Two things that most fire service personnel seem to agree on are their collective dislike for change and the way things are, right now. To the outside world, this seems a bit odd, but for many in this profession, this contradiction underlines their entire career. To be fair, without a little forward thinking, it’s easy for anyone to get stuck in the past. On the flip side, jumping on every new idea can cause change fatigue and has the potential to cause just as many morale and safety issues as maintaining the status quo.
The safety vs. aggression debate
The debate over safety culture and aggressive firefighting tactics seems to be one of those topics where fire service personnel fall into the “change” dichotomy. For the past few years, we’ve seen some argue that firefighter safety trumps all other priorities on the fire scene, and on other end of the spectrum, some argue that aggressive tactics is what gets the job done, with supporters emphasizing that the scene actually becomes safer once aggressive tactics are deployed. (Of course, how you define “safe” and “aggressive” is at the heart of the issue here, but you can read all about that in some of the other articles in this series.) As with many persistent debates, the answer likely falls somewhere between the two extremes — and this year’s What Firefighters Want survey results are helping us unpack the nuance.
Nearly 91% of the respondents reported their department “demonstrates a strong commitment to safety.” Does that mean that we as a fire service have become less aggressive in our fireground tactics? Some might argue that number indicates just that. However, over 86% of respondents indicated that their department supports aggressive fireground tactics. So, the vast majority of survey participants serve in fire departments that are both aggressive and safety-minded. How does this happen?
It comes down to policies and procedures.
The role of policy
Every department should have policies and procedures — and not just relegated to a binder in the station or a folder somewhere on the city’s intranet. Policies and procedures must be vetted, understood and continuously trained on by all members of the department, no matter what their rank.
Let’s say you want to get your department to a healthy level of aggressiveness while maintaining a fireground that is as safe as practicable. You’ve put together a committee that has drafted policies and procedures that cover everything from primary search and water supply to rapid intervention and ventilation. On paper, you’ve got everything handled. Congratulations, you have an aggressive fire department with a strong safety culture. Wrong!
When policies and procedures are drafted, it is done so with the benefit of a non-stressful, non-time-compressed, nobody-is-going-to-die atmosphere of the fire station office setting. It’s like the car commercials that have the disclaimer in the fine print at the bottom of the screen: “Professional driver on a closed course.” Your policies and procedures are written in a “closed course” environment. All you really have is a bunch of words that tell people what they should do in certain situations.
Many times, the validity of tactical and strategic policies and procedures is not determined until a specific situation arises on the fireground. Here’s where vetting, training and understanding come into play. Policies and procedures that have not been vetted for current best practices or statutory and regulatory constraints pose a liability issue and can even cause safety issues on the scene. Likewise, when all members of the department don’t train on and understand the tactical and strategic policies and procedures, we see confusion as to when a more conservative approach is warranted and when a more aggressive decision is appropriate.
Policy in action
The survey results also reveal that aggressive tactics deployed in a relatively safe manner aren’t just the product of vetting, learning and understanding the fireground policies and procedures. Nearly 92% of the participants report that their department, “provides the tools members need to operate safely on scene.” Another 74% indicated that their department “conducts after-action reviews after building fires.” Those two points go hand in hand when we’re talking about aggressive tactics and safety.
Does your department have a committee to test new tools and tactics? Does it allow members to make suggestions or use tools and equipment that are not provided by the department? A good policy that the members understand can go a long way in preventing problems, and it typically encourages personnel to participate in the process. Consider items like bailout harnesses. Do they make the average fireground task inherently safer? Probably not. But could having one and being able to use it correctly mean the difference between walking away from an incredibly dangerous situation and suffering a life-altering injury or even death? In many cases, the answer is resoundingly affirmative.
When we consider the role of after-action reviews (AARs), we’re talking about both safety and tactics. AARs provide a chance for the shift, company, battalion or even the entire department to analyze the good, bad and ugly aspects of an operation. With any luck, your AAR policy will require memorializing the most significant findings in some sort of document so others can review it later or use it for training. Without documented AARs, it can be tough to achieve widespread learning following a major incident.
With nearly three-quarters of the survey participants reporting that their department conducts AARs following building fires, my guess is those departments have a policy in place that requires a review of major incidents. Having a policy that delineates when formal AARs are conducted has multiple benefits:
- It helps remind command staff of the need for an AAR the next shift, drill or meeting night.
- It provides an automatic setting to review things like new tactics, tools and equipment.
- It allows personnel to be more comfortable, as they know there will be an AAR after each major incident. If the department only holds an AAR when something goes wrong, members are less likely to share their observations and thoughts because they want to avoid having the spotlight turned on them. On the other hand, if the personnel know there is an AAR after every major incident, they will be more prepared to talk about the ups and downs of the incident without feeling threatened.
Enforcement and review
We’ve covered aggressive tactics, commitment to safety, access to tools to help improve operational safety, and AARs. We’ve discussed the importance of training to help ensure the members understand and follow the policies and procedures related to each of those things. But there is another piece to the puzzle. Department leaders must ensure that those policies and procedures and consistently enforced and regularly reviewed. Close to 72% of the survey participants reported that their departments are doing just that. Another 64% indicated that their departments regularly update their policies and procedures to align with safety best practices.
Consistent enforcement of the rules is a critical component to developing a fire department that is both aggressive in its tactics and operates with a strong commitment to safety. We all have seen what happens when enforcement is haphazard. Aggressiveness sometimes becomes confused with recklessness. When this happens, it’s a losing proposition for the public we are sworn to protect as well as our fire service personnel.
Policy evolution
In this business, we should constantly strive to improve. That mantra isn’t limited to strategy and tactics. As line personnel hone their on-scene skills, department leadership needs to ensure their policies and procedures stay up to date with industry best practices. Consider communications on the scene. It wasn’t all that long ago when portable radios were few and far between on the fireground. The incident commander and officers might have one, but most personnel did not. Now, the standard is a portable radio for every riding position.
Similarly, it’s not hard to find personnel who didn’t wear hoods earlier in their career because they weren’t a requirement. Now, the hood is considered an integral part of PPE, and most personnel would feel naked without one. Or consider how far the fire service has come (and how far we still have to go) when it comes to the reduction of exposure to carcinogens. Has your department updated the respiratory protection policy and/or SCBA procedure to include mandatory use during overhaul? Does your department have a policy for deconning at the scene or cleaning PPE?
The point here is that most departments are regularly reviewing and updating their safety-related policies and procedures. However, as the survey indicates, 35% of survey respondents don’t see that happening. Consider that the U.S. Fire Administration lists about 27,000 fire departments in the United States. One-third constitutes about 9,000. That’s roughly 9,000 fire departments that are not regularly reviewing and updating their safety policies. That’s 9,000 departments that are taking the chance that their current practices aren’t up to the national standards.
We’re talking about 9,000 fire chiefs that don’t ensure a regular review and update of their policies, for multiple reasons. Maybe it’s due to time, budget or personnel constraints. Maybe it’s due to the “that won’t work here” mentality that runs rampant in our business. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s because the collective opinion of the department is that safe practices and aggressive tactics can’t coexist.
Go beyond existence
So, is it possible for a fire department to place a high value on safety and still employ aggressive fireground tactics? Judging by the 2025 What Firefighters Want Survey results, most firefighters do not believe the two to be mutually exclusive. Of course, it’s not as easy as answering a single question. Balance between aggressiveness and safety requires commitment at all levels of the department. The most tangible example of that commitment comes in the form of policies and procedures. But remember, policies and procedures can’t merely exist; they must be vetted, trained on and understood by all personnel, and they must be consistently enforced by department leadership.
