More misleading and unsubstantiated statements from D&SF&RS

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.

Third class service for some residents in Devon & Somerset

Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority is gradually reducing the protection they provide to people in many areas. Worst affected will be those living in rural areas, villages and smaller towns. Those in major towns and cities will also be affected at busy times, when less well equipped vehicles and less well trained firefighters have to be brought in to assist, or to provide cover.

Anyone who sleeps in a property above the first floor will be particularly at risk, if a fire breaks out, as new vehicles only carry a short ladder. Dartmouth, Tiverton, Princetown, and Porlock have been disclosed as the first areas to be affected.

The Authority has embarked on a campaign to persuade people that these cuts are improvements, so this Blog is to help draw attention to the very real dangers. I was born and raised in Devon and my Mother and several other relatives and friends still live in the service's area, which is why I am especially concerned.

It is fundamentally wrong that people in some areas of Devon & Somerset should have less effective protection, just because emergencies occur less frequently in their particular area. The life of someone living on or near Exmoor or Dartmoor is just as valuable as the life of someone living in Exeter, Plymouth or Taunton. People can be trapped in a fire or a road crash anywhere in Devon & Somerset, so it is unacceptable that the first firefighters sent to help some of them will be less well equipped and less well trained.

Fully equipped fire engines are being replaced with less effective vehicles

The Authority is cutting the existing 121 Medium Rescue Pumps (MRP), which are very well equipped, to just 37 Medium Rescue Pumps. The others are being replaced with 39 Light Rescue Pumps (LRP), which carry less water and equipment, and 45 Rapid Intervention Vehicles (RIV), which carry even less water, equipment and crew. In comparison to Medium Rescue Pumps, the Light Rescue Pumps offer a second class service. The Rapid Intervention Vehicles will only offer a third class service.

Rapid Intervention Vehicles carry:

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.

Those are just some of the essential pieces of equipment that are not carried. They will say that some are not used often, but that does not help firefighters, or the public, when an incident occurs where they are needed.

Of greatest concern, they do not carry a rescue ladder 

Previously, every fire station, except Lundy, had a ladder that would reach the third or fourth floor. These plans will see many fire stations only having a ladder that will reach the first floor. Anyone trapped on a higher floor would have to wait for help to arrive from a fire station much further away, and inevitably some will not survive the wait.

Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority are also considering sending the Rapid Intervention Vehicles to emergencies with as few as two firefighters, instead of at least four on a proper fire engine. That may help the Authority tick the box for meeting response times, but it will not help those in peril. 

Safe and effective rescue needs not less than four firefighters. 

This idea is based on their unsubstantiated claim that “Over 70% of incidents we attend could be fully dealt with by a crew of two.” When the claim was challenged with a Freedom of Information request, they admitted that they had no documentation to support the claim. In their attempts to explain, they first said that they assessed incidents that could be dealt with by “2 or 3 people”, but then said, "It has been calculated that rapid intervention with less than four personnel may have dealt with 63% of all incidents". 

So there is no documented research or analysis, and no explanation of how “less than four may have dealt with 63% of all incidents”, magically becomes “70% could be fully dealt with by a crew of two.”

They also admitted that over 50% of the incidents they had assumed could be dealt with by less than four firefighters were false alarms. Of course they don't know it is a false alarm until they get there, so this crackpot theory would mean they would need a crystal ball to keep firefighters and the public safe.

They claim that smaller vehicles are quicker, but have failed to provide evidence. This was a particular claim for the Light Rescue Pumps, which have been in service since 2013. Home Office figures for Devon & Somerset show that average response times to primary fires (the most serious ones) have actually increased. 

Even if they could arrive a bit quicker, if they don’t have long enough ladders, the right equipment, enough water and enough firefighters, then the public & firefighters are put at much greater risk.

They claim that they are matching resources to risk, but ignore the fact that the risk to people trapped by fire, or in a wrecked car, is exactly the same no matter where they are in the area. They have been asked via a Freedom of Information request to produce their analysis and risk assessments. No station area risk assessments have been provided, and they have clearly not carried out an assessment of how less well equipped vehicles, with less well trained firefighters, will impact on public and firefighter safety.

Less well trained firefighters

They claim that with less equipment on the Rapid Intervention Vehicles, the training requirement will be reduced. Yet this will result in many firefighters being unable to help colleagues in other areas, as they won’t have been trained to use all the equipment on the remaining 37 Medium Rescue Pumps. It will be a nightmare for those in charge at incidents, when certain equipment needs to be used, if the only firefighters not yet committed have not been trained to use that equipment. They will have no choice but to request another crew, which may have a very long distance to travel.

At busy times, it also means that less well trained firefighters, on less capable vehicles, will be sent to serious incidents in what D&SF&RS class as higher risk areas. For example, crews at Ivybridge and Yelverton are never going to attend a fire on a nuclear submarine in their station areas. However, they could be first to attend such an incident, if they are standing by at Plymouth fire stations, whilst those crews are attending other incidents. 

Not training or equipping them for all potential incidents is simply irresponsible, and may well be unlawful. 

Just remember the Cathedral Yard fire in Exeter, on the 28th October 2016. 95 fire engines from urban and rural fire stations across Devon & Somerset attended that fire, as initial response, or as relief crews. Several others were moved from rural areas to fill the gaps at the main fire stations in urban areas. They were all well trained and none were on poorly equipped Rapid Intervention Vehicles. The Fire Authority's plans will make dealing with such incidents in the future much less effective and much more dangerous for firefighters and the public.

Before starting this Blog I discussed the situation with a number of firefighters in the area, both serving and retired, and they share these concerns. Unfortunately, those still serving fear the consequences if they publicly criticise the changes. I hope this Blog will help give them a voice.