Chief Fire Officer's failing commitment

Senior D&SF&RS officers have repeatedly stated that the crewing policy for fire appliances, a minimum crew of four, will apply to the Rapid Intervention Vehicles (RIVs). The minimum crewing policy is vital to ensure that firefighters are able to carry out actions effectively and without avoidable risk. 

Despite this, it has emerged that Dartmouth firefighters, who clearly lack confidence in their less well equipped RIV, feel obliged to take their fully equipped fire engine (MRP) to every incident as well. They are even doing this when they don't have enough firefighters to crew them both properly. According to their social media posts, instead of at least four on each, they are responding with just two on the RIV and three on the MRP. 

Much as I sympathise with the predicament that Dartmouth's firefighters now find themselves in, such actions are misguided. There is no safe system of work for such practices and it not only exposes firefighters to unnecessary risk, but it also exposes those in charge to the risk of prosecution under safety legislation.

Inadequate procedures and ignoring procedures costs lives

Astonishingly, if official D&SF&RS social media sites are to be believed, not only is the Chief Fire Officer allowing this abuse of crewing and safety policies, he is actively encouraging it. Eighteen years ago the Home Office inspected Devon Fire & Rescue Service and said that allowing just three firefighters to crew a fire appliance exposed them to additional and avoidable risk. The service was unable to come up with a safe system of work for that practice, so it was stopped and the minimum crew on a front-line fire appliance was determined to be four. 

Over the last 70 years there have been many changes to the two fire appliances stationed at Dartmouth. During that time they always had enough confidence in those appliances to take just one to those emergencies that only needed one crew. That they now feel obliged to take their MRP, whenever the RIV is sent out, simply confirms that the RIV is a "Really Inadequate Vehicle". 

It is also worth noting that they have the benefit of having a MRP available on their station. Other communities, such as Porlock and Princetown, do not. They, and others to follow, will only have an inadequate RIV for protection.   

The Chief Fire Officer's actions are illustrating that this commitment is increasingly hollow:

Protection for selected communities is being downgraded

Staff are being exposed to additional and avoidable danger

New vehicles are less well equipped

Some firefighters are to be less well trained. 

New allocations revealed

Despite assurances that allocations would be publicised as soon as they were decided, it seems that news of the latest allocations was confined to an internal newsletter earlier this month. The following stations are to lose a fire engine and have it replaced by a RIV:

Budleigh Salterton, Chard, Newton Abbot, Okehampton, Shepton Mallet, Tavistock, Williton and Woolacombe. 

Budleigh Salterton and Woolacombe will not have another appliance on their station, so will have to wait for help from stations further away.

Those communities may be a little reassured with the promise that longer ladders are to be carried on RIVs, but the other inadequacies remain:

56% less water, 50% less hose reel, 50% less 70mm diameter hose, 
30% less 45mm diameter hose, 25% less breathing apparatus sets, and 25% less suction hose.

No portable pump, which can be vital for firefighting in rural areas
 where hydrants are few and far between and for pumping out flooded properties.

No foam, which is essential for flammable liquid fires.

No positive pressure fan, which is invaluable for clearing smoke to aid rescue and firefighting.

The spin continues

That internal update for staff revealed that they have now decided to carry longer ladders on the RIVs. That is to be welcomed, but unfortunately the update continues with more misleading spin.

They say the decision, “Follows feedback from staff and members of the public”.

There was clear feedback from firefighters before the first vehicles were put in to use, but their concerns were ignored. Failing to listen to those who will have to use these vehicles, and simply reacting to public pressure suggests inept management.

“Data has shown that rescues using ladders have become extremely rare.“

It doesn’t matter how rare they are, data cannot predict where or when they will be needed. Depriving some communities of proper ladders would have put lives at risk. 

“The locations of RIVs are being decided using a risk based approach to ensure they are at the most suitable locations to provide the best service to the communities they serve.”

D&SF&RS have failed to provide any documentation to support their claim, despite receiving a legitimate freedom of information request. With missing and reduced levels of equipment and water, the RIVs will not provide a ‘best service’ to any community. The public in the affected communities deserve to know why they are having their protection downgraded.

“Locally based officers were involved in the decisions on the most effective locations for the new vehicles to be sited.”

How local? Are they saying the officer-in-charge of each of the stations concerned agreed to having a less capable RIV in place of a proper fire engine? I am afraid ‘involved in the decisions’, does not mean they were listened to, or were happy with the decisions made at Headquarters.

“Research suggests RIVs can respond more quickly than Medium Rescue Pumps (MRPs) in certain conditions.”

Again no evidence has been produced to support this claim, but a minute or two quicker in certain conditions is not going to make up for not having enough water or the right equipment.

“They will carry the latest technology such as fog spike, which enables firefighting to start from outside a building, and electronic cutting equipment.”

This has nothing to do with the vehicle, as the latest technology could be carried on proper, fully equipped fire engines.

“RIVs are significantly cheaper to purchase than MRPs and Light Rescue Pumps (LRPs).”

Here we have the real reason for the change, saving money regardless of the effect on public or firefighter safety. 

It is also unclear if this will be cheaper in the long run. Other fire services using van based vehicles for specialist roles have found they are less robust and have to be replaced more frequently than full sized fire appliances. They also suffer more from the stresses and strains of fire service use, so breakdown more often and can need costly repairs.

“The RIV project has been based on a large amount of data which has shown where the appliances should be located and what equipment they should carry.”

Information to support that claim has not been provided and does not appear to exist. In any event, incident data is not a foolproof indicator of the requirement for future incidents. This data preoccupation demonstrates a fundamental project failure to remember that any type of incident can occur, and any equipment may be needed, anywhere and at any time. Depriving firefighters of the equipment they may need to save lives and property in selected communities cannot be justified.

Referring to the testing programme they say, “most people who see it are impressed by its capability”.

Compared to some of the even less well equipped small van/light 4x4 vehicles that were evaluated, it will obviously appear better. However. that does not mean they consider it a proper replacement for a fully equipped fire engine. The real concern is not the things the RIV is capable of, it is the things it is not capable of that concerns firefighters and should concern the public.

All communities in Devon & Somerset deserve proper protection from their Fire Authority, 

it should not just be provided for the fortunate ones.