Discontinuing Operations During a Hurricane

[OoO 24]

What is your agency's policy or plans to responding to calls during a hurricane? At some point do you stop responding to calls until after the storm has passed?

I have searched the web extensively and cannot seem to find recommendations on this topic. My concern is that once wind speeds accelerate, it is no longer safe to drive a fire apparatus or ambulance in terms of staying in control of the vehicle, as well as concerning the threat of projectiles and fallen trees.

I would be very interested in a police, fire and EMS prospective on the matter.

Edited August 27, 2011 by OoO

[Guest MahopacFF101]

From the Hurricane Irene thread:

CT Released a guide for emergency management in a hurricane -- http://www.ct.gov/cf...nHurricanes.pdf

Quote

4. Prior to sustained wind speeds reaching 50 mph, or wind gusts over 65 mph, any chief

officer or company officer who feels the situations encountered are sufficiently dangerous to the safety of personnel may cease operations and return to quarters. The officer must advise the incident commander and the dispatch center.

5. For the safety of the members, the fire department should discontinue response to all

fire/EMS calls when sustained wind speeds reach 50 mph or wind gusts are over 65 mph.

When the order to cease response is given due to hazardous wind conditions:

• Units responding to or on the scene of an emergency shall continue their work until

completed, at which time the units will return to their assigned stations.

• Units out of station, but not on a call, should return to their stations as soon as possible

[Dinosaur 844]

What is your agency's policy or plans to responding to calls during a hurricane? At some point do you stop responding to calls until after the storm has passed?

I have searched the web extensively and cannot seem to find recommendations on this topic. My concern is that once wind speeds accelerate, it is no longer safe to drive a fire apparatus or ambulance in terms of staying in control of the vehicle, as well as concerning the threat of projectiles and fallen trees.

I would be very interested in a police, fire and EMS prospective on the matter.

Bnechis reported that one rule of thumb is that ops stop with the arrival of sustained gale force winds (39 MPH). That sounds reasonable to me.

It isn't just apparatus operations, what about personnel being on the ground in such winds or moving water? It simply isn't safe and we're fooling ourselves if we think we can operate when everyone else is hunkering down. Be safe, be smart and be prudent!

[Guest MahopacFF101]

From the Bergen County NJ Fire Chiefs Association Standard Operating Guidelines for Hurricane & Flooding Conditions

NOTE: USE THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE CAUTIONS:

The following guidelines may be used to determine when apparatus

should be placed in non-response mode during storm conditions

A) 50-70 mph winds - limit responses to emergencies. Use strict

supervision.

Rescue Operations will be terminated when sustained winds of

50 mph exist or locate conditions dictate unsafe conditions.

Suppression Operations will be terminated when sustained winds

greater than 60 mph exist or local conditions dictate unsafe

conditions

Hurricane force winds (74mph+) NO RESPONDING. A time of selfprotection

http://www.bergenfirechiefs.com/docs/hurricanepreparedness.pdf

[efdcapt115 1,511]

From the Bergen County NJ Fire Chiefs Association Standard Operating Guidelines for Hurricane & Flooding Conditions

NOTE: USE THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE CAUTIONS:

The following guidelines may be used to determine when apparatus

should be placed in non-response mode during storm conditions

A) 50-70 mph winds - limit responses to emergencies. Use strict

supervision.

Rescue Operations will be terminated when sustained winds of

50 mph exist or locate conditions dictate unsafe conditions.

Suppression Operations will be terminated when sustained winds

greater than 60 mph exist or local conditions dictate unsafe

conditions

Hurricane force winds (74mph+) NO RESPONDING. A time of selfprotection

http://www.bergenfirechiefs.com/docs/hurricanepreparedness.pdf

This info and the prior post about Ct. operational recommendations is all well and good, but I have a question. What if a structure fire in a densely populated neighborhood threatens to become a conflagration due to the lack of a suppression response? Does a department have it's rigs sit in the barn, while a theoretical ordinary constructed building fire goes through the roof, spreads to the H type multi-dwelling exposure next door, then the private homes further down the street, all the way down to the 7-11 with the gasoline pumps on the corner? Then the fire jumps the roadway and starts down the other side of the street. Interesting scenario? What would you do if it was your call to make; respond or not respond?

[ptwatson 82]

Horrible senerio you would be faced with. I wonder if the high winds and the large amount of rain would supress the fire enough that it would not spread or would it be the reverse and the wind helps it jump. With those high winds I would think you would be limited in some of your resourses. I would think that you would not put a stick or a bucket up in the exteme high winds. Also, would your water stream be hampered by the wind and a good percentage if it just blow away? Another thing I think of if it's an interior attack would the wind put the crews at a greater danger in that a window could blow out at any moment thus possibly pushing the fire back on them? It would be an incredibly hard job and the IC would need to think outside the box.

[Reliance 29]

Horrible senerio you would be faced with. I wonder if the high winds and the large amount of rain would supress the fire enough that it would not spread or would it be the reverse and the wind helps it jump. With those high winds I would think you would be limited in some of your resourses. I would think that you would not put a stick or a bucket up in the exteme high winds. Also, would your water stream be hampered by the wind and a good percentage if it just blow away? Another thing I think of if it's an interior attack would the wind put the crews at a greater danger in that a window could blow out at any moment thus possibly pushing the fire back on them? It would be an incredibly hard job and the IC would need to think outside the box.

I have a good question. What is the insurance companies take on this if you don't respond??

[Dinosaur 844]

I have a good question. What is the insurance companies take on this if you don't respond??

What's the insurance companies take on it when an FD does respond but the building is still a total loss?

Seems to me that whether the FD responds or not the fire, and hurricane in this case, is going on so they're going to pay.

Barry, what's the ISO perspective on "no response"?

[abaduck 123]

I have a good question. What is the insurance companies take on this if you don't respond??

I'll go out on a limb (unwise given forecast!) and take a stab at this: I don't think an insurance company would have any 'take' on this. So long as the homeowner took reasonable precautions and called 911 or made other efforts to communicate the emergency (if they were home at the time), what could they do apart from pay the loss? Sue the FD for inadequate response?

There was a court case a few years ago... it went quite high, all the way to the SC? I think it was in DC. It concerned, IIRC, a multiple perp / multiple victim home invasion/rape/murder. At least one of the victims managed to phone 911, possibly more than once. The PD responded, at least once. They simply cruised past the property, or checked it out briefly, and reported nothing appeared amiss; they didn't try the door or attempt to enter, and they certainly didn't intervene to prevent the rapes and murders.

A survivor (or was it the family of a victim?) attempted to sue the police on the grounds of inadequate response, failing to prevent death/injury/loss etc. They lost; the courts held that, while the PD had a general duty to prevent, detect, and combat crime, they did NOT owe any particular individual any particular duty or standard of response in any particular incident. In summary, while the PD may help you, or try to, you don't have any right to help, or legal expectation of help.

I don't see any reason this legal approach wouldn't be extended to the FD.

Disclaimers: IANAL. I may be wrong in some of the details, but I think I'm correct in general about the DC case above.

Mike

[Bnechis 3,961]

This info and the prior post about Ct. operational recommendations is all well and good, but I have a question. What if a structure fire in a densely populated neighborhood threatens to become a conflagration due to the lack of a suppression response? Does a department have it's rigs sit in the barn, while a theoretical ordinary constructed building fire goes through the roof, spreads to the H type multi-dwelling exposure next door, then the private homes further down the street, all the way down to the 7-11 with the gasoline pumps on the corner? Then the fire jumps the roadway and starts down the other side of the street. Interesting scenario? What would you do if it was your call to make; respond or not respond?

Two questions you need to consider:

1) how effective will your firefighting effort be during the storm? Will you actually change the outcome you set up?

2) How much additional risk are you placing your personnel & equipment in? How much risk to the community in all future situations if we lose personnel & equipment now.

The key line is Risk vs. Benefit.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

The theoretical risk I am proposing is the loss of maybe one or two blocks of buildings/houses/businesses, possible loss of civilian life, and the heavy criticism from the community that pays our salaries as a result. Or for a volunteer department, the same type of criticism sans the salary part.

The second risk is extraordinary with sending the troops out to do their jobs in severely adverse weather.

The benefit would be a successful firefighting operation, and no extraordinary injuries to the firefighters as a result of taking the chance of working in severe weather. Maybe a grab or two and lives saved.

Of course this an extreme scenario, and probably unlikely to occur in most parts of Westchester County; I could envision this occurring in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Yonkers or Mt. Vernon.

Kinda like that 8 alarm job they had in the FDNY during the snowstorm where they had that extreme difficulty getting into the scene due to the unplowed streets. Unlikely....but possible.

You tell me Cap. If it was your call, what would you do (theoretical discussion not intended to have any implications on any members actions while on the clock)?

[RFR 12]

If it was easy anyone could do it. That's why they call it work. Be safe to all that are working this weekend.

[sympathomedic 383]

To me this is what a Mandatory Evacuation means. I don't think the government has any right to forcibly remove you from your property during an emergency. They have the responsibility to tell you about it, and let you know, "Hey, we are not coming back. We are terminating our responsibility to you out of concern for the safety of our people and equipment. Don't call us, we'll call you". We should come out with a better name than mandatory evacuation, like Termination of Services Alert, or "We are issuing a TASA for this area..."

[INIT915 1,119]

A survivor (or was it the family of a victim?) attempted to sue the police on the grounds of inadequate response, failing to prevent death/injury/loss etc. They lost; the courts held that, while the PD had a general duty to prevent, detect, and combat crime, they did NOT owe any particular individual any particular duty or standard of response in any particular incident. In summary, while the PD may help you, or try to, you don't have any right to help, or legal expectation of help.

Your 100% right. There are multiple examples analogous to the one you reference. That's why every time someone on this forum references "liability" on this site, I challenge them to be specific. Courts have long held nulla positions extended to ES.

EDIT:

abaduck: Just to add a link, the case your referencing is Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Edited August 27, 2011 by INIT915

[Bnechis 3,961]

Barry, what's the ISO perspective on "no response"?

They do not look at "single" events, they look at your average responses, so missing 1 or 2 out of 100's or 1,000's is not an issue.

Sue the FD for inadequate response?

If they start doing that many depts will be in big trouble on every incident, since few meet any of the standards that the courts will use.

[wraftery 1,275]

I think this fits this thread better than the other Irene thread so I copied it here. I hope it is OK with our Monitor staff.

Dinosaur, on Today, 12:19 PM, said:

Seriously? You never went to exterior or defensive operations?

Yes, we go to fires and cops chase bad guys with guns, etc. etc. That doesn't mean you ignore the unique hazards of a situation like Irene and try to fight tropical storm force winds and torrential rain to do the job.

No, it's not safe but we try to make it as safe as possible. Isn't that why turnout gear and other PPE has evolved so much? If you were still working would you wear rubber turnout coats and no SCBA because "they called us".

Any a$$ can't work in a hurricane, FF or otherwise. Be realistic and be smart. Don't take unnecessary chances because "we're the FD".

Thanks, Dinosaur. I knew someone would come up with the response I knew would come. Correctly, we should size-up and then do a risk/benefit analysis.

Using that analysis we come up with an acceptable risk for that situation. Our action might be to retreat, go defensive, go offensive, make the scene safe, deal with the scene even though you can get hurt, etc. but the decision usually involves some kind of acceptable risk.

Look now at OSHA like a lawyer would:

29 U.S.C. § 654, 5(a)1: Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.

That wording doesn't leave us any leeway whatsoever. If you do anything except leave you will probably be hung in any hearing,citing the aforementioned.

Now look at the CT guidelines from Mikeinet:

4. Prior to sustained wind speeds reaching 50 mph, or wind gusts over 65 mph, any chief

officer or company officer who feels the situations encountered are sufficiently dangerous to

the safety of personnel may cease operations and return to quarters. The officer must advise

the incident commander and the dispatch center.

5. For the safety of the members, the fire department should discontinue response to all

fire/EMS calls when sustained wind speeds reach 50 mph or wind gusts are over 65 mph.

When the order to cease response is given due to hazardous wind conditions:

• Units responding to or on the scene of an emergency shall continue their work until

completed, at which time the units will return to their assigned stations.

• Units out of station, but not on a call, should return to their stations as soon as possible

This gives you guidance for situations plus the ability to make decisions based on the specific situation. Look at the use of the words "Shall" and "should". I can live with the CT document, but I think the Osha lawyer can shoot a hundred holes in the document and hang you anyway.

The study of fire is a science...firefighting is an art.

Stay Safe

[abaduck 123]

Your 100% right. There are multiple examples analogous to the one you reference. That's why every time someone on this forum references "liability" on this site, I challenge them to be specific. Courts have long held nulla positions extended to ES.

EDIT:

abaduck: Just to add a link, the case your referencing is Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Thanks INIT915; looks like I was right on pretty much everything except the murder. The actual case is described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

This discusses several other cases, from a 2nd amendment point of view:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

(To digress slightly, this makes an interesting trans-atlantic contrast. In the USA, the police can seldom be even civilly liable for failure to act. In the UK, in a case that has achieved some notoriety over there, a police officer has just started serving a (disgraceful) sentence of a year in prison, for 'perverting the course of justice'. Her 'crime'? Being lazy. Failing to arrest a man who was caught red-handed pretty obviously trying to break into a restaurant; the officer was in the middle of some trivial errand with some police paperwork, and elected to complete that instead, and was content to confiscate the burglary tools and warn the guy he would have gone to jail if she hadn't had something else to do. For that she's gone to jail.)

Mike

[abaduck 123]

I think this fits this thread better than the other Irene thread so I copied it here. I hope it is OK with our Monitor staff.

Dinosaur, on Today, 12:19 PM, said:

Seriously? You never went to exterior or defensive operations?

Yes, we go to fires and cops chase bad guys with guns, etc. etc. That doesn't mean you ignore the unique hazards of a situation like Irene and try to fight tropical storm force winds and torrential rain to do the job.

No, it's not safe but we try to make it as safe as possible. Isn't that why turnout gear and other PPE has evolved so much? If you were still working would you wear rubber turnout coats and no SCBA because "they called us".

Any a$ can't work in a hurricane, FF or otherwise. Be realistic and be smart. Don't take unnecessary chances because "we're the FD".

Thanks, Dinosaur. I knew someone would come up with the response I knew would come. Correctly, we should size-up and then do a risk/benefit analysis.

Using that analysis we come up with an acceptable risk for that situation. Our action might be to retreat, go defensive, go offensive, make the scene safe, deal with the scene even though you can get hurt, etc. but the decision usually involves some kind of acceptable risk.

Look now at OSHA like a lawyer would:

29 U.S.C. § 654, 5(a)1: Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.

That wording doesn't leave us any leeway whatsoever. If you do anything except leave you will probably be hung in any hearing,citing the aforementioned.

Now look at the CT guidelines from Mikeinet:

4. Prior to sustained wind speeds reaching 50 mph, or wind gusts over 65 mph, any chief

officer or company officer who feels the situations encountered are sufficiently dangerous to

the safety of personnel may cease operations and return to quarters. The officer must advise

the incident commander and the dispatch center.

5. For the safety of the members, the fire department should discontinue response to all

fire/EMS calls when sustained wind speeds reach 50 mph or wind gusts are over 65 mph.

When the order to cease response is given due to hazardous wind conditions:

• Units responding to or on the scene of an emergency shall continue their work until

completed, at which time the units will return to their assigned stations.

• Units out of station, but not on a call, should return to their stations as soon as possible

This gives you guidance for situations plus the ability to make decisions based on the specific situation. Look at the use of the words "Shall" and "should". I can live with the CT document, but I think the Osha lawyer can shoot a hundred holes in the document and hang you anyway.

The study of fire is a science...firefighting is an art.

Stay Safe

Chief,

I see where you're coming from and yes lawyers can twist anything, but the key phrase there is from the OSHA reg: "...are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm..."

What is the definition of 'likely' in this context? Greater than 50%, which would be 'more likely than not'? How likely is any one response, or series of responses, during severe storm or hurricane conditions, to cause death or serious harm?

Depending on the conditions, the statistics, and the science, I suspect a prosecutor would have a hard time proving that a certain response was 'likely' to result in a problem.

Mike

[wraftery 1,275]

Why should we be very careful about discontinuing responses in a hurricane?

Let's say you are a city of 100,000 that ceased response for above tropical storm force winds (That's only 35kts if I'm right).

For a one day storm in modified rsponse, you had a handful of ems calls advanced because you didn't respond th other calls. Also, no wires down, trees down, auto alarms because you calltakers are screening runs. You did have one structure that was fully involved and deck gunned by a single engine since it was not proper to send more resources in a storm. The day was a success.

A month later, you are at City Hall explaining to the Hon. Councilman Tightwad Nobux why you need four- man companies, and a NFPA response. He comes back at you with house closures, layoffs, pension cuts. He is citing your hurricane day as an example.

I don't disregard safety, Watch out for all threats to your well being, particularly the guy with a pen.