By Robert Tutterow

This past June, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) released its annual report on firefighter fatalities for 2015.

The numbers indicate some positive trends as well as some disturbing trends. The report shows that 68 firefighters died in the line of duty. [Note: Other fire service agencies also keep line-of-duty death (LODD) statistics and they may or may not be the same as the NFPA report. The NFPA report does not include the deaths at the World Trade Center in 2001.]

The NFPA defines being on duty as (1) being on the scene of an alarm, including nonfire incidents and EMS calls; (2) responding to or returning from a call; (3) participation in fire department activities such as training, fire inspections, fire investigation, public education, maintenance, fund raising, and court testimony; and (4) being on standby or on call for assignment at a location other than the firefighter’s place of business or residence.

A Quick Glance

According to the NFPA, 32 of the deaths were volunteer firefighters, 24 were career, three were federal contractors, one was employed by a state land management agency, one was an inmate, and one was a military civilian employee. The age range was 18 to 92, with a median age of 49.5 years. There were three incidents where there were multiple fatalities. An apparatus crash of a wildland vehicle killed three firefighters, a helicopter crash killed two contract firefighters, and a wall collapse at a structure fire claimed the lives of two firefighters.

The Positive News

The number of firefighter deaths is not going up. For four out of the past five years, the number of deaths has been less than 70. The NFPA started tracking LODDs in 1977. From 1977 through 1991, a period of 15 years, there were at least 100 deaths each year. In 1978, there were 174 deaths. For the past 10 years, the average is 81. Clearly, the data indicate improvement over the past 40 years. From the “30,000-foot level,” there was a downward trend from 1977 to 1992. For the first time in 1992, the number was less than 100. Deaths spiked back up in 1994 and remained relatively steady at about 100 per year until 2009. With the exception of 2013, the numbers are averaging in the mid to high 60s. In 2013, there were 97 LODDs, which included two incidents where 28 firefighters lost their lives.

The positive news is related to increased awareness and education by many fire service agencies (especially the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation) and adherence to nationally recognized NFPA standards.

Vehicle-Related Lodds

There were 13 vehicle-related fatalities. As mentioned earlier, a wildland engine rolled down an embankment and killed three firefighters and a helicopter crash claimed two lives. Two ambulance crashes claimed one life each, and another firefighter was killed in a fire department pickup truck crash. Five firefighters were killed when they were struck and killed by a vehicle, including one that was intentional. Fortunately, there were no tanker rollovers or speed-related deaths involving fire department vehicles.

Cardiac Deaths

As usual, cardiac events were the leading cause of firefighter deaths in 2015, with 35 deaths consisting of 51 percent of the total number. Although this continues to be the leading cause, the numbers are down significantly from 40 years ago. During the first 10 years (1977 to 1986) since the NFPA started this ongoing study, the average number of cardiac-related deaths was 60. In the past 10 years, the average number is 34.

On-Scene LODDs

There were 24 fireground fatalities, with seven of thos

By Chris McLoone

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) do not always receive positive press coverage. At this time of year, the public hears mostly about how UAVs are grounding air tankers and hampering wildland firefighting efforts.

Hobbyists can pick up UAVs almost anywhere but don’t always understand how best to use them or, more importantly, when not to use them. The advantages of these devices are generally well known to those in public safety, but actual examples of fire departments developing guidelines or procedures for their use have been few. However, instances of fire departments purchasing these devices and going through the process of attaining certificates of authorization (COAs) and integrating UAVs as tools are becoming more frequent. One example is the Fort Worth (TX) Fire Department.

The Fort Worth Program

The Fort Worth Fire Department is currently going through the process of implementing a UAV program. It has purchased a UAV, commonly referred to as a drone, and is working through establishing standard operating procedures (SOPs) for its use. The drone it will ultimately place in service is an InstantEye, which it purchased from W.S. Darley & Co. “We do have rough guidelines right now, and most of it is directed at our training,” says Homer Robertson, deputy chief of support services for the department. These include where to train with it and where not to train with it. “We don’t want to fly it in populated areas if we can help it during the training phases,” says Robertson. “So, we go to isolated areas that won’t have any people and won’t have any obstacles.” Robertson adds that there is already a city ordinance in place for UAVs, and the department will incorporate certain aspects of it in its SOPs.

Having a Plan

When the department decided it wanted to start using a UAV, it first needed funding. Once it secured the funds through a local group, it was time to select a drone that fit its needs. “Our program, we started off small,” says Robertson. “We have a Darley InstantEye and we have several capabilities on there. We’ve got thermal imaging and we can do live video feeds back to our command truck or our handheld control units.” He adds that department representatives did a lot of brainstorming on where they wanted to use a drone and what the do’s and don’ts are, with much of it being worked out as the process moves forward.

1 The Fort Worth (TX) Fire Department has purchased an InstantEye unmanned aerial vehicle from W.S. Darley & Co. and is currently going through the process of training users and getting a COA for the city to officially operate the device. (Photos courtesy of W.S. Darley & Co.)

Live video was a key feature the department sought. “We wanted to be able to have a live video feed back to a stationary position whether it was our mobile command truck or something like that,” he says. Additionally, key functionality included taking still photos or a combination of video and still imagery. “We wanted good flight time and a UAV that was reliable and durable. The one we went with is also used pretty exclusively by the military, so we felt pretty confident in its ability to meet our needs,” Robertson states.

Robertson acknowledges that the department is getting

By Chris McLoone

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) do not always receive positive press coverage. At this time of year, the public hears mostly about how UAVs are grounding air tankers and hampering wildland firefighting efforts.

Hobbyists can pick up UAVs almost anywhere but don’t always understand how best to use them or, more importantly, when not to use them. The advantages of these devices are generally well known to those in public safety, but actual examples of fire departments developing guidelines or procedures for their use have been few. However, instances of fire departments purchasing these devices and going through the process of attaining certificates of authorization (COAs) and integrating UAVs as tools are becoming more frequent. One example is the Fort Worth (TX) Fire Department.

The Fort Worth Program

The Fort Worth Fire Department is currently going through the process of implementing a UAV program. It has purchased a UAV, commonly referred to as a drone, and is working through establishing standard operating procedures (SOPs) for its use. The drone it will ultimately place in service is an InstantEye, which it purchased from W.S. Darley & Co. “We do have rough guidelines right now, and most of it is directed at our training,” says Homer Robertson, deputy chief of support services for the department. These include where to train with it and where not to train with it. “We don’t want to fly it in populated areas if we can help it during the training phases,” says Robertson. “So, we go to isolated areas that won’t have any people and won’t have any obstacles.” Robertson adds that there is already a city ordinance in place for UAVs, and the department will incorporate certain aspects of it in its SOPs.

Having a Plan

When the department decided it wanted to start using a UAV, it first needed funding. Once it secured the funds through a local group, it was time to select a drone that fit its needs. “Our program, we started off small,” says Robertson. “We have a Darley InstantEye and we have several capabilities on there. We’ve got thermal imaging and we can do live video feeds back to our command truck or our handheld control units.” He adds that department representatives did a lot of brainstorming on where they wanted to use a drone and what the do’s and don’ts are, with much of it being worked out as the process moves forward.

1 The Fort Worth (TX) Fire Department has purchased an InstantEye unmanned aerial vehicle from W.S. Darley & Co. and is currently going through the process of training users and getting a COA for the city to officially operate the device. (Photos courtesy of W.S. Darley & Co.)

Live video was a key feature the department sought. “We wanted to be able to have a live video feed back to a stationary position whether it was our mobile command truck or something like that,” he says. Additionally, key functionality included taking still photos or a combination of video and still imagery. “We wanted good flight time and a UAV that was reliable and durable. The one we went with is also used pretty exclusively by the military, so we felt pretty confident in its ability to meet our needs,” Robertson states.

Robertson acknowledges that the department is getting

By Chris McLoone

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) do not always receive positive press coverage. At this time of year, the public hears mostly about how UAVs are grounding air tankers and hampering wildland firefighting efforts.

Hobbyists can pick up UAVs almost anywhere but don’t always understand how best to use them or, more importantly, when not to use them. The advantages of these devices are generally well known to those in public safety, but actual examples of fire departments developing guidelines or procedures for their use have been few. However, instances of fire departments purchasing these devices and going through the process of attaining certificates of authorization (COAs) and integrating UAVs as tools are becoming more frequent. One example is the Fort Worth (TX) Fire Department.

The Fort Worth Program

The Fort Worth Fire Department is currently going through the process of implementing a UAV program. It has purchased a UAV, commonly referred to as a drone, and is working through establishing standard operating procedures (SOPs) for its use. The drone it will ultimately place in service is an InstantEye, which it purchased from W.S. Darley & Co. “We do have rough guidelines right now, and most of it is directed at our training,” says Homer Robertson, deputy chief of support services for the department. These include where to train with it and where not to train with it. “We don’t want to fly it in populated areas if we can help it during the training phases,” says Robertson. “So, we go to isolated areas that won’t have any people and won’t have any obstacles.” Robertson adds that there is already a city ordinance in place for UAVs, and the department will incorporate certain aspects of it in its SOPs.

Having a Plan

When the department decided it wanted to start using a UAV, it first needed funding. Once it secured the funds through a local group, it was time to select a drone that fit its needs. “Our program, we started off small,” says Robertson. “We have a Darley InstantEye and we have several capabilities on there. We’ve got thermal imaging and we can do live video feeds back to our command truck or our handheld control units.” He adds that department representatives did a lot of brainstorming on where they wanted to use a drone and what the do’s and don’ts are, with much of it being worked out as the process moves forward.

1 The Fort Worth (TX) Fire Department has purchased an InstantEye unmanned aerial vehicle from W.S. Darley & Co. and is currently going through the process of training users and getting a COA for the city to officially operate the device. (Photos courtesy of W.S. Darley & Co.)

Live video was a key feature the department sought. “We wanted to be able to have a live video feed back to a stationary position whether it was our mobile command truck or something like that,” he says. Additionally, key functionality included taking still photos or a combination of video and still imagery. “We wanted good flight time and a UAV that was reliable and durable. The one we went with is also used pretty exclusively by the military, so we felt pretty confident in its ability to meet our needs,” Robertson states.

Robertson acknowledges that the department is getting

Richard Marinucci

To some of us in the fire service, the speed at which technological advances are introduced can create great challenges.

Organizations are expected to “be up” on their profession and know of new products that will make them more efficient and effective and are often “evaluated” by the public as to their use of technology. For example, I remember a citizen once complaining about a response time, saying that a local pizza delivery system could locate his house faster than we could with our technology! My only answer was that the pizzeria had more money to invest in such a system than I did with his precious tax dollars. Regardless, while technology offers great promise, many considerations affect implementation in fire departments.

One way to look at technology is to consider modern cell phones. Everybody has one (except my brother, who may be the last holdout). They offer so much service that I am not sure anyone can use all the technology that is in the device. For someone like me, I need to make and receive calls, text occasionally, and look at a calendar. Everything else is window dressing that I am not likely to use. In contrast, my wife uses so much more of her phone-and even she is only scratching the surface of its capabilities. Regardless of our usage, we get all the options on the phone even if we don’t need them. The cost is the same for everything even if we don’t care if it is on the device.

Technology for many in the fire service is sort of like this. There are many products with many options that can do more things than most organizations can benefit from. In some cases, the costs are the same for the extras, but in some instances there is an added charge. When looking at products and technology, departments should take a good look at what is being offered, what the cost is, and whether or not the item will really improve the delivery of service and/or save time.

Speaking of saving time, a firefighter in my department a while ago used to tell me he didn’t have time to do much because the “time-saving device” he was using was taking up all his time as he tried to figure out how it worked! This was a facetious way to let me know that not all things work out initially as planned and not all people have the same acumen for using technology. In general, the younger generation, having grown up with technology, seems to adapt quicker and embrace technological advances easier than the older generation. This is not always the case and there are exceptions, but this is probably a good assessment. As such, departments should know their personnel and their willingness and ability to take on the challenges of using new methods and equipment.

Departments need to do their homework when considering the acquisition of new technology. Most sales pitches will claim that the product will solve some problem, will be easy to use, and will save time and money. Often this is the case but not without some investment and commitment. Advances involving technology have certainly made some things easier but only if the end users have the skills and knowledge to take advantage of the product. They need some aptitude but also will require training. When evaluating new products, consider the amount of time that will be needed to train personnel and who will be the trainer-a representative of the product or a member of your organization. Proper training not only gets personnel to use new devices the correct way but also can stimulate them to look at other means of becoming more efficient and effective wi