technical appendix working at height - kent fire and ... · 13. this section identifies where...

Towards 2020

Operational Capability Review: Working at Height This is a Technical Appendix to the 2013 Safety Plan

Contents

Contents ............................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5

Project Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 5

Position Statement ................................................................................................................ 7

Working at Height Regulations 2005 ................................................................................. 7

Work Undertaken at Height within the Authority ................................................................. 7

Current Performance........................................................................................................... 10

Ladders ........................................................................................................................... 10

Height vehicles ................................................................................................................ 12

Developments in Technology .............................................................................................. 28

Aerial Water Tower .......................................................................................................... 28

Articulated Turntable Ladder ........................................................................................... 29

Base Option ........................................................................................................................ 31

Overview ......................................................................................................................... 31

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 34

Indicative costs ................................................................................................................ 35

Option One: Four Height Vehicles ....................................................................................... 36

Description ...................................................................................................................... 36

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 36

SWOT analysis – 4 + 1 .................................................................................................... 37


Option Two: Three Height Vehicles ..................................................................................... 38

Description ...................................................................................................................... 38

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 38

SWOT analysis - 3 + 1..................................................................................................... 39


Option Three: Two Height Vehicles ..................................................................................... 40

Description ...................................................................................................................... 40

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 41

SWOT analysis – 2 + 1 .................................................................................................... 41


Option Four: One Height Vehicle ........................................................................................ 42

Description ...................................................................................................................... 42

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 42

SWOT analysis – 1 + 1 .................................................................................................... 42

Indicative Costs ............................................................................................................... 43

Evaluation and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 44

Numbers and Location .................................................................................................... 44

Type of Vehicle ................................................................................................................ 44

Crewing ........................................................................................................................... 44

Resilience or reserve? ..................................................................................................... 44

Attendance Standard ....................................................................................................... 44

Ring Fencing Policy ......................................................................................................... 44

Introduction

1. In 2011 Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue Authority commissioned a project to

review how it responds to emergencies from the point of call, to the delivery of services

at the scene. The three year project, known as the Review of Operational Capability, is

part of the second phase of a programme of activity which looks to bring about

improvement in a more challenging financial climate.

2. By exploring innovations in technology and challenging our current policies and

procedures the Review will look at ways to work more efficiently and maximise the use

of resources acknowledging that ‘one size doesn’t fit all’. It will assess what equipment

and staff are needed to deal with an incident, how it should be used, how it is

transported and where it’s based. The Review will focus on providing the best outcome

for those involved in the incident whilst being realistic about the current financial

climate.

3. This document describes the findings of phase one of the working at height

workstream of the Review, looking at how we utilise operational equipment for safe

working at height.

4. Impact assessments have been completed for the Review and have been considered

when developing and assessing the strengths of each of the options presented. In

order to make a comparison between each of the options, strengths and weaknesses

of current arrangements have also been explored; this includes costs associated with

each option.

Project Assumptions

5. The following assumptions have been made when developing any option:

The emergency cover model is 61 fire engines available during the day and 751 at

night;

The Authority continues to operate with the current crewing models – full-time 24/7,

day crewed and on-call;

Special appliances are crewed alternately2;

The financial climate will become more complicated with the additional need for

savings;

1 The current agreed operational model is set at 61 fire engines during the day and 76 at night. Work

conducted through another project has resulted in a recommendation that sees the reduction of one

fire engine at night. Although this is still in proposal stage this project has worked on the assumption

that this fire engine is no longer part of the fleet. 2 Alternate crewing is when the crew on station operate both a front line response vehicle (fire engine)

plus a special appliance, taking whatever appliance is the most appropriate. The two appliances do

not have dedicated crewing.

Stations at Ash-Cum-Ridley and Rochester are open

Use of the vehicles will vary according to the mobilising protocols being observed;

Availability of on-call staff is according to contractual agreement;

Resources will always be mobilised to incident carrying a life risk immediately;

New stations at Ash-Cum-Ridley and Rochester are open;

Standby moves will continue to be a requirement;

Savings identified in this review through post reductions are not to be double

counted under any other proposals made as part of this Safety Plan; and

The resources are for local and strategic service delivery for all activity delivered by

the Authority, not just fires and road traffic collisions.

Position Statement

6. The nature of work required at an operational incident often requires firefighters to

work at levels other than that equivalent with the ground. This is termed as ‘working at

height’ but may also include below ground level working on occasions.

7. The incident types that have potential to involve working at height are varied, but

include fires involving a building, rescue of an injured person, release of a trapped

animal or making an unsafe structure secure. At each of these incident types, different

tasks may be required to be undertaken whilst working at height and in doing so the

Authority must comply with the Working at Height regulations 2005.

Working at Height Regulations 2005

8. The Working at Height Regulations 2005 apply to all work at height where there is a

risk of a fall liable to cause personal injury. They place duties on employers to ensure

that where working at height cannot be avoided, it is planned and organised, with

suitable equipment provided to help prevent falls. The employer also has the duty to

minimise the impact of any fall, should it not be possible to remove the risk of them

occurring. Health and Safety Executive guidance

(http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls/ladders.htm) allows the use of ladders for lower risk, short

duration working at height of between 15 to 30 minutes.

Work Undertaken at Height within the Authority

9. The type and nature of the work undertaken at height by the Authority and the

criticality of this work in terms of how important it is to have the capability to work at

height available is shown in Table 1 below. For time criticality, a high level indicates

that an adverse effect on the task will result if the appropriate means to work at height

is not available to the first attending crews within a reasonable timeframe. For many of

the tasks, supporting activities have to be put in place before the working at height task

can be completed, for example, the provision of an adequate water supply to allow for

the application of water from height, so a reasonable time would allow for this to

happen before the provision to work at height was available.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls/ladders.htm

Table 1: Tasks required to be undertaken that involve working at height

Task Description Time Critical

Rescue Of Persons

Rescue Rescue of persons in danger High

Assistance to SECAmb

(Bariatric)

Provision of means to assist in the removal

of bariatric patients from property (not on

the ground floor) who are unable to leave

by their own means

High

Assistance to SECAmb

(Other)

Persons injured at height who require

moving to ground level High

Rescue form height (no

injury)

e.g. person stuck on roof Low

Fire-fighting

Application of Water -

External

The ability to deliver large quantities of

water from height to prevent fire spread.

High

Application of Water -

Internal

The ability to deliver large quantities of

water from height to prevent fire spread.

Providing access has been established

(burnt through or manually vented)

High

Safe Working Platform Provision of a stable platform to enable

various tasks such as cutting away, fire

extinguishing using hose reels and or jets ,

removal of burnt materials

Medium

Aerial Reconnaissance For command and control (scene safety)

and/or building survey (building inspector) Low

Lighting Tower To Illuminate scene of operations Low

Other

Assistance to Police Access, reconnaissance, etc Low

Structural Removal Removal of dangerous materials Low

Non- Emergency

(Humanitarian)

e.g. animal rescue Low

10. The Authority may need to work at height to satisfactorily resolve incidents it attends.

To accomplish this, all fire engines carry a range of ladders that can reach a minimum

of 10.5m (equivalent to second floor level of a building) whilst other fire engines carry a

ladder that can extend to either 12 or 13.5m, equivalent to the third floor of a building.

In addition, line and harness equipment, known as ‘safe access’ equipment can also

be provided to prevent falls should there be a need for prolonged working on or around

ladders at height.

11. All the tasks in Table 1 can be achieved using ladders and therefore will be

immediately available to first attending crews provided that they are:

Within 10 to 13.5m of ground level;

Have a safe area where ladders can be pitched;

Are of low risk and short duration; and

Where patients/casualties are involved who are capable of using a ladder.

12. When the use of ladders is not suitable to undertake the tasks that require working at

height, specialist appliances, known as ‘height vehicles’ can be considered.

Performance

Current Performance

13. This section identifies where working at height occurs across the County, using

ladders and height vehicles. It also looks at the functions performed, and levels of

simultaneous demand. The data contained within this report covers the period of April

2009 to December 20113.

Ladders

The use of ladders to enable safe working at height

14. During the period of analysis, ladders were used 2,880 times at 2,367 incidents. Table

2 below illustrates that their usage is widespread across the five Groups within the

Authority.

Table 2: Overall ladder usage at incidents (and number of ladders used) across the

Authority

Equipment Group North Kent South Kent East Kent West Kent Mid Kent

Ladders 515 (616) 421 (521) 594 (724) 358 (433) 479 (586)

15. The type of incident that required ladders to be used to work at height, and the type of

ladder used to enable this are shown in table 3.

16. The analysis of ladder usage illustrates that there is frequent and widespread use of

ladders across the county. The most predominant uses are to aid firefighting, effecting

entry or exit, or checking to ensure reports of fire are in fact false alarms. There is

evidence of use of all lengths of ladder at these incident types, but the most commonly

used ladder is the short extension ladder. Rescue of people from fire from height by

ladder is rarely required, with ten people rescued by ladder at five fire incidents during

the analysis period. There have been no injuries to firefighters whilst working at height

at operational incidents during this period.

17. It is evident that the provision of ladders on fire engines to reach a variety of heights up

to second or third floor level (10.5m or 12/13.5m) is suitable and sufficient to meet

most operational needs. Therefore this review makes no recommendations to change

either the types of ladders used across the Authority, nor which fire engines carry

which type.

3 In April 2009, a new incident recording system was implemented, which captures detail not

previously recorded.

Table 3: Use of Ladders per Incident Type4

Incident Type Equipment

2009 Apr - Dec 2010 2011 Total

Fires

Ladders - 10m 35 46 35 116

Ladders - 13.5m 11 21 23 55

Ladders - 7m 39 70 79 188

Ladders - Other 8 17 26 51

Ladders - Roof Ladder 19 53 40 112

Ladders - Short Extension 259 308 302 869

Road Traffic Collisions (extrication of persons, make scene safe and other RTCs)

Ladders - 10m 1 0 1 2

Ladders - 13.5m 1 0 0 1

Ladders - 7m 0 1 1 2




Animal Rescue

Ladders - 10m 4 7 4 15

Ladders - 13.5m 8 12 13 33

Ladders - 7m 15 17 21 53




Effect Entry/Egress

Ladders - 10m 8 5 6 19

Ladders - 13.5m 12 6 14 32

Ladders - 7m 26 28 34 88




Rescue or Evacuation from mud or water

Ladders - 10m 0 0 0 0

Ladders - 13.5m 0 0 0 0

Ladders - 7m 2 1 0 3




Assistance to Other Agencies

Ladders - 10m 1 1 1 3

Ladders - 13.5m 1 5 1 7

Ladders - 7m 7 6 3 16




Other Rescue/Release of persons (excluding mud)

Ladders - 10m 1 6 7 14

Ladders - 13.5m 3 4 3 10

Ladders - 7m 10 8 16 34




False Alarms

Ladders - 10m 2 7 8 17

Ladders - 13.5m 2 6 6 14

Ladders - 7m 10 12 18 40




4 The figures in the table indicate the number of incidents in which ladders have been used.

Incident Type Equipment

2009 Apr - Dec 2010 2011 Total

Assistance to Other Agencies

Ladders - 10m 1 1 1 3

Ladders - 13.5m 1 5 1 7

Ladders - 7m 7 6 3 16




Other

Ladders - 10m 6 1 1 8

Ladders - 13.5m 0 0 0 0

Ladders - 7m 8 8 5 21




Height vehicles

18. Where ladders are not suitable to be used to provide a means to work at height, a

height vehicle can be requested by the Incident Commander.

What is the demand on height vehicles?

19. The data contained within this section of the report covers the period January 2006 to

June 2013. Not all height vehicles have been in operation for the whole period, and

this reflects changes from earlier decisions where the Authority’s business need was

defined to be five height vehicles across the county instead of seven. As a result, there

were no mobilisations for the height vehicle at Thames-side (referred to as FJK35A1)

after 2008, as this was one of the vehicles removed. The height vehicle at Thanet was

moved in June 2012 to Ramsgate. Figure 2 and Table 4 detail the mobilisations of all

the height vehicles that have been in operation within the Authority.

20. Although it would be expected that the remaining five vehicles would pick up any

additional workload, this was not the case. The usage of the current five vehicles have

actually decreased or remained largely static since the change.

Figure 2: Height Vehicle Mobilisations

Table 4: Height Vehicle Mobilisations

11A1 19A1 35A1 43A1 60A1 74A1 80A1 89A1 90A1 Total

2006 31 26 48 79 45 48 83 360

2007 50 33 64 73 42 64 129 455

2008 12 13 16 44 63 33 60 102 343

2009 22 4 30 17 20 24 52 169

2010 30 36 12 23 47 148

2011 18 57 24 53 152

2012 24 45 21 27 20 137

2013 (Jan-Jun) 12 27 9 12 60

Total 118 98 75 351 232 152 273 493 32 1,824

Note to table: 11A1 = Ashford, 19A1 = Folkestone, 35A1 = Thames-side, 43A1 – Medway, 60A1 = Maidstone, 74A1 = Tunbridge Wells, 80A1 = Canterbury, 89A1 = Thanet, 90A1 = Ramsgate.

21. The demand for the use of height vehicles dropped significantly from 2009 onwards

following the removal of height vehicles from the majority of the pre-determined

attendances they were aligned to. This meant that height vehicles would only be

mobilised to an incident when the incident commander requested them to assist in

resolving the incident, rather than be mobilised as a matter of course just in case they

were needed at properties that spanned several storeys.

22. It is apparent that the vehicles are used most frequently in the locations that they are

based, partly due to the fact that these are areas where operational activity is higher,

but also because the immediate availability of the vehicle is considered by the incident

commander whilst in other areas, the incident commander may consider other means

to resolve the incident.

23. The predominate use is for the provision of a safe working platform (19.5%), with the

use of a water tower second (18.9%). The IRS data does not allow specific breakdown

of use of all the functions, but can identify various groupings of use that are shown in

Table 5.

24. Appendix A illustrates that the provision of these functions, in particular the more time

critical functions, are required right across the county. The height vehicles provided,

irrespective of location, should therefore have the capability to perform these time

critical functions.

Table 5: Breakdown of percentage use of height vehicles by function

Task Percentage use Time Critical

Rescue Of Persons

Rescue 0.2 High

Assistance to SECAmb (Bariatric)

14.99

High

Assistance to SECAmb (Other) High

Rescue from height (no injury) Low

Fire-fighting

Application of Water – External

18.93

High

Application of Water – Internal High

Safe Working Platform 19.53 Medium

Aerial Reconnaissance

8.67

Low

Lighting Tower Low

Other

Structural Removal 11.83 Low

Non- Emergency / Other

6.7

Low

Assistance to Police Low

Not Used 19.13

Where in the County are height vehicles being used?

25. Table 6 details the number of times each height vehicle has been mobilised into each

station ground across the County. The point being made is that they are not usually

used where there isn’t a height vehicle in the immediate vicinity, and therefore the

station grounds have not been annotated with station names. Those highlighted show

when the height vehicle is being used on its own ground. The table covers all the

height vehicles the Authority has had over the period, not just those in operation

currently.

Table 6: Use of height vehicles by location

FJK11A1 FJK19A1 FJK35A1 FJK43A1 FJK60A1 FJK74A1 FJK80A1 FJK89A1 FJK90A1 Total

FJK11 33 10 2 7 1 7 2 62

FJK12 1 2 3

FJK13 1 1 2

FJK14 2 2 4

FJK15 1 1

FJK16 4 18 1 17 11 51

FJK18 2 1 3

FJK19 22 26 5 1 1 15 12 82

FJK20 7 1 8

FJK21 3 6 1 10

FJK22 1 1

FJK23 2 2 1 1 6

FJK24 2 2 4 8

FJK25 2 1 1 4

FJK26 3 1 4

FJK30 10 10 2 1 1 1 25

FJK31 4 4 1 9

FJK32 2 2

FJK33 1 3 1 1 6

FJK35 17 39 2 4 2 64

FJK36 1 1

FJK37 2 5 1 8

FJK38 2 2

FJK39 2 6 36 11 2 6 63

FJK40 1 1 1 3

FJK42 2 2 4

FJK43 1 8 86 16 5 4 2 122

FJK44 4 2 6

FJK45 1 13 2 1 2 19

FJK46 1 1

FJK48 1 13 1 1 16

FJK49 1 1 2

FJK60 5 1 6 75 125 6 2 220

FJK62 7 1 1 9

FJK63 1 1 3 5

FJK64 2 2 1 5

FJK65 3 1 7 4 3 1 1 20

FJK67 1 2 3

FJK68 3 9 2 18 32

FJK69 1 2 3

FJK11A1 FJK19A1 FJK35A1 FJK43A1 FJK60A1 FJK74A1 FJK80A1 FJK89A1 FJK90A1 Total

FJK70 1 1 10 12

FJK71 1 28 29

FJK72 1 2 5 8

FJK73 3 3 6

FJK74 9 9 39 42 99

FJK75 1 1

FJK76 1 1 4 6

FJK77 5 5

FJK80 7 4 1 61 7 80

FJK81 3 1 3 4 11

FJK82 1 3 1 5

FJK83 1 5 1 7

FJK84 5 2 4 1 1 13

FJK85 1 23 24

FJK86 10 2 12

FJK87 3 4 1 4 1 50 237 12 312

FJK88 2 5 7

FJK89 4 10 33 47

FJK90 6 2 1 28 162 12 211

FJK91 1 2 4 6 1 14

FJK92 1 2 1 3 7

FJK93 3 5 1 9

Total 118 98 75 351 232 152 273 493 32 1,824


26. Figure 3 details the location of the incidents that height vehicles have been mobilised

to. As with table 6, the map details all height vehicles that have been in use over the

period, not just those that are currently in operation.

.

of 51

For what purpose are height vehicles being used?

27. Since the introduction of the incident recording system in April 2009, more information

relating to height vehicles has been gathered. The following data has been taken from

the IRS system and therefore only covers the period April 2009 to June 2013.

Questions relating to the use of height vehicles are only asked when the height vehicle

books in attendance so those occasions where this did not happen will be excluded

from the data shown below (i.e. when the vehicle was mobilised but turned back en

route).

28. The data highlights the highest usage reasons to be either access/safe working

platform or water tower. There has been one incident where ‘rescue from fire’ has

been recorded as the usage reason, where two persons where removed, uninjured,

from the roof of a property adjoined to one that was on fire.

Table 7: Use of height vehicles by function April 2009 – June 2013 ordered by most

priority use for a height vehicle, as defined in Table 1

Main Function FJK11A1 FJK43A1 FJK60A1 FJK74A1 FJK80A1 FJK89A1 FJK90A1 Total

Access/Safe Working Platform 22 32 1 3 13 27 1 99

Water Tower 22 30 6 14 18 6 96

Rescue From ESS 6 26 3 4 8 23 6 76

Rescue From Fire 1 1

Structural Removal 7 24 6 7 11 5 60

Aerial Reconnaissance inc

Feros/Lighting Tower

6 12 1 3 6 14 2 44

Not Used 16 29 14 28 10 97

Other 10 4 1 5 14 34

Total 89 157 5 23 67 135 31 507

NB: The option of “Not Used” was added to this question in the IRS recently and as such it is likely that some of the incidents grouped under “other” were in fact where the height vehicle was sent to the incident but was subsequently not used. 11A1 = Ashford, 19A1 = Folkestone, 35A1 = Thames-side, 43A1 – Medway, 60A1 = Maidstone, 74A1 = Tunbridge Wells, 80A1 = Canterbury, 89A1 = Thanet, 90A1 = Ramsgate.

29. Before the introduction of the IRS, minimal data was gathered on the use of height

vehicles at incidents. Unfortunately it is not possible to identify this information by each

vehicle as the question related to the whole incident, not individual appliances. Table 8

details the reasons and the number of times it was used, by year.

of 51

Table 8: Use of height vehicles by function 2006–2009

2006 2007 2008 2009** Total Applying Water/Other Extinguishing Media

27 37 34 10 108

Effecting Ingress 8 8 11 3 30 Effecting Ingress/Rescue/Recovery 31 34 40 5 110 Platform for Feros Camera 1 1 3 5

Total 67 80 88 18 253

** Data only available until 31 March 2009

How long are they committed at incidents?

30. Table 9 and Figure 4 detail how long height vehicles have spent at incidents. As with

the previous data, incidents where height vehicles have not booked in attendance

have been excluded from this dataset. The pattern of time spent on incidents differs

between height vehicles. From the data it can be seen that Medway and Thanet have

had more incidents where the vehicle has been in attendance for more than two hours.

Maidstone and Thanet have also had more incidents which required their attendance

for half an hour or less.

Table 9: Time spent in attendance at incidents

FJK11

A1

FJK19

A1

FJK35

A1

FJK43

A1

FJK60

A1

FJK74

A1

FJK80

A1

FJK89

A1

FJK90

A1 Total

0-15 Mins 1 6 11 48 2 7 128 2 205

15-30 Mins 10 5 4 23 49 7 20 96 6 220

30 Mins-1

Hour

21 20 15 46 21 23 38 80 11 275

1-2 Hours 24 14 12 82 20 25 37 43 5 262

2+ Hours 41 18 18 85 22 22 44 59 7 316

Total 97 63 49 247 160 79 146 406 31 1,27

8


of 51

Figure 4: Time in attendance at incidents

Simultaneous Demand

31. In order to determine whether the level of cover provided by the existing height

vehicles is the right one for the County we need to examine the demands placed on

the existing vehicles over the review period and understand the level of simultaneous

utilisation. The level of simultaneous use shows the maximum requirement for height

vehicles at any time across the County over the period analysed and can be used to

provide an indicator for over or under provision.

32. Table 10 illustrates the number of occasions (during the period of April 2009 – June

2013) when height vehicles were required to attend operational incidents at the same

time. The demand placed on those appliances relate to incidents happening anywhere

in the County.

33. The data shows that there have been 62 occasions when two height vehicles have

been used at the same time. This has happened through a combination of different

scenarios: one incident requiring the mobilisation of two special vehicles or two

different incidents requiring the mobilisation of one height vehicle each. There were

also nine occurrences when three height vehicles were mobilised simultaneously.

of 51

Table 10: Simultaneous activity by type of incident

Occurrences

Height vehicles mobilised simultaneously 200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

2013 (Jan-

Jun)

Tot

al

2 17 24 8 6 6 61

1 Incident - , 2 height vehicles 10 19 4 6 5 44

2 Incident - , 1 height vehicles, 1 height vehicles 7 5 4 1 17

3 6 1 1 1 9

1 Incident - , 3 height vehicles 2 1 3

2 Incident - , 2 height vehicles, 1 height vehicles 1 1 1 3

3 Incident - , 1 height vehicles, 1 height vehicles,

1 height vehicles

3 3

Total 23 25 9 6 7 70

34. Figure 5 and table 11 shows for how long the height vehicles were in use

simultaneously. The data reveals that the use of three height vehicles at once has

extended for a maximum period of one hour in seven cases and for up to two hours on

two other occasions. There were no occasions when four or more vehicles were

required at the same time. In most cases only two of these special vehicles are

required simultaneously: 25% of the time for up to 15 minutes, 52% for a period of 16

minutes to two hours and 23% for more than two hours.

Figure 5: Duration of Simultaneous Height Vehicle Activity

of 51

Table 11: Duration of Simultaneous Height Vehicle Activity

Duration of occurrence 2 HV committed 3 HV committed Total

0-15 Mins 15 3 18

16 Mins - 1 Hour 20 4 24

1-2 Hours 12 2 14

2+ Hours 14 14

Grand Total 61 9 70

35. In total there have been 70 occasions when simultaneous activity occurred between

April 2009 and Jun 2013. 61 of these involved two height vehicles, 25% of the time for

less than 15 minutes, 52% for a period of up to two hours and 23% for more than two

hours. There were also nine occurrences when three height vehicles were mobilised

simultaneously, of which seven occasions were for less than one hour, the other two

were for less than two hours.

36. There have been no occasions within the dataset when more than three height

vehicles have been required at once.

Attendance Standards

37. Following the review of height vehicle provision in 2008, an attendance standard was

introduced to monitor the impact of the change. The 30 minute attendance standard for

height vehicles was set based upon the average response time being achieved across

the Authority in 2008. It was included as a proposal within that year’s Integrated Risk

Management Plan alongside reducing the number of height vehicles the Authority

operated from seven to five. The standard of 30 minutes was intended to measure the

impact of this change.

38. The level of qualifying calls to measure the attendance standard is low (108 in 2009,

94 in 2010 and 114 in 2011) as the vehicles are used relatively infrequently. This

means that one failure can result in a relatively large percentage distortion of the

figures, i.e. one extra failure instead of a success over the last four years can alter the

percentage standard rate from between 0.9 and 2.8%. Performance for each of the

years can be seen in Figure 6 and Table 12 below.

of 51

Table 12: Height vehicle attendance standard performance

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (Jan-Jun)

Incidents 212 265 207 108 94 114 99 36

Successes 187 229 188 91 83 97 84 32

Failures 25 36 19 17 11 17 15 4

% Standard 88.2% 86.4% 90.8% 84.3% 88.3% 85.1% 84.8% 88.9%

Figure 6: Height vehicle attendance standard performance

39. The analysis of usage indicates that, for time critical functions, height vehicles

predominantly provide a specialist capability to the incident commander at fires to

allow the introduction of firefighting media or a working platform at height in order to

resolve the incident. Incident command training has developed to allow for the incident

commander to identify the most appropriate and effective tactical plan required to deal

with an incident and then request the necessary resources in order to implement the

plan. In doing so the anticipated response time of any specialist appliance is

considered and then they can be requested to attend.

40. Similarly other specialist appliances, such as a foam unit or water unit, may also be

required, but these have no attendance standard imposed upon them.

41. The susceptibility to relative distortion from individual incidents makes the use of an

attendance standard less appropriate and less useful as information from which the

public can gain an informed view of the Authority’s operational performance. Given

of 51

that no other special appliances currently have an attendance standard set against

them, is therefore considered no longer appropriate to have one reportable for height

vehicles.

How long does it take to book in attendance?

42. Table 13 details the average number of minutes each height vehicle has taken to book

in attendance from the point they were mobilised, broken down by year. On average, it

has taken 17 minutes for a height vehicle to book in attendance at an incident, ranging

across the years from 15 minutes to 25 minutes. There are a significant number of

occasions where there is no time in attendance recorded, which could be for a variety

of reasons from being turned back on route to the incident or failing to book in

attendance once arrived at the scene. For the purpose of the figures in the table

below, these instances have been removed.

Table 13: Times for height vehicles to book in attendance

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Jan-Jun)

Total

FJK11A1 27 25 22 24 24 30 24

FJK19A1 34 15 22 21 22

FJK35A1 17 22 26 21

FJK43A1 22 22 23 24 19 22 25 30 23

FJK60A1 13 14 13 21 14

FJK74A1 23 22 20 17 27 21

FJK80A1 16 20 22 21 24 22 14 19 20

FJK89A1 7 10 10 15 12 11 18 11

FJK90A1 11 17 14

Total 16 15 16 20 19 18 20 25 17


Were they requested on normal road speed response?5

43. Table 14 details the percentage of incidents where the height vehicle was requested to

attend an incident broken down by whether a blue light response was necessary. As

expected in the vast majority of cases, height vehicles have been requested at an

incident with a blue light response.

5 Apr 2009 – Jun 2013

of 51

Table 14: Breakdown of blue light and non blue light responses

Blue Light Response Normal Road Speed Response

FJK11A1 88.8% (79) 11.2% (10)

FJK43A1 87.9% (138) 12.1% (19)

FJK60A1 80.0% (4) 20.0% (1)

FJK74A1 87.0% (20) 13.0% (3)

FJK80A1 88.1% (59) 11.9% (8)

FJK89A1 88.9% (120) 11.1% (15)

FJK90A1 90.3% (28) 9.7% (3)

Total 88.4% (448) 11.6% (59)

Note to table: The figures in brackets denote the number of incidents

11A1 = Ashford, 19A1 = Folkestone, 35A1 = Thames-side, 43A1 – Medway, 60A1 = Maidstone, 74A1 = Tunbridge Wells, 80A1 = Canterbury, 89A1 = Thanet, 90A1 = Ramsgate.

Availability

44. Table 15 below details the availability of each of the height vehicles that are in

operation at the present time. Please note that Ashford did not have a vehicle until

2008. Caution should also be taken with the figures for Canterbury as this is likely to

be affected by the alternate crewing arrangements in place with the pumping

appliances.

Table 15: Average availability of height vehicles based at stated fire stations

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Jan -

Jun)

Ashford n/a n/a 98.1% 93.9% 94.1% 99.3% 99.7% 99.0% Medway 83.4% 81.6% 86.0% 90.8% 97.2% 98.2% 97.0% 98.5% Tunbridge Wells 94.0% 94.0% 94.7% 90.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a Tunbridge Wells n/a n/a n/a n/a 38.6% 89.6% 43.1% 22.6% Canterbury 88.0% 75.7% 78.9% 80.9% 93.0% 95.3% 96.9% 95.6% Thanet 91.4% 81.3% 88.2% 95.5% 98.7% 92.7% 89.6% n/a Ramsgate n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 99.0% 92.4%

Total 89.2% 83.2% 89.2% 90.3% 92.7% 94.7% 83.0 81.6%

45. The average level of availability for each height vehicle consistently exceeds 80%, and

for the majority of individual height vehicles exceeds 90%. When considering the

number of height vehicles necessary to provide the required level of cover, the level of

availability likely to be expected needs to be considered.

of 51

Ring Fencing

46. The policy of ring fencing height vehicles is complicated by the fact that different

training requirements exist for each type of vehicle. This means that firefighters, as

well as the vehicle, often have to move between stations to ensure the vehicle can be

operational at the strategic location. This issue would be avoided if one type of height

vehicle was employed within the Authority that all height vehicle operators were trained

to use.

47. At present, if, for any reason, there are only three height vehicles available, they are

positioned at three strategic locations across the County where they are ‘ring fenced’

to guarantee their availability. The strategic locations are Medway, Ashford and

Ramsgate which were selected based upon the best geographical coverage that could

be obtained from three of the existing fire stations where height vehicles are based.

48. The first record of a vehicle having a ring fenced status is 26 November 2010, so the

following information covers the period November 2010 to the latest recorded

information on 30 June 2013.

49. During this period, there have been 37 occasions where three height vehicles have

been ring fenced in the county. The vehicles that have been ring fenced have been

from Ashford, Medway, Canterbury and Ramsgate

50. When Canterbury’s height vehicle is ring fenced, the vehicle is moved to one of the

three strategic locations for the duration of the ring fencing period. This usually

involves the movement of personnel to ensure trained operators are available at the

ring fenced location as personnel at Medway and Ramsgate are not qualified to

operate it.

of 51

Developments in Technology

51. Within the fire market there have been several developments in technology which have

introduced new options when considering the provision of the functions required when

working at height. The review considered these.

Aerial Water Tower

52. An Aerial Water Tower (AWT) is a combination of a pumping appliance and a boom

with a water/foam monitor. It differs from the CARP concept of vehicle in that the AWT

is designed only to provide a means of applying firefighting media from height, and

does not provide any access or a safe working platform capability. The concept of an

AWT is not new; indeed one vehicle has been operational in West Midlands Fire and

Rescue Service for several years now.

53. An alternative to the above is to combine an AWT with other specialist functions, such

as a foam and water unit, which gives the capability to deliver foam and or water from

height in one vehicle.

Figure 7: Combined Foam /Water Unit with AWT

54. Within the airport fire industry, the combination of a foam/water unit and AWTs are

commonplace as a first responding appliance to aircraft incidents. Their capability has

been enhanced with the provision of a piercing tool located at the tip of the AWT that

can penetrate aircraft fuselages and introduce a fine water spray.

of 51

Figure 8: AWT with piercing Tool

Figure 9: Close up of piercing tool

55. Interest in this capability within the fire and rescue sector has led to at least one

manufacturer now offering the piercing tool on AWTs installed on standard fire

engines. The ability to use this device to pierce building materials of a wall or roof and

then to apply water onto a fire otherwise obscured by a building structure can offer the

potential to significantly reduce the time taken to control and then extinguish various

types of building fires, such as those involving large industrial units or warehouses.

Articulated Turntable Ladder

56. The design of turntable ladders has been enhanced to incorporate a ladder that can

articulate itself over roof pitches or below horizontal level. This significantly improves

the capabilities of the machine. The significant difference between an ALP and a TL

has traditionally been the ability of the ALP to articulate a tail boom and now this

design of TL matches that capability.

of 51

57. In essence an articulated TL combines the advantages of both an ALP and a TL in

one vehicle, a view that has been backed by a user group who have witnessed the

capability of an articulated TL in Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service.

58. The articulated TL is the recommended height vehicle to replace the existing height

vehicles within the Authority. A significant strength of this approach is that allows

vehicles to be moved between height vehicle stations without the need to move

firefighters with it, as the firefighters at the receiving stations would also be trained to

use it. All the options presented in this document have therefore been based on this

principle.

59. The vehicle in the figure below shows how traditional turntable ladders now have the

articulated functionality of aerial ladder platforms.

Figure 10: Articulated turntable ladder

of 51

Base Option

Overview

60. All proposals made in the Safety Plan have a base option, against which any changes

can be compared. The Authority currently maintains five height vehicles. This is made

up of three aerial ladder platforms (ALP), a turntable ladder (TL) and a combined aerial

rescue pump (CARP). There is also a reserve TL available to use should one vehicle

become defective. These vehicles are crewed by a combination of primary and

alternate crewing.

Table 16: Location of height vehicles in Kent and Medway

Call sign Type Location Vehicle Replacement

Date6

FJK11A1 Aerial Ladder Platform Ashford 2016/17

FJK43A1 Aerial Ladder Platform Medway 2018/19

FJK89A1 Aerial Ladder Platform Thanet 2017/18

FJK80A1 Turntable Ladder Canterbury 2012/13

FJK74R6 CARP Tunbridge Wells 2022/23

61. These vehicles provide a cage that can be raised to up to 32m above ground, and

several meters below ground, to allow for a stable platform to be provided enabling

safe working at height. Some of these vehicles also provide a ladder to gain access or

exit from the cage or place of work at height. The five vehicles were positioned so that

they could respond to addresses in the County within 30 minutes of being requested

on 90% of occasions, providing that they were immediately available to do so. The 30

minute attendance standard for height vehicles is currently used as a performance

indicator.

62. Figure 11 shows the 30 minute travel isochrones from each of the existing locations.

Please note these maps do not include the time taken to mobilise the appliance.

6 The replacement dates reflect the 2013/14 Medium Term Financial Plan. If recommendations made

in this report are agreed to move to one type of vehicle, these will all be procured in 2014/15.

of 51

Figure 11: 30 minute isochrones travel distances from existing locations of height

vehicles

63. To develop options further travel time maps where produced using the same 30 minute

travel isochrones. Additionally this analysis looked at the best locations for the vehicles

(based on existing fire station locations). Based on existing custom and practice, and

professional judgement of the review team, it was deemed that 30 minutes was a good

planning criteria for an Incident Commander to base his tactical plan upon and thus

make informed decisions as to when to make up for specialist vehicles. The maps are

included within each option. Table 17 provides an overview of the results.

Table 17: Recommended locations of height vehicles based on planning scenarios

No of

Vehicles

Best Location % of mobilisation

addresses

5 Tunbridge Wells, Medway, Ashford, Canterbury and

Ramsgate

98.93

4 Ashford, Canterbury, Maidstone and Thames-side 94.61

3 Ashford, Canterbury and Maidstone 93.67

2 Canterbury and Maidstone 90.36

1 Maidstone 61.37

NB. Maps where not produced for one location as it was deemed that 61.37% coverage was not acceptable.

of 51

64. Table 17 shows that limited additional coverage is achieved by adding additional

vehicles beyond two. This small increase in coverage needs to be considered

alongside the cost of the provision of each additional vehicle. To provide an additional

8.57% (two vehicles – five vehicles) increase in coverage, the cost is the provision of

three vehicles, circa £1.5m (circa £100,000 per year based on a 15 year life).

65. There are 28 posts directly associated with the crewing of height vehicles and these

are split across three stations. As has been previously mentioned the crewing of these

appliances is either primary or alternate. However even within these options there is a

variety of methodologies as Table 18 shows.

Table 18: crewing methodologies in use across Kent and Medway

Location Crewed Additional Personnel

/watch

Additional Personnel

/station

Ramsgate Primary 3 12

Ashford Primary 3 12

Medway Primary/Alternate 1 4

Canterbury Alternate 0 0

Tunbridge Wells Alternate 0 0

66. The methodologies at Canterbury and Tunbridge Wells indicate that additional

personnel are not required to primary crew these types of vehicles.

of 51

Figure 12: Current provision (five locations): Tunbridge Wells, Medway, Ashford,

Canterbury, Ramsgate (98.93 % of mobilisation addresses covered)

Summary

67. This option has been in place since 2010 and is a result of a previous review of height

vehicle capability.

SWOT analysis – Base Option: Existing arrangements

Strengths Weaknesses

98.93% coverage

Resilience of coverage/response

Ensure compliance with Working at Height

Regulations

Maintains existing capability

Current model expensive versus demand for

use

Variety of crewing methods

Mixed fleet of vehicles leads to significant

training and interoperability issues

Requires differing training

Age of fleet

Expensive due to personnel costs of

additional 28 staff

Cost of replacement vehicles at end of life

On going maintenance/fuel costs

Flawed performance indicator

of 51

Opportunities Threats

Offers resilience both internally and

additionally to region

Cost to replace vehicles

Maintaining staffing against reduced funding

depletion of public confidence with failure to

meet attendance standard

Indicative costs

68. The following table illustrates indicative of delivering services.

Budget (£)

Employee costs 1,049,916

Vehicle maintenance costs 47,205

Fuel 22,372

Contributions to the vehicle replacement programme 166,667

Total 1,286,160

Notes to table Existing costs based on: Employee costs based on salaries, national insurance and employer pension contributions as at 1 July 2013 for 28 firefighters Vehicle maintenance and fuel is average to January 2013 x 5 vehicles Contributions based on replacement cost of £500k x 5 vehicles with 15 year life

of 51

Option One: Four Height Vehicles

Description

69. Under this option, the Authority would have four height vehicles situated at strategic

locations across the County. The fleet would comprise a standard type of height

vehicle and no firefighter posts are directly associated with height vehicles. Height

vehicles would be located at the following stations:

Maidstone

Ashford

Canterbury

Thames-Side

70. A fifth appliance would be located at Ramsgate to provide resilience and ensure that

four height vehicles could be maintained.

Figure 13: Four Locations: Canterbury, Ashford, Maidstone, Thames-side (approx. 94.61

% of mobilisation addresses covered):

Summary

71. The main difference with this option is the removal of the crewing associated with

some of the height vehicles. This releases a potential saving of approximately £1m.

of 51

There are no savings in terms of vehicles as the fifth appliance is maintained as an

operational asset to ensure 4 vehicles are available on the majority of occasions.

SWOT analysis – 4 + 1


Provides 94.61% coverage of address within

the County



Regulations

Flexibility of crewing/mobilisation if a single

type is adopted

Displacement of personnel

Less resilience

No savings on vehicles

If a selection of height vehicles is maintained:

o Mixed fleet of vehicles leads to

significant training and

interoperability issues

o Requires differing training


Saving in alternate crewing of all vehicles

Removal of performance indicator

Potential that HV required in area now not

covered as before

Opposition from Accredited Representatives

Removal of standard may lose public

confidence

Indicative costs

72. This option effectively redistributes height vehicles across the County. It therefore does

not create any significant savings, outside of staff savings through the removal of

crewing associated with the vehicles.

of 51

Option Two: Three Height Vehicles

Description

73. Under this option, the Authority would have three height vehicles situated at strategic




Maidstone

Ashford

Canterbury

74. A fourth appliance would be located at Thames-Side to provide resilience and ensure

that three height vehicles could be maintained.

Figure 14: Three Locations: Canterbury, Ashford and Maidstone (approx. 93.67 % of

mobilisation addresses covered):

Summary

75. This option also releases approximately £1m in crewing costs. In addition there is a

saving in not replacing one height vehicle (circa. £500k) and savings in the on going

of 51

servicing, maintenance and fuel for this vehicle. In addition, there maybe a small

amount of residual value in the vehicle no longer required.

SWOT analysis - 3 + 1


93.67% coverage



Regulations

Flexibility of crewing/mobilisation


Less resilience



Saving of cost of 1 vehicle


Standardisation of fleet

Reduced maintenance


covered as before


Removal of standard may lose public

confidence

Indicative costs

76. The following table illustrates indicative costs for this option, providing a comparison

with the current cost of delivering services.

Budget Option 2 Saving

£ £ £

Employee costs 1,049,916 0 -1,049,916

Vehicle maintenance costs 47,205 37,764 -9,441

Fuel 22,372 17,898 -4,474

Contributions to the vehicle replacement

programme

166,667 133,334 -33,333

Total 1,286,160 188,996 1,097,164

Option 2 costs based on: Removal of 28 firefighter posts (move to alternate crewing) Removal of one height vehicle overall

of 51

Option Three: Two Height Vehicles

Description

77. Under this option, the Authority would have two height vehicles situated at strategic




Maidstone

Canterbury

78. Between April 2009 and June 2013 there were 61 occasions when there was

simultaneous demand for two height vehicles. With just two height vehicles in service,

that would have resulted in no other height vehicles being available for use on those

occasions unless a resilience height vehicle is provided. There have only been nine

occasions when three height vehicles were required.

79. A third appliance would be located at Ashford to provide resilience and ensure that two

height vehicles could be maintained.

Figure 15: Two Locations: Canterbury and Maidstone (approx. 90.63 % of mobilisation

addresses covered):

of 51

Summary

80. This option also releases approximately £1m in crewing costs. In addition there is a

saving in not replacing two height vehicles (circa. £1m) and savings in the ongoing

servicing, maintenance and fuel for these vehicles. In addition, there maybe a small

amount of residual value in the vehicles no longer required.



90.63% coverage



Regulations



Less resilience




Saving of cost of 2 vehicles



Reduced maintenance


covered as before


Removal of standard may deplete public

confidence

Indicative costs




£ £ £

Employee costs 1,049,916 0 -1,049,916


Fuel 22,372 13,423 -8,949

Contributions to the vehicle

replacement programme

166,667 100,000 -66,667

Total 1,286,160 141,746 1,144,414

Option 3 costs based on:

Removal of 28 firefighter posts (move to alternate crewing)

Removal of two height vehicles

of 51

Option Four: One Height Vehicle

Description

82. Under this option, the Authority would have one height vehicle situated at Maidstone.

In this option no posts are directly associated with height vehicles.

83. There have been 507 incidents where one height vehicle has been used between April

2009 and Jun 2013. With one height vehicle in service that would result in no other

height vehicles being available for use on those occasions. There have been 61

occasions when simultaneous demand occurred for two height vehicles, and nine

occasions when three height vehicles were required.

84. A second appliance at Canterbury would be provided for resilience and to ensure that

one height vehicle could be maintained. The fleet would comprise of a standard type of

height vehicle.

Summary

85. This option also releases approximately £1m in crewing costs. In addition, there is a

saving in not replacing three height vehicles (circa. £1.5m) and savings in the ongoing

servicing, maintenance and fuel for these vehicles. In addition, there maybe a small

amount of residual value in the vehicles no longer required.

86. Although this option delivers the most savings, it does not deliver a resilient service.




Regulations


>65% coverage


Less resilience


Lack of resilience in proposals



Saving in cost of three vehicles



Reduced maintenance


covered as before


Removal of standard may loss public

confidence

of 51

Indicative Costs




£ £ £

Employee costs 1,049,916 0 -1,049,916


Fuel 22,372 8,949 -13,423

Contributions to the vehicle

replacement programme

166,667 66,666.80 -100,000

Total 1,286,160 94,498 -1,191,662

Option 4 costs based on:

Removal of 28 firefighter posts (move to alternate crewing)

Removal of three height vehicles

of 51

Evaluation and Recommendations

Numbers and Location

88. The research indicates that height vehicles are still required by the Authority. Two

height vehicles can provide an adequate level of cover (90.36%), although a third is

recommended for resilience.

Type of Vehicle

89. The Authority has a fleet of height vehicles that are a mixture of ALPs, TLs and a

CARP. These vehicles, whilst similar, have differing servicing, maintenance and

training requirements. To be as efficient as practicable the review team recommends

that the Authority migrates to one type of vehicle. Research in this project indicates

that the new generation TLs (with articulated section) are the best type going forward

and allow the functional requirements of these vehicles to be maintained.

Crewing

90. The high availability of the vehicles that are alternately crewed considered alongside

demand and simultaneous activity indicates that provision of these vehicles can be

maintained using alternate crewing. This would release a significant saving (circa £1m)

in terms of the 28 personnel currently assigned to watches for primary crewing

purposes.

Resilience or reserve?

91. Availability of these vehicles is good at more than 85%. However these vehicles do

need regular servicing and maintenance as they are highly complicated pieces of

equipment. It is recommended that a third vehicle is required to cover the above, as

falling to one vehicle and coverage of 62% is not acceptable. It also makes best use of

what is a significant capital investment.

Attendance Standard

92. There are no attendance standards for other specialist vehicles and it is therefore a

recommendation that this attendance standard is no longer reported.

Ring Fencing Policy

93. It is recommended that he current ring fencing policy be re-examined during the

implementation phase of this project and adjusted as necessary.

of 51

Appendix A: Height vehicle use by function

technical appendix working at height - kent fire and ... · 13. this section identifies where...

Documents