By Chad Crouse
In today’s age of cutting-edge firefighting technology, it seems that new tech is being pushed on us almost daily, with each product promising to revolutionize the way we fight fires and respond to emergency incidents.
Given this ever-growing exposure, whether it be through publications, conference exhibit halls or hands-on demonstrations, one would believe that modern firefighting technology is widely adopted and accepted. However, the results of FireRescue1’s recent What Firefighters Want survey suggest otherwise. Specifically, when over 1,600 firefighters were asked to identify the tech tools they are utilizing on fire scenes or during fireground training, the results suggest that few such technologies are even marginally adopted, let alone widely.
While we can’t know for sure the reasons for the low rates of technology adoption, there are some clues in the data that may suggest why this is happening and, more importantly, what we can do about it as an industry.
| SPECIAL REPORT: What Firefighters Want in 2025
The confidence curve
From the first day at the academy, firefighters are trained to rely on repetition. The muscle memory of the fire service is built here. Academies across the country emphasize aggressive hoseline advancement, victim removal, ventilation and forcible entry, but how many are integrating advanced technology into those lessons?
Each state has specific performance objectives that need to be met to ensure that new firefighters can pass both a physical and written examination. Time is at a premium, and instructors do everything possible to get them through ropes, ladders and SCBA. As a result, firefighters develop early confidence in traditional tactics without exposure to newer technologies, creating a “confidence curve” that technology must overcome later in their careers. By the time new technologies are introduced, whether it’s a real-time GPS tracker, biometric sensor or a digital command board, firefighters already have a mental model of what works, and anything that adds complexity or delay is viewed with suspicion.
Here’s how this plays out over the course of a career:
Early career
- The fireground is all “System 1 thinking” — fast, instinctive and muscle-memory driven.
- Firefighters are trained to act decisively — see smoke, grab a line, mask up, go.
- Technology that isn’t introduced early is not developed as part of their mental model for success.
- Firegrounds feel chaotic and fast-moving. The mental bandwidth is spent on doing your job and staying alive; there’s little room left for thinking about technology.
Middle career
- With experience, scenes begin to slow down, conditions are anticipated, not just reacted to.
- Pattern recognition improves, but it’s built on reps from earlier in the curve where technology was likely not incorporated.
- Tools like command software or accountability systems are viewed as redundant or distracting.
- Common mindset: “I don’t need a screen to tell me what’s happening, I’ve seen this before.”
- Experience becomes the operating system, and many times, it works just fine without tech. Further, each scene that goes well without an adopted technology only strengthens this mindset.
Later career
- Firefighters move into mentorship and leadership roles, shaping culture from the top down.
- They train others based on what worked for them, not necessarily what’s emerging.
- There’s still reverence for the “salty” senior firefighter who never needed fancy tools.
- Younger firefighters mirror that mindset: “If my captain didn’t need it, maybe I don’t either.”
Example: Thermal imagers
Introduced to the fire service in 1998, thermal imagers faced early skepticism but became normalized through hands-on exposure and consistent use in live burns and drills. In the What Firefighters Want survey, thermal imagers were reported as one of the most widely adopted technologies in the survey at nearly 99% — and that didn’t happen by accident. Their widespread adoption is the result of aggressive, sustained training initiatives designed to rewire firefighter muscle memory and integrate the tool into core fireground operations. This shift took time, repetition and cultural buy-in.
What can we learn from this? In order for new technologies to be adopted they must follow the same path early introduction, frequent training and accountability from leadership. Anything less will leave new tools trapped behind the confidence curve.
Context and conditions
Fireground are constantly shifting, environments evolve rapidly, and seconds matter. In these moments, technology that requires interpretation, setup or manual interaction is often sidelined. Tools like command software (15%), biometric wearables (2%) and real-time GPS tracking (4%) clearly offer valuable information, but in the middle of a fully involved structure fire, they are often seen as one more distraction in an already chaotic scene.
This reality helps explain why some tools see much higher adoption than others. According to the survey, portable gas detectors were widely used (81%), but their use is almost always tied to low-stress, non-emergent environments. Smells of gas, carbon monoxide calls and post-fire overhaul are ideal scenarios for crews to pause, analyze and make measured decisions. In contrast, the other tools identified in the survey are designed for real-time application during fire suppression and remain nearly absent from the fireground, not because they aren’t useful but because they can’t keep up with the speed that these scenes demand.
Another key factor is how and when technology becomes a necessity. For example, during a gas leak, a monitor is the only reliable way to assess safety; there’s no backup for identifying odorless gases or determining explosive atmospheres. Firefighters use it not necessarily because they want to but because they have to. This kind of “forced adoption” based on need, rather than convenience, is often the gateway for technology to earn trust. But most technologies are not afforded this kind of operational clarity.
Increase adoption
If we want to increase the use of critical fireground technology, we must acknowledge a couple of things about the fire environment. First and foremost, fires don’t pause for us to figure out how to use a tool. Our tech needs to be simple, fast and built for use under stress, designed to enhance decision-making without slowing it down.
Second, in the case of wearables, GPS tracking and command software, we have to understand the limitations of the focus of our incident commanders. Every time we provide something else for an IC to monitor, we take their eyes off something else. This is where the role of a dedicated chief aide becomes invaluable. By assigning the responsibility of monitoring real-time data streams, digital command boards or personnel tracking systems to a trusted aide, we free up the IC to remain tactically engaged, with eyes on the fireground rather than buried in a tablet. The aide serves as a conduit between technology and command. This not only preserves the IC’s situational awareness but also helps bridge the gap between advanced tools and effective decision-making on scene.
Compatibility and practicality
Simply put, not every new piece of technology deserves a place on the fire scene — and this isn’t a firefighter resistance issue, it’s a relevance issue. Firefighters aren’t rejecting innovation because they dislike progress or they’re worried about being replaced; they’re rejecting it because the tool in question doesn’t solve the problems they are facing on today’s modern fireground. Technology solutions can look impressive in a demo or work well in a controlled training evolution, but how do they fare in a real-world environment? Are they durable? Can they handle rain, snow and heat? Do they need connectivity, and if the answer is yes, how reliable is the connection?
To improve adoption, both vendors and agencies need to focus less on the novelty of the new and more on practical integration. That means designing systems that are intuitive, fast-loading, and perhaps most importantly, forgiving of human error. They should test and train in environments that reflect fireground realities, not just ideal lab conditions. If a tool can’t be operated with gloved hands, in low visibility and under time pressure, it’s probably not ready for the front lines.
Moving forward
The future of fireground technology is promising, but its success depends on a constant reality check from the people who use it. After all, I can remember beginning my career utilizing a map book and providing handwritten run reports to the ED. A little over 20 years later, our patient care reporting system incorporates AI, and our units respond with an array of GIS mapping layers at their fingertips.
Firefighters play a critical role in keeping the tech industry honest and reminding developers that tools must function in smoke-filled hallways, not just in theory. At the same time, when a technology proves its value, when it’s truly reliable, intuitive and enhances safety or efficiency, it deserves more than our grudging acceptance. It deserves us to be champions for it.
The fire service must be as willing to embrace what works as it is to push back on what doesn’t. Only then can we ensure that future innovations will serve the mission of the fire service.
| WATCH: ‘Technology is the lure’: Kirk McKinzie talks FF recruitment, engagement
