Bruce Philpott, New Fire Models, Segment 8: Staffing, Three Versus Four (continued)

It is important to reiterate during these presentations that we regard the city of Glendale as having a fine fire department. The GFD executes its training, practices and protocols as good as any fire department around. But we reserve the right to bring flawed public safety policy issues to this city council because you are the policy makers of last resort. We will conclude the topic of fire-company staffing this week.

The standard practice by the GFD is to assign four firefighters to engine and truck companies. A preliminary audit of engine and truck company operations indicates that this practice is wasteful and costs the city an additional seven million dollars annually when compared to the comparable value of staffing with three. But fire unions have perpetuated the myth of the four-man crew. The myth has gone unchallenged as the following quotes taken from newspaper accounts indicate.

Quote # 1: “State labor regulations require that at least two firefighters enter a burning structure for a rescue effort or to attempt to put a fire out, with at least two firefighters standing by outside – a condition that can’t be met with only three firefighters assigned to the first company arriving at a fire.” The president of the Pasadena fire union made this quote in the Pasadena Star News in 1996. In response to this, (Pasadena) City Councilman, Paul Little, stated, “An extra firefighter seems to make sense to me. As I understand it, with a three-person truck, they can get there, but can’t really do much until a four (sic) person is available. In the event of catastrophic fire, a truck (meaning engine) getting there and not being able to effect a rescue would be a disaster.” This same belief has resulted in many cities adding a fourth firefighter.

Quote # 2: “State rules require that two firefighters be present as backup for every two that enter a burning building. With three on an engine, that’s impossible”. Afrack Vargas, Legislative Advocate for the California State Firefighters Association, made this quote last month in the Los Angeles Times.

The clear self serving message is that firefighters would be prevented from entering a burning structure to extinguish a fire if staffed with three on the first arriving engine, but that if there were four firefighters on the engine, they could enter the structure and extinguish the fire. These statements are not true and serve to perpetuate the four-person mandatory staffing myth.

These two quotes, over a decade apart, show how resilient myths can remain in the public arena and still affect public policy for special interest reasons. This, in spite of the fact that both quotes have been thoroughly denounced by top officials from the Federal Office of Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the California State Office of Emergency Services (OES), the California State Firefighters Union (CSFA), International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), and the Los Angeles City Fire Department. (Specific data is available upon request)

Top officials from each of these organizations agree that assembling a four-person entry team at a structure fire is not possible with an engine company staffed with four. They agreed that it takes the presence of two engine companies before the entry team can be complete. They even agreed, some reluctantly, that if the first two arriving engine companies were both staffed with three, they could assemble an entry team of four and begin to extinguish the fire. The reason that four firefighters on the first arriving engine are unable to secure a four-person entry team is that two of them have other required functions to fulfill.

Slide 1.

One firefighter must remain at the hydrant to activate water flow. One firefighter must remain at the pump controls on the engine. The two remaining firefighters have other important functions to perform in preparation for the arrival of the second engine company, at which time a four-person entry team is complete.

In contrast, the GFD on June 26, 2007 attempted to perpetuate the four-person staffing myth by telling this city council and the citizens of Glendale that they can mount an interior attack if the first arriving engine company is staffed with four. You may remember that this was the primary reason why the GFD told you in June of this year, that it had no choice but to staff with four and therefore had no control over the $5.8 million in overtime.

Slide 2.

In the same June presentation, under the third reason to justify staffing with four, the GFD stated that the State Mutual Aid System requires that they staff with four firefighters. That statement is not true according to Paul Beckstrom, Assistant Chief of the State Office of Emergency Services, the agency that manages the state mutual aid system. He said there is no minimum staffing requirement under state mutual aid and that it is a voluntary system.

It is also important to note that the GFD did not state a case that staffing with four is safer than staffing with three. An audit of the on-duty injury records would reveal the true picture. The GFD should have disclosed that staffing with four is unnecessary for assembling an entry team at a structure fire. It should have told you that it needs two engine companies to accomplish an entry team, even if both engines are staffed with three. They should have also disclosed that they can handle over 99% of medical emergencies and 99% of fire incidents with engine companies staffed with three.

Medical calls account for 87% of all emergency runs by the GFD. Over 99% of medical emergency calls are single person events and three on engine companies can adequately back up the two paramedics on the rescue ambulance.

Fires on a smaller scale than structures, such as car, trashcan, appliance, or electrical are adequately and safely managed by a single three-person engine company. On structure fires you can only mount an interior attack when the second engine company has arrived, regardless if it is staffed with three or four. All of this data supports the three-person model on staffing engine companies.

The GFD already staffs daily with three firefighters on engine companies for significant portions of each shift and during the highest demand times for emergency calls. They cannot claim that a three-person engine will pose a public risk or a risk to firefighters when they choose to man with three when it is convenient for them.

With almost no exception, all engine and truck companies are fully staffed with four firefighters between the hours of 8 PM and 6:30 AM, the time when the least amount of calls occur. Since it’s primary justification for staffing with four does not show evidence of any benefit over staffing with three, a more thorough examination of the issue should take place. This should be done in light of the fact that the cost to staff the fourth firefighter is seven million dollars annually. The best investigation would include an audit of the emergency responses by an independent entity, be fully transparent, and involve the public.

The real issue is not the day-to-day operations where staffing with three is prudent and would not degrade the level of service provided the public. Even in major disasters, such as the train derailment several years ago, fire resources are abundant, and large numbers of personnel and equipment can be amassed in very few minutes anywhere in the city. According to local fire officials speaking for the mutual aid system, they can guarantee that over a hundred firefighters can be assembled quickly at any location. There is no other part of the country that can produce these kinds of emergency resources in size or speed and it doesn’t matter if the companies are staffed with three or four.

The real need is to prepare for the most probable major disaster to occur locally. That, of course, is a large earthquake, an event that is surely to come. This evening the History Channel at 10 PM will present a show on Mega Disasters, the next Los Angeles Earthquake. This is the real disaster that we need to be prepared for and there is much room for improvement. Next week we will begin to make a two-part presentation on another model that will increase fire resources to major disasters by over 100% and at the same time save taxpayers ten million dollars a year.

Bruce Philpott

(818) 240-8949