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.
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.
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.
Correct
I think the topic was misunderstood by some
We are on the same page though…
Here is a thought if we work people 12’s we actually get 14 days of work not just 7 24 hour days. I also believe most Division (T) should work 12’s unless there is real fire behavior at night that the T is working. 12 hours allows for more sets and reps and working with different trainers. Our folks think 24 are a given right, which those that build plans know it’s a 16 to 18 hour day…
not sure if your concept is for or against 24’s. after doing both for 25 plus years, I would side with 24 hr. shifts…more productivity and better rest. I am sure there is some conditions that may preclude these situation, but for the most part on long term for sure, 24’s have a most positive result. just an opinion from someone that has been there and done it.
I like the 24 hour shift during active firefighting. When the forward progress has been stopped and things are moving into a mop up and patrol status I think the 12 hour shift is more advantageous.
I have been on many state fires in the mop up stage where we are on a 24, but working 12 hours. Not exactly a cost effective model. I think more flexibility is needed as some have shared on this blog.
Completely agree on the Div. being a 12. Sorry, but on these Mega fires especially, way too much information gets lost in between the switching of Division supes. We have all had that Div. that completely changed the previous days plan (that still exists per ops) because they don’t like it. Nothing worse than going extended and having a constant changing plan every operational period that doesn’t relate at all to the morning breakouts or what’s in the IAP, or… what you’ve been doing for 3 days and the fire hasn’t moved.
I am still going through the information and documentation I have received. One of the original researchers (Bill Holmes) who used the USFS studies completed in the 70’s as part of his research is trying to get me the original USFS study materials. It is important to note that Chief Holmes provided parameters for its use, and one of those was that once the fire was controlled and the pace slowed or could slow, that 12 would/most likely were more appropriate. There are several guidelines for its consideration as a tool in the tool-box. I do not know if those were ever brought forward to elucidate any current policy. If not, it is an incomplete picture or application.
As I alluded to, there is a lot more to the story than what is currently “out there” in agency domains. What I could really use is any current policies and guidelines that memorialized the 24-hour guidelines, from any agency. If anyone has those I would certainly like to see them. If not, I can go back to my FIRESCOPE peers and get them. To be clear, this is regarding the 24-hour Operational Periods, not standard “shift schedules” for responders.
This is not the end of this story. This is a best practice. It is a good tool that should be available in an IMT/AHIMT’s tool-box under the parameters provided. Using it as the basis and adding some of the more current concepts and methodology might be appropriate. It may not be a short-term project, but it is now on the list.
Just to add, CALFIRE historically has and currently does transition to 12 hour or modified 12 hour shifts on patrol/mop up Divisions as the incident progresses.
The policy does exist in CALFIRE issuance.
And the USFS can and will transition to only a modified Day shift with no night shift. This can occur as containment creeps towards “full”. This is based on risk vs benefit (personnel working in the dark under snags pulling hose out or mop-up 300 feet in from the line) & resource availability, among other factors.
Having worked the Plans side on fire “Complex’s” churning out two planning cycles/operational periods worth of product every 24hrs, I can clearly see through my bloodshot eyes and foggy brain the advantages of one operational period per 24hrs. One OPSC I worked with really believed in the night shift’s ability to get work done vs day shift that has to deal with peak burning conditions. With that said, I’d like to see objective data on the thought of shifting the start of shift to accommodate/coordinate travel times, shift change, and taking advantage of the timing of the burning period/weather conditions, to get the most bang for your operations buck, when there is a clear advantage of doing this.
I am eagerly awaiting to see what all can be pulled from the storage box that I’ve been told about. Since I don’t have the information first hand, but spoke to the person who put it in storage, the original US forest service MTDC studies in the 70s and 80s came to the conclusion that a 24-hour operational period had significant advantages over the 12’s. Later, Cal fire studied that and the EFO paper that I previously posted in this thread discusses that. I can’t say much else until I get my hands on the actual studies because, well, despite its advantages it wasn’t pursued and evidently dropped until Calfire got a hold of the research studies and developed a method to implement. Y’all will know when I get a hold of it. Like I’ve alluded to, evidently there is a lot of the story that hasn’t been told, leaving some people with the perception like I had. And that was wrong.