Showing posts with label Gatwick Airport. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gatwick Airport. Show all posts

Saturday, 9 May 2015

Gatwick Airport and the Local Authority Fire Service - Some Facts

The discussion on how West Sussex County Council cuts to the fire and rescue service have affected the response to emergencies at Gatwick Airport has thrown up some worrying misconceptions. Not least from County Councillors and, apparently, some fire service officers. This seems to revolve around unrealistic expectations of the airport’s fire and rescue service. Irresponsibly there are those that claim they can deal with any major incident on their own, so let’s look at the facts.

The requirement on the airport operator comes from the Civil Aviation Authority’s ‘CAP 168’, Licensing of Aerodromes, which is based on the International Civil Aviation Organization’s agreed guidance. That says the airport fire service is provided to, “create and maintain survivable conditions, to provide egress routes for occupants and to initiate the rescue of those occupants unable to make their escape without direct aid.”

You will note that for rescue it only requires them to “initiate” rescue. They go on to say that “the saving of those occupants unable to make their escape without direct aid may be a long and arduous task”. They also make clear that on occasions this will involve the use of specialized equipment and personnel not part of the airport fire service. Something that was well illustrated by the Kegworth crash that required over 100 local authority firefighters and 22 fire engines.

That is why there are several references in CAP 168 to “Local Authority Fire Services”. The CAA does not require airports to provide resources to fully deal with crashes, just to provide the immediate response. It even reminds airport operators that, “At all incidents it should be remembered that the Local Authority Fire Service has statutory obligations to fulfil.” Something that West Sussex County Council has tried to ignore.

The emphasis in CAP 168 is on an airport fire service that can arrive quickly and extinguish any fire that results from a crash. The number of vehicles and personnel required are determined by that objective. In some cases that will be sufficient to allow all survivors to escape unaided, but where there is significant damage, then rapid reinforcement of the airport fire service will be essential.

There is no requirement for the airport to have the sort of heavy duty rescue equipment that is carried on the West Sussex Heavy Rescue Tenders (HRT). That is why the failure to ensure that Crawley’s HRT attends warnings of aircraft in trouble is so worrying. Made worse by the fact that, when an alert is received, all the personnel from Crawley are sent on their standard fire engines, which leaves the HRT with no crew. So, if there is a crash, another HRT will have to travel at least 35 miles to the airport.

It also needs to be remembered that there is a busy railway line at the end of the runway. The potential for an aircraft to hit one or more commuter trains is ever present. There could be many hundreds of casualties as a result, yet WSCC’s cuts culture is deemed more important than the survival of passengers and crew in a crash at Gatwick. The reduction in the response to the most serious warning, “Aircraft Accident Imminent”, from 10 to just 6 fire engines is wholly unjustified.

Gatwick Airport, for the most part, meet their obligations under CAP 168. The main concern is that they may not have adjusted their emergency plan to take account of both the cuts and WSCC’s dreadful failure to properly crew their remaining fire engines. With part time crewed fire engines often being unavailable, resources will have to travel much further and take far too long to arrive.

The removal of the HRT and other special vehicles from the response to alerts that aircraft are in trouble flies in the face of proper risk assessment. West Sussex send an Aerial Ladder Platform from Horsham or Worthing to warnings of aircraft in trouble, just in case the aircraft is an A380. That is fair enough, but to not send the HRT that would be essential for a serious crash involving any aircraft suggests a total lack of logic when carrying out risk assessments, or a complete lack of understanding of aircraft crashes.


A Gatwick Airport spokesperson is reported to have said, "Gatwick has its own on-airport fire service that is fully equipped and resourced to deal with major incidents." A spokesperson who clearly has no idea of CAP 168, of the potential scale of an aircraft crash, or of the level of resources at the airport. No doubt WSCC will also soon provide false, unsubstantiated reassurance to the public with yet more ‘spin’.

Saturday, 2 May 2015

COUNCIL RISK PASSENGER LIVES AT GATWICK AIRPORT

Press Release circulated yesterday:

The West Sussex Fire & Rescue Stop the Cuts group is concerned that survival chances for passengers and crew, in the event of a crash at Gatwick Airport, have been seriously reduced by County Council cuts to the fire service. A spokesperson said, “Not only have the cuts put 800,000 residents in greater danger, but millions of passengers who use the airport each year will be doubly unlucky if they are in a crash at Gatwick”.

The spokesperson continued, “We all hope we are not involved in an aircraft crash, but there are several around the World every year. When it happens we rely on the emergency services arriving quickly to rescue survivors from the wreckage. Sadly the response from West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service is now slower and smaller than ever, despite aircraft now carrying more people”.

The spokesperson added, “The airport is not responsible, as they have an effective fire service, but for crashes they need significant support from local emergency services. The only criticism of the airport is that, according to the County Council, they raised no objections to the cuts[1]”.

Retired Fire Service Operational Planning Officer Tony Morris said, “Not only do the cuts affect survival chances at the airport, but if a plane comes down beyond their very small response area, the airport’s fire service does not respond. Survivors would then be totally reliant on the hopelessly inadequate local fire service response. Firefighters would do their best, but the odds would be stacked against them”

West Sussex County Council cuts include:
  • The two nearest fire engines to the airport could reach the airport in two minutes, but they were removed in the last round of cuts.
  • The next nearest fire engines at Crawley have just been cut from three to two.
  • Response to the most serious category of emergency has been cut from ten fire engines to just six, despite aircraft now carrying more passengers. Other essential specialist vehicles have also been removed from the automatic response.
  • Together with cuts in crew numbers, instead of around 90 firefighters being sent, less than 50 will arrive. Yet they know that at the Kegworth crash in 1989, over 100 hundred firefighters were needed to rescue the 82 injured survivors.
  • The Heavy Rescue Tender, with specialist rescue equipment, is no longer sent when emergencies are declared. Gatwick is now the only international airport in Europe not to get a specialist rescue vehicle from their local fire service when aircraft are in trouble.
  • Even worse, when an emergency is declared the two fire engines from Crawley are sent, but no firefighters are left to crew the Heavy Rescue Tender. If a crash then occurs another vehicle will have to be sent from 35 miles away.
  • Whilst they have stopped sending this rescue vehicle, they do send a high reach aerial appliance, just in case the aircraft is a large Airbus A380. To do that, but not send the rescue vehicle, which would be essential at any crash, makes no sense and indicates that professional judgement is either flawed, or cuts are forcing these dangerous changes.
  • Foam supplies have been removed from the nearest station to the airport and now have to be sent from 50 miles away. Last time these were sent to an emergency at the airport they took over an hour and a quarter to arrive.
  • Inadequate crewing across West Sussex also means that many of the nearest fire engines and support vehicles are often unavailable. As many as 16 of the nearest 22 fire engines have been without crews on occasions, and response times have increased dramatically.
  • At a recent incident in Crawley, cuts and inadequate crew levels showed that the nearest ten fire engines included two from Brighton, nearly 30 miles away. With Gatwick located in the Borough this is a disgraceful level of protection.

Mr Morris concluded, “When early warning is received of an aircraft in serious trouble at Gatwick, the public expect the local fire service to be there with enough resources to give them a good chance of survival. It is shameful that West Sussex County Councillors are failing to ensure that happens.”

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Stop the Cuts

ENDS

Further information

Email:               wsfrsstopcuts@aol.com
Web:                wsfrscuts.blogspot.com 
Facebook:        West Sussex Fire & Rescue Stop the Cuts 

NOTES

1. At all the other airports in the UK that handle the Airbus A380 aircraft, the airport authorities have equipped their own fire service with an aerial appliance. Gatwick rely on the local fire service to send one from Horsham (16 miles away), or from Worthing (35 miles away).

2. The Kegworth Comparison – this crash in 1989 involved 118 passengers, 82 of whom were seriously injured. Their rescue required the airport fire service plus 22 fire engines and over 100 firefighters from local fire services.

The latest aircraft using Gatwick include the Airbus A380, versions of which carry over 550 passengers. Instead of increasing the response to cope with the greater challenge, West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service has quite unprofessionally reduced it to the lowest it has been since the 1950s.

3. Tony Morris responded to the Airports Commission consultation to highlight these problems. A copy of his submission is attached below (Annex 1).


Annex 1


From
Tony Morris tonyacmorris@aol.com
To
airports.consultation airports.consultation@systra.com

Important factor omitted from review of possible second runway at Gatwick Airport 

Dear Mr Davies,

I am writing to you as an individual. I am now retired, but was an Emergency Planning Officer for West Sussex County Council (1999 to 2014) and before that the Operational Planning Officer for West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service (1993 to 1999). In both posts I worked closely with other emergency services and the airport operator on planning for all types of major emergency at Gatwick.

There appears to have been an important omission in the debate regarding a possible second runway at Gatwick Airport. That omission concerns consideration of the ability of hospitals, the emergency services, local authorities etc. to cope with an aircraft accident, or other major incident at the Airport.

I believe this aspect is even more vital than the infrastructure to support the airport. It is becoming increasingly clear that these services are less well able to respond to an incident at Gatwick than previously, primarily as a result of budget cuts. Whilst I am less familiar with their ability at Heathrow, I believe they have significantly more resources close to the airport. In addition, whereas West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service (WSFRS) has removed the two nearest fire engines to Gatwick and intend to remove the third nearest, London Fire Brigade has increased resources in the vicinity of Heathrow. The attached maps illustrate the disparity between the airports with regard to the location of supporting fire stations.

It is quite clear that the ambulance service and hospitals in Sussex are struggling to cope with winter pressures, so their potential to also cope with hundreds of casualties from an air crash must be in serious doubt. Sussex Police have also suffered staffing cuts that affect their ability to deal with major emergencies. The ability of West Sussex County Council's Social Care department to provide support to uninjured survivors and relatives of the injured or deceased is another vital service that has been affected by budget cuts. 

The latest aircraft using Gatwick include the Airbus A380, versions of which carry over 550 passengers. When you consider that the aircraft involved in the Kegworth air crash in 1989 was only carrying 118 passengers, you get an idea of the significantly greater demand on local services if a larger aircraft crashes at Gatwick. At Kegworth 82 people were seriously injured and it took over seven hours to free them all from the wreckage. The local authority fire service needed 22 fire engines and over 100 firefighters at the incident.

It should also be borne in mind that the Civil Aviation Authority say that planning should consider more than one aircraft being involved in an accident, and the surroundings of the Airport should also be taken in to account. With a busy commuter line at the end of the runway, an aircraft collision with a crowded commuter train must also be considered. Casualties could run in to the thousands at Gatwick.

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service's cuts and crewing difficulties have made the fire and rescue service much less able to cope than in previous years. The well publicised emergency landing at Gatwick Airport at the end of December showed that, instead of resources increasing to cope with increased risk, they have actually been reduced. The time taken to get resources to the airport has increased significantly, as they have to be sent from stations much further away. The proposed 2015-16 cuts will make this even worse.

When aircraft carried fewer passengers, WSFRS were able to get the full response to the airport by sending fire engines from fire stations that were within 13 miles of the airport. At the 29th December 2014 incident, despite having reduced the scale of the response, it had to come from fire stations up to 40 miles from the Airport. A special vehicle carrying foam, that used to be at the nearest fire station to the airport, took an hour and a quarter to arrive in December. A specialist rescue vehicle is no longer sent automatically, because of crewing shortages. If an aircraft does crash, then that rescue vehicle will have to be sent from at least 30 miles away.  With the potential for several hundred trapped and injured casualties, that is just not acceptable.

Please note that the Airport Fire Service depend heavily on support from WSFRS. The Airport Fire Service is only required to provide a full response to crashed aircraft within the airport boundary, and a reduced response to crashed aircraft very near to the airport. Beyond that small area, the survival of casualties is wholly dependent on an increasingly under resourced local authority fire and rescue service.

This situation is unacceptable for one runway, but I appreciate that is beyond your control. However, recommending a second runway at Gatwick would increase capacity and the likelihood of an accident. To do so, whilst aware of the poor state of the local services to respond, would seem most unwise.

I would urge you to properly consider this aspect before deciding on your recommendation regarding Airport expansion.

Yours sincerely,
  
Tony Morris

Proximity of fire stations

Heathrow


Gatwick


Please note that Surrey Fire & Rescue Service are building a fire station at Salfords, for one fire engine, about five miles from the Airport.



[1] Report by Executive Director Communities, Public Protection and Chief Fire Officer – “The Service has met with the Gatwick Airport Fire Service Manager, who raised no objections to the proposals". 

Friday, 17 April 2015

West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service Stop the Cuts April 2015 Update

Cuts Implemented

It was no joke on April 1st when 5 fire engines, 21 Full-time firefighters and 15 Part-time firefighters were removed from fire stations.

Initial indications are, as predicted, that some responses are taking much longer than before. Fire engines are also now being regularly sent out with just four firefighters on them, instead of five.

This limits the actions that the crew can take when they arrive. It also means firefighters may be forced to take greater risks, or leave the public in danger until reinforcements arrive. Training is also limited with only four firefighters on duty.


The Council’s own prediction is that an extra life will be lost every other year, and there will be an extra £80,000 property damage each year as a result of these cuts.

False Council Claims



You may have read claims in local papers that the service “won’t be downgraded in any way”. That is a dishonest claim, especially when their own predictions were for more deaths and property damage as a result.

Claims that the resources required “will be sent out” is very misleading. They may be sent, but they will often have to travel further, take longer to arrive and expose the public and firefighters to greater danger.

Petition Update

Nearly 2,000 people have signed the ‘Stop fire engine and firefighter cuts in West Sussex’ petition, with more names on petition forms waiting to be returned and counted.

We are very grateful to those who have worked hard collecting names. It is very clear that not only are people appalled by the cuts, many were totally unaware that they were being implemented.

If you still have completed, or partially completed, petition forms please return them (to arrive no later than 24th April) to: “Fire Cuts Petition, 48 Little Breach, Chichester, PO19 5TY.”

Names can still be added via the internet on the WSCC Epetition page - “Stop fire engine and firefighter cuts in West Sussex” 

Delays at Horsham Fire



Had this fire been before the cuts, two fire engines would have arrived in around five minutes.

However, one of them was removed on 1st April, so a second fire engine had to come from Crawley. This took three times longer to arrive. 

Worthing Full-time Crews Moved from the Town

The number of times full-time crews have been sent out of the town to cover crew shortages at other stations has increased. That leaves Worthing reliant on their part-time crew and on firefighters from other stations, which takes longer.

In March a disabled Worthing woman had to wait 9 minutes for rescue after Worthing’s full-time crews had been sent to cover rural areas. Worthing’s part-time crew and crews from Littlehampton and Shoreham were sent to the fire. 

New Group Won’t Meet Crewing Need at Part-time Stations

The claim is that they will be used, “as and when they are needed”. However the reality is that these firefighters, who were removed from busy fire stations, only work daytimes, Monday to Friday. Weekend and night-time needs are ignored.

Last weekend, despite frantic attempts to persuade part-time firefighters to work overtime, only 19 of the 35 fire engines were available for long periods. It is clear evidence of the woeful and ongoing failure of the County Council and Fire Service management to provide enough firefighters to protect the people of West Sussex.

No fire engines were crewed at Arundel, East Preston, East Wittering, Haywards Heath, Hurstpierpoint, Lancing, Partridge Green, Shoreham, Steyning and Turners Hill.

In addition, the second fire engines at Bognor Regis, Burgess Hill and East Grinstead were without crews. Not forgetting of course that, since 2010, a total of eleven fire engines, that could have been available, have been removed by the County Council.

 No Improvement at Petworth



More false claims in this article, which said “We are posting six whole-time firefighters in Petworth, working Monday to Friday.”

This has not happened and, since the cuts took effect, Petworth’s only remaining proper fire engine has been without a crew during the day, Monday to Friday!

The Water Carrier, which is not new, has been moved from Littlehampton where crewing was not a problem. However, Petworth has crewing difficulties, so there is no guarantee that the Water Carrier, one of only two in the County, will be available when required.

It is also now further away from the areas it is most used in, so will take longer to get to many calls. If they can crew it, there will often not be enough firefighters left to crew their fire engine, so residents will have to wait for help from other towns.

Missing 4x4 Vehicles

For nearly a year County Councillors have been claiming that new 4x4 vehicles would mitigate the effects of removing fire engines from Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington, that they would be in place in 2015, and even that they were being trialled.

Yet a Freedom of Information reply last month revealed this was untrue. They were not being trialled, no decision had been made on the vehicles to be bought, and there is no business case to support their purchase.

New 4x4s are being ‘spun’ as some great improvement, when in fact it is nothing more than part of the normal vehicle replacement programme.

The official response from WSFRS said no decision had been made on where the new 4x4s would go and the first could not be delivered before 2016. They also keep adding to the equipment load, which could see the 4x4s too big to access areas the current 4x4s can or, if the vehicles are small, they may be overloaded. 

 Crawley & Gatwick

Crawley has been particularly badly hit by cuts. From four full-time and one part-time crewed fire engines in 2010, the Borough now only has two full-time crewed fire engines. This is the worst ratio of fire engines to population and to incidents attended of any area in West Sussex.

This also has serious consequences for the response to any aircraft accident at Gatwick. Crawley can no longer crew both fire engines and the specialist rescue vehicle and new procedures mean that, if an accident occurred, a recue vehicle would have to travel from Worthing.

Crewing failures during a recent fire highlighted this vulnerability when only 6 of the nearest 22 West Sussex fire engines were available. Had this been a large fire in Crawley, and ten fire engines had been needed, most would have come from Surrey and East Sussex, including two from Brighton.


The Political View

This group has no political agenda and our only concern is public safety. However, it has become very clear that the cuts are political.

Independent, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and UKIP County Councillors have all seen the dangers of these cuts, but Conservative Councillors have steadfastly stuck to the party line and cut frontline services.

Local MPs have taken no action to ensure we are protected and Government Ministers have steadfastly refused to do their primary duty and protect lives

Parliamentary Candidates in the May General Election have stated their support for the fight against these cuts, including Green Party, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Patria, UKIP & Independent candidates, but no Conservatives.

"It is the job of politicians to serve the public they represent. I believe that forcing swinging cuts on an emergency service is contrary to this." - Jasper Richmond
Green Party candidate for Chichester 

I agree with your concerns and support you all whole heartedly.” - Hazel Thorpe
Liberal Democrat candidate for Worthing West.

Sussex Police Cuts

After a public meeting with the Chief Constable and the Police & Crime Commissioner, we were struck by how different the approach taken by the Police was, compared to that taken by the County Council on fire service cuts. In particular, they were very open and honest about the effect of the cuts.

The P&CC said her residents came before her political party policy, and she had already given the public the option to increase tax to protect services. The Chief Constable said how emergency response would be protected, with the same number of officers. It would even be improved by providing new technology to avoid the need to return to police stations to complete paperwork.

This contrasts starkly with West Sussex County Council’s approach of hiding details of the worst effects, making false claims, holding a sham consultation that had no alternatives, and ignoring all concerns and views. 

Manhood Peninsula Left With No Fire Engine

Once again, on the 7th April, Selsey had the only fire engine available on the Manhood Peninsula, but the part-time firefighters were called in and sent to Midhurst to protect the Midhurst and Petworth areas. This was done despite a full-time and part-time crew being available at both Chichester and Bognor Regis.

Usually, professional Control Room Staff would move a fire engine from a station that had two available, so that they maintain the best distribution of fire engines for a speedy response. However, WSFRS have ignored best practice and told them not to, so that the full-time crews can do other, non-emergency response work!

Part-time Firefighter Comment -  “My boss doesn’t object when I am called away for local fires, but he is not happy when I leave work to sit at another fire station for hours on end.”

Firefighter Comments

Serving firefighters fear for their jobs if they comment on the cuts publicly. Among the comments made to this group in confidence are:

“Morale within the ranks is shockingly poor.”

“They keep talking about prevention being important, but they have just cut hundreds of hours from our prevention work”.

“Saying we were consulted is a joke. They didn't listen, my shift system has been changed and child care now costs me more. It’s worse for others, some have been moved and others have had their pay cut.”

"Bosses are claiming things are good but they are not"

“We are being forced to ride with crews of only four, which means we can’t do all the jobs needed at shouts, unless we take more risks”. (Note - Shouts are a fire service term for incidents)

County Council Dirty Tricks

There have been disgraceful attempts to suggest this group has provided inaccurate and false information, and that some people have ‘other agendas’.

Most of the information used by this group has come from the County Council or from Government Departments. We have provided it in good faith and are not responsible if the Council and Government figures differ. Other information has come from the media, or from firefighters and has been checked wherever possible. In fact we have heard some quite serious allegations, but have not repeated them as they have been uncorroborated.

We are, however, aware of false and inaccurate information being given to the public, the media, to MPs and to County Councillors by WSCC and WSFRS. Examples include figures for fire deaths provided to County Councillors being different to those provided under a Freedom of Information request, and claims that fire engines were being moved when they are actually being cut. Despite claims from the Leader of the Council that the Council is open and transparent, we have encountered a reluctance to provide information and even had Freedom of Information requests refused on technicalities.

As for other agendas, that is simply a lie. All those associated with this group have genuine concerns for public safety. For many that is based on years of experience as firefighters, both full-time and part-time in West Sussex. We are not ‘butterfly’ officers flitting from service to service to further our careers. Most of us have lived and worked in West Sussex for many years, we know the risks, we know the people and we know how damaging these cuts will be.

Those on the group who have not been in the fire service are concerned citizens who, like many West Sussex residents, have seen through the spin and are not prepared to stand idly by and watch a once fine Fire & Rescue Service downgraded for political reasons.

Public and Former Firefighter Comments

“Cutting the fire service is ridiculous, is the Council stupid?”

“I knew nothing about taking our fire engine away.”

“It is disgraceful that cuts are being made at ground floor, but I still see new officer cars that could be a lot smaller and more cost effective.”

“I am just sick of officers giving the public a load of BS.”

“There is a dire need for a review of the existing availability system which appears to work against having pumps on the run.” (Fire engines available)

“Our firefighters are wonderful”

“Why should I get a worse service, just because I live in the country?”

“That is stupid, we need our fire engines."

Media Indifference

We have been asked why we do not get the media to correct the Council’s spin and "get the truth out there". The simple answer is we have been, but for whatever reasons a number of press releases and letters have not been used. We understand the media have many pressures and conflicting priorities, especially the local press, but firefighters and others concerned about the cuts have said that the reporting seems unbalanced.

Whilst claims from the County Council have had wide coverage, with few if any probing questions from the media, views of those opposed to the cuts have had only limited coverage. The Council has also been given a right of reply to all of our statements, but we have not been asked for our views on their claims.

Among press releases issued by the group are:

·  Appalling lack of fire cover in West Sussex - Recent fires in Crawley and Worthing expose serious failures to properly crew fire engines in the County.

·  False 4x4 claims - Claims by the Fire & Rescue Service, following the recent Ambersham Common fire, are “window dressing to cover up cuts”.

·  Fire proves that West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service has been downgraded & firefighters are incensed by false claims from senior officers about cuts that took effect on the 1st April.

There have been some notable exceptions, and we are grateful to those in the media who have tried to report both sides of the debate on these dangerous cuts. All we can do is assure those who are concerned that we have engaged, and will continue to engage, with the media. We will provide the information, but can only hope that they will help to ensure that the public learn the truth.

Major Fires




There has been a lot of hype from the County Council about fewer fires and that we are all safer.

The reality is that, despite some improvements, many fires, crashes and other incidents still occur. Even well maintained fire stations can catch fire, as happened at Arundel.

Only this week ten fire engines were needed at a major fire in Chichester. This highlights the need for adequate resources. The cuts have seriously reduced the service’s ability to respond to large incidents, to storms & floods, to simultaneous incidents, as well as increasing the response time to many incidents.

Real Deterioration in the Protection of West Sussex Residents

These are screen shots from the Fire Service Crew Availability System, sent to us by concerned insiders. Standard Fire Engines are shown with a ‘P’ in their identification. Green if crewed (eg 42P2) and black if not (eg 60P1).

Before the cuts

You will notice that the five fire engines being removed in April were crewed and available on the evening of 31st March.

Yes, there were occasions that four of them could not be crewed, but when they were they helped save lives and property. Now they are unavailable permanently.

The fifth one, removed from Horsham, was actually busy and attended over 600 calls in 2013/14. The part-time crew that will now take their place are often not available (Only 52% available in 2013/14).


After the cuts

Despite assurances that there would be little or no effect, this sample screen shot for the evening of 4th April shows how much worse things are now.


Five fewer fire engines to be crewed and ten of those left were without crews.



2010 – 46 fire engines

2015 – 35 fire engines

Firefighter Comment: “Senior Managers are ignoring Standard Operating Procedures that are meant to keep us safe”



Join the discussion on Facebook: West Sussex Fire & Rescue Stop the Cuts

Freedom of Information Requests at: WhatDoTheyKnow

Monday, 19 January 2015

Press cover WSFRS secrecy

For those that have not seen this in the Crawley News

It is interesting that the spokesman mentions 'conspiracy theories', as I had not considered there may be an organised conspiracy. I had just thought the changes were poor decision making by one or more people in the service. Now you have to wonder if their actions are more sinister and co-ordinated!

Saturday, 17 January 2015

Gatwick Airport – a critical consideration

West Sussex County Council will be debating expansion at Gatwick Airport next week. The content of a letter sent to all County Councillors is shown below:

"There appears to have been an important omission in the debate regarding a possible second runway at Gatwick Airport. That omission concerns consideration of the ability of hospitals, the emergency services, local authorities etc. to cope with an aircraft accident, or other major incident at the Airport.

I believe that the Council should insist on a second runway only being permitted if additional funding is given to those services that have to respond to major incidents at the airport. This is just as important as the infrastructure to support the airport. That funding could come from the airport operator or the Government, but to proceed without it would be reckless. 

It is quite clear that the ambulance service and hospitals are struggling to cope with winter pressures, so their potential to also cope with hundreds of casualties from an air crash must be in serious doubt. The Police have also suffered staffing cuts that affect their ability to deal with major emergencies. The ability of WSCC Social Care to provide support to uninjured survivors and relatives of the injured or deceased is another vital service that has been affected by budget cuts. 

The latest aircraft using Gatwick include the Airbus A380, versions of which carry over 550 passengers, with versions carrying 900 passengers being developed. When you consider that the aircraft involved in the Kegworth air crash in 1989 was only carrying 118 passengers, you get an idea of the significantly greater demand on local services if a larger aircraft crashes at Gatwick. At Kegworth 82 people were seriously injured and it took over seven hours to free them all from the wreckage. The local authority fire service needed 22 fire engines and over 100 firefighters at the incident.

It should also be borne in mind that the Civil Aviation Authority say that planning should consider more than one aircraft being involved in an accident, and the surroundings of the Airport should also be taken in to account. With a busy commuter line at the end of the runway, an aircraft collision with a crowded commuter train must also be considered. Casualties could run in to the thousands.

More specifically for West Sussex County Council, cuts and crewing difficulties have made the fire and rescue service much less able to cope than in previous years. The emergency landing at Gatwick Airport at the end of December showed that, instead of resources increasing to cope with increased risk, they have actually been reduced. The time taken to get resources to the airport has increased significantly, as they have to be sent from stations much further away. The proposed 2015-16 cuts will make this even worse.

When aircraft carried fewer passengers, WSFRS were able to get the full response to the airport by sending fire engines from stations no further away than Horsham. However, at the December incident fewer fire engines had to come from as far away as Bognor Regis, Shoreham and Worthing, with some taking well over an hour to arrive. With the potential for several hundred trapped and injured casualties, that is just not acceptable.

It should also be of concern to Councillors that the pre-planned response has been reduced. A public inquiry would not accept that an emergency service, given notice of a potential crash, did not use the time to assemble sufficient resources to deal with a crash. The current response would have been inadequate for smaller aircraft, so it is wholly inadequate for today’s aircraft.

Please note that the Airport Fire Service depend heavily on support from West Sussex and Surrey Fire & Rescue Services. The Airport Fire Service is only required to provide a full response to crashed aircraft within the airport boundary, and a reduced response to crashed aircraft very near to the airport. They have no responsibility for building fires, chemical incidents, road or rail crashes on or near the airport. They, and the rescue work at an air crash, are a statutory duty of West Sussex County Council.

I would urge you and your colleagues to properly consider this aspect before deciding on your recommendation regarding expansion at the Airport.

Thursday, 8 January 2015

Fire & Rescue Service or Secret Service

Details of the response to fire & rescue service incidents has always been readily available in West Sussex, until now that is. Now it seems they want to keep this information secret.

Information about which fire stations sent fire engines to incidents has been of general interest to the press and public for over 200 years. It has also been of specific interest to fire service professionals, enthusiasts, and especially those monitoring the performance of our fire services.

Concerns about increasing secrecy have been growing alongside plans for cuts to the fire & rescue service, and as more questions have been asked about the service's deteriorating performance. 

As with any secret service they have cover stories ready. When they stopped showing the station name on the side of new fire engines they said it was to save money. Funny though that it coincided with growing concern about nearby fire engines not being crewed, and others having to be sent from stations further away.

Now they have stopped including details about where the fire engines attending incidents have come from on their incident newsletter. They have also now refused to answer a direct request from a member of the public. The reply with their 'cover story' is reproduced below.

It is clearly not, as Mr Towson asserts, to avoid misleading the public. It is another move to try and deceive the press and public in a futile attempt to avoid awkward questions. Not surprising when it appears that to get just 8 standard fire engines at the recent emergency landing at Gatwick Airport they had to attend from as far away as Worthing! Fire cover in West Sussex must have been dire on that day.

It is disgraceful that WSFRS is abandoning the principles of openness and honesty that are fundamental to the Freedom of Information Act. They need to be reminded that "Openness is fundamental to the political health of a modern state", and that "Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in governance and defective decision-making". 

I am not surprised that County Council Cabinet Members are happy to treat the Freedom of Information Act and the public with contempt, but it is deeply disturbing to learn that the Chief Fire Officer is doing the same. Responsible County Councillors and the media should be objecting strongly to this new secrecy.


The letter:

Dear Mr Allison,
We have stopped routinely providing this level of detail after reviewing our media and communication priorities.
The focus for fire & rescue services is to improve public safety and reduce risk through our protection and prevention activities, supported by a professional response capability. All WSFRS resources and activities work to achieve this objective, including the role of our media & communications team.
We welcome interest in the operational role of the fire and rescue service and we will continue to provide basic incident information, particularly where this can be used to highlight public safety messages. However, to allow our small media team to focus on our wider priorities we are changing the way incident news is reported. We no longer include ‘low level’ incidents like bin fires, for example, or details like the home station of every fire appliance that attended.
To provide home station information does not always accurately reflect the FRS attendance. Our firefighters and fire engines are county-wide assets and we have always moved them around the county to match risk and demand, and provide the best strategic cover. ‘Pumps’ can be moved for a number of reasons, including incidents in progress or a pre-arranged swap to cover training or large exercises. If a pump from one station is on standby at a different station and subsequently attends a fire there, this does not mean the ‘home’ station was the nearest available and it can mislead the public if it is reported so. In another example, a fire engine from one station can be mobilised as the support crew to a nearer ‘special’ appliance from another station. The ‘support crew’ is more about our operating practices than an indication of the size of the incident, and the type of vehicle used (a 4x4 for example) is often just the mode of transport used for getting firefighters to the scene. Again, this can be misleading if appliances are simply listed.
As I have already stated the reason for recent changes to our bulletins is to support our wider comms objectives and improve public safety, and brings WSFRS more in-line with the working practices of other FRS comms teams. My colleague Sarah has already provided you with the numbers of appliances attending the incidents you mentioned, and I hope this further explanation helps to why we no do not routinely provide the additional information you asked for.
Regards
Gary Towson

Tuesday, 18 November 2014

Newspaper coverage continues

Just some examples of how on line versions of newspapers provide opportunities to keep the issue alive in their comments section:

Nick Herbert MP

Francis Maude MP

WSCC Flood Prevention

Plus another example of newspapers picking up on the story:- 

Fire service cuts condemned
Monday, 10 November 2014

WEST Sussex Fire and Rescue 'Stop the Cuts' campaigner Tony Morris has condemned the county council’s decision to cut the service budget by £1.6m as a “death sentence”. 

A motion to overturn the decision by Michael Jones, the Labour member for Crawley, was rejected by 28 councillors. 

The cuts include the loss of two fire engines at Midhurst and Petworth, and the loss of three firefighters at both Bognor and Chichester. 

For full story, see this week's Liphook Herald.