Safety does not preclude heroism
Gregory Havel
Captain, Safety Officer
Town of Burlington (WI) Fire Department
Reference is made to Bill Manning`s “Of Mice and Men” (Editor`s Opinion, October 1996) concerning Don Santos, the off-duty volunteer firefighter who jumped off a high-level bridge to attempt to save the life of a person attempting suicide, and the many responses to the editorial. Some important safety issues are raised. Our attitudes toward safety, operational procedures, and those who have traditionally been called heroes are questioned. Although reader response to the published commentary has died down, I am still hearing comments and discussions of the incident and related issues.
The safety issue raised in this editorial is a good one. Some claim that the new emphasis on safety has changed the fire service forever–so encumbering it with regulations that it can barely function and has eliminated any chance for heroism. Others claim that the emphasis on safety has made the fire service so much better. They say we should have more regulations and special procedures and that one who performs a heroic deed must be incredibly stupid to have done anything so dangerous.
Some of us prefer a more moderate viewpoint. I believe that many of the results of the safety regulations have been good. The following especially are excellent ideas: working in pairs or in teams; coordinating efforts and working toward common objectives, as in the incident command system; and protecting ourselves so that we may achieve our objectives with less risk.
I do not believe, however, that regulations are always good. They tend to become burdensome even to the most patient person. I do not believe that more or newer regulations will be better than the ones we have now, even though they, too, can be made to work.
I believe that safety programs provide us with more tools to use in emergency responses, including physical examinations and fitness programs, training, education, experience, and an organizational structure for the incident. They can help us to be more effective emergency responders. Although sledgehammers and battering rams are still extremely effective tools for opening doors, I hear no one objecting to the nearly universal use of the more efficient and less stressful lock pullers, power saws, halligan tools, “try before you pry,” and “look for an easier way.” Let us not be too quick to condemn new “mental tools” without giving them the same kind of field testing we give new pieces of hardware before buying them.
The only “safety program” that is going to work and be accepted by the people who are supposed to use it is one built into the suggested operating guidelines (standard operating procedures) we follow every day. A separate safety manual quickly becomes one more book on the shelf that gets dusted but is rarely opened.
If we are physically fit, have training and education backed by experience, and are guided by regularly used SOGs that have safety, planning procedures, and risk analysis built in, we will recognize our personal abilities and capabilities and those of our coworkers and the organizations for which we work, as well as the special requirements of the places to which we are dispatched. Since one of our goals should be to return from each response or shift with our skins intact, we must work within the limits of our abilities with tools that we know well how to use. More training and education can help us to expand these limits. We should know ourselves, our coworkers, our workplaces, and our tools so well that we will be able to say one of the following in the time it takes to set the parking brake and have our feet hit the pavement:
“We can do that! Here`s our plan.”
“We can do that with help! Here`s our plan.”
“We cannot (will not) do that.”
We must remember to remain flexible in our thinking, since no book of regulations or procedures covers every instance. Emergency situations can change rapidly, thereby rapidly changing the options available to us. Even the incident command system recognizes that we must remain flexible, since it proposes that the first person on the scene assume command and permits the individual to become active in initial operations if this involvement will be instrumental in saving life or high-value property.
And what about heroes? Will they still appear in times of need? Of course they will. Those who perform brilliantly within their capabilities, as they have been trained to do, will receive medals and be remembered (and sometimes worshipped) for years to come. Those who attempt to perform beyond their capabilities–depending on luck–often will not be as successful, and they will put others at additional risk if they fail.
If we build the regulatory requirements for safety into the operating guidelines we use every day; know our tools, capabilities, and level of training; and remain flexible in our responses, we will be able to continue to use the old standard that has served us so well for so many years: Risk a life to save a life; risk a lot to save a lot; risk a little to save a little; and risk nothing to save what is already lost, successful heroes will still show up when they are needed.
