« “Ring of Fire”… | Home | “Fighting Bob”… »
“Tactical Safety-Attack Supervision: One Box That Should Always Be Filled”…
By thehousewatch | October 11, 2009
“Examining the process of firefighting to see if there is a better and safer way to operate”
Tactical Safety – Attack Supervision: One Box That Should Always Be Filled
By: Ray McCormack
Photo by thehousewatch.com
There are several boxes in an attack strategy that should be filled at every fire. Under supervision we have several layers, and the ability to segment our operations into manageable chunks. Initial supervision on arrival and command-control is generally handled by the first in officer. Under certain departmental operational models, this officer’s role is lost at the task (company) level. The merits of any operational model can only be judged over time as to its effectiveness and overall operational safety. Taking a supervisor and placing them in a different role may fill one box, but what about the other box that is now missing its supervision?
Having an officer assigned to the engine company is extremely important and doubles that company’s attack efficiency. Staffing for most departments is an issue that is ongoing. Depending on the type of fire occupancy and layout presented, a lack of hoseline supervision should be criminal. We can have enough people for a timely hoseline advance; however when the officer takes on the role of back up firefighter we are operating less efficiently and less safe.
The command model that allows for the first hoseline officer to be pulled off the engine company and into another operational position is sacrificial in nature; as important as command is to overall operational effectiveness, so is command at the company (task) level; and especially for the primary attack hoseline. It is a judgment call for some departments; it is policy for others and it is always inherently tricky. Where is the IC? The true IC: the fire chief? This person must be assigned right away on any potential structural fire call.
When a nozzle team consists of just ‘workers’ and no supervision, it is not only understaffed, it is ineffectively staffed. Yes, I know the realities of real world staffing and there isn’t much we can do about severe staffing shortages, but many times the loss of the engine boss is an obligation and is not about numbers. Having someone with the nozzle team, that is solely concentrating on extinguishment and tactical safety without other operational distractions, raises the effectiveness of that team, period. Can we do things over time (luck out) that allow us to develop a skewed prospective of operational effectiveness and the proper deployment of resources? Is every fire difficult? No, but that’s not the point. The point is where do we place value? Is it only found in the command role? Or do we find value at the end of a nozzle?
There is a lot of emphasis on the whole picture or exterior view/perspective of a fire, the typical view of the IC. However nice that view is, it is only a portion of what is occurring inside. Let’s not forget it is the interior view that is leaking to the exterior. That interior view is much more telling and the IC needs someone to share that view with everyone on the fireground. We can not move to a place in firefighting that we just read the cover of books/ buildings without further exploration or venturing inside. The engine company officer will supply that critical interior view. He will also supply the encouragement and quiet confidence of forward movement that puts fires out.
Many seem to be concerned with outside views and what it says, and that’s fine for awhile; but when you become overly concerned and can not move past that feature then no matter what you think you are seeing you are only seeing a portion of the fire puzzle. To solve most fire puzzles we need to go inside. We need to be lead by someone who is solely looking out for our safety up close and personal and who has their eye on the prize – putting the fire out and saving lives in the process. If you do not subscribe to the platform of hoseline supervision being the foundation of operational effectiveness and tactical safety then you have much to relearn. Leaving the primary attack line without supervision is bad firematics, because one day the results you will get will add up to more than just poor tactical safety; and ineffective extinguishment; it will add up to something much worse. If we have to choose boxes to fill, the engine company leadership box is at the top.
Next Tactical Safety – Winning Fires with Water
Topics: Training and Development | 2 Comments »
October 11th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
“I am listening to Ray” a response to Bill Carey about what Ray is saying:
http://www.firegeezer.com/2009/10/11/i-am-listening-to-ray/
October 13th, 2009 at 9:51 am
I will be honest I hated Ray’s speech @ FDIC….not so much the message as I agree sometimes we take safety to almost the detriment of doing our job….but the delivery and the fact that he felt the need in my eyes to put down others work in the fire service (Seattle Guys for Air Management, and Ron Moore on Highway Safety)
With all that being said I think his “Tactical Safety” articles are awesome and really highlight some things that are overlooked in the fire service. I plan on taking his tactical safety pre conference workshop @ FDIC in 2010 to hopefully gain an even better understanding of these objectives. Ray you have reemereged in my eyes as a fire service leader.