GLOBAL TERROR attacks, CBRN threats, civil disobedience are just some of threats facing metropolitan firefighters. While arguably precedents have been witnessed, such as the Blitz and Provisional IRA mainland campaigns, today’s emergency responders undoubtedly face more security hazards than ever before. 
 
However, if we move away from these risks and examine the fire aspect of the Fire and Rescue Service’s (FRS’s) response duties, are metropolitan firefighters subject to increased impact on their safety operating in the modern built urban environment than ever before? And if so, are we preparing, informing and training sufficiently to maintain their safety?
 
I am but a layman with a reasonable understanding of fire dynamics, command experience in an urban environment and a number of years spent training firefighters in various nations. One consistent factor is that knowledge, skill and the ability to apply it under duress – whether physiological, psychological or emotional – are the greatest tools for maintaining firefighter safety. 
 
Clarity of thought 
 
Effective decision making requires clarity of thought. Fire has evolved and the factors are myriad. Alterations in the typical fire loads or fuel packages found in buildings have changed considerably over the last 20 years. Offices and homes are now full of high energy items that release this quickly in fire situations. Put simply, fires burn hotter and faster now. 
 
What does that imply for the metropolitan firefighter? If we take a typical example of a major city, one notices the prevalence of cranes, building sites and rapidly expanding skylines, as buildings are constructed. The newer buildings that we see are smart, fire engineered solutions, with active and passive fire protection measures. But are firefighters sufficiently aware of this to maintain their safety and effectiveness of approach and to use them to optimise tactics? Can they fight fire safely, swiftly and effectively in today’s buildings?
 
As building technology and construction techniques continually progress, is firefighter operational ability and safety being compromised because engineering knowledge of these is not developing at a parallel rate? And while technological advances, such as fire appliance mobile data systems or geographical and management information systems, mean that more information is available to responding crews, is this information being applied accurately?
 
Occupational standard
 
In the UK FRS's national occupational standard (NOS) 6, Maintain readiness for Fire Rescue Operational Response, the following is stated:
 
‘Collect information on resources in your community (NOS FF6)
Identify features and facilities in the built environment which inform fire and rescue operational intelligence and report these to others in line with your organisation’s procedures, including:


P1.1 fire protection systems
P1.2 facilities for firefighters
P1.3 access and egress routes.’

This raises a pivotal question about whether the knowledge ascertained in the firefighter development and training that underpins the NOS and ‘competencies’ is sufficient not only to ‘identify features and facilities’, but also how to operate them or disable them in order to to assist operations.
 
If we examine fire protection systems within new buildings in the urban environment, we can find smoke extraction systems, pressurisation systems and sprinklers, to name but a few. Firefighters can use these not only to optimise their own safety, but also as a fundamental tool to assist fire attack operations. 
 
Under the definition of the occupational standard, these systems could be considered both P1.1 fire protection systems and in today’s context also P.1.2 facilities for firefighters, and should be regarded as such. 
 
Another question: can we truly answer across the UK’s metropolitan fire services that operational responders are sufficiently trained and adept at taking control of a modern building’s fixed installations and coordinating their use to enhance firefighting operations?
 
It would be interesting to consider how many operational responders are aware of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations (ADB) and BS EN 12101-6:  Specification for Pressure Differential Systems or BS 5588-4: Code of practice for smoke control using pressure differentials; or whether they are able to identify these features and facilities, and predict how they impact on fires loaded with modern fuel packages.
 
Knowledge gaps
 
While it is perhaps unrealistic to suggest that a detailed, legislative insight is required for effective firefighting, knowledge of broader practices and engineering principles are essential for safety and quality response operations, responding to questions such as: 
  • how do these systems work?
  • are they operating when fire crews arrive?
  • can fire crews operate them or isolate them to aid operational response in emergencies?
  • is the information available and readily accessible?
As methods of information collection and data availability via mobile data terminals are in place on fire appliances, systems such as these should be recorded on them. Site specific risk assessments and geographical information systems are synergising to ensure this data is available to operational crews, but only in the format of indicating the presence. Perhaps we are remiss in our preparation – not understanding modern buildings at an operational level impacts on firefighter safety.
 
‘Shop floor’ views
 
The following information results from a short ‘vox pop’ conducted for this article. Due to time constraints, it may not be a full representation of views, was not exclusive to metropolitan brigades and there is no guarantee of accuracy. The views come from the ‘shop floor’ and reflect what the operational crews, officers and trainers interviewed believed.
 
  • London Fire Brigade’s ops crews should not operate any systems such as these within a building – if any incident commander deems that these could assist operations, a senior fire safety officer should be requested and systems operated under his or her guidance only
  • Kent FRS instructors are trained by their fire engineering department in how these systems operate and this is cascaded to operational crews
  • Surrey FRS collates this information and engages in tactical discussion at the information gathering stage (such as on-site specific risk assessment visits) and can engage personnel at emergency incidents (eg facilities managers) to operate these systems, if safe to do so, and this is then relayed to other operational crews/watches
In the critical early stages of an emergency incident, are any options sufficient unless we have intimate knowledge of the specific buildings and how to operate systems within? West Midlands Fire Service (WMFS) identified this as an area for development and have incorporated provision of knowledge and use of these systems into operational live fire refresher training. A purpose built, high rise facility with smoke and heat extraction systems is used, and operational crews not only receive theoretical input but can also operate these systems while crews simultaneously fight ‘live’ carbonaceous fires within the structure, with the resulting enhancement or deterioration of conditions depending on how the system is operated.
 
On the frontline, WMFS’ breathing apparatus (BA) department reports that the practical element of this training and ‘realism’ has enhanced its operational crews’ ability and safety in an urban environment, by being able to account for or use these systems while creating an incident plan on scene.
 
Safety critical training
 
From the perspective of operational response crews, I certainly believe that there is a case for development/expansion or even replacement of the salient NOS with a more prescriptive, technical standard or training for the metropolitan firefighter. A precursor development phase with emphasis on various strands of engineering and solutions, so that firefighters can fulfil the NOS with an underpinning knowledge base, could be the answer. 
 
In terms of personal and crew safety, operational firefighters in urban areas where new buildings seem to appear daily must know how they are built and what is contained within. 
 
If it becomes vital to operate any systems within the building at emergency incidents in critical stages, then operational response crews should know how to do this, being able to predict the consequences of use during incidents. Engineering knowledge becomes a safety critical factor in this.
 
The UK Engineering Council’s UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence (UK-SPEC) document notes within the criteria for Engineering Technician (EngTech) that operators at that level should be able to:
 
  • use engineering knowledge to apply practical and technical skills
  • review and select appropriate techniques, procedures and methods to undertake tasks
  • use appropriate scientific, technical or engineering principles
Firefighting in modern urban buildings, using implementing tactics that are specific to that building’s installations utilises a combination of all three of these principles. Fire safety officers, involved at an advisory stage alongside fire engineers, architects, building inspectors and fire strategists, are demonstrating requirements noted in the same document at an Incorporated Engineer (IEng) level. 
 
More with less
 
I would suggest that modern, engineered buildings can themselves also be regarded from one angle, as a firefighting tool – or certainly a crucial element – that can be used to increase firefighter safety. For example, if we have sufficient information about the building’s construction and installations, corresponding with ‘on scene’ data gathering, a swift and decisive fire attack can be made while the building’s fire separation remains intact, rather than adherence to rigid protocols and the inability to use the building as a tool. Fixed installations can be utilised to enhance tactical advantage. 
 
Bridgeheads or Forward Command Points can be set up in protected areas of a building, further assisted by use of mechanical systems. Perhaps this can even be nearer to the fire location than the traditional situation in the shaft. But, yet again, this approach requires increased knowledge of construction, engineering and mechanics. 
 
Devil’s advocate
 
Is it risk averse to simply default back to firefighting from shafts and stairwells? Yes, rising main outlets are there, but if a modern building dictates, we may well be justified in the interests of fire safety by situating closer to the scene of operations.
 
My opinion is that, due to the challenges presented by urban buildings, metropolitan firefighters and officers should be proficient and practised in knowledge of construction, operation of fixed installations, tactics and fire strategies for the building, also accounting for crisis management, environmental damage and continuity. 
 
A compelling argument in light of this information can be made to pursue a system of initial and continuity fire development, emphasising an increased focus on engineering, of which the structural and mechanical knowledge discussed within this article is merely the tip of the iceberg. Firefighters should be competent in fluid mechanics when studying and implementing fire dynamics tactics and various other aspects.
 
Firefighter safety within the modern urban building environment raises a number of further questions for debate. Are current levels of knowledge of construction principles and engineering sufficient within a firefighter’s role, putting them at a disadvantage when operating in these environments? Should firefighters also pursue a foundation in engineering – including structural, mechanical, fluid – as part of their development and ongoing training to enhance their safety in these environments? Is firefighter safety potentially being compromised by engineering knowledge not evolving as quickly as the modern building risks in our communities? Your thoughts, please.
 
Ben Walker MIFireE is an award-winning firefighter officer, trainer and global consultant on live tactical firefighter training