Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Objection to the proposal for London Fire Brigade's 11 Aerial Appliances to be Alternately crewed and placed on "Request Only"

Quite rightly the main focus of London FBU members is on station closures, but I'm writing because I'm absolutely horrified that the Alternative Crewing of the Brigade's 11 Aerial appliances and their removal from Fire Call / Smoke Issuing / Smell of Burning pre-determined attendances, downgrading them to "On Request Only" has been suggested in the Crewing of Appliances (18) supporting document that has been published alongside the Draft Fifth London Safety Plan. As acknowledged in the First London Safety Plan (2004-2005), those Aerial Appliances based in inner London are historically used for high-rise rescues, while those in outer London are used more for water-tower work and are located near specific high-rise risks. However with the spread of highrise residential living throughout London, thousands of Londoners now live in high rise residential accommodation and I am horrified by the prospect of Aerials being alternately crewed and placed on "request only", putting their lives at risk because of the longer time it will take for an Aerial Appliance to reach a high rise incident. The First London Safety Plan gave a 10 minute attendance time for central London Aerial Appliances and because of the longer travel times Aerial Crews often face to reach an incident, it is absolutely vital for an Aerial appliance to be mobilised as quickly as possible to give the Aerial crew the best chance to get their appliance in a position to effect rescues before badly parked pumping appliances restrict their access / utilisation. The Crewing of Appliances document (18) which supports the Draft Fifth London Safety Plan 2013-2016 states that a utilisation study of the Brigades 11 Aerial Appliances was carried out from st th the 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 and indeed the proceeding Operational Efficiency Work in Progress document stated that the results of this were only "early indications", but I do not believe the utilisation study has been carried out for a long enough period and there is no evidence to suggest that it has been carried out by officers who have the relevant experience in driving and operating the 3 types of Aerial Appliances in service with the London Fire Brigade (Turntable Ladder, Aerial Ladder Platform, Hydraulic Platform). Also, I believe that a large percentage of operational officers are still not familiar enough with the capabilities of the 3 different types of Aerial Appliance to recognise when they can be utilised and deployed effectively at an incident. In the 10 years that I have served so far in London Fire Brigade, I have been based at two Aerial Stations (Old Kent Road & Paddington), have performed outduties to 8 of the 9 other Aerial stations (Soho, Clapham, Tottenham, Wembley, Hayes, Wimbledon, Greenwich and Forest Hill. I have yet to perform an outduty to Dagenham), and at the beginning of my career while on probation I spent a week detached to Chelsea before their Turntable Ladder was cut. I would like to give two examples of incidents that illustrate different ways in which an Aerial crew may be deployed. While based at E35 Old Kent Road I attended a flat fire in Taplow House on the Aylesbury estate and I saw first hand the effectiveness of the rapid deployment of a hose reel by E35 Old Kent Road's Turntable Ladder which stopped the fire from getting out of control, particularly as it was discovered that the flat was being used to hoard a wide variety of items, potentially creating a very high fireload of combustible materials. Then whilst on an outduty to E22 Greenwich to drive their Hydraulic Platform, we were mobilised to a flat fire on E22 Greenwichs ground. The access for the Hydraulic Platform was initially blocked by parked cars and I was unable to reposition the truck as it was then blocked in by additional oncoming appliances. Knowing the capabilities of an Aerial crew, Greenwichs Watch Manager quite rightly then ordered us to don our Breathing Apparatus sets, providing him with an additional 2 person BA crew led by a Crew Manager and we performed search and rescue throughout the effected block of flats. A further aspect of Aerial capabilities is their use as a dry riser. Normal pumping appliance crews are no longer familiar with or trained in the practice of using an Aerial appliance as a dry riser, for when the dry risers in high rise buildings are defective or vandalised. This is a useful tactic that supplements high-rise firefighting procedures and is something that the Firehouse real fire training facility currently located at Southwark would be ideal for, but it has yet to be used in this way. Even

with the current problems with conducting real fire training inside the Firehouse, with its modern architecture, various balconies and "confined street" location, the Firehouse is actually a really good venue Aerial Appliance Operator training, but despite the millions of London Council Tax payers' money invested in the Firehouse, it isn't even being utilised for this. The only figures I can find are from back at the start of 2003 when Valerie Shawcross estimated that the Firehouse was going to cost London Taxpayers 19.346 million pounds, and I doubt even the closure of Southwark Fire Station and sale of Southwark Training Centre will recoup this money.

Finally, with regard to the Lakanal House Fire in Camberwell. E35 Old Kent Road is one of four inner London Aerial Stations that is usually equipped with a Turntable Ladder, a fast machine that is principally designed for Aerial Rescues. However, on that day due to maintenance requirements, I understand E35 Old Kent Road was operating an Aerial Ladder Platform, a larger, slower more cumbersome machine more suited to water tower work at large fires and requiring a highly skilled and well trained pair of Aerial operators to get the most out of its capabilities. I hope that the difference between the two types of Aerial appliances and had E35 Old Kent Road been equipped with their regular Turntable Ladder instead of an Aerial Ladder Platform, would it have prevented lives being lost, are factors that are being investigated as part of the Inquest. I fear that the Brigade's 11 wholetime crewed Aerial appliances are being viewed as an "easy target" by inexperienced officers who are unaware of the full capabilities of an Aerial Appliance that's crewed by a well trained, dedicated pair of operators. Also, as there is no mention of Fire Rescue Unit utilisation throughout the Draft Fifth London Safety Plan and that Alternative Crewing of Fire Rescue Units isn't even being considered, as someone who is both Aerial (HP & ALPM5) and Fire Rescue Unit qualified I suspect there is presently a bias at a higher level towards the Brigade's 16 Fire Rescue Units and Technical Rescue at the moment and that there is some real internal politics going on at Union Street between the Technical Rescue and Operational Resources Group (FRUs) and the Fire Tactics Team (Aerials), with the former shouting louder and the latter seeming to be coming off worse. This is despite the FRUs being totally under utilised as I have experienced since completing my FRU Qualification in February 2007. Following the introduction of a further 6 Fire Rescue Units in 2007, increasing the total number in service from 10 to 16, pre-determined attendances have still not been adjusted to better utilise them. The 2001/2002 review of non-pumping Appliances that was implemented in the first London Safety Plan 2004-2005 resulted in the loss of 60 Aerial posts, but as it was balanced by the introduction of 5 further Fire Rescue Units, creating 140 FRU posts, the London FBU didn't fight it because of the net gain of 80 posts. (Subsequently the alternate crewing of Hose Layers, Bulk Foam units and two further Incident Response Mass Decontamination units then deleted an estimated 78 frontline posts, though no official figures have been released to confirm this). Alternative Crewing of the Brigade's 11 remaining Aerials would lead to a deletion of 132 posts, the equivalent of closing 4 fire stations and loosing 5 pumping Appliances (3 x single pump and 1 x two pump stations). Though FBU members may oppose the Alternate Crewing of Aerial Appliances, it is vital that they also oppose the downgrading of Aerials to On Request Only and their removal from Fire Call / Smoke Issuing / Smell of Burning Pre-determined Attendances. As we've regularly seen during periods of staff shortages caused by such diverse things as short notice medicals, summer leave and during industrial action, RMC are authorised to drop the number of Aerials from 11 down to as low as 6 and place them on request only, inevitably increasing Aerial response times, and so if the FBU members didn't also oppose On request only Aerials as well as Alternately Crewed Aerials, this would enable 5 Aerial Appliances to be cut and 60 Aerial crew posts to be deleted. Rather than Alternate Crewing Aerials, the Brigade should undertake further highly detailed mapping to locate all of the residential high rise properties within London and determined optimum locations for the Brigade's Aerial appliances, which in the past have been placed at fire stations purely because only certain stations are capable of accommodating these larger appliances, sometimes only after extensive modifications to appliance bay doors and relaying and strengthening floors to take the weight of these heavy machines. Such mapping may find that in years to come, with the proposed redevelopment of the Olympic Park to provide extensive high-rise residential accommodation, the reestablishment of a 12th Aerial Appliance in East London may be required.

Of the proposed Fire Station closures, Im shocked that it includes Clapham Fire Station, which has been home to an Aerial Appliance since 1992. This seems extremely short-sighted when considering the Mayor's own plans for the redevelopment of Battersea Power Station which involves the construction of extensive high-rise residential accommodation around it, the associated extension of the Northern Line from Kennington to Battersea Park and the relocation of the American Embassy to Nine Elms thats creating further regeneration opportunities around New Covent Garden Market. I'm currently fighting to get a detachment to Clapham Red Watch to give me a chance to refresh my ALP (M5) rear wheel steering Driver Operator Qualification, despite the threat of closure. While I fully support the study into firefighter experience of incidents that has been included in the Station Workloads and Capacity (10) supporting document for the Draft Fifth London Safety Plan, I believe it fails to address the aspect of Emergency Fire Appliance Driving as after five years of crewing a Fire Rescue Unit that is very rarely mobilised and the introduction of the call filtering policy, the opportunities to maintain and improve my abilities to handle a large fire appliance at speed under blue light conditions are becoming fewer and fewer. The First London Safety Plan 2004-2005 removed Aerial Appliances from pre-determined attendances for automatic fire alarms, enabling the number of Aerial Appliances in London to be cut from 16 to the current 11, seriously reducing the provision of Aerial Rescue cover in East London and Croydon. In New York, a comparable city, the F.D.N.Y. has a ratio of Pumping Appliances (referred to in New York as Engines or Squads, totalling 211) to Aerial appliances (referred to in New York as Ladder Trucks, totalling 142) of 1.486 : 1, that is for every Aerial Appliance in New York there are 1.486 pumping appliances. In London there are currently 169 pumping appliances to only 11 Aerial Appliances, giving a ratio of 15.4 : 1, so that there is only 1 Aerial Appliance for every 15.4 pumping appliances in London. Clapham's Aerial was specifically retained as it was in a better strategic location than the Aerial at Chelsea Fire Station, which was cut. As stated in the First London Safety Plan 2004-2005, the four inner London Aerials are historically used for rescues and WM Mike Cotton did so much work to ensure that A21 Paddington, A24 Soho, E35 Old Kent Road and H21 Clapham all received new Turntable Ladders that can be rapidly deployed for rescues compared to the Aerial Ladder Platforms which are better suited for heavy water tower work. It has been listed at the end of the Draft Fifth London Safety Plan 2013-2016 Supplementary Report that Clapham's Aerial would be relocated to Lambeth Fire Station. While Lambeth Fire Station did accommodate a Turntable Ladder in the 1980s, this was prior to the introduction of the Bronto Skylift Aerial Ladder Platform which required several Aerial Appliances to be relocated as certain stations were unable to accommodate the larger ALPs. The disposition of the Aerial Appliances in South London during the 1980s / 90s reflects this and is listed below. Southern Command (SE & SW Areas) Aerial locations prior to and following the introduction of Bronto Skylift ALPs in 1991/92

Prior H22 Lambeth H25 West Norwood H31 Croydon H41 Kingston E22 Greenwich

Following H21 Clapham (Turntable Ladder)

E35 Old Kent Road (Turntable Ladder) H32 Norbury H34 Wimbledon E22 Greenwich (Hydraulic platform - cut circa 2004) (Aerial Ladder Platform) (Hydraulic Platform)

E39 Bromley

E31 Forest Hill

(Aerial Ladder Platform)

Both A24 Soho and A28 Dowgate were also equipped with Aerial Appliances at this time, but this was back when the Aerials at Soho and Dowgate were on PDAs for most of the West End and the City. The proposed relocation of the Aerial Appliance from Clapham Fire Station to Lambeth appears to be more of a matter of finding a free appliance bay at a neighbouring station than being strategically located to create an effective disposition of Aerial Appliances across London, as proposed in the First London Safety Plan 2004-2005. Relocating Claphams Aerial north to Lambeth moves it closer to A24 Sohos Turntable Ladder, relocating it south east to H25 West Norwood would move it closer to E31 Forest Hills Aerial Ladder Platform, while relocating it south west to H33 Wandsworth would move it closer to H34 Wimbledons Aerial Ladder Platform. A better location would involve the reinstatement of the third appliance bay at H24 Brixton Fire Station, currently being used as a gym, but I'm unsure if its large enough to accommodate the current Mercedes Turntable Ladders and Aerial Ladder Platforms as the 2011 Asset Management Plan has yet to be released on Hotwire. With E35 Old Kent Road's Aerial Appliance moving north to E34 Dockhead in May because of the PFI rebuild of Old Kent Road fire station, I do question if a strategic approach has been taken to the relocation of the Aerial Appliance from Clapham to Lambeth and the impact this will have in relation to the other Aerial Appliances distributed throughout London, but it appears that none of the other Aerial Appliance locations are being reviewed. The current location of the Aerial Appliance at Clapham Fire Station is the optimum location and this is another strong reason for Kate Hoey MP and London FBU members to fight to keep Clapham Fire Station open. I honestly don't believe London FBU members can oppose the Alternate Crewing of the last 2 Incident Response Units, the 2 Scientific Support units and the shared crewing of USAR pods, but I hope that London FBU members will fight to stop Fire Station closures and to ensure that Aerial Appliances stay whole-time crewed and that pre-determined attendances for Aerials are left unchanged, so that Aerial appliances are still on the initial attendances for Fires, incidences of Smoke Issuing and Smells of burning, and that the FBU lobbies for these vital high-rise rescue machines to be reinstated to attending Automatic Fire Alarm actuations at Residential High Rise premises.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi