chapter 08
TRANSCRIPT
Chapter 8
Reading Risk
Objectives
• Describe the differences between dangerous and risky
• List the three influences on risk-taking values
• List the risk management concepts outlined in NFPA standards
• Define situational awareness• Describe three methods to read risk at an
incident
Introduction
• NFPA states that the ISO shall monitor conditions to determine if they fall within the department’s risk management criteria
• At an incident, the ISO must:– Read the risks taken– Offer judgment on their acceptability
• What is acceptable or unacceptable risk-taking?
Firefighter Risk Taking
• “Firefighting isn’t dangerous, it’s merely risky”– Chief Dave Daniels
• Risks of many specific dangers are well-known
• Learn, train, and equip to understand dangers
• Take steps to avoid, control, or eliminate the dangers
Figure 8-1 Firefighters make choices about the dangers they face; that is risk-taking. (Photo by Keith Muratori.)
Firefighter Risk Taking (con’t.)
• Action and results orientation can cause injury or death
• Instead of being arbitrarily aggressive, be intellectually aggressive
• Front-load– Understanding of defined risk-taking values– Increased ability to achieve situational
awareness
Risk-Taking Values
• IC establishes risk boundaries for working crews
• ISO makes the value decision of whether a specific strategy, task, or action is worth the injury
Risk-Taking Values (con’t.)
• Community expectations– Community expects that firefighters may have
to risk their lives to save a life– Firefighters must:
• Balance courage and bravery with prudent judgment• Avoid unnecessary injury
– Media communications have put risk-taking pressure on responders
Risk-Taking Values (con’t.)
• Fire service standards– NFPA standards (1500, 1521, 1561) address
risk management concepts• Risk a life to save a known life• Perform in a practiced manner to save valued
property (whose loss will cause harm to the community)
• Take no risk to save what’s lost• Default to defensive when conditions deteriorate
quickly
Risk-Taking Values (con’t.)
• Department values and skills– Consider what is commonplace and accepted
by the department– Evaluate whether the situation fits the
organization’s “normal” way of handling the incident
– Move creatively towards a safer solution if necessary
– Recognize when crews are unprepared to perform a skill
Situational Awareness
• Degree of accuracy by which one’s perception of the current environment mirrors reality
• Ability to: – Read potential risks– Recognize factors that influence the incident
outcome
Situational Awareness (con’t.)
• Factors that reduce situational awareness– Insufficient communication– Fatigue and stress– Task overload– Task underload– Group mind-set and biases– “Press-on regardless” philosophy– Degrading operating conditions
*Source: Naval Aviation Schools Command, Pensacola, Florida.
Situational Awareness (con’t.)
• The Brunacini approach– From Command Safety by Alan and Nick
Brunacini– Gauges to understand hazard severity
• Green-yellow-red scale of relative danger to responders
– Originally developed for IC, but can be applied to ISO
Situational Awareness (con’t.)
• The Brunacini approach (con’t.)– Situational evaluation factors gauged 1-5 with 5
being the highest risk• Overall risk level• Building size/area• Fire stage• Penetration distance• Heat level• Percentage of involvement• Smoke conditions
Situational Awareness (con’t.)
– Situational evaluation factors (con’t.)• Structural stability• Fire load• Occupancy hazard• Residential/commercial stability• Access/exit issues• Interior arrangement• Aggressiveness• IC’s instinct• Red flags (a list of “historic losers”)
Situational Awareness (con’t.)
• Value-Time-Size method– Stewart Rose’s risk-versus-benefit evaluation
• Can something be saved (the value)?• What is a safe time for firefighters, based on
construction and the location of the fire (the time window)?
• What is the amount of water needed to extinguish the fire (the size)?
Situational Awareness (con’t.)
• Value-Time-Size method (con’t.)– Case study: a mud slide
• Value: people or property• Time: window of opportunity compared to the
stability of the mud and structures • Size: amount of resources that need to be deployed
to affect mitigation
Situational Awareness (con’t.)
• The ISO’s read-risk method– Knowledge, sound judgment, experience, and
wisdom are paramount in making risk decisions– Prepare with vicarious learning
• Learn from the mistakes of others• Read accident investigation reports generated for
firefighter duty-deaths
Figure 8-2 Experienced ISOs typically develop their own process for reading risk at incidents.
Situational Awareness (con’t.)
• The author’s read-risk method– Step 1: Collect information
• Read the building• Read the smoke• Read firefighter effectiveness
Situational Awareness (con’t.)
• The author’s read-risk method (con’t.)– Step 2: Analyze
• Define the principal hazard• What is the window of opportunity?• Are we ahead or behind the power curve?• What is really to be gained?
Situational Awareness (con’t.)
• The author’s read-risk method (con’t.)– Step 3: Judge risk
• Are we within the risk-taking values established by the department?
• Are we doing all we can to continually reduce risks?
Summary
• ISO risk management at an incident– Read risks
• Firefighters should be intellectually, not arbitrarily aggressive
– Understand risk-taking values defined by:• Community expectations• Fire service standards• Fire department values and skills
Summary (con’t.)
• ISO risk management (con’t.)– Employ situational awareness techniques to
help evaluate risks• Brunacini approach• Value-time-size thinking• ISO’s read-risk thinking