Thieving Fire Fighters

[firestorm]

Having come round (a little) to what the firefighters have being trying to tell us, I do feel a slight bit sceptical and have to agree with Plumber when he requested more evidence of the "cuts". Can anyone provide us with stats, risk assessments, impact statements that support your position. I hope someone has done them because surely you would have solid evidence to support your claim (Fire appliances can be made ready for use and launched on the public in 48 seconds etc etc).

More importantly, you seem to be fighting for the platinum solution that has as many firefighters and appliances as possible. Maybe the Government is accepting the "cuts" as a risk (risk management) rather than spending pot-loads of cash just in case (risk aversion). We have already suffered the same thought processes and will have to make do. I even recognise that the Government has a point that Defence is not up there with the NHS in the "Cash Cow" stakes.

Please, please stop bleating about the difficult shifts to us servicemen; try 6 months in a hostile country working 16 hrs a day, 7 days a week then being unable to take all your post-detachment leave because your unit is needed in another hostile country/fire strike/ambulance strike etc. Not a bleat on my part, just a counter-point to yours.

You want evidence? Ok. I'm a London bod. We closed Manchester square fire station in the summer. We also lost 10 machines from inner London stations, despite the primary target for terrorists is central London. London MP frank Dobson said that the cuts were "madness" and should be stopped after the 7/7 attacks. Earlier in the year we were rewarded with slashing our sickness levels by a reduction in establishment at 2 pump stations by one per watch. That's one less firefighter attending each incident. this really affects what "first strike" appliances can achieve in the first crucial moments of an incident (weight of attack). In Hertfordshire, a small county brigade they are proposing the closure of 3 stations. A major risk assessment was a government funded study over 3 years called pathfinder, it cost £3m. Its recommendation was basically to increase the provision of UK fire cover by 100%, the study was shelved.
the 48 second launch time you talk of is called turn out time, its the time between a call arriving at station and the appliances leaving the station, its not always the same for each station but its never less than 90 seconds.
We've been suffering cuts, as you have for years. When I got to my station there were 5 machines, now we have 2. We're not looking for extra engines, though this would be nice, we're trying to stop yet more decimation.
We as a fire service are not at war, so why should we accept war like shifts as a permanent fixture?

 

[firestorm]

. Don't say you've tried all those, because nobody has a scooby what you guys are trying to achieve.

The problem is that youre all so ignorant of alternative means of negotiation that you blindly follow the ramblings of the few politicos amongst your ranks.

Can any of you honestly say that you have tried alternatives to Strike Action?

Been there, done that. local papers cover these issues but the nationals won't touch a fire station closure in hertfordshire. Its not news for them.
You say that we are "ignorant of alternative means of negotiation", well that's just not true. We in London have had the number of union officials cut by management, they also stopped them having meetings on brigade property! By negotiation I presume you mean 2 sides sitting down and discussing things? Well London management way is to simply impose, that's their style now I'm afraid.
That's why we try other means before strike action. We have been on strike in '03 and the time before that was '77! Its not like we are in and out all the time is it?
Other means of industrial action? Refusal to do pre arranged overtime, (done this), refusal to do temp promotion (done this too). refusal to "hang on" staying at our place of work after we've finished work, done this as well.

 

[firestorm]

JP & MOTH,

Your posts show as much ignorance from you that you claim we have about the fire service. At least Firestorm can articulate his point effectively and had opened my eyes somewhat to your plight. However, I state again, I would like some concrete survey/review, rather than opinions on a forum or from a politician, that conclude safety will be compromised by these cuts.

I think my colleagues have adequately rebuffed the suggestions of cheap travel, leave etc but I would like to add that I find the suggestion that the RAF is not as knowledgable as the Army (in terms of deployment) highly offensive, particularly as I served for 4 months alongside the Army on the ground. Moreover, I suggest that some of you luddites read the impressive story of one WO Andy Pittock (RAF); he exemplifies everything that Bluntend mentioned in his last post. Oh, and he's a firefighter to boot!

I think the pension issue has been covered sufficiently; if you are unable to understand that then I cannot be bothered trying to understand your point of view!

Twonston, you're too kind!
I'm aware of Andy Pittock from my time in the RAF, is this the bit about pumping out? A regular occurrence for us.
You, like us know what its like to go above and beyond, its in the job fibre, its not in doubt.

 

[firestorm]

Can we have examples (dates/times/methods) of your alternatives to Strike Action?

Surely, if you have tried everything, you can find some proof that this is a last resort - you are right though, I cannot find a single reference to your negotiations on any of the broadsheets' websites, so I suppose the press must be censoring you... or I'm thick.

Covered in a previous post, I'll cut and paste it again if it helps.

 

[firestorm]

I actually enjoy putting Service before self, even if the conditions are sh!t, so I have no intention of getting out. I am merely correcting your error in asuming that things have stayed the same in the mob. I suppose that just goes to show that you cannot embrace change!!

Not true. we have has massive change in the last 2 or 3 years. Not all of it is bad change. But some is just ridiculous. I refer to an earlier post to our new roles.

 

[firestorm]

Why not wait until you have actually replaced all of your Union Officials? Surely that would be fair and reasonable before committing to Countrywide Industrial action? If the new officials are an improvement on the old lot, maybe a strike could be avoided.

Also, at what stage did Industrial action become nationwide? I was under the impression that it was, at the moment anyway, regional.

There is no national despute. Its local.

 

[Bluntend]

Ok, so you're going on Strike because 75% of FBU members voted in favour of action proposed by "inept" Union Officials. Those who have been replaced have "no control over full union practice" and "Decisions are being made by Officials who are out of term, out of date", but you are unable to oust them as you did Guilchrist. If indeed, "They are holding onto power, still drinking from the gravy train", why do so many FBU members vote for these people? And, more importantly, what are YOU (Fire Fighters in general not necessarily you in particular) doing about the fact that you are unable to get rid of these officials who have 'betrayed' you and your colleagues?

There also seems to be a lack of cohesion between what you are really pushing for. If JP's claims are true that there is inter-brigade rivalry, "Good Cop, Bad Cop", perhaps that needs to be addressed before industrial action is taken.

It is certainly difficult, from some of the arguements given, to tell who exactly is 'the enemy'. Is it the FBU? Your employers? Union Officials? The Government? The Armed Forces? Other Brigades?

Yes, the Armed Forces are being 'cut to f-ing ribons' but I fail to see how, as things stand, you can actually change your lot any more than us. You may well have a union, but by all accounts, they're pretty useless. If you beleive that industrial action championed by inept, untrustworthy Union Officials is going to genuinely improve your working practices, then good for you. What I would recommend, for what its worth, is that you sack your Union Officials, instate some who have YOUR interests at heart (and of course the interests of the British Public) and see how you get on then. If you still reach an impasse, at least THEN you will be sure that every avenue to avoid a strike has been explored. As has been pointed out time and again, we do not have the luxury of influencing our working conditions, practices, the way we are lead and represented. You do. Why go on strike, putting lives at risk, if there is no guarantee that it will change anything? At least get some decent negotiators at the table first - surely the public deserve that much?

 

[firestorm]

Wow! This thread livened your forum up a bit!
I must dash now, I've been on for long enough, the Mrs isn't talking to me now (no bad thing!) I'll pop back tomorrow with a flak jacket and helmet to see how things have progressed.
"Can't we all just get along?!"

 

[scallywag]

Points well put firestorm

So, two of us have told you about the Pathfinder report and how it started, was carried out, and how it was carefully hidden, do you still need proof that this is about cuts and not public safety?

We given you examples of stations cuts, and about incidents where those cuts would have cost lives.

As ex-service, firestorm and i can actually understand where you are coming from, and yes, as has been pointed out, things have changed since we left. As firefighters, we don't want to strike, we want to do what we do best, give the public a bloody good service, one that was said to be, (by the government), the BEST and most effective public service. That was until we dared to asked to be paid for what we are, professionals. Now, as far as the government are concerned, we are scum that they want to crush at all cost. We are not asking for more pay, we are not asking for more people,(though both would be nice), we're just asking for the cuts to stop and the level of service we have provided in the past, we are able to continue.

Incidently, I also know Andy Pittock, (sorry if that's not how you spell it), from my time in the RAF. From what I've seen on tonights news, he was training Iraqi's to fire fighters on the airfield. All well and good, its the same as RAF firefighters did in Belize too with the locals, the same as in Gib, so this is nothing new, but its a job well done and I take nothing away from him.

 

[firestorm]

Ok, so you're going on Strike because 75% of FBU members voted in favour of action proposed by "inept" Union Officials. Those who have been replaced have "no control over full union practice" and "Decisions are being made by Officials who are out of term, out of date", but you are unable to oust them as you did Guilchrist. If indeed, "They are holding onto power, still drinking from the gravy train", why do so many FBU members vote for these people? And, more importantly, what are YOU (Fire Fighters in general not necessarily you in particular) doing about the fact that you are unable to get rid of these officials who have 'betrayed' you and your colleagues?

There also seems to be a lack of cohesion between what you are really pushing for. If JP's claims are true that there is inter-brigade rivalry, "Good Cop, Bad Cop", perhaps that needs to be addressed before industrial action is taken.

It is certainly difficult, from some of the arguments given, to tell who exactly is 'the enemy'. Is it the FBU? Your employers? Union Officials? The Government? The Armed Forces? Other Brigades?

Yes, the Armed Forces are being 'cut to f-ing ribons' but I fail to see how, as things stand, you can actually change your lot any more than us. You may well have a union, but by all accounts, they're pretty useless. If you beleive that industrial action championed by inept, untrustworthy Union Officials is going to genuinely improve your working practices, then good for you. What I would recommend, for what its worth, is that you sack your Union Officials, instate some who have YOUR interests at heart (and of course the interests of the British Public) and see how you get on then. If you still reach an impasse, at least THEN you will be sure that every avenue to avoid a strike has been explored. As has been pointed out time and again, we do not have the luxury of influencing our working conditions, practices, the way we are lead and represented. You do. Why go on strike, putting lives at risk, if there is no guarantee that it will change anything? At least get some decent negotiators at the table first - surely the public deserve that much?

The FBU and its members.
Prior to the '03 strike interest in the union was not at the top of the agenda, no one was rattling any sabres so a detente was in force. I was on long term sick when the £30k campaign kicked off, I was amazed by our union asking for this amount. Yes i think we were worth it but I was resigned to be on sh1tty pay. Turn out for election of officials was, to say the least low, as low as interest. so people with another agenda crept on board the gravy train. the strike and the way our exec dealt with it opened a lot of eyes to our inept leadership.
We have started to remove them. The old guard as they have become to be known, are trying every trick to stay in office, but slowly we are removing those who have done such harm to us in our name. We are as much to blame, perhaps we took our eye off the ball and let them in, but their time has come.

Who is the enemy? Well, as in Iraq, its not that cut and dried. Some employers are sympathetic, some politicians are as well, some union official are crap and being replaced. The armed forces are not and have never been the enemy. Uninformed swipes at us are the only irritation.

How can we stop any of these cuts? Well not by bending over and taking it. Suffolk, a tiny shire brigade recently went on strike over a cuts plan and won. So that's a start. Many of us are reluctant to get burned again by duff union officials so we're thinking very hard about what our plans to oppose cuts will be, strikes are at the end of the list. As I have said we are replacing the old officials with ones that will represent us, and the public good. Strike is reached as a result of impasse.
All that you say we should be doing is being done and more besides. We have a lobby group in Parliament of sympathetic MPs, early day motions have been signed by MP's of all parties on issues such as opposition to regional controls and many local MP's of all persuasions are finally realising that their local stations are closing (we told them so) and that it's a vote loser for them.

 

[scallywag]

Latest news from West Mids seems to be the next 2 strikes have been suspended. Apparently, the strike action has forced the employers back to the table, hopefully to honour what they promised in the first place.

 

[JohnPrescott]

There also seems to be a lack of cohesion between what you are really pushing for. If JP's claims are true that there is inter-brigade rivalry, "Good Cop, Bad Cop", perhaps that needs to be addressed before industrial action is taken.

I should stress, the rivalry isn't between the Firefighters !.

Its between the CFO's.

We have CFO's(Bad Cop) who's complete pathetic Modernisation agendas being forced through.... (Railroaded through) , public opinion is being ignored by them, Untill it goes into dispute, then the spin machine is rolled out.

Then we have the CFO who is the good cop, trussssssttttt mmmeeee ???.

Who watches to see how far the Bad cop is going with his Cuts agenda, before introducing his own, toned down version !!.

 

[Stax]

Seen some good stuff, from Firestorm in particular, but would like to make my final point (honest, I don't think I can say any more than has already been covered by both sides here). It's all well and good the FB going on strike to try to stop cuts/closures etc but your problem is your media profile. We will cover your shifts for you whether you go on strike for weeks or hours and the public say "good old military, standing in for those money grabbing firemen". This is, of course, stirred up by the Red top Nazi scum, who like nothing better than to sell papers (the "Mirror" is absent from many mess ante rooms because of the lack of support for the troops during Telic). If this pathfinder report is as good as you say then maybe, just maybe, one of you, who really cares about the public, not himself, should get a copy and push to get it published countrywide. Even if this means you will lose your job, perhaps even lead to court action, lets face it, everyone of the firefighters on here has claimed this is all for the public good, not cold hard cash or comfortable shifts. All I ask is, has one of you got the bottle to put public safety before self.

 

[scallywag]

The Pathfinder Review was handed to the press just before the last strike to raise our case, nothing was mentioned about it. Pathfinder was also brought up in the House of Commons to John Prescott, who poo-pooed his own review, even though it cost a fortune and was carried out by the same Labour government.

 

[Plumber]

OK you have the evidence needed to support your claims that the safety of the general public is in danger. Why aren't you pushing this out into the wider community and using it to whack over the heads of the people who control the purse strings? Lets us all see this evidence before industrial action starts looming on the horizon, and maybe if we were aware of it, this thread may never have even started. The press is not the only way forward (just look at this place). Maybe if I got to see all this I would be able to support your actions.

I read with interest the comments posted about your union the FBU. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can gather, You're being misrepresented by officials whom you no longer wish to be in a position to do so. IMHO how can you expect to get anyone else on your side if your fighting with yourselfs and taking action the majority of the members don't wish to take? Maybe industrial action shouldn't be considered until more apt people are in positions to be able to deal with the problems your facing and represent your needs with more justification.

So CFO's are recommending cutting this that and the other. Surely they have made risk assessments for these decisions? What qualifies them to do this? If they have no idea of what the job is, how can they be your bosses? Surely having two pieces of equipment around to do the same job on a "just in case basis" is wasteing money that could be better used else where i.e. a new improved gucci piece of kit for whatever purpose, something for the crew room or morale in general (we know how important these things are).

 

[Twonston Pickle]

As a slight aside, this is the story I referred to when mentioning Andy Pittock:

http://news.mod.uk/news_headline_story.asp?newsItem_id=2092

On the subject of evidence, all we are getting is stories of this might happen, that might happen but no solid independent report of the impact changes will or will not make.

Cuts do not automatically make things worse; after all, the MOD has managed to sell cuts in the Armed Forces as an improvement in front-line capability and the Public bought it.

By the way Firestorm, the 48 second claim was a, slightly weak, attempt at humour and irony (think WMD, 48 hrs claim). Sorry if it passed you by!

 

[firestorm]

This report was commissioned after 9/11 by our Government.

This report was commissioned after 9/11 by our Government.

I'll post in in a couple of goes. Its long reading, thus no great headlines for the red tops. It was also not released as it was not good news for the ODPM. The press got hold of it and.....well nothing happened.

Commissioned after 9/11, the Buildings Disaster Advisory Group (BDAG) research is the first to measure the effect on the human body of fighting fires in a range of day-to-day scenarios and in extreme conditions such as high rise blocks. It found that a mix of heavy workload and heat from fires leads to dangerously high levels of heat exhaustion in firefighters even in normal firefighting conditions.

In the research trials the core body temperatures of firefighters reached such high levels that most of the tests had to be stopped. It shows that firefighters can only fight fires for between 13-16 minutes before unsafe body temperatures are reached.

Instead of urgent action at national level ODPM Civil Servants sent out a non-descript circular to fire authorities outlining the research "for information". They added that it did not require a response and that it was not relevant to the Government's fire service policy.

But a DVD film taken of the research trials leaked to the union contains footage of firefighters exhausted with many of the tests being cut short on health and safety grounds. Many took several hours to recover.

 

[firestorm]

Notes 1:

DVD BRIEFING: Extracts

HIGH RISE scenario of climbing stairs and fighting fire:

Watch Manager Keith Feltham:

"If you went in now you'd last a couple of minutes, that would be it then, you'd become a danger to your crew."

Narrator: Climbing many floors with EDBA [Extended Duration Breathing Apparatus] and hose resulted in fatigue, heat strain and physical exhaustion to the extent that committing firefighters into a fire compartment would be unsafe, whilst climbing unloaded was less arduous and the subsequent commitment to the fire compartment would appear to be tolerable to the majority of firefighters.

Simon Hunt - Area Manager and Project Manager BDAG

"What has become clear is that existing assumptions that firefighters would be able to climb a given number of floors and then commence a fire fighting operation would given the evidence we have here appear to be limited, in fact it might require a separate team to commence fire fighting operations where others have actually provided equipment and apparatus for them."

12.58 - 15.45

Narrator: As the trials progressed it became clear that thermal load [heat] was the prohibiting factor for crews in the accomplishment of any task and this would be at its most severe in a fire compartment.

THE NEXT PHASE IS LOW RISE

19.00 - The timetable of the trials incorporated 5 basic scenarios.

The first condition was on the top floor of a building (3rd floor)

The second was on the second floor of a building.

The third - on the first floor.

The fourth - was the use of a lift and connection to a dry riser on the second floor.

The fifth - in a basement.

Narrator: On a number of occasions the trials were terminated early as firefighters were taken out due to heat stress. The data from the live fires confirm that physiological stress factors should play an important role in planning the appropriate response [FBU comment: this means the number offire engines and firefighters sent - and the length of time it is anticipated they will take to get there] to a major fire incident.

Simon Hunt, Project Director again:

"Certainly we've been surprised by what we've found. In the case of the firefighting with live fires, the distances we've set and the fire sizes are nothing that might be regarded as extreme and yet on pretty much a larger number of fires, firefighters are going over the core temperatures and it is only because we've got the safety systems in place that we are able to ensure the firefighters safety. In an operational incident those control measures may not actually be in place."

Narrator: The results of this work have shown that the physiological demands of firefighting and rescue operations are significant. These factors must be taken into account when planning operational response [FBU comment: this means the number of fire engines and firefighters sent to fires - and thelength of time it is anticipated they will take to get there] producing guidance for fire and rescue procedures and developing building designs. New and revised standards for respiratory and protective equipment will also need to be re-evaluated in the light of this research.

 

[firestorm]

Note 2:

What the written research shows:

Heat exhaustion: it is usually recognized that a maximum safe core body temperature is 38 degrees. In these tests the core temperature for termination was in fact 39.5 degrees, already above the maximum temperature considered to be safe.

Extracts from:

Physiological Assessment of Firefighting, Search and Rescue in the Built Environment.

Published by the ODPM

Executive Summary

All firefighting and other rescue activities are dependent to a greater or lesser extent upon the physiological capabilities of firefighters. Thus the physiological limitations of firefighters must be considered when planning for conventional and terrorist incidents within the built and natural environment.

Currently, there is limited information available to fire and rescue service incident commanders on whether activities assigned to firefighters may exceed their ability to undertake the task safely within their physiological limitations, taking account of appropriate personal and respiratory protective equipment (PPE and RPE). This information is required for all operational incidents, from those attended on a routine basis, through to extreme events. While acknowledging that the expectations and performance demands placed upon firefighters will differ with the activity, there is presently little human factors guidance to support both planned and dynamic risk assessment of work activities.

Ambient conditions: no-fire

4 (12%) were successful in completing the scenario, rescuing the casualty;

10 (31%) were terminated because the threshold core temperature was reached;

6 (19%) were stopped for safety reasons (usually associated with apparent uncertainty or confusion on the part of the firefighter, possibly fatigue or heat induced); and

12 (38%) were terminated prematurely due to a shortage of air (all in the SDBA conditions).

There were no successful outcomes on the two days when the routes were novel to all participants (day 1 and day 4), suggesting that participants achieved success on the scenario only once they had 'learned' the route. (From page 18, Chapter 3.1)

Live fire: basement/ground/first/top floor

Of the 40 serials on all floors, 9 (22.5%) were classified as completely successful.

... Fifteen (37.5%) were stopped as their core temperature exceeded the termination criterion of 39.5C, and a further 16 (40%) were stopped for safety reasons either by the safety officers or by the firefighters themselves.

In 24 of the 40 serials, the casualty was successfully rescued, but the serial was subsequently stopped prematurely as one of the termination criteria was reached during the remaining firefighting and search and rescue operations. These were classified as a 'partial success', as although the desired outcome of casualty rescue was achieved, the firefighters failed to complete the scenario safely using SOPs.

(from p 27 Para 4.1)

 

[firestorm]

Note 3

Leaked DVD (time lapse indicated for broadcasters)

The first is a HIGH RISE scenario

8.10 - 11.08

A vertical component of gaining access to fire compartments was studied in a multi storey building to record the physiological demands of reaching different floor levels. Climbing stairs maybe required where either no firefighting lifts have been provided or in the case of their failure. The crews were instructed to self pace the climb taking rest periods on the way up. This assessment did not cover the physiological component of returning to the fire service access levels. Two separate assessments were conducted in personal protective equipment both with and without carrying extended duration breathing apparatus (EDBA).

For each floor climbed when carrying EDBA and hose it took approx 30 seconds and core temperature rose by 0.02 degrees celsius. Separate teams were tasked with providing the water supply needed and they were timed.

FF Laura Noble

"It's the weight of the set, not so much the hose, it was done up so tight - its quite restrictive"

Watch Manager Keith Feltham

"If you went in now you'd last a couple of minutes, that would be it then, you'd become a danger to your crew."

Climbing unloaded took approx 15 seconds per floor and core temperature rose by 0.01 degrees celsius. At the termination of the test a finger prick lactate sample was taken as soon as possible, between 1 - 3 minutes after exercise completion. Final readings were taken and participants provided subjected role.and thermal comfort.

Participants were then escorted back to the instrumentation area where they were cooled and reweighed. Climbing many floors with EDBA and hose resulted in fatigue, heat strain and physical exhaustion to the extent that committing firefighters into a fire compartment would be unsafe, whilst climbing unloaded was less arduous and the subsequent commitment to the fire compartment would appear to be tolerable to the majority of firefighters.

Simon Hunt - Area Manager and Project Manager BDAG

"What has become clear is that existing assumptions that firefighters would be able to climb a given number of floors and then commence a fire fighting operation would given the evidence we have here appear to be limited, in fact it might require a separate team to commence fire fighting operations where others have actually provided equipment and apparatus for them."

12.58 - 15.45

At the start of the scenario base line measures of breathing apparatus (BA) cylinder pressure and core temperatures were recorded. Thereafter at 5 minute intervals readings of air pressure and core temperatures were taken. Once a core temperature of 39 degrees was reached readings were taken every 2.5 minutes. Progress along the route was recorded by noting the time at which lead firefighters reached key landmarks. During the trials both 45 and 70ml hose were used inside the building where both sizes of hose had to be dragged up to 45 metres to where the casualty was located. When the larger diameter 70ml hose was used the firefighter was supported by a further pair of firefighters to assist in advancing the hose into the fire compartment. No live fires were used but an external probe registered ambient temperatures and humidity. This was attached to but not in contact with the BA set that the firefighters wore. The trials were all self paced and participants were instructed to stay low at all times when in the building. Again, to mimic worse case scenarios under operational conditions. The termination criteria were essentially fourfold. If the air pressure of the BA set as judged by the firefighter became low participants abandoned the task and withdrew using standard operating procedures. If a core temperature of 39.5 degrees celsius was reached the physiologist terminated the test for that individual immediately and they were withdrawn from the building and actively cooled. If the participant or the safety officer judged the situation to be unsafe at any time the test was terminated for the individual in question and they were withdrawn from the building and actively cooled. Or if the team succeeded in completing the scenario the test was terminated as they exited the building. As the trials progressed it became clear that thermal load [heat] was the prohibiting factor for crews in the accomplishment of any task and this would be at its most severe in a fire compartment.

FF Ben Walsh

"That was very very hard. You know, you are on your knees for a considerable amount of time. Hard work on your knees and wearing that kind of set and that sort of fire gear which is very close fitting and doesn't allow for circulation of air, it doesn't cool your body down, so its extremely hot and extremely hard work."

THE NEXT PHASE IS LOW RISE

16.10 - 17.20

The next phase of the trials incorporated fire fighting and search and rescue under live fire conditions. The live fire trials began on the fourth floor of an industrial building in Moreton on the Marsh. It was acknowledged by everyone involved that the programme of live fire provided a significant challenge for both crews and equipment.

Simon Hunt - Area Manager and Project Manager BDAG

"In the live fire trials we've tried to ensure we gather the most data that we can, to ensure we feed into different project areas that we are investigating. So we are also establishing not only the physiological capabilities of firefighters but also amounts of water used to fight fires, the effect that has on the fires, the fire environment within the fire compartment and how firefighters are responding to it. We are also looking to establish in the long term an intervention model to take into account the time it actually takes the firefighter to effectively deal with an incident."

19.00 - The timetable of the trials incorporated 5 basic scenarios.

The first condition was on the top floor of a building.

The second was on the second floor of a building.

The third - on the first floor.

The fourth - was the use of a lift and connection to a dry riser on the second floor.

The fifth - in a basement.

Each scenario was logged and recorded from a master time code set for all data teams. This time line meant the ignition, pre burn and any subsequent activity had a common reference in order to analyse all the data at a given point in the exercise.

The data was to be gathered by four teams. Physiological data including body core temperature, the fire environment including smoke density and fire compartment heat gradient, BA air uptake and duration and a video record of task analysis both inside and outside the fire compartment. Once all the parameters had been fixed the data logging systems were set and tested as a preliminary to the trial starting.

There was a preburn time of 40 minutes. Very early on it was realised how critical good communications are to efficient fire - ground operations. In order to randomise the tests the pairings for teams for search and rescue were changed for each scenario. The other fire - ground roles were also regularly changed. Each fire had at least one 75kg casualty to rescue and also other casualties were used in order to keep the search and rescue process unpredictable. The trials were intensive and paramedic help was on standby. The firefighting teams were monitored closely at all times as working in these conditions can quickly affect anyone.

The most challenging scenario was in the basement where crews were tested to their limits. On a number of occasions the trials were terminated early as firefighters were taken out due to heat stress. The data from the live fires confirm that physiological stress factors should play an important role in planning the appropriate response [FBU: numbers and speed of attendance] to a major fire incident.

FF Jim McPartland

"After we got into that second fire compartment that really turned the temperature up. Just rocketed up."

FF Ollie Stalworthy

"We were working OK and then suddenly the heat really hit me and I could feel it on my neck, getting really hot through the flash hood."

FF

"I had plenty of air left and I felt OK but when I was told to return and I stood up it dawned on me that I wasn't OK - I felt light headed and my legs were wobbly."

FF

"We got to the second fire - I felt the heat on the back of my neck and on my knuckles - when we got to the landing I suddenly felt sick."

Simon Hunt

"Certainly we've been surprised by what we've found. In the case of the firefighting with live fires, the distances we've set and the fire sizes are nothing that might be regarded as extreme and yet on pretty much a larger number of fires, firefighters are going over the core temperatures and it is only because we've got the safety systems in place that we are able to ensure the firefighters safety. In an operational incident those control measures may not actually be in place."

The results of this work have shown that the physiological demands of firefighting and rescue operations are significant. These factors must be taken into account when planning operational response [FBU comment: means numbers deployed and speed of deployment] producing guidance for fire and rescue procedures and developing building designs. New and revised standards for respiratory and protective equipment will also need to be re-evaluated in the light of this research.