"Effective firefighting force" and HRFE response protocols: a thread.

Bear with me, this might be a bit of a long one. But I'm going to try to get the facts out there as I see them in hopes that someone in a position of authority might be reading/listening.

Under the current management regime, effective firefighting force (EFF) has become a focal point for HRFE. In fact, it is the key performance metric that HRFE has chosen to focus on in reports to council.

The EFF concept, which comes from National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard 1710 states that, for a first alarm structure fire (in a low hazard occupancy- we'll come back to this), there should be 15 firefighters on scene about 10 minutes after the page.

In my view, there are areas of HRFE's current response protocols that are not consistent with the goals of EFF (goals that HRFE itself has set). I will try to detail those here, using today's call in Bedford as an example.

As I see it, there are at least three issues:

Issue 1: suboptimal selection of first alarm apparatus. The 1st alarm assignment was 8E, 7Q, 50E, 50T. This pick relies upon the 3rd and 4th due units to come from a volunteer station, meaning the response can vary. One of those units (50T) cannot seat more than three people.

In reality today, of the seven firefighters expected from STN50 on the CAD pick (4 on 50E and 3 on 50T), two members responded, and that response was 11 minutes after the page. The result is, only half of the first alarm was on scene by the 15 minute mark.

(Let me just stop to say this isn't a career vs. volunteer thing. I think the protocols simply need to ensure the best response. I don't give a sh-t where it comes from. When that includes volunteers, pick volunteer units. When it doesn't, don't. Forget about politics)

So, on the first alarm, you end up with a situation where at least four staffed trucks (9Q, 10T, 5Q, and 4E) sat in the station while they could potentially have been on scene before the unit from STN50 (with only two personnel) even left STN50.

One aspect of this that could be fixed is for CAD to stop picking tankers to respond as engines in hydranted areas. Another thing would be to change the protocol for that part of the city to select different units. On Broad St, 1km away, I think the response is set to 8E,7Q,5Q,4E

Issue 2: the second alarm wasn't, in fact, filled out. HRFE's own protocols for a second alarm are as follows. 3E + 1A + Tac + Dis. Chief + PC on the first alarm. 2E + 1A on the second alarm.

Today, the following units responded: 8E, 7Q, 50T (2 members), 8A (four members), 9Q, 10T, 12Tac, D2, PCC. That's almost two engines short of the second alarm that was requested.

Add to this that the West Bedford area is one of the thinnest fire coverage areas in the core of HRM, and you really cannot afford to be sending fewer personnel than you need. At bare minimum, there needs to be a commitment to fully filling out the alarm level that is called.

Speaking of how many personnel you need, let's go back to NFPA for a second. The NFPA standard for a medium hazard occupancy, which I believe today's building was, is 28 firefighters on scene in about 10 minutes. By that standard, the response isn't even close.

Now, HRFE is resource-limited and it might not be reasonable to expect them to hit that standard in all situations. However, I do think it is reasonable to expect them to do their best to meet the standard, and sending sub-optimal CAD assignments to calls is not doing your best.

Lastly, issue 3: what if another call came in? What would the EFF and response time have looked like for that? HRFE's coverage protocols absolutely need to improve.

Stations 8, 50, 7, and 9 all sat empty for an extended period (as well as station 10 for some time). This means there were no in-service fire trucks between Bayers Rd (STN5) and Middle Sackville (STN10).

This is a self-inflicted wound. I have no idea why coverage wasn't arranged. I do know that the protocols in place for arranging coverage are very weak here and are, in fact, much weaker than you would find in other cities. Needs to be fixed.

The concept is simple. Almost every station in every other part of the city at that point was available and in service. So you spread your resources around so as not to leave five consecutive districts without coverage.

The number of times I have seen this happen with no improvement to the coverage system is frustrating. It should be a simple fix but it is so often an oversight. Other calls *do* come in. There's no need of fighting with one arm tied behind your back when that inevitably happens.

If you've read to this point in the thread, you're a trooper (or need your head examined). I just put this out there in hopes it'll get considered. I've listened to too many of these now and hate to see resources poorly allocated, through no fault of the people on the front lines

End thread!