1. INTRODUCTION

This report has been undertaken following a recently agreed policy definition to investigate, in principle, the potential of reducing an aerial appliance from the existing Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service (IWF&RS) fleet. The main driving force of this review was the requirement for the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) to look for budget reduction for 2002/03. Also a case study by a Fire Service college student undertaking the Brigade Command course, who looked at the National provision of aerial appliances, and challenged the U.K. guidance on aerial provision with regard to under utilisation of aerial appliances at incidents.

2. SUMMARY

This report has covered the scope of the policy definition in relation to issues such as maintenance, training and operational costs, the pros and cons of each appliance and any risk associated with the removal of one from the present fleet.

Comparisons will be given where possible, similarities to other brigades and options on the way forward with associated costs.

3. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

The brigade has had the provision of an aerial appliance since 1961, when a 61ft Turntable Ladder (TL) existed within the brigade. Over the forthcoming years this was replaced by a 100ft Merryweather and then from approx 1974 an 85ft hydraulic platform replaced the TL which was used throughout the next 10 years. In 1998 the Bronto Skylift or aerial ladder platform (ALP) was purchased. In 1993 a TL was purchased whereby both appliances were used for different operational incidents, based on risk.

For the basis of this report I cannot find any evidence or history or exact rationale for purchase of the TL, but I believe, as I was involved in some of the trials at the time, that the TL was purchased to compliment the reach difficulties of the Bronto and weight of the jack pressure on certain Island roads. In addition the accessibility in certain streets where the TL is able to reach in terms of chassis and jacking system.

The weight of the jacks on the TL involving the centre of pressure was a great deal less than the existing Bronto and some road surfaces in the Ventnor area were thought to be problematic in placing that jack pressure on the road for any length of time.

The replacement date for the Bronto Skylift is the year 2008/09 with the estimated cost between ,350,000 to ,370,000. The TL replacement date is the year 2012/13 at a cost of between ,330,000 to ,350,000.

4. TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF EACH APPLIANCE

Below is a table showing the technical aspects and comparisons, wherever possible, of each appliance. It is obvious that both appliances have similarities in that they both use jacking systems to stabilise the vehicle, both have booms or ladder sets to reach

laterally and vertically. Both are powered by mechanical and hydraulics to reach their objectives.

The main difference of the Bronto is the ability to have a moveable boom which can bend over roofs or other obstructions and gives greater flexibility in some scenarios. However, the down side of this is the weight issue due to the type of operation that the Bronto has, its construction and operational characteristics. The chassis and boom weight and jack pressures are greater and the vertical and lateral reach is less.

Note: Bigger Brontos are available on the market, although the Island roads will not take the weight, length or turning circle.

The TL has a lighter chassis, a longer reach and higher vertical capability but due to its lighter construction, the availability of weight held in the cage is less than the Bronto and it cannot bend over buildings to reach awkward positions, although it is faster to set up for operations. The jack pressures are lighter on the ground which reduces the centre of pressure.

More pros and cons of both machines will be discussed later in the report.

Aerial Appliance Comparison

	TL	BRONTO
Maximum height	30m	22m
Maximum load	270kg	400kg
Maximum projectory	25m	17m
Working height below chassis	4m	7m
Overall length	9.95m	9.32m
Overall height	3.2m	3.55m
Overall width	2.5m	2.46m
Turning circle	17m	17.06m
Weight (gross vehicle weight)	13.5 tonne	16.44 tonne

5. PROVISION OF SERVICE

Both appliances are expected to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week apart from servicing which takes approximately 1 week every year.

Both the Bronto and TL are subject to pre-determined attendance (PDA) criteria in that where there is a need to send either of the vehicles to a large building requiring a rescue or to a fire, then an assessment has been made in the past to agree which would be the best vehicle to send depending on its characteristics of operation.

Note: For special services depending on the type required and the area of work, a decision would be made which vehicle would be best used in those circumstances.

6. CONSTRAINTS IN RELATION TO PDA=S

The main constraint that faces the brigade with PDA=s is the issue of downtime due to maintenance or a defect which renders one of the vehicle to be temporarily unavailable to meet the PDA. The action by the brigade at that point is to place the other existing aerial to that call. What must be understood is that in certain areas of the Island, especially the Ventnor area, the Bronto may have difficulty in:

3 Getting to the exact location because of access

3 The operating characteristics of the jacking system may not allow the Bronto to operate fully

3 The potential jacking pressure may be too great for the road surface

However, the purpose of sending an aerial in this temporary situation is to try and assist where possible with the resources at our disposal. Likewise there may be other scenarios where the turntable ladder could be off the run, which has got the greater height and reach, in this case the Bronto would be placed onto that PDA. An example of this would be Easthill Road in Ryde where the Bronto would arrive and have access and jacking availability, it would not be able to reach the building from the road to affect a rescue.

In conclusion one or both aerials cannot meet every situation, even if both appliances were always available. There will be times when certain buildings could not be reached or accessed. The potential for not meeting all this availability is increased if one aerial appliance is temporarily unavailable, or if it is decided to remove one on a permanent basis.

The list below gives the existing enhanced PDA=s where either the Bronto or turntable ladder is used:

Newport Area	-	High Street	-	Bronto
	-	Quay Street	-	Bronto
	-	St James Square	-	Bronto
	-	St James Street	-	Bronto
	-	St Thomas Square	-	Bronto
	-	The Mall	-	Turntable Ladder
Other Specific Buildings	-	9 off	-	Bronto
Other Specific Buildings	-	9 off	-	Turntable Ladder
Cowes Area
Specific Buildings	-	None	-	Bronto
Other Specific Buildings	-	4 off	-	Turntable Ladder
East Cowes Area
Other Specific Buildings	-	6 off	-	Bronto
Other Specific Buildings	-	2 off	-	Turntable Ladder
Ryde Area	-	Esplanade	-	Turntable Ladder
	-	George Street	-	Bronto
	-	High Street	-	Turntable Ladder
	-	Lind Street	-	Bronto
	-	St Thomas Street	-	Turntable Ladder
	-	The Strand	-	Bronto
	-	Union Street	-	Turntable Ladder
Other Specific Buildings	-	20 off	-	Bronto
Other Specific Buildings	-	8 off	-	Turntable Ladder
Bembridge Area
Specific Buildings	-	None	-	Bronto
Specific Buildings	-	None	-	Turntable Ladder
Sandown Area	-	Culver Parade	-	Turntable Ladder
	-	Esplanade	-	Turntable Ladder
	-	High Street	-	Bronto
	-	Pier Street	-	Bronto
Specific Buildings	-	None	-	Bronto
Specific Buildings	-	None	-	Turntable Ladder
Shanklin Area	-	High Street	-	Bronto
	-	Regent Street	-	Bronto
Other Specific Buildings Ventnor Area	- -	4 off Alexandra Gardens	- -	Bronto Turntable Ladder
	-	Hanborough Road	-	Turntable Ladder
	-	High Street	-	Turntable Ladder
	-	Pier Street	-	Turntable Ladder
Other Specific Buildings	-	1 off	-	Bronto
Other Specific Buildings	-	23 off	-	Turntable Ladder
Freshwater Area
Specific Buildings	-	1 off	-	Bronto
Specific Buildings	-	6 off	-	Turntable Ladder
Yarmouth Area
Specific Buildings	-	None	-	Bronto
Specific Buildings	-	2 off	-	Turntable Ladder

7. CURRENT STANDARDS (PROVISION OF SERVICE)

The current standards in relation to the provision of one or more aerial appliances for fire services are in the following areas:

The Fire Services Act 1947

DCOL 1/94

8. ATTENDANCE TIMES

In Dear Chief Officer Letter 1/94 one of the criteria is attendance times. This guidance does not state what type of appliance should be used and if only one appliance was available, the authority would still meet this guidance as it does presently. This means that if the brigade removed one of the appliances on a permanent basis, it would still meet the current guidance.

Note: What is not clear is the forthcoming guidance on the revised standards of emergency cover, where there may be requirements to provide a minimum number or type of aerial appliance for a given risk.

9. CURRENT STATUS OF EACH AERIAL

The present value of the Bronto Skylift is ,8,000 to ,10,000 the replacement cost has been stated as approximately ,350,000 to ,370,000 due for replacement in 2008/09.

The present value of the TL is ,8,000 to ,10,000 the estimated cost for replacement in the year 2012/13 is between ,330,000 and ,350,000.

Maintenance

Maintenance cost for the TL for 1999/00, including spares and fitters time, was ,6,356.00. The Bronto cost for 1999/00 was ,6,272.00. The maintenance cost for the TL 2000/01 was ,9,462.000 and the Bronto cost for 2000/01 was ,12,758.

Comment

No great comparison can be made in relation to these costs other than for last year the Bronto was over ,3,000 dearer due to more parts requiring replacement.

Downtime

	1999/00	2000/01	2001/02
Bronto	113	212	197
Turntable Ladder	182	154.5	645

Comment

It can be seen that there is a high number of hours in 2000/01 for the Bronto, also the TL servicing hours by Angloco were high. It is normally estimated that 30 service hours are required by Angloco every year. This year both the Bronto and TL had double the service hours. The reasons for the high increase in the TL hours were due to failure of a computer card and a voltage spike/surge.

Note: A five-year service for the TL took place in 1998, the 10-year service with increased costs both in equipment replacement and servicing is due in 2003.

10. OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY ON BOTH AERIAL APPLIANCES OVER THE LAST 2 YEARS

Below is a table of incidents over the calendar years of 2000 and 2001 of both the Bronto and TL at incidents including alarms, fires or special services. What can be seen is the number of times that each vehicle was sent or mobilised as opposed to how many times it was actually used.

Reducing one aerial would technically increase the amount of times the other aerial would be sent out under current PDA=s or special services.

Use of Aerial Appliance Incidents 2000

Bronto Skylift

A	Number of incidents attended	33
B	Occasions where sent to Alarm of Fire but did not actually attend (turned back not needed)	61
C	Total number of incidents mobilised (sent) to	94
D (I)	Occasions where sent to an incident, attended and used: Breakdown: - Fire in Roof - Stripping/Cutting Away - Inspection by Thermal Image Camera - Chimney Fire - ‑ Making Safe Storm Damage Chimneys/Tiles etc. - Search for one Iguana in Chimney Total	3 3 0 2 1 9
D (ii)	Occasions where sent to an incident (attended) but was not used: Breakdown: - Automatic Fire Alarm - Making Safe Storm Damage Chimneys/Tiles etc. - House Fire - Fire in Building - Chimney Fire - Special Service - Man on Roof - Men Gassed Total	11 1 5 5 0 1 1 24
E	Summary From a Total of 94 Incidents Rescue - Persons - Animals Firefighting - Water Tower - Cutting/Stripping Away - Observation/Surveillance Access - Total Use of Bronto for 2000	0 0 0 3 4 2 9

Use of Aerial Appliance Incidents 2000

Turntable Ladder

A	Number of incidents attended	17
B	Occasions where sent to Alarm of Fire but did not actually attend (turned back not needed)	55
C	Total number of incidents mobilised (sent) to	72
D (I)	Occasions where sent to an incident, attended and used: Breakdown: - Fire in Roof - Stripping/Cutting Away - Inspection by Thermal Image Camera - Chimney Fire - ‑ Making Safe Storm Damage Chimneys/Tiles etc. Total	0 0 0 3 3
D (ii)	Occasions where sent to an incident (attended) but was not used: Breakdown: - Automatic Fire Alarm - Making Safe Storm Damage Chimneys/Tiles etc. - House Fire - Fire in Building - Chimney Fire - Special Service Total	6 0 1 6 1 0 14
E	Summary From a Total of 72 Incidents Rescue Persons - Animals Firefighting - Water Tower - Cutting/Stripping Away - Observation/Surveillance Access - Total Use of Turntable Ladder for 2000	0 0 0 0 0 3 3

Use of Aerial Appliance Incidents 2001

Bronto Skylift

A	Number of incidents attended	17
B	Occasions where sent to Alarm of Fire but did not actually attend (turned back not needed)	54
C	Total number of incidents mobilised (sent) to	71
D (I)	Occasions where sent to an incident, attended and used: Breakdown: - Fire in Roof - Stripping/Cutting Away - Inspection by thermal Image Camera - Chimney Fire - ‑ Making Safe Storm Damage Chimneys/Tiles etc. Total	0 0 2 1 3
D (ii)	Occasions where sent to an incident (attended) but was not used: Breakdown: - Automatic Fire Alarm - Making Safe Storm Damage Chimneys/Tiles etc. - House Fire - Fire in Building - Chimney Fire - Special Service - Disturbed Patient on Roof Total	6 0 3 4 0 1 14
E	Summary From a Total of 71 Incidents Rescue Persons - Animals Firefighting - Water Tower - Cutting/Stripping Away - Observation/Surveillance Access - Total Use of Bronto for 2001	0 0 0 1 1 1 3

Use of Aerial Appliance Incidents 2001

Turntable Ladder

A	Number of incidents attended	20
B	Occasions where sent to Alarm of Fire but did not actually attend (turned back not needed)	56
C	Total number of incidents mobilised (sent) to	76
D (I)	Occasions where sent to an incident, attended and used: Breakdown: - Fire in Roof - Stripping/Cutting Away - Inspection by Thermal Image Camera - Chimney Fire - ‑ Making Safe Storm Damage Chimneys/Tiles etc. Total	0 0 1 2 3
D (ii)	Occasions where sent to an incident (attended) but was not used: Breakdown: - Automatic Fire Alarm - Making Safe Storm Damage Chimneys/Tiles etc. - House Fire - Fire in Building - Chimney Fire - Special Service T Total	7 0 1 8 1 0 17
E	Summary From a Total of 76 Incidents Rescue - Persons - Animals Firefighting - Water Tower - Cutting/Stripping Away - Observation/Surveillance Access - Total Use of Turntable Ladder for 2001	0 0 1 0 0 2 3

11. OTHER ISLANDS

Contact was made with Jersey Fire Brigade and Guernsey Fire Brigade and the Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service in relation to 4 questions on which they were all asked to comment.

Question 1 What type of aerial provision, if any, they had in their brigade?

Question 2 Did they have a reserve appliance?

Question 3 What was their average downtime?

Question 4 What was their contingency or backup procedure should their aerial be off the run?

Jersey Fire Brigade

Jersey has an existing Bronto 28 T1, which was purchased in 1991. They have no reserve and their average downtime is approximately 5 days or 120 hours. Their risks are very similar to the Isle of Wight. However, they have three buildings over 14 floors but most hotels etc are not above 5 floors. If the appliance goes off the run for any reason, they manage with their other resources in relation to rescue and firefighting at height. One difference on their annual maintenance with the Bronto is when they carry out their annual service only one job or repair is done at any one time so the vehicle is off the run for the shortest time possible.

Guernsey Fire Brigade

Guernsey Fire Brigade has one aerial appliance which is a 100ft TL, purchased in 1999. They have no reserve and their annual downtime is approx 5 days or 120 hours. Their risk is similar to Jersey with less large buildings above a certain height. One building is 12 floors and most hotels are not above 5 floors. Their annual maintenance program is similar to Jersey.

If their appliance goes off the run, again the same as Jersey, they manage with existing resources.

Isle of Man Fire & Rescue Service

The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service have 1 hydraulic platform a Simon Snorkel 220 which was purchased in 1973 and re-chassised in 1993. They also have a Metz DLK30 TL. However there is no reserve. Their annual downtime is approx 6 days each or 144 hours. No information was available on their risks. They have no specific maintenance programme and have no plans at present to reduce their aerials number from 2.

Comment

It is difficult to correlate the Isle of Wight and the Islands mentioned above other to say they are separated from a mainland resource by sea. Our Island is closer to the mainland for backup than the others, although this is not guaranteed due to weather or availability of resources.

Our Island is also larger in size than the other 3 mentioned and although it could be argued that a fire is a fire wherever it happens in relation to the first call to resources, the potential for the need of an aerial at all times could be argued as greater if the population, number of buildings, number of building above a certain number of floors is greater.

12. REINFORCEMENT ARRANGEMENTS WITH HAMPSHIRE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE

There is in existence an assistance agreement with HF&RS which is in line with other protocols in the South East Region with over the border cover similar to Section 2 and 12 of the Fire Services Act.

Contact has been made with HF&RS investigating assistance requirements should an aerial be needed and two criteria were put to HF&RS.

Should an aerial be required in an emergency, the HF&RS would send an aerial appliance with a crew as soon as practically possible, should one be available. However if the aerial appliance was not available from Southsea, another from another part of Hampshire would delay this time. Also there is discussion to move the aerial appliance from Southsea to different location not yet agreed. It would take approx 12 to 2 hours to get the aerial appliance to the Island.

The other criteria put to HF&RS was for the possibility of a spare aerial appliance for a period due to maintenance or defect to our existing aerial should one be removed.

HF&RS=s reply was that no operational spare was available and that they would not be prepared to offer an aerial appliance unless for an emergency incident.

Note: They might supply an aerial for a special service, but there might be a charge.

13. SECTION 19 PROCEDURES

If the outcome of this review is to remove one aerial appliance from the fleet, Section 19 procedures would apply due to the provision of aerial appliances changing.

14. EXPECTATIONS

The Expectations document from the Home Office, Section 2, Special appliances and the provision of aerial appliances relates to the brigade having to review the provision in accordance with DCOL 1/94 to ensure that the foot printing exercise of an area can be covered by special appliances and evidence to support any professional judgement exercise in reaching a conclusion about the level of provision required.

This review has covered the Expectations and meets good practice requirements.

15. OPTIONS

Four Options were concluded from carrying out this review.

Option 1 - remain currently with two aerial appliances

Option 2 - remain currently with two aerial appliances but carry out a full evaluation of need through trend analysis, forthcoming standards of emergency cover (if applicable), full implementation of working at height issues with the forthcoming guidance on the provision and use of ropes, harness= and associated equipment in the fire service through a full consultation procedure before the next replacement of an aerial is required.

Option 3 - remove one aerial appliance from the fleet

Removal of A1/B (Bronto Skylift)

This appliance’s downtime up until last year has been less than the TL and recently has undergone more major service due some parts needing replacement through hours of use.

The appliance is due for replacement in 2008/09 and where it is the older machine, it would make financial sense to remove it from the fleet as opposed to the TL.

The Bronto=s weight is heavier than the TL by approximately a a and its jacking pressure is greater than the TL. In addition its size of turning and width in the road is more than the TL for ease of use in confined spaces.

The Bronto Skylift has the advantage of being of a stronger type construction, thereby having the ability to work in stronger winds. Also due to its construction it has the ability to take greater weight in the cage for rescues or special services. The Bronto=s ability to bend its second boom to areas which are inaccessible to the TL is an advantage.

Removal of the Turntable Ladder

This appliance is lighter in construction means it is affected by strong winds. The recent downtime is high due to the type of service it required. The inability to bend the ladder into inaccessible areas.

The TL is a newer appliance; therefore technically it should last longer than the Bronto Skylift if maintained correctly.

The height of the TL is greater than the Bronto which also gives it a greater reach for rescue. Although it is not such a heavy construction, the TL has more built in safety devices to enable the machine to be kept within a safety envelope i.e. it cannot be overloaded whereas the Bronto can be loaded to the point of breakage or structure failure.

The TL envelope of operation is also greater than the Bronto in that it can operate using variable jacking to enable the ladder to be used in very tight spaces compared to the Bronto, where each side of operation must have a full set of jacks outboard.

All the above pros and cons for each appliance takes into account replacement costs which are similar as is the current value of each appliance as stated earlier in this report.

Other Implications

Depending on the outcome if the decision is made to reduce one aerial appliance from the fleet, the training implications would reduce to one appliance as would the cost of maintenance and garaging. However, if another brigade could lend us an aerial appliance over a period of time for downtime or maintenance, (although as yet no appliance is available at the time of writing this report), there will be a large training issue to ensure that crews were trained on the existing aerial and on any spare appliance aerial from another brigade whilst that would be on the run. There would also be a need to bring in or train up another instructor for that type of aerial appliance which raises the question of cost, or keeping an instructor trained up to one or more different types of aerial appliance that we may hire in, plus examination costs for ongoing training and refresher training.

Option 4 - mothball one aerial appliance

To mothball one aerial appliance, the storage must be of good construction and protected from frost rain and wind etc. Tyres must be clear of ground to enable maintenance of the suspension and all the joints.

Maintenance

The vehicle should be run monthly and all systems checked, otherwise there would be rapid deterioration of hydraulic and brake systems and components.

Training Competency

If an aerial appliance were mothballed, operators would have to be kept current as well as examiners to ensure competency of use in an operational or training situation.

Safety and Maintenance

The vehicle would still require an annual service by specialist dealers to remain safe for continued use. This would not reduce cost greatly from the present existing maintenance cost.

16. RISK AND RISK ANALYSIS IN RELATION TO THE POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF AN AERIAL APPLIANCE

With regard to risk, there are a number of factors which influence the degree of risk in a particular situation. These factors include:

(i) the probability of an adverse outcome,

(ii) The severity of the risk i.e. the number of people at risk,

(iii) The maximum potential loss, e.g. fatal injury, major injury and minor injury, and

(iv) The frequency of the risk arising, e.g. number of times per day, per week, per year.

The risk analysis seeks to identify and assess risks within the above parameters, whilst looking at the potential for harm/danger and the degree of risk associated.

The risk assessment below in this report takes into account the safe system of work with two aerial appliances at present using generic risks and hazards to measure potential. Then by using Judgment involving present operational activity, based on two aerials, and increased use due to working at height (safer systems of work) and forthcoming standards of emergency cover review, a view can be expressed as to whether the severity and potentiality of harm will increase or remain the same.

FRAMEWORK FOR RISK ANALYSIS

The analysis of this risk assessment has incorporated the following:-

(i) Risk analysis methodology

(ii) The process of risk assessment

(iii) The scope and function of the task/activity

(iv) Possible hazards

(v) Assessment of risks

(vi) Potential for harm

(vii) Persons at risk

(viii) Existing controls

(ix) Additional controls.

(i) Risk Analysis Methodology

The methodology for this risk analysis is based on the Brigade’s duty of care, impact on the public, data from Fire Control over previous incidents (trend analysis) the Brigade have attended, and PDA=s of which an aerial appliance would attend at present.

Also supporting the risk assessment are the following:

3 experience and qualified view of the author of this report

3 guidance contained in the Health & Safety at Work Act

3 Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1992

3 Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 1992

3 Draft Guidance for the Provision and Use of Ropes, Harnesses and Associated Equipment in the Fire Service

3 Guidance contained in the Dynamic Management of Risk, at Operational Incidents

3 Guidance from Successful Health & Safety & Management (HSG 65)

3 DCOL 1/94

3 A Guide to Operational Risk Assessment (GRA)

3 Brigade Command Course Student Report

(ii) Process of Risk Assessment

The process of risk assessment undertaken in this review to reduce an aerial appliance can be broken down into the following:

Hazard

3 The potential to cause harm which can vary in severity, and the likely effect of any hazard impacting on the personnel or members of the public at an incident, varies through either major, serious or slight.

3 The likelihood and severity of harm can be affected by how systems of work are organised and how effectively hazards are controlled.

3 Certain judgments about likelihood of harm or occurrences will also be affected by any experience of working with the hazard, for example our experience operationally of incidents gives us a sound knowledge of hazards associated with the role of the fire service.

Risk

3 The likelihood of harm or occurrence may also be rated as high, medium or low and actions must be taken to control or minimise exposure to hazards. Therefore, risk can be defined as explained, as a combination of severity of harm and the likelihood of this occurring. This can be shown by the following diagram:

Severity of harm

X

Likelihood of occurrence

'

the risk

(iii) Scope and Function of the Task/Activity

The main task/activity of the Aerial Promotion is for rescue and firefighting whilst working at height. Other tasks include special services in an emergency or non-emergency scenario.

Working at Height

The risk of a fall is the most common hazard associated with working at height. With regard to use of an aerial appliance, this risk is in two ways:-

(i) whilst getting the cage to the task level needed, and

(ii) the system of work whilst at the task level required.

The control measures in place for both aerial appliances are such that the risk to personnel is controlled. The risk of the public getting hurt are quite high until they are safely in a cage environment due to factors such as their perception and human behaviour to the risk at the time.

The current statutory requirement relating to falls from height are contained in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1999, which states that “so far as reasonably practicable, suitable and effective measures must be taken to prevent:-

(a) any person falling a distance likely to cause personal injury, and

(b) any person being struck by a falling object likely to cause personal injury.

Whilst it is acknowledged that a safe system of work is in place for the two aerials. Removing one permanently from the fleet would have the effect of an aerial appliance not being available to the same degree of service presently for working at height and, for rescues and firefighting (i.e. reducing present standard of service provision).

(iv) Assessment of Hazards (for one or two aerials)

The following is a list of potential hazards which are known, or could exist potentially in the workplace, namely the operational fire ground, training environment, on or off the station, and the station environment. The hazards include:

3 Fire

3 Working at height

3 Working in confined spaces

3 Entrapment

3 Electrical hazards

3 Collapsed structure hazards - insufficient egress

3 Explosive hazards

3 Falling masonry, both glass, roof tiles etc.

3 Unstable ground

3 Overload of equipment

3 Uncontrolled descent of ladder section or booms due to operator error or equipment failure

3 Casualty handling

3 Uneven ground

3 High wind

(v) Assessment of Risks (for one or two aerials)

The following is a list of risks associated with the hazards above:

3 Burns from fire

3 Falls from height

3 Risk of entrapment from confined spaces - lack of egress

3 Caught in or trapped

3 Electrical shock

3 Crushing, caught by, struck by

3 Instability of jacking systems and chassis

3 Struck by/blast injuries

3 Damage to equipment and mechanical failure through overload

3 Crushing and impact related incidents

3 Strains/sprains

3 Slip/trips

3 Unstable working platform

3 Risk of appliance turning over

(vi) Potential for Harm

Given that the hazards and risks, although not exhaustive, are addressed above, the potential for harm is, in my opinion, medium. However, with the possible removal of one aerial appliance, although the hazards and risks would stay the same. One appliance would try to attend the same number of incidents, as two appliances would depend on availability. Therefore, the potential for harm would increase if an aerial appliance were not available due to a previous commitment to another incident, downtime through defect or maintenance. This would then take the rating for potential for risk, in my opinion, from medium to high.

Of course the argument could be made that potential would increase or decrease depending on how many aerial appliances are provided, however, the assessment is made based on the existing two being reduced to one, in that the provision of service, at present, would be reduced slightly, thus an increase in potentiality.

(vii) Persons at Risk

The persons at risk or that have potential to be exposed to harm from identified hazards are all personnel in the Isle of Wight Fire& Rescue Service who are operational or involved in the training environment and members of the public who may be being rescued or involved in the particular incident.

Although the high levels of training will continue even if one aerial is removed, the hazards and risks would remain to those personnel in an incident or in a training scenario. However, the risks to personnel would be reduced due to only having to train and remain competent on one aerial appliance, rather than two different types as at present.

(viii) Existing Controls

Existing controls for use of two aerials or one aerial are as follows:

3 Existing training and refresher training for operators either at pulpit or cage

3 The qualification of Brigade examiners

3 Standards of maintenance in place and defect procedure

3 The protection/on-board systems built into the operational characteristics of each aerial appliance

3 Crew experience with awareness to working in high winds or unstable ground and electrical hazards at height

3 The published operation training notes with relation to safe operation of both aerial appliances (safe system of work)

3 The effective command control of incidents and supervision in training terms which safeguard the operation of these appliances in a planned training event or reactional operational role

3 Personal protection and safety harness that crews wear whilst operating these appliances

3 Dynamic risk assessments

3 Safe systems of work (operational plan)

3 Supervision

3 Correct selection of personnel with physical fitness and mental aptitude for the task

3 Safety cordons

3 Standard tests

3 On board lighting

(ix) Additional Controls (recommended remedial action)

Further work is required in anticipating the outcomes of the provision and use of ropes, harnesses and associated equipment in the Fire Service (working at height requirements) which may impact on aerial appliance work. Also the forthcoming outcomes of the standards of emergency fire cover which, I believe, may have greater emphasis on the use of aerial appliances at incidents.

Conclusion regarding risk assessment

Based on the above information, i.e. hazards, risks, persons at work and existing controls taking into account the model of risk assessment, severity x likelihood of occurrence = risk. I would regard the risk assessment rating with existing service provision of two aerial appliances as low to medium. But would anticipate a rise in potentiality for harm based on the existing hazards and risks if only one aerial appliance was available. Based on current provision of service and operational incidents the risk assessment rating would rise to medium.

17. EMPLOYERS DUTIES

With regard to common law, employers owe a general duty of care towards their employees.

All employers must:-

(a) provide a safe place of work with safe means of access and egress,

(b) provide and maintain safe appliances and equipment and plant for doing the work,

(c) provide and maintain a safe system for doing work, and

(d) provide competent and safety conscious personnel.

Taking into account of b) and c) above, the removal of one aerial appliance from the fleet permanently would reduce the amount of time the remaining aerial would be available to cover rescues, firefighting, working at height requirements etc against the existing provision of service (i.e. two aerials).

18. CONCLUSION

This report has tried to give a view as to the current status of each appliance to assist management in the decision if one aerial had to be removed from the fleet. As can be seen the maintenance, downtime and operational activity in relation to PDA=s are very similar for both appliances.

It has also been established that the generic hazards and risks would be the same whether one or two appliances were to be removed, although both machines have pros and cons in relation to operational characteristics.

What has been shown is the increased potential which does increase the risk rating in relation to removing one appliance from the fleet and would affect the existing provision of service. Thus needing to rely on one aerial appliance, which in normal operational circumstances would probably be adequate, but in a situation where the other aerial appliance was being used operationally or in downtime mode, this would create greater scope for increased potential of risk to firefighters working at height or in confined spaces where an aerial appliance would greatly assist their safety.

Looking at working at height issues, a need for maintaining a safe system of work will increase in time rather than decrease where Incident Commanders using Pre-planning and Dynamic Risk Assessments, will wish to ensure that access to difficult areas of height and within confined spaces can be reached using an aerial appliance. Having the two present aerial appliances greatly assists that process. Removing one, in my opinion, would make it more foreseeable in relation to increased risk in not having all the resources required if both aerials were available as is currently.

19. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the pragmatic approach of being `reasonable practicable’ in relation to the cost or saving £10,000 a year against the increased potential for harm, I would state that the risk (sacrifice) far outweighs the cost/saving of removal of one aerial appliance from the current service and standard of provision. I would recommend Option 2 on page 13, and that the Chief Fire Officer exhausts all other avenues to find savings against the maintenance costs of keeping both aerial appliances. Therefore I recommend that the existing provision of two aerial appliances remain.

I would also recommend that a full review takes place a year before the next replacement of the Bronto Skylift is required (£330,000) where the full implementation of the standards of emergency cover will be known, which could affect aerial provision. In addition, working at height issues should be fully implemented in the Brigade in line with the forthcoming manual/guidance from the Department of Transport and Local Government and the Regions (DTLR). Due regard should also be given to the Brigade Command course student paper on aerial provision, mentioned at the beginning of this report.

Also, more research should be carried out into areas such as Ventnor and Ryde, where removing the wrong type of aerial could increase risk and loss of efficiency of current service provision.

Divisional Officer P Street

Third Officer

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DCOL 1/94

MANAGEMENT OF HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK REGULATIONS 1999

PROVISION AND USE OF WORK EQUIPMENT REGULATIONS 1999

THE WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE REGULATIONS 1999

THE LIFTING OPERATIONS AND LOWERING EQUIPMENT REGULATIONS 1998

DRAFT GUIDANCE AND COMPLIANCE FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROVISION AND USE OF ROPES, HARNESSES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT IN THE FIRE SERVICE (FIRE SERVICE INSPECTORATE)

HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDE (HSG 65)

OPERATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE (GRA)

DYNAMIC RISK ASSESSMENT

STUDY ON AERIAL APPLIANCE (BCC STUDENT)