June 2007
Saving Firefighters’ Lives Requires Special Focus
by Robert Tutterow
The National Fallen Firefighters’ Foundation (NFFF) conducted its second line of duty death (LODD) summit in March at the Fireman’s Fund Headquarters in Navato, Calif. The first summit was in 2004 in Tampa, Fla. From the first summit, came the 16 Life Safety Initiatives. The more recent summit identified ways fire departments can meet the initiatives.
The overall mission of the initiatives is to help meet the United States Fire Administration’s goal of reducing firefighter fatalities by 25 percent in 5 years and 50 percent in 10 years. It must be noted that we are now in year three of this goal with minimal results.
The participants were divided in special focus areas, and one of the areas was apparatus and response safety. Included in the focus area was roadway incident scene safety. Of the 16 initiatives, numbers 1, 3, 5, 11, and 16 were identified as applicable to the focus area.
Number 1 on that list is: define and advocate the need for a cultural change within the fire service relating to vehicle safety, incorporating leadership, management, supervision, accountability and personal responsibility.
Number 3 is: focus greater attention on the integration of risk management with incident management at all levels, including strategic, tactical, and planning responsibilities.
Number 5 is: develop and implement national standards for training, qualifications, and certification (including regular recertification) that are equally applicable to all firefighters based on the duties they are expected to perform.
Number 11 is: national standards for emergency response policies and procedures should be championed and developed.
Number 16 is: safety is the primary concern in the design of fire apparatus and equipment.
The focus group identified 11 domains as a point of emphasis. Of the 11, five were given high priority.
At the top of the list was a recommendation that the NFFF sponsor an effort to develop a consensus-approved, national best-practices document for emergency and non-emergency response. Not every call is the “towering inferno” or babies trapped in a dwelling.
The most serious of accidents are more likely to occur during Code 3 responses. In many cases the first due may have legitimate reason for Code 3 while the other responding units can respond routinely without delay. And in other cases, routine response is most appropriate. Protocols can be developed that help 911 centers determine the need for Code 3 response.
Next on the list of priorities is the need to make safety a core value by implementing a pledge of support for LACK – Leadership, Accountability, Communication, and Knowledge. Adopting LACK provides a comprehensive cultural change from the top down and provides a consistent approach to risk management principles.
At Interschutz in 2005, Rosenbauer introduced a compact truck that is short and light. (Fire Apparatus Photo by Alan Saulsbury) |
Third on the list is the need to scientifically assess the ergonomics and the anthropometrics of a fully dressed firefighter in, around, and on emergency vehicles. Work is already underway in this domain. A joint effort of several groups is conducting body measurements of 1,000 firefighters. This will be followed by a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-conducted body scan of firefighters. Results of these studies will be used to better design fire apparatus – particularly in regards to cab seating. Other areas of influence include placement of steps, ladders, handholds and grab rails.
Driver Training
Requiring initial and refresher training for all drivers of all fire department vehicles (new and existing apparatus and privately owned vehicles (POVs)) in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1002 is the fourth priority. Private sector fleet safety programs have proven this works. This is especially true in volunteer fire departments where the opportunity to drive an apparatus on a response might be occasional at best.
And last, but certainly not least on the list of the five priorities is the need to build a bridge between end-users and apparatus manufacturers/dealers for new apparatus delivery training. Often the person who delivers an apparatus can provide excellent training on the operation of the vehicle such as controls, switches and features. However, there is an orientation deficiency when it comes to training fire departments on the handling characteristics of the vehicle. New vehicles have different physical, dynamic, and technological characteristics that affect the operation of the vehicle.
Seatbelt Compliance
Other areas were considered during the summit, including the need to champion the national effort to gain 100 percent compliance with seatbelt use requirements when riding in fire apparatus and POVs. The reason this was not in the top five is because of the many efforts already underway to address seatbelt usage in apparatus design. Nonetheless, there is an unacceptable lack of enforcement of seat belt usage in far too many fire departments.
Endorse, support, and implement the National Unified Goal for Traffic Incident Management is another important goal. Every roadway emergency scene across the continent should have standard characteristics, like signage, colors, cones, flares, vests, signals, messages and procedures.
Another need examined during the summit is the development of a universal guidance document for end-users to assist in the safe design of emergency vehicles. End-users may not have experience and knowledge for specification development to ensure that safety is a primary concern. A safety checklist of design criteria will help focus attention toward safety.
There’s also a need to require and enforce 100 percent compliance for the wearing of American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-approved emergency responder safety vests while working in roadways. After years of development there is now a standard for fluorescent/reflective safety vests for emergency responders. The standard must now be implemented and enforced by all fire departments.
There also remains a need to integrate the risk management model that is commonly used for fire ground operations into vehicle response and roadway scene operations. Risk nothing to save nothing. Risk a little to save a little, like savable property. Risk a lot to save a lot, such as savable lives with the emphasis on savable.
Additionally, the disconnect between current safety requirements for new apparatus and the condition of existing apparatus must be bridged. NFPA 1901 only applies to new fire apparatus. No department is able to purchase all new apparatus each time a new revision of the standard becomes effective, usually at the rate of every 3 to 5 years. As we all know, many apparatus remain in service for many years, yet there is no requirement that updated safety features be installed on an existing fleet.
Those who attended the summit also concluded that there should be some sort of routine drivers’ license checks, a policy that has proven to be very revealing and effective in private industry.
Along the same line, it’s a good idea to require all fire department members to meet requirements of NFPA 1001 for traffic control training. That will provide fundamental principles to be applied in a standard way across the nation.
The apparatus issues are only a part of the life safety initiatives and the domains for the second NFFF LODD summit. However, in recent years, statistics indicate that firefighters are more likely to die responding to and returning from incidents than they are at the incident scene. We all know that heart attacks are the leading cause of firefighter fatalities.
The second leading cause is responding and returning from incidents and operating at roadway incidents.
This is unacceptable and a very non-heroic way to leave your family and friends.
Editor’s Note: Robert Tutterow, who has 30 years in the fire service, is the Charlotte (N.C.) Fire Department health and safety officer. He is the chair of the NFPA Fire Department Apparatus Committee’s Safety Task Force Group and is on two other NFPA committees, the Structural and Proximity Firefighting Protective Ensemble Technical Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee for Fire and Emergency Services PPE.