Dear Nozzlehead: When our chief got the job, he reduced response assignments: A residential fire now gets one engine company, and any larger building gets one and one–ONE ENGINE and ONE TRUCK!
We recently responded to a multi-story apartment building with a dozen or more apartments per floor, occupied by mostly elderly or special-needs residents. We arrived on the truck a minute or two behind the engine and shift commander. Shortly thereafter, the dispatch center advised us of multiple calls from the upper floors reporting heavy smoke and people trapped. Two additional engine companies were sent at that time. Each apparatus had four firefighters, plus the shift chief and an aide/driver.
The engine confirmed the smoke and started hooking up to the standpipe on the sixth floor. Our crew made it up and entered with the engine crew. Our driver and the engine driver were outside hooking to the standpipe and hydrant. One person from the engine crew and one person from our crew were left in the stairway helping stretch hose and getting residents down to the lower floors. That left two firefighters?on the hoseline to attack the fire and?two firefighters?to search a dozen apartments!
By this time, the smoke had banked nearly to the floor. Fortunately, we found the fire quickly and evacuated the citizens without incident. Only a few had to be transported to the hospital, but we all took quite a beating. A fourth engine was requested sometime during this operation.
Our big concern was that it took us a while to get information about sheltering in place to the other floors. And information regarding extension or smoke conditions was not properly communicated to the higher floors. We never got a second line on the fire, and we did not have a rapid intervention team in place. The chief showed up and walked around without any personal protective equipment. And when asked about increasing future alarms, his response was that most of these calls are false alarms.
How many firefighters are needed for a high-rise fire? How many firefighters did we need at this incident? What’s a good way to address some of these issues? What resources can we use?
–Furious Western Firefighters
Dear Furious,
Is your chief an ex-police chief? A former city manager? An untrained civilian who rarely leaves their home? That sounds like the classic response from all of these people: “Why do you need to send all these fire engines?!”
Your chief is a clear danger to his firefighters and the community. He is failing to use accepted best practices and is therefore failing to do what’s best for the community. He has failed to take his oath seriously.
“Oh, Nozzlehead, that’s so inappropriate to say. You weren’t there, no one got hurt and the fire did go out.”
Oh shut up.
I find it hard to believe that your chief spent any time on the line as a firefighter and company officer. If he did, he would understand why alarm assignments MUST meet the risk and why they MUST be planned for well before the alarm comes in. I’m curious, does the chief share a last name with the mayor? Does he call city hall and ask for “Daddy”?
Look, it’s summertime, and I’m at Nozzlehead Beach this week so I’ll be blunt. Your e-mail really pissed me off. I am so sick and tired of fire chiefs trying to please the city-hall-dwellers by saving money on ALARM ASSIGNMENTS of all things. “After all, we can now save on fuel,” says a chief to a mayor. What? This is insane! Fuel savings don’t matter when someone reports a fire! I know of cities that are trying to save money on fuel and “apparatus wear and tear” by reducing alarm assignments. There couldn’t be a better way to screw with lives than using that kind of ridiculous logic! “Apparatus wear and tear”? What the hell did you buy it for?
Perhaps your chief is one of those who’s worried about his job and pension, so he’ll do whatever city hall tells him to do. I call this Marionette Fire Chiefing: putting on the uniform, going to city hall, clipping on the strings and wires and doing exactly as the city hall-dwellers dictate–leadership at its best.
Or perhaps your chief just feels that the two?first-due companies can call for more help if needed. Well, if that makes sense, why not just have the cops swing by the fire first to see what it looks like? Surely they can call for more help if needed. Then send the on-duty chief and they can call for more help if necessary.
Operating this way is absolutely stupid, and your chief is placing lives in harm’s way without risking his own–after all, he shows up at fires and hides. And how does he get away with it? Because even though he authorizes predictably life-threatening alarm assignments, this extreme risk hasn’t caused any problems–so far. And the more someone behaves in an inappropriately dangerous manner without something going wrong, the more that behavior becomes accepted behavior. (Note: This vaguely describes what happened in several recent LODDs, including the tragedy in Charleston, S.C., where the former chief chose to operate the department his way with little regard for a better or more effective way of operating for the good of the people reporting the fire and the people fighting the fire.) And then disaster strikes–all on the backs of the firefighters who?have little choice but to operate under these types of predictable, leaderless and death-creating conditions.
Now, let’s get to your questions.
How many firefighters are needed for a high-rise fire? Well, fighting high-rise fires has not been very successful and is even more dangerous when we don’t come close to having enough firefighters to perform the MANY tasks required. Many high-rise fires occur on floors that are beyond the reach of?our ladders and can’t be attacked from the outside. It’s therefore very difficult to search, locate and evacuate people. Experience shows that extinguishing the fire takes about?2 hours of firefighting for every affected floor. Feel better now?
Retired Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn with the FDNY, who?most of us?consider to be the expert in all structural firefighting operations, says the best-kept secret in America’s fire service is that we can’t always extinguish a fire in a high-rise building. Compared to a single-family dwelling, it takes much longer just to get to the fire in a high rise. (And by the way, your department’s one-engine response to a dwelling fire is equally insane.)
And then there are all the TASKS that must be performed. How many floors do you have to climb? What tools and equipment do you need? What’s the building construction? What’s the standpipe plan??What’s the flow plan? As Chief Dunn teaches, in?some major fires, the system was shut down for repairs at the time of the fire, the building’s fire pumps were not operating, or the outlet valves melted or were set at an inadequate pressure. How often does your department drill to perform these tasks with one engine, one truck and one chief on the first alarm? What about command and control? What about searching? Think of any task that may be performed at a structural fire and then think about the additional challenges of performing that task at a high-rise fire.
How many firefighters did we need at this incident? Your department doesn’t even come close. On-duty available staffing or automatic aid might help a lot, but considering what your chief thinks is appropriate to send, you may be better off advising your elected officials and the public that they are unprotected in high-rise fires; that way, no one has a false sense of security.
I did a quick equation in the sand, and I’m estimating that your?first-alarm?assignment for the building should have?a minimum of?60—70 firefighters,?plus EMS personnel. The second alarm should bring that up to about 100 firefighters total. Don’t believe me? Do the math. As part of your preplanning, calculate every task you want done (simultaneously coordinated under strict command and control using radios that work well, of course) based upon the size, construction, life hazard and fire load of the building.
The tasks may include determining the life hazard, determining the fire problem, tracking all members operating, getting water on the fire, SCBA/air management, access to the fire floor as well as related floors by the required companies (engines, trucks and rescue companies), walking up flights of stairs, searches and rescues in smoke-filled floors, removing victims, etc. This is just a very basic “think-about-it” list for your consideration. Check out Chief Dunn’s books and videos for more information to help you calculate the number of firefighters you’ll need.
What’s a good way to address some of these issues? Firefighters are expected to take risks, but sending your members into the conditions you described is insane with predictable (but preventable) outcomes. How do you prevent it? By showing the chief, the mayor, the city council, the commissioners and the public what your department can do … and what it clearly cannot do. If the chief won’t cooperate, ask the parents, spouses and children of your firefighters what they think should be done about exposing their loved ones to such ridiculous risks.
Your membership or union leaders should immediately meet with the chief. Have related articles and books in hand. Highlight the bad parts. Give him the books and articles, and do an easy-to-understand comparison using your community (and that fire) as an example. See where?he goes from there. If he’s still not convinced, I advise you to see the mayor, the city council, the commissioners and the public AGAIN about what your department can and cannot do.
Furious, without question, your members are being placed at a ridiculous level of risk, but there are solutions. And if the chief refuses to lead in a manner?in which the firefighters’ and citizens’ lives are considered valuable, take whatever legal action is possible to change his mind, his leadership or him.
