"Quarterback" Size-up. Interesting Analogies

The start of football season brings out the talking heads and sports commentators who spend an inordinate amount of time talking about the mental skillset necessary to play the position of quarterback at a high level; making it sound like the most difficult job on earth.  While admittedly I have no desire to stand in front of a snarling 350 pound lineman trying to make my body intimate friends with the grass, I do think that the situational awareness necessary for rapid decision making under center presents some interesting parallels to fire scene size-up.  With a pass play called, quarterbacks go to the line of scrimmage and see a defensive formation that may give an accurate representation of the opposition’s intentions or may be deceptive.  At the snap, he has a few short seconds to read the scene and hopefully be able to locate and connect with his primary receiver.  If covered, he then has to check down and look for his secondary or tertiary outlet.  He has to avoid getting tunnel vision as the defense converges and move, bob, and weave while continuing to look down field; big picture and small, refining his tactics based on what he sees. 

The first arriving fire officer on a residential structure fire faces similar challenges.  What “formation” is the fire showing and is it deceptive or obvious.  In just a few seconds, the officer needs to evaluate the construction, occupancy, exposures; read the smoke and extent of the fire conditions present on all those.  He can then audible his strategy and the associated tactics.  The firefighters under him have a similar complex job to do looking at primary and secondary escape routes and continually evaluating the effect that the fire is having on the structural integrity of the building so they too can check down and adjust their attack and team actions if necessary. 

The similarities are obvious although the salary levels are not.  The stakes on the correct decision making on the fire side are a little higher than a sack, incomplete pass or interception.

 

The Continuum of Change: Residential Sprinklers vs the “Good” Fire

One sentence from a recent conversation continues to stick in my mind.  “If it weren’t for that sprinkler in the townhouse, we would’ve had a good fire.”  It was stated only partly in jest, the young firefighter, like many, always wanting more of the challenge of a “good” fire.  No one, save the psychotic, wants to see someone else’s property destroyed much less anyone injured; but this is juxtaposed with the firefighter’s inherent desire to perform their craft and test themselves in that environmental nightmare we call “inside.” 

We need a partial shift in balance to begin better educating the younger firefighters as to the desirability of residential sprinklers.  For the most part, their response to commercial sprinkler alarms and fires is something they accept as common and normal.  The expansion of residential sprinklers, however, is newer and something which reduces the size and number of their bread and butter—the house fire.  Understanding is one thing, but acceptance is another.  Sliding the scale so these aggressive young men and women buy into the importance and value of these systems is a critical leadership task. 

It is difficult to see, accept, and support technology which if (or hopefully when) it becomes widespread, can eliminate much of the reason many of us came into this business to begin with.  It’s like the people version of steam replacing the sail or the car replacing the horse; not gone, but much reduced.  Just the same, pushing for these systems over the construction industry lobbyists and their pocket politicians should be continued.  That, and educating the younger generation of firefighters— so they can succeed where we haven’t. 

My Wish List for the Next Generation of Firefighters

Communications integrated into the helmet and face piece.  The tinny speakers in masks never worked right and it’s ridiculous to try to talk through face pieces.  Extension microphones are actually getting bigger, not smaller, unlike every other piece of technology in the world.

An infrared heads up display in the face piece.  There are no reasons that every firefighter shouldn’t have a camera, and no reason you should have to carry the thing. 

Apparatus designs in which hose and equipment can be reached from the ground.  This isn’t so much reengineering as it is going retro.  When I started, you could reach the pre-connects in the rear from the ground, and standing on the tailboard, you could see the driver.  There is no reason we need ladders on apparatus to reach our own equipment.  You shouldn’t have to practically set up scaffolding to reload the hose bed. 

C’mon folks; we had guys walking around on the moon in 1969; there is no reason we can’t have these simple items on a cost effective, and importantly, firefighter proof configuration. 

The Final Count: 48 Hours From the Inland Hurricaine

The Maryland, DC, and Virginia area was pummelled by what some have decribed as an inland hurricaine.  Wind gusts to 90 miles an hour, and heavy rain fall combined to cause wide spread damage, power disruptions which may not be resolved for a week, and countless emegency runs.  The station where my son Michael lives in Montgomery County was in the midst of this, and in 48 hours, ran 52 calls.  Many were wires and trees down, automatic fire alarms, etc., but others were more serious.  These included

4 box alarms for structure fires
1 fatal wreck with one down the embankment and ejected
3 collapse calls for the squad
2 transfers to Howard county for the tower

All the above was in temperatures exceeding 100 degrees at times, and regularly in the high 90s.  Not exactly a "fun" weekend. 

Micro Manager Metric Maniacs

The overwrought alliteration shows my disdain.  They are everywhere, but they use code words to describe themselves.  I’m “detail oriented” they say.  Never will one introduce themselves and say, “hi, I’m a micromanager.”   Their involvement in every aspect of operations is necessary, because no one can live up to their expectations. 

One chief who was an administrative nightmare to work for had many of these characteristics.   I called him a “shotgun manager.”  He never met an idea he didn’t like, so there were a hundred projects all in progress at the same time.  Because of this and the necessity for his involvement in everything—he couldn’t delegate to save his life—that meant that nothing ever was completed.  Since everything was a priority, nothing was.  Luckily, he wasn’t like this on the fire ground (fire ground micromanagers are even more scary) , and to this chief’s credit, he eventually evolved, changed, and improved, but that is the exception with this type of manager, not the rule. 

The data collectors are worse.  They never met a metric or measurement they didn’t like.  Just because an activity is quantifiable doesn’t mean it should be.  The argument is that the “workers” only do well what is checked—so these guys check everything.  When we measure everything, the same shotgun result occurs.  Since everything is a priority, nothing really is. 

My contention has long been there are typically four or five big important things that make an organization successful.  Measure and take good care of those, and everything else—the details—will take care of themselves.  I never thought it was rocket science, but maybe it is.  Einstein said “not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” 

"Old" Guy Stuff

Okay, this doesn’t go back to the horses, but if you experienced many of these (I did all of them), then you might be a “seasoned” firefighter if……

• You rode the back step (and put you gear on while doing it) Only once…..that was scary…and stupid.

• Rode an engine from which you could actually see the driver from the back step.

• Wore ¾ boots inside

• Wore a Scott I with no bell

• Wore “red ball” gloves.

• Know what a Plectron is—and had one—with tubes.

• Remember using the 10-codes.

• Wore a cotton duck coat.

• Remember the introduction of “safety straps” for the back step.

• Taken a 2 ½ inside. Something that should still be done, but isn't much.

• Cut off a pair of leaky ¾ boots for your first set of bunker pants.

Interior or Exterior, The Debate Continues.....

There is a continuing debate on the offensive fire attack, particularly with the spread of lightweight construction. The volume and animosity between sides at times resembles our current political spectrum. One extreme argues that other than in highly limited circumstances, attacks should be initiated and conducted from the exterior until the bulk of the fire is extinguished in order to better ensure firefighter safety. The other extreme advocates interior attacks unless structural collapse has begun or is imminent in order to ensure that a primary search is completed for unknown victims.The safety extreme seems to see the other side as dinosaurs. The interior attack proponents view the safety side as radical (to be kind). This is not an age issue; there are younger and “seasoned,” firefighters as I prefer to refer to them, on both sides.

I’ve looked carefully at the arguments on both sides and after careful consideration, I agree with…..neither.

I’m all for safety in an inherently dangerous job, but a common sense middle ground needs to be struck. The question needs to be asked are conditions tenable in areas of the structure that a live victim could survive. If not, then initiation of the attack from the exterior may be warranted; especially as if conditions are not survivable for people, there is also likely little property to save. Conversely, if the answer is yes, an interior attack and search should be started.

There is a significant flaw in the extreme safety position. In their scenario, they allow for entry for rescue of a known victim. The problem is this: where will the entry teams obtain the experience and more importantly, judgment to understand the interior conditions they will be facing in such a high stress and challenge situation if it is as rare as the perfect diamond. In reality, such a process increases the potential for injury or death because such crews would be inherently inexperienced and lacking in situational awareness and—that word again—judgment; something which they can only attain through repetition.

The flaw on the other side is obvious. If conditions are such that the presence of a survivable victim is not possible, and granted, this too is a judgment call, why take the risk? The argument that such a decision can’t be made accurately is ludicrous.

Are there buildings today we go into which we shouldn’t? Absolutely. Is the reverse true? I’ve frustratingly seen more than a few of these as well.

What I would suggest at this juncture is that the rhetoric on this question be dialed back and that we remember we’re all on the same team with the identical desired outcome. That we are talking about these things is good. However, a little common sense and restraint could go a long way in these debates.

AFG: Where Do We Go From Here?

The NFPA recently released a fire service needs assessment; the third iteration following previous assessments conducted in 2001 and 2005. The goal was to look for gaps in fire service needs and to evaluate how the AFG program is helping to fill the needs of departments. There were some interesting results.

• 46% of fire departments have not formally trained all their personnel in structural firefighting. This is down from 55% in 2001 and 53 % in 2005.

• 70% of departments have no program to maintain firefighter health and fitness, down from 80% in 2001 and 76% in 2005.

• 46% of fire department engines were 15 or more years old, down from 51% in 2001 and 50% in 2005.

Some of the conclusions included:
• Needs have declined considerably in areas such as personal protective and firefighting equipment, two types of resources that received the largest shares of funding from the AFG programs.

• Declines in needs have been more modest in some other important areas, such as training, which have received much smaller shares of AFG funds.

• Fire prevention and code enforcement needs have shown no clear improvement over the past decade.

• There has been little change in the ability of departments, using only local resources, to handle certain types of unusually challenging incidents, including two types of homeland security scenarios (structural collapse and chem/bio agent attack) and two types of large-scale emergency responses (a wildland/urban interface fire and a developing major flood).

The AFG program has attempted to supplement local resources and fill gaps across a wide spectrum of needs. While there is no argument that there has been positive movement, even a generous assessment of these results and conclusions would be that the successes have been modest. Based on this, I’m wondering if it might be time to try something different.

It is no secret that federal resources are under a microscope, and if anyone thinks the amount dedicated to the fire service will increase, please let me know as I have a large bridge for sale. The obvious conclusion is that the broad brush approach used over the past decade will not work across the entire spectrum of issues. Note that where a large percentage of the resources went; namely personal protective and firefighting equipment, is where there has been more success.

Instead of continuing down this path and seeing marginal improvement over the next ten years with the limited resources available, why not take a hard look and establish one or two priorities and for the next five years, focus all the available funding there in order to produce a major impact. Whether it should be training, fire prevention, health & safety, or another area, is a topic for another day. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to look at these numbers; consider the billions of dollars spent to obtain modest improvements overall, and not think that there has to be a better way.

Books

Books played a large part in my life from the time I learned to read. Mom was a big reader, which is obviously where I got my love for books. Obvious, because Dad was not a reader. This was a dichotomy in our house as Mom always had a book or two underway and Dad read the newspaper, the fire magazines, and occasionally, Field & Stream. A short article at a time was his limit. At his job, he read large amounts of material, digesting reports, studies, and memos. Because of that, I always thought reading was work for him, not something to be enjoyed.

My favorite days in school were when the Scholastic Book order came in. This was second only to the day in which I pored over the newsprint catalog with that periods selections in it; trying to decide what to order. Mom enjoyed this as well, and her job was to establish the limitations and the budget, as I would have ordered practically everything in the flyer. Dad mainly gritted his teeth; avoiding offering his opinion on the whole process. He knew there was little sense in voicing his thoughts as Mom insisted we should have books and read, and deep down, he knew this was the right thing to do from an educational standpoint.

I still remember the thrill of watching the teacher unpack the cardboard box and separate each student's order. Carrying them home, it was a major decision which one to start with. It really didn't matter, as I usually read two or three books at a time anyway.

Writing my own book took it to the next level, and holding the first printed copy in my hand was like Scholastic day multiplied exponentially. The only thing missing was Mom seeing the book. Oh, there would have been a short lecture on the profanity in some of the stories, but she understood that's how it really was. Any thoughts she might have had on that would have been overwhelmed with reading the stories about her husband, son, and grandson.

The second best part is Dad actually reading it. The process took a few months, but he did it; kind of neat as it is the first entire book he's read in probably more than thirty years. He now is more than pleased to quote from it on a regular basis--especially the stories involving him.

I'm glad he was still here to read it.

Common Sense

I read a great article recently by Jerry Knapp http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/naylor/NFCQ0211/index.php#/36 in Size Up (Issue 2, 2011) He is emphatic in his interest in firefighter safety, but argues quite persuasively--at least to me--that perhaps we have moved away from common sense, personal responsibility, and managing our people instead of expecting technology to do it.

He begins with a discussion of a New York state law requiring fire departments to purchase bail out bags for their firefighters if they handle buildings over one story (and who doesn't) high. This gets to the root of a politically incorrect opinion I have held for years; namely that many of the firefighter survivial classes are incorrectly focused primarily on techniques instead of something more important--situational awareness and size-up. Let's teach how to avoid getting into trouble in the first place rather than simply how to get out of it. As one who has done the head first ladder slide for real, I can tell you that if you have to do it to stay alive, it comes real natural.

Knapp's seat belt discussion is a good one as well. I full agree that seat belts make things safer. However, instead of coming up with workable user friendly designs, the apparatus instead now has bells, buzzers, and interlocks to make us use them. This raises a few issues. Not forcing the manufacturers to come up with something practical, they add costs (and profit) to pieces by the addition of bells and whistles. It also challenges some of our bright young firefighters to come up with ways to by-pass said safeguards; a lose-lose situation. Lastly it shows our difficulties in managing our own people and culture. As Jerry points out, if the Lieutenant in the seat turned around and made sure everyone was buckled in before the wheels turned, would we need a computer to tell us the rig shouldn't move? Will this change? Definitely, but it will take some time. An analogy would be the path taken to mandatory SCBA usage and the equipment we have today versus thirty years ago. I suspect some of our more "seasoned folks will nod their head at their memories of this.

While there is nothing more important than safety, common sense needs to come along for the ride.