The 2025 What Firefighters Want survey zeroed in on what firefighters believe about the fire service’s persistent intramural squabble about safety and aggressiveness on the fireground. Not surprisingly, there are strong feelings on the topic, and the emotions driving the responses are hard to ignore absent local context or data to support the visceral reaction.
The good news: While there has certainly been safety vs. aggressive rhetoric on social media that seems to serve a personal agenda or fan ego more than the fire department or community, the What Firefighters Want survey responses revealed thoughtful discourse and, what may be surprising to some, a lot of agreement that you can, in fact, be safe and aggressive.
| ON-DEMAND WEBINAR: What Firefighters Want in 2025 — aggressive tactics + safety culture
Nearly 88% of respondents consider themselves to be an aggressive firefighter, and 97% consider themselves to be a safe firefighter — a strong overlap supported by the fact that 95% of respondents believe safety culture and aggressive firefighting can indeed coexist. Bottom line: The safety culture that has become such a staple of fire service discourse does not preclude aggressive tactics, and aggressive tactics can actually drive safe fireground decisions.
The numbers so strongly lean toward a single perspective that you’d think we could just put the issue to bed and call it a day. However, the survey data and free text responses from our 1,600 active firefighter respondents highlight the complexity of the discussion, nuances over defining key terminology, and clear misunderstanding about some of our foundational principles of go/no-go decision making that we must dig deeper to understand why the debate continues.
Let’s dig in.
Why are we fighting?
First things first, when did we arrive at the notion that safe and aggressive are mutually exclusive? Why do we feel like we need to pick a side? Why aren’t we working hard to ensure that both occur in concert? Any fire service leader worth their weight will tell you that if you aggressively train, deploy sensibly under a solid tactical plan managed by emotionally intact adults, then the fire will go out more quickly and you will therefore be safer because you spent less time in the hazard area. Conversely, if you don’t have enough people and can’t get a hoseline in place in a timely fashion, or the people you have are unskilled or reckless, then you will be less successful in putting out the fire, spend more time in the hazard zone as the fire progresses, and likely increase the risk of an adverse fire event.
Underlying all of this is a simple premise: Fires are not there for our tactical entertainment. They are not sport. They are not “adult playtime.” They are serious business, and our goal should be to stop the fire (more or less) right where it was when we got there, and all effort should be expended to that end. Once we acknowledge this, we can have a more thoughtful discussion about the intersection of safety and aggression.
The problem with definitions
It is notable in the survey that there is no standard definition of safe or aggressive as it relates to fireground behavior. The goal was to hear from you, to start with your definition and then see how that colored the subsequent questions about fireground actions. The survey responses help us declutter the myriad definitions and perspectives on these terms and isolate consistent mindsets around the coexistence of safe and aggressive tactics.
Interestingly, definitions changed depending on the location (rural, urban, suburban) and department type (career, volunteer), with career department personnel more often identifying as “aggressive.” From a data perspective, that variability makes analysis less precise; however, it makes perfect sense from the real-world perspective. For example, as a career firefighter, a sense of predictability is threaded through our fireground decision-making. As an engine company boss in a suburban community, I knew I could take specific actions as the first-arriving company because we had a tremendous water supply system and a relatively dense community with a good road network. Therefore, I could promptly cross the threshold with an attack line, with the understanding that the second-due engine was likely pulling into the block as I made my move (followed shortly by the remainder of the assignment). In that case, aggressiveness was based on a manageable time interval for our response and the response of the other companies, good water, decent staffing and skilled firefighters. All of that came together to provide a level of safety while we were operating.
Balance that expectation with the reduced (or absent) predictability of responding with a volunteer fire department, in a rural area, without a municipal water supply and no guaranteed/known number of firefighters to respond. This may even be exacerbated during days and times with reduced member availability. So the risk calculus is different when it’s one or two members and the UPS driver getting the first line in position. You can’t automatically operate or assume the ultra-aggressive operational posture simply because you don’t have enough water, people or stuff to make the fire and the building behave.
So, I think we can all recognize that safe is not an absolute; it is a process or compilation of things to reduce the likelihood of injury or death. Similarly, aggressive is not an absolute. One person’s aggressive may be another’s tepid.
And no matter how safe or how aggressive, you can always level up or down. So, where you sit on the issue is largely driven by what seat you ride in (or your role at the department) as well as the department and community you serve.
Furthermore, looking at the definitions from the perspective of rank and role influence, the results reveal that more than three-quarters of members with five or fewer years on the job hold front-line positions while two-thirds of members with more than 20 years on the job occupy company- or chief-level roles, which likely shapes their divergent views on tactical freedom, discipline and cultural climate. Interestingly, over 70% of the respondents say their department encourages members to report unsafe practices. However, only 54% report that discipline takes place for unsafe practices. If this disparity is because retraining or some other form of correction takes place, then great. But if the disparity exists because we report and then ignore, we must get to work.
Unpacking your words
One area of concern to emerge from the What Firefighters Want responses was a general misunderstanding of some of our most foundational principles like 2-in/2-out and risk analysis, plus evidence pointing to a lack of leadership and responsibility.
Several respondents reported that extra steps, such as two-in, two-out, incident action plans, and real-time safety briefings, force companies to delay action. Is this a reflection of an over-focus on safety or a lack of focus or ability? As one respondent stated, “Safety culture costs time our victims do not have.” A 360 of the building, rapid consideration of critical size-up elements, and determination of go/no-go (including whether 2-in/2-out applies) takes less than 3 minutes for the skilled fire company. It takes just about the same amount of time to stretch a line, get your mask on, bleed the line, and be ready to go (including having a tool to take with you into the hazard zone). Proficiency reduces this number, not diminishing the safe way the tasks are accomplished. “It takes too much time” to be safe is the mantra of the lazy or unprepared.
Along those lines, let’s review some of the sentiments shared in the survey and consider where a mindset shift is needed.
An “everybody goes home” mantra has become “nobody goes in.” This idea was conveyed in several comments:
- “Our organization hides behind the title of safety and everyone goes home, at the risk of our citizens and fellow firefighters. Less emphasis has been placed on interior fire attack, building construction, and condition identification.”
- “At times, command staff is so focused on ‘everyone goes home’ that we do not give the public the full service we can provide.”
I would ask those individuals to please point me to the fire department that forbids its members from performing an interior attack where appropriate. A very smart fire officer I once worked for often stated that “never, always, can’t and won’t” are words that are very dangerous to firefighter health and safety. And he was (and still is) right. We understand that “everyone goes home” is an aspirational goal. The sacrifice of firefighters painfully illustrates that it isn’t globally achievable. But to use that as a call to inaction rather than action is misplaced.
Another sentiment shared: “We’re putting the safety of the member over safety of victims.”
Says who? At the very least, it is an interesting interpretation that is not consistent with the messaging, over time, of the efforts to reduce preventable LODDs.
Additionally, when asked if safety culture and aggressive firefighting can coexist, several respondents answered no, with some interesting reasons why:
- “A safety culture to me is the mindset of everything we do is based off safety. I don’t think you can do both.”
- “Aggressive firefighting is inherently dangerous.”
This narrow vision and lack of understanding of what both “aggressive” and “safe” mean is sad and disappointing, not to mention inconsistent with what the largest portion of survey respondents shared. Nearly 95% of respondents believe the two can coexist. Here’s a snapshot of some of their comments:
- “Aggressive doesn’t mean unsafe. Aggressive means calculated and efficient.”
- “With proper knowledge, training and experience one can be aggressive while maintaining his/her safety.”
- “With proper risk management training and application, both can very easily coexist.”
- “You can be aggressive, if you know the risks and the hazards.”
As mentioned, not everything in the fire service can or should be either this or that. Not everything is black and white. In fact, besides our commitment to the citizen and commitment to support each other, nearly everything else is a nuanced shade of gray. Not only can we be safe and aggressive, I’d offer that our imperative to serve says we must be safe and aggressive. The consequences to the citizen, the department, the member and their family are too great to accept half effort in either area.
Get aggressive
The other talented authors featured in this project (who, yes, have been to a fire or two) will dissect the trends found through the survey data and offer insight and suggestions on what it means for your department and you. I urge you to read them all. As you do, calibrate your thoughts, beliefs and ideas with their wisdom. When you’ve finished reading, please share it with someone else. Then get to work aggressively training, aggressively working to become a better firefighter, aggressively working to prevent fires and reduce the risk of fire in your community. Become aggressive about your health (physical, mental, spiritual). Be aggressive in your pursuit of knowledge. Do all of that and you might (just maybe) become a safer firefighter.
Final thoughts
The fire service will always have something to argue about. We’ve been through the right color for fire apparatus (it’s red, by the way), smooth bore vs. fog, PPV, VES and for some who have been around a while, turning in your rubber hip boots for a set of bunker pants. All with controversy. All with passion on both sides. Parts solved by data, science, research and hard work. Most forgotten in the evolution of the fire service as we return, each time, to the core function: How do we best serve the citizens and visitors to our community? As your firehouse discussion and kitchen table banter includes the words safe and aggressive, I urge you to focus on precisely how to provide the best service within our means, without getting ourselves killed, and maximize the outcomes for the citizen.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
John Oates is the CEO of the International Public Safety Data Institute. Prior to being appointed as CEO, he served as chief of the East Hartford (Connecticut) Fire Department. He has a bachelor’s degree from Franklin Pierce University, a master’s degree from Oklahoma State University, is a graduate of the National Fire Academy Executive Fire Officer Program, and holds numerous professional certifications. Chief Oates is a longtime contributor to the NFFF’s Everyone Goes Home Program, and serves as a member of the Behavioral Health Advisory Committee created by the First Responder Center for Excellence.
How do you define aggressive firefighting?
- “Training firefighters to be smart firefighters; training and increasing in knowledge daily — this all translates into aggressive firefighting.”
- “Smart, aware firefighters make safe firefighters.”
- “Being aggressive means getting the job done and utilizing sound tactics to achieve the objectives.”
- “It is a fine line between safe, aggressive firefighting and being dangerous. With the use of the Risk vs Reward ideology, safe, aggressive tactics can still be employed.”
- “Aggressive does not mean reckless. Calculated risk.”
- “We can be aggressive when we need to be, but being aggressive at every single building is not the perfect answer.”
- “Aggressiveness is putting your own interests ahead of others — we must be mindful and intentional in our actions.”
- “You can be aggressive and still in control. Don’t rush for the sake of rushing to the point of being dangerous.”
- “Know your situation, look at the big picture and make good, educated decisions.”
- “Situational awareness is paramount. All members must recognize changing conditions to allow aggressiveness to continue.”
- “Safety is accomplished with training and preparedness. Aggressive firefighting can be accomplished with disciplined and calculated firefighting without compromising safety.”
