FIRE

Fire Related Human Behavior

Fire Related Human Behavior

Introduction

Although today we typically talk about the “common denominators” of tragic fire incidents as a short list of weather, fuels, and topographic characteristics shared by fires that blew up and killed firefighters, the original denominators pamphlet covered other ground. The external signs and warnings are important, but the internal state of the firefighter is also important in tragedy and near-miss fires. Even well-trained firefighters are often unaware of a dangerous situation until it is too late. In most fire-related accidents, at least in ground fire operations, human behavior plays a crucial role. An accident investigator can't point to a mechanical part and say: “There, you see: that's what caused this accident!” No, our accidents are much more complex than that, and attempts to list causal and contributing behavioral factors for such accidents have largely failed for a number of reasons (Steve, 2003).

For one thing, unlike a mechanical part, humans do not always “fail” in the same way under the same set of conditions. Applying the scientific method requires three basic steps: observation, hypothesis, and testing; the testing phase requires repeatability—in other words, the same set of conditions should generate the same results every time the experiment is conducted. This repeatability simply doesn't exist with human behavior and is the prime reason that mechanistic analyses of human behavior are misguided. Furthermore, because behavioral “failure” is a subjective judgment based on hindsight, we might as well eliminate that term from usage in reference to human behavior. Variability in human behavior and situational creativity are responsible for both our greatest successes and our tragedies. The operational context in which behavioral variability is expressed also changes constantly: the same basic set of decisions and actions might lead to a successful outcome in the morning and tragedy in the afternoon (Becker, 2002).

Discussion

Identifying the Common Denominators

A wide range of human behavior has been observed on many different fires, in different locations, and under various conditions. The following list can't be considered to cover every situation on every fire. But these things come up often enough in accident reports and analyses of near misses to indicate they are worthy of being considered common denominators of human behavior on many of the wild land fires in which we've lost firefighters. And just maybe, they could apply to fires that haven't happened yet, where we also might lose firefighters, which is why they're worth thinking about. Effective communication is absent or impaired. This has to do with communication among subordinates, peers, and higher level leaders.

It could easily be a hallmark of any failed operation, on or off the fire line. The importance of communication is expressed in the “C” in the “LCES” (Lookouts, Communications, Escape Routes, and Safety Zones). Barriers to communication are not always physical or technological: in many of our past fatalities, radios worked well and, in some cases, there was even cell phone coverage. Effective communication in this context has more to do with how communication can serve ...