You can talk to anyone in the U.S. education system – particularly in the K-12 range and ask what a detrimental impact three months of “brain inactivity” has on a kid. The problem is a big one – other countries have recognized the “risk” involved here and have either eliminated or shortened this “vacation”, but we continue to give people three months off from school – and then spend the first three months of the new school year getting caught up with all the stuff that was forgotten by the kids over the summer holiday.

And not to digress, but my Mom was a big fan of the adage “an idle mind is the devil’s playground” – so K-12 always involved “summer school” for me – which was mostly attended by kids needing some type of remediation – and I ended up in these classes – which I thought were a complete waste of time until “high-school summer school” – when Mom enrolled me in “typing class” – simply because nothing else was available – and I was initially upset – until I saw the makeup of the class – and you guessed it – I was the only guy in there!

What a wasted summer is what I thought at the time. A young man with typing skills in the 60’s was a waste I thought – and how valuable that has been over the ensuing years with the advent of the computer and word processors and all the e-stuff that requires that skill with QWERTY. And if you ever drop by my office I will show you the actual Remington typewriter on which I learned to type – complete with no “indicators” on the keys as to which key it was – and while I had no problems with the letters – the numbers and symbols were a bit confusing requiring a partial depression of the key and have it raise from its resting spot so you could peer into that void and inspect the “symbol” on the key to make sure you had the right one.

But enough of the happenings of June, July and August. After Summer – we have Fall– which is one of the two times each and every year we play with our clocks and “Spring ahead – fall behind” – and why are we doing that again? Oh, that’s right – to give us more “daylight” hours – and somehow we have forgotten about that little switch on the wall that provides artificial light – from the light bulb – and those bulbs on the tall poles outside on the street – the street lamps.

There are a whole bunch of studies out there on the “accident and injury” rate during the month following the “time change” – and this is not a small issue but a rather large issue that impacts traffic collisions and work related injuries and after reading some of these reports (you can find them with a quick “Google” search) – “why are we still doing that?”

Here is a sad one. My old department was in the news recently with a series of LODD over the summer months – two of them involving motorcycle cops. If you ever visit the CHP academy in Sacramento you can physically count off the 220 names that surround the fountain in the “quad” – but the names do not tell the full story. Well less than 10% of the CHP is motorcycle cops – yet almost 60% of the LODD are motorcycle cops. When you have 10% of your population involved in 60% of the fatalities – the question pops up – “Is the benefit associated with motorcycle operations outweighed by the risk?” And if so, then why are we still driving motorcycles in law enforcement?

So is there some method to my madness with all of the above stories? Of course there is and my guess is you have similar observations in the fire service. As I prepare this piece I am reading about another tragedy involving an air ambulance – this time three people are dead – and if you have any desire to learn about the number of tragedies involving helicopters and their crews and patients – again a simple online search will be quite revealing. How many of these tragedies involved risky flying at night and/or in bad weather? What was the nature of the response? Was it truly a life or death event? What is the risk of flying a helicopter at night in bad weather? What is the benefit involved if you are successful in this particular mission?

Let’s bring it back to terra firma again. Why are cops flying down the road at “warp nine” (am I showing my age again?) in route to a silent alarm call? What percentage of “silent alarm” calls are bogus in your community? My guess is that it is still in the high 90% range – and everyone in law enforcement knows that 99 times out of a hundred it is an absolute nothing call – yet too many law enforcement agencies will still roll on these like they are chasing Osama bin Laden. What is the risk? What is the benefit? Why are we doing this?

What is the risk involved in the high-speed run of a piece of fire apparatus? What is the benefit involved in this particular run? Is there a better way to ascertain if it is truly a “fire” incident – or just another false alarm? Why does a medical call require the response of three pieces of apparatus and eight personnel? Why do firefighters have the shift schedules they have? Why is the loss time injury rate in your department higher than in the department in the adjacent city? Why are your overtime costs so high in your department?

I guess is it is time to wrap this piece up – and by now some of you are angry or upset or maybe just curious about the above. Here is a thought for you to ponder. Never before in the history of government are our operations being scrutinized as they are today. Our nation – from sea to shining sea – is facing economic pressures never witnessed in any of our lifetimes. Literally, every nickel of government spending is being scrutinized, analyzed, dissected, and probed to see if we can squeeze more out of that Buffalo.

Some fire departments are facing station closures. Personnel are being laid off. Budgets are being slashed. If you feel uncomfortable with me posing these questions (and I know the answers to most of them already) – how are you going to respond when the question is posed at a City Council meeting – or in the media?

So what is your response going to be when someone asks the “why” questions? In this age of full transparency and generous public records acts – people are digging into budgets and reports and investigations and every other piece of accumulated data and looking for answers. As I talk to Chief Officers and Administrative Staff personnel around America – PRA requests are at an unprecedented level.

The days of “none of your business” responses are long gone. The days of “double talk” are gone. Our public that supplies the “tax” dollars that support public safety operations wants to know where the dollars are going – and what can be done to reduce the number of dollars necessary to properly run your operation.

When the tough questions are posed, what will your response be? If the best you can come up with is “we have always done it that way” – you have a major problem. And when you look at the above paragraphs about our education system and helicopter operations and motorcycle operations and staffing and scheduling and overtime and….. whatever – if the only answer you have is “we have always done it this way” – that is not good enough anymore.

I recall the story of the young lady who had a fiancé and she was introducing him to her family at her grandmother’s house and she was preparing the evening meal while he watched her – and they were having ham and the first thing she did was cut a substantial portion of the “butt” of the ham off and put it aside. The beau inquired as to why she did that – and she told him “that is the way you cook a ham”. And when he pressed further, she told him that is the way her mother taught her how to cook ham. Fortunately, the mom was there – so the query continued with her as to why the butt was tossed aside – and she told the young man that that was the way her mom (the grandmother) taught her to cook the ham. So he goes to the mother of the mother of his fiancé – and poses the same question to her about the necessity of cutting off a substantial portion of the ham and not using it.

The grandmother starts to laugh uncontrollably and tells the young man that she never had a pot big enough to cook the entire ham – so she had to reduce the size of the ham prior to cooking.

Who knows if there is any truth to this story – but I think you get my point. And some of you might be troubled that I am posing these questions – but remember that I am not accusing you of anything – and I pose these questions without any malice. But please be prepared over the next year or two or three for these questions – and many others about your operations and the way you do business – and let’s make sure that you can explain why you do what you do in the way you do it.

And always remember that there might be a better, more economical way of getting things done. “We have always done it this way” is no longer acceptable.

That is all for today. Please take the time to work safely.

Gordon Graham
Co-President, Lexipol

• 1973: A letter was circulated to all officers in the Los Angeles Fire Department about a new type of pressurized ventilation that was going to be adopted that placed fans outside buildings for smoke removal.
• 1983: An article appeared in American Fire Journal magazine that was titled “Positive Pressure Ventilation For A Positive Advantage”. In the article, PPV was detailed as an alternate method to negative pressure ventilation.
• 1984: After reading the 1983 American Fire Journal article, the Austin, Texas, Fire Department, conducted an “in-house” test and determined that PPV “applied in a way to give it’s maximum output can be over 300% as efficient at ventilating a structure than negative pressure ventilation”.
• 1986: An article appeared in the 1986 issue of Fire Command magazine that detailed the Austin, Texas, Fire Department, implementation of the “Smokebuster”. This was a 5′ prop powered by a VW engine and mounted on a 1-ton truck. This PPV unit responded to all structure fires with positive success.
• 1989: PPV is introduced to the “Cold Storage Industry” and is immediately embraced as an effective way to minimize losses due to ammonia leaks.
• 1990: The German fire magazine Blaulicht printed an article on the merits of PPV. Germany adopted PPV for smoke removal and fire attack soon after.
• 1991: Fire Chief magazine conducted a survey on PPV. 57% of respondents departments were using PPV. 31% of these respondents used PPV for smoke removal only, and 67% used PPV for both smoke removal and fire attack.
• 1991: A lead article in Military Firefighter (a European magazine) was titled “PPV – As Important As The Axe & Hose”? The article outlined the success of PPV in structure, marine, and aircraft fires.
• 1994: IFSTA Ventilation manual, Seventh Edition, recognizes PPV as more effective, versatile, and safer than negative pressure ventilation.
• 1997: The United Kingdom Fire Service publication, Fire Service Manual, Volume 2, includes PPV as an effective ventilation tool for smoke removal and fire attack. PPV is implemented in the British Fire Service soon after.
• 2000-2001: Most fire conference’s in the United States (FDIC, Firehouse Expo, etc) will normally have a workshop on the successful theory/use of PPV ventilation.

With this brief overview of the history of PPV, it is easy to see we have progressed from a fireground operation that has been historically controversial to a powerful fireground operation that, if used correctly like any fireground tool, is capable of dramatically improving fireground operations and firefighter safety. So, let’s spend several articles in reviewing PPV and cover a few different applications that have proven successful.

When fireground personnel determine ventilation is necessary to assist in the mitigation of an incident, plans for ventilation operations will normally begin by identifying the direction (horizontal or vertical) contaminants must travel to exit a contaminated area. Once the direction of travel is established, a method for moving the contaminants must be determined. There are two methods of pressurizing a contaminated area to enhance and direct the travel of contaminants to the exterior of a contaminated area: natural and mechanical (pressurized) ventilation. Because we are going to review the basics of PPV and possibly interject some additional controversy (what’s a little controversy between firefighters?), let’s focus on pressurized ventilation (Note: Smoke ejectors can also be referred to as fans or blowers. For this and the following articles, the term blowers will be used):

PRESSURIZED VENTILATION
The current methods that are utilized to provide pressurized ventilation with portable blowers are negative and positive pressure ventilation. To examine these two methods, assume a simple room with a door and window in a structure will be ventilated. In this example, the room is filled with various products of combustion from a fire. The warmer gases have risen to the top of the room, and the cooler gases have settled at the bottom of the room. The door and window are closed.

NEGATIVE PRESSURE VENTILATION
To ventilate this room, the door is opened and a blower is placed inside the room to exhaust the contaminants. This method will draw the contaminants within the room through the blower and exhaust the contaminants to the exterior of the room by creating a negative pressure (suction) within the room. By opening the window, the exhausting contaminants will be replaced with fresh incoming air. Although this method can perform satisfactorily, it has the following disadvantages:

• Personnel must be exposed to hazardous contaminants to position a blower.
• Contaminants are drawn through a blower, creating additional equipment cleanup and maintenance.
• Blowers placed in doorways or hallways can block entry or exit to a building.
• Blowers suspended in doorways or windows must often utilize straps, ladders, or other accessories.
• Blowers placed inside a building can add to the noise and confusion, and hinder communications.
• Interior blowers are not efficient in removing contaminants at the top of a contaminated room.

POSITIVE PRESSURE VENTILATION
To ventilate the room in our previous example, the door is opened and a blower is positioned outside the room. This method will force clean, fresh, pressurized air inside the room and create a positive pressure (similar to blowing up a balloon) inside the room. The positive pressure will be equal at the top, bottom, and corners of the room. When the window is opened, the contaminants from all parts of the pressurized room will exhaust to the exterior (similar to piercing a hole in a blown up balloon). Compared to negative pressure ventilation, positive pressure ventilation has the following advantages:

• Personnel are normally not exposed to hazardous interior contaminants while positioning exterior blowers.
• Contaminants are not drawn through blowers, resulting in minimal cleanup.
• Doorways, windows, and halls do not need to be blocked by blowers.
• Exterior blowers are not dependent on additional equipment or accessories for setup and operation.
• Exterior blowers have a minimal impact on interior noise.
• Exterior blowers are efficient in removing contaminants at the top, bottom, and corners of a room or building.
• Positive pressure ventilation is more efficient than negative pressure ventilation.

For most of us, everyone we know has a Smart Phone, Blackberry, Jitterbug, Palm or other such devices. However, my wife is the exception to that rule. She had, until recently, a cell phone that looked like a brick. She was perfectly happy with it and didn’t want to change phones. Well, as you probably know she couldn’t find batteries for it and had to give up her brick cell phone. She likes a very simple phone. All she wants is to have an emergency notification phone and every once in a while receive a phone call not necessarily make a phone call.

Anyway, back to the people who do use their cell phones inappropriately. Like I said, everyone has one, even me. When you think about it, that’s a lot of eyeballs scrolling through e-mails during dinners, CLASSES, meetings, the movies, in church, yes even in church. It’s addicting. As a matter of fact, just the other day my wife and I were out having lunch. I received the incoming e-mail vibration three times in about five minutes. I unconsciously starting reading my e-mail and was promptly scolded by you know who. She said it was rude and she was exactly right. She also wanted to know if I thought the Blackberry made me feel more important than anyone else. I put the phone away without comment.

OK, now really back to the people who are connected and wired 24/7. Many people are concerned that having the electronic gadget continually connected to your hand is getting a bit much. Hence the name “Crackberry.” It is addicting. There are even WEB sites for Blackberry users and abusers.

I did some research and came across some gadget guidelines that I would like to share with you. I even have a handout sheet that I give to my students at the start of every class I conduct. Here they are:

• Turn the phone off or set it to vibrate when you’re meeting with people in restaurants or other places where your usage could disturb people – such as the movies.
• Make sure to conclude your business – whether it is sending an e-mail, checking your e-mail or talking on your device – before you get in line at the bank or the store. There is nothing more frustrating than to wait on a customer who is otherwise engaged.
• You should never be in a conversation with someone and ask him to hold on for a moment so you can check something. This tells the person you are speaking with that he’s not as important as your telephone.
• If it’s an urgent call, excuse yourself to take it. You should also let people know beforehand that you are expecting an important call or e-mail, so they’re not caught off guard when it happens.
• Because alarms and alerts can be annoying, it is best to set your smart phone to vibration mode or to turn it off completely.
• When you are with other people, put your device away so that it is not an intrusion and so people know that you are completely present and focused on them, not your BlackBerry.
• Just because there are messages on your phone doesn’t mean you have to check them. Set time aside each day for checking and responding to non-urgent e-mails.
• When attending a social function or party, turn off your BlackBerry. The last thing you want to do is embarrass yourself or your guests with your ringing phone and inappropriate texting.
• Pay attention to people when they speak to you. Whether you’re in a business meeting or just hanging out with friends, real, live people should take precedence over any kind of PDA.
• Know your limits. Life is for living and not for texting. Learn to balance your life between what you like to do and what you have to do. Using your BlackBerry for work is fine, but at the end of the day, put it away.
• If you can’t text using two hands, then you shouldn’t be texting. Using your BlackBerry while you’re on the toilet or eating is not only disgusting, but rude.

I can’t wait to see what happens when the airlines start allowing the use of cell phones on planes. I hope they have several Air Marshals on board when that happens.

That’s my pitch for this month.
Stay Safe
VIVI BEN- LIVE WELL
RIDI SPESSO- LAUGH OFTEN
E AMA MOLTO- LOVE MUCH

But this is not the focus of my piece today. I would like to talk about five issues today – all of them surrounding the terrible tragedy on June 18, 2007 in Charleston, SC at the Super Sofa Store fire where nine of your colleagues perished. All of you associated with the fire service have heard of this event – and there have been a lot of articles written regarding this event.

For those of you who are following this story – here is a link from the local paper in Charleston that you need to read, so please take a few minutes and read this article – and I will be back to you on the other side.
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/aug/01/01routley/

So here I am on the “other side” – as promised – and of all the stuff going on in this article – and this event – here are five thoughts for you to ponder.

1. Culture: When you study tragedies in any profession and start looking for cause, the “proximate” cause is easy to spot. The event that immediately precedes the tragedy is the “proximate” cause. But it is important to go back in time and identify contributory causes, related causes, root causes and other “problems lying in wait” that people knew about or should have known about and that went unaddressed. One of these “problems lying in wait” is the “culture” of an organization. I read (and hear) a lot about “culture” issues in your business – and you know more about this than I do – so this is not my focus here today – and you can (and probably have) drawn your own conclusions about the “culture” issues in Charleston FD.
2. Training: In paragraph one of this piece I mentioned the dangers associated with “high-risk/low-frequency” events – and for Charleston FD – this sofa store fire falls into that category. In fact, since you have reduced structure fires so dramatically over the last decades, for many of you who are still active – any structure fire is a “high-risk/low-frequency” event which therefore necessitates the “constant and rigorous training” to create the needed “memory makers” and “behavioral scripts” required for success.
3. Tactics: This is your profession – not mine – so I will leave it up to you to discuss the strategies and tactics involved in the actual operation. You are in a better position than I am to analyze what was done right and what was done wrong.
4. Discipline: Just because an event ends up without tragedy does not mean that all went well. Too often we have events in both of our professions that “end up OK” – and the working assumption is that all was done well because of the fortuitous outcome. Discipline should never be a function of “consequence” – but should rather be dependent on behavior. When established rules are not being followed – that deviation needs to be addressed notwithstanding consequences or the lack thereof. We must honestly critique (formally and informally) all events and pick up the “memory markers” from lessons learned – and address the deviations from “rules” promptly and impartially.
5. Post Incident: I would like to spend the rest of my space in this brief writing to talk about the “risks and benefits” associated with “critiques” prepared after tragedies.

In my early years in law enforcement, “formal” post incident critiques consisted of a group of people familiar with some major event meeting in a closed room and discussing what happened. There were either no or few notes taken – and out of this clandestine meeting came a “final report” which was changed at least a dozen times prior to final distribution. The process of developing this “final report” was nebulous and varied based on who was controlling the given “critique”. There was no permanent record of who said what during the “critique” and the only document available was the “final report”. And when the “news media” asked for documents pursuant to the Public Records Act they got the final report and that was all they got.

My, have things changed since those years when the Rolling Stones were just old and not ancient. If you went to the above referenced “link” – the “Post and Courier” made a PRA request and they got the “public records”. For those of you that have not visited the article in the paper, here is a portion of this lengthy article in the newspaper to help make my point.

“Almost from the outset of their investigation three years ago, a group of experts concluded that Charleston’s Fire Department was a mess and that its chief needed to go for the organization to rise from “the dark ages.”
“That theme emerges in hundreds of newly released e-mails from consultant Gordon Routley and his team of fire experts, who were paid $284,000 by the city to investigate the deadly Sofa Super Store blaze and recommend changes.

“The six-member team went to great lengths to publicly maintain an air of neutrality while probing the blaze that killed nine firefighters in June 2007. But in private e-mails, they shared a wealth of criticism and complaints about the Fire Department’s leadership, the slow pace of change and perceived efforts by Mayor Joe Riley to politically “spin” their work.

“He is a master old southern politician,” Routley said of Riley in an October 2007 e-mail, “and he is working hard to make something ugly smell like a rose.

“The correspondence, which spans a 14-month period, provides fresh insight into the team’s investigation and the challenges it faced. The messages, obtained by the city in connection with ongoing lawsuits surrounding the fire, were released to The Post and Courier in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

“The messages show some team members had strong opinions early on that the Fire Department was mired in the past and that then-Fire Chief Rusty Thomas was an impediment to progress. They became increasingly frustrated with Riley, as well, over his unwavering loyalty to Thomas and his steadfast defense of the department’s antiquated tactics.

“Despite evidence to the contrary, Riley kept insisting that the chief and his department were among the best in the country and that the fire casualties were the result of a “perfect storm” event, not outdated tactics, equipment and training. Team members strongly disagreed, e-mails show.

“Panel member Brian Crawford wrote to his colleagues in December 2007.

“I do not believe that I have to state my overwhelming support for ousting the leadership (and I use that term lightly) of the CFD,” panel member Brian Crawford wrote to his colleagues in December 2007. “You can’t expect a dysfunctional child to improve himself—it is literally and figuratively impossible.

“Last week, Riley said he found the snide, cynical and sarcastic tone of the e-mails disappointing, surprising and at odds with the candid professionalism shown in the team’s face-to-face dealings with the city. He said the messages show the team arrived with preconceived notions about the fire that clouded its mission.

“It was like unbeknownst to us they had an ax to grind and they kept that ax well hidden during the process,” he said.

“Riley and other city officials said they were also troubled by messages that showed the team had a much cozier working relationship with federal investigators than the city had been led to believe, serving almost as “dual agents” while on the city’s payroll.

“Routley said the e-mails were never intended for public consumption and it’s unfortunate if anyone was offended, but he stands behind his team’s work and findings. “There was no conspiracy. I don’t have anything to hide,” he said. “I don’t think there is anything there that would cause me regret or make me think we did anything other than a thorough and impressive job.”

If the above does not pique your interest into taking a look at this link – let me tell you that there is a lot more to the piece.

I have met Mr. Routley and I know people who have known him for years. He is an honorable man with great integrity. And I don’t believe that there is anything in any of his writings – formal or informal – that would cast any doubt on the level of his commitment to getting the “truth” into his post incident critique. But even he recognizes that he did not expect or intend for his emails to and from associates to end up on the front page of the local paper.

And I am pretty confident that some of the other emails from people not on the formal investigative team that were “attached” to documents subject to the PRA were never intended by the writer to end up in the paper.

Bottom Line: Everything you put into any email has a chance of ending up in the paper. So please think before you hit the “send” button. Do you want that comment to end up on the front page of newspapers around the world?

Anyhow, please enjoy the rest of your summer. And I do look forward to getting back with you next month. Take care and stay safe and “think before you send”.

Gordon Graham
Co-President, Lexipol

In my last BLOG post I talked about the destructive Cedar fire of 2003 and the bad press fire departments in San Diego County received. I discussed what we did in the Lakeside FPD to successfully overcome the bad press. This month I want to revisit my rewarding experience with the Lakeside FPD and the success I had as Interim Fire Chief.

Prior to my arrival as Interim Chief, the department was an organization under stress. Certain Fire Board members (no longer in the position) were not satisfied with the performance of the Fire Chief or the Four Division Chiefs. Therefore, the Fire Board didn’t renew the contract of the Chief. Hence, they asked me to be the Interim Chief. I was told that the department had a relationship, motivation and morale problem. They explained the organizational situation and suggested that I would be the guy to help them with their organizational challenges. I informed him that I would have to think about the offer. Shortly after the Fire Association President called me and indicated they would be in favor of me helping the organization—I decided to accept the offer.

My first order of business was to get a feel for the pulse of the department. I visited every station on every shift. I had several discussions with the union executive board, the department senior staff, and the office staff. I came to the conclusion that the departments leadership didn’t do much sharing or involve the first-line supervisors or the senior staff for that matter in the decision making process. This led to poor morale and difficult relationships.

I am a firm believer that the success of any organization especially a fire service organization depends on its people. I also believe that the first-line supervisor is the key to success or failure of the organization. It is important that the leader influence the first-line supervisor to be motivated, and part of the management team.

I decided there were a couple of action steps I needed to take. First, it was important to get the people involved in the everyday operation of the department. Secondly, the relationship mindset had to change.
I informed the organization members via E-mail and personal conversation that we were looking for people to help the department to move forward. There was a lot of work to be completed in order to meet the needs of the department and better serve the community. I suggested we form committees to get the organizations work done. We developed eleven committees. Each committee had a chairperson below the rank of chief officer. Each committee had a chief officer assigned to it. The chief officer’s role was to be resource gatherer and senior staff liaison.

I met with each committee for the first three meetings. During those meetings we set the mission, goals, objectives and resources available. Once the committee parameters were set, I made this statement to each committee “as long as you stay within the parameters we have established, the recommendations of the committee are approved.” They were not sure what to make of that statement.

Historically, when a committee was formed and given an assignment the committee recommendation needed to be approved by the chief of department. My belief was to give them ownership, authority, and the ultimate responsibility for the success or failure of the committee. Additionally;

• Team members who take on extra responsibility have a chance to learn.
• Delegated jobs provide more job satisfaction.
• Delegation is sometimes a signal of your confidence in others.
• Delegation provides direct preparation for promotion.

The product that all the committees produced was outstanding and beyond expectation. They enjoyed the opportunity to have a say in the decision making process and finally to have some real responsibility and authority.

The moral of this story is to allow your people to lead. If high but reasonable expectations are set for you as a leader and your team members, usually high results will be achieved. Don’t be afraid to share authority and responsibility.

COMPARTMENT SPACE
Single chassis quints are not blessed with an abundance of usable compartment space. When the middle portion of the apparatus is reserved for a pump, hose, water, and ground ladders, the depth of most compartments will be reduced, resulting in the need to prioritize commonly used equipment. The comment that quints have adequate compartment space becomes a wishful dream when engine and truck company tools-equipment are placed into shallow compartments. This is graphically illustrated when viewing most new quints, particularly quints with platforms. At a recent workshop, I observed a new quint with a 100′ platform with large compartment doors on either side of the apparatus. Upon opening the doors I noticed the compartments were only deep enough to store three SCBAs, two extinguishers, and three SCBA bottles. If you ever have the opportunity, compare the compartment space of a newer single chassis quint with the compartment space of a tillered quint! Remember, the lack of compartment space will dictate that equipment must be prioritized into two basic parameters: (1) equipment that is carried on the apparatus and (2) equipment that is left in the fire station. Remember an old fire department axiom, “equipment that is left in the fire station or on the apparatus is not usable if it is suddenly needed on the fire ground”.

LADDERS
If there is one fire department “tool” that is slowly receiving less emphasis on the fireground, it is the use of ground ladders. Primarily, this is due to three basic reasons as follows:

• Reduced staffing.
• Increase in fireground priorities (2-in, 2-out, RIC teams, etc).
• A reduction of available ladders. With the implementation of quints the space required for a varied assortment of ground ladders is reduced to increase the amount of space for other types of multi-purpose equipment that must be carried. Therefore, the typical ground ladder compliment is minimal with a few ladders being the typical norm.

OPERATIONS
In concert with a quint being able to perform engine or truck company operations, let’s consider several operational concepts from the perspective of a quint being first-in to a structure fire:
Quint Company First On-Scene:
Although the initial placement of an engine or truck company is relatively uncomplicated, the placement of first-in quint apparatus can be challenging due to the following factors:

• Quint apparatus can be used as an engine or truck company.
• Normally, a quint officer must select either engine or truck operations due to common staffing constraints of three or four personnel. This staffing dictates that only one basic operation can be initially accomplished.
• If a quint is multi-functional, it needs to be strategically positioned for the needs of an incident, which can often vary due to changing conditions.

nothing showing

• If later arriving apparatus have an aerial device and an aerial device is not necessary, spot and operate as an initial engine company. If an aerial device is necessary, spot as an initial engine company but leave appropriate room for later-arriving aerial device apparatus.
• If later arriving apparatus do not have an aerial device and an aerial device is not necessary, spot as an initial engine company. If an aerial device is necessary, spot so the aerial device can be utilized. This focuses on positioning the apparatus for aerial use, which may preclude being in a prime position for potential hoseline operations.

fire showing

• If later arriving apparatus do not have an aerial device, and an aerial device is not necessary, spot as an initial engine company. If an aerial device is necessary, spot as a truck company but operate as an initial engine company. This concept allows a quint to provide an initial attack line for the fire, and an aerial device for use by later arriving companies.
• If later arriving companies have an aerial device, spot as an initial engine company, leaving appropriate room for the company with the aerial device, should aerial device operations become necessary.

Is a quint the answer for every fire department? Not even close, and in some cases, has proven to be a detriment. The key is to analyze the present and future needs of a district in concert with monetary constraints. If the concept of a quint meets specific criteria, ensure that proper staffing, training, and response SOP’s will yield the potential of this multi-functional company. Therefore, if a quint responds to a structure fire, quint personnel must be trained to effectively perform attack and/or logistical functional operations with equal expertise and not focus on “putting the wet stuff on the red stuff”.

There is a recent piece in one of the leading fire service magazines this month that talks about the value of “story telling.” A recapitulation of past successes and tragedies, close calls, near misses and other “stories” is a great way to learn. So let me tell you a story – one that has nothing to do directly with the fire service (or law enforcement for that matter), but oddly enough has quite a bit of applicability to you and what you do.

June 24, 1994, was not a good day for the United States Air Force. Fairchild AFB is a huge facility in Eastern Washington State – and on that fateful day a B-52H piloted by Lt. Colonel “Bud” Holland ended up crashing – killing everyone on board and destroying the aircraft. You can read all about this online – and you can watch the final seconds of this event by visiting YouTube and typing Czar 52 (the call sign of the involved craft) into the search engine.

And just like any major event in the fire service or law enforcement – the involved agency (in this case the Air Force) conducted an in-depth investigation as to the cause of the tragedy with the goal of establishing a record – and to identify “cause” so that future similar tragedies can be avoided. You can read the investigative report as to the “pilot errors” on the day of this tragedy – but there are some basic rules in the world of flying that cannot be violated. Several of these rules were not followed and gravity took over and a lot of good people died.

To compound the tragedy, one of the pilots on board was celebrating his “fini flight” as his retirement was pending and because of this his family and friends were on the base to witness this event and participate in the post flight celebration. This terrible crash was witnessed by all of them.

Sixteen years ago puts the actual event far, far away in my memory – and while I vaguely remember reading about this crash when it occurred way back when, my memories of this event were fired up when I read a book by Dr. Tony Kern entitled “Darker Shades of Blue” about ten years ago. For those of you from LA City Fire Department – then Captain James Featherstone spoke about this event quite a bit during his training sessions at the Academy.

Frankly, the “errors” that caused the crash were not of great concern to me. What troubled me – and Dr. Kern and Captain Featherstone and a lot of other people was the long history of inappropriate and reckless behavior by the pilot in charge that day – Lt. Colonel “Bud” Holland.

Suffice it to say (and you can read all about it on your own in several different sources) the errant pilot – “Bud” – had a long, long history of arrogant behavior that people (including a lot of his bosses) knew about – yet failed to do anything to address his behavior.

When I study fire service and law enforcement tragedies, too often I am able to identify similar “problems lying in wait” that people knew about – or should have known about – and yet these “problems” went unaddressed for years – and sadly, ultimately end up in a tragedy. And when the “official” investigation of the tragedy is completed – the writers (sometimes) identify these problems. As a reader of these investigations, I always wonder why no one did anything in advance that may have prevented the tragedy.

If you have been to any of my live programs over the last decade, you have probably heard me tell the “story” about “Bud” and then ask class attendees if they have any “Bud’s” working for them. I describe “Bud” as that employee (co-worker, subordinate or even a boss) who is absolutely convinced that department rules regarding behavior – like policies, procedures and protocols – do not apply to him or her. And yes, there are “Budette’s” out there also.

In my former profession, you can spot the “Bud” cops very quickly. Show me a cop driving along drinking a Coke while texting and I will show you a “Bud”. Show me the motorcycle or bicycle cop riding along with the helmet not properly strapped – and I will show you “Bud”. Show me the cop with the “tough-guy” gloves on with fabric so thick that firing their weapon would be impossible – and I will show you “Bud”.

And while I have never done your job in the fire service – I listen and learn from your people when they tell “stories” – and there are a ton of similar things going on in your business. Show me the firefighter going into a smoke filled building without the appropriate PPE – and that is “Bud”. Show me the firefighter not wearing the seatbelt – and there is “Bud” again. Show me the “freelancer” out on their own mission on the fireground – and there is “Bud”.

There is a purpose for all of the above. In a live lecture within the last month – I told the “story” of June 24, 1994 and the ensuing tragedy – and then went back in time to 1993, 1992, 1991 and all the way back to 1988 and gave dozens of examples of the reckless behavior of Lt. Colonel Holland that went ignored – and when you ignore inappropriate behavior you essentially ratify the behavior and thus encourage future similar inappropriate behaviors by that person – and by similarly situated people (co-workers) and sooner or later you will have the tragedy – and then the investigative findings – and everyone asks why “Bud” and his/her behavior went unaddressed.

Anyhow, at the end of the program I had a class attendee come up to me and tell me his “story”. Lt. Colonel Holland was a neighbor of his and good friend – and that I “did not know the full story”. So I asked him what the “full story” was – because I always want to know more about things. And this well meaning fellow went on and on and on about how generous “Bud” was, and how his family was devastated by the event, and what a good neighbor he was and how he would help everyone with all of their problems – and yes “he was a reckless driver in his Corvette” and “he did drive his speed boat too fast” but he was the nicest guy you ever wanted to meet “and that is the full story.”

“Bud” can indeed be the “nicest guy in the world” – but that has nothing to do with his on duty behavior that can cause great grief to him, to co-workers and to others. I will leave you with this. Do you have any “Buds” working in your organization? And if so, what are you going to do about Bud? Are you going to act? Or are you going to take the “path of least resistance” and ignore Bud and his behaviors – and hope and pray that nothing bad happens?

For those of you who are co-workers of Bud – I think you have a moral obligation to do something about it up front. For those of you who are Bud’s supervisor – you have a moral and legal obligation to do something. Please remember that every day husbands, wives, sons, daughters, girlfriends and boyfriends are entrusting you with the safety of their loved ones. This is a huge responsibility – and your job is risky enough in and of itself – so don’t exacerbate these risks by allowing “Bud” to continue to behave like “Bud.”

I am sure you have a “Bud” story. Tell it often so that others can learn prior to tragedy.

That is all for now. Take care and work safely.

Gordon Graham
Co-President, Lexipol

I accepted, and in October of 2003, became the Lakeside FPD Interim Chief. The plan was for me to be the Interim Chief for approximately three months. My stay turned out to be nine months. There were two reasons for this extended stay. The second reason will be written about in my next BLOG.

Two weeks after I started working, the Cedar Fire started. The Cedar Fire is still the largest fire ever to hit California. Conditions of fuel, weather and terrain created the perfect scenario for a fire storm. The north-easterly winds were blowing at 45 miles per hour, the area of origin hadn’t burned for over 20 years, and the terrain was difficult to get to. When the Cedar Fire started, there were fires already burning in Ventura, L.A. and Orange Counties. Therefore, there was no mutual aid available from anywhere in Southern California. As a matter of fact, the first mutual aid came from the San Francisco Bay Area.

The fire really did a job on the community of Lakeside. We didn’t lose any buildings but the fire burned 295 homes. There were 21 fatalities in San Diego County and Lakeside had 14 of them. At one point in time during the fire, it was calculated that the fire burned through Lakeside at an amazing rate of 30,000 acres an hour. That calculates out to be 10 football fields a second. Many times people inside and outside the department said, “Chief Stein, welcome to Lakeside.” Needless to say, we had a lot of work to do when the fire was finally extinguished.

Because the Cedar Fire was so destructive, the news media started to distribute a lot of bad press regarding the response and success of the fire mitigation effort. Of course their goal was to sell papers and not really get the true facts. People got caught up in the bad news reporting and we were deluged with calls wanting to know what happened and why we allowed the fire to be so destructive. I decided that we would conduct a town hall meeting at the local Lakeside VFW Hall. I thought that the people of Lakeside would appreciate the meeting and have the opportunity to congratulate the department members for their heroic effort in preventing even more building and life loss. WRONG!!

The VFW hall had a capacity of 300 people and 600 showed up. They were not happy campers. I started off the meeting telling the crowd how proud they should be of their Lakeside Firefighters. I said, “I have seen more acts of heroism in the last two weeks than I have seen in my 32 year fire department career.” They could have cared less. All they wanted to know was “where were you when my house burnt down?” I tried to explain how we were overwhelmed by the fire and it was impossible to save every house. I was thinking “do the math! 30,000 acres burning per hour, 5 staffed engine companies.” “There was no way we could protect every house.” Of course I didn’t say that. They wanted nothing to do with my explanation. They wanted to know, “where were you.” They were really upset. One lady had to be removed by the police. The police thought she was going to attack me. So did I. The audience theme kept on returning to “where were you.” At that time, I didn’t have all the facts regarding time frames and apparatus locations and activities. At the conclusion of the meeting, I promised to get all the information they wanted and share it with the community.

A short time after the meeting at the VFW hall, I assembled my senior staff and the executive board of the union. I was concerned because the community was down on the department and the morale was suffering. I asked if we had the technical knowledge to produce a PowerPoint and video presentation on the Cedar Fire and our activities during the fire. The answer was a resounding yes. As a matter of fact one of our firefighters had a part time job with the San Diego Chargers. He worked in the Chargers video highlight division. He had plenty of time to help with the video portion of the project because if you remember the 2003 season for the Chargers, they didn’t have many highlights. Together we identified the program parameters as far as length, design and content. Both groups picked the people who would be involved in the project. Once the group was picked, I met with them just to make sure we were on the same page regarding design, length, and content.

Three weeks later, the project was completed. Words can’t describe how impressed and proud I was of the job the group did. The presentation was 45 minutes long. It was a combination of PowerPoint, video, incident radio calls and narration. The presentation started off with an overview of the department. Most in the audience were not aware of the department size, apparatus, equipment, area of response and the number of annual emergency and non emergency calls.

The introduction was followed by the fire story identifying the pre-fire conditions of weather, fuel, terrain and the start of the fire. The start and speed of the fire was explained and the initial response of the fire mitigation efforts. The audience was amazed with how fast the fire spread. Included in the presentation was a recorded 911 phone call – a family of four was trapped in their home by the fire with no way out. The audience members’ eyes watered when the mother thought the end of their life was near because of the approaching fire. When the house started to fill with smoke, firefighters burst through the front door and carried the residents to safety.

Another amazing part of the presentation was a recorded radio communication from a Lakeside Engine Company about to be overrun by the fire. The Captain indicated that they were trapped and were heading to a house for protection. He gave their location and you could tell he was running for cover during the radio communication. For several minutes, people tried to make radio contact with the trapped firefighters. No response. Then finally, what seemed to be an eternity, the trapped engine company communicated that they were shaken but OK and back in action fighting the fire. The audience cheered after the Captain’s radio communication.

The department made over 100 presentations of the Cedar Fire program. It was interesting to observe the audience arrive at the presentation location. Their body language was hostile and so were their words. When the presentation was over, their whole demeanor changed. Most were hugging, shaking hands and even kissing the firefighters. The department once again became the darlings of the community.

So, what leadership lesson does this story depict? First, it is the leader’s responsibility to have a feel for the mental demographics of the community. Then, if the demographics are negative, do something about it. Secondly, get your people involved. Successful delegation includes a clear statement of what they are to do. How far they can go, and how much checking you intend to do. Share with them the relative importance of the job so that they can judge how much attention the project should receive. Tell the team why you delegated the job to them. If it shows that you have confidence in them, they will try much harder to produce a quality end result.

After successfully completing the project, reward them. Along with the verbal thanks and pats on the back, it is sometimes appropriate to do a little more. I realized that the project members were spending a lot of their own down time at work and at home working on the project. I wanted to let them know that I appreciated what they did and I was aware that they took some time away from their families to work on the project. In order to thank them again, I invited the project members and their wives or significant others to have dinner on the department. I bought the drinks and the department bought the dinner. The result of this effort was their increased desire to do more for the department. Even the wives were offering their husbands to the department.

The delegation process worked extremely well in the Lakeside FPD. Executed properly, it can work in your department also.

VIVI BENE- LIVE WELL
RIDI SPESSO- LAUGHT OFTEN
E AMA MOLTO- LOVE MUCH

STAFFING AND TRAINING

As we have previously discussed, a quint is comprised of an aerial device, water, hose, ground ladders, and a pump. This equipment gives a quint the flexibility to become an “engine company” or “truck company”, and able to perform multiple specialized fireground operations, depending on the needs of an incident. However, and this is the big however, this concept can be limited by staffing and training as follows:

Staffing
Of all the articles that I have had the opportunity to read, few (if any) have addressed the issue of “quint staffing.” As we have previously discussed, quints have the potential to perform engine and/or truck company operations during fireground scenarios. Unfortunately, virtually all quints in the United States are staffed with three to four personnel, which can often only allow one operation to be performed with safety and accountability as a basic parameter. As an example, consider the following two scenarios:

• A quint is first-in to a fire in a single-family dwelling with a staffing of four. The officer will be occupied with command. The driver will assist with hose deployment and the “pump panel,” and the two firefighters will advance an attack line. Basically, this company has been exclusively utilized to advance a single attack line. But what happened to the flexibility principle of also being able to perform search and rescue, ventilation, ground ladders, back-up line, utilities, and so on? Obviously, these operations will be handled by later arriving companies.
• A quint is third-in to a structure fire in a two-story building with a staffing of three, and is assigned truck company operations. The quint officer quickly determines that ventilation, ground ladders, and utilities have not been addressed. Assuming the driver raises the aerial device to the roof and then the driver and firefighter go to the roof for ventilation operations, this results in the officer having to choose between supervising the ventilation operation, or singularly trying to accomplish utilities and ground ladders, which does not enhance the concept of safety or accountability. Again, what happened to the flexibility principle?

Obviously, these examples illustrate a common problem. If quints are purchased to provide flexibility and are not properly staffed, they quickly become limited in their potential. So, what is proper staffing? If a quint is to utilize its potential at a structure fire, a minimal staffing of six would be a good starting point. This would allow three simultaneous operations to be completed by three teams of two (remember accountability?). Therefore, a staffing of six could perform the advancement of an attack line, ventilation, and search and rescue operations.

As long as we are going to combine several types of apparatus into a quint, why not let the quint perform to its potential? In many cases, the answer is simple. As long as we are having less structure fires and citizens are content to observe a fire engine driving down their streets and routinely performing everyday mundane tasks, a fire chief can reduce staffing (which is over 90% of a fire department budget), combine several types of apparatus into one apparatus, and impress the city manager with dramatic reductions in the fire department budget. As a side note, once staffing is reduced, do you think it will ever be restored?

Training
It is a fact that a quint can be easily limited by its staffing (or lack of staffing). A quint can also be limited by the absence of a properly trained crew and weak leadership. In fact, training is the cornerstone of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a quint. But, you are probably thinking, “no problem, I can train my officers and crews.” Really? Want an example? Look at apparatus placement at your next structure fire. Is there a need for improvement? Normally, there is lots of room for improvement. So, the simple solution of training may not be the total answer. Although proper training is possible IF the proper commitment is made and executed, many quint officers and crews do not understand the “quint concept.”

So, what is the “quint concept”? Basically, if a quint has the potential to perform engine and/or truck company operations, a quint officer must determine the correct operation (engine or truck) and operate accordingly. That means a quint may not be an engine first, and truck second. Unfortunately, when the common firefighter responds into a structure fire, what is their first love? Is it first water on the fire, ground ladders, utilities, salvage? Answer……: It’s first water every time and someone else can handle the other stuff! Therefore, an officer must be able to determine the appropriate need(s), prioritize those needs based on available staffing, and have a crew who is willing and able to perform those priorities without wanting to initiate an attack line at every structure fire.

Let’s briefly discuss two more considerations associated with training: officer experience and specialization.

The last place to assign a new or inexperienced fireground officer is to a quint. A quint demands an officer who is able to size-up the many and varied fireground needs, prioritizes those needs, and then is capable of utilizing limited personnel (remember, the staffing on most quints is 3 or 4) to accomplish those priorities in an effective sequence. That takes fireground experience, and experience in engine and truck company operations

Another training consideration is specialization. It is imperative that a quint officer equally train a quint crew in engine and truck company operations (or any other operations the quint is capable of performing). One advantage of separate functional companies (i.e., engine, truck, haz-mat, heavy rescue, etc) is the ability of those companies to specialize in their particular responsibility. If responsibilities are combined, “cross training” becomes essential for company effectiveness. Cross training also means that crews arriving after the initial quint company are capable of using the quint apparatus for another operation. As an example, if a quint is first-in to a structure fire and initiates the initial attack line, the next company (who may not be a quint) should be able to use the quints aerial device and ventilation equipment for a vertical ventilation operation (if that was the next priority).

To summarize training and specialization considerations, allow this author to make the following four predictions:

• The prime reason why quint apparatus are often ineffective as a multi-purpose company is a lack of strong and knowledgeable officers.
• Put an engine company officer on a quint and the possibility of the quint becoming an expensive engine company is high.
• Combine engine and truck company operations into a quint, and you will most likely see your engine company proficiency remain the same, and truck company expertise slowly diminish!
• Combine engine, truck, and paramedic functions into a quint and the lack of compartment space will force you to compromise the amount and type of equipment that can be carried.

Not to jump way ahead in life – but if I ever retire, it would be nice to be able to spend the day reading as there is so much great stuff out there to digest. Most of the reading I do today involves job related stuff – and as a lawyer, I have to read the Daily Journal – the legal paper that I have been perusing now for thirty years or so.

And as I was reading the “Daily Appellate Report” (one of many from last week as it comes out daily – which probably is linked to the name of the document) here is a case that caught my eye – and I like the logic of the court which probably means it will be overturned by someone with opposing views on these issues, but here is the case summary.

“Uninsured motorist whose coffee spilled on her in Jack in the Box drive-thru is barred from seeking non-economic damages”

Anyone who has been alive for any period of time will remember the tale of the woman in New Mexico who got burned “McScalded” with the hot coffee. For those of you who have not heard of this one, here is a summary.

So we have this 79-year-old woman named Stella Liebeck (and remember the name Stella because that was the derivation of the website www.stellaawards.com) of Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car when she was severely burned by McDonalds’ coffee in February 1992. Ms. Liebeck ordered coffee that was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-thru window of a local McDonalds.
After getting her coffee, Junior pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. I have no photos to share with you regarding this.

She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused so off to court they went and the jury gave her 200K in compensatory damages and $2.7 Million in punitive damages against McDonald’s – because they knew the coffee they were serving was too hot.

And if you have been to any of my programs over the last few decades – one of the tenets of Risk Management that I preach is “there are no new ways to get in trouble” and apparently the plaintiff in the Jack-In-The-Box case never heard of Ms Stella Liebeck – or of the Stella Awards site that talks about ridiculous lawsuits and verdicts around America and is named after the lovely Ms. Liebeck – and if she was 79 in 1992 then she would be like 18 years older today – and I will have to check on this, but she has probably passed away leaving her heirs with a couple of million to spend.

But back to the Jack case, in a nutshell, one Tekla Chude got burned by hot coffee at the local Jack operation. Unlike Stella, Tekla was driving her rig through the drive-thru and got her coffee from the JIB employee and brought it inside her car and dropped the cup into here lap and the coffee pooled on the seat below her. She could not open the door to unbuckle her seatbelt because her car was too close to the wall and as a result she spent two to three minutes (Oh, yeah – that is believable – and let’s start counting out 180 seconds – one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi – you get my drift here) – trying to get her bottom off the seat and out of the pooled coffee and go some severe injuries on her buttocks (again I have no pictures) which prevented her from working, sitting or driving and she missed two weeks of school and received an incomplete grade and missed an opportunity for an internship to Harvard Medical school – and I made that up, but the Plaintiff lawyer was doing his/her best to maximize damages but the court had a little surprise for the lawyer and the lovely Ms Chude.

“So, show us your insurance policy for your car” – said the court – and Ms Chude did not (shock of all shocks) have any liability insurance at the time of the incident and thus did not have financial responsibility and apparently there is this section in the Civil Code in California – 3333.4 Section in the CCC that came out of Proposition 213 which bars uninsured motorists and convicted drunk drivers from recovering non-economic damages – and my guess is that was the last thing that Ms Chude and her lawyer thought of – and I like the outcome of that case. No insurance – You don’t get Jack from Jack.

Which brings me to the focus of this brief piece – and you have heard this one before. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” I remind you of this because over this long weekend I had the opportunity to drive with several different people (none of them family members) who apparently were unaware of a relatively new law – CVC 21809.

This law requires that drivers “move over” when they are approaching certain vehicles which are on the right shoulder – like emergency vehicles, CalTrans vehicles and the like. I have always made it a practice to “move over” (and slow down a bit) when passing any vehicle on the right shoulder – and in an effort to enhance the safety of the people working adjacent to the freeway (and any other people similarly situated).

So with this in mind – make sure your family is aware of this law (mine is) and your co-workers might need to be reminded of this requirement. It was put into place to protect people like you while you are on duty – but simultaneously it applies to all of us as vehicle operators also. Driving increases over the summer months – and this would be the ideal time to share this “new law” with the people you contact.

While you are doing this – you also might want to remind them about the dangers of hot drinks in cars – and particularly about the transfer process of the hot drink from the person at the window in the restaurant to the recipient (the driver) of the car in the drive-thru lane. There are all sorts of “laws of physics” at play here and who knows, your efforts might prevent a tragedy. And that is what “risk management” is all about.

Take care and stay safe – and please enjoy your summer.

Gordon Graham
Co-President, Lexipol