Incident Safety Officer - really useful?

[ARidder]

Hello,

I'm a firefighter from Germany, and therefore not really used to having some sort of Safety Officer at the scene (that position currently doesn't exist in our manuals).

But as I've read some interesting stuff on the advantages of having an ISO, I'd like to ask you, the ones who have already worked with Safeties, some questions:

-Do you think the position of an ISO is really needed?
-What do you reply to people saying "every officer is responsible for the safety of his crew, therefore we don't need a Safety Officer"?
- Have you ever experienced problems between the IC and the ISO, for example when the ISO decided to pull crews out of a building because of the danger of collapse? Or is it common for every IC to accept what the ISO does?

Thanks for your answers and Happy Christmas to everybody! ;-)

[Eng34FF]

I've worked incidents with and without a safety officer. We don't assign on on a lot of our calls and get along fine. If we have the manpower and a qualified person, the position will get filled. For most incidents, even working fires, the position is filled after all other division / sector officers are in place. Placing a person in that position just to fill the position is not worthwhile. If an experienced, knowledgeable person is available, and extra set of eyes is always good.

Although, most of my experience with SOs is on training burns. I've seen the SO pull people out of both training burns and actual house fires, with no complaint from the Incident Commander. After being advised, the problem was mitigated and we continued with operations.

[len1582]

Hello sir..A good Christmas to you also.

While the Safety Officers duties can vary from place to place, Safety Officer is a good position. It gives the IC an additional set of eyes to watch overall operations. By me one of his tasks is to walk around the fireground and moniter everything that could cause injury. Also FF accountability. Possible signs of building collapse is a big one as we have many wood frame buildings and can have multiple buildings involved. The company officer inside fighting the fire with his crew and the IC at the command post can't see these signs in the rear of the building. He may also go up to the roof if there are extended roof operations with more than one company working.
The SO and IC are in close radio communication.
By me Safety Officers are also Battalion Chiefs with fireground experience. The IC will usually accept the SO's recomendation or modify it. Bear in mind this can cause the IC to change his tactics also.

He also assists at Haz/Mat calls (accountability, supervise decon, rehab)building collapse, MVA's, or any incident where he can be used.

[robertr2m]

Merry Christmas back at ya!!!

I have been on scenes through municipal as well as industrial and have seen the SO position filled with knowledgable and experienced people and I've seen it as a way get a "favored" buddy from having to actually work.

The SO has to have working knowledge and experience of whatever the situation is you are mitigating. As stated, he is the eyes and ears of the IC and through most SOP's (including ours) can shut down operations as he/she deems necessary.

Probably the best use I have seen is IC assigning the SO position to a more senior officer that chose not to assume command from the more junior officer. It's an effective use of a senior officer and it gives the junior officer experience while having the senior very much involved in the scene and in the position to give advice or pull the plug as needed.

Regardless of how it is assigned, the person must have training and experience in whatever is working to be effective. If you have a building construction guru running safety over the 3rd HAZMAT scene they have ever been on, chances are, your safety doesn't know what the hazards actually are.

Again... Happy Holidays!!!

R2

[RFDACM02]

I'm sure you'll get all kinds of responses as we as a whole are a varied bunch. Done right the safety officers position can be a real asset like Len notes, done wrong (lacking proper training, authority and experience) and it can be a waste at least and a joke at worst. I've seen both ends of the spectrum. In our FD we have two retired A/C's and one call Capt. that act as SO at anything 2nd alarm or above. Any time they are not present the IC is responsible for safety (really always) and may elect to assign one or more if deemed necessary.

We operated on a M/A fire last night: large defensive operation with no SO's, but there were chief officers on all sides of the building supervising and continually evaluating the operations.

[robertr2m]

I'm sure you'll get all kinds of responses as we as a whole are a varied bunch. Done right the safety officers position can be a real asset like Len notes, done wrong (lacking proper training, authority and experience) and it can be a waste at least and a joke at worst. I've seen both ends of the spectrum. In our FD we have two retired A/C's and one call Capt. that act as SO at anything 2nd alarm or above. Any time they are not present the IC is responsible for safety (really always) and may elect to assign one or more if deemed necessary.

We operated on a M/A fire last night: large defensive operation with no SO's, but there were chief officers on all sides of the building supervising and continually evaluating the operations.

You have stated an obvious and valid point, even though these senior officer's aren't specifically titled and assigned as "Safety"... they are.

Good discussion

Be safe, R2

[MemphisE34a]

Not always, but I typically find that the Safety Officer is someone who does not want to be on the line because they were "shaky" at best in their performance. Because of this, they often find "Safety issues" with nearly every aspect of the fire fight.

They are scared ans always stayed away from the building so you should too!!

[Gnufsh]

Not always, but I typically find that the Safety Officer is someone who does not want to be on the line because they were "shaky" at best in their performance. Because of this, they often find "Safety issues" with nearly every aspect of the fire fight.

They are scared ans always stayed away from the building so you should too!!

That is the last person I would want to see as my safety officer. You want someone who is very experienced and knowledgeable. Someone who can catch issues that others can't because they are focused on their jobs. Thankfully, my experience with safety officers is different than yours.

[ChiefKN]

I think it's still an emerging philosophy for most of the United States. Some departments have been doing it and doing it well for years. In my area it's usually an afterthought if thought of at all.

I think that we still need better training and a clear set of requirements about who is qualified to be the SO. Some departments around here seem to appoint a permanent "old guy" (not to be insulting) to fill the role. Not always the best choice, as they haven't seen action in a long time and may not be fresh with their knowledge and usually have no formal Safety Officer training. Not to mention, what if they don't show up?

I think on the list of things we need done in NJ, I would rather see the state continue to focus on the Fire Officer requirements, then the safety officer (since it's highly unlikely that they can do both at the same time).

My thoughts are that the department sending the FAST team could send a Chief Officer (with safety officer training) as well.

Perhaps some day, we'll get there.

[dday05]

Not always, but I typically find that the Safety Officer is someone who does not want to be on the line because they were "shaky" at best in their performance. Because of this, they often find "Safety issues" with nearly every aspect of the fire fight.

They are scared ans always stayed away from the building so you should too!!

I agree here and have heard stories about this. Some depts put the pepople in their "click" in and as Memphis says they find a safety issue somewhere. I think used properly it works, but getting the right person in there is the important key. If you get the wrong person it goes down hill. I see depts put in some people that have very little experience in that position and they think it's a power position where they can bark out orders and go above the line officers resulting in a huge ****ing match.

However I see a lot of depts spend so much time getting all these positions filled such as a safety officer, RIT/FAST Teams and Rehab in place before any supression can take place. I am a fan of all of this but in the mean time a room and contents fire that could have been knocked and saved turns into a 3-4-5 depts coming to a fully involved fire now.

[ChiefKN]

However I see a lot of depts spend so much time getting all these positions filled such as a safety officer, RIT/FAST Teams and Rehab in place before any supression can take place. I am a fan of all of this but in the mean time a room and contents fire that could have been knocked and saved turns into a 3-4-5 depts coming to a fully involved fire now.

Really? They WAIT for those positions before starting operations?

That's foolish.

[dday05]

It seem like when something new is learned the mindset says ok we need to do it this way and this way only. Then you do it with no result and or the home burns down. Then it seems like you start operating the way you use to then the pieces start to fall together such as having your m/a units fill some of those positions and what not. Are you following me? As we all say on here if you can put the fire out most of your problems will go away.

[robertr2m]

Really? They WAIT for those positions before starting operations?

That's foolish.

I do alot of training with other departments and I know of one that will not commit to an offensive attack without Safety and RIT established first when dealing with a structure fire, HAZMAT or confined space rescue scene.

Rehab can wait a little while but I can't see how having SO and RIT in place is "foolish" in my opinion. Please explain.

Be safe, R2

[ChiefKN]

Rehab can wait a little while but I can't see how having SO and RIT in place is "foolish" in my opinion. Please explain.

Be safe, R2

What are they doing while they wait? Standing at the front door with a charged line?

Sorry, start your attack. Usually that will mitigate the hazard.

[robertr2m]

What are they doing while they wait? Standing at the front door with a charged line?

Sorry, start your attack. Usually that will mitigate the hazard.

Securing the utilities, complete size up, set up for attack, co-ordinate incoming companies to position on scene (assign next in as RIT) or stage, arrange EMS deployment, etc.

Just to play devils advocate... first engine in wraps a hydrant (or maybe not), lays a supply line and makes entry. Moves into the structure, does some suppression and search, burns air bottles and egresses only to find they are one man short, out of air and having to waste precious time getting more air to go back when they could have had a team already in place, ready to go.

I pretty much agree that Rehab can wait and maybe even the SO since the IC can act as one to a certain degree but anyone whoever goes into a burning structure w/o a RIT team is relying way to much on luck.

I entered the fire service and was trained on fast attack... one hoseline in on tank water, incoming engine lays a line and officer of the truck takes command. I'm very glad it isn't an option anymore just like interior operations without a RIT on standby and SO advising IC is, at least for this particular department.

My department requires a RIT on standby.

When I teach RIT whether is pertains to HAZMAT or fire ground ops, I try to make it very clear that the only "911" that is available to firefighters is RIT.

Sorry, start your attack. Usually that will mitigate the hazard.

RIT's not in place for the "usual" (unless loosing firefighters is a common occurence in your department). It's there for the "unusual" in my opinion.

Great discussion!!!

Be safe, R2

[emt161]

I pretty much agree that Rehab can wait and maybe even the SO since the IC can act as one to a certain degree but anyone whoever goes into a burning structure w/o a RIT team is relying way to much on luck.

Cripes. Put the friggin fire out, and your chances of needing that precious RIT team drops about 75%.

[robertr2m]

Cripes. Put the friggin fire out, and your chances of needing that precious RIT team drops about 75%.

Sooooooooooooo...... would like to volunteer to be in the 25% of firefighters who may need it????

Be safe, R2

[backsteprescue123]

Cripes. Put the friggin fire out, and your chances of needing that precious RIT team drops about 75%.

Are you saying that RIT teams are unnecessary on structure fires?

[len1582]

robertr2m.... I don't know your area or department but as you did, I'm going to play devils advocate.

Engine from your dept pulls up to a single family home with one window of fire showing...one room, quick knock down and the building is saved. Will they stand there while the fire spreads waiting for a RIT ?

I'm glad you dept uses a RIT. How long is it before you have a RIT on scene for every location? Is one dispatched with the initial alarm ?

Haz/Mat and structural firefighting are apples and oranges. Even with a back up team H/M is a slow approach, not an aggressive attack.

I don't feel it's relying on luck. It's skill, experience, the balls to get in there, and knowing how to put them together.

Just to mention, my dept dispatches a RIT automatically on report of a W/F. At high rise fires I've seen 2 RITs in place.

[MemphisE34a]

Sooooooooooooo...... would like to volunteer to be in the 25% of firefighters who may need it????

No one ever does, but I think the point is that standing around waiting makes everyone operating on the scene including yourself more prone to serious injury by allowing conditions to intensify and deteriorate.

I also think you may be talking about apples and oranges. Although I think 2 in in / 2 out is a joke and will do more to cause injuries than it will ever do to prevent them, I think you are speaking of that and ChiefKN is speaking of another entire company that is a dedicated RIT team. They are 2 separate things.

2 in / 2 out is not having a RIT team, having a RIT team is not 2 in / 2 out.