Following some recent firefighter deaths I received e-mails posing the following questions:
- What is it with all these firefighters getting ejected from apparatus?
- Why are so many more firefighters getting in apparatus crashes?
- How can “they” let a firefighter get hurt or die in a training fire?
- Isn’t it time to ban live-fire training burns?
- Are we going backward when it comes to firefighter death and injury?
Here are a couple of quick responses:
Following some recent firefighter deaths, I received e-mails posing the following questions:
- What is it with all these firefighters getting ejected from apparatus?
- Why are so many more firefighters getting in apparatus crashes?
- How can “they” let a firefighter get hurt or die in a training fire?
- Isn’t it time to ban live-fire training burns?
- Are we going backward when it comes to firefighter death and injury?
Here are a couple of quick responses:
- No mystery here. Put your seatbelt on and you won’t get ejected.
- They probably aren’t, we just hear more these days with the Internet and rapid dissemination of news … sort of.
- That’s just what happens: When a trainee gets hurt or killed, we let it happen. We create the environment that allows it to happen. Leadership fails; trainees die.
-
Ban training burns? Maybe. But if we think we can reduce injury and death by banning stuff, why don’t we just ban:
-
Going to any calls with lights and sirens. Run every call routine and get there when we get there. - Firefighters under the age of 25 driving anything the fire department owns.
- Firefighters older than 55 doing strenuous work.
- Obese firefighters.
- Anything other than healthy, organic, fat-free food in the station.
- Entering buildings on fire.
- Operating apparatus on the roads.
- Operating the apparatus while in reverse.
Hell, while we’re at it, let’s just stop doing anything that can hurt or kill firefighters; that way, we’ll eliminate the problem. “But we can’t do thaaaaat!” Duh.
-
- Are we going backward when it comes to firefighter death and injury? I don’t think so at all. Our line-of-duty deaths (LODDs) have remained about the same over the past 10 years (not including 9/11). And there’s more interest and effort on the “prevention issue” than ever before.
Firefighter deaths aren’t dropping drastically, but they are slowly being impacted by attitudinal changes that you can see at any fire station. I don’t think we’ll ever totally eliminate the death and injury from our job, but we can continue to reduce deaths if we continue to aggressively address some of the root causes. Anyone half-awake can see a “smarter” attitude exists in nearly every fire department than just a few years ago. We still go to fires, we still go inside, but these days we are better trained (as long as you show up for training), we learn from those who were killed before us and we generally operate safer. From the firefighters to the leadership to equipment to training, it’s generally better on the fireground. Generally.?
Still, Not Everyone Goes Home
But eliminate death and injury from this job? Not gonna happen. Not EVERYONE is going to go home. Sometimes we do get hurt and we even lose our lives when we’re doing what must be done.
One of the best examples: the tragic LODD of Firefighter/Foreman Kevin Apuzzio on April 11, 2006. Kevin was killed while rescuing (with his crew) a woman trapped in a working house fire. By all accounts, Kevin and the East Franklin (N.J.) Fire Company (EFFC) did the right stuff. They were fully geared up, they functioned as a team, no freelancing took place, command had accountability of them and they operated with a thermal imager. But as the crew dragged the victim out, the floor–with the fire burning below–gave way and took Kevin with it.
When the EFFC members arrived at this fire, there were good indications that the risk of entering the building was worth the benefit: The husband of the victim stood in front of the house, screaming that his wife was trapped inside.
Kevin is one example of several truly heroic firefighters who gave their lives in 2006. When we say, “not everyone goes home,” that’s what I’m talking about. Once in a while, on that rare occasion where we must risk our lives to attempt to save the life of another, we may not go home. That’s why we took that oath. We’re willing to lose our lives when it matters, when the indications are that our risk is worth the benefit. For a?person, not for stuff–not a wall, not a building, not a car, not warehoused auto parts in a building where the owner chose to not install sprinklers.
Are you willing to give your life in the line of duty for a building, a shed or something similar? Not me … at least not these days. Back in the ’70s, sure, I operated in the kamikaze sector, like most back then. But attitudes have changed, and we’re trying to be smarter these days. Personally, I want to keep going on fire calls as long as possible. But give our lives to possibly save a person? We’ll do it right now. That’s what we’re expected to do when conditions indicate the risk is worth it.
Dying Needlessly
That might lead you to ask, should our attitude really be, “Everyone goes home?” It is and must be. With this attitude, we will continue to educate ourselves and think of better ways to reduce needless firefighter injuries and deaths. Let’s look at a few examples of how firefighters die needlessly and how such deaths can be prevented.
Problem: A wall collapses and kills firefighters during overhaul.
Solution: Determine the risk during overhaul, establish a collapse zone and don’t allow anyone in that area. Determine how far away you can hit hot spots and do that out of the collapse zone. If you can’t get close enough, just let it burn itself out.
Problem: A firefighter drives apparatus stupidly fast and kills one of our own.
Solution: The rigs these days generally cost about a half-million bucks. What if it was your half-million bucks? Who would you let drive it? Now let that guide your decision on who drives the apparatus.
In addition, consider the training and experience of those you let drive the apparatus. If you went to court, would the court be satisfied with the driver’s abilities? What programs do your insurance providers offer for driver training? Have your drivers completed state and local apparatus driver programs? Do you conduct annual driver training? If your family was walking down the street as the apparatus responded, who would you want driving it? Ask the questions now, rather than have them asked of you later.
Currently, three firefighters in the United States are charged with manslaughter related to deaths by fire apparatus they drove. The last thing any firefighter wants is to be held responsible for killing someone while responding to help someone else. Officers, supervise your drivers. Fire apparatus drivers, don’t make your fire officers have to do their job.
Problem: A firefighter responds to the firehouse in their personal vehicle and hits another car while attempting to pass.
Solution: What are the state laws related to call or volunteer firefighters responding in their cars? What training is provided to them? Is it necessary for members to “respond” in their cars with warning devices? Is it time to consider “duty crews” in the firehouse to eliminate the need for members to respond to the firehouse? Compare your community’s changes in the past 20 years to the changes in your department’s response policies.
Problem: A firefighter is ejected because they were not secured in the apparatus.
Solution: This will blow you away. Effective immediately, evaluate all apparatus to ensure all members can belt in. Make modifications to apparatus in which members cannot do so. Once that is solved, institute a policy whereby at no time will the apparatus be moved without the driver making sure every member is belted in. Sound tough? Please. Quit the lame excuses. Put the seatbelts on.
Are seatbelts problematic on some apparatus? Sure. Just a few years ago, we weren’t paying attention to this issue. We are now, which means apparatus even a few years old may need modifications. Contact the manufacturer to inform them of the problem. Do it in writing, making sure important people get a copy of your letter.
If there’s no problem with the apparatus and it’s just a problem with officers, drivers and members not following the policy, fire anyone who violates the rule. What else do you want me to suggest? Determine what policies in your department give your members their best chance of not getting killed, and make not following or enforcing those policies a career-ending move. Then the folks directly affected can make the decision for themselves.
In the near future, we’ll see great changes to make belting-in much more firefighter-friendly, changes being led by good fire officers like FDNY’s Lt. Mike Wilbur through the IAFC’s Safety, Health and Survival Section and the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. Until then, to eject or not to eject? That is the question.
Problem: Firefighters or fire officers operate without or improperly worn personal protective equipment (PPE).
Solution: OK fine: Don’t wear your PPE, and get burned or get cancer–maybe both. If you’ve ever been burned or have ever had cancer, you know you don’t want to experience that again. Breathe no smoke. Light, heavy, dark, whatever–don’t breathe it. Keep soot off of you (the soot is absorbed by your skin and allows the carcinogens to go directly into your system … nice). Don’t operate with any exposed skin. Chiefs and officers, wear it all if you’re operating anywhere near the hazard area. Set the example.
Do you know any firefighters with cancer? Lots of hands just went up. Why wouldn’t we do everything possible to avoid getting it? (For more information on firefighter cancer, check out www.FirefighterCancerSupport.org, an organization run entirely by firefighters.)
Problem: A fire department attempts to operate at a 20-firefighter fire with a five-person crew.
Solution: Firefighting is task-oriented, and it takes firefighters to perform the tasks. As city-hall dwellers and political slugs continue to eat away at fire department budgets, we just keep saying “OK, we can make do, we’ll get the job done.” Fire chiefs concerned about their positions and political survivability are put right in the middle.
The answer is simple: One way or another, we need people. For example, let’s look at a very small (1,000-square-foot), one-story, wood-framed, single-family dwelling, in an area with hydrants. What tasks would the elected officials want performed on their house when it’s on fire and their kids may be home?
- Operate the hydrant–one firefighter
- Operate pump–one firefighter
- Stretch three 1 ¾” lines, along with one backup line–three firefighters (one on the nozzle, a supervisor behind that firefighter and one firefighter to control the line behind the officer) on each line–nine firefighters
- Vent the house–two firefighters
- Force entry, search the house and rescue the future little taxpayers–two firefighters
- Monitor conditions with an incident commander up front and an officer in the rear–two firefighters
- Maintain a rapid intervention team–three firefighters
Total number? At least 20 firefighters responding on the first-alarm assignment. They can come from your fire department, or from any of your mutual-aid departments, but the fact of the matter is you need 20 to have a shot at doing this right. And this is just on the first alarm. If it’s a working fire, you’ll need more firefighters to throw ladders, do more truck work, provide EMS, establish second sources of water, handle multiple victims, serve as safety officers, ensure accountability and much more.
Although some officials hide their heads in the hosebed ignoring the staffing issue, you know this job takes people. Respond with less? Sure, you can. The tasks will get done, eventually. But the problem with “eventually” is the fire will continue to burn and the victims will be trapped that much longer. What do you want for your family if they’re ever in this scenario?
There’s no magic here. When the city-hall dwellers want to cut staffing, make sure they clearly understand what the fire department won’t be able to do. This includes the above tasks that we must perform simultaneously. At the very least, make sure they know how much longer it will take your firefighters to do those things now (get water, make entry, stretch lines, vent, search, rescue, etc). At some point they (and we!) gotta understand that without the right staffing (no matter where that staffing comes from), we cannot do more with less on the fireground. Isn’t providing adequate staffing to deal with the emergency the highest form of customer service?
Problem: A fire company is unable to quickly and effectively stretch a line onto the fire.
Solution: Training and practice. For years, the greats of our business have taught us that a well placed and effectively operating hoseline can and has done more to save lives–including firefighters’ lives–than any other single task on the fireground. Pulling, stretching, positioning and flowing lines is like throwing and passing the football. The more we practice it under varied scenarios, the better chance we have to succeed at the game on Sunday. The difference: How much more serious a loss in our business means versus a loss for a football team.
Problem: Unsupervised probies and trainees get hurt or killed during training or at calls.
Solution: While it’s tempting to get on my soapbox on this one, I won’t. The answer is simple: No probie or trainee should do anything without intense training and constant qualified and experienced supervision. And when those trainees are back at the firehouse, they have no time for TV, video games or play. The only free time a trainee or probie has must be spent on the apparatus floor, listening, touching, using, understanding and knowing their tools and equipment until they are qualified to teach those items. Probies and trainees must train constantly, each and every day.
Problem: A 5’8″, 350-lb. firefighter becomes out of breath at the mention of stretching a line.
Solution: Salad.
Actually, it’s not that simple. Firefighters must be able to perform their jobs. A little less weight, a little more exercise and a physical with oversight and advice from a doctor can go a long way toward addressing the issue that 50 percent of us die from heart- and stroke-related problems. Does this mean we should administer department-wide physicals and immediately prohibit anyone who isn’t fit from going to fires? In a fantasy world, that might work. But in reality, that could put some fire departments out of business.
I recently spoke to a chief who required physicals for all department members. Close to half his members failed. The impact of banning them all from the fireground would have been disastrous. Instead, the chief worked with doctors and risk-management folks to develop a plan requiring all unfit firefighters to shape up within 1 year or forfeit their jobs–a simple and sane solution that will provide the required results.
Problem: Companies operate on a road without blocking, diverting and protecting personnel from CDCMs (clueless driving civilian morons).
Solution: The best information out there today is from the good folks at www.ResponderSafety.com. They can provide–online and at no cost–sample policies, procedures and training to minimize the chance of any of your members being struck while operating on a roadway. Firefighters must act as if every civilian is paying absolutely no attention when driving, and we must block and protect with a plan we train on and follow at all levels (including the cops, as they have a 4-to-1 ratio of being struck compared to fire/EMS personnel).
The Company Officer’s Role
This really ain’t rocket science; it’s all simple stuff that will allow you and your crew to keep going to fires a little longer.
The heart of the solution: leadership. It starts at the top–at the commissioner and chief levels–but it really “happens” at the company officer level. You can have a great chief, but if the company officer doesn’t want things to happen, they don’t. On the other hand, you can have a not-so-great chief, and if the company officer does the right thing and takes care of their people, they can instill powerful changes.
So what can you do as a fire officer? Ensure that:
- No firefighter you’re responsible for operates with exposed skin or breathes smoke.
- Fire apparatus operators stop at stop signs and red lights.
- Firefighters ride with their seatbelts secure.
- Your firefighters take pride in their ability to simply and rapidly deploy attack handlines.
- Your firefighters understand that “if it will collapse now, it will collapse later,” and they study building construction and collapse.
- The crew eats better food in smaller portions, exercises regularly and gets physicals.
- Training occurs every shift (or every week for volunteer firefighters).
- Your firefighters train to be experts on every single tool they carry and every task they might be asked to perform in their district.
A Final Word
It’s our job to go to fires, rescues and other locations where the general public is having a bad day. We enjoy doing it. We must be ready to respond, and the above solutions can help. Want to keep going to fires as long as possible? These items are your passport to doing the job we all love doing … for as long as possible.
