Chapter 08

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


• 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


• 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.


• 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


• 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 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”)


• 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)?


• 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


• 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.


• The author’s read-risk method– Step 1: Collect information

• Read the building• Read the smoke• Read firefighter effectiveness


• 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?


• 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

Economy & Finance

Chapter 08