Skip to content


Occupancy Risk and Performance

No comments

What’s the Occupancy Risk? Photo courtesy of Buildingsonfire.com

Occupancy Risk and Operational Concerns

Take a look at this interior shot of the following occupancy:
Discuss this with your company, officers or station to identify the;
  • Suggested Building Construction Type,
  • Suggested Occupancy Type,
  • Construction System,
  • Operational Risks and Hazards, 
  • Fireground concerns if there was a fire in this Compartment/Building
  • What is Obvious?
  • What needs to be further assessed or identified?
  • What Inherent Building Profile and Performance Concerns area there?
  • What does the Company Officer need to know abouth this Building | Occupancy | Construction System | Compartment?
  • Are there unique tactical operational concerns for Engine |Ladder/Truck | Rescue |Support?
  • What about Command operational concerns?

Building Knowledge = Firefighter Safety

Know your World

Follow Buildingsonfire on Facebook

 

Mayday and Rapid Intervention Realities: The Phoenix Perspective

1 comment

 

Southwest Supermarket Fire March 14, 2001

This year’s Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week focused on Surviving the Fire Ground: Fire Fighter, Fire Officer and Command Preparedness. One of the major objectives of this year’s theme was addressing a variety of functional areas for the Mayday event. For many of you, the conditions, outcome and lessons learned from the Southwest Supermarket Fire, maydays and the Line of Duty Death of Phoenix (AZ) firefighter Bret Tarver in 2001 are as fresh today as they were ten years ago and certainly as relevant as when many of us first read the Final Report issued by the Phoenix FD.

However, to many others in the Fire Service the Bret Tarver LODD and the Southwest Supermarket fire along with the lessons learned that were identified and the research that was instituted may not have made it onto your radar screen. In this the final days of the 2011 Fire/EMS Safety week, it is very appropriate to provide some insights on this mayday event and more importantly provide you with the opportunty to learn from the past, to understand operational parameters, capabilites, fallacies, misconceptions and limitations when we talk about Mayday, RIT and FAST activities and operational deployments.

Here’s an overview of the event;

On March 14, 2001 the Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department lost firefighter Brett Tarver at the Southwest Supermarket fire.

In that event, it was 5:00 in the afternoon, the grocery store was full of people and fire was extending through the building. Phoenix E14 was assigned to the interior of the structure to complete the search, get any people out, and attempt to confine the rapidly spreading fire to the rear of the structure. Shortly after completing their primary search of the building the Captain decided it was time to get out. Tarver and the other members of Engine 14 were exiting the building when Tarver and his partner got lost.

The engineer (driver) was leading the group following the attack line they had brought into the supermarket fire, followed by Tarver and his partner, with the company officer being the last person to begin the long crawl out of the smoke filled structure. At some point Tarver and his partner got off the hose line and moved deeper in the supermarket fire away from their only exit. Early on during the exit attempt through maze like conditions Tarver and his partner basically turned left instead of right. Not knowing this the company officer continued to crawl out of the building thinking his whole crew was ahead of him on the attack line. Tarver and his partner crawled deeper into the fire occupancy eventually ending up in the butcher shop area where they eventually became separated.

Based on radio reports of deteriorating conditions inside the building from E14 and other companies the Incident Commander (IC) considered a switch to a defensive strategy and started the process of pulling all crews out of the structure. During this process Tarver radioed the IC telling him that he was lost in the back of the building. The IC deployed two companies as Rapid Intervention Crews (RICs) through the front access point to no avail.
Other companies coming to their rescue through the back room area of the supermarket later rescued Tarver’s partner. After several unsuccessful rescue attempts, Tarver succumbed to carbon monoxide poisoning from the acrid smoke and was eventually removed from the building as a full code. Trying to remove the 260-pound firefighter was nearly impossible for rescue team members. Outside, the resuscitation efforts failed.

During the rescue efforts there were more than twelve (12) mayday’s issued by firefighters trying to make the rescue. On this tragic day, one other firefighter (attempting to rescue Tarver) was removed in respiratory arrest and was later resuscitated by fire department paramedics on the scene.

Over the next year (The Recovery), the department systematically reviewed its standard operating procedures and fireground operational activities at the strategic (command), tactical (sector) and task (company) levels of the entire organization in an attempt to prevent such a tragic event from ever happening again to the Phoenix Fire Department. One of the many significant questions that was asked was why didn’t the rapid intervention concept work? Immediately after the fire the Phoenix Fire Department reviewed its Rapid Intervention and Mayday standard operating procedures (SOPs). Based on drills, training and the data acquired through those drills, in the year following the incident the standard concept of a rapid intervention is now being challenged.

It is now evident that rapid intervention isn’t rapid. (Reference: Excerpts from the original article by Steve Kreis and FireTimes.com, LLC. http://www.firetimes.com/printStory.asp?FragID=8399 )

In the wake of the 2001 Southwest Supermarket Fire and LODD of FF Brett Tarver, the Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department issued a comprehensive report of the incident and the lessons learned and research conducted by the FD.

Beyond 2011 Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week; Fire Fighter, Fire Officer and Command Training and Preparedness

  • If you have never heard about the Southwest Supermarket Fire and the Bret Tarver LODD and incident and never read the report;
    • take the time to do so and understand that the concepts of RIT and FAST are made up of far more elements, considerations and more importantly realities of what you think you can do versus what you may actually be able to do.
    • if you’ve read it in the [past], take a few minutes to review and refresh;
    • see where your organization, department and RIT/FAST training and capabilities are today-
    • what are the capabilities of your fire fighters, officers and commanders?
  • Take a look at the NIOSH report and the recommendations contained; how does your deparment stack up today?
  • After reading the reports, take a close look at your organization, your personnel and your training and your capabilities and
  • ask yourself if you are truly able to perform the necessary RIT/FAST operations or
  • do you have a ways to go to better prepare, train and ensure you’re able to undertake the job and address the fireground survival needs when a mayday is called.
  • did you take the time during this safety week to make some progress, identify some new insights, gaps or renewed interests and desire to enhance on your capabilities and strengths?
  • Are your Mayday, RIT and FAST capabilites, skills and knowledge better today in 2011 than they were in 2001?

 

References:

The following is an article piece posted by my good friend Mike Ward and posted a number of years ago from www.thewatchdesk.com written by: Mike Ward

Rapid Intervention Reality – from Phoenix
 

Subject: Rapid Intervention Reality Check By Michael Ward   

The Phoenix Fire Department’s Deployment Committee has a sobering message to their firefighters operating in large buildings, like a 7,500 square foot warehouse: “If you extend an attack line 150′, get 40 feet off the line and then run out of air, it will take us 22 minutes to get you out of the structure.” The lesson to remember is not to get off the fire attack line.  The statement is based on 200 rapid intervention drills conducted by PFD as part of their recovery process after Firefighter/paramedic Brett Tarver  died in the March 14, 2001 Southwest Supermarket fire.

PFD obtained three vacant commercial buildings: a warehouse, a movie theatre and a country-western bar. The RIT drill was for the first alarm companies to respond to a report of two firefighters in trouble. One is disoriented and the other one is unconscious. The buildings were sealed from outside light and the facemasks were obscured to simulate heavy smoke conditions. The RIT teams were equipped and deployed as if this is was a working fire. The department ran through about 200 RIT drills with 1144 PFD firefighters participating. Their activities were monitored and timed. An Arizona State University statistician analyzed the data.

The results show that rapid intervention is not rapid:

  • Rescue crew ready state 2.50 minutes
  • Mayday to RIC entry 3.03 minutes
  • RIC contact with downed firefighter 5.82 minutes
  • Total time inside building for each RIC team 12.33 minutes
  • Total time for rescue 21 minutes

The evolutions also revealed three consistent ratios:

  • It takes 12 firefighters to rescue one
  • One in five RIC members will get into some type of trouble themselves.
  • A 3000-psi SCBA bottle has 18.7 minutes of air (plus or minus 30%)
     

The results of the RIC drills reflects the experience Phoenix had during the efforts to rescue Firefighter/paramedic Brett Tarver. There were a dozen maydays sounded during the rescue effort, and one PFD firefighter was removed from the supermarket in respiratory arrest.

The Phoenix experience is not unique. Houston Fire Chief Chris Connealy participated in a discussion about the Phoenix RIC drills during the 2003 Change in the Fire Service Symposium. On October 13, 2001, Houston Engine 2 Captain Jay Jahnke died on the fifth floor of Four Leaf Towers, a 41 story residential high-rise. During the Houston RIC operation, two heavy rescue company firefighters became disoriented, low on air and had to rescue themselves. An engine company captain and firefighter run out of air and collapsed on the fire floor. Chief Connealy said that the Houston experience is similar to Phoenix.

Phoenix is changing its approach to rapid intervention crews in three procedural ways: increase suppression units assigned to RIC, increased in command officers, and considering a two-part RIC process.

There is a scalar approach to RIC dispatch assignments in Phoenix. For a “3-1 Assignment” (three engines and one ladder), a fourth engine and an ems transport (rescue) is added to the assignment to function as the rapid intervention team. For a 1st alarm assignment, two engines, one ladder, one rescue and a battalion chief are the RIC team. A second alarm includes an additional two engines and ladder for RIC. Beyond a second alarm, the incident commander can call additional companies as needed.

The recovery process also looked at the utilization of company and command officers on the fireground. A company officer core competency is to command a fire company. A core chief officer competency is to command fire companies. It is a function of the fire department hierarchical structure, not of personality.  For example, a captain filling-in as a battalion chief does a better job as a West Sector officer than she would have if she was commanding Engine 2 AND in charge of West Sector. At the sector level of the incident management system, company officers are required to wear two hats. There are too many levels of tasks. Phoenix suggests that it would be more effective to send more command officers to a fire event to function as sector and division commanders and allow the company officers to command their companies. It is a waste of talent and experience to allow command officers to stay in their fire stations while a low-frequency, high risk event like a structure fire is occurring
in the city.

A third change in rapid intervention crews is using a two-phase approach.  Many of the RIC team members ran out of air during the training evolutions.  The drills showed that a 3000-psi SCBA bottle was good for 13.09 to 24.31 minutes of air. The average SCBA time was 18.7 minutes. The average time from mayday to removal was 21 minutes. RIC teams were running out of air during the firefighter removal phase. In addition, it was taking a crew of 12 firefighters to remove one firefighter. Phase one of a RIC response is to send a team in to locate the firefighters in trouble. Once located, a second RIC team enters to remove the firefighter.

You are welcome to share this with everyone. Please include the following: taken from www.thewatchdesk.com written by:
Michael Ward, Fire Science Program Head, Northern Virginia Community College.  

 

 Other recent postings and references from CommandSafety.com

Day One: Fire/EMS Safety, Health & Survival Week 2011: Day One- Are You Ready?

Day Two: Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Two- Building Knowledge = Fire Fighter Safety

Day Three: Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Three-The New Rules of Engagement

Day Four: Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Four -The New Fire Ground

Day Five: Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week 2011: Day Five: Near-Misses, Maydays and Floor Collapses

Day Six: Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week 2011, Day Six; From Waldbaum’s to Hackensack-Worcester to Charleston; Legacies for Operational Safety

Day Seven: Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week 2011, Day Seven; Fire Fighter, Fire Officer and Command Training and Preparedness

Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week 2011, Days One thru Seven;Training and Preparedness

No comments

Did you remember to participate in the 2011 Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week?

The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and the International Association of Fire Fighters(IAFF) were formative in developing this year’s  2011 Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week (also known as Safety Week)which commences today, June 19th and ends on June 25th. ( Week of June 19-25, 2011)

The message this year is: Surviving the Fire Ground – Fire Fighter, Fire Officer and Command Preparedness

Safety, Health and Survival Week (Safety Week) is a collaborative program sponsored by the IAFC and the IAFF, coordinated by the IAFC’s Safety, Health and Survival Section and the IAFF’s Division of Occupational Health, Safety and Medicine, in partnership with more than 20 national fire and emergency service organizations.

We’ve got a whole lot of resources, links and daily commentary and articles that were posted on each day of SAfety Week over at CommandSafety.com

If you didn’t have a look and read, take some time to do so. If you didn’t do anything during Safety Week, there’s always next week or the week after… find the time and commit to some training, insights, dialog, discussion…Get Prepared.

Day One: Fire/EMS Safety, Health & Survival Week 2011: Day One- Are You Ready?

Day Two: Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Two- Building Knowledge = Fire Fighter Safety

Day Three: Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Three-The New Rules of Engagement

Day Four: Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week: Day Four -The New Fire Ground

Day Five: Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week 2011: Day Five: Near-Misses, Maydays and Floor Collapses

Day Six: Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week 2011, Day Six; From Waldbaum’s to Hackensack-Worcester to Charleston; Legacies for Operational Safety

Day Seven: Fire/EMS Safety, Health and Survival Week 2011, Day Seven; Fire Fighter, Fire Officer and Command Training and Preparedness

First-Due Arriving Companies; Are You Prepared?

No comments

As the First-Due Fire Company; Officer and crew, Are you prepared to address the fireground variables and occupancy risks upon your arrival and during the initial stages of your deployment and operations? Are you combat ready or passively engaged?  

It seems we’ve struck some interests over past week since we first discussed the First-Due Fire Officer  on the most recent edition of Taking it to the StreetsTM where we had a vibrant and insightful program in which we discussion some of the expansive facets related to the First-Due Fire Officer.     

 The First-Due Fire Office program can be downloaded HERE at Firefighter Netcast.com   

The formulative discussion revolved around a variety of functional elements, traits, responsibilities and duties befalling the First-Due Officer, and was followed up with a post here on Thecompanyoffer.com. We discussed how today’s First-Due Officer must perform smarter with increased perceptions, discernments and acumens with intelligence and wisdom that is drawn from further progressing and collective fire ground response and operational experiences.   

My good friend Captain Willie Wines (aka The Iron Fireman) posted a great follow-up article associated with the radio program on his blog associated with further interpretations of the First-Due Officer. Check out “The First-Due Officer; What are you thinking?”  HERE.   

To further our dialog on the first-due, I’ve added a few series of video clips and images with related links to promote and stimulate your view of the first-due fireground scene as it relates to the variables and personnel perceptions; the need for diligence and cognitive situational awareness and risk assessment and being truly “prepared” both mentally and physically. By way of physically, I mean- is your gear and PPE, functional, operational and adequately in-place?   

  As you can see there are numerous instances where the difference in the incident outcome correlated to the level of PPE protection that was in-place and implemented at the time of adverse conditions or unexpected or unforeseen circumstances.   

 Here’s today’s situations to think about at the station, around the kitchen table, over a cup of coffee in the day room after your next alarm or tonight at the station for a “back step” company drill.    

  • What are the Adverse Conditions that might be encounted upon arrival as the First-Due?
  • Flashover, Backdraft, Compromised or degraded Structural Conditions, Collapsed Conditions, Structural Collapse, Wind Drive Fire Behavior, Extreme Fire Behavior, Pre-Flashover/ Post-Flashover….
  • How Effective are you in Reading the Smoke?
  • How About Reading the Building? Do you understand Occupancy Profiling and Occupancy Risk?
  • Are you Taking the Time to Read the Subtle or Pronounced Fireground Indicators.; Comprehend their meaning or are you just “too engaged in the tactic or task?”
  • Do you have an appreciation for Tactical Patience?
  • Are your operations Tactically Driven by SOP’s and SOGs?
  • What Rules of Engagment are you considering?
  • Have and IAP in mind?
 YouTube Preview Image   

 There have been a lot of articles and postings on adverse conditions as companies are opening up or pushing into the structure on the initial entry. Take a look at the next two series of video clips related to flashover conditions and the impact of that fire behavior on the companies and personnel. In each instance companies were extremely fortunate that the injuries sustained were not more severe than encountered.  

  • What encounters have you or your company experienced?
  • In retrospect how effective was the initial risk assessment and occupancy profile-was the size-up appropriate or were key indicators missed or neglected?
  • Did the fast pace of the initial arrival and subsequent deployment filter or obscure mission critical indicators that should have been identified and acted upon?  
  • Did the tactical assignment and task overshadow tactical patience?
  • Did someone or everyone miss reading the smoke, fire or occupancy risk?
  • Did other tactical assignments contribute toward the unexpected or adverse conditions encountered, such as ventilation induced flashover? ( More on that topic for a later post; See Taking it the Streets November 4, 2010 show

          

Firefighter Will Gregory exits the home with his PPE on fire. Photo by Brian Haney, The Daily Record.

There are a series of photos  from a previous posting at STATter911 HERE that depicts firefighers working to push-in on a fire in a small residential occupancy. The ensuing flashover ignites the PPE of one firefighter. Look at the series of photographs and  take note of the fire and smoke conditions, the size and profile of the occupancy ( remember it’s Occupancy RISK not Occupancy Type).   

  • Think about the sequencing of your initial operations.
  • Think about the mission critical 360;
  • how does that play into your initial incident actions plan (IAP)?

   

The Dynamics of the Fireground in Seconds

Companies were dispatched for an assignment for a house fire. Both E807 and TK807 responded with crews of 4 personnel each. E813 arrived on the scene and reported light smoke showing on side Alpha. Upon arrival on the scene, the crew from TK807 (four staff) made entry to the house. The following series of events led to conditions in the house that presented a flashover environment. The hose line from E813 burst, a backup line was not charged due to no established water supply, and the house was not yet ventilated. Without the protection of a hose line, the crew was committed to the house when the room flashed. One firefighter was apparently far enough in the house to avoid any injury, A second FF received 2nd degree burns to his right shoulder, and a third FF received the full force of the flashover suffering second-third degree burns to his face, hands, and the majority of his torso. (Original incident information posted at the time of the event)   

  •  Photo 1: Firefighters don PPE and SCBA with light smoke visible in this first of four pictures shot by Tony George of PGFD Station 813  
  •  Photo 2: Six seconds later a small amount of fire and darker smoke can be seen at the sliding glass door. 
  •  Photo3: Forty-eight seconds after the initial picture, more fire and darker smoke are apparent. 
  •  Photo 4: Exactly two-minutes after the first picture was shot, flashover occurs with firefighters inside. 

For a complete narrative and futher incident details of this previous STATter911 postings related to this event go HERE, and HERE  

Take a good look at the performance of PPE when utilized and implemented correctly…. 

Don’t ever underestimate the dynamics and uncertainty of the evolving fireground during your operations. The video clip here depicts how quickly operations can change from an investigation to a major mass casualty incident.

For a comprehensive look at this event go here are two links for you to visit, HERE at Commandsafety.com and the NIOSH Report HERE

     

Be prepared for the unexpected and always use extreme caution and heightened situational awareness and fluid risk assessment and reconnaissance processing to stay atop of any undefined and evolving incident. Do not allow the potential lack of severity; of what may have all the indications of an unremarkable/uneventful and common call run such as a gas odor investigation or a natural gas leak cause your companies to have less than a high level of alert, focus and attentive accretions through all phases and deployments of the incident. Don’t become complacent.

In addition, take a look at some information relate to another tragic incident response to a reported gas leak that occurred in December, 1983 that lead to five fire fighter LODD’s in Buffalo, New York. HERE 

  • Archived Report From STATter911, from May, 2009 HERE and recent 2010 update HERE with fireground Audio
  • Prince George’s County (MD) Fire Press Release from May 7, 2009, HERE
  • Slide Show from WUSA9.com HERE 
  • BING mapping Images, HERE

  Here’s a series of Reports worth your time to read related to the First-Due:

  • City of Charleston Post Incident Assessment and Review Team Phase I Report, HERE
  • Routley Final Phase II Report HERE
  • NIOSH Investigative Report, HERE
  • Fire Fighting Tactics Under Wind Driven Conditions Report, HERE
  • Reference Data HERE
  • The report is also available for download at the NIST, HERE
  • Synopsis HERE
  • Report: Trends in Firefighter Fatalities Due to Structural Collapse1979-2002
  • Colerain Township (OH) Fire and EMS Department Final Report Investigation Analysis of the Squirrels Nest Lane Firefighter Line of Duty Deaths Incident Overview, HERE; NIOSH Report, HERE; Investigative Report, HERE
  • Situational Awareness and The Three Sixty

    2 comments

    Situational Awareness Combat Operations

    The fireground often has competing or conflicting incident priorities, demands or distractions before a complete appreciation of all mission-critical or essential information and data has been obtained. The effective assessment of the incident scene is much more than the three-sided size-up methodology of past fireground practices. In fact the term size-up doesn’t align with the newest directions in firefighter safety and incident command management.

    The 360 degree assessment has become the generally accepted standard from which risk assessment is performed and incident action plans derived. The fact that many LODD case studies and reports repeatedly indicate the lack of an effective 360 degree assessment of the incident scene where structural fire engagement is being initiated was a contributing factor or may have contributed to a different incident outcome. Think about the effectiveness and value that the 360 ◦ Degree assessment brings to the development of an effective and valid incident action plan and the tactics that are driven by those identified and assumed assessment indicators. The question is: Are you conducting a 360 upon arrival, and if not WHY?

    All command and supervisory personal and operating companies must be able to recognize and appreciate the risks which are present at an incident in order to carry out an effective dynamic risk assessment. The 360 Degree assessment is a mission critical element for effective and safety incident operations. Don’t for a moment think, “it takes too long to perform” or that you don’t have time to conduct, especially from a company officer perspective when you’re deploying and initiating tactical assignments. That extra minute to conduct a “three-sixty” may make all the difference in the world…..There may be three hundred and sixty degrees of safety margin that separate you and your company between injury or death….think about it.

    Situational Awareness and Risk Assessment

    Situation Awareness related to Building Construction, Command Risk Management and Firefighter Safety is another mission critical element. Situation Awareness (SA) is the perception of environmental elements within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future. It is also a field of study concerned with perception of the environment critical to decision-makers in complex, dynamic situations and incidents. Both the 2006 and 2007 Firefighter Near-Miss Reporting System Annual Reports identified a lack of situational awareness as the highest contributing factor to near misses reported.• Situation Awareness involves being aware of what is happening around you at an incident scene to understand how information, events, and your own actions will impact operational goals and incident objectives, both now and in the near future.

    • Lacking SA or having inadequate SA has been identified as one of the primary factors in accidents attributed to human error.
    • Situation Awareness becomes especially important in the structural fire suppression and firefighter domains where the information flow can be quite high and poor decisions can lead to serious consequences.
    • Dynamic Risk Assessment is commonly used to describe a process of risk assessment being carried out in a changing or evolving environment, where what is being assessed is developing as the process itself is being undertaken.
    • This is further problematical for the Incident Commander when confronted with competing or conflicting incident priorities, demands or distractions before a complete appreciation of all mission critical or essential information and data has been obtained.
    • The dynamic management of risk is all about effective, informed and decisive decision making during all phases of an incident at a structural fire.

    The integration of Situational Awareness and Dynamic Risk Assessment related to the building and occupancy is a mission critical element in managing structural fires and in the strategic command management and company level tactical operations as we go forward into the next decade.

    • Traditional phased incident scene size-up and monitoring is antiquated and no longer appropriate or applicable to modern fire service operations.
    • Situational awareness is a combination of attitudes, previously learned knowledge and new information gained from the incident scene and environment that enables the strategic commanders, decision-makers and tactical companies to gather the information they need to make effective decisions that will keep their firefighters and resources out of harm’s way, reducing the likelihood of adverse or detrimental effects.
    • Command and company officers and firefighters MUST understand the building, the occupancy features and the inherent impact of fire within and on the structure, AND be able to identify, communicate and take actions necessary to support the incident action and battle plans, mitigate incident conditions and provide for continuous safety protection to themselves, their team, their company and the entire alarm assignment operating at the incident scene.

    Everyone on the incident scene MUST stay alert to changing conditions, obvious or latent conditions or escalating factors that require prompt identification, comprehension and appropriate implementation of actions. To the Incident Commander, fire officer or firefighter, knowing what’s going on around you, in and around the building structure and understanding the consequences of building, construction, assembly, fire load and fire development and growth is mission critical to incident stabilization and mitigation and profoundly crucial in terms of personnel safety. Maintain a three-sixty sphere of observation and awareness at all times.

    Some addtional References; HERE, HERE and HERE, HERE

    U.S. Firefighter Injuries in 2009 Report Released

    No comments

    Based on survey data reported by fire departments, the NFPA estimates that 78,150 firefighter injuries occurred in the line of duty in 2009.

    This is a decrease of 1.9 percent from the year before. In recent years, the number of firefighter injuries has been considerably lower than it was in the 1980s and 1990s, but this is due in part to additional survey questions about exposures that allow us to place them in their own categories. Previously, some of these exposures might have been included in total injuries under other categories.

    In 2009, NFPA estimates that there were 23,000 exposures to hazardous conditions such as asbestos, radioactive materials, chemicals, and fumes. This amounts to 22.5 exposures per 1,000 hazardous condition runs.

    An estimated 15,150 injuries, or 19.4 percent of all firefighter injuries, resulted in time lost from work in 2009.

    These are some of the key findings in the U.S. Firefighter Injuries in 2009 report. Each year, using data collected during our annual Survey of Fire Departments for U.S. Fire Experience, NFPA studies firefighter injuries to provide national statistics on their frequency, extent, and characteristics.

    • This year’s firefighter injury report includes an estimate of the total number of firefighter injuries in 2009, estimates of the number of injuries by type of duty, and an estimate of the number of exposures to infectious diseases.
    • It also covers trends in firefighter injuries and rates, fireground injuries by cause, fire department vehicle accidents and resulting firefighter injuries, the average number of fires and fireground injuries per department by population of community protected, and descriptions of selected incidents that illustrate firefighter safety problems.

     
    Firefighters work in varied and complex environments that increase their risk of on-the-job death and injury. A better understanding of how these fatalities, non-fatal injuries, and illnesses occur can help identify corrective actions that could help minimize the inherent risks.

    Injuries by type of duty
    Type of duty is divided into five categories:

    • responding to, or returning from, an incident, including fires and non fire emergencies;
    • participating in fireground operations, including structure fires, vehicle fires, and brush fires, from the moment of arrival at the scene to departure time, including setup, extinguishment, and overhaul;
    • operating at non fire emergencies, including rescue calls, hazardous materials calls such as spills, and natural disasters;
    • training; and
    • participating in other on-duty activities such as inspection or maintenance.

    Not surprisingly, results by type of duty indicate that the largest share of injuries occurs during fireground operations.

    In 2009, 32,205, or 41.2 percent, of all firefighter injuries occurred during fireground operations. That number is the lowest recorded during the 1981-to-2009 period and represents a 53.3 percent drop in fireground operations injuries since 1981, which saw a high of 67,500 over that same period.

    The number of fires also declined steadily during that period, for an overall decrease of 52.3 percent. The rate of injuries per 1000 fires has not shown any consistent trend up or down for the period. These results suggest that even though the number of fires and fireground injuries declined similarly during the period, the injury rate did not, and when there is a fire, the fireground injury rate risk has not changed much for the period.

    Overall for the 1981-to-2009 period, the number of injuries at non fire emergencies increased from 9,600 in 1981 to 15,320 in 2009, for an overall increase of 66 percent.

    • For the same period, the number of non fire emergencies increased a substantial 220 percent, due in large part to an increase in the number of medical aid incidents.
    • The injury rate per 1,000 non fire emergencies declined during the period, from 1.24 in 1981 to 0.62 in 2009, because the number of non fire emergencies increased at a higher rate than did the number of injuries at non fire emergencies.

    Nature and cause of fireground injuries
    Estimates of 2009 firefighter injuries by nature of injury and type of duty indicate that the major types of injuries that occur during fireground operations are

    • strains and sprains, which were responsible for 48.2 percent;
    • wounds, cuts, bleeding, and bruises, responsible for 13.2 percent; smoke or gas inhalation, responsible for 6.2 percent;
    • burns, 7.1 percent; and
    • thermal stress, responsible for 5.8 percent.

    Results were fairly consistent during all non fireground activities, with strains, sprains, and muscular pain accounting for 58.9 percent of all non fireground injuries, and wounds, cuts, bleeding, and bruises accounting for 16.2 percent. “Cause” here refers to the initial circumstance leading to the fireground injury.

    The leading causes of fireground injuries were

    • overexertion and strains, which were responsible for 25.2 percent, and
    • falls, jumps, slips, which were responsible for 22.7 percent.
    • Other major causes were contact with object, responsible for 11.4 percent, and exposure to fire products, responsible for 12.9 percent.

    Fireground injuries per department by population and region
    The NFPA examined the average number of fires and fireground injuries per department by population of community protected in 2009.

    • These tabulations show that the number of fires a fire department responds to is directly related to the size of the population protected and that the number of fireground injuries incurred by a department is directly related to its exposure to fire—that is, the number of fires the department attends.
    • The second point is clearly demonstrated when we examine the range of the statistic: they run from an average high of 83.9 fireground injuries for departments that protect communities of 500,000 to 999,999 to a low of 0.2 for departments that protect communities of less than 2,500.
    • The overall range of rates varied from a high of 3.3 for departments that protect communities 250,000 to 499,999 to a low of 1.3 for departments that protect communities of 5,000 to 9,999.
    • Thus, the wide range noted in average fireground injuries by the size of the population protected narrows when relative fire experience is taken into account.
    • The overall injury rate for departments protecting communities with a population of 50,000 or more was 2.7 injuries per 100 fires, or 40 percent higher than the injury rate for departments protecting communities with populations under 50,000.

    The NFPA also examined the risk of fireground injury per 100 firefighters by size of community protected. Larger departments generally had the highest rates, with departments protecting communities of 250,000 to 499,999 having the highest rate of 7.8 injuries per 100 firefighters. As community size decreases, the rate drops steadily to a low of 0.8 for departments protecting fewer than 2,500 people. That is a more-than-nine-to-one difference in risk of injury between communities of 250,000 to 499,999 and the smallest communities of less than 2,500.

    An explanation for this difference is that, although a department protecting a community with a population of 250,000 to 499,999 has, on average, more than 24 times as many firefighters as a department protecting a population of less than 2,500, the larger department attends more than 95 times as many fires and, as a result, incurs considerably more fireground injuries.

    An evaluation by region of the country shows that the Northeast reported a higher number of fireground injuries per 100 fires for most community sizes where all departments reported sufficient data.

    FIREFIGHTER INJURIES BY THE NUMBERS – 2009

    • 78,150 firefighter injuries occurred in the line of duty in 2009, a decrease of 1.9 percent from the year before.
    • 32,205, or 41.2 percent, of all firefighter injuries occurred during fireground operations.
    • An estimated 15,455 occurred at non fire emergencies, while 17,590 occurred during other on-duty activities.
    • The Northeast reported a higher number of fireground injuries per 100 fires than other regions of the United States.
    • The major types of injuries received during fireground operations were;
    • strains, sprains, and muscular pain, responsible for 48.2 percent;
    • wounds, cuts, bleeding, and bruises, responsible for 13.2 percent;
    • smoke or gas inhalation, responsible for 6.2 percent.
    • Strains, sprains, and muscular pain accounted for 58.9 percent of all non fireground firefighter injuries.
    • The leading causes of fireground injuries were;
    • overexertion and strains, responsible for 25.2 percent, and
    • falls, slips, and jumps, responsible for 22.7 percent.

    This posting is a summary from the NFPA; Refer to the Full Article Posting on the NFPA web Site HERE

    U.S. Firefighter Injuries in 2009 report, HERE

    NFPA Fire Statistics, HERE

    “We Have a Situation; Are you Aware?”

    No comments

    Check out Taking it to the Streets with Christopher Naum on Firefighter NetCast.com tonight August 19th at 9pm ET with a live online radio call-in show addressing the most current issues affecting the Fire Service.

    A number of recent incidents across the country resulted in significant multiple fire fighter injuries and in a line of duty death, coupled with the release of a number of recent incident and operational reports, it seems appropriate to dedicate a focused discussion on the emerging and prevailing issues related to situational awareness on the fireground and incident scene and its relationship to firefighter safety and operational integrity.

    Tonight  Christopher Naum’s guests include Battalion Chief Matt Tobia with the Anne Arundel County, MD Fire Department, a metropolitan combination Fire / Rescue / EMS agency in Suburban Baltimore, MD and Battalion Chief Greg W. Collier, Mount Laurel Fire Department, NJ and NFFF/EGH Region II Advocate providing listeners with an insightful perspective on this emerging topic built upon the decades of experience both of these chief fire officers bring. Look forward to some great listener call-ins and participation.

    Battalion Chief Matt Tobia with the Anne Arundel County, MD Fire Department

    Battalion Chief Greg W. Collier, Mount Laurel Fire Department, NJ

    Go to www.FirefighterNetCast.com HERE to listen and participate live, with a national and international audience of firefighters, officers and commanders from rural heartlands of Oklahoma to the suburbs of Chicago and the urban streets of DC.

    Or download the program later in the week for later use.

    Check out the premiere show of Taking it to the Streets; “What’s on your Radar Screen” with featured guests Chief Billy Hayes (DCFD) and Chief Doug Cline (High Point FD, NC).

    Taking it to the Streets is a Buildingsonfire.com Series and Fire Fighter NetCast.com Production

    3*4*3 Reports

    No comments

    I recently posted an article on CommandSafety.com that addressed a series of Major Influencing Fire Service Reports, Issues and Focus areas that should be on your radar screen. This was also the theme at the premiere of Taking it to the Streets on Fire Fighter Netcast.com . As an emerging, practicing or upward mobile fire officer, commander or leader; those are but a few key ares that you must be  knowledgeable in, have insights and proficiency based technical skills to function with a level of competencies demanded of, in today’s  fire service.

    After a recent training program, we discussed in a smaller group setting common, contributing and apparent causes related to three prominent fire incidents and reports that were shared both within the lecture program and also within the CS post. Based upon that dialog, the dynamic and passionate discussion and the frank, straight forward opinions I’m suggesting you take the time; three hours to read three reports and focus on the lesson learned, the gaps that were identified and the recommendations AND actions that were implemented to limit, if not eliminate the likely hood that a similar event could happen in that organization.

    The continuing challenge is not allowing the circumstances and situations that were present at those events, cause you and your organization to have a History Repeating Event (HRE).

    Set aside three hours for three reports; invest the time appropriately and focus your undivided attention. Think about those firefighters who answered that call, in the same manner and fashion as all of us do, when we board the apparatus and the company rolls out of quarters on the way to the alarm. The only difference…..they didn’t come home- you did. Learn, understand, comprehend, relate and apply.

    Then take the time to share your insights with those within your inner circle and start recognizing that there’s likely something that you can go in your house or station, or organization that honors the sacrifices made by those LODD events your read about, so those lessons can be moved forward to make the job, a little bit safer.

    Three for Three (343)

    Prince William County (VA) Fire Rescue Kyle Wilson LODD Report

    • The Prince William County (VA) Department of Fire and Rescue published a comprehensive line of duty death report for Technician I Kyle R. Wilson on Saturday, January 26, 2008. Technician I Wilson was the first line of duty death in the Department’s 41-year history. The Department is sharing the LODD Investigative Report to honor Kyle, and in an effort to reduce and prevent firefighter line of duty deaths at the local, region, state, and national levels.
    • Technician Kyle Robert Wilson was 24-years old and was born in Olney, Maryland. He grew up in Prince William County and graduated from Hylton High School and George Mason University. He was an avid baseball and softball player. Technician Wilson joined the Prince William County Department of Fire and Rescue on January 23, 2006. Technician Kyle Wilson died in the line of duty on April 16, 2007 while performing search and rescue operations at a house fire on Marsh Overlook Drive, located in the Woodbridge area of Prince William County. On that day, Technician Wilson was part of the firefighter staffing on Tower 512 which responded to the house fire that was dispatched at 0603 hours. The Prince William County area was under a high wind advisory as a nor’eastern storm moved through the area. Sustained winds of 25 mph with gusts up to 48 mph were prevalent in the area at the time of the fire dispatch to Marsh Overlook Drive.
    • Initial arriving units reported heavy fire on the exterior of two sides of the single family house and crews suspected that the occupants were still inside the house sleeping because of the early morning hour. A search of the upstairs bedroom commenced for the possible victims. A rapid and catastrophic change of fire and smoke conditions occurred in the interior of the house within minutes of Tower 512’s crew entering the structure.
    • Technician Wilson became trapped and was unable to locate an immediate exit out of the hostile environment. Mayday radio transmissions were made by crews and by Technician Kyle Wilson of the life-threatening situation. Valiant and repeated rescue attempts to locate and remove Technician Wilson were made by the firefighting crews during extreme fire, heat and smoke conditions. Firefighters were forced from the structure as the house began to collapse on them and intense fire, heat and smoke conditions developed. Technician Wilson succumbed to the fire and the cause of death was reported by the medical examiner to be thermal and inhalation injuries.
    • The Department of Fire and Rescue immediately formed a multi-dimensional investigation team following the incident. The investigation team was comprised of five Department of Fire and Rescue uniform personnel and two external members from area fire departments. For eight months, the team thoroughly examined the events that occurred at the Marsh Overlook fire incident and identify the factors involved with the line of duty death of Technician I Kyle Wilson. The resulting report represents thousands of hours of effort to analyze fire and rescue operations and is a factual representation of the events that occurred. The report also provides a frame work for organizational level improvements.
    • The major factors in the line of duty death of Technician I Wilson were determined to be:
      • The initial arriving fire suppression force size.
      • The size up of fire development and spread.
      • The impact of high winds on fire development and spread.
      • The large structure size and lightweight construction and materials.
      • The rapid intervention and firefighter rescue efforts.
      • The incident control and management.
      • The Marsh Overlook fire incident was an immense fire fueled by extremely flammable building material products and a vicious wind. It was an environment where information gathering and decision making had to be performed in the time measurement of seconds. During the chain of events that occurred and under severe circumstances, fire and rescue personnel performed at exceptional levels.
    • During the repeated attempts to reach and rescue Technician I Wilson, personnel displayed heroic efforts and jeopardized their own safety. The Department will never forget the sacrifice that Technician Wilson made in an attempt to ensure others were safe. By sharing the knowledge gained from this very tragic and painful incident, the Department will ensure his sacrifice was not in vain and hope that other fire and rescue departments can avoid another similar occurrence.
    • Resources and Report

    Loudoun County (VA) Fire Rescue  Significant Near Miss Event Report

    • On May 25, 2008, fire and rescue personnel from Loudoun County responded to a structure fire at 43238 Meadowood Court in Leesburg, Virginia. During the course of the incident, seven responders were injured. Of those injured, four firefighters received significant burn injuries, two firefighters sustained orthopedic injuries, and one EMS provider was treated for minor respiratory distress. To date, five of the injured personnel have returned to duty. Two firefighters continue to recover from their injuries, including one who was severely burned.
    • Given the severity of the injuries and magnitude of the event, an independent Investigative Team was assembled to review the incident. The Team was comprised of four Loudoun County personnel, three external members from area fire departments, and two resource/support personnel. The Team was tasked with reviewing “the events leading up to the incident, the incident operation(s), the firefighter MAYDAY(s), and incident mitigation.”
    • For three months, the Team thoroughly examined the events surrounding the Meadowood Court fire incident and identified the factors associated with the injury of personnel.
    • The Report contains the results of the Investigative Team’s comprehensive review and analysis.
    • Fact Sheet, HERE
    • SIGNIFICANT INJURY INVESTIGATIVE REPORT 43238 MEADOWOOD COURT MAY 25, 2008 Report HERE

    Colerain Township (OH) Fire and EMS Department Final Report Investigation Analysis of the Squirrels Nest Lane Firefighter Line of Duty Deaths

    • The Colerain Township (OH) Fire and EMS Department under the leadership of Director and Chief G. Bruce Smith recently released its final report Investigation Analysis of the Squirrels nest Lane Firefighter Line of Duty Deaths related to the April 4, 2008 Double Line of Duty Death of a Captain and Firefighter.  This investigative analysis and report, although specific to the events and conditions encountered during the conduct of operation at the residential occupancy at 5708 Squirrels nest Lane has pertinent and relevant insights, recommendations and factors that all Fire Service personnel, regardless of rank should read.
    • Incident Overview, HERE
    • NIOSH Report, HERE
    • Investigative Report, HERE

    In the Streets; On the Air

    No comments

    Taking it to the Streets had its premier July 21st on Firefighter Netcast.com with a lively and provoking discussion on “What’s on YOUR Radar Screen?” The program theme aligned with a recent posting on the same topic. Join me on the program were two prominent and nationally recognized fire service leaders, who I’m honored to have known for many years, Chief Billy Hayes and Chief Doug Cline; the program explored leading fire service issues affecting firefighter safety, training, credentialing and education; fireground operational variables related to the continuing changes in building construction, engineered systems and extreme fire behavior,  and the emerging need for “Tactical Patience” as I’ve been exploring the relationships towards the need for tactical enhancements to our current fire suppression theory and firefighting models.

    Conversations expanded on the NFFF/Everyone Goes Home Campaign and programs, the newest EGH initiatives on Behavioral Health and the successes achieved through the Courage to be Safe Programs and the Advocacy Program.

    Both our guests provided cutting edge perspectives and commentary on the key issues that the fire service needs to have on their radar screen and the need for emerging and practicing fire officers and commanders to continually strive to increase skill sets and maintain a pulse on the leading issues affecting the fire service and apply emerging research  and studies to increase operational capabilities, improve performance and enhance and promote firefighter safety and survival and operational integrity.

    Although technical difficulties from the live feed coming from the Inner Harbor in Baltimore at the Firehouse Expo, precluded the ability to have the call-in segments of the program to work, the 120 minute program gave the listeners a wealth of information to talk over in the firehouse, at the kitchen table or in the apparatus bays.

    The program is a Buildingsonfire.com Series and a Fire Fighter Netcast.com  production, produced by John Mitchell and Rhett Fleitz.  The live program segment will be edited and available for iTunes download soon. You can check out the other programming and shows produced by Fire Fighter Netcast.com HERE. Stay tuned for announcements on the next program date for Taking it to the Streets coming to you live from the IAFC Fire Rescue International Conference in Chicago in August.  

    Taking it to the Streets; Advancing Fire Fighter Safety and Operational Integrity for the Fire Service through provocative insights and dynamic discussions dedicated to the Art and Science of Firefighting and the Traditions of the Fire Service. 

    • Firefighter Netcast.com HERE
    • Taking it to the Streets, HERE, HERE
    • “What’s on your Radar Screen?” July 21, 2010 Program, HERE
    • “What’s on your Radar Screen?” post on Commandsafety.com, HERE
    Related Posts with Thumbnails