Skip to content


Credibility

4 comments

One of the biggest problems the fire service has is its credibility.  I received multiple e-mails over the past few weeks about a confined space training near-miss that in reading the information, I found to be pretty troubling.  Once again, it appears (at least from the published report) that training can get pretty hairy, especially when there is a certain amount of complacency among students and instructors.  But it goes to a deeper question: When training, at what point do we raise our hand and say, “Hey, something doesn’t seem right here”?

When we engage in fire, EMS, and rescue activities, we are participating in what is considered to be an extraordinarily dangerous setting.  In training, we have the ability to create scenarios that test our students, but we as course designers must consider the alternative outcome to successful completion of a task, and by that, I am referring to failure.  When someone is unable to complete a task, or the environment becomes too daunting, or unforeseen events occur, there has the be the ability to directly swing into normalcy (read: safety).

In burn buildings we provide extra exits and in high-line rescue training we continually monitor redundant belays.  Whatever the topic, we intentionally build our scenarios to consider the “what if?” events that might occur.  While crawling through an active 18-inch pipe might provide a “confidence building” exercise, what is the plan if someone gets stuck?  Or in the case at hand, weather creates a very real scenario?  Thankfully a greater disaster didn’t occur.  But while in confined space situations we must “train in representative spaces”, and nothing provides more realism than using the spaces themselves, we are also obligated to monitor those spaces and aggressively manage safety concerns for personnel.

When an instructor is telling you to do something that doesn’t seem right, there is also an obligation on the part of students to respectfully raise a hand and question the scenario.  Unfortunately, not every instructor out there is experienced or dedicated enough to insure that the proper learning environment is provided and adequately managed.  As real professionals, we need to not only do risk management on the emergency scene, but in training as well.  There are plenty of instructors from whom I have taken a class, only to walk away shaking my head.  If I am responsible for hiring instructors, I at least qualify them myself or seek the advice of colleagues who have worked with those people before.  Our business, however, is too dangerous to leave the teaching to amateurs.  Look for credible instructors with a history of work when you are trusting someone with the lives of your personnel.  We kill and injure enough of our people in real situations.  There’s no reason to do the same when the urgency doesn’t exist.

Increasing Tempo and Decreasing Resources Equals Frustration

1 comment

If we all pull together, there's no telling what we can achieve.

We have, in emergency services, always been in the business of doing more with less. It’s our creed. But there comes a point where we are expecting the outputs to exceed the inputs, or we are shoving more input in than we can possibly output, and in either case, something is going to blow.  This can be written:

Where t = tempo, r = resources and f = frustration: ↑t + ↓r = ↑↑f.

When we reach the result ↑↑f, it has been often expressed with an expletive and a raised middle finger.  To illustrate, let’s think about this like a mall parking lot, shall we?

In the preferred scenario, we have a goal and in order to achieve that, we have to put something into the process to make it occur.  If we have our theoretical parking lot, so long as the number of cars that go into the lot are equal or less than the number of cars exiting the lot, there won’t be a lot of pain.  However, when the balance tips and the number of cars entering the lot exceed the number of cars exiting, there will be quite a deal of anger, especially if the input of cars continues to exceed the available number of spaces and a bunch of mouth-breathing numbskulls drive around the lot aimlessly, exponentially adding to the confusion.  In normally high-performing organizations, situations like these can evolve into frustrating moments when we continue to expect more and more for less and less, without considering that what we have is a definite resource issue. In those finite resources, of course, we are referring mainly to time and funding.

If I were to build you a house, and money was no object, time was no object, and you didn’t care what it looked like, I would have absolutely no problems putting you in a home.  If money were no object I could buy what I want; pay myself what I want; I could hire people who have built homes before; and any number of resources I could possibly need, I could get, if you know what I mean.  Likewise, if time were no object, I wouldn’t worry about how long it took for permits, or whether or not the subs were there on time.  And of course, if you didn’t care what it looked like, I could build you a tent and charge you several million dollars.

When we begin to place limiting factors on the outputs, there occurs a correlating  increase in pressure.  As managers, it’s easy to delegate.  There are plenty of managers out there, however, who delegate without consideration for the resources needed.  It doesn’t do us any good to keep throwing more plates in the air for our subordinates and expect the outputs to remain consistent.  It’s the theory of laminar flow: the more pressure you add, the more chaotic the environment and the less effective the output.  You need to either decrease pressure, add capacity, or increase the size of the discharge.

The most challenging part, however, is remembering that the personnel you most trust with pulling off clutch moves are the same ones who tend to get loaded and loaded until they reach a snapping point.  These are your high performers who won’t dare tell you “no” because they really want to succeed and to help you to succeed as well.  It’s important to discuss the workload with these individuals and if you find you have to back off the heat for a while, make it happen.  They’ll appreciate your recognizing the situation and in allowing them to adjust their pace, may be able to come back stronger in the long run.  But keep beating that same horse and I can reassure you, it might take a while, but when it does go down, it won’t be peacefully.

Your job as a leader is to continually evaluate the situation and adjust.  If additional resources exist, you can add these, but unfortunately, that isn’t a likely scenario.  So it comes down to heat if we want to increase the outputs.  As leaders, we have to constantly assess whether the heat we add to the problems is sufficient, or too much.  If it is not enough, things will go at their own pace and may never be accomplished.  Too much heat and you run the risk of backlash.  But the right amount of heat creates change. And if change is what is required, you are going to be the one with your hand on the throttle.  Manage it wisely; it’s a temperamental machine sometimes.

The Disincentive for Responsible Reporting (Tax and Spend Socialists)

7 comments

Take a deep breath. There, that's better, isn't it?

I don’t even know where to begin with this discussion except to offer my apologies for using a derogatory term to describe one side of the issue and failing to come up with a sufficiently derogatory term for the other side. When I decide to offend, I think I’m an equal opportunity offender, because like I stated, I’m not a proponent of either camp. I think for myself.  And for the comment from one individual who suggested, “This and the many attempts to drag the tea party into the mud show how desperate you guys are”.  I am not “you guys“, because I certainly don’t believe in the alternatives either side has presented me as being responsible or for the good of the people.  Given the rhetoric on both sides, I’d be embarrassed to be in either camp.

Likewise, it appears I have been the subject of misinformation. While I am well-versed (and abhor) the quid pro quo tax-and-spend mentality of the liberals and bureaucrats in government, the extreme in the other direction, given discussion I have had with friends and colleagues who have expressed to me their support of their ultra-conservative views (and defending the Tea Party Movement) has been one of scorched-earth budget management and widespread privatization of almost every aspect of governmental service. However, as has been expressed in comments regarding my last post, that is not the platform of the Tea Party Movement. Of course, this is pretty difficult for me to embrace, because there doesn’t seem to be anyone who can consistently state anything to me about the Tea Party Movement other than their anger at the status quo. So other than, “Vote the bums out” and “Obamacare is going to cost us jobs and decent healthcare”, both statements of which I think are pretty extreme in themselves, I haven’t heard anything that causes me to get warm and fuzzy when I think about these individuals taking office.

So since I now have your rapt attention and expect to get plenty of hate mail from the OTHER side of the fence, maybe the two poles will come together to listen to what I have to say without finding it necessary to accuse me of unprofessional or crass behavior.

When I speak of “lock-step” marching to the party line on EITHER side, it is the mindless reliance on sound-bites and partial information because I think many people have become too lazy to think for themselves.  Thus, this article.  Because like I said, the fault I had in the last article was 1) not coming up with an equally sensitive descriptor of another point of view and 2) not having an accurate view of the platform of the other side I chose to illustrate my case.  Because really, there are many more than two points of view and to suggest that these extremes were the only extremes would be grossly oversimplifying the issue.

Believe me or not, I had no intention of pushing anyone’s buttons and I’m sorry for doing that.  It did, however, reveal to me the obvious.  There is a disincentive for responsible reporting and you all have unpleasantly illustrated my argument with a gold frame.

I have been writing on the internet since before there were blogs.  I am not, however, a reporter.  Much of what I speak of on the internet is anecdotal or observational.  I do, however, write technical articles and papers independent of FHZ, and my expertise is in research and strategic planning.  So while one of you chose to express your feelings about my “lame” article, I’d say that I’m not hurt, in fact, I’m smiling a little to myself because the only comments I ever hear about how lame something is happens to be when I’ve tweaked someone.

Since I can view the number of “hits” on my page, I take a particular interest in my “outlier” posts: those which show me wild spikes in readership.  I take great pains to present both sides of many issues.  Anyone who actually KNOWS me knows that I am very concerned in getting multiple points of view and understanding the entire issue.  I am not an “emotional poster”, or one of these clowns that has a conspiracy theory about anything coming down the pike.  Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you see it), I have a pretty stable and respectful readership that makes rational and sound comments based on their own experiences.

With the exception of the “Roto-Ray” article several months ago, those outlier posts have consistently occurred when the headlines or lead paragraphs have involved controversy.  It is clear: rational and reasonable discussion is not what people want to read.  With few exceptions, people want sensationalism and anger.  It’s no wonder the internet isn’t safe anymore.  People are willing to post damn-near fiction in order to get traffic.  What does THAT say about society?

I don’t have any interest in writing titillating articles and reveling in a flock of readers who are only coming by to see what awful thing I have to say about someone or something.  I don’t rant.  And this is neither MSNBC nor Fox.  When I talk about balance, I mean it.  But I would like to have more readers, if anything, because what I have to say, I think, should be said.  I would like to think that when I write, instead of creating hate, readers say, “Wow, that’s something to think about”.

I don’t apologize at all for suggesting that both extremes are wrong.  There are many more of us in the middle than on the fringes.  We are not all zealots and we certainly don’t all believe in the vast right or left wing conspiracies.  Those of you who do are often just unhappy people itching for a fight.  Those of us in the middle lean to the left or the right because we do see some values in one or the other direction of thought, but most sensible individuals realize there’s a certain value in compromise and consensus.  Let’s go back to the sandbox, shall we?

Any of you who have ever played in a sandbox know that there are sandboxes where personalities dominate.  In some cases, a bully has taken over the whole sandbox.  In some cases there are two opposing forces.  In many cases there is one force, the force of sharing and collaboration.  If you had three sandboxes side-by-side and you were choosing which sandbox to put your children in, I’d be willing to bet that none of you would choose to put your children in sandbox one or two.  So why would you choose to live in a society that encourages those behaviors and a grander scale?

Firehouse Zen is not for the weak-minded.  I am calling my readers to be responsible and ethical and balanced.  I ask you to take other points of view into account, if for any reason, it may reinforce your own beliefs.  I’m not asking you to embrace opposition, I’m asking you understand it.  In doing so, is where we grow.

Since I have the attention of those who just want sound-bites, let me tell you, there is a wealth of information on the internet that will make you a better person.  We don’t all have to flock to these negative sites and we don’t all have to be at war with each other.  Just as in the situation in South Fulton, there are other sides to the argument that never came out when the ADD bloggers began blasting out accusations and rhetoric.  Don’t fall into the trap of the unenlightened.

If you read the first article and still hate me, I’m okay with that.  But I ask you to re-read it and see that it wasn’t directed one way or another, and admit that to yourself.  If you don’t care to come back, I’m okay with that too.  And if you think I’m unprofessional or crass, I ask you to read my other articles and see if you still believe that to be true.   But I’m not about to apologize for telling you all, it’s not always about winning or losing, sometimes it’s about surviving the game.  Instead of fighting with each other, we should be pulling together to solve our most pressing challenges.  There are too many awful things going on out there that we could solve together and maybe we’d feel just a little better about one another.  Of course, if you choose to stay, I’d like that too.

Let’s reward insightful and responsible discussion and avoid the lunatic fringe.  Let’s work together rather than apart, and let’s step away from the negativity.  I’d just as soon do that myself and it’s my hope that you would too.

Subscription Emergency Services – Your Classic Tea Bag Scenario

11 comments

These aren't free.

In one corner, the people who think that what the South Fulton Fire Department did was reprehensible.  In the other, those who think that you need to “pay to spray“.  In the classic Firehouse Zen outlook, let’s go to the root of the problem.  Here we are in a brand new age of doing more with less. It’s our creed in emergency services.

The beauty of this all is that while there are those who want to limit the “reach” of government, we have to remember that the point of having government involvement in the first place is to protect us in our vulnerable moments.  I am neither a tax-and-spender nor a teabagger.  I don’t march in lockstep to anyone’s platform.  I have an open mind and I evaluate where things are beneficial to my community and things detrimental, and balance the risk vs. a reasonable cost.  It doesn’t seem to me that either of the extremes are acceptable answers.

This is a complicated issue and it can’t be solved by just glossing over the sound-bite material.  There are departments who have been doing the subscription thing for years.  Personally, I suggested to some funding-challenged departments a number of years ago that perhaps you could do a “soft-landing” subscription: you pay (in advance) for spray, but if you don’t pay (in advance), you REALLY pay.  Like 500% of the subscription rate, charged to the insurance company.  Something tells me the insurance companies would be insisting you pay or you don’t get insurance.  Something also tells me that if you fail to pay in this scenario, they WON’T be paying anyway.  But subscription service, while it seems like a logical solution, is fraught with peril.  There are just too many “what-ifs” to make it a workable solution to the whole.

We do have a responsibility to the community to protect life, property and the environment.  But we are painted into a corner when we can’t raise revenue to sustain our operations, be it a fairly low cost solution or the full-on urban response solution.  Thus we return to the risk vs. benefit assessment each community must undertake before deciding, “Okay, we don’t want paid providers” or “We are going to shut down companies”, or “Our risk is low enough that we can make it with an all-volunteer force”.  This is something that has to be decided locally, but by responsible individuals who aren’t just looking at the bottom line.   There is nothing wrong with any of these scenarios if they can be applied effectively.  The problem is that when they are not, and the decision is made to do this anyway, it is often done with catastrophic results.  You know, of course, who gets left holding the bag in that case, don’t you? (That would be us, in case you didn’t get that hint.)

The elected officials of your community are charged with more than just appearing ad nauseum on your TV screen for several months leading up to November, although for some, it’s the only time I ever see them.  They are charged with making decisions that benefit the community and uphold societal standards.  I know of no society who thinks it’s okay to screw the vulnerable at the benefit of the privileged.  Well, I take that back- I know of no RESPONSIBLE society who thinks that’s okay.  For any “leader” of a community to say, we’re going to go with a subscription fee for service and it’s okay to opt out of it at the risk of losing everything you have, it seems to me like you are taking a chance that this could go terribly wrong.  Sending someone a letter to confirm they are “not in” doesn’t sound too cool either (I have had too many personal experiences with undelivered registered mail to have confidence in that solution).  I think if everyone was paying the fee and suddenly, someone wasn’t, I’d have someone give them a call and make a face-to-face confirmation to find out what the problem was.  Can you not afford it now?  Are you saying you are okay if we don’t respond?  I really think some follow-up is required here before saying, you are now on your own.

What may have seemed like a good solution has become national news, but it didn’t have to be.  Kirschenbaum in Chaos Organization and Disaster Management suggests that the whole social aspect of disaster response was overtaken by a bureaucracy concerned with job protection and cost reimbursement years ago anyway and this whole event pretty much emphasizes his point.  But when the community insists on having service but is unwilling to pay for it, other solutions must be found for funding.  In this context, “helping neighbors” for purely altruistic reasons has been trumped with who is paying for service and who is not.  This takes the whole emergency services as a business concept to a very predictable level.  But there really is balance to be achieved in every situation.  The challenges facing us in communities like Oak Park, IL and Xenia, OH illustrate there is such a thing as when the “fiscally conservative” become unreasonable, but compelling.  When we insist on the gold standard and our community can only afford the aluminum version, we expose ourselves to this kind of rhetoric.  I’m not saying that’s the case in these communities, but the situations making national headlines there only encourage community activists elsewhere who already think a scorched-earth approach to cutting the municipal budget is appropriate.  Our job as leaders is to foster innovative and efficient organizations while maintaining a responsible budget.  Again, balance is in order.

While we use the words “customer service” as a way to describe our efforts, it again goes back to doing what’s right for our neighbors and people who visit and work in our community.  While there are those of us who are paid to do this, we have to remember that it is a service we are paid to do often because the volume and type of emergencies we are called to solve exceed the community’s readily available resources.  Or maybe it’s because we don’t care enough about our neighbors anymore because we’re so wrapped up in “me”.  Regardless, until people begin to give away fire apparatus, permit us to operate without insurance, and clothe us in turnouts out of the kindness of their hearts, we have to pay for this stuff.  Therefore, every community, like it or not, has to endure funding these endeavors, through taxes, donations or subscriptions.  It’s up to you how you do it.  But it’s a requirement that it be done.

Vest-Wearing Yard-Breathers

9 comments

I am one of them, so be nice.

You have likely heard others say, “Discretion is the better part of valor”.  This is actually a misquote.  In fact, Shakespeare’s Falstaff said: “The better part of valor is discretion, in the which better part I have sav’d my life.”  You have to understand the context in which Falstaff said this, which was after playing dead to escape being killed. His justification was that words like “honor” and “valor” will get you nothing once you’re dead. Falstaff’s suggestion implies that feigning death in this situation, which was a cowardly act, was defensible because what good are those terms if you are dead?

There is a certain argument made by people in our profession that indeed, having a safety mindset is, well, cowardly. There is a belief that the goal of the reflective vest-wearing, “yard-breather” population is to deprive each and every one of you out there of a draped casket and a bagpipe escort, that ‘tis much better to serve you and your company up as cannon fodder and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. If you want to meet the objective of a LODD funeral, I suggest that at least you do it for a good reason. Unfortunately, given the statistics, that’s the least likely way you’ll go down in our business.

While there are excesses in every aspect of our lives, and I’ll grant that the safety officers sometimes come up with some really less-than-fun approaches to our jobs, you aren’t serving any purpose to get killed in training, except to inflate the LODD death statistic every year. If you happened to be one of the valiant 343 who died saving the equivalent population of several small cities, to me, you are a hero. If you happen to die because you refuse to buckle your seat belt, to me, less so.

We must make snap decisions daily that involve life and death. Sometimes we make good decisions and sometimes, things don’t go as expected. In the eyes of some, discretion suggests cowardice, but to me, discretion suggests a good command of resources and appropriate application of force to create leverage, thus defeating an enemy. Napoleonic conflict didn’t go out of vogue because it was effective; instead commanders realized the solution was impossible if  there were a finite number of live bodies available. Thus, there was a practical need to change their approach.

If I may appeal to your rational side, if safe practices are really just sucking the life out of you, then try thinking about it from the perspective of your survivors. When you go off half-cocked and do something you think might be “heroic”, the rest of us often have to clean up the resultant mess. You may be off to Valhalla or whatever it is you believe in, but the rest of us earthbound souls have to pick up where you left off, get the kids to school, pay the bills, go to other calls, etcetera, etcetera. Like it or not, when you tap out 5-5-5-5 on us, life goes on down here. If you want valor, talk to a mother supporting several young children on a firefighter death benefit, or those same children who must go on and now won’t get to see Daddy at Christmas.  Those individuals represent valor to me.

Discretion is, in truth, the better part of valor, if you are of the belief that there is more to life than another parking lot. Sometimes it takes more courage to push on. If you can’t see that for yourself, put yourself in the shoes of those who have to deal with the aftermath. If you’re not going to be safe for your own sake, do it for your family.  There’s nothing heroic about making dumb choices.

While the vest-wearers may have a job we don’t like as much, in essence, they are there to protect ourselves from ourselves.  We have to pull back on the reins sometimes and that goes against what some of you all might like, but honestly, we need a much more mature attitude from everyone on the team when it comes to approach of our most dangerous situations.  Like we football coaches say to the youngster who has just done his best T.O. imitation in the end zone: “Act like you’ve been there before.”  If we can all exhibit calm, cool, professional behavior, not only will we conquer every emergency, but we might live to talk about it later.

Living Up To Chief Croker’s Ideal

4 comments

Chief Croker, FDNY

Chief Croker, FDNY; Image from the New York City Fire Museum found on the Croker Fire Drill Corporation website

When Chief Croker suggested that in our choice to become firefighters, the act of professing so made us heroes, and everything after that was in the line of duty, I respectfully take exception to that. We aren’t due heroic respect because we ARE firefighters, we are due this respect when we do the job in the manner of our calling. To maintain that respect requires us to be noble, virtuous, brave, and compassionate. Lacking those, we are just someone who happens to be tagged with a job description we can’t meet. Anyone can put on the uniform. It’s living up to the traditions and expectations of our predecessors that makes us either valiant or heroic.

Suggesting Croker was wrong would be misstating his intent. He was pointing out that the profession, at the time in which he served, was a profession of heroic service. Things haven’t necessarily changed, but taking his quote out of context, which seems like some of those among us seem to do, would be a disservice to all. In this day and age, we have a number of people among us who don’t share Croker’s opinion of “The Job”. I say this because these mutts are quick to quote Croker, insisting that because they are a firefighter, the public should bow down and kiss our collective asses, but these same people fail to recognize reciprocal suggestions of sacrifice or humility or valor, except where they choose it, and on their terms alone.  Saying because you are a “firefighter”, you are a hero, means that even the slimeballs who set fires because they’re “bored” and happen to have filled out a membership somewhere get to hide under the badge as well.  I just don’t buy that.

I’m not hip to those who choose to wrap themselves in the flag of our profession but won’t do anything but criticize others as well.  If some of these trolls really had respect for the job, they’d take the time to mentor and provide positive help for their brothers, rather than subjecting them to public ridicule on a regular basis.  I guess every niche on the internet has a moron drooling on their keyboard, waiting to attack.  When I read some of these comments in places, I just want to let some of them have it with both barrels. I have long learned, however, that doing so would require my lowering myself to their level, and honestly, I’m not interested in that level.  Try being a real professional and setting an example of leadership.  Any idiot can tear something down; it takes skill to build a masterpiece.

There is no reason why insisting on a higher standard for our profession should be indicative of less-than-valiant behavior.  It occurs to me that when someone elevates our expectations anymore, we have someone from the peanut gallery shouting what a real man he is because he doesn’t use incident command, or safety vests, or whatever. Likewise, we have those who think that it’s okay to just plug along with no expectations of excellence whatsoever, and they fail to understand their need to grow, and continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.  You two groups are made for each other.  Leave the rest of us out of it.  Call yourselves something else, because you are giving firefighters a bad name.

I’ve been seeing more and more of the rhetoric lately and much of it coming from a select few. But amazingly enough, I’ve also been seeing more and more people lately choosing to call out the boorish behavior and point out that while we are all capable of making a poor decision, its those of us who find good lessons and earnestly pursue sharing education with others that I choose to call “brother”. I’m proud of you guys and its people like you who deserve the kudos.  You guys are the real heroes among us.

So if you want to strap on your wacker belt and have at it with a someone because they chose to share video that we could all learn from, have at it, Slappy.  While you are portraying yourself as the Nation’s Numero Uno Bombero, the rest of us are quietly toiling away and doing the job.  Perhaps instead of being the best firefighter (because some of you are so infinitely perfect), you can all form a fan club for yourselves and trade war stories.  There’s a term we use for that group that involves an involuntary movement and a geometric figure that I can’t describe on my G to PG-rated blog, so you’ll have to figure it out for yourselves.

In the meanwhile, if you truly want to honor the legacy of Chief Croker and the bar he set for us, you’ll be real heroes.  If you’re a salty vet, you’ll take one of these young bucks aside and show them the ropes.  If you’re the new probie, find a mentor you can respect (and others do as well) and learn at the foot of the master.  In either case, the people I consider exemplifying valor are those individuals who honor the profession and set a positive example for others not only in a burning building, but at the medical calls, doing inspections, dispatching, maintaining apparatus, and every other job necessary to do The Job.

The rest of you special ones who think you’re so great, someday too you may screw up and when you do, you’d better hope everyone else is a little more forgiving.  In case you didn’t know, hubris isn’t a type of shrubbery.  Remember: “Pride goeth before a fall”.  Don’t be the next casualty.

How Hot Does A Barrel Fire Have To Get For Proper Helmet Crustiness?

12 comments

The Legend.

I have been very busy.  So in a recent Firehouse Zen post on our Facebook page, I asked what subjects you all might like to read about on FHZ. One popular request was from alert reader Pete, asking “How hot does a barrel fire have to get to make your helmet look really crusty?”

Well, Pete, in answer to your question, I’m not quite sure, having never done that myself before, but I’m sure there’s someone out there who could answer that question for us. But the subject begs another question like “How crusty does someone have to look to you before you feel like they know what they are talking about?” I have found, for example, in the individual with a dozen patches on his or her coat, an inverse relationship between the “advertising” and how much I trust their “experience” on the scene. When I was young, I had the patches. Fortunately, I had some real jakes pull me aside and explain just how squirrely that looked.

If you are a young firefighter (or an old one looking for some real guidance) truly looking for a mentor, instead of looking for who has the nastiest looking gear or the most patches, maybe you should just talk with some of the informal leaders of the group and find out who THEY really respect. Watch their faces when Chief So-and-So speaks: if even these guys are listening and soaking in what is said, then you can trust that they believe that person is a leader. If they look like they’re not paying any attention, chances are the individual may have a title, and may even have the education, but maybe not the street cred to back it up. That kind of observation is much better at judging who’s “been there” than looking at the amount of garbage melted on their lid.

Note the helmet in the picture.  While some of you may understand that the helmet is upside down (to better protect the ratchet system), some of you more insightful ones might wonder why I have an upside-down helmet as my featured photo/logo.  Well, it’s because the useful part of the helmet isn’t the shell, the truly useful part is the space in which you put your head. So while some of our brothers are obsessing over the proper level of carbon on the hard part up there, what would be a better thing to concentrate on is what is filling the hole, when it comes to deciding who is the best person to look up to.

While taking really good care of your protective ensemble is important, there’s nothing wrong with a little smokiness to show you have been there. But the truth of the matter is that even though someone may LOOK the part, it’s what is under all that crust that really counts. So skip the barrel burnishing and earn your look the old fashioned way; safely but aggressively, taking reasonable risk to save lives, taking a little risk to save property, and none at all for the already lost. Get in there and get it, but don’t be stupid in the process.

A Little Safety Parable

2 comments
You too could be roadkill. Photo courtesy of aanimalcontrol.com

You too could be roadkill. Photo courtesy of aanimalcontrol.com

So I’m walking from our house to the beach with my three daughters.  There’s a road we have to cross in between here and there that’s pretty busy.  On occasion tourists come flying around the curve, not realizing that there’s an area where you have to cross (although it’s not a marked crosswalk).  While no one has been hit at that spot in the 29 years I have been living on the Island (that I know of), I know it’s a bad section that you can’t see around.  It occurred to me today when I was making that crossing that it’s a lot like the risk we endure as firefighters.

I had the opportunity this weekend to read a recent article on Stat911, that seems to have created some serious wailing and gnashing of the teeth between people who call themselves brothers.  Honestly, it was pretty sad to me as I read these comments.  I admit, it is a little bothersome when a video comes out and a number of people point out the obvious mistakes made, but as I mentioned in an earlier article here on FHZ, we should be looking at things that go wrong and learning, and resolving to keep from repeating events that maim and kill our brethren.

Conversely, instead of saying how stupid some of these people are, perhaps we should offer some constructive criticism and offer suggestions on methods that would help solve the problems, rather than lowering the bar into that angry pit of accusatory language.  And when we generalize about whole departments or organizations based on a squirrely few, we aren’t doing anything other than trying to piss one another off.  I agree 100% that some of the repeated actions (or inactions) taken by other firefighters that endanger themselves and their their colleagues are a little infuriating (like refusing to wear a seat belt), but like the point I have also made over and over again, people aren’t going to learn when you rub their nose in it, they will learn when they see the logic in changing.

But back to my story.  There is, of course, risk in crossing the street, but we accept that risk when we go for a walk, don’t we?  As a pedestrian, we take a calculated risk every time we go out in the road, but it doesn’t stop us from doing it.  In fact, walking in the middle of a busy street is exhilarating.  There’s a certain adrenaline rush when you run out in front of moving cars.

As a responsible father, however, I’d advise against running in front of a moving car.  I’m sure I’d get in a little trouble with my wife, the law, and probably get a few death threats if I just let my children run out in front of cars.  If my four-year-old got struck by a car there, after having  just let her run out there, knowing the risks involved, wouldn’t that make me a little bit liable?  But given the logic espoused by a few of my more enlightened colleagues, I suppose I am overreacting when I tell my girls it’s a wise idea to look both ways at that intersection.  After all, no one has ever been struck or killed here.  If I insisted on having the street marked with lines and a sign, I might be construed as overreacting if you ask some of these folks.

I eat risk for lunch.  I eagerly chose to pursue a fire service career because it was exciting.  Even more so, I focused my whole career to concentrate on special operations.  I’m the Deputy Director of a US&R Task Force.  I used to teach high-line rope rescue, and hold internationally recognized instructor certifications in SCUBA and water rescue.  I hold NPQ and IFSAC certifications as a HAZMAT Technician.  Two of my favorite hobbies are mountain biking and skiing.  I’m not in the slightest bit worried about taking risks.

But there is a serious difference between taking stupid risks and calculated risks.  Firefighting isn’t Jackass.  We have a serious job to do that involves serving the public, and using our personnel as cannon fodder doesn’t do the job.  If you take a risk and die trying to save a life in our job, I’ll be the first one to sing your praises.  If you take a risk and die trying to save a burning trash pile, I’m sorry, I’m not impressed.  If you get burned because you failed to use the safety equipment we provide you, I guess my first question will be, why wasn’t it used?

I think some of the plastic vests and hard-hats are a little much sometimes, but I can understand the effort to make ourselves more visible and to avoid having something clonk us on the head.  But as a leader and chief officer, I also know what can go wrong, what can go seriously, seriously wrong, and to ignore it because I’ve never seen it first hand would be folly.  And to just turn my back on personnel who fail to use good safety practices, knowing what the outcome could be, would be negligent.

Quit the name calling and sand throwing and act like grown-ups.  You can argue that it’s just “ragging”, but it’s not.  The language some of you all out there are using is just plain wrong and malicious.  And it certainly doesn’t represent your side of the argument professionally at all.  I can give people crap all day long with the best of them, but that’s not what some of you are engaging in.  What you are engaging in is simply destructive behavior, and it’s one of the reasons why our profession isn’t always taken very seriously. The only people we are hurting here is ourselves.

Stuck In The Past

5 comments

The definition of something “world-class” years ago led me to consider what we mean in the fire service when we say “world-class” in the same breath as “progressive” and “professional”.  The use of these terms is truly in the eye of the beholder.  Given the evidence that continues to mount in the Charleston incident, many people in that community are struggling through the nightmare of believing their fire department was the definition of excellence only to find that the leadership mentality was still operating in the past.

I guess its all in how you frame your reference as to what is acceptable versus what is “excellent”.  It certainly sounds as if that culture is evolving into a better place with Chief Carr at the helm.  But across the entire fire service, while exposed to so many ideas, we continue visit the same problems within our own organizations that other organizations have been experiencing for years.

Professionalism or progressiveness isn’t defined by experiencing the same problems over and over again. Being effective doesn’t include repeating mistakes that others have made, got the t-shirt for, and moved on from. If learning isn’t occurring from all of the rhetoric, then what use is it?  When your organization is experiencing such dysfunction that it is obvious even to the newest recruit, then how clueless are you to insist that everything is coming up roses?

The sad part is that this lesson has to come on the backs of dedicated firefighters and the deaths of our brothers.  While it appears our friends in Charleston are moving forward, we continue to read story after story around the rest of the nation of lessons that continue to be learned the hard way.  After all, how many unbelted firefighter LODDs need we read about before deciding once and for all that using our seatbelt is a smart idea?

Instead of reading the news and saying, “Wow, that’s incredible”, perhaps we should be saying, “Wow, how do I make sure that doesn’t happen here?”  Be an agent of productive and progressive change.  Set the positive example and show others what the real definition of progressive and professional is and be a real leader.

Evolution And You

2 comments

You can choose to keep your head in the sand or come up for air. It's really YOUR choice.

In an uncharacteristic Firehouse Zen moment, I’m going to share some not-so-heartwarming news with you: If you fail to evolve, you will die. It’s not all about cheerleading and mentoring. Some of this motivation has to come from the subject themselves. If you are not intrinsically motivated, you can only be kicked in the head so many times before it’s time for us to move on to someone who genuinely WANTS to succeed.

I am inspired by this post from the New York Times that discusses what is known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect — our incompetence masks our ability to recognize our incompetence. In essence, some people are so stupid, that they don’t even recognize that they are that stupid.

It’s like the contemporary fire officer who continues to discuss his or her lousy computer skills.  Do you know one?  While twenty years ago, it might not have been a big deal, but virtually everything we do these days as a company or chief officer requires a certain understanding of how to complete forms, create documents and memos, and to analyze data.

I don’t know of a single department in the nation who is still using a typewriter to perform these tasks, although I’m sure someone will pipe up and claim that distinction.  Unless you are some superstar fireground tactician, I don’t know anyone so gifted that they can forgo the skills required to cover the administrative requirements of the job, and those skills include basic computer use.  Claiming you can’t work a computer just doesn’t cut it in the 21st Century; if you are so confused by a word processing program that you can’t manage to put out a coherent memo, it might be time for a career change.

But this isn’t a rant about not being able to use a computer.  The point is that as times evolve, so do our jobs.  You can complain about it and moan about it all you want, but the expectations placed on us as leaders require us to understand and manage change. You may not be an early adopter, in fact, you might be the last one dragged kicking and screaming to the next level, but at some point, you must make the change or expect to become irrelevant.  As a company officer, your redeeming skill might have been that you could last the longest in a smoky room without puking your guts up, but now that we have methods to skip that desired attribute, you’d better polish some of your other abilities up soon else you will be yesterday’s news.

We must constantly evaluate our knowledge, skills, and abilities and determine what we can do to evolve.  If we fail to do that, we are dooming ourselves to obsolescence. If retirement is within your sixty-day window, that might not matter to you, but if you plan on hanging in for the next few years, I suggest you learn more.  You have to be smart enough to realize you don’t know everything and certainly not so stupid that you think you do.

Where Were You That Night?

12 comments

I probably can’t tell you anything about the Charleston incident that you don’t already know, except the incident from my personal perspective, and I have never shared that with anyone except my family and some close friends until today.  And despite the statements bashed around in the days afterward about why things were the way they were prior to that night, there’s no amount of warning, yelling, or cajoling that could have happened before that day or after that day to really change things, because honestly, you can’t change someone who won’t listen.

As was quoted by at least one of my friends from the CFD prior to that night: “We’re the FDNY of the South.”  When your fire department has a Class 1 ISO rating and homes aren’t burning into the dirt on a daily basis, the public is just fine with whatever it is you are doing.  Whether your organization is using the most modern equipment and techniques, or whether they are utilizing tactics thrown away in the 70′s, there are much more important things on the public radar.  Things like whether or not the garbage will get picked up, or who the next contestant is on The Bachelor, or which rehab facility Lindsay Lohan is skipping out of.  The entire community of Charleston and the fire department itself, prior to that day, was fine and happy with the status quo.  Just like any disaster, it isn’t until people die that questions begin to be asked.

This isn’t an indictment of the department, its culture, or anyone in particular.  All I know is what I know and the things that were said before, on and after that night.  A big reason why I have never said anything really about it until now is that I wasn’t asked (I was this time).  But nothing I care to say would be intended to disparage the reputations or the character of the brave members of the CFD.  I simply believe that the charismatic style of their leader at the time led them down a primrose path.  He thought he was doing the right thing, everyone else there thought he was doing the right thing, and nothing seemed like it could go wrong, until it did.  Catastrophically.

I wasn’t at the incident in the beginning and frankly, in retrospect, there were many disasters converging at that exact location that evening.  It was inevitable that something bad would happen, given some of what we knew before, and of course, given what we know now.  I had to shake my head in wonder when I saw that one poster on a blog page wanted to know, “Where are all the chiefs in SC?” on the issue.  ”Why wouldn’t they do something before this disaster?”  Well, let me tell you a little bit about fire departments in the United States: Unless the public or their elected officials detect a problem, there is never going to be any change, no matter WHAT the chiefs in the neighboring communities or the state have to say about it. After the disaster, it is true, the collective anger and frustration not only from within, but from the overall fire service community was instrumental in causing a change, but really, it took the deaths of nine brave souls to make that change manifest.

All we can do now is honor the lives of those who go before us, pray for the families and help them deal with this tragedy, and hope we all learn from the events that evening.  Senseless doesn’t begin to describe the loss suffered by the principals of this story, and although I chalk up a great deal of what happened to hubris and over-confidence by the Fire Chief, and by default, the organizational culture, I don’t take anything away from the extremely fine and dedicated brothers who serve the community of Charleston, SC.  I can only pray that we don’t experience something like this again anywhere else on the globe.  In my heart, however, I know there are departments out there who learned nothing from this, therefore, we are only a heartbeat away from repeating these mistakes again.

I was lying on the couch in my living room when I got the first call.  The power was out at our house, so I was just working on my laptop, having just put the children to bed.  At the time, I was the Acting Director of the South Carolina US&R Task Force and awaiting our hiring a full-time Director to take my place in Columbia.  One of my Task Force Leaders rang my cell phone and asked if I had been briefed on what was going on in Charleston.  He said that there were several firefighters unaccounted for in a fire at the Sofa Superstore.

I am intimately familiar with Charleston.  I did the majority of my paramedic clinical time there in the 80′s and fell in love with the place.  My mother-in-law grew up in Charleston and we would go up there to visit her family, especially her well-connected sister and brother-in-law, often.   And when our second daughter, Caroline, was born, she developed complications resulting in a helo ride to the Medical University and a subsequent six-week stay in the neonatal ICU.  In response, my wife and I literally moved to Charleston and lived at a friend’s second home at King and Broad for the entire time.  We go back often and have developed many close friendships there.

I am also friends with a number of Charleston’s firefighters, although I never had the honor of meeting any of our brothers who passed that evening.  But at the time, no one really seemed to know who was involved, much less who was missing, so for all I knew, it could have been any one of the people I had grown to know over the years of interacting with the department.  And yes, I knew Rusty and many of the command staff who were there that evening, much as a result of my capacity with the Task Force and the ultimate oversight of their regional response team’s interaction with the State US&R Plan.

There’s really not much you can say when you get one of those calls.  I’ve been called for others like it before and several hours later find that the news was completely distorted from the original message.  You know, everyone ends up accounted for, or there was a mistake in transmission, or something like that.  And although I had every reason to believe what I was being told was true (this TFL has always been a good friend and dependable officer), I have to admit I was a little skeptical.  I told him to call me if he had any other information, and I’d call the State Fire Marshal, John Reich, who as the ESF-9 coordinator for the state, I technically reported to, and give him a heads-up.

When the power came back on a little while later, I clicked over to the Charleston news station and saw the coverage, and was immediately swayed by what was going on: an active search and rescue incident looking for multiple companies of missing firefighters.  Needless to say, things began to move pretty quickly, and it was really pretty much a blur after that.  Multiple phone calls between multiple state officers and the next thing was, the State Fire Marshal was asking us to represent the state at the incident and to offer whatever assistance was needed.

I can tell you this, given any State agency’s relationship with local entities, we were instantly cognizant that what we DIDN’T want was one of our incident support teams (IST) rolling in there and announcing we were there to take over, because we weren’t.  Not only would that be extremely callous and insensitive to the situation, we have no statutory authority to do so, short of a gubanatorial declaration of disaster (and that wasn’t coming).  So this was going to be a mission of extreme delicacy and an offer of assistance from the State Fire Marshal’s Office, and as such, I felt like it would be best if I went personally, even though we had an IST sitting across the river in Mt. Pleasant.

I called up Ed Boring and Jason Walters, who at the time were both Task Force command officers and work with me at Hilton Head Island, and told them I was heading up to Charleston on direction from John Reich.  Ed and Jason continue to work with me and over the years have become two of my closest friends not just because of our shared interests, but also because we served together at Katrina.  Nothing like a disaster and riding around in a dark-colored Suburban to create a bonding experience.

On our arrival, we were each stupified by the absolute desolation on the scene.  We got there before midnight, and at that point it was still not clear how many souls had been lost.  Everyone was in shock, or so it seemed.  The fire was still burning in places, but everyone seemed to be moving like their feet were in concrete.  Not in a slow, poorly organized way, but in a stunned, defeated, bewildered way.  It was definitely the scene of an enormous and horrendous event.

We delicately announced our need to report to the command post so we could speak to the incident commander, and kept getting pointed in a direction until we were finally pointed toward an empty pop-up tent with a single fold-up chair in the middle of the parking lot.  No one was there.  So we began to again poke around a little bit more, until we found Battalion Chief Robbie O’Donald, over by the ladder truck, which was still in the air.  Robbie, who was a member of SC-TF1 and also a member of the Charleston command staff, had very obvious burns across his hands and arms, but was standing at the front of the building with a portable radio.  I remember very softly calling to Chief O’Donald, because I honestly believed he was in total shock.  The burns on both of his arms were pretty graphic, with skin literally falling off of his arms, but here he was, still at his post.

After a brief discussion about who was in charge and where he was at, I asked Robbie if he realized his arms were burned.  He just kind of nodded and made a quiet, brief comment about trying to get someone out.  I asked him if he wanted to get his burns checked out, he just said he’d be okay.  Ignoring my suggestion, he led us over to a nearby gas station where the police had set up a command post of sorts, but no one was there either, so we went back over to the front of the store and stood around for a little.  Finally, I said to Robbie, “Hey, John Reich sent us up here to see if there’s anything we can do for you.”  Without answering me, he began to detail out for us where all the firefighters were lost at, including two on the other side of the wall from where we were standing.

I remember there was a back hoe sitting in front of the store.  ”You aren’t going to dig them out with that, are you?” I asked.  Given the state everyone was in, I didn’t quite know what to take for granted.  ”Man, I can bring you the entire task force down here, or just trucks and equipment if you guys want to do this yourselves, but you tell us what YOU want, we’ll do whatever it is YOU want.”  Trying to push him a little, I gave him my official business card, to indicate the official nature of my being there, and told him to take it to Rusty, and to let him know that whatever he needed, we’d get it there, just name it.  So Robbie took the card and went into the building and out of our sight, which was where Chief Thomas was.

After a while, Chief O’Donald came back out and told me, “Chief Rusty says we’re fine.”  Something in his face told me differently, and I’ve had enough experience to also know that things weren’t fine.  But I wasn’t going to argue.

“Robbie, we’ll be right over there,” I pointed to the street, “if you guys change your mind.”  He was staring back into the building again and I put my hand on his arm to let him know we were serious.  ”I don’t have the authorization to make a decision for Hilton Head, but given what’s going on here, if you need people up here to cover you guys, I know we can get a bunch of guys up here to cover you at least on a volunteer basis.”  He shook his head again and said, “Chief Rusty said we’ve got it.”

So we just wandered back to the road and got out of the way.  I called John Reich and gave him my report and said that we needed to send another representative later on when some of the shock wore off.  Then Ed and Jason and I stood by the road and watched as they carried the first five or six out, I don’t even really remember because at that point, I felt like this was something they needed to do themselves, and I wasn’t going to push the matter.  If they were my people, I’d want to be the one who carried them out, so I understood.  I also felt like our presence there, at that point, was more of a bystander than being of assistance, so we made our offers again, and with them saying once again they had everything under control, we left.  The ride home was pretty quiet.

I look back on that night with a certain amount of disbelief.  Did a department who fought as many fires as Charleston did really think they were going to make a knock on a commercial building fire with a single 2 1/2 inch supply line from a distant hydrant?  Did they really think an attack on a heavily-loaded big box with booster lines was a sufficient attack strategy?  Did they completely forget about the thermal imager sitting on their apparatus?  Did their hubris really lead them to reject the notion of calling for outside resources early into the incident?  Did the idea that “we fight these fires every day” with no semblance of modern command and control overwhelm the logical need for a coordinated rescue supported by protective lines?  Rather than trying to attack a fast-mover without opening up the overheads, might we have not approached this with a more defensive attack once it was realized that a victim was trapped in the rear of the building?

We can “what if” this incident to death, but it doesn’t reverse the past.  I personally know many of the key players in this saga and I can reassure you, none of them went to work that morning thinking, “Hey, I think I’ll kill off a few firefighters today”.  But that’s what happened and no matter how sure you are of yourself, when you lose nine firefighters and someone asks you, “Given what you know now, would you fight this fire differently?” and you say, “No”, you have got a serious problem.

Resources will always be a problem in the fire service.  We never have what we really need to do our jobs and we are always going to be understaffed.  We will always be questioned by the public as to why it takes so many of us to fight a fire and why does it all cost so damn much.  Then when all hell breaks loose, if we don’t make things happen, the public will scream that we didn’t do our job.  It’s the never-ending dichotomy of public service.  But to look at the lessons learned that evening and ignore them, well, it’s tantamount to killing your people.

It’s this simple: if you can’t fight the fire without killing your people, then why bother?  If a rescue were being made, it’s one thing, but the men who lost their lives weren’t in any position to mount a defense for the rescue teams; they were in attack positions and eventually retreat positions with nowhere to go.  They were actively trying to seek out a hidden fire while the whole time they were playing a game stacked against them.  There WAS no “Plan B”.  I’m not sure there was a “Plan A”.  If you drive by there today, it’s a big vacant lot.  These guys gave up their lives for their community, they gave what is identified in the Bible as being the greatest gift one can give to their fellow man: their lives.  But just like the 343 men who died in the World Trade Center, the public has a short memory of these people and their mission.  And when we ask for more funds, more manpower, or more equipment, more training, more support, or more apparatus, unless the stain of blood is still on the hands of the civilians from the latest disaster du jour, they have moved on to the next media extravaganza of the week.

Me, I have an obligation to my family to come home in the morning.  I have an obligation to the families of my personnel to make sure they leave in the morning as well. If I don’t keep sharp, if I don’t fully comprehend the situation I am sending companies in to engage, and if I don’t have the means to put the tools in their hands they need, then I am failing them.  No amount of pride, a patch, a label, or honors will do you any good when you are carrying out your dead and for what?  If we can’t be there for each other, what have we really got?

Where were you that night?  You may not have been there, but the lessons are all available for us to read and to learn from.  If we fail to address the deficiencies, or short of that, at least identify methods of modifying our approach, or even less, realizing we simply don’t have the appropriate resources and stating: “we’re going to let it burn”, then we are ignoring the legacy of these fine men, these Charleston Nine, who have gone on before us.  As leaders, we have a responsibility to learn and not make the same mistakes again.  Honor these men by perfecting our craft and striving for positive change in the fire service.  I never knew them, but I’ll bet that’s what they’d have wanted.  Let’s keep them forever in our memory and insure they are never forgotten.

Daily Values vs. Emergency Ops Values

2 comments

webDSC_0162A while back, Chris Naum at TheCompanyOfficer.com discussed briefly the New Rules of Engagement for Structural Firefighting.  This is, of course, a work in progress, but I urge you to read it and understand what these rules mean to us as practitioners.  We are called to save lives and fight fires, but to do so safely and responsibly, understanding that our resources are finite (you just can’t keep throwing firefighters into fires until one comes out safely with the victim).

If you search this blog for discussion about leading with values (I even linked the search to make it easy for you),  you’ll see that values were specifically mentioned in at least eight articles, not to mention all of the other times values were a peripheral part of the discussion.   Like it or not, organizational values define organizational culture.  These values help guide you in times when hard decisions must be made under ambiguous situations.  When organizations lack defined values, or personnel don’t understand them as the gospel truth, they don’t always reflect those values when challenged. If you have never implicitly discussed your organizational values, your personnel will revert to whatever values conform with those of the group (think “B” Shift) or scarier, their own beliefs (which you have no ability to predict).

While the article by Chris suggests that the Rules should be concise and bulletized in format, it is in that suggestion related to firefighting that I see these “rules” as reflecting our values in considering the risky nature of engaging with a particularly dangerous enemy.  I challenge each of you to read more about this and ask yourself, as well as your leaders, questions that help refine what to do in those emergency situations, especially as they involve our own organizations.

While we value the service we provide to our customers as being our highest calling, there comes a defining moment where we must place the welfare of our troops at a higher level, especially when it comes down to fighting a “lost cause”.  I am willing to personally take a calculated risk to save lives, but I am NOT willing to take a risk personally, or to expose each of you to a risk for the sake of a body recovery or to fight a structure that will be written off anyway.  I am as aggressive as they come when it comes to firefighting, but I value my personnel higher than any property, and I think we all need to think that way about how we choose to engage at these incidents.

But it is in this that the problem is apparent; we have made a decision to discuss our values in regard to emergency operations, but have we defined our organizational values when they come to day-to-day operations?  In many departments, the over-arching statement seems to be, “Use common sense and logic when it comes to making decisions”.

While I agree one-hundred percent with that statement (and that approach may very well save your life some day on an emergency scene), when we have recruits (and in that, I’m lumping Juniors, new volunteer members, etc.) making value-based decisions on day-to-day things (like when they are unsupervised or in situations where they are asked to show initiative), have we really done a good job of reinforcing our belief system to them and demonstrating a positive example by living those values ourselves?

Take setting fires, for example.  While we (and society) continually insist that firefighters setting fires is wrong, is the culture around your organization such that going to fires and “fighting the red devil” is more important than community service?  Is it more apt to say that personnel walk around moping about the loss of call volume?  Are members who seek to demonstrate their commitment to the community challenged by the lack of calls to demonstrate that commitment?  Why is it that we are in this business, anyway?  If the answer is to run around in a uniform and drive fast down the road with lights and sirens on, well, we all know that only represents a finite amount of our jobs (and it’s not like I want someone who thinks that’s a good reason to be an emergency service provider anyway).

While it seems pretty intuitive that setting fires is a bad thing, when you are dealing with people who already have a less-than-mature attitude and a challenge to their belief system, you set yourself up for disaster.  If you really want to avoid this type of incident occurring in your organization, one of the basic things that should be done is to engage personnel in activities OTHER than fighting fires/running calls.  If you want to find out how committed these personnel are to the community, give them day-to-day assignments that include non-emergency prevention or participation duties- just have them man an engine and go show the flag at the local high school football game, or go spray water for the kids on a hot day.  Anything to have them prove their worth OTHER than running hot and exerting their “auth-or-it-tie” (it always loses something unless you hear Cartman saying it).

Organizations who find themselves struggling to recruit or to get people to do their jobs must evaluate if there is a gap between what the leadership defines as valued behavior and what the membership (or potential membership) defines as a valued behavior.  If there is a gap, someone had better define the expectations, or the expectation will be that everyone is entitled to define the organizational mission according to his or her own needs.  If that is the case, I’d expect to be reading about you on STAT911 or Firegeezer some morning soon, and not in a good way.

Tolerance

2 comments
Take the time to understand others' points of view.

Take the time to understand others' points of view.

There is a great deal of controversy on the internet at any given time, but the postings between people we should be working with are getting to the point where they are troubling.  Heated rhetoric, personal attacks, and just out and out anger are more commonplace now then ever.

I posted this on my Firefighter Nation profile the other day in response to some of the discussions I have seen on other blogs lately.  If there’s anything I learned from doing research, is that even the military has come to understand that if combatants don’t appreciate adversary culture, they are likely to make assumptions that could jeopardize their mission. As a result, enlightened commanders take the time to immerse themselves in cultural education and counterintelligence to fully comprehend the aspect in which an adversary may approach a problem.  As a born cynic, my first viewpoint was that the understanding could be utilized to manipulate weakness or strength to be used against one’s adversary, but as I have grown older (and hopefully, wiser), I have found that in conflict management, many arguments could be simply defused by just toning down the language and accepting others’ viewpoints for what they are: opposing viewpoints.

This text was shared with me by a friend some time ago, but I wanted share it with you all in the hopes that maybe it could provide some perspective:

(Paraphrased from Dhammavadaka):

Remember always that you are just a visitor here, a traveler passing through. Your stay is but short and the moment of your departure unknown.

Speak quietly and kindly and be not forward with either opinions or advice. If you talk much, this will make you deaf to what others say, and you should know that there are few so wise that they cannot learn from others.

Be near when help is needed, but far when praise and thanks are being offered.

Take small account of might, wealth and fame, for they soon pass and are forgotten. Instead, nurture love within you and and strive to be a friend to all. Truly, compassion is a balm for many wounds.

Treasure silence when you find it, and while being mindful of your duties, set time aside, to be alone with yourself.

Cast off pretense and self-deception and see yourself as you really are.

Despite all appearances, no one is really evil. They are led astray by ignorance. If you ponder this truth always you will offer more light, rather then blame and condemnation.

Maybe some of you will take this for what it is worth and be a little less likely to fight with one another. Maybe you will continue to disregard any advice toward making peace with your brother firefighters and EMTs. But maybe if some of us kept our mouths shut and listened more, we might learn something. And further, maybe we need to be tolerant with some of the newbies and try to encourage their learning.

There is always a place for understanding the culture and approach of others, because you can then frame your discussion in terms which they can understand.  Be more open to ideas and accepting of others, and in the end, you will reach them because you can appreciate where they are coming from and they will appreciate that you took their sides under consideration.

What Defines A Successful Outcome?

3 comments
Teams must get adequate direction to insure successful outcomes.

Teams must get adequate direction to insure successful outcomes.

To begin with, let’s slide over to Dave Statter’s site for this embarrassing moment in Missouri.  I have been in plenty of fires where the scene has had incredible damage and I have been to scenes where there is an awful lot of confusion, and while on the face it seems like a thorough search of the structure wasn’t completed, I have literally stepped on a deceased victim before, not realizing they were there because of the surrounding damage, debris, and the condition of the body.  I wasn’t there, and my comments actually have to do with successful outcomes.

We all define what completes a job, or any task, I should say, differently.  What makes a task complete has to do with your work ethic, your education level, and the amount of feedback you receive from supervisory personnel.  When we perform a task that has been assigned to us, what I think is “complete” might be radically different from what you understand as “complete”. While performing a daily task, this might not be of any consequence.  However, on the emergency scene, an error or omission might involve a seriously embarrassing (or worse, deadly) incident.  Completion of any assigned task requires a series of elements: an objective, material resources, personnel resources, and time, to mention the key items.  The clearer the objective, or the more well-defined an objective is, the more likelihood that the objective will be accomplished with the desired outcome.

In a situation like the Missouri incident, while extraordinarily tragic for ALL the parties involved, the discussion lends to the issues of the definition of a successful outcome.  While the public has an expectation that NO MATTER WHAT, if someone is in a burned building, that we have all of the ability in the world to find ANYONE, they are sorely mistaken.  Again, I don’t have all of the facts here, but I do know that I have been involved in fires where we literally had to sift through debris to find teeth or bones in order to determine (or rule out) the presence of a missing person.  Likewise, not expecting to find someone in a bathtub, and with significant structural damage, I could see how someone might get missed.

However, there is a certain amount of thoroughness that we must apply to each job in accordance with the desired outcome.  In this case, if there is an expectation that we have a missing individual, if they were reported to be at home, and the evidence is such that there might be a person in the building, then no stone must be left unturned to either find or rule out the presence of the victim.  This is on one end of the spectrum; the other end is that we should not unreasonably expect a team to be so thorough that they are tied up for entire shifts working on projects that are of little importance because our expectations are so high and our definition of a successful outcome almost unreachable.

As leaders, we must do our best when assigning work to assess the competency levels of the personnel we are assigning the work to in order to gauge the amount of information we will need to provide.  As leaders we must also provide the appropriate resources to get the job done, and even sometimes, we have to run interference for the team so they can get the task accomplished (scheduling, meddling Battalion Chiefs, you know what I mean).  But supervising the crew doesn’t just involve telling someone to do something, then expecting some miraculous outcome.

When people are not given adequate tools, direction, or a defined outcome, you can’t expect the outcome to be consistent with your expectations.  Too many times I have heard of company officers who are frustrated with the final outcome of something they have assigned, and my first question is, “Was the outcome adequately defined?”  Nine times out of ten, that is the problem.  I even say that to myself and if something hasn’t been done according to what I expected, I need to realize that I’m only going to get what I asked for in most cases, although some of you all surprise me (in a good way) with your extra effort and the excellent result you produce.

The Missouri incident illustrates that there are significant differences in the understanding of what constitutes a finished job.  If there are haphazard approaches to gathering information, we can’t expect to assure the outcome will be as desired.  And while successful leaders allow subordinates to learn through independent discovery, independent discovery with a chance of success requires that you at least give them the tools (material, education, personnel, and time) to achieve a positive outcome.  Anything less and you shouldn’t be surprised.  Insure that as leaders, you set your people up to succeed.

Squirrel In The Middle of The Road

No comments

Our job entails more than responding to emergencies.

Our job entails more than responding to emergencies.

The other day I was sitting at Coligny Circle, which is a pretty busy spot on our Island.  I was actually trying to get some work done using the Town’s open WiFi connection there, rather than watching squirrels running out in the road.  A long time ago I wrote (in my first blog ever, over on FirefighterNation.com) about how some people make decisions like a squirrel decides whether it is going to cross the road: first this way, then realizing impending danger – that way – then thinking maybe that was a bad idea – this way…then the awful crunch of tire meeting squirrel.

Now as some of you know (who have been following me for a while) I’m not crazy about squirrels.  But while continuing to battle with the squirrels in my yard and despite my general impression that they are just rats with bushy tails, I still don’t really wish them any harm. While I would not come to a screeching halt to avoid hitting a squirrel with my car, I’m certainly not going to swerve to hit one, and I’ll even slow down to give them the benefit of doubt.   But just because I don’t really care for them, I still at least respect them as an adversary and I would never go out of my way to hurt them.

Well, it’s like that with you all and my other fellow beings; I respect you and your thoughts, I pray for your souls and your enlightenment, and I’d never go out of my way to hurt anyone. I’d even avoid doing so if I could.  But at some point we will come to a critical intersection where your indecision matches up with my desire for forward motion and we revert to that law of physics where an object in motion will continue in motion unless acted on by some outside force.  Are you getting it?

I have little to no patience with the status quo, especially if staying with the status quo serves no purpose.  I was remarking this morning to a friend that many “leaders” are afraid of the unknown because they don’t know how the unknown is going to treat them now or their legacy later.  It may be that the future holds them to account for their inabilities, their failures, or their inequities.  The status quo provides comfort.  The status quo provides reassurance.  If we know that the future is the status quo, we can control that. Everything else is shrouded in mystery.

If you live your life afraid of what is about to come, you will be afraid to take any chances.  If you live your life afraid of what is about to come, you will be cautious to the point of avoidance when an opportunity arises.  If you fail to take a chance when an opportunity arises there will be no growth.  While there are places for leaders who simply maintain peace, if your world is in constant turmoil, as a leader you must strive for change.  If your world in constantly evolving and you fail to grow with it and improve, you will go the way of the dinosaurs.  Or even better, the way of the indecisive squirrel.

If we weren’t losing firefighters from preventable cause, or if we didn’t have technologies that would help us to save lives and property more efficiently, or if we had leaders that were fully prepared to lead others in providing emergency services, we wouldn’t need to change.  If we had a fully efficient EMS system in every community and adequate layperson interventions in place, and lives were improved by rapidly delivered patient care, we wouldn’t need to change.

While there are those who continue to promote equilibrium, the time is not now for equilibrium.  Equilibrium suggests that things are okay, and things are clearly not okay.  We must as leaders continue to strive for improvement. We must encourage and motivate those who follow us in order to build a better customer service delivery model.  When things have improved not by what “seems” like improvement, but based on objective, measurable data, then and only then should we be comfortable resting on our laurels.  Our job entails more than just responding to emergencies.  It entails responding to community needs and assisting our neighbors.  That assistance comes in many forms, but the agencies who get it will be survivors, and those who don’t, well, I think you can figure that out yourself.  It’s not a matter of “if”, but “when”.

When the squirrel decided he wanted to cross the road, it was because he had an objective to reach on the other side.  Staying on one side of the road meant the objective would not be met.  Going after that objective involved a certain amount of risk.  The squirrel may or may not have considered that risk before making his decision.  We are not squirrels.  We hopefully have enough brainpower to determine whether the risks that we take are worth the rewards at the end and make the right decisions.  And if we rush out into the stream and find ourselves challenged there is also a risk in changing direction that we need to take into consideration.

As emergency service leaders, we must ensure that the decisions we make are based on objective, unemotional criteria involving what is best for the people we serve.  No tradition supersedes our prime directive of service to others.  Any decision we make must consider the ultimate mission: protection of life, property, and the environment.  If we remain locked in on the present and base our actions on serving the status quo, we don’t achieve that mission and we will have failed.  Our failure has consequences; unfortunately, in our business, those consequences often involve injury, death, or other severe loss.  It is incumbent upon us to keep that from happening.  But other consequences are pretty devastating as well like the elimination of overall budget, which can result in reduction or elimination of staff, programs, equipment, or whatever else you can imagine.

Challenge yourself and your team to remain vigilant to unmet needs, to consider means to remedy those needs, and to strive for continual improvement.  If you don’t engage your vision, it is tantamount to going out into the road and freezing in the path.  And we all know the ending to THAT story.

Almost Good Enough

1 comment
Pseudoladder.  Could pass as a truck company in some places.

Pseudoladder. Could pass as a truck company in some places.

What does it mean to be “good enough”? Is being good enough sufficient to meet the needs of our customers? Is it good enough to meet safety requirements? Is being “good enough” good enough to keep civilians from being killed, much less firefighters?

When we establish a standard, the document is a minimum definition of what is “good enough”.  While standards may prove irksome to people, those standards keep what is featured in the attached picture from being termed a “truck company” in some communities.  When we have standards it keeps the old “five bubbas, a pound hound and a pickup truck” example that I like to use from time to time from being called an “urban search and rescue task force”.

As an officer, and more accurately, a leader, what is “good enough” for you to proclaim that title?  Is it a minimum standard of education and experience?  Or was it that you had the lowest social security number?  Or even worse, was it because you are a “nice guy”?  That would be the ol’ elected standard, in some places.

In most businesses, unless you are related to the boss by blood or marriage, there are certain standards required for achieving the pinnacle of success in your company.  It may very well have been that you were the person who lasted the longest, but chances are that you had some kind of a spark of leadership somewhere if someone decided to put you in charge.  Fogging a mirror might not be the only criteria, but if you fogged it the best, maybe that was the deciding factor.

As a leader in emergency services, “good enough” gets personnel injured or killed.  ”Good enough” costs the public millions of dollars in waste.  ”Good enough” is the price for an annual fire loss that leads all industrialized nations.  So long as we continue to settle for the status quo, “good enough” is good enough.

If you fail to recognize that just being good enough isn’t, take this as a call to achieve more than that.  By establishing vision, promoting core values, declaring a mission and goals, and doing something to tie all those things together, you take your team from existing to succeeding.   By seeking innovation and more effective practices, we strive for excellence.  By observing the mistakes of others and instead of ridiculing those people, learning constructively from their experience, we avoid having to make the hard (and painful) mistakes ourselves.

No one reading this probably feels like “good enough” is the answer to anything; by reading this, it shows you are probably interested in motivating yourself and your team and are looking for answers.  If anything, be reassured, “good enough” has killed and injured more of us than any one factor, by way of heart attacks, falls, drownings, vehicle accidents, and any other number of causes of firefighter deaths.  It shows itself in complacency and in acceptance that what the current situation is cannot be altered.  I challenge you to look into your soul and wonder if by standing around and doing nothing, you were leading, or simply accepting your role in the line.

Be excellent and strive for being the best.  It will keep you and your crew alive and it will better serve the public you are charged with protecting.

Values

2 comments
Hilton Head and Bluffton Firefighters practicing FLAG drills.

Hilton Head and Bluffton Firefighters practicing FLAG drills.

In the wake of the Toyota recall disaster (that’s about the best description for that event), it brings us around to thinking about the values you might have in your organization, especially when having to make tough decisions.  The author and motivational speaker Bud Bilanich has said about values:

“Values ground an organization- providing direction for people who find themselves in ambiguous situations.  They are guides for decision making.”

If your organization doesn’t have agreed-upon values, it’s a good time to get your people together and discuss some.  Even if your organization fails to enact some, the team you control should put together a value statement that provides direction to those who have to make a watershed decision at some point with little guidance otherwise.

While remaining true to your core values aren’t always easy.  It may even cost you at some point, like the instance in which Johnson & Johnson had to pull Tylenol off the shelves in the wake of a cyanide poisoning scandal.  The decision cost them hundreds of millions of dollars, but ultimately, the company prospered because of the ultimate consumer confidence that sprang from sticking to their values: “…our first responsibility is…to mothers and fathers and all others who use our products.”

As an emergency response organization, your core values may involve treating the people who call you for assistance with compassion and dignity.  I’ve been in the situation before where that has been difficult, for whatever reason (like when they are abusing you verbally at 0400 hours) but ultimately, the decisions you must make in serving that citizen (or visitor, in our case) should be based on that value and subsequently, those values will protect you in the event that things get nasty.  Like when they decide to call a councilman or make a media event out of their situation.

While there are those out there who struggle with calling the people who call for our services “customers”, that shouldn’t preclude you from believing that these people are the reason for your existence, whatever you choose to call them, and they should be treated with dignity, respect, and empathy.  Just because you don’t perceive them as having a choice in who provides their service, it doesn’t keep them from raising a royal stink over the attitude you present, regardless of “who started it”.  You’ll still look like the bad guy in the media.

It is imperative that not only does your organization recruit and retain people who embrace your values, but that the culture holds those values dear, that people are rewarded for upholding those values, and that deviation from those values are redirected.  When the going gets tough, those values will carry your organization through the tough scrutiny of a media frenzy and by standing close to those values, it will keep you all together though the storm.

Get Your Facts Straight

No comments

DSC00043As usual, Dave Statter is hard at work getting us News from the Beltway, where there always seems like something is going on (it’s a happening place).  In this case, crews were on scene preparing to extricate a patient declared deceased when it was determined that the victim was in fact, alive.  While I was not there, nor are all the facts out there for examination yet, it makes for a very graphic illustration of today’s discussion: What facts may seem to be in evidence right now may not always be accurate, thus the need for continual re-evaluation of your situation.

I’m not advocating continual monitoring of the “pre-hospital dead”, although I would hope that this is a good case for the medically affiliated that we need to insure pulslessness and apnea, and confirm asystole in three leads (and print it).  That is called triangulating your facts and documenting them in the hopes things don’t change later (like the person is actually alive).

No, what I want to discuss is that in all kinds of places where we need to make a decision, even though something appears to be true right now, it might not be in a few minutes, a few hours, or a few days.  Conditions change and regardless of the origin of the facts you hold dear, they might not always be accurate facts.  The response to this ever-changing environment isn’t to throw up your hands in frustration (like my children and firefighters seem to do sometimes), but to re-evaluate your situation and to flex with the new conditions.  There’s a quote attributed to Whitey Ford I heard years ago (and of course, I can’t find my source now) and I have to paraphrase it because I don’t remember it exactly: “Don’t make up your mind about something until the moment you absolutely have to; it may be that by the time for coming to a conclusion occurs, the conditions may have changed.”

People who worked with me closely before I made Chief probably recall my frustration with schedule changes, personnel changes, equipment and apparatus changes that occurred over the course of a shift, often with no warning.  Now as a Chief Officer, I have a different perspective on the situation because I now have to step back and look at “the whole forest”.  I now understand how and why some of those “course changes” have come about and I also see why frustration with those changes is counterproductive.

As firefighters, we deal with changing conditions on scene without too much drama.  We know Murphy is a constant companion and if anything, we are surprised if everything goes RIGHT on a scene.  No incident is “textbook”.  But because we are good at our jobs, we flex with the new situation, understand it, and make whatever we have work.  Why we can’t do that in our daily operations, I guess, is my question.

If there’s anything I know about myself, it’s that I know I am not a patient man.  In fact, I’m probably one of the least patient people I know.  I also know I don’t have a lot of tolerance for less-than-excellent performance.  But part of maturing and growing involves experience, and experience shows us that there are many changing elements that occur over the course of a day, and a life, and reacting to them rather than soaking them in and understanding them (and then solving the problem) isn’t productive.  In fact, it is stressful and irritating to those who we have to live with.

I have a lot of personal growth and understanding to continue working toward and I wish some of this stuff would have been shared with me when I was a firefighter and a young officer, but it wasn’t.  I now have that benefit of experience, though, and it is my responsibility to share it with you all.  Take the time to understand the situation and instead of criticizing, find benefit in the lessons we learn and resolve not to let mistakes happen again, or at least in the environment we personally control.

Get facts before making critical decisions and don’t dwell on them too long, because in many cases, the facts will change before you even get a chance to decide on them.  Take decisive action when necessary, and when not, take considered action, and always, always, continue to re-evaluate the situation. By understanding your surroundings, you will be safer and your life richer for it.

Taking The Plunge

No comments

webIMG_2005Happy New Year!

Recently I was on my way to work and marveling at the sunrise (I get a good shot of it going over the Cross Island bridge on the way to my station) and got to remembering one call where a person dove off that very same bridge.  I was thinking, if you’re going to pick someplace to move on from, that’s a pretty scenic spot to do so.  It also brought up to me the dichotomy of risk vs. reward.

While the individual I was remembering had a reputation for making daring but risky decisions, you have to understand the motivator for someone like that.  If you can pull it off, you’re a God.  A stunt like that makes for a lot of interesting conversation later in life.  The downside, however, is when you fail, you fail catastrophically.

When we choose to forgo a risk/benefit analysis, we do just that.  In fire/rescue, the risk we take also involves death-defying heroism if you can pull it off, or grave consequences if you don’t.  While diving off a bridge seems to be the start of interesting cocktail party conversation, failing to appreciate the impact when you hit the water (literally) or the swiftness of the current below indicates a lack of total understanding of the problem.  When we plunge headlong into a fire with no idea of the conditions or into a rescue without considering the hazards that exist, we aren’t being professional.  We are choosing bravado over intellect.

I’ll keep it short because I’m juggling a few projects, but appropriate risk/benefit analysis requires a total understanding of the situation.  Failing that, at least a brief contemplation of the major risk involved is required.  There are people in our business who don’t even think when they go into harm’s way.  How many times in a media interview with “the hero” have you heard someone say, “I didn’t even think about it”.  I’d be curious to know if we were able to interview those who didn’t make it; would they say the same thing?

Understand your situation and make intelligent decisions, not irrational ones. It’s the difference between the steadfast and respected commander and the impulsive private.  If you want to be a leader, act like a leader.

Science Is Your Friend

1 comment

While taking Honora to school a few days ago, Bob Edwards was speaking on NPR Radio with Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, the authors of the book, “Unscientific America”.  While the book apparently discusses “scientific illiteracy”, some of the commentary seemed applicable to what we currently endure in the fire service; clinging to tradition for tradition’s sake and the global ignorance of scientific findings that can improve our efficiency and safety.

The authors, in discussing their premise, suggested that the general populace isn’t stupid when it comes to science, they’re just disengaged.  The idea that they put forth is essentially that science needs to discover a way to get people to re-engage on the issues, which is not as easy as it might seem.  While the scientific community as a whole might not necessarily agree upon the ways to communicate their issues, for scientists and supporters of science to simply dismiss the “emotional side” (my quote) of others when it comes to scientific issues is turning their back on the problem.

In the early to middle parts of the last century, scientists were looked at as heroes.  Science brought us protection against disease; it brought us innovative fabrics and materials.  Science ushered in a nuclear age and took us to the Moon.  Science, however became pedestrian or became background noise.  Although Mooney and Kirshenbaum didn’t suggest it, I suggest that maybe we all began to take these accomplishments for granted.  Consider that every other time I upgrade my computer it becomes a third smaller and four times faster (and I seem to have to upgrade these bad boys about every two or three years).  While the laptop I am typing this on has 500 GB of storage, my first work computer back in 1988 had MAYBE a 120 megabyte hard drive.  Since I wasn’t so computer literate back then, I couldn’t even begin to tell you how much RAM it had.

While these technological miracles happen almost daily, maybe they’ve become a little too commonplace.  And of course, the unintentional wall established between science and the rest of us (maybe I’m a bad example) doesn’t afford any converts.  In fact, the authors discussed that Carl Sagan suffered considerable stigma from the scientific community because of his efforts to put science in a context others could understand.  The result was that he was considered to have “populist” (their quote) views and was somehow, not worthy of inclusion into the supporters of science.

What has happened is that science just isn’t as popular a subject.  Mooney stated that if you read the newspaper, “Science doesn’t beat the horoscope or the sports pages” among most people.  Along with the theory that your political view influences your perspective on science (I’d agree with that), especially in this day of deeply divided emotions about our nation and the people who run it, I’d bet that the thought of discussing some of these scientific endeavors (stem cell research, evolution, etc.) with some of your friends or family probably makes you uncomfortable, regardless of where you stand.  So it’s no question that science in many circles, isn’t exactly a hot topic of conversation.  In fact, unless you are surrounded by a bunch of like-thinkers, you might well avoid scientific discussion altogether.

So just as goes science as a discussion for us all, so goes the fire service for those of us within it.  Go to any firehouse and you’ll see some strong feelings on certain fire service topics.  For any of us to discuss deeply held beliefs about our fire service brings up some pretty raw emotion.  Depending where you sit on many of these issues, sometimes it is better to sit it out and watch the fighting than it is to engage.  Why is that?  Well, I know personally, while I don’t shy away from conflict, I am not interested in engaging in an all-out battle with anyone who just can’t see any side of the issues except the one they are on.  If I choose to remain open-minded and civil, so must you.  That doesn’t seem to prevent people from acting like assholes though (yeah, I said it).

Blogging and posting is a little unique.  The anonymity of being online seems to permit some of the less enlightened individuals to pipe up when they should probably just stick a sock in it and slink back to their corner.  Especially when I’m being lectured by some moron who has two or three years under his (or her) belt and all of a sudden, they are the subject matter expert du jour.  Since the privacy of the internet protects cowards and psychos from getting popped in the mouth if they cross the line, I’d just as soon focus on positive discussion, but it doesn’t seem to stop some of them.

The emergency service industry, as does the scientific community, must remain objective while considering the deeply held beliefs and traditions of those who came before us.  While it seems that logic should overturn any voodoo, the scientific community can’t be dismissive of the emotion attached to these beliefs, because they can be equally as powerful, and no scientist has really been able to explain that.

I’ve said before that I love the traditions of the fire service.  I come from four generations of firefighters and I am proud of that heritage.  But just as my grandfather and my father were renegades and agitating for change and improvement, so do I.  I’m happy to keep a roto-ray on the front of my engine, but I’m not so keen on rushing so quickly to a fire alarm that I flip a rig.  I guess that’s a tradition that seemed to occur a lot in the past that I’d just as soon leave behind.  And yes, there are some who still think that this is acceptable behavior, as do those who think risk/benefit analysis is for sissies.

If we really want change, we have to understand that it scares some people.  Being dismissive of their fears or their preconceived beliefs doesn’t bring them to us in harmony, it creates division.  Understanding how and why things do the things they do is just as important as understanding who we are and where we came from and how we got here.  Since most of you reading this already get “IT”, I’m probably preaching to the choir, but perhaps we can do a better job of reaching out to the dinosaurs and conveying our respect for the way things were done, as well as educating them on safe and effective practices.

Understand that although scientific exploration may bear out an idea and that idea is as right as rain, that same idea will remain locked up in your head somewhere if you’re unable or unwilling to frame the idea into something everyone can understand and eventually, embrace.  If I had the universal answer to all of our problems, I wouldn’t be sitting here asking you open-ended questions.  But it seems that the questions keep getting asked and we aren’t hitting on the answers.

As a brotherhood, we need to band together and discover what others have found before us.  That together we can work toward improving public safety while striving for our own safety as well.  That tradition is important, but it doesn’t supplant common sense.  And that science, in reaching out to find answers to our questions, has achieved a method of achieving logical approaches to many problems, but we have to sometimes choke back emotion and realize that improvement sometimes means walking away from the treasured, but flawed, reasoning of our past.

Star of Life Law Blog

1 comment

I am encouraged by some of the blogs that are going on out there right now and I try to throw a link to the good ones over on the side over there (you know, over THERE, on your right).  A great one that popped up in the past few days has some serious merit; the Star of Life Law blog by my friend and colleague Pete Reid, who is not only a practicing lawyer but a practicing paramedic.  I am a man who has braved some serious fires and disasters, dove into alligator and shark infested waters (not at the same time), and fathered three girls, but if there is a subject that strikes fear in the hearts of all of us, and that’s the legal side of the business.  It’s likely because we don’t fully understand it, but given the few posts Pete already has on there, he has the opportunity to help us at least stay out of trouble.

As I posted before, a quote from a lawyer on lawyers:

“Lawyers are like vultures – most people look upon the vulture as a vile creature, eating carcasses and garbage, reprehensible to watch.  However, if there were no vultures, think about all of the roadkill that would rot on the highways, in the forests, and elsewhere.  Vultures take care of the messes we find distasteful.  If people would just get along and deal with each other in a civil manner, we wouldn’t need lawyers.” (Judge Thomas Kemmerlin, in a Leadership Hilton Head session)

While Pete is certainly not a vile creature (he’s actaully a really nice guy), he does offer a perspective on the legal side of emergency services that I hope to include in our discussions on here, because after all, he’s the lawyer.  If people didn’t sue people, we wouldn’t need lawyers, but if we do our job, we shouldn’t have to worry about being sued either.  Unfortunately, that’s not always the case and frivolous lawsuits cost a lot of money to defend, money that I’m sure most of us have allocated for more important things, like food and a mortgage.  So learn, educate others, and protect yourself.  Go check it out.

I Wanna Be A Libertarian

5 comments

mod abf slidell (7)For the most part, I consider myself a Libertarian in that I’d just as soon the government not tell me what to do.  In some aspects, I guess, I’m pretty conservative in my values, so I’m a little Republican, and I like the idea of people on welfare getting off of it someday, especially since I had to eat a lot of PBJs and continue to drive a car with 100k+ miles on it to afford the house we live in (but that’s called choosing your priorities).  And although I’m all for funding the arts, I’m pretty sure I don’t want to fund anything called “Piss Christ”. 

Socially, I guess, I’m pretty Democratic.  While I want people off of welfare eventually, I’m also realistic in that there are people who really need help.  I also believe that just because I believe in certain things, others do not.  Just as soon as I would never force anything down your throat, though, I’d just as soon you didn’t force me to either.  So I’m all in favor of saying “One country, under God” and courthouse lawn manger scenes, in season, of course.

Our government should help when it can and stay out of our business when it can not. But when public safety is involved, time and time again the public has shown it can’t be trusted to do what is right for their neighbors, so there are times when the government should really step in and set things straight.

What am I talking about?  Well, in Breckenridge, Colorado, an ordinance was passed to create a defensible space between properties.  While some people see this as a sane thing to do, others think that it infringes upon their rights.  As I see it, it is the right to have highly combustible timber and brush leading right to your home (or your neighbors), and then, I guess, your right to bitch about it when it catches on fire and the fire department is overwhelmed trying to help all the other Libertarians in your neighborhood.

Now, I don’t for a minute think all these people are Libertarians (nor do I care, and the same for any other political affiliation, just bear with me), but there really does come a time when the common good trumps that of your personal rights.  Call it a slippery slope, but you know, as much as I embrace your religious rights, I don’t see a problem with being able to see your face when you enter a public building.  And I as much as I believe in my First Amendment rights, I think race-baiting and hate speech should be banned, because it is apparent some people lack a certain amount of civility.

When we in emergency services make proposals for public safety, we should always consider the effect we have on individual rights.  The decisions we make really do affect those rights, but so long as we are using good logic in doing so, the public has to understand that we need a LITTLE HELP sometimes.  If you choose to exercise your right to build right up to the interface, you are going to have to give us a little break when we ask you to cut back the forest from your house a little.  When we tell you that you need to leave your home because the fire is heading in your direction, trust me, if I could leave you in place, I would, because frankly, you’re just going to get out there and tie up the highway and gawk and get in my way instead of evacuating anyway, so I’d just as soon leave you there.  I do, however, realize that leaving you to burn up in your property, regardless of your individual rights, is going to land me in court because I left you to do what you wanted anyway.

How do we take into consideration individual rights versus the right to protect people from themselves?  By educating people, and sometimes that requires bold and candid speech.  It is this exact kind of speech that politicians hate, because it shakes up the status quo.  So long as the populace is happy, the politicians are happy and it’s a lot less work.  When we make decisions to cut back trees or not to respond to calls for help at a certain windspeed during a hurricane, or to evacuate people from harms way, it certainly upsets people and they take that moment to complain.

We have to make the grown-up decisions, though; it’s why we exist.  Sometimes it’s best to leave things be, but sometimes you need to point out to people that their decisions could very well result in injuries and fatalities.  If people can’t see their way through those choices, then maybe we should just restrict our response to help them when all Hell breaks loose.  After all, we wouldn’t want the government to interfere with your life, would we?

The Case for Credentialing – Opportunists and Profiteers

1 comment
SC-TF1 in Chalmette, LA during Katrina ops.

SC-TF1 in Chalmette, LA during Katrina ops.

And then, there are the profiteers.  My intent with Firehouse Zen is not to use it as a place to vent, but as a place to enlighten.  Venting may be entertaining for some, but for the most part, productive it isn’t.

So let’s talk about why opportunists would be against credentialing, which should probably be obvious.  The reason is because for most of them, it would require them to validate their claims of expertise, and thus exposed as not having the skills or knowledge, would blunt their mercenary motives for financial reward. 

These are not “buffs” or “whackers”.  I have heard some of my colleagues use the term “buff” when referring to these groups, but I feel that this gives the real fire buff community a bad name, since there are so many out there who genuinely have a deep interest in the fire service but are unable for whatever reason to gain membership, (or just don’t care to be IN the fire service) and many really do contribute in their own way either by helping operationally, or contributing to the body of knowledge about the history of the fire service.  And although I wonder if those who choose to call themselves “whackers” really get that we aren’t laughing with them, we are laughing at them, the “whacker” mindset might be annoying and mostly about self-esteem issues; they act on more of an emotional reward for their ego, and still don’t come close to the opportunists I am referring to.

Opportunists are those who profit financially from being associated with response to a disaster.  How does this work?  Those who attempt to profit by defrauding the response community do so either by direct effect or by diverting attention from legitimate organizations. 

Profiteering also comes in the form of using the event to establish credibility, despite the individuals questionable contribution toward the outcome (and again, detracting from the actual attempts to mitigate the event), which also often comes through self-deployment to an event.  In doing so, these groups divert attention from the real responders.  While they were taking short-cuts, the ones who did all the hard work of meeting requirements and responsibilities given to them by their legal authority were not able to get the legitimate message out.  Likewise, these individuals and groups intentionally or unintentionally siphon off donations and community support from groups that legitimately could use that support.

In one way or another, these opportunists find ways to profit from their involvement in the disaster, be it reinforcing their claims for injury or from “credibility”, despite their lack of official involvement.  It should really go without saying that credentialing will help keep these people away; if forced to produce a recognized credential, most of these people would have been stopped at the door.  In the case of others, it would allow us to at least force them to affiliate themselves with a legally authorized responder, hopefully requiring them to undergo some background check and examination of their reason for obtaining credentials (“Why do you want to be a disaster responder?”). But by requiring the credential it also causes them to be placed in a group of some sort for accountability and would keep them from wandering off to do their own thing.

I wrote an article in 2002 for withthecommand.com discussing even back then, accountability in regard to disaster resource management.  Accountability doesn’t stop at causing you to know where people are, as you know, it keeps people from freelancing and doing things outside of the operational plan, as well as eliminating the unauthorized from accessing the scene.  Control and command of an incident requires that you isolate and deny entry to anybody that doesn’t have the authority to be in that hot zone.  These types of people clearly have no business being where they are and the negative things they bring to this type of incident don’t even begin to scratch the surface against requiring credentials, in fact, they reinforce the argument. 

In the next installment, we’ll talk about the final area of concern with credentialing, which really isn’t a valid argument against credentialing, but the concern of who determines who gets credentials and how they go about measuring the KSAs of people who genuinely desire to help.  After that, we’ll talk about the pros and cons and discuss other initiatives that also benefit from credentialing.

The Case for Credentialing – The Spontaneous Bystander

2 comments

First, we have the genuine thing, the spontaneous bystander, who sees a need for action, then does something about it.  Rescue911 commented on the story of the Good Samaritan and how a traveler, with no reason to do so other than to help his fellow man, went out of the way to assist another.  This lends a certain amount of credibility to the discussion that nothing should prohibit people who wish to help others in their time of need.  Now realize, of course, when I am referring to these individuals, I am referring to people who just have a desire to help their neighbors and do the right thing.

 Quarantelli discusses the social aspects of the emergent response of spontaneous bystanders in Katrina, but also in the Guadalajara gasoline spill and fire.  There is also discussion on the subject by Kirschenbaum that the current philosophy of governmental and NGO response to disasters effectively dilutes the response of neighbors and has resulted in an over-reliance on these agencies to provide assistance.  After all, man has been besieged by disasters since time immemorial and it’s not like they had FEMA to come to the rescue back in biblical times.

There’s something very beautiful (albeit, chaotic) in the spontaneous response of the altruistcally motivated.  But call me skeptical, I see a lot of response from people who claim that altruism is their motive, but I’m not seeing that generosity of spirit coming out when they’re busy operating video cameras to sell tape to the media or taking souvenirs, rather than manning a sand-bag line.  More about THAT kind of person later.

There are indeed a few challenges with this kind of emergent response, problems that if resolved, would go a long way toward goodwill with the community in general (it seems like everyone’s got some kind of beef with FEMA in every disaster, despite their extraordinary efforts to educate people that they need to be more self-sufficient and less reliant on the government), and provide resources to the jurisdictionally responsible agencies that seem to be strapped for bodies when the big one rolls around to their neighborhood.

The main problem faced by those of us in the disaster community when it comes to spontaneous response, is the fact that as the designated adult supervision at these events, we have a responsibility to insure not only mitigation (or depending on the complexity and scope, control) of the incident, but the safety of those who were not necessarily part of the problem before, but now are. 

Let’s step down a wee bit and look at it from the perspective of the first-due engine arriving at the scene of a water rescue.  Let’s even go further to relieve the complication of the situation, and let’s say this is a static water body and it’s just one person involved.  Now I understand that the vast majority of those of you reading the are responders, so bear with me as I educate those who are not.

If, as the officer of the first arriving fire apparatus on scene, we have a single person in need of assistance in a pond (or lagoon as we call them here on Hilton Head Island), it’s really just a cut-and-dried approach to the situation.  Providing we have the resources (water rescue equipment, trained and prepared personnel), it’s a matter of assessing the scene, determining the problem, solving and planning a solution, and putting the solution into action.

Our problem, however, is that more often than not, it isn’t that easy.  In a lot of cases, when we roll up, there are people in the water trying to make a rescue.  In a lot of cases, one or two of these people are now ALSO in distress.  There are bystanders who are interfering with the operation because they don’t understand that standing for a second and looking over the scene for additional hazards is necessary so that we ourselves don’t also become part of the problem (“WHY AREN’T YOU DOING SOMETHING?!!!”).  There are those who parked their vehicle in our way so they could get a better look.  These days there are people video taping so they can sell it to the media or even better, catch you doing something wrong.  Without beating this horse too much, suffice it to say that there are a whole lot of other things going on here.

Now how, you might ask, does this apply to me as a spontaneous responder?  Well, the video taping and the access issues aside (you are a Good Samaritan, after all), let’s go to that first issue: those of you in the water.  Think for a moment, while you are in front of your computer, why this person got into trouble to begin with.  It might very well mean that they can’t swim.  It might be, however, that there is another danger you don’t see.  Thus the need for experienced and equipped responders who can provide an effective rescue.  There is an oft-quoted saying in the confined space rescue community, that 50% of the victims in confined space emergencies are the first responders.  These are often well-intentioned, but less-than-educated or undisciplined responders who failed to take into account the dangers associated with space entry themselves.

My whole reason for saying this is that while most of us in the response community can certainly appreciate the bystander response to an emergency, there are cases upon cases in every aspect of disaster and technical rescue response where the spontaneous bystander response in and of itself became an additional rescue mission for us on our arrival.

So, how can the person who doesn’t have a desire to be part of an organized response help?  Take CPR and first aid courses.  Attend a seminar on what to do in a disaster.  Know that there are other ways to help (“throw, tow, row” come to mind BEFORE “go”).  Put your name on a volunteer reserve list or call your local jurisdiction and ask if there is some way to help if needed.  But more importantly than anything, when you are inclined to go and help, if the legally authorized incident commander (or their designee) gives you an assignment, no matter how mundane, it is what they DO need done for the management of the incident.  You may not understand or appreciate the IC’s request, but in our eyes, there may very well be a method of allowing you to contribute at your level of expertise and to permit your contributions without adding to the complexity of the situation (when something goes wrong and you aren’t equipped or prepared).

This all being said, in times of disaster, people do want to help and the response community has to be proactive enough to have a mechanism for channeling the energy of these responders.  The big issue in my eyes is to make sure people know in advance what they can do, create programs to educate lay responders, and tap them when you can to promote interest.  Furthermore, it is a good practice to identify a place they can report to and get information on them, credential them to the extent possible, and assign them according to their quickly-identified expertise.

I will tie this into the argument about credentialing later, but this is the first discussion regarding the “interested parties” against the argument for credentialing, so be on the lookout for the next post.  Thanks and feel free to comment or help illustrate your view on the subject.

Thoughts While Sitting in Traffic

1 comment

Sorry for not being around lately. I’ve had family in town and lots of stuff to do with the wife and girls. However, as I returned home from work the other day (this is at about 0645 in the morning), I was riding side-by-side with a vehicle best described as a “vintage beater”. As we approached a traffic light from a little way out, it changed to yellow. I knew that even speeding up I wouldn’t catch it, but the beater didn’t even bother and ran the red from so far out that I was shocked he hadn’t hit anyone.

In my recent attempts to not be angry (what good would it do?), I instead got to thinking about what would have happened had he actually hit someone, and what, at that time in the morning, was so important that he might risk his and and the lives of others in order to save a few seconds. I even caught up with him at the next light and I was driving the speed limit.

Later that afternoon, however, I WAS in a hurry to go somewhere. I was driving along and had the very same scenario presented to me. As tempted as I was to just fly through the intersection, since I was late to an appointment, I didn’t, and was a little frustrated as I sat there and waited for the light.

It occurred to me that doing the right thing may be inconvenient at times, but in some cases, the risks you take are certainly not worth the end result. It also occurred to me that even though you may feel like you are saving time by taking a short-cut, it doesn’t always work out that way and in fact, it might even be detrimental to the outcome.

How many times have you been working on a project and felt that taking the easy way out was warranted, only to have to go back and re-do things because you didn’t do things right the first time? When thinking about it from a safety perspective, how many times have you felt compelled to leave out a step (packing up, using gloves, etc.) because you felt like time was of the essence? How much longer would it have taken to complete that important mission had you gotten injured or killed because you took that short-cut?

Sometimes the shortest path between two points isn’t a straight line. Take the time to do things right and more often than not, you’ll be rewarded in the long run.