Some of our great military leaders have said that plans are worthless but it is the planning that is so meaningful. It’s all the intel and process that went into the plan which helps us stay fluid, bob and weave through the operational period. Carry on…
7 Likes
Not arm chairing anything, just a thought I am having- so don’t shoot. I wonder in the case of fires that burn well into the night due to altitude, would it be prudent to adjust the operational period to a window that is reflective of environment. If the fire is burning less intense from let’s say 3am to 8, maybe hold briefing at 0400 and adjust the clock. Maybe I’m wrong, and I know this goes against all prior thought process in terms of the planning cycle, of which I’m well aware of. Just thinking outside the box in terms of an evolution of the process. If you see this in the future, you heard it hear first. Just kidding.
Safety to all and strength to the firefighters currently making it happen.
2 Likes
Usually someone from Logs is there to get ahead of line needs as the horse trading may/will determine how they spend their morning. JMHO
Different teams may alter the attendance to suit their personality, but it is the OSC’s meeting and their call on who attends, period. I personally didn’t have someone from the Logs shop there, but if there was a reason, then they would be. What I didn’t want is it to become an open meeting. This is where the operations section talks and discusses and gets it right. The first IAPs were held in reserve for this meeting and it was very controlled. I wasn’t shy about saying no, it isn’t for you. Often times a RESL was there, but that’s because they needed to make a bunch of pen and ink changes from the plan to the one filed in the doc box as the “corrected IAP.”
1 Like
Originally mis-posted in Continuing:
Did anybody watch the morning ops briefing. It seemed…strange. It didn’t seem like it included recent (last 12 hours) information about the east side. The map looked very outdated. Maybe I watched a mis-labled video? The map title show 8/30 so not sure what’s up. I would think they would have at least touched on Sierra at Tahoe. Maybe a planning person can chime in on why this might occur.
Note: This is a question more about process than evaluation.
1 Like
I understand that and I’ve had to deal with that, but I am willing to say I Can Not Support The Plan JMHO
Maybe I’m wrong, and I know this goes against all prior thought process in terms of the planning cycle, of which I’m well aware of. Just thinking outside the box in terms of an evolution of the process. If you see this in the future, you heard it hear first. Just kidding.
IMTs have and can adjust the starting and ending times of Operational Periods (OPs) depending on a number of factors, length of daylight being a major factor. Latitude and your location can make huge differences depending on the calendar month. Honoring the “In country not seen in daylight” can be mitigated with different OP start and end times. Go to the GNP and it will make a believer out of you. There are also other ways to mitigate the result of increasing fire behavior or changing Operational Periods at the height of activity. Deploying an afternoon shift that starts in the middle of an OP has been done. Think of it as surge staffing. Also understand that the term shift and shift change are different from Operational Periods and Operation Period Briefings and changes. They should not be used interchangeably because they are not.
So, sorry, its been done. It might have fallen out of practice with that 24 hour (alleged) operational period practiced in California, but it has been tried and successful.
2 Likes
Only one time but it worked then, Fire’s name escapes me but the base was in a meadow at the intersection SR 32 and Sr 36. Briefing was at 0900 with shift change at 1000. On a 24 hour shift, the folks off shift got to sleep ALL night instead getting up in the dark. And those on the line got to make use of the coolest part of the day and make certain in the daylight their section would hold.
1 Like
Alleged 24 hour op periods?
Please elaborate
1 Like
Maybe they corrected a mislabeled video. When I got the link it says 8-30 and the map says 8-30.
EDIT and NOTE: Some folks have asked why there has not been any follow up to my reply to EPBL41 made now 3 days ago and Firedog1’s request that I “Please elaborate” on my use of the word “alleged.” Subsequent to my post, Firedog1 and myself have been exchanging numerous emails and conducting a professional, enlightening, and some times spirited conversation regarding my comment – outside of this thread.
Although I think a lot of what we discussed would actually be beneficial to others in learning about ICS, some of the nuances and future developments, and the planning process, for now let me clarify something. In my 40+ years of working incidents, teaching courses and coaching 420 and the like - often paired with Calfire personnel and overhead, no one ever corrected me and stated that the implementation of the Calfire 24-hour operational period was as a result of a study on the effectiveness of the 2 12-hour operational period clock versus a 24-hour Operational Period and its superiority. As a result of our conversations there is a search to find that research paper/white paper. The existence of that is a possible game changer, because it takes it from the perception of a “contractual nicety” to a possible “best practice” for others outside of Calfire, California, and the USA.
My professional drive and job is to bring best practices to the national/international scene. I am not paid for my personal opinion, but for my professional opinion. Although I am certainly NOT paid to post here, it is an outstanding forum to discuss concepts and ideas with other SMEs and professionals. if there is documentation that my opinion was wrong, I am more than willing to say I was wrong. I have been in this game for – far too long to have thin skin. I am eagerly awaiting someone to find that study/white paper because of its implications. So, although it seemed quiet, it has been the subject of extensive discussions.
5 Likes
I recall reading something in Wildfire Today that mentions and discusses such a report as you mention, or at least touches on the subject matter. I went to search for it, but did find it immediately. It would have been in the last 18 months. I will keep looking, but I remember a discussion about the reports results and 12 hour vs. 24 hour shift in the comments section.
2 Likes
24 vs. 12
April 1, 2016
John Picarello asks the question, “what is the most efficient work schedule for the fire service?”
Recently, I was given an assignment to conduct a comprehensive review of various shift schedules and ultimately submit a proposal for one that was more efficient than our current 24-hour shift. In essence, I was being asked, what is the most efficient work schedule for the fire service? The exercise proved to be quite interesting and may shed some light on an interesting topic.
The nature of public safety establishes a need to provide services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. To accomplish this, many fire departments utilize a 24-hour shift. Other fire departments as well as other public safety organizations, such as police, 9-1-1 communications and those in the medical community, have the same requirement to provide services 24 hours a day but few, if any, utilize a 24-hour shift. In contrast, many utilize some form of a 12-hour shift. Why is that? Let’s dig into the answer by first addressing the 24-hour shift.
24-hour shifts
There are many variations of the 24-hour shift, but for the purpose of this discussion, we will focus on a schedule where an employee works 24 hours on duty and gets 48 hours off along with a Kelly Day (a day off occurring at a prescribed interval required to keep an employee from working too many hours during a pay cycle). The Kelly Day usually occurs every six to 10 shifts depending on the agreed upon and/or negotiated work week. The 24-hour shift provides several benefits for the organization: infrequent shift exchanges, employees who can work more than 40 hours per week, and consistent coverage throughout the year, including weekends and holidays.
The benefit of infrequent shift exchanges is a result of the significant amount of time required to handle emergency calls. In the case of a working structure fire, fire crews can be on scene for several hours, if not longer. The same holds true for other types of emergencies, such as complex automobile extrications and hazardous material leaks and spills. In the case of a medical response, patient treatment and transportation can also be a lengthy process. In these situations, the less frequent shift exchanges occur, the less chance there is that a crew will be busy on scene of an emergency, which would delay and disrupt the shift exchange process.
Another way the 24-hour shift benefits the organization is that it provides employees who can work in excess of 40 hours per week. For example, firefighters who work a 24-hour shift followed by 48 hours off and receive a Kelly Day every seventh shift work a 48.46-hour work week. Federal law allows firefighters to work up to 53 hours per week without requiring overtime pay. As a result, the 24-hour schedule provides fire departments with more hours of coverage per employee compared to the more traditional work week. In addition, the 24-hour shift provides employees who understand and accept that they are required to work every third day regardless of whether their shift falls on a weekend or holiday.
The 24-hour shift is also very popular with employees. One reason for this is that, as a result of working 24 hours in a single shift, employees work fewer shifts throughout the month. Although the total number of hours worked per week is actually more, the 24-hour shift described above results in an employee working approximately eight to 10 shifts per month. This explains why employees who live greater distances away from their fire stations prefer 24-hour shifts. Another reason why the 24-hour shift is popular with employees is because employees are usually afforded downtime while not training, responding to emergencies or conducting other fire department related duties.
On the organizational side, a significant downside of the 24-hour shift is the fact that staffing levels cannot be adjusted according to the workload. In other words, there is no way to adjust the number of personnel on duty to correlate with the typical call volume experienced throughout a 24-hour period.
Another significant downside that should be considered is fatigue. Some agencies that run a large number of structure fires are not able to use 24-hour shifts because of the amount of fatigue placed on the employees. However, if this is not an issue, the 24-hour shift is very attractive for both employees and employers.
12-hour shifts
As mentioned earlier, another commonly used work schedule in public safety and the medical community is the 12-hour shift. There are several variations of the 12-hour shift. However, for the purpose of this discussion we will consider the 12-hour shift where the employee works four days on duty followed by four days off.
To some degree, the 12-hour shift provides the organization with the same benefits of the 24-hour shift, which includes having employees who work in excess of a 40-hour work week and employees that provide continuous coverage for weekends and holidays. The 12-hour shift described above equates to a 42.46-hour work week.
In terms of efficiency, the 12-hour shift provides organizations with the flexibility needed to adjust staffing levels based on peak and non-peak call times. This is a major benefit over the 24-hour shift and, hence, one of the reasons why it is popular with a variety of organizations. Based on five years of historical data, we have determined that our peak call times are from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m., seven days per week. After 8 p.m., our call volume drops off significantly. Specifically, we have determined that we receive almost 70 percent of our calls for service between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., and the remaining 30 percent between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. This is where the 24-hour shift becomes inefficient. It has the same number of personnel on duty during the non-peak call times as it does during the peak call times.
Interestingly enough, our historical data also indicates that we respond to the vast majority of our structure fires and experience a majority of our fire losses and on-the-job injuries during our peak call times. In addition, when we do have the need to request mutual aid, it is also usually during our peak call times. This supports the notion that by not changing our current staffing levels during our peak call times when we typically receive almost 70 percent of our calls, we can still operate safely and effectively while reducing our staffing levels slightly during our non-peak call times. It is important that each organization review their own data to determine their peak and non-peak call times, but I am certain that many will have similar results.
The ideal situation
So, back to the original question, what is the most efficient work schedule for the fire service? It is evident that there is no one schedule that works best. It is actually a combination of both the 24-hour shift and the 12-hour shift. The 24-hour shift provides you with employees who typically work between 46 and 50 hours per week with minimal shift exchanges while providing continuous coverage throughout the year. The 12-hour shift also provides these benefits; however, in addition, it provides you with the ability to schedule additional employees that are only necessary during your peak call times.
One model would be to schedule the majority of your personnel, approximately 75 percent, on a 24-hour shift and the remaining 25 percent on a 12-hour shift. Personnel on the 12-hour shift would be assigned to emergency vehicles that will operate only during your peak call times. These units will be shut down during your non-peak call times. The combination of the 24-hour shift and the 12-hour shift would result in having the same number of employees on duty with the same number of units in service during peak call times, while allowing you to reduce staffing slightly during your non-peak call times. In addition, it can result in some cost savings as a result of needing approximately 5 percent fewer employees during your non-peak call times.
Of course, the practice of “peak staffing” or staffing according to your needs is nothing new. It is practiced in most others aspects of local government, including public safety, and is even more prevalent in the private sector. However, based on the fact that “peak staffing” is not widely practiced in the fire service, implementing it may be difficult in established departments. The ideal situation would be where a municipality and organization are currently experiencing significant development and growth. At that point, they would embrace the concept of utilizing a peak-staffing model prior to hiring additional employees for their 24-hour shift. They would set their 24-hour staffing levels based on their needs during their non-peak call times and hire new employees to staff the additional units needed during their peak call times. This scenario would probably be understood and accepted more readily as opposed to trying to implement the change retroactively with a municipality and department that are no longer growing.
2 Likes
Not sure if this helps. It’s the Firehouse Mag. April 1, 2016 edition
2 Likes
Sent you a message… maybe the piece you were looking for.
1 Like
I saw that, thank you! I am wading through all the materials I have received so far. “Please keep those cards and letters coming.” Possible candidates will be shared with Firedog1 to see if we have found it. It does appear there are references to it existing so y’all are on the right track. This demostrates the utility and value of the forum.
NFA EFO papers are available to the public and can be enlightening. Although secured, which can be a pain, they are valuable to research. Because of its proximity to the target, here is what Jstacalguy sent. I’ll be wading through it in the coming days.
24-hour Shift EFO Research Paper 34809.pdf (145.8 KB)Analysis of 12 and 24 Hour Operational Shifts in Wildfire Ops.pdf (329.9 KB)
2 Likes
An EFO project completed by Bill Holmes (The Bill Holmes) in September 2002, makes this statement.
“It was further recommended that CDF Fire adopt the 24-hour shift as its preferred operational shift in all its policy handbooks and training manuals.”
Does anyone who has access to current and past references seen this? If so, scans would be awesome.
EXCELLENT READ AND INFORMATION
Thank you for the time it took to dig it up and post.
My take aways
CF made the decision for 24’s in 1990 after extensive research and the research continued into the 2000’s
The FS has known about the the benefits of a 24hr shift beginning in 1977. It has been researched multiple times since then with similar conclusions.
The pay issue facing the federal wildland agencies is nothing new and has been identified as early as 1997. Yet the problem persists.
There is “SOME” truth to the derogatory statement “managing fires for OT benefits”
Sadly, as society has changed, progressed(not always for good) has not necessarily kept up with the reality on the ground. It was noted in the 30 Mile report the "role the human factor plays in accidents.
I will end with the following statement, that as I have gotten older has more and more meaning and importance
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results”
It’s time for change.
4 Likes
I appreciate that. However, credit goes to several folks who took me to task, starting with Firedog1, who stated it was based on research. The documents that folks found for me and I have posted so far are very good reading and should lead others to review the additional documents referenced in that research. I am hopeful that even more research will be uncovered, although what I have read is convincing enough. Under the conditions they indicated, 24-hour shifts are superior in effectiveness, safety, and mitigating acute and cumulative fatigue.
Not wanting to draw the ire of the mods or others, there are take-a-ways, including those you have identified. I’ll make it even, CF should have aggressively pushed out that research into the field and to those of us outside of CF but well within the circle of instructing their folks and national incident management. That would and still will, help eliminate the perception that they are for a contractual nicety and not based on research. I do understand that the time frames I am talking about (1990’s - 2000’s) that much was still happening and developing. However, it is clear to me that the evidence is there to warrant another strong look at the 24’s and when they are appropriate. On the other agencies’ sides, I will say that reading their own research, they have at times contradicted themselves. It appears that the fiscal issues remain an issue and (unintended) driver of policy.
If those who are in the marble hallways desire, they can dust off that research, update it, even provide modern study methodology to cement its irrefutable conclusion. But it is what it is. I have a lot more reading to do to get caught up with what has been uncovered and what that points to. But I am not the one with a high enough pay grade to make policy changes, just point out best practices. I would have never thought that my original and autographed copy of “Forest Fire Fundamentals” (circa 1975) would hold some nuggets still applicable. Gonna dig that back out, again, and re-read those parts.
2 Likes
It seems this discussion has morphed from comparing and contrasting the benefits of 12 hour vs 24 hour operational periods (shifts) on major incidents to the ideal shift length for staffing departments on a day to day basis. I believe these are two separate circumstances and hopefully the research being shown can differentiate between the two. Thank you.
10 Likes