Skip to content

Archives for risk

See all posts in the network tagged with risk

Can You Answer My Question?

1 comment

Do you hear that?

That is the sound of despair, hopelessness and fear. It is your victim.

They can’t get out without your help. The few minutes that have passed has emptied them of any hope that they will get out alive.

Blinding smoke, searing heat…what they are drowning in is what we flourish in; it ignites us and excites us, not because we want it to, but because Fire forces so many conditioned responses and extraordinary actions and tests our most primal instincts. We must rescue our fellow humans AND survive while doing it.

There is no “fight or flight”. It is more like “stay and pray”.

Your victim doesn’t want to die alone, but they don’t want anyone else to die like that, either. They are hoping that, if they are not rescued in time, then at least, in their final moments, they will hear the soothing voice of their God whispering forgiveness into their ear and then open the gate to their eternal peace.

You will move swiftly, stopping for a split second to gauge your own mortality and then push forward, because you have seen the face of your victim. You have looked into their eyes; the windows into their soul and the pain and anguish that you see is the fuel that you use to give you strength.

Their face could be your face or the face of someone that you know. It matters not, because they are a victim. You HAVE to get to them in time. Otherwise; you can only hope that they slip into an unconsciousness that will numb their senses to the horrific effects that only Fire can produce.

You cannot bear that thought. You have made your decision. You have committed your team. You have not only trained for this moment, but you have lived for this moment; a moment in which you could die!

You may hear the roar of the fire over the pounding of your heart. You will hear the water shooting from the nozzle and splashing against the walls and ceiling with terrific force. If you close your eyes, it almost sounds like you’re taking your car through the automatic spray carwash.

You will hear every step, every breath, the sound of the vent saw, a ladder hitting the side of the house, the sound of glass breaking and the radio chatter over the PA speaker on the engine.

There could be several endings to this, but one thing is certain; risk a lot to save a life is in our mission.

This is a scenario that has played out in our heads and in our communities for decades.

No nobler profession than that of firefighter!

The desperation, contemplation, exhilaration, extrication, celebration; it’s a roller coaster ride of emotion for victim and rescuer.

So, my question to you is this: why would you risk it all on an abandoned, unoccupied, vacant, dilapidated, dangerous piece of property that has no soul, no heart, no gratitude and only hate and contempt for those who dare to enter? See: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face200837.html.

Or would you?

TCSS.

The article is protected by federal copyright law under The Adventures of Jake and Vinnie© umbrella. It is written and submitted by Art Goodrich a.k.a. ChiefReason. This article or any other article submitted under The Adventures of Jake and Vinnie© umbrella cannot be reproduced in ANY form without the expressed, written permission of the author. Violations are punishable by applicable laws.

Please visit: www.fireemsblogs.com and my blog www.chiefreasonart.com.

Posted by chiefreason on March 18, 2010 • Filed under: My Size Up • Tagged: , , , , ,

Ordering From the Risk Menu

No comments

May I take your order?

 

Firefighter: What is your special today?

 

Today, we are offering all you can risk. The price is a serious injury. If anyone else in your group gets a serious injury, your names will go into a drawing for a chance at a firefighter funeral; compliments of the house…that was gone before you got there!

 

Firefighter: Cool. Then, I’d like to start off with not wearing my seatbelt while en route to the scene. Can I substitute anything for that?

 

Yes; you can substitute entering a lightweight structure with heavy fire showing or driving apparatus through intersections without slowing down.

 

Firefighter: Do you have any recommendations?

 

Well; entering lightweight structures with heavy fire showing is very popular.

 

Firefighter: Can I get a radio that doesn’t work to go with that?

 

Yes, you can; but might I also recommend drinking alcohol and then responding?

 

Firefighter: I don’t know; I want to leave some room for dessert. Can you warm it up for me?

 

Absolutely. We will heat it to flashover.

 

Firefighter: Excellent. Can I get tunnel vision?

 

It is our specialty. Your dessert?

 

Firefighter: Can I have a heart attack?

 

You’ll have it in no time.

 

Please note that this monologue is dripping with a heavy dose of sarcasm, but is used to drive the point of this blog.

 

It would seem that our fire services’ “risk menu” continues to grow.

 

But, now more than ever, the fire service has taken steps to address unsafe behavior that results in taking “unnecessary risks”. Unsafe behavior that is not corrected in other occupations can get you fired for not following policies and procedures. In our profession, unsafe behavior can get you worse than unemployed; it can get you killed!

 

Is risk-taking unsafe behavior? If engineering, administrative or personal protection controls haven’t been taken, then yes; it is unsafe behavior.

 

If it gets to the level of knowing that a safe job analysis is required, but hasn’t been done, then everyone from the firefighter to the chief have failed to identify risks.

 

I posted a blog about building a risk assessment plan together and had a scant four (4) replies with recommendations contained in them. http://www.firefighternation.com/profiles/blogs/building-a-risk-assessment

 

We tell ourselves THAT isn’t going to happen to us…and then IT DOES!

 

With each firefighter death comes our outrage.

 

Another death; MORE outrage!

 

It is as if we are apathetic to protecting our personal safety.

 

When we lose another firefighter, we take the time to offer our condolences; as we should.

 

But, we should also take the time to take the initiative to CHANGE.

 

If you don’t have a clearly written process for safely executing your duties as a firefighter, then you haven’t been doing your job. You have simply been LUCKY!

 

Do you want to leave your LIFE in the hands of Murphy? Because, Murphy and his law will be there every time the tones drop.

 

Stop believing that there is no need to change our culture because it hasn’t happened to you.

 

Recognize the positives and the negatives.

 

Reward the positives and share its success.

 

But, fix the negatives, because THAT is what will get you hurt or worse; DEAD!

 

Would you like something from the menu?

 

The article as submitted is published under The Adventures of Jake and Vinnie© umbrella and is the intellectual property of Art Goodrich a.k.a. xchief22 and ChiefReason. It is protected by federal copyright laws and cannot be re-printed in any form without expressed permission from the author. You may read other works by the author at www.chiefreasonart.com.

Posted by chiefreason on February 28, 2009 • Filed under: My Size Up • Tagged: , , ,

Building a Risk Assessment Plan

No comments

Since there has been a lot of discussion lately on firefighter safety and risk assessment, I thought it presented a golden opportunity to take it a step further and use this medium in a constructive manner.

 

So, I would like to use your expertise for developing a living, breathing document that anyone could take back to their department and use.

 

I have the start of what I feel can be improved upon by those who reply. With each reply, we will either cut content or add content. I will edit the article to reflect the changes and in the end, we will have a risk assessment plan that we can all be proud of.

 

So, how about it? Do you have something to add?

 

Then, let’s go!

 

Your Fire Department’s Risk Assessment Plan

 

(Insert Number) – Structural Firefighting: Rules of Engagement

 

  • All structural fire fighting operations involve an inherent level of risk to firefighters.
  • The exposure of fire fighters to an elevated level of risk is acceptable only in situations where there is a realistic potential to save known endangered lives.
  • All feasible measures shall be taken to limit or avoid these risks through risk assessment and application of safety policies and procedures.
  • No property is worth the life of a fire fighter.
  • No risk to the safety of fire fighters is acceptable in situations where there is no possibility to save lives or property.
  • Fire fighters shall not be committed to interior, offensive firefighting operations in buildings that are known or reasonably believed to be vacant or unoccupied.
  • The following guidelines are to help determine what is an acceptable risk.

 

(Insert Number) – Acceptable Risk Defined

 

  • A basic level of risk is recognized as a measured and controlled effort that is employed to save lives and property.
  • These risks are not acceptable in situations where there is no potential to save lives or property.
  • A higher level of risk is acceptable only when there is a realistic potential to save lives.
  • This elevated risk must be limited to operations that are specifically directed toward rescue and when there is a realistic potential to save the person(s) that are in danger.

 

(Insert Number) – Risk Assessment Plan: Preface

 

Following the preface, there will be guidelines to determine how much risk is acceptable at a structure fire incident.

 

 A major component of the process is utilizing the Pre-Incident Plan information.  Anyone reasonably expected to respond, including mutual aid companies and the officer-in-charge should review the information as part of the risk assessment.

 

Mutual aid companies will be furnished with Pre-Incident Plans and if requested, upon arrival will report in, confer with the Incident Commander, conduct a risk assessment and  communicate the information to the Incident Commander before engaging in any assigned duties.

 

 

Offensive attacks will commence only when lives are at high risk or if the overall risk for protecting property is in our favor.

 

THERE ARE NO STRUCTURES WORTH THE LIFE OF A FIREFIGHTER!

 

Therefore; aggressive, interior firefighting will be deployed only after a sound size up and risk assessment has identified type of building construction and life safety threats.

 

As part of the initial size up and risk assessment, ventilation will be a tactical priority if the decision is made to initiate an aggressive, interior attack.

 

In addition, sound strategy and tactics with safety as the determining factor will lead our efforts.

 

Otherwise, a defensive attack will be made outside the structure with attention towards protecting exposures.

 

It is important to know that once the fire has extended to a level that it is no longer safe for interior firefighting, an evacuation command will be given. All crews will remain together and exit the structure immediately upon hearing the command.

 

Unnecessary risk will never be acceptable. Officers will not put saving property above the safety of their crews. Unacceptable risk is just that; unacceptable.

 

Where risk cannot be completely eliminated, the goal will be to minimize it as much as is practical.

 

Once the decision to go interior is made, the first in crew shall not advance beyond the safe zone of five (5) feet without conducting an interior size up and conveying the information back to the Incident Commander (IC).

 

Upon leaving the safe zone to advance the interior attack, the interior officer-in-charge must conduct ongoing interior size ups and report changes in conditions to the Incident Commander (IC), who may determine from that information to discontinue with interior tactics.

 

 

A combination of experience, training and education will be the foundation for making good decisions.

 

Everyone from the firefighter up to the chief MUST COMMIT to improving their training and education, with the end goal of going home after the shift without serious injury.

 

We owe that to our families, our fellow firefighters, our community and ourselves.

 

(Insert Number) – Risk Assessment Plan

 

  •  It is the responsibility of the Incident Commander (IC) to evaluate the level of risk in every situation. This risk evaluation shall include an assessment of the presence, survivability and potential to rescue occupants. When there is no potential to save lives, firefighters shall not commit to operations that present an elevated level of risk.
  • An incident command system (ICS) shall be established, beginning with the first, arriving crew at the scene of every incident. The Incident Commander must conduct the initial risk assessment to determine the risk to fire fighters. The initial risk assessment will determine the strategy and tactics to be deployed.
  • The responsibility for risk assessment is a continuous process for the duration of each incident. The Incident Commander shall continue to monitor conditions to determine if the level of risk has changed and a change in strategy or tactics is necessary.
  • The incident commander shall assign one or more safety officers to monitor and evaluate conditions to support the risk assessment plan.
  • If the Incident Commander does not assign a safety officer, then the IC shall be responsible for performing these duties.
  • At a minimum the risk analysis for a structure fire shall consider:

 

  Building Characteristics

  • Construction type and size.
  • Condition of structure.
  • Occupancy and contents.

 

Fire Factors

  •  Location and extent of the fire.
  • Estimated time of involvement.
  • What the smoke is telling us.

Risk to Building Occupants

  • Known or probable occupants.
  • Occupant survival assessment.

Fire fighting Capabilities

  • Available resources.
  • Operational capabilities and limitation.
Posted by chiefreason on February 20, 2009 • Filed under: My Size Up • Tagged: , , , , ,

Can We Put Risk Out of Business?

No comments

In the NIOSH Alert Preventing Deaths and Injuries of Firefighters When Fighting Fires in Unoccupied Structures (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/review/public/141/pdfs/DraftAlertUnoccupiedStructures.pdf), there are several references made to risk assessment, developing and enforcing risk management plans and then training the firefighters, safety officers and incident commanders to the plan.

 

This is accomplished by creating SOPs/SOGs specific to risk management.

 

What I want to point out straight off the git go is that every incident is going to be different in some ways, but your process for assessing risk should be the same every time. It is not one of those “if you don’t see this, then skip steps 3 and 4”. No; you should measure risk the same way every time and THAT, along with a proper size up will determine your tactics.

 

In Paul Grimwood’s latest book, Euro Firefighter, he discusses risk management at length.

 

I believe that it is by design that it appears in the very beginning of the book to underscore its importance to a successful outcome.

 

A clear distinction is drawn between what is a size up and what is risk assessment, because they are NOT one and the same.

 

According to Grimwood: The purpose of size up is to efficiently deploy my forces to achieve life and property protection and to have sufficient resources on-scene.

 

The purpose of risk assessment is to establish the level and types of exposure to risk that personnel may encounter and to decide how these hazards might be managed, controlled, prevented or ‘balanced against the potential for gains’.

 

When you look at common factors associated with firefighter deaths, is it any wonder that more focus and a sense of urgency is placed upon properly assessing risk?

 

When you place your people inside a structure with radios that don’t work, radios that might be on the wrong channel or worse, no radio at all, then you haven’t properly assessed risk.

 

If you have anyone at the incident and PASS devices have not been activated, then your risk management plan has failed, because training your department in the proper use and maintenance of their personal protective equipment is also a part of that plan.

 

When you think about the goal of the incident commander, it is to get the job done and get it done safely. Conversely, the goal of the safety officer is to do it safely and to still get the job done. Firefighters should be empowered to communicate any condition that compromises their safety.

 

Recently, I read an excellent article on risk assessment in Professional Safety magazine, a monthly magazine published by the American Society of Safety Engineers. The article was written by Jerry D. Loghry and Chad B. Veach.

 

What caught my attention was a part of the article that discussed “probability of loss”. It stated that probability is measured as the number of times in which a particular event can result from a certain activity, divided by the number of all outcomes occurring from that activity.

 

I realize that it is a mathematical calculation, but think about it. If we are looking for empirical data that will ease our conscience and help to flush the bitter taste from our mouths because we would not take unnecessary risks with an unoccupied structure, then “probability of loss” is it!

 

If it sounds too “theoretical”, then think about this; Loghry and Veach also state a more basic concept, which is: The more ways an event can occur in given circumstances, the greater the probability that it will occur…The frequency of previous event occurrences can indicate a strong probability of future recurrences.

 

Does that make sense; the frequency of injuries at vacant/unoccupied structures can predict a strong probability that it will happen again?

 

Let’s look at a study that was done at Flint, MI in 2007. From Grimwood’s Euro Firefighter: Out of 767 total structure fires dispatched, 443 resulted in a report of actual structure fire. The 443 structure fires involved 264 occupied structures and 179 vacant structures. Vacant structure fires represented 40% of the department’s structure fire call volume.

 

The department’s injury rate at vacant structure fires is more than TRIPLE the national average reported by the NFPA.

 

62% of the department’s fire-ground injuries occurred at vacant structure fires.

 

79% of the cost from fire-ground injuries resulted from fires at vacant structures.

 

93% of the cost of injuries at fires in vacant structures occurred in buildings that were unsecured when firefighters arrived.

 

Fire-ground operations produced (21) injuries at vacant buildings.

 

(13) injuries occurred during fires at occupied buildings-whilst most injuries were minor by nature, the potential for serious injury or LODD clearly exists.

 

If THAT doesn’t get your attention, I don’t know what will.

 

My conclusion? The NIOSH Alert Preventing Deaths and Injuries of Firefighters When Fighting Fires in Unoccupied Structures (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/review/public/141/pdfs/DraftAlertUnoccupiedStructures.pdf) must be taken seriously by every fire department in our country.

 

Drawing up a risk assessment plan with detailed SOPs/SOGs should start NOW!

 

If you would like to comment to NIOSH about the alert, please go to http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/review/public/141/comments.html.

 

TCSS.

 

The article as submitted is published under The Adventures of Jake and Vinnie© umbrella and is the intellectual property of Art Goodrich a.k.a. xchief22 and ChiefReason. It is protected by federal copyright laws and cannot be re-printed in any form without expressed permission from the author. You may read other works by the author at www.chiefreasonart.com.

Posted by chiefreason on February 16, 2009 • Filed under: My Size Up • Tagged: , , ,

Just Follow My Lead

No comments

First Published 8/23/03

 

My day job is as a safety director for a large company. My duties encompass all of the loss control issues, including worker injuries.

 

Because of my specialty, I am a member of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE). As a benefit, I get a monthly copy of Professional Safety magazine. In the July issue, there was an article entitled Risk Taking Among Firefighters-Identifying Key Attributes For An Incident Commander.

 

Many of us have participated in discussions about those traits that we look for in our fire service leaders. Though the article limits its scope to incident commanders, I believe that the same holds true for all officers-company officers and chief officers alike. And I think that it all comes down to your firefighters. They will not LET you lead them if they don’t respect you and therefore, trust in you.

 

I would like to discuss the key components of this very interesting article. Interesting, in that; in my world as safety director, risk taking is unacceptable behavior that must be modified to reduce the likelihood of injury. But in a firefighter’s world, an acceptable risk is, well, acceptable. And therein lies the rub!

 

The author of the article, David L. Fender, is not from the firefighting community, so his views are taken from the professional safety perspective.

 

Fender begins with: Key factors in firefighter injury and death involves the risks that firefighters are willing to take in the performance of their tasks and supervisor control of risk taking. This study used focus groups made up of paid and volunteer firefighters to define the content domain of the knowledge, attitudes and practices of firefighters towards risk taking in firefighting. Results indicated that firefighters are willing to take a higher level of personal risk and may be willing to violate their training and procedures in order to save lives. The principal factors that affected whether firefighters obeyed an incident commander, even in cases of life and death, were how well they knew the individual and whether they trusted his knowledge, judgment and expertise. To keep risk taking at an acceptable level, researchers recommend that incident commanders possess the following attributes: be knowledgeable, trustworthy, self-confident, levelheaded and have mutual trust with the crew.

 

I have always said that firefighters will, at that critical moment where a life is at stake, take everything that they have learned, ponder it ever so briefly and make their decision; not from the head, but from the gut! They will at that moment risk their life for another’s.

 

In a letter to the editor of Fire Engineering magazine in 1997, retired fire officer W. A. Witt wrote: Safety must be stressed at all times, but there are times when we have to do what has to be done.

 

As firefighters, we understand what Witt is saying, but in “doing what has to be done”, it can sometimes expose us to unnecessary risks or at the very least, risks that did not need to be taken. The most recent example of risk taking that resulted in the supreme sacrifice of 343 of New York City’s bravest is, of course, the response to the World Trade Towers on September 11, 2001. The debate will go on forever. I won’t debate it, because quite frankly, I wasn’t there and can only imagine what went through the minds of everyone who responded after the terrorist attacks.

 

What is known about emergencies is that there are always unknowns, so there cannot be a “cookie cutter” response. You should have written procedures. Will you follow them to the letter? Doubtful. BUT, they must be the template for your response; especially your command structure.

 

So; what motivates you? Why did you become a firefighter and why do you do what you do? In Buckman’s address to the International Association of Fire Chiefs in 1993, he identified three factors: achievement, affiliation and power. The very things that we take great pride in may cause us to take great risks. Fender writes that according to L. Davis: Firefighters-both paid and volunteer-join firefighting organizations for many reasons. Some want to help fulfill the need for community safety and security or in rural areas, to help neighbors. Others are attracted by the excitement, thrill and adventure. Others see firefighting as an opportunity to transform themselves into a ‘macho, death-defying hero’. Davis also describes other motivations including the hot-rod syndrome, which involves the thrill of operating fire apparatus….still others desire recognition from the community. R.D. Beaton states that firefighters frequently develop strong kinships and friendships with fellow firefighters. Corneil’s examination of traumatic stress among firefighters found that social support from coworkers had a strong protective effect from stress disorders. Additionally, teamwork and reliance on fellow firefighters in life-and-death situations provide strong reasons to support their fellow firefighters and to take risks to help them. Another factor involved in firefighter deaths and serious injuries is trust in leadership, which affects whether they follow orders from those leaders.

 

So, we know that firefighting is a risky business. How do company officers or incident commanders identify unnecessary risks and control the taking of necessary risks only? The primary safety concern in any occupation is personal safety first. It is stressed over and over again in firefighter training. What causes us to place our safety second? The focus groups that were used in this article yielded some interesting results on how firefighters felt about taking personal risk, when they were willing to take higher personal risk and the relationship of risk taking to supervision.

 

Common themes shared by career and volunteers regarding firefighting were:

  • Recognize the generally high risk and risk of death
  • Many unknowns in firefighting
  • Unusual hours
  • Sense of pride
  • Saving lives is satisfying
  • Helping people is satisfying
  • Sense of teamwork (career)
  • Lack of respect from public (volunteer)
  • Lack of respect from government entities (career)
  • Teamwork very important
  • Saving lives is primary objective, then property
  • No building is worth a human life
  • Dream to be a firefighter
  • Take the most risk to save a life
  • Take more risk for younger victims (mixed opinion)
  • Take the least amount of risk to save property
  • Always assume the worst at the scene
  • Highest risk taking involves saving lives
  • Highest routine risk taken is driving to incident.

 

Common themes between career and volunteers regarding obeying incident commanders were:

  • Incident commander is responsible; follow their orders
  • Incident commander is responsible for the safety of everyone at the scene
  • Must trust the incident commander and do what they say-lives depend on it
  • Would disobey if a life could be saved
  • Only disobey incident commander for a very good reason

 

More likely to obey an incident commander if they are:

  • Experienced
  • Knowledgeable
  • Respected as an individual
  • Trustworthy
  • Self confident
  • Level-headed
  • Willing to listen

 

More likely to disobey incident commander because of:

  • Lack of experience
  • Not part of team
  • Has a quick temper
  • Non communicator
  • Made too many past mistakes
  • Indecisive
  • Lack confidence in them
  • Inattention to detail
  • Too willing to put crew in danger

 

The author of the article states that: When a firefighter does not trust the leader’s judgment, the command structure begins to disintegrate. The firefighter starts to think on his own, disregarding the incident commander or even the good of the team and tragedy can result. Although incident commanders may prefer ‘blind obedience’ from their crew, due to Human Nature, mutual trust is more achievable. The study results and tragedies such as Mann Gulch and South Canyon all indicate that trust in leadership is critical in firefighting situations. R. A. Angulo states that based on his experience firefighters must have trust and confidence in their leadership BEFORE they will do what they are told; particularly when they think that life is at risk.

 

Fender concludes his article with the following: Based on the results of this study and other research, a command structure with the following attributes is more likely to achieve the best effort and most appropriate risk taking in firefighting operations:

1)    Knowledge and experience of the incident commander. The incident commander needs to be experienced and the firefighters need to know and have confidence in them.

2)    Trustworthiness. The incident commander must inspire trust in their crew. Trust is only gained over time and through working together.

3)    Mutual trust. Incident commanders must admit that they do not know everything and be willing to listen to others. Training together will boost this trust.

4)    Self-confidence. The incident commander must be aware of what they do or do not know and must ask for help when needed. When one is self-confident, there is no shame in asking for another opinion or double-checking when the information is critical.

5)    Levelheaded. The incident commander should remain calm and stay in control. They should not be afraid of making decisions and should be ready to re-think decisions when conditions change. It is not a sign of weakness to change an order when required.

 

As a practitioner of safety and a former chief officer of a volunteer fire department, I cannot in good conscience, advocate risk taking. But off the record, I understand why we do. I believe that there are decisions made that use our best judgment at that moment in time. Call it a calculated risk, if you will. You cannot be faulted for making your decisions based on all of the information that you have and have weighed it against the expected outcome.

 

Though I do not endorse the article, I do not dismiss it, either. I have brought it before an esteemed group of fire service leaders for their discussion. So please; discuss it!

 

As I finish this, I have posted a news article that is ironic, given its timing. The news article is entitled Moline firefighters lack confidence in chief. Read and compare.

 

As always, I welcome your thoughts.

 

And stay safe above all else!

 

The article as submitted is published under The Adventures of Jake and Vinnie© umbrella and is the intellectual property of Art Goodrich a.k.a. xchief22 and ChiefReason. It is protected by federal copyright laws and cannot be re-printed in any form without expressed permission from the author.

Posted by chiefreason on January 18, 2009 • Filed under: My Size Up • Tagged: , , , , , , ,