Differing Fire Service Methods, and Results - a.k.a FDNY vs. Australian LODD

[6739264]

Ok, well, so we don't drag this of track:

http://www.safirefighter.com/boards/index.php?topic=1088.225

Lets resume discussion here:

Do you know how many 'working' fires they have every day, yet alone yearly? If Australian services even saw a 10th of that action, our LODD rate would be alot higher as well.

do you?  and would it?
What are the figures? (ie. deaths per number of incidents both for Australia and the USA and for other fire services around the world)

Before we go to the wider USA, lets start with New York, the largest Fire and EMS provider in the USA. New York, has a population of over 8 Million people, covering a little over 320 sq miles of response area. (This includes Manhattan, Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens and Staten Island)

(The Fire Statistics, not EMS) Last year (2006) the FDNY went to 7,049 confirmed structural fires in New York.  3,243 being working fires. (2,971 being 'All Hands', 202 being 2nd alarm, 45 being 3rd alarm, 16 being 4th alarm and 9 being 5th alarm or higher).

The FDNY went to 20,702 Non-structural fires (Brush, Rubbish or vehicle fires), 198,202 non fire related responses (Utility emergencys or any response non fire and non medical, eg Odour of Gas), and 28,836 AFA's/MFA's (Alarms or calls where no one / incident was present on arrival)  And just for info they went to 209,397 EMS runs.

The latest Fatality chart I have for the FDNY is 2000. Unfortunately it is a Civillian Fatality Chart. The fatality count peaked between 1965 - 1980. These were the times when nightly minimum of multiple 2 bell fires were occuring in the Bronx/Harlem Borough. However doing the sums and averaging it since 1947 the yearly Civ. Fatality count hovered just under the 200 mark. (Thats just the average, and isnt correct to this day as I do not have the stats from 2000 - 2006, it hasn't been as high as 200 high since 1990, with exception to 2001. - LEave it with me and I will try and find the LODD Fatality Charts.

-Those are just the stats of New York. LA are on a similar trend with one of the downtown companys turning the wheel nearly 60 times a day. I can research stats for another 50 states, however believe the common trend in regards to working fires, speaks for itself. Our American Counterparts do have a higher LODD rate compared to us, and I believe the incident statistics show why this may be so. Im not talking about their methods, their training or the way they do things, but just going on statistics, with such a higher number of incidents being attended, it is understandable why their LODD rate/count is higher than our.

May I just add, to all those Lost in the Line of Duty, Rest In Peace.

Before we go to the wider USA, lets start with New York

These statistics are not all nicely published somewhere then I take it? (cos they should be)

So just for New York, in 2006 they attended 254789 incidents (including the false alarms etc since they count as incidents).  And in 2000 they had approx 200 "civilian" fatilities (what does that mean? is that firefighters or not? if not, then it's not the figure we're after) for the year.  And we are comparing different years here 2006 vs 2000.  However ignoring all that for the moment and just going on those figures you provided, that makes 1 death per 1274 incidents for New York alone.

If it's too hard to work out all of the USA then assume New York is the busiest in the USA and just compare that to Sydney (and to London say).

If you read my first comment, I said give me some time and I will attempt to find the 2006 LODD charts. - I only gave the Civillian (non service member) figures just for some general information.

And you are correct, the information isn't 'nicely published' anywhere, and unlike people who just fly off the hip with statements at least im trying to account to mine with some factual evidence.

I will PM you the results if you wish, as this thread (at the moment) isn't fitting for what we are talking about. - And to make it easier, we will go NY vs AUS busiest fire service, im guessing NSW..?

Ok, so to add some figures for incidents attended by Aussie fire services 05/06:

NSWFB: 192,241
QFRS: 60,270 (04/05 Stats, also includes Emergency Medical Response)
MFSB: Approx 33,000 (Includes Emergency Medical Response)
SAMFS: 24,054 (Includes around 2500 CFS/SES dispatches)
TFS: 10,183
FESA: 9,963 (Includes some SES RCR turnouts)
NTFRS: 6,229

Once I get back from work, I'll try to grab the injury numbers as well...

[RescueHazmat]

I have sent Darius a PM containing the list of statistics I could find, which included the New York LODD stats as well. - I'll re-type the statistics and re-post them shortly.

[RescueHazmat]

Okay, well I have sat down and re-typed up all the stats.

These are both the FDNY incident statistics and LODD statistics for 2006.

The FDNY attended 275,557 incidents in 2006. (Not including EMS runs. An additional 209,397 EMS runs were also attended - But we won't include EMS for this.)

Of the 275,557 incidents attended by the FDNY, 27,817 were structural fires. (2,971 being working 'all hands' fires, 202 being 2nd alarms, 45 being 3rd alarms, 16 being 4th alarms and 9 being 5 alarms or higher).. 20,702 incidents were classified as non structural responses, Brush/rubbish fires, vehicle fires etc. 198,202 incidents attended were non fire related, odours of gas, utility calls, Box alarms, assist calls etc.. and 28,836 were MFA's.

In 2006 there were 16 reported FDNY LODD's. (Source, NYS Fire Inc. Reporting System -OFPC). This averages out to one death per 17,222 incidents. - What is quite disheartening, of the 16 LODD 9 were cardiac related. Only 2 were as a result of burns or direct injury received from fire fighting operations.

In 2006 there were 87 reported LODD Fatalities Country wide (Whole of the USA). Including Career and Volunteer firefighters.

I think it will be difficult to accurately compare the AUS/NY services, due to the vastly increased number of incidents they attend. - However hopefully these ground figures will give some understanding as to why their LODD rates are higher than ours.

NB - Just for reference - The term "All Hands" (Working) fire, relates to Structural fires of severity, fires are classified or called "All Hands" if they have a minimum of 4 units initially being engaged in active fire fighting up to "5th Alarm" and above.

This averages out to 8 "All Hands" / Working fires a day, in New York alone.

[bittenyakka]

(quote) http://www.ema.gov.au/agd/EMA/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(1FEDA2C440E4190E0993A00B7C030CB7)~37-43burton.pdf/$file/37-43burton.pdf
this article is generally about hoe the US is trying to reduce fatalities.
the most scary fact is that 18% of casualties are on route to the inceden

(/quote)

i posted this in the other thread to and the article has a lot of interesting stuff about what the US is doing to reduce LODD

[Darius]

jeeze RescueHazmat I didn't mean you to go to so much effort, although it is good to see someone presenting actual data for a change!

So for New York you calculated one death per 17,222 incidents.  SAMFS (the only Australian fire service anyone has posted any figures for so far, which was 0 since 1977) is looking pretty good at 0 in 24,054 (although really should take 2500 off that).  However a better comparison would be with NSWFB.

Then there's the whole of country USA vs Australia average rate.  Not to mention the career and volunteer comparison.  

What are the figures for the CFS I wonder.

[CFS_Firey]

In 2006 there were 16 reported FDNY LODD's.

Are there likely to be more that aren't reported?

What is quite disheartening, of the 16 LODD 9 were cardiac related. Only 2 were as a result of burns or direct injury received from fire fighting operations.

Do you know if these stats include deaths that weren't directly related to fire fighting activities?  (For example where someone dies of a heart attack a few days after a big fire, and their mates think it was because they worked too hard at that fire..).

[bittenyakka]

according to this http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/fatalities//statistics/history.shtm
there was 106 US LODD

[RescueHazmat]

In 2006 there were 16 reported FDNY LODD's.

Are there likely to be more that aren't reported?

What is quite disheartening, of the 16 LODD 9 were cardiac related. Only 2 were as a result of burns or direct injury received from fire fighting operations.

Do you know if these stats include deaths that weren't directly related to fire fighting activities?  (For example where someone dies of a heart attack a few days after a big fire, and their mates think it was because they worked too hard at that fire..).

Even if the death was linked to the fire (eg, if the fire hadn't of occured, there was a beyond likely chance of the death not happening) then it is declared a Line of Duty Death. So even those hours, or up to a day or so after, are often associated with LODD's.

Then there was 4 or there abouts killed in vehicle related accidents, or struck by vehicles at the scene etc.

[RescueHazmat]

according to this http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/fatalities//statistics/history.shtm
there was 106 US LODD

Bitten, those are yearly states for the whole country, although I believe they include external client services also. EG, Mining site F/F's, plant F/F's etc..  The stats I had from the NFPA source and OFPC were striclty NY and State service related, and were 05/06. (Not including site F/F's which I believe that link you provided does)..

[RescueHazmat]

jeeze RescueHazmat I didn't mean you to go to so much effort, although it is good to see someone presenting actual data for a change!

So for New York you calculated one death per 17,222 incidents.  SAMFS (the only Australian fire service anyone has posted any figures for so far, which was 0 since 1977) is looking pretty good at 0 in 24,054 (although really should take 2500 off that).  However a better comparison would be with NSWFB.

Then there's the whole of country USA vs Australia average rate.  Not to mention the career and volunteer comparison.  

What are the figures for the CFS I wonder.

The stats do indeed put the SAMFS above that of the FDNY, however the working fire ratio is a huge difference. - Makes you wonder if the SAMFS saw over 3000 working structure fires a year (or any service in that matter) how different the LODD rate would be.

[bittenyakka]

yep i know mine are for the whole US as i believe someone asked for them to be shown.

This is one of the many cases where you can make stats look better for your point of view.

even if FDNY have more All hands fires and going jobs this doesn't say they do everything to the best standard of safety. 

In my reading of US fire tactics of various websites there are no mention of searching off guidelines or hose lines and there is lots of mention of truck company's searching for fires and causalities without these to (in my opinion crucial) items for areas of low or restricted visabilty.  I am more than happy to be corrected on this as i am not a whiz on US tactics

[RescueHazmat]

I disagree with the comment "using stats to better" my or anyones point of view. I have merely shown the facts. - It is a statistical probability that due to the higher number of incidents attended, their is more risk and associated chance of an injury or in the worst case death, as a result of a fire... It is quite simply, more likely to occur.

-No one is saying they do things the best way, but I am not saying they do it poorly either.. I quote myself from a previous post

Im not talking about their methods, their training or the way they do things, but just going on statistics, with such a higher number of incidents being attended, it is understandable why their LODD rate/count is higher than ours/

..

They are trained differently to us, their traditions are different to ours. - Truck or Ladder crews are search and rescue or Vent teams. They don't go in with a pipe (hose).. Its just how it is done. The Engine crew are the ones on the pipe.. The tradition has been like it for many years, and questioning their methods won't change it..  - Im sure they or others around the world may criticise our methods, but as long as the members in their respective services around the world are doing their job to the best of their ability, and doing it how they were trained too, then to me they are doing a good job.

[6739264]

The CFS teaches the safest way to do things. Now, we all know that the *safest* way in not the most practical or the most efficient way.

Searching off guidelines in a structure fire? Ha, yeah, maybe in a Ship full of high expansion foam. But normally? God no, its slow and cumbersome. Again, searching of a hoseline, yeah, it is applicable sometimes but other times not at all.

There is a huge difference between 'textbook teaching' so that you are covering your arse from Workcover, and what happens in the real world. Because of the nature of CFS, we are still stuck with alot of textbook teaching, by people who, by no fault of their own, do not have a huge amount of experience with structural firefighting.

[RescueHazmat]

from: ff83 on Today at 12:58:49 PM

no you need to read what I have said. If you statitically comparea 2 services that have similar working conditions and calls per year and one service has more injuries than the other (london fire versus many american fire companies) the only reason is better training, helmets that are not made of leather and a systematic approach to fighting a fire.

no need to get emotional about the argument just examine the stats

*rolls eyes*  .. My original comment stands, shows how much you really know..

The working conditions are not even comparable.. Building composites, climatic differences, differences in equipment, differences in methods of operation and response types, yet alone working ratio's.. Their is nothing similar..

Im not saying the way the US do things are the do all and the end all, but at least I know the facts and have an understanding of *why*.. - I have never once said its how it should be done.- However, I respect their traditions and the way they are taught..

[bittenyakka]

I disagree with the comment "using stats to better" my or anyones point of view. I have merely shown the facts. - It is a statistical probability that due to the higher number of incidents attended, their is more risk and associated chance of an injury or in the worst case death, as a result of a fire... It is quite simply, more likely to occur.

Well if that is the case how come last year and this year we have had substantially less lives lost on our roads compared to the average for many years however there are more cars on the roads?

you cant say the FDNY does more calls and therefore more deaths are acceptable you need to compare it as a deaths per 10,000 calls or a similar figure other wise the comparison doesn't work. use percentages or proportions.

[RescueHazmat]

Statistically that would say that driving is safer than firefighting. -They are un-comparable..


And yes you can say that as they do more calls, it is more likely, because that is fact. The only way you could truly work it out, per service, is if both say the FDNY and NSWFB did exactly the same number of calls, then work our their LODD's.

But they don't, FDNY attend a far higher number of incidents, and not just your everyday incidents, but working incidents. Where it could be strongly argued that the 'risk' and associated possibility of injury or death is much higher...

Quite frankly, they see alot more action than what any state service does here, the likely hood of being injured or killed is going to be higher.  Thats just fact!

[ff83]

My point from my first comment I guess was that there is an attitude difference with different fire services. It seems that the US government agrees with me

http://www.pe.com/digitalextra/metro/wildfires/stories/PE_News_Local_D_esperanza23.3f1ec99.html

There is no excuse for that sort of loss. The "firefighting culture" is where the difference lies between various fire agencies, especially (in general) the American fire departments
.

[RescueHazmat]

That relates specifically to a rural fire.

The LODD and incident stats we have been going on here and are debating, is specific to the FDNY vs Australian Metro services, and mainly those of the NSWFB.