Fire Engineering Training Community

Where firefighters come to talk training

It never ceases to amaze me how the small minded and weak tend to dominate the world of politics and government. I am convinced that these weasels who are so common in government work are constantly trying to get back at the rest of us who actually made the team in high school. I recently wrote about how difficult it is to make decisions on the fire ground. I spoke about how the mind works and how a complicated and dynamic environment like the fire ground can become very confusing very quickly. I wrote about the fact that the human mind can only handle about four or five different variables and 6 to 7 different decisions before our capacity is overcome. This is not my opinion this is the opinion of scientists and psychologists who have studied the human mind for hundreds of years. Yet today I received a note from a young man who was involved in a fire, a tragic fire, who is now being targeted by his department for disciplinary action for making what they are calling "mistakes".

I am going to attach my editorial to the bottom of this blog, but the crux of the matter is this first no one goes on the fire ground with the intention of hurting anyone ever. Second mistakes only look like mistakes in hindsight if we thought we were making a mistake at the time and we knew we could hurt someone we wouldn't do it. Third it's very easy when you're talking about a fire or after a fire is over to seem like an absolute genius because you have all the answers. But to tell you the truth I've never seen a genius on the fire ground with me. I've attached the editorial I wrote I hope you enjoy it. Please let me know what you think. And remind those in your local governments when they decide to go after somebody who was in a tremendously difficult situation and things didn't go perfectly that "if you've never been in a fight you have no business commenting on the fighters".

Is Making a Mistake a Crime
There is a growing interest in using criminal prosecution as a tool to try to improve safety in the American fire service. Improving safety is connected directly with learning especially from incidents that did not go well or resulted in tragedy. This learning is deeply connected to our number-one principle which is continuous improvement. The legal system is generally a tool for punishment. Learning and punishment are two mutually exclusive activities, we must decide if we want to punish or if we want to learn.
In accidents there is a tendency for organizations to want to protect themselves from scrutiny and responsibility. Couple this with the public’s desire to hold someone accountable, a bloodlust for a sacrificial lamb and you have the perfect storm for what really is an injustice. Holding an individual accountable for a series of systemic and organizational failures coupled with a set of highly intricate and dynamically complex relationships that resulted in some type of catastrophic failure is wrong.
Take for example the case of the USS Indianapolis on its ill-fated voyage on July 30, 1945 a night that would claim the lives of 879 sailors, forever destroy the reputation and career of an exemplary and well distinguished Capt. McVay be responsible for the suicide for his suicide 23 years later.
On 30 July 1945, the Indianapolis was hit by two torpedoes she went down in about 12 minutes. Estimates say that 900 sailors made it into the water and when they were rescued five days later only 317 have survived the exposure and the relentless attack of sharks. Capt. McVay was subsequently court-martialed for according to the Navy, failing to zigzag as was the policy when submarines were reported in the area, and failing to order evacuation of the ship in a timely manner
Because this was the greatest sea disaster in history for the Navy it quickly looked for someone to blame. Many years after Capt. McVay's conviction was the release of significant evidence which proved the captain was innocent for example the Navy never told the captain that there were submarines in the area. The Navy refused the captain's request for an escort and that without confirmed evidence of a submarine in the area the captain was under no obligation to use a zigzag pattern.
There is always a natural inclination to want to blame someone when things go wrong. We want to hold someone accountable so that we can all rest assured that the systems we are working in and the structures that we have created are safe. For years many people have said that systems keep people safe. Recently work by brilliant people like Sidney Dekker, Gary Klein and others have proven that systems to not keep us safe rather that people using their expertise and experience keep systems safe.
But in tragedies we want to find a scapegoat, a bad actor to blame because blaming makes us feel that we have achieved some level of justice. Learning requires we move away from that approach when something as complex and intricate a structural firefighting is involved. This does not vindicate people who intentionally and deliberately go out and do something wrong. This is not being written naïvely assuming that there are not evil and bad people in the world there are.
However we generally do not find evil people in public safety. There is a principle called the local rationality principle which basically states that people in public safety are all generally trying to do the very best jobs they can. This means the decisions they made at the time were based upon their experience, knowledge and best understanding of the situation. What they choose represented the very best decisions they could make to effect the situation in a positive and safe manner.
Unfortunately we are seeing this growing trend towards using the criminal justice system to try to encourage safe behavior or to try to determine accountability when a structural fire response results in tragedy. There is not a good track record for the use of criminal prosecution to effect positive change or improve safety. Rarely is it the deviant act of one person that is responsible for tragedy. Research and history have proven that most major tragic accidents and events outcome’s were rooted in systemic issues and complex interrelated activities that no one individual was solely responsible for or in fact even able to effect.
One of the major problems with assigning blame for bad decision-making is that in hindsight everything appears to be so obviously wrong. Also the more catastrophic the event the more we assume that everything that led up to it in terms of decision-making and actions taken should have been seen as flawed or inappropriate. Psychologists have shown us that we make incorrect assumptions about the amount of control people had during an event and that our knowledge of the outcome deeply affects our ability to judge or understand their performance.
So where do we go from here, one very promising concept is “storytelling”. Providing an opportunity in a non-punitive way to engage those involved in these events to tell their story. This allows the investigators who really want to learn from the event to try to match the stories of those involved in making those decisions in the moment with what we know was going on that they may have been unaware of. Story telling allows us to see how the system and those in it reacted, calibrated and understood the context of the situation without assigning blame.
We know we are driven to find the cause of events; it is fundamental to human nature. But rather than repeat the injustice done to Capt. McVay by looking for the easy way out a bad apple, a lousy captain let us look more deeply at the systems and organizational structures related to training, management, supervision, design, decision-making, authority and responsibility before we decide that our systems are safe and that one man was to blame. It's time to choose between learning and continuous improvement or punishment and closure.

Views: 217


You need to be a member of Fire Engineering Training Community to add comments!

Join Fire Engineering Training Community

Comment by Brian Houska on August 14, 2010 at 6:04pm
As a progressive officer who's read Gary Klein (and Michael Roberto, Andy Grove, and more) and not been shy about challenging the business-as-usual attitude, I've made a couple calls that have raised eyebrows and I've paid for it. I paid even though things worked out and no harm was done in the process of successful mission completion. I paid even though I was within the bounds of SOG, and no tragedy or even minor loss mars my record. I paid simply because I didn't follow the expected script. It's dangerous to try to tell a new story. It's hard to be heard, to get an audience. It gets harder to be heard when the sideline booing starts. So thank you for trading the old blame story for something new and better.

When there's no wind, row.
Comment by Matt Maihle on August 13, 2010 at 11:28pm
Excellent post, well done!
Comment by Christopher Drake on August 5, 2010 at 10:09pm
Thank you, Bobby, for a great post and editorial. We do the best we can based on the knowledge we've acquired during our years of service. No matter what kind of SOPs we attempt to put in place to appease the attorneys and judges, the fact is that no two incidents are exactly the same. Particularly when something goes wrong or what may be perceived as wrong.

Stay safe, Brother...
Comment by David Johns on August 3, 2010 at 8:39pm
This was definitely a great post, people are so important in every way. We just need to see to it that training is done and reinforce peoples good decisions. I do think that a lot of mistakes come from ego driven decision making and that, while it is still a mistake is a danger to us all. A Chief speaking at a conference I attended said that if we just started not making the mr obvious mistakes we would save a bunch of people and he is right. Wear seatbelts, do not put people on the first floor when the basement is rockin, etc. Anyway, great post!
Comment by Mike France on August 3, 2010 at 1:27pm
We all have made ''Mistakes'' , But we should be learning from them of do not and continue to make them. I' not perfect , I've had Fires go bad , thank god no life was lost, but decsions were made to attack it in certain way and to put the fire out. I've put myself thru personl punishment over my decsions did i do what i thougt was right , should i have done something different. We need to learn from these mistakes so that we do not make them again. Punishing someone for doing their job and what they thought needed to be done is wrong. monday Morning quarterbacks are always going to be , after recently reading blogs in regards to the FF's in Ct dying , Some were to quick to judge , no one will know what went wrong , only those two FF's know and they can not tells us , But hopefully something good will come out of it to teach us who are alive to be better.
Comment by John Fischer on August 2, 2010 at 1:21am
Very well said Bobby. And as I read through it, I kept getting visuals in my minds eye of Charleston. Many good changes were made after the Charleston tragedy. I found it hard to hop on the Monday morning quaterback's - linch mob - bandwagon after that fateful day.

Two of the critiques that I heard early on are what most likely kept me from hopping on that bandwagon. 1- "They shouldn't have initially deployed a booster line for a fire or a structure that size." (The Initial report was that it was a dumpster fire on the loading dock) .... 2- They shouldn't have broken out the front windows, which tremendously fed the fire. (The day of the funeral, an ATF agent working outside the Sofa Superstore, told me that the windows were taken out as an extreme / last ditch effort to find them or allow them hopefully to get out on their own.)

So when I see and hear things like this, it kind of dampens / dillutes some of the "Expert Testimonies" of those that would have done it better. God Bless The Charleston-9
Comment by John K. Murphy on July 31, 2010 at 11:03am
Chief - I opt for the learning and continuous improvement. Any other action would have a chilling effect on near miss events or the story telling component of our services.

Policy Page


The login above DOES NOT provide access to Fire Engineering magazine archives. Please go here for our archives.


Our contributors' posts are not vetted by the Fire Engineering technical board, and reflect the views and opinions of the individual authors. Anyone is welcome to participate.

For vetted content, please go to

Fire Engineering Editor in Chief Bobby Halton
We are excited to have you participate in our discussions and interactive forums. Before you begin posting, please take a moment to read our policy page. -- Bobby Halton

Be Alert for Spam
We actively monitor the community for spam, however some does slip through. Please use common sense and caution when clicking links. If you suspect you've been hit by spam, e-mail

FE Podcasts

Check out the most recent episode and schedule of

© 2022   Created by fireeng.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service