explaining that the fire service functions in a totally different way than
pretty much any other agency.
Virtually all businesses and government agencies base their resource needs
on workload. This doesn't work for the fire service, which must provide
"protection", that is, "be available" for any call which may come.*
The standards-making organizations use the concept of "coverage" and
"response time" to set resource standards. In most jurisdictions, fire
engine companies and truck companies and other resources are spaced by
maximum response times, based on national standards. (There are other
factors, such as "potential fire load", so that densely-populated areas have
more resources.)
The reason for emphasis on response times is that fire, once started,
expands exponentially, and time is of the essence. As the fire is being
detected and reported and the alarm is being sounded and companies are
responding, the fire is burning bigger and badder.**
It's this basis that is the real problem with station closures; somebody is
going to be unprotected, or at least not adequately protected. If a fire
breaks out in the area of the station closure, it's going to have more time
to burn. A "food on the stove" fire will possibly grow into a kitchen fire,
or even into a "structure fully involved" as the next-due/now first-due
engine is still coming. Stations are not overly-allotted to start with, so
closing some is "Russian roulette".
Now the related issue of staffing: An engine on a structure response is
expected to perform "initial fire attack", which involves "size-up" (seeing
what the situation is), report (to dispatch and other incoming companies),
and actual fire attack (in most cases of actual fire, at least one hoseline
being advanced to the fire, plus "access", e.g. getting through doors, etc.
to the actual fire).
The first-arriving engine officer is going to participate in the size-up,
make the report, direct his/her firefighters, and take command of the
incident until relieved by a senior officer. (Kind of limits his/her
availability on a hoseline.)
The engineer is going to place the engine tactically and safely, then put
the pump into operation and continue to operate it as hoselines are put into
use.
Now we're up to two staff fully employed. However, we don't yet have anybody
attacking the fire.
Question: How many firefighters are required to launch an interior attack?
One? Well, a strong firefighter (that's actually a redundancy) can mostly
handle an inch-and-three-quarter hoseline. That's without any impediments.
That's also without anybody to gain access.
That's also without the safety factor of "the buddy system". What if the
ceiling caves in on your lone firefighter? Who's going to rescue him/her?
Sorry, but there's nobody left. But don't worry; "we all know" the survivors
of fallen firefighters are taken care of.
Therefore, a minimum engine staffing of four is clearly defensible.
----------
The problem (especially in our current hard times) is two-fold:
1. Communicate these issues to the public and to the government
decision-makers.
2. Find occupation for firefighters which utilizes their non-call time while
leaving them available for response. EMS meets the first issue but not the
second. Training, fire safety inspections, public education, are some
activities that can meet these requirements and are common duties of
suppression-company firefighters.
Most firefighters would rather make an interior fire attack than deal with
these issues, and I can't say I blame them.
==============
* At least part of the military functions on this basis also. For example,
the Air Force fighter-interceptors have to always be there, ready for launch
within a very few minutes, or they're completely useless. (When I was
stationed in Germany during the Cold War, our interceptors were scrambled
only about once or twice a week [usually in response to Soviet "tests"], but
were utterly necessary.)
** A closely-related issue is that the longer a fire burns, the more
resources are required to gain control over it. Firefighters have to remove
the heat, fuel, oxygen, and/or chemical process faster than the fire is
generating it. Therefore, a delay of only seconds will make the difference
between having the resources to overcome the fire or not. This is what
allegedly happened in the Station fire, when resources were not thrown at
the fire the morning after and it blew up to "no way we can ever get control
of this".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Bates" <HappyMoosePhoto@gmail.com>
To: <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [californiadisasters] CA budget proposal to eliminate 4th
I didn't work for CDF, but for a contract county. 4-0 is a local issue, but
CDF also struggled long and hard to gain it. So it is also a state issue.
Some local agencies gained 5-0 staffing but are now suffering through
station closures, longer response times and higher losses (property, lives).
It's a bang for the buck balancing act, difficult in good times, brutal now.
It'll get uglier before it gets better. :-(
Rick
------------------------------------
Be sure to check out our Links Section at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/links
Please join our Discussion Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters_discussion/ for topical but extended discussions started here or for less topical but nonetheless relevant messages.Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
californiadisasters-digest@yahoogroups.com
californiadisasters-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
californiadisasters-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment