Staffing and Tactics

[Dinosaur 844]

We've all read the textbooks and can list most of the initial fireground priorities at a "job" but what happens when you're not staffed by the book or you're riding short because City Hall won't hire to fill the vacancies in your department? We can't be all things to all people and despite all the TV shows and t-shirts to the contrary, we're not superheroes.

Should we still be mounting an aggressive interior attack when we don't have adequate back-up outside?

Should we change tactics and throw up the ground ladders and perform ventilation outside before heading in?

When we know mutual aid is a ways off and they're going to be FAST or our back-up on the line, for ventilation, etc. should we adjust our attack plan?

Should we be re-writing the book for inadequate staffing?

I can't imagine being the officer on a first alarm assignment pulling up at a private house with flames blowing out the windows but knowing that there are only four guys on the two engines and one guy on the truck.

Be safe and happy new year!

[FireMedic049 597]

We've all read the textbooks and can list most of the initial fireground priorities at a "job" but what happens when you're not staffed by the book or you're riding short because City Hall won't hire to fill the vacancies in your department? We can't be all things to all people and despite all the TV shows and t-shirts to the contrary, we're not superheroes.

Should we still be mounting an aggressive interior attack when we don't have adequate back-up outside?

What constitues an actual "aggressive interior attack"? To some people, merely going inside the burning building is being "aggressive". What some may view as "aggressive", others may view as being "reckless". What some may view as a standard fire attack, others may view as being "aggressive". It's such a subjective thing to define, it's hard to say yes or no to the question.

Regardless, you absolutely have to adjust your tactics if you are working "short-handed".

>Should we change tactics and throw up the ground ladders and perform ventilation outside before heading in?

No. If you haven't seen it already, check out the link below to the Underwriters Laboratory research regarding ventilation and you should understand why the answer is no.

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/industries/buildingmaterials/fire/fireservice/verticalventilation/

When we know mutual aid is a ways off and they're going to be FAST or our back-up on the line, for ventilation, etc. should we adjust our attack plan?

There really isn't a one size fits all answer to this question. In some cases, we will clearly need to make adjustments based on the occupancy, level of involvement and other conditions. In other cases, it may not be necessary to do so. Sometimes stopping the "small" fire (R&C type) even though understaffed can be "safer" than waiting for backup and letting it become a "big" fire a be one that takes a lot of personnel and time to put out.

Should we be re-writing the book for inadequate staffing?

It's already being done across this country and will continue until everybody always has adequate staffing.

I can't imagine being the officer on a first alarm assignment pulling up at a private house with flames blowing out the windows but knowing that there are only four guys on the two engines and one guy on the truck.

Well, a lot of how you'll feel would be based on what you know to be the knowledge and abilities of the guys on those trucks. If you have a solid group capable of getting after it, you may not feel all that bad. I work in a small career department that easily sees our share of working fires. I've been to numerous fires with the staffing you mention, but arriving with one engine and one quint. Our backup is orimarily our off-duty personnel and sometimes mutual aid companies too depending on the severity of the fire. We've knocked down many a good fire before the cavalry arrives.

The key as I mentioned is everyone being experienced, well trained, knowing what their role is and executing to the best of their ability. In our case, at least on my shift, we know the play and the common audibles that might be called and can easily adjust to them on the fly. It's definitely more challenging than having the "right" amount of staffing and arguably "less safe", but at the same time I enjoy the "multi-tasking" we get to do. It isn't ideal, but you quickly learn how to prioritize the "normal" fireground tasks for the staffing you have and it sure as heck isn't "text book", but we're having good results. Edited January 2, 2013 by FireMedic049

[antiquefirelt 994]

Our situation very nearly parallels FireMedic 049's. Our approach in a nutshell is to aggressively put the first line into operation with on dty staff short of an obvious rescue. I'm somewhat hesitant to the notion of rewriting tactics based on staffing. Rewriting SOG's and very clearly explaining the reality of short staffing to the public and politicians is IMO a better plan. Of course a FD would have to admit up front that they're less effective than others and admitt o themselves the reality of the situation. Those priorities and tactics that a properly staffed FD does simultaneously, we must do in a linear fashion. This demands officers with sound decision making ability.

[firemoose827 324]

Try rolling up to a working house fire with an engine, engine tanker and 3, maybe 4 guys including yourself. We commonly face that here in my small town volunteer department but we work around it with pre-planned automatic mutual aid agreements. Now, we can get our resources plus the resources from our 2 closest mutual aid companies and our county FAST.

When I was captain, It was common for me to make the initial attack on working fires with the back up man, and only the MPO outside and another guy running the tanker shuttle, and whoever was IC, with our MA coming from 10-15 minutes out, but we were able to put the fire out and when the MA arrived were able to do a proper overhaul. That happened to me at least 3-4 times in the past year; once was a basement fire which we were able to access through a rear sliding door and able to make a quick knock just 3-4 feet in the door. The other time was a fire in a laundry room that ran out of air and was smoldering on our arrival with our MA department as well, we were able to do a coordinated attack with ventilation with only 5 firefighters and 2 MPO's running the engine and tanker. As I was going through the door after it was vented, the fire was flaring up and I hit it just in time and was able to do another quick knock.

We are trying to implement better training requirements for our interiors to try and match that of career firefighters and are meeting with resistance from certain members who end up resigning due to conflicts with work and family, so now we are working with a core group of dedicated, TRAINED firefighters who continue to get additional training. We train with our MA departments and county FAST routinely now and are working to improve our overall ability to handle the situations.

Our county is now also actively working with the program called "The Fire Within You" which is a drive to get people to join their volunteer fire departments and rescue squads; basically a recruitment and retention program but county wide.

[firecapt32 282]

are we damed if we do and damed if we dont?? osha and every other organization says things like 2 in/2 out. We are doing more with les--we all know that/ BUT what if some one gets hurt?? will the village /town/city/district take the responsibility and say that they were understaffed??

My thoughs every Fire Chief should go on the record with their AHJ stating that they are understaffed but they will do what ever it takes to protect the public but that they understand the ramifications of what can happen if a firefighter gets injured.

It might not help but at least some one is on record if the shi* hits the fan.

again just my view being a incident commander is not an easy job and not for the weak at heart.

[LTFIREPRG 154]

No it’s not time to throw out or rewrite the books on fire ground tactics. The IC needs to take into account his staffing and their abilities when planning his initial attack.

On all incidents the IC needs to quickly determine the following “what do I have, what do I need, and where is it going” to quickly and safely mitigate the situation while keeping in mind the incident priorities, 1 – Life Safety; 2 – Incident Stabilization; 3 – property Conservation. The IC first priority is the safety of his personnel and then of the public they are sworn to protect, with this in mind we sometimes have to push the envelope and make an aggressive interior search with reduced manpower. However, lacking any reason to believe that there may be victims within the structure and aggressive interior attack should only be perform when the proper personnel arrive on the scene.

Remember, we the willing, lead by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungratefully, we have done so much with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing!

[FireMedic049 597]

No it’s not time to throw out or rewrite the books on fire ground tactics. The IC needs to take into account his staffing and their abilities when planning his initial attack.

The OP' s question was not about rewriting fireground tactics, but rather the idea of "creating" an alternate playbook for reduced manpower situations.

On all incidents the IC needs to quickly determine the following “what do I have, what do I need, and where is it going” to quickly and safely mitigate the situation while keeping in mind the incident priorities, 1 – Life Safety; 2 – Incident Stabilization; 3 – property Conservation. The IC first priority is the safety of his personnel and then of the public they are sworn to protect, with this in mind we sometimes have to push the envelope and make an aggressive interior search with reduced manpower. However, lacking any reason to believe that there may be victims within the structure and aggressive interior attack should only be perform when the proper personnel arrive on the scene.

What constitutes the "proper personnel" on scene? Is it meeting 2in/2out? Is it the 15-17 firefighters recommended by NFPA 1710? Is it more than that for a commercial building? What constitutes an "aggressive interior attack"?

As I alluded to in my first post, sometimes getting after the fire while it's still a one line fire even though we may have less than optimal staffing can be "safer" in the long run than waiting for that optimal amount of personnel to arrive and allowing the fire to grow significantly.

[Anthony Tester 13]

I think LTPRG laid down the rules to follow if one was to create an "alternate playbook" (or any fireground playbook for that matter) in regards to reduced manpower situations. He gave you the basic rules. You do want you have to do as the situation warrants and expand on that. I am sure there are many here you can tell you story after story of what they had to do with little or no manpower. Why? Because they had to. Minimum staffing levels are just that, the minimum amount of personnel it takes to perform a task, safely. To start thinking about alternative practices because someone is looking to cut the budget, reduce manpower, etc., is ridiculous (to me anyway). Instead of progress, we regress? There is nothing guaranteed on the fireground. There are constantly split second decisions that have to be made. Risk versus benefit and working with what you have, safely, so that everyone goes home. We have the minimum standards that we follow. And they are just that, minimum.

[antiquefirelt 994]

The OP' s question was not about rewriting fireground tactics, but rather the idea of "creating" an alternate playbook for reduced manpower situations

As I sort or noted, the "alternate" playbook in a written form will likely only come back to haunt us all. The playbook is here for all to read, we just need to utilize it differently, Instead of tackling two or three tactical objectives at once, we must begin them sequentially. There have been so great time and manpower saving ideas come up with from some firefighters in FD's that are severely understaffed. But at some point, placing a ground ladder on an extension ladder, then hooking your tools to it, so you can drag it to side #3 and then go work is not saving manpower, it's likely putting that single firefighter at increased risk. It's likely that places where these tactics are required the same FF will VES or vent, complete that assignment then get another, and probably another after that. The same tasks in a properly staffed FD will be done by 5 or 6 guys, who can fight another fire later in their tour. At my job, that same guy may have just shoveled hydrants for four hours.

Now, just like 12-15 years ago wen "Two in Two Out" was coming out, we the personnel that it was designed to protect are complaining that won't allow us to do our jobs as effectively. Back in it's inception we all tossed around the half joke of "hearing someone calling for help or sounds that indicated a trapped victim" so we could immediately violate the rule. Instead had we all been collectively thinking we may have made this into a minimum staffing issue. The rules say we can't make entry to search for people unless we have clear indication of their presence and have enough people on the fireground to save our own. This should have been parlayed into a requirement that all FD's ensured that one way or another the requisite staffing was immediately dispatched. For many career FD's this would set minimum staffing goals; for volunteer FD's this likely would have meant automatic aid. Instead we ignored the rule or worked around it, increasing the risks to our selves while assuming far more liability if one of our own was hurt or killed. Fast forward to now, and we still are struggling to meet 2 in / 2 out in many places, we're struggling to complete searches during the time victims are viable and we're allowing more dangerous construction and failing at ensuring sprinklers in all residential housing.

I guess I'm of the mind that we need more firefighters and that's where our focus should lie. We shouldn't don't need an alternative plan, but in fact just have on scene decision makers that know how to prioritize the assignments and can be realistic about what a single FF or company can do in terms of single assignments or consecutive assignments. Developing a written plan on how to safely engage the fire with fewer personnel will certainly assure you of fewer personnel, and widepsread publishing of the same will result in another document for the beancounters to use to reduce staffing. Instead we should focus on what singular tasks a limited number allows us to do safely (given our occupation) and show the beancounters why we must do this, and what the outcome will be (increased fire damage or losses). In no case is anyone (I hope) abdandoning rescues or standing around doing nothing until more personnel arrive.

Edited January 2, 2013 by antiquefirelt

[LTFIREPRG 154]

The OP' s question was not about rewriting fireground tactics, but rather the idea of "creating" an alternate playbook for reduced manpower situations.

What constitutes the "proper personnel" on scene? Is it meeting 2in/2out? Is it the 15-17 firefighters recommended by NFPA 1710? Is it more than that for a commercial building? What constitutes an "aggressive interior attack"?

As I alluded to in my first post, sometimes getting after the fire while it's still a one line fire even though we may have less than optimal staffing can be "safer" in the long run than waiting for that optimal amount of personnel to arrive and allowing the fire to grow significantly.

There is no clear cut answer to your questions. It all comes down to pre-planing and size up. The type of occupancy, the type of construction, the occupant load, the fire load, the time of day, the weather and so on and so forth are all going to play a role. The I/C needs to take all of this into consideration and based on his/her judgement determine what type of initial fire attack is warranted. Bottom line it will be determined on an incident by incident basis, and the judgment and skill of the I/C to perform an quick and accurate size up.

Edited January 2, 2013 by LTFIREPRG

[Dinosaur 844]

Let me be more clear since from the responses you're not getting my point. My point is why are we putting ourselves in harm's way and taking on the liability as officers by conducting operations that are simply unsafe?

Why are we performing interior operations when there is nobody outside to rescue our sorry asses when it goes sideways?

How come we don't have the balls to say "sorry, not on my watch" and STOP violating OSHA regulations or NFPA and ISO guidelines by having inadequate numbers of FF on scene? OSHA, NFPA, and ISO have all come out with regulations, standards, and guidance that says X is the right number and we consistently accept fractions of X instead of drawing a line in the sand. Where're the balls we all like to boast about having when it comes time to stand up to city hall or the commissioners or just our own conscience!!!

I remember when my department still had a fairly solid volunteer roster to join the career staff but those days are over. I don't think I could send two guys in on a line without more personnel outside to bail them out of a jam. Maybe I'm paranoid in my old age but I'd rather fight it from the outside than knock on someone's door to tell them that their loved one isn't coming home because I failed to do my job. If you're the chief and you've got three guys on scene at a real worker, how do you in clear conscience send them inside the building?

And another thing, after watching that video about the FDNY member bailing out and the issue of proper equipment, how does anyone permit operations without the right equipment? After reading about the Kingston job, how do we continue to operate without throwing ladders up on the outside and having a FAST/RIT ready to roll?

Most of the responses to this have focused on doing the job at all costs and by any means necessary. I think we have to start rethinking that mindset and start seriously considering how we're going to evolve the fire service before bnechis's predictions come true and we're regionalized and consolidated by someone else.

[Dinosaur 844]

There is no clear cut answer to your questions. It all comes down to pre-planing and size up. The type of occupancy, the type of construction, the occupant load, the fire load, the time of day, the weather and so on and so forth are all going to play a role. The I/C needs to take all of this into consideration and based on his/her judgement determine what type of initial fire attack is warranted. Bottom line it will be determined on an incident by incident basis, and the judgment and skill of the I/C to perform an quick and accurate size up.

You can regurgitate all the text books you want but there really is a clear cut answer when you've only got THREE guys. Fire blowing out the 3rd floor windows of an OMD and all you've got is THREE guys. Someone's gotta throw the flag and call foul!

[Dinosaur 844]

No. If you haven't seen it already, check out the link below to the Underwriters Laboratory research regarding ventilation and you should understand why the answer is no.

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/industries/buildingmaterials/fire/fireservice/verticalventilation/

There really isn't a one size fits all answer to this question. In some cases, we will clearly need to make adjustments based on the occupancy, level of involvement and other conditions. In other cases, it may not be necessary to do so. Sometimes stopping the "small" fire (R&C type) even though understaffed can be "safer" than waiting for backup and letting it become a "big" fire a be one that takes a lot of personnel and time to put out.

It's already being done across this country and will continue until everybody always has adequate staffing.

Well, a lot of how you'll feel would be based on what you know to be the knowledge and abilities of the guys on those trucks. If you have a solid group capable of getting after it, you may not feel all that bad. I work in a small career department that easily sees our share of working fires. I've been to numerous fires with the staffing you mention, but arriving with one engine and one quint. Our backup is orimarily our off-duty personnel and sometimes mutual aid companies too depending on the severity of the fire. We've knocked down many a good fire before the cavalry arrives.

The key as I mentioned is everyone being experienced, well trained, knowing what their role is and executing to the best of their ability. In our case, at least on my shift, we know the play and the common audibles that might be called and can easily adjust to them on the fly. It's definitely more challenging than having the "right" amount of staffing and arguably "less safe", but at the same time I enjoy the "multi-tasking" we get to do. It isn't ideal, but you quickly learn how to prioritize the "normal" fireground tasks for the staffing you have and it sure as heck isn't "text book", but we're having good results.

Alright ventilation was a bad example. How about laddering the egress points from upper floors?

Let's see what you threw back at me:

Experienced - most FF (career and volunteer) are not. The fire load is down and I know some guys that have very little real experience to back them up.

Well-trained - we're not. Training for the fire service is abysmal and there's no standard outside of the 229 regs.

Knowing their role - again, most don't and we don't routinely put people in the same position so they can learn their role. Today I'm doing this tomorrow I'll be doing that. There's no rhyme or reason at all and officers don't really care to address it in most departments. They're just happy somebody showed up.

I enjoy multi-tasking but there's a difference between trying to work short-handed (all the time) and multi-tasking.

Forget ideal, it isn't safe, it isn't legal and yet we continue to be our own worst enemies and operate this way day in and day out. To make matters worse, we lie to ourselves and our adminstrations when we say everything is okey dokey and we have enough people when we don't!

[antiquefirelt 994]

I think we have to start rethinking that mindset and start seriously considering how we're going to evolve the fire service before bnechis's predictions come true and we're regionalized and consolidated by someone else.

You say that like it;s a bad thing? Wouldn't a regionalized FD with adequate resources and staffing best serve the communities and the firefighters who are at risk?

I couldn't agree more with everything else you've said. I suspect your being part of a regionalization/consolidation discussion would benefit your own FD and firefighters. Go to the "dark side".

[Dinosaur 844]

You say that like it;s a bad thing? Wouldn't a regionalized FD with adequate resources and staffing best serve the communities and the firefighters who are at risk?

I couldn't agree more with everything else you've said. I suspect your being part of a regionalization/consolidation discussion would benefit your own FD and firefighters. Go to the "dark side".

Hell no it's not a bad thing. What's bad is how we'd rather see our own department fail or worse, have a LODD, rather than become part of the solution. I was involved in very early discussions about this before I retired and can't believe nobody is carrying the torch anymore.

I'm a big fan of well structured, well staffed regional departments.

[FireMedic049 597]

There is no clear cut answer to your questions. It all comes down to pre-planing and size up. The type of occupancy, the type of construction, the occupant load, the fire load, the time of day, the weather and so on and so forth are all going to play a role. The I/C needs to take all of this into consideration and based on his/her judgement determine what type of initial fire attack is warranted. Bottom line it will be determined on an incident by incident basis, and the judgment and skill of the I/C to perform an quick and accurate size up.

Right, that's kind of my point with some of these statements. There's simply too many variables from one fire to the next. What you consider the "proper amount of personnel" to be may not be the same as me or the next guy. Normal to me might be aggressive to you, but still not actually be "reckless".

[FireMedic049 597]

Let me be more clear since from the responses you're not getting my point. My point is why are we putting ourselves in harm's way and taking on the liability as officers by conducting operations that are simply unsafe?

Why are we performing interior operations when there is nobody outside to rescue our sorry asses when it goes sideways?

How come we don't have the balls to say "sorry, not on my watch" and STOP violating OSHA regulations or NFPA and ISO guidelines by having inadequate numbers of FF on scene? OSHA, NFPA, and ISO have all come out with regulations, standards, and guidance that says X is the right number and we consistently accept fractions of X instead of drawing a line in the sand. Where're the balls we all like to boast about having when it comes time to stand up to city hall or the commissioners or just our own conscience!!!

Just because you don't see it frequently on the news doesn't mean that we aren't conveying that message to our local officials. Unfortunately, many of us, at least career wise, simply have to make what we have work until that message gets thru and staffing is improved. In my case, there's simply no money for additional staffing and probably won't be anytime soon.

The job is inherently "unsafe". To completely stop doing anything "unsafe" would mean not doing the job. The trick is to identify that line between reasonable action and reckless disregard and stay on the proper side.

Most of the responses to this have focused on doing the job at all costs and by any means necessary.

I think you may be misinterpreting some of the responses. I'm absolutely not saying that. I'm simply saying that we still have a job to do even if understaffed. We need to be smart about how we do that and sometimes that means doing things without all of the "safeguards" of the ideal modern fireground.

[FireMedic049 597]

Alright ventilation was a bad example. How about laddering the egress points from upper floors?

It wasn't a bad example. It was a good question, however the answer may not have been what you expected. As for this question, there's no easy answer.

Let's see what you threw back at me:

Experienced - most FF (career and volunteer) are not. The fire load is down and I know some guys that have very little real experience to back them up.

Well-trained - we're not. Training for the fire service is abysmal and there's no standard outside of the 229 regs.

Knowing their role - again, most don't and we don't routinely put people in the same position so they can learn their role. Today I'm doing this tomorrow I'll be doing that. There's no rhyme or reason at all and officers don't really care to address it in most departments. They're just happy somebody showed up.

Yes, all of this may be true in many departments and operations should reflect that reality. If the officers don't care to address these things, then the results will reflect that. We, and many other departments, have the training and experience to conduct our operations the way we do and the results speak for themselves.

I enjoy multi-tasking but there's a difference between trying to work short-handed (all the time) and multi-tasking.

Not as much as you might think.

Forget ideal, it isn't safe, it isn't legal and yet we continue to be our own worst enemies and operate this way day in and day out. To make matters worse, we lie to ourselves and our adminstrations when we say everything is okey dokey and we have enough people when we don't!

"Safe" can often be very subjective. What are you referring to as illegal?

Some departments may be lying to themselves about this however, making do with what you have to work with and being successful with that doesn't automatically mean that we think everything is "okey dokey" with it or aren't trying to address that.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I think we have to start rethinking that mindset and start seriously considering how we're going to evolve the fire service before bnechis's predictions come true and we're regionalized and consolidated by someone else.

You say that like it;s a bad thing? Wouldn't a regionalized FD with adequate resources and staffing best serve the communities and the firefighters who are at risk?

I couldn't agree more with everything else you've said. I suspect your being part of a regionalization/consolidation discussion would benefit your own FD and firefighters. Go to the "dark side".

I think the point was more that failing to fix our problems will result in non-fire service officials forcing consolidation based on their needs and or misunderstanding and not based on consolidating to sound fire service principals.

I think you may be misinterpreting some of the responses. I'm absolutely not saying that. I'm simply saying that we still have a job to do even if understaffed. We need to be smart about how we do that and sometimes that means doing things without all of the "safeguards" of the ideal modern fireground.

While the job still needs to get done, there may still be plenty of additional firefighters sitting in fire stations minutes away, but they are on the other side of a dotted line, so we will continue to work short because we do not want the status quo to change.

[Healz 30]

[FireMedic049 597]

While the job still needs to get done, there may still be plenty of additional firefighters sitting in fire stations minutes away, but they are on the other side of a dotted line, so we will continue to work short because we do not want the status quo to change.

Yes, unfortunately that is the case in some places.

[wraftery 1,275]

Consolidation in southern Westchester is long overdue. It would eliminate duplication of services to some extent, but more importantly, it would boost the services that we are lacking such as NFPA compliant manower, better trained and better equipped special operations teams, organized and consistent multple alarm responses with assigned units up to a 5th alarm level, and on and on. About 8 or 9 Chiefs would have to be eliminated since there can only be one Chief, but in a larger department there is a need for more subordinate Chiefs (Training, resource management, personnel, prevention, communications,etc). There should be plenty of slots for existing DCs because the area would have to be broken down into divisions or Battalions with at least 4 DCs for each. In addition, there should be an overall tour commander.

I have become very familiar with the Virginia Beach FD, which only organized in 1963 out of many small departments in Princess Anne County. They have since become one of the premier departments in the country. If they can do it, so can southern Westchester. The Career Chiefs started on a good path to this end,with the proby school and special ops task force,but I have seen personalities almost put an end to our Proby school. "I'm going to do my own school this year" or "I'm sending my guys to Montour Falls" are a couple of Chief's answers to often minor problems with one or two classes. That's not progress. Other departments refused to participate in a consolidation feasibility study, when those departments were just as behind on manpower and money as anybody else

Unless we wake up and look outside Westchester we will become has beens in the fire service. We have to look at the good of all and stop with "my fd is better than yours." I don't think any one Westchester department is giving its best to its public. We all can do better.

As for northern Westchester, I'm not volunteer bashing. I like you guys and I know you are dedicated and often very professional, but like it or not you are underqualified when held up against the southern Westchester personnel. It's not the individual firefighter's fault. Every time somebody tries to get minimum qualifications, FASNY squashes it with the theory that the vol Depts will loose people. You have to do something about that.

"Just sayin"

JustSayin"