Firefighting Experience and the Perception of Danger
A large-scale study of a highly active fire department yields significant data that should interest every jurisdiction concerned about the safety of its firefighters.
AN IMPORTANT aspect of firefighting operations involves estimating the degree of danger and the likelihood of accidents suffered by firefighters. A large-scale, independent organizational study of the Los Angeles City Fire Department (LAFD) was carried out between 1986 and 1988 that, in part, assessed how the firefighters perceive danger and the probability of accidents.
The study examined the response of firefighting personnel to a variety of incidents and activities, ranging from such routine activities as maintaining equipment and apparatus, to somewhat uncertain and dangerous incidents, such as small dwelling fires, to highly uncertain and dangerous incidents, such as fires in occupied apartment buildings at night and high-rise office building fires during the day. Accepted statistical measures were placed on the responses to provide an accurate, scientific basis for study.
A random, stratified sample of 465 fire suppression personnel, ranging in rank from battalion chief to firefighter, were selected as subjects. (Firefighters with less than six months of experience were excluded from the study, as were single-function paramedics). This group represented the exact distribution by rank and by station of all fire suppression personnel in Division III of LAFD. Seventy-five percent of the subjects returned questionnaires. Data from the LAFD study coincided with data obtained from a pilot test conducted with 36 firefighting personnel from the EI Segundo Fire Department, indicating that the scales employed in the research were reliable.
As expected, subjects rated incidents that increased in uncertainty and danger as more likely to result in firefighter accidents. These ratings were corroborated by an independent panel of experts—chiefs, assistant chiefs, and battalion chiefs—from several different fire departments.
The subjects’ estimates of danger were then examined for their relationship to years of experience. This involved comparing and studying firefighters with as little as six months to one year of experience to personnel with more than 30 years of service. The subjects averaged approximately 14 years on the job.
Two views could be entertained about the relationship between experience and perception of danger/likelihood of accidents. One might predict that the more experienced firefighting personnel would estimate higher degrees of danger and greater likelihood of accidents than would be estimated by those less experienced. The reasoning is that those personnel with more experience have a greater familiarity with the countless, unpredictable ways in which incidents can be dangerous and represent hazards to firefighters.
Another view would suggest just the opposite: that the more experienced firefighters, because of their greater familiarity with incidents, would be less sensitive to and phased by threat and danger. (This is not to say they would be careless, but just not as anxious as their less-experienced counterparts). Consequently, the more experienced personnel would rate the incidents as less dangerous and threatening than less-experienced personnel.
THE RESULTS
The data, at first glance, did not support either view, suggesting that there is no relationship between experience and the perception of danger, both with regard to the overall danger of incidents in first-alarm districts and the danger of specific incidents. This was surprising, and led to a closer examination of the data, which revealed quite alarming and interesting results.
EXPERIENCE AND PERCEPTION OF DANGER
Firefighters with less than two years of experience rated the danger of situations and the likelihood of accidents in the same manner as most of the more experienced personnel rated the same situations.
However, there was a small number of firefighting personnel that consistently underestimated the danger of incidents and consistently and more dramatically misjudged the likelihood that accidents could occur to firefighters in their own first-alarm district. The most serious underestimations were made by those with between two and five years of experience.
The statistical difference between this group and the rest of the participants (those with less than two years of experience combined with those with more than five years) was highly significant. In terms of rating the general danger of situations, the “at risk group” is a little broader and encompasses individuals with two to six years of experience; this group underestimated the danger relative to other firefighting personnel, but the results did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance. Nevertheless, failing to reach conventional significance levels does not detract from the finding that the subjects tended to underestimate the danger; although the difference may not be statistically significant, the difference could have implications for the activities of these personnel at incidents.
What is clearly important, however, is the highly significant finding concerning the underestimation and minimization of the likelihood of accidents by those firefighters with two to five years of experience. This should be taken seriously by individuals in this group and those who work with and command such personnel. Such a misjudgment can cause injury and peril to the firefighter himself and other firefighting personnel, as well as civilians.
INTERPRETING THE RESULTS
What accounts for these results? Several interpretations may be offered. First, it appears that the firefighting personnel with more than seven years of experience accurately assess the danger and hazard of incidents. Their personal experience, their wisdom in observing and listening to others, their increased age and maturity, and, perhaps, life changes (such as marriage and family) combine in various ways to make them more accurate observers of danger. Not only do firefighters have more and greater varieties of experience after their fifth or sixth year, but they begin to think about promotions, are more likely to have families, and thus, become more realistic about the hazards of the job.
The data seems to bear this out. The underestimation of overall danger appears to diminish in the sixth and seventli year. In terms of accidents, those with more than two but less than five years of experience significantly underestimate the occurrence of accidents. However, sometime during the sixth year on the job, the difference between them and other firefighting personnel becomes nonsignificant; during the seventh, it becomes indistinguishable.
Firefighters with less than two years of experience do not know how to judge accurately the danger or likelihood of accidents. They appear to watch and take cues from more experienced firefighters. The data indicates that captains are the most influential personnel in this process. Consequently, inexperienced firefighters rate the amount of danger and the likelihood of accidents in the same way as the firefighters with 7 to 30-plus years of service. The inexperienced firefighters reach the same conclusions about danger and threat as do the more experienced personnel, but they obviously arrive at their conclusions through a different process —a process based more on the experience and direction of others, particularly captains, rather than on their own familiarity and experience.
IMPLICATIONS: THE NEED FOR TRAINING
The findings suggest that training programs should be implemented that focus on arriving at shared perceptions of degree of danger and likelihood of accidents at incidents. Particular attention should be paid to those with less than six or seven years of experience, especially the 2-to-5-year group—those at greatest risk, according to the data. However, this does not mean that those with less than two years of experience should not be included in the training. Quite the contrary: As the inexperienced firefighters get their feet wet with the passage of time, they will become less wary and underestimate threat, according to inferences based on the data.
This research dealt only with experience as measured in years, and did not account for how many and what types of incidents the participants had been involved in. It is limited, therefore, because years of experience may not represent actual experience. Nevertheless, the research did take place in a large, urban fire department whose paid firefighters respond to a large number and wide variety of incidents: it’s reasonable that there is a strong relationship between years of experience and incidents encountered in LAI D Questions about the relationship between years of service and quantity and types of incidents responded to merely point to the need for more research and refined data—they do not negate the importance of or need for training. Firefighting personnel need training that helps them accurately assess the hazards and threats that they must face every day.
What are the implications for firefighting teams with members who underestimate danger? Fluanswer is greater danger for themselves and the members of their teams. Indeed, errors in either direction —underestimation and overestimation—are detrimental to firefighting efforts. Overestimating danger might allow a firefighter to avoid a threat or escape danger, but that unrealistic perception might also lead to actions that disrupt fireground tactics and place his team in serious danger.
EXPERIENCE AND PERCEPTION OF DANGER
The question arises as to whether or not having personnel who underestimate the danger of incidents and likelihood of accidents is something that could contribute to the excellence of firefighting teams. Do firefighting teams need a John Wayne or a Rambo who courageously—sometimes recklessly— goes where no other fools dare to tread? I have yet to find someone to agree with that point of view. Effective firefighting teams require all members to share and hold (as close as is humanly possible) a common view of how much danger an incident presents to themselves and others and how likely accidents can occur.
Although this article focused on experience in relation to the underestimation of danger and the likelihood of accidents, the goal is to arrive at realistic estimates of danger within the department and/or members of the firefighting team at location of an indicated incident. In situations that are uncertain and particularly dangerous, consensus about the threat to life is critical. Training programs that reduce individual variation in the perception of danger and likelihood of accidents will play a part in the success of operations and in the safety of all concerned.
The author wishes to express his thanks to:
Donald Manning, Chief Engineer and General Manager, EAFD Jack Bennett, Director of Fire Service, Menlo Park Fire Protection District
Bob Ramirez, Assistant Chief, EAFD Pete Lacuralli, Assistant Chief, LAFD
Red Jioris, Battalion Chief, LAFD