Every firefighter knows the feeling of stepping off the rig, doing that split-second mental scan, and instantly judging whether the situation you’re about to walk into is stacked in your favor or stacked against you. You know what tools you have, which ones you don’t, the strengths of your crew, the limitations of the day, and the tone of the incident before your boots even hit the pavement.
Firefighters don’t need a report to tell them how prepared their department is. They feel it on every call.
| eBook: What Firefighters Want in 2025 — Aggressive + safe tactics
FireRescue1’s What Firefighters Want survey zeroed in on three deceptively simple questions that get to the heart of that feeling. These weren’t the dramatic “war story” questions or the philosophical debates that split leadership conferences. They asked firefighters whether their department provides the tools to work safely, whether members have autonomy to choose tactics, and whether the department recognizes the real-world truth that saving a life sometimes requires taking a risk.
The answers form a picture of a modern fire service that is evolving but still wrestling with consistency, communication and culture. Let’s take a deeper look at what firefighters revealed.
Do firefighters have the tools they need to operate safely?
A remarkable 91.55% of firefighters indicate that their department provides the tools they need to operate safely. In a profession where budgets are tight, leadership is stretched and equipment is expensive, this is a major win. It reflects years of progress for better PPE, improved SCBA, modern hose and nozzle packages, thermal imagers, portable radios, and increasingly specialized rescue equipment.
But as every firefighter knows, percentages rarely tell the whole story because equipment confidence varies by station, crew and context. So, when nearly 8% of respondents say they do not have the tools needed to operate safely, that tells us something important — that averages do not fix inconsistencies.
These firefighters are experiencing daily operational challenges that their peers may not. Their reality might look something like this:
- A ladder truck with ground ladders that haven’t been replaced in decades
- An engine with only one working TIC for a four-person crew
- Stations waiting months for parts or replacements because the city froze purchasing
- PPE sets in a cycle of patch-and-pray instead of systematic replacement
One of the fire service’s greatest cultural challenges is this: If most stations have what they need, organizations sometimes assume all stations have what they need. Firefighters, however, don’t think in averages. They think in shifts, in calls, in outcomes.
Furthermore, having tools isn’t enough; firefighters must be competent in their use. A rarely acknowledged truth is that training is a tool. A brand-new forcible entry prop or ventilator is useless if only firefighters trained on it throughout last year. Many departments struggle with:
- Limited training hours
- Too many competing annual requirements
- Over-reliance on online modules
- Apparatus out of service during training blocks
- Inconsistent officer engagement in hands-on reps
A tool only improves safety when the firefighter is confident, practiced and conditioned to use it under stress. And that confidence varies widely between departments even within the same shift.
Do firefighters have tactical autonomy?
Nearly 80% of firefighters reported that their department gives them autonomy to choose the tactics that fit the scenario. That is a powerful endorsement of company-level decision-making, which is one of the cornerstones of effective, modern fireground operations. But autonomy is a complicated topic inside the firehouse.
Autonomy requires trust and trust requires competence. Firefighters want to be trusted. Officers want to make decisions. Chiefs want to know that their companies can adapt in real time without operating recklessly. When autonomy works well, it’s because:
- Crews train together often
- Officers communicate expectations clearly
- Experience is respected
- Policies are written as guidelines, not rigid scripts
In these environments, firefighters feel empowered to choose the tactic that matches the conditions. This reveals itself by stretching past the living room instead of stopping short because “the SOG says X,” or switching from exterior to interior when new information comes in.
But for the hundreds who report that they don’t have autonomy, three common issues can potentially emerge:
- Overly prescriptive policies. Some departments write SOGs like legal documents, leaving officers feeling boxed in even when conditions clearly require deviation. This creates hesitation or inaction — two of the most dangerous operational liabilities.
- Micromanagement from the command post. Incident commanders who provide step-by-step direction to companies performing basic tasks erode officers’ confidence and paralyze initiative. Firefighters know when they’re being controlled instead of led.
- Discipline-focused cultures. Where every after-action critique is about whether an officer “followed policy exactly,” departments inadvertently create a culture that punishes adaptability, the very trait that saves lives. We must understand that autonomy isn’t freedom, it’s responsibility.
The strongest autonomy cultures are those where firefighters:
- Understand the department’s risk profile
- Can defend their tactical choices with experience and logic
- Train for unpredictable environments
- Communicate with command effectively
Firefighters overwhelmingly want autonomy, but they also want clarity. They want to know the boundaries, the expectations and the intent behind operational decisions, not just the policy wording.
Does the department understand the need to take risks to make rescues?
Here we arrive at the heart of the fire service’s most important philosophical debate: How much risk is acceptable in the name of saving a life?
Nearly 79% of firefighters believe their department understands this equation. That matters, and honestly, I was surprised. This means firefighters feel supported when the situation demands pushing the limits. But for many respondents, the opposite is true.
This disagreement isn’t about recklessness, it’s about clarity. Because the modern fire service messaging has circulated phrases like:
- “Risk a lot to save a lot.”
- “Risk nothing to save nothing.”
- “We will not die for what is already lost.”
They are good principles in theory, but the devil is in the interpretation. If firefighters feel their department is risk-averse to the point of paralysis, then some real problems emerge: Crews hesitate at the front door. Seconds matter. Uncertainty kills. When firefighters aren’t sure whether the department will support a push to the bedroom hallway, they naturally pause. This encourages firefighters to make aggressive decisions anyway, albeit often silently and independently. This is worse. This means the culture isn’t aligned, and the risk-taking that is occurring is happening without shared understanding or support from the IC or other companies operating on the scene.
Putting it all together
Each question addressed above points to a specific operational theme, but together, they provide a holistic snapshot of the American fire service, one where firefighters feel supported but see the cracks. The overwhelming agreement in all three categories suggests a fire service that wants to get it right. Departments are investing in equipment, empowering companies and acknowledging the realities of modern rescue work.
But firefighters also see:
- Unequal equipment distribution
- Policy constraints that don’t reflect the fireground
- Leadership inconsistencies
- Gaps between official messaging and actual expectations
We know when the equipment budget favors some stations more than others. We know when autonomy is encouraged on paper but discouraged in critique. We know when chiefs say they support calculated risk but write policies that contradict that stance.
Consistency is the new operational battleground. The fire service doesn’t need perfection, it needs predictability. Crews must know what to expect from their gear, their officers, their command staff and their organization’s philosophy on risk. When firefighters experience inconsistency, they fill the gaps with workarounds. And workarounds, while common, are not culture but are symptoms.
Trust is our most essential tool
Tools matter. Autonomy matters. Risk tolerance matters. But beneath every data point and every survey response lies the same truth: Trust is what firefighters truly want. They want to trust that their equipment will function under pressure. They want to trust that their department believes in their judgment. They want to trust that if they take a justified risk to save a life, their organization will stand behind them.
The fireground is unforgiving. The environment is changing faster than tactics, construction or staffing models can fully keep up with. But the message firefighters are sending is clear: If departments communicate openly, trust their people, invest consistently and articulate their expectations honestly, they will rise to meet whatever the fireground throws at them. What we want isn’t complicated. We want to be equipped, empowered and supported. And most importantly, we want to be trusted to do the job we’ve trained our entire careers to do.
| On-demand webinar: What Firefighters Want in 2025
Explore what the 2025 survey data reveals about how fireground tactics are executed and how safety culture is perceived. Watch a clip from the webinar:
