urban search and rescue team) as a planning team manager. Silvernail also serves as the second vice president of the IAFC’s Missouri Valley Division.