Some of you may have seen the recent BBC Spotlight item about Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service's plans to replace proper fire appliances (fire engines) with less effective vehicles. Now I understand the inclination of Councillors and others to
accept what senior officers tell them, but you have to question the wisdom of
doing so when they continue to make misleading and unsubstantiated statements.
Inept or intended to mislead?
In the interview, Area Manager Joe Hassell made the astonishing claim that a second appliance with a larger ladder would arrive "within ten minutes on nearly every occasion". Home Office figures show that the average response time for the FIRST appliance is over ten minutes at Primary Fires in Devon & Somerset, so claiming that the second will usually arrive within ten minutes is utter nonsense. Primary fires are classed as potentially more serious fires that harm people or cause damage to property. I don't know if his misleading claim was just inept, or if it was intended to mislead, but it is clearly inaccurate.
Even the, "within the minimum of 20 minutes" claim is dubious. Where is the evidence to support that? D&SF&RS have so far failed to provide any evidence. Does the claim relate to the actual day to day appliance availability, or to an idealised situation where every appliance is available? Increasingly, appliances crewed by On Call Firefighters are not available at all times. So, even if a second appliance is theoretically no more than 20 minutes away, in reality it may not be available and another one, from much further away, will have to be sent.
Longer response times
Fire Authority cuts, and the failure to ensure there are enough On Call Firefighters available, often results in significant gaps in the protection available for residents. An example, from earlier in the year, was a fire in a second floor flat in Ilfracombe, which needed four fire appliance crews and an aerial appliance to extinguish it.
A few years ago there was an aerial appliance stationed at Ilfracombe and the fourth fire appliance would only have had to travel 6 miles from Woolacombe. In April this year, the fourth fire appliance had to travel nearly 20 miles from Lynton and the aerial appliance 55 miles from Exeter.
Faster claim, where is the evidence?
The Area Manager claimed that areas with RIVs (Rapid Intervention Vehicles) will get a "much
faster response time", yet no evidence has been provided to substantiate the
claim. As these are not yet in service, this claim seems to be simply
speculation.
It was a claim that they made when they introduced Light Rescue
Pumps, which were the first downgrade from proper fire appliances. Yet if you
compare the average response time figures before the LRPs were introduced, with
those since they went in to service, response times have actually increased.
Anyone who has travelled on Devon lanes knows that it does not matter if you meet a car, van or lorry, you cannot pass. Someone has to reverse to a passing place, so the size of the fire appliance makes little difference.
The misleading 92% claim
The implication was that the RIV would only be missing 8% of the equipment on a proper fire appliance. Those who listened carefully will have realised that the comparison was not with a proper fire engine, but with the first downgraded D&SF&RS appliance, a Light Rescue Pump, which carries less water, less equipment and less crew than a proper fire engine. The RIVs will only carry half of some of the essentials on a full sized fire engine and will not have foam, a portable pump and, crucially, a proper rescue ladder.
Are they running a supermarket or a life saving service?
This senior officer's response demonstrates D&SF&RS's fundamental failure to
understand the basic function of the service. It is not a supermarket, where
you look at percentages and remove from the shelves those items that are rarely sold. Like insurance,
the fire service has to be prepared for every eventuality. Some equipment may not be used very often, but when it is needed it is needed quickly. Perhaps it is this failed thinking that
is behind the introduction of the fire service equivalent of supermarket delivery vans in
place of proper fire engines!
Sensible people don't cancel their insurance because they haven't claimed for a few years, but that is the shortsighted thinking behind these changes.
Another shortsighted idea, because it means that when less frequent incidents occur in areas with RIVs, firefighters won't have the resources they need. Those less frequent incidents include those involving people trapped by fire, aircraft crashes, flammable liquid fires, hazardous materials, thatched roof and other larger fires.
Depriving the first responding crew of essential equipment, and building in a delay for the arrival of that equipment, is not responsible planning. D&SF&RS has also ignored the fundamental reality that any fire crew can be sent anywhere, and can end up attending any type of incident, which makes a nonsense of the so called risk assessed locations.
Where are the risk assessments?
If they really have risk assessed the RIV locations, then why have they failed to provide them in response to a Freedom of Information request? There appears to be a very worrying absence of both operational and safety risk assessments.
When asked how many properties, in areas due to receive RIVs, had upper floors that could not be reached by the short ladder on the RIVs, the answer was, "the numbers of properties asked for are unknown
at present". As four locations had been confirmed, those risk assessments at least should have been complete. So, either the risk assessments were inadequate, or they have not been carried out.
They were also asked about the distance between hydrants, which is particularly important, as the RIVs carry less than half the water on proper fire engines. They said that for modern developments "no property should be more than 150 metres from a hydrant" (for older developments and in rural areas it could be much further). Incredibly, neither RIVs or Light Rescue Pumps carry enough hose to reach those properties furthest from a hydrant on modern developments.
RIV = Really Ineffective Vehicle
Senior officers seem to be
ignoring legitimate concerns and pressing ahead with 'Really Ineffective Vehicles, as some front line professionals are calling the RIVs.
Those living or working in Devon
and Somerset have good reason
to be concerned about these dangerous changes.
