alarm larm handling / ems / day - nfpa · nighttime alarm handling, there were unexpected diff...

Quantitative Evaluat

51

EMS/Daytime

As noted for alarm handling for Fire

overall rate from Table 3. Alarm Han

60 seconds and an additional 1% to 9

range of observed processing times

raises a question regarding what fact

EMS Calls

n = 66,202

NFP

Ben

Cr

Alarm Handling

60 s

90 s

Table 10. Alarm Handling Time / EMS

Figure 21. Percent of Daytime EMS Ca

46%

33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0 - 30 31 - 60

Alarm

ve Evaluation of Fire and EMS Mobilization Times

Fire / Daytime responses, the EMS compliance rate is v

andling Time / EMS, down only 1% to 79% of all calls

to 91% for calls processed at or under 90 seconds (Tab

imes noted in Fire / Daytime appears once again in E

factors contribute to this difference.

NFPA 1221

Benchmark

Criteria

Observed

Compliance

60 seconds

90 %

90 seconds

99%

79%

85 seconds

91%

182 seconds / EMS / Daytime

MS Calls Handled over Time

12%

5%2% 1%

61 - 90 91 - 120 121 - 150 151 - 180

Elapsed Seconds

larm Handling / EMS / Day

EM

is very similar to the

alls processed within

Table 10). The wide

in EMS. This result

Median

Mean

Max

33

44

3565

1%

> 180

EMS Responses


52

EMS/Nighttime

In contrast to daytime alarm handli

percent each from their overall va

processed within 90 seconds. This r

processing times (Table 11).

EMS Calls

n = 17,442

NFP

Ben

Cr

Alarm Handling

60 s

90 s

Table 11. Alarm Handling Time / EMS

There is no explanation for the maxi

one hour, in the data. Further resea

toward more extreme outliers during

Figure 22. Percent of /ighttime EMS C

49%

33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0 - 30 31 - 60

Alarm


ndling time, recorded nighttime criteria compliances i

l values to 81% of calls processed at or below 60 s

his result was accompanied by a much more narrow ra

NFPA 1221

Benchmark

Criteria

Observed

Compliance

60 seconds

90 %

90 seconds

99%

81%

80 seconds

93%

181 seconds / EMS / /ighttime

aximum processing time for EMS recorded responses,

esearch may offer some explanation of why alarm han

uring the daytime for both fire and EMS calls.

EMS Calls Handled over Time

11%

4%2% 1%

61 - 90 91 - 120 121 - 150 151 - 180

Elapsed Seconds

larm Handling / EMS / Night

ces increased by one

0 seconds and 93%

w range of observed

Median

Mean

Max

31

42

1532

ses, slightly less than

handling time tends

1%

180 > 180

EMS Responses


53

Discussion Points

In the analysis of daytime versus nig

handling times that are not address

and EMS responses were typically co

Benchmark compliance for

85% at night.

Benchmark compliance for

83% at night.

The largest elapsed alarm ha

Are there differences in the r

o Are the calls differen

o Are the callers differ

Figure 23. Comparative Percent of Da

46%

33%

51%

27%

49%

33%

57%

28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 - 30 31 - 60

Alarm Handl


nighttime alarm handling, there were unexpected diff

ressed in the NFPA 1221 standard. Alarm handling t

ly completed in less time during the nighttime period th

for alarm handling for fire calls improved from 78% d

for alarm handling for EMS calls improved from 81% d

handling times occurred during the day.

the range of processing complexity for day versus night

erent?

ifferent?

of Day & /ight Fire & EMS Calls Handled over Time

12%

5%

2%1%

11%

5%

2% 1%

11%

4%

2%1%

8%

3%2%

1%

61 - 90 91 - 120 121 - 150 151 - 180

Elapsed Seconds

andling / Fire & EMS / Day & Night

EMS Re

Fire Res

EMS Re

Fire Res

differences in alarm

times for both fire

d than daytime.

% during the day to

% during the day to

ight calls for aid?

1%3%

1%1% 1%

180 > 180

ight

Responses / Day

Responses / Day

Responses / Night

Responses / Night

Quantitative Evaluation of Fire and EMS Mobilization Times

54

Turnout Time

Figure 24. Turnout / Fire & EMS / Day & /ight over Time

The current NFPA 1710 standard does not address the difference in day or night turnout using separate

benchmark times16

. The turnout standard for fire and EMS responses, regardless of time of day, is:

90% of all emergency responses to fire calls must turnout within 80 seconds or less.

90% of all emergency responses to EMS calls must turnout within 60 seconds or less.

The tasks common to all turnouts from the ERF were summarized in the previous section and still apply

here with changes and additions accounting for nighttime activity:

Notification of the alarm

Gathering critical response information

Disengagement from tasks in process

o Disengagement from task in progress may now include waking and orienting

o Dressing to the level of station wear required by local practice

16 “The committee does not see the need to establish separate turnout times by time of day. Fire departments

that experience significant differences depending on the time of day should evaluate what is going on during those

periods and determine if there are ways to improve those response times.” (NFPA 1710 ROC 2009, 1710-5)

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Elapsed Seconds

Turnout / Fire & EMS / Day & Night

Fire Daytime Turnout

EMS Daytime Turnout

Fire Nighttime Turnout

EMS Nighttime Turnout


55

Travel within the ERF to the ERU

o Detour to restroom

Donning PPE

Mounting the ERU and securing seatbelts

Opening ERF bay doors

Starting the ERU

Signaling “en route”

Fire/ Daytime

Analysis of a set of 13,463 daytime fire response records (Table 12) revealed that two-thirds (67%) of all

recorded daytime turnouts were accomplished in 80 seconds or less, with half of them accomplished in

66 seconds (median) or less. This is below the criterion set by NFPA 1710 for fire responses, and the

mean average of 68 seconds is below the NFPA benchmark.

Looking at how much time was actually needed to achieve the performance criteria required by the

standard, it is noted that it took 112 seconds to reach the 90% criterion for reported fire responses. This

is slightly more than one and one-third times the time allotted by the standard benchmark.

Fire Calls

n = 13,463

NFPA 1710

Benchmark

Criteria

Observed

Compliance

Median

Mean

Max

Turnout 80 seconds

90 %

67%

112 seconds

66

68

2629 Table 12. Turnout Time / Fire / Daytime

The 45 minute maximum reported turnout time and other extreme outliers noted in the overall analysis

(Table 4. Turnout Time / Fire) appear during the daytime hours continuing the trend of outliers occurring

during the day.


56

Figure 25. Percent of Daytime Fire Tu

16%

28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0 - 30 31 - 60


re Turnouts Completed over Time

33%

16%

5%

1%

61 - 90 91 - 120 121 - 150 151 - 180

Elapsed Seconds

Turnout / Fire / Day

1%

180 > 180

Fire Responses


57

Fire/Nighttime

There was a significant drop in benc

(Table 13). Only 21%, about one res

response during this period took 10

90% compliance criterion.

Fire Calls

n = 2,681

NFP

Ben

Cr

Turnout 80 s

Table 13. Turnout Time / Fire / /ightt

Figure 26. Percent of /ighttime Fire T

4%6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0 - 30 31 - 60

Tu


benchmark compliance during the 2,681 recorded nigh

response in five, met the 80-second benchmark. The

k 108 seconds, and 158 seconds are required to achiev

NFPA 1710

Benchmark

Criteria

Observed

Compliance

80 seconds

90 %

21%

158 seconds

ighttime

Fire Turnouts Completed over Time

20%

34%

23%

8%

61 - 90 91 - 120 121 - 150 151 - 180

Elapsed Seconds

Turnout / Fire / Night

nighttime responses

The median turnout

hieve the standard’s

Median

Mean

Max

108

110

1058

5%

180 > 180

Fire Responses


58

Examining the cumulative distribution function shown in Error! Reference source not found., it can be

noted that the main body of responses, represented by the steepest part of the curve, has not begun by

the time the benchmark has passed. The majority of turnouts do not occur until between 80 seconds

and 150 seconds.

Figure 27. CDF Fire Turnout Time / /ighttime

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Elapsed Seconds

Turnout / Fire / Night

Fire Turnout

Fire Benchmark

90% Criterion


59

EMS/Daytime

Daytime EMS responses totaled 66,

recorded daytime turnouts were acc

52 seconds (median) or less. This is

weighted average of 54 seconds (me

Looking at how much time was actu

be shown that it took 87 seconds t

almost one and one-half times the ti

EMS Calls

n = 66,202

NFP

Ben

Cr

Turnout 60 s

Table 14. Turnout Time / EMS / Dayti

The 52 minute maximum time repor

5. Turnout Time / EMS) appears du

day.

Figure 28. Percent of Daytime EMS Tu

20%

45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0 - 30 31 - 60


66,202 (Table 14). For this group, just under two-th

accomplished in 60 seconds or less, with half of them

is is below the criterion set by NFPA 1710 for EMS re

(mean) is close to the NFPA benchmark.

actually needed to achieve the criteria required by the

ds to reach the 90% criterion for reported fire call re

e time allotted by the standard benchmark.

NFPA 1710

Benchmark

Criteria

Observed

Compliance

60 seconds

90 %

65%

87 seconds

Daytime

eported and other extreme outliers noted in the overa

during the daytime hours, continuing the trend of ou

MS Turnouts Completed over Time

27%

6%2% 0%

61 - 90 91 - 120 121 - 150 151 - 180

Elapsed Seconds

Turnout / EMS / Day

thirds (65%) of all

hem accomplished in

responses, and the

the standard, it can

ll responses. This is

Median

Mean

Max

52

54

3112

verall analysis (Table

f outliers during the

0%

180 > 180

EMS Responses


60

EMS/Nighttime

Nighttime turnout compliance drops

fire responses. With only 12% of re

one response in eight – the averag

are required to achieve the standard

EMS Calls

N= 17,442

NFP

Ben

Cr

Turnout 60 s

Table 15. Turnout Time / EMS / /ight

Figure 29. Percent of /ighttime EMS T

4%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0 - 30 31 - 60

Tu


rops considerably in the 17,442 recorded EMS respon

f recorded responses completing turnout in 60 second

erage nighttime turnout response takes 101 seconds

ard’s 90% compliance criterion.

NFPA 1710

Benchmark

Criteria

Observed

Compliance

60 seconds

90 %

12%

144 seconds

/ighttime

EMS Turnouts Completed over Time

26%

35%

19%

5%

61 - 90 91 - 120 121 - 150 151 - 180

Elapsed Seconds

Turnout / EMS / Night

ponses than it did in

onds or less – about

, and 144 seconds

Median

Mean

Max

100

101

2142

3%

180 > 180

EMS Responses


61

Examining the cumulative distribution function shown in Error! Reference source not found., it can be

noted that the responses have only begun when the benchmark has passed. The majority of turnouts

occur between 60 seconds and 140 seconds.

Figure 30. CDF EMS Turnout Time / /ighttime

Discussion Points

The analysis of daytime versus nighttime response turnout noted differences not specifically addressed

in the NFPA 1710 standard. Nighttime turnout times for both fire and EMS responses were significantly

below the standard benchmarks:

80 second benchmark compliance for Turnout Time for fire responses decreased from 67%

during the day to 21% at night.

60 second benchmark compliance for Turnout Time for EMS responses decreased from 65%

during the day to 12% at night.

Conversely, the largest elapsed Turnout Times occurred during the day.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Elapsed Seconds

Turnout / EMS / Night

EMS Turnout

EMS Benchmark

90% Criterion


62

Observed turnout times for Fire and

average difference of 14 seconds (m

with the 20-second allowance in di

nighttime period turnouts, which inc

EMS, become similar, with an avera

90% criterion). The fact that the

elapsed time suggests that the m

requirements -- becomes less import

EMS median Δ) of turnout time are a

Turnout Da

Seconds median

Fire 66

EMS 52

Δ -14 Table 16. Turnout Time / Fire vs EMS

Figure 31. Comparative Percent of Da

20%

45%

16%

28%

4%

8%

4%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

0 - 30 31 - 60

Turnout


and EMS during the daytime period, compared in Ta

s (medians) to 25 seconds (time to 90% criterion). This

n different benchmarks for Fire and EMS set by NFPA

increase from daytime turnouts by similar increments

verage difference of only 8 seconds (medians) to 14

the two types of responses become more aligned as

e main variation between fire and EMS turnout

portant as new common tasks responsible for 42 to 48

re added during the nighttime turnout response.

Daytime Nighttime

dian 90% median 90% media

112 108 158 +42

87 100 144 +48

-25 -8 -14 EMS

of Day & /ight Fire & EMS Turnouts Completed over Tim

27%

6%

2%0%

33%

16%

5%

1%

26%

35%

19%

5%

20%

34%

23%

8%

61 - 90 91 - 120 121 - 150 151 - 180

Elapsed Seconds

out / Fire & EMS / Day & Night

EMS Re

Fire Res

EMS Re

Fire Res

Table 16, show an

his is commensurate

FPA 1710. Average

ents for both fire and

14 seconds (time to

as they increase in

ut -- different PPE

48 seconds (fire and

Δ

edian 90%

+42 +46

+48 +57

r Time

0% 1%3%

8%

5%

180 > 180

Responses / Day

Responses / Day

Responses / Night

Responses / Night


63

Mobilization Time

Because the two response segments

of each, it is unlikely that the extrem

could occur. Therefore when the da

compliance with the combined stand

Figure 32. Percent of Day & /ight Fire

18%

59%

12%

54%

3%

32%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 - 60 61 - 120

Mobilizatio


ents, alarm handling time and turnout time, are essenti

tremes of each would coincide in the same response in

e data for these two response segments were combined

tandard benchmarks during daytime responses.

ht Fire & EMS Mobilizations Completed over Time

18%

4%

1%

23%

6%

2%

2%

48%

13%

3%

27%

51%

14%

3%

120 121 - 180 181 - 240 241 - 300

Elapsed Seconds

zation / Fire & EMS / Day & Night

EMS Re

Fire Res

EMS Re

Fire Res

entially independent

se incident, though it

ined, there was near

1%2%

1% 2%

> 300

Responses / Day

Responses / Day

Responses / Night

Responses / Night


64

Fire/Daytime

As noted, daytime compliance is

Mobilization Time / Fire.

Fire Calls

N=13,463

(328)

Ben

Mobilization

140

Table 17. Mobilization Time / Fire / Da

Figure 33. Percent of Daytime Fire Mo

12%

54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 - 60 61 - 120

Mo


is slightly better than overall compliance as sho

Implicit

Benchmark

Criteria

Observed

Compliance

140 seconds

81 %

90%

78%

148 seconds

184 seconds

re / Daytime

re Mobilizations Completed over Time

4%

23%

6%

2%

120 121 - 180 181 - 240 241 - 300

Elapsed Seconds

Mobilization / Fire / Day

shown in Table 6.

Median

Mean

Max

103

134

5966

2%

> 300

Fire Responses


65

Fire/Nighttime

Mobilization compliance (Table 18

compliance with the combined perfo

1710, and required 32 seconds beyo

Fire Calls

N=2,681

(125)

Ben

Mobilization

140

Table 18. Mobilization Time / Fire / /i

Figure 34. Percent of /ighttime Fire M

2%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 - 60 61 - 120

Mob


18) drops considerably during the nighttime peri

erformance criterion created from the criteria in NFPA

eyond the benchmark to achieve compliance.

Implicit

Benchmark

Criteria

Observed

Compliance

140 seconds

81 %

90%

52%

180 seconds

208 seconds

re / /ighttime

Fire Mobilizations Completed over Time

7%

51%

14%

3%

120 121 - 180 181 - 240 241 - 300

Elapsed Seconds

Mobilization / Fire / Night

period to only 55%

FPA 1221 and NFPA

Median

Mean

Max

138

149

1671

2%

> 300

Fire Responses


66

EMS/Daytime

Daytime compliance (Error! Referen

compliance as shown in Table 7 Mob

compliance with the implied criterion

EMS Calls

N= 66,202 Ben

Mobilization

120

Table 19. Mobilization Time / EMS / D

Figure 35. Percent of Daytime EMS M

18%

59%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 - 60 61 - 120

Mo


rence source not found.) improved by 7% compared to

Mobilization Time / EMS. As occurred with Fire / Daytim

erion is very nearly achieved.

Implicit

Benchmark

Criteria

Observed

Compliance

120 seconds

81 %

90%

77%

127 seconds

153

S / Daytime

MS Mobilizations Completed over Time

9%

18%

4%1%

120 121 - 180 181 - 240 241 - 300

Elapsed Seconds

Mobilization / EMS / Day

d to overall

ytime responses,

Median

Mean

Max

88

99

3615

1%

> 300

EMS Responses


67

EMS/Nighttime

Mobilization compliance (Table 20) d

implied criterion requiring 48 second

EMS Calls

N= 17,442

(822)

Ben

Mobilization

120

Table 20. Mobilization Time / EMS / /

Figure 36. Percent of /ighttime EMS M

3%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 - 60 61 - 120

Mob


) drops considerably during the nighttime period to o

onds beyond the benchmark to achieve compliance.

Implicit

Benchmark

Criteria

Observed

Compliance

120 seconds

81 %

90%

35%

176 seconds

203 seconds

S / /ighttime

EMS Mobilizations Completed over Time

2%

48%

13%

3%

120 121 - 180 181 - 240 241 - 300

Elapsed Seconds

Mobilization / EMS / Night

to only 37%, with the

Median

Mean

Max

135

143

2219

1%

> 300

EMS Responses


68

6.3 Firefighter Crew Proficiency in Baseline Turnout Exercise

Results from a total of 106 turnout exercises were submitted, representing 13 participating fire

departments. Since there is no definition provided in NFPA 1710 and no clear peer consensus of criteria

on “en route” status, results were collected and are reported using both the moment the apparatus’

wheels were visibly rolling17

(“wheels rolling”) and the moment when the front bumper of the apparatus

crossed the garage door sill18

(“crosses sill”).

Turnout Exercise

n = 106

NFPA 1710

Benchmark

Criteria

Observed

Compliance

Median

Mean

Max

En Route “Wheels Rolling”

80 seconds

90 %

81%

85 seconds

68

67

112

En Route “Crosses Sill”

80 seconds

90 %

70%

92 seconds

72

74

114

Table 21. Turnout Exercise Summary

Figure 37. CDF Baseline Turnout Exercise

17 This criterion has been suggested informally in conversation with members of the NFPA 1710 committee.

18 The “crosses sill” criterion is suggested in NFPA Structural Firefighting Strategy and Tactics: “The third segment is

the turnout time. This is the time from the receipt of the alarm until the apparatus crosses the front door sill of the

station.” (Klaene and Sanders 2008, 125)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Elapsed Seconds

Turnout Exercise

"Wheels Rolling"

"Crosses Sill"

Fire Benchmark

90% Criterion


69

The results indicate that, even under ideal conditions, the process of turnout requires substantially

longer than the NFPA 1710 standard currently allows. Using the more liberal “wheels rolling” criterion,

benchmark compliance is achieved only 81% of the time rather than the 90% target established by the

standard. In order to reach the 90% target, 85 seconds were required (Figure 37. CDF Baseline Turnout

Exercise). Using the more conservative “crosses sill” criterion, benchmark compliance is achieved only

70% of the time, with 92 seconds required to achieve the targets established by the standard (Figure 37.

CDF Baseline Turnout Exercise).

These results are slightly slower but consistent with the preliminary results of the original study utilizing

the Baseline Turnout Exercise.19

19 With n = 38, mean “en route” times of 68 and 70 seconds respectively were recorded for “wheels rolling” and

“crosses sill” criteria. A third criteria, “rear bumper crosses sill” (mean “en route” time of 74 seconds) was

dropped from the standardized version of the exercise for this study to make it more portable. (Upson 2009)


70

6.4 Effects of Station Layout on Turnout Response

The physical attribute of an ERF has a direct influence on firefighter turnout time. Responding crews

must traverse between work and other activity areas and the ERU itself. Both horizontal and vertical

foot travel distances add time to any emergency turnout.

Horizontal Travel

A commonly cited factor for calculating travel times by average adults without a locomotor disability is a

mean walking speed of 4.10 fps (1.25 m/s). This factor has been measured for horizontal travel while

evacuating a building (Boyce, Shields and Silcock 1999, 54). This measure is cited in both The SFPE

Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering (Bryan, Behavioral Response to Fire and Smoke 2002, 3-360)

and in the Fire Protection Handbook (Bryan, Human Behavior and Fire 2008, 4-40). For this study a

factor closer to 5.8 fps, the highest speed recorded by Boyce, Shields and Silcock, was assumed to be

more appropriate for firefighters moving to their ERU during turnout.

To empirically assess this factor, firefighters from 13 participating fire departments were timed over a

measured indoor course walking as if they were responding to an emergency call. Firefighters

participating in the timed walking exercise were instructed “not to run.” This exercise established a

reasonable estimation of how quickly firefighters might be expected to travel safely to reach their

apparatus when actually responding to an alarm.

Alarm Response Walk

(Horizontal Travel)

Mean walking speed

(fps) Seconds per 50’

n = 335 4.98 10.03 Table 22. Alarm Response / Horizontal

The mean walking speed recorded was 5 fps, or 10 seconds for every 50 feet of horizontal foot travel, as

shown in Table 22. This exercise, conducted by multiple raters in 13 fire departments, is slightly slower

but not inconsistent with the results of an earlier study that recorded an average speed of 5.7 fps using

a highly motivated and competitive subject pool associated with the DHS-funded Firefighter Safety and

Deployment Study (Upson 2009).

Vertical Travel

A smaller, more closely controlled set of timed exercises was used to estimate firefighter travel times for

travel up and down stairs and down fire poles. A conservative value of 1.71 fps for vertical travel was

chosen to represent a reasonable estimation of all typical vertical indoor travel. This value is actually

slower than the value of 2.3 fps cited by Boyce, Shields and Silcock (Boyce, Shields and Silcock 1999) but


71

is within the lower average range20

. Firefighters participating in timed stair exercises were instructed

not to run and to “touch every step” as a safety measure consistent with instructions used in CPAT

program,21

which conceivably resulted in more conservative average speeds.

Alarm

Response

(Vertical

Travel)

Down

(seconds)

Down

(fps)

Up

(seconds)

Up

(fps)

n 11 11 10 10

Straight Run

Stair (8.5') 3.46 2.46 2.94 2.89

Return Run

Stair (10') 6.53 1.53 6.16 1.62

Fire Pole (10') 5.52

Estimated

Typical 2.13

Table 23. Alarm Response / Vertical

In order to more easily quantify travel time using combined horizontal and vertical components, a

horizontal equivalency was calculated for a nominal 10-foot flight of stairs. Based on the mean

horizontal and vertical speeds noted above, a conversion factor of 2.17 was derived. This is equivalent

to 22 feet of horizontal travel for each nominal 10 feet of vertical travel.

Horizontal

Equivalency

Horizontal

Travel

(fps)

Vertical

Travel

(fps)

Conversion

(Horizontal/Vertical)

Horizontal

Equivalent

Nominal 10’

Stair

(feet)

4.98 2.30 2.17 21.7

Table 24. Alarm Response / Conversion

20 With n = 8, that study cites a mean descending speed of 2.3 fps with a range of 1.5 – 3.6 fps and an interquartile

range of 1.7 – 2.9 fps. 21

Candidate Physical Ability Test Program (The IAFF/IAFC Wellness-Fitness Task Force n.d.)


72

Station Layout

The Baseline Turnout Exercise is based on an event in which all the crew members are within 50 feet of

their assigned apparatus at the time of alarm. To estimate times in which foot travel exceeds 50 feet, a

walking speed of 5 fps22

, or 10 seconds for every additional 50 feet of travel, can reasonably be used to

project the minimum turnout time required.

Measurements of horizontal travel distances were made from the door of the primary apparatus to

various key locations in 197 fire stations. Where vertical components were part of the path of travel,

the horizontal equivalency calculated above was added to the horizontal distance. Based on the average

travel distances recorded, it is reasonable to assume that firefighters responding to an alarm may

typically have to travel in excess of 100 feet inside the station to reach their assigned ERU. This measure

equates to another 10 seconds of turnout time beyond the baseline established by the Ideal Turnout

Exercise.

Station

Layout

n = 197

Day Room

Travel

n = 195

Training

Room

Travel

n = 179

Dining /

Kitchen

Travel

n = 195

Fitness

Room

Travel

n = 190

Sleeping

Room

Travel

n = 197

min

median

mean

std dev

max

11

72

70

34

192

6

72

71

37

237

8

69

71

30

155

5

68

74

43

226

13

75

84

36

212 Table 25. Station Layout Summary

22 With n = 131, mean walking speed was calculated at 5.7fps. (Upson 2009)


73

7 Conclusions

I. The actual recorded alarm handling times, provided to this study from a group of large fire

departments, were compiled, statistically analyzed, and compared to the target alarm handling

times given in NFPA 1221. Results demonstrated that:

a. For both fire and EMS calls, the mean average alarm handling times observed were less

than 60 seconds

b. For approximately 80% of the fire and EMS calls, alarm handling was completed in the

required 60 seconds or less.

c. 80% of calls processed in 60 seconds or less falls below the 90% targeted in the

standard.

d. The time required for alarm handling of 90% of the calls was 92 seconds for fire (slightly

over one and one-half times the standard) and 84 seconds for EMS (slightly less than

one and one-half times the standard).

e. A second benchmark is set in the standard, which targets 90 seconds to process 99% of

the calls. At an elapsed time of 90 seconds, approximately 90% of the calls were

processed rather than the 99% required. Given the observed distribution of alarm

handling times, where a very long tail is observed, the 99% criterion may not be

particularly useful for benchmarking. A long tail is observed in the distribution, which

represents long alarm handling times for a certain fraction of the fire and EMS calls.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180

Cu

mu

lativ

e P

erc

en

tag

e

Elapsed Seconds

Alarm Handling / Fire & EMS (combined)

Fire & EMS Alarm Handling

Fire & EMS Benchmark #1

90% Criterion

Fire & EMS Benchmark #2

99% Criterion


74

II. The actual recorded turnout times, provided to this study from a group of large fire

departments, were compiled, statistically analyzed, and compared to the target alarm handling

times given in NFPA 1710.

a. For both fire and EMS calls, the mean average turnout times observed fell well within

their respective current benchmarks of 80 seconds for fire and 60 seconds for EMS.

i. For approximately 60% of the fire calls, turnout was completed in the required

80 seconds or less.

ii. For approximately 54% of the EMS calls, turnout was completed in the required

60 seconds or less.

b. The time actually required and recorded for turnout of 90% of the calls was 123 seconds

for fire (slightly over one and one-third times the standard) and 109 seconds for EMS

(slightly more than one and two-thirds times the standard).

III. The actual recorded turnout times, provided to this study from a group of large fire

departments, showed a highly significant difference in turnout times between daytime and

nighttime hours, a factor not currently addressed in NFPA 1710.

a. Turnout Times were compared between daytime hours (0600 to 1800), when crews are

presumably at their highest readiness, and nighttime hours (0000 to 0600), when they

are presumably at their lowest readiness.

b. For both fire and EMS nighttime calls, the mean average turnout times observed fell

well above their current NFPA 1710 benchmarks.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180

Cu

mu

lativ

e P

erc

en

tag

e

Elapsed Seconds

Turnout / Fire & EMS

EMS Turnout

Fire Turnout

EMS Benchmark


75

i. For only approximately 21% of the nighttime fire calls, turnout was completed in

the required 80 seconds or less.

ii. For only approximately 12% of the nighttime EMS calls, turnout was completed

in the required 60 seconds or less.

c. The time required for turnout of 90% of the nighttime calls was 158 seconds for fire (just

under two times the standard) and 144 seconds for EMS (slightly more than two and

one-third times the standard).

IV. The simulated turnout times recorded in the Baseline Turnout Exercise, reported from a diverse

group of fire departments, exceeded the benchmarks set in NFPA 1710.

a. For simulated fire EMS calls, the mean average turnout times observed fell well within

their respective current benchmark of 80 seconds.

i. For approximately 80% of the exercise trials using the “wheels rolling” criterion,

turnout was completed in the required 80 seconds or less.

ii. For approximately 70% of the exercise trials using the “crosses sill” criterion,

turnout was completed in the required 80 seconds or less.

b. Both percentages of simulated turnouts completed in 80 seconds or less fall well below

the 90% targeted in the standard.

c. The time actually required and recorded for turnout of 90% of the calls was 86 seconds

for the “wheels rolling” criterion and 96 seconds for the “crosses sill” criterion.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180

Cu

mu

lativ

e P

erc

en

tag

e

Elapsed Seconds

Turnout / Fire & EMS / Night

Fire Turnout

Fire Benchmark

EMS Turnout

EMS Benchmark

90% Criterion


76

V. The Station Layout Data collected indicates that the average station requires as much as twice

the travel distance and time to reach the ERU from common station areas as is provided in the

Baseline Turnout Exercise.

a. Foot travel distance and time to sleeping areas is, on the average, significantly greater

than travel distance to any other part of the ERF.

b. Foot travel requires 10 seconds for every 50 feet traveled within the ERF, and stairs

more than double that rate.

Station

Layout

n =

197

Day Room

Travel

n = 195

Training Room

Travel

n = 179

Dining /

Kitchen Travel

n = 195

Fitness Room

Travel

n = 190

Sleeping Room

Travel

n = 197

min

median

mean

std dev

max

11

72

70

34

192

6

72

71

37

237

8

69

71

30

155

5

68

74

43

226

13

75

84

36

212

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180

Cu

mu

lativ

e P

erc

en

tag

e

Elapsed Seconds

Turnout / Fire / Responses & Exercise

Fire Response

Fire Benchmark

90% Criterion

"Wheels Rolling"

"Crosses Sill"


77

8 Future Study Questions

Are there differences in the range of processing complexity for fire versus EMS calls for aid?

Are there differences in the efficiency of processing algorithms for fire versus EMS calls for aid?

Does the nature and complexity of calls vary by time of day?

Are fire versus EMS calls for aid similarly classified and processed as “emergency” responses?

How much transmission delay is typically introduced between dispatcher initiation and ERF

notification of an alarm?

How does advanced technology impact alarm handling times?

o CAD to CAD interfaces among PSAPs and response agencies

o Enhanced mapping data/software

o Call taker / Dispatcher workflow analysis

How does the method of alarm notification affect ERU crew turnout times?

o Automated dispatch messaging / locution systems

What are the variations in ERU crew turnout times based on the perceived severity of the

emergency?


78

(This page left intentionally blank)


79

Works Cited

Averill, Jason D., Lori Moore-Merrell, Kathy A. Notarianni, Robert Santos, and Adam Barowy. "Multi-

Phase Study on Firefighter Safety and Deployment Study Year 1 Final Report." FireReporting.org.

September 19, 2008. http://www.firereporting.org/pdfs/2008_Year_1_Final_Report.pdf (accessed

March 2010).

Boyce, K. E., T. J. Shields, and G. W. H. Silcock. "Toward the Characterization of Building Occupancies

fore Fire Safety Engineering: Capabilities of Disabled People Moving Horizontally and on an Incline." Fire

Technology 35, no. 1 (1999): 51 - 67.

Bryan, John L. "Behavioral Response to Fire and Smoke." Chap. 12 in The SFPE Handbook of Fire

Protection Engineering, edited by Philip J. DiNenno. Quincy, MA: NFPA, 2002.

Bryan, John L. Human Behavior and Fire. Vol. 1, chap. 4-1 in Fire Protection Handbook, edited by Arthur

E. Cote, 4-3 - 4-47. Quincy, M: NFPA, 2008.

CPSE/Deccan International. Turnout Investigation. internal report to NFPA 1710 Technical Committee,

Center for Public Safety Excellence, unpublished, 2007.

Gill, Chris. unpublished correspondence, 2 13, 2009.

—. "IRMP Year III – Turnout Times." Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service. 4 23, 2007.

http://library.rbfrs.co.uk/public_agendas/osrqj100.doc (accessed March 2010).

Klaene, Bernard J., and Russell E. Sanders. NFPA Structural Firefighting Strategy and Tactics. 2nd.

Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2008.

Microsoft Corporation. "Excel 2007." Part of Microsoft Office Small Business Edition 2007. 2006.

NFPA 1221. NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services

Communications Systems. 2010. Quincy, MA: NFPA, 2009.

NFPA 1710. NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations,

Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. 2010.

Quincy, MA: NFPA, 2009.

NFPA 1710 ROC. 2009 Annual Revision Cycle Report on Comments. Quincy, MA: NFPA, 2009, 1710-5 --

1710-10.

Office of Strategic Planning and Information Systems of the Greensboro (NC) Fire Department; Guilford

Metro 911 Emergency Communications Center. "MCT Enroute 800MHz Timing Study." internal study,

Office of Strategic Planning and Information Systems, Greensboro (NC) Fire Department, NC, 2007.

SAS Institute Inc. "SAS." Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 2003.


80

The IAFF/IAFC Wellness-Fitness Task Force. IAFF: Wellness-Fitness Initiative.

http://www.iaff.org/hs/CPAT/cpat_index.html (accessed March 2010).

U.S. Fire Administration. USFA Fire Departments. 2008.

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/departments/index.shtm (accessed March 2010).

Upson, Robert P.S. Turnout Validation Study. Independent Study Project, Fire Protection Engineering,

Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA: unpublished, 2009.


81

Appendices

A Project Summary

B Participant Invitation / Questionnaire

C Participant Survey

D Request for Historical Data

E Station Layout / Turnout Exercise Forms

F Turn Out Exercise Instructions

G Raw Versus Filtered Data

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471

Telephone: +1.617.984.7281 Fax: +1.617.984.7010 Email: [email protected]

www.nfpa.org/foundation

QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF FIRE & EMS MOBILIZATION TIMES

Project Summary 17 March 2009

Background:

Comprehensive data on fire emergency and EMS call processing and turnout time is largely absent

from the published literature. A critical factor in the effectiveness of any emergency response

agency is the ability to get personnel and equipment to the scene of the emergency in a timely

manner.

Mobilization time is measureable time interval from call receipt at a public safety answering point

until the first assigned emergency response unit is physically en route to the emergency. Operational

benchmarks for call processing and resource turnout would be greatly enhanced with strong

empirical validation, and this information would be of direct benefit to the following three NFPA

standards that address certain aspects of this topic: NFPA 1221, Public Fire Service Communications

Systems, NFPA 1710, Career Fire Department Deployment, and NFPA 1720, Volunteer Fire

Department Deployment.

It is generally accepted that certain factors will cause mobilization times to increase or decrease.

Examples of such factors include: combined versus distinct public safety answering points and

communications centers; method of notification for emergency response facilities and emergency

response units; type of emergency dispatched; emergency response unit crew activity at time of

response; emergency response facilities layout; emergency response unit crew travel in station; and

emergency response unit crew proficiency in basic turnout tasks. What is not known is the

importance of each of these factors or combinations of factors to the magnitude of that change.

Collection of a large amount of mobilization time data for stations with different types of

communications centers, methods of notification, etc. would provide insight as to each factor’s

relative importance to mobilization time. These results will provide an objective basis for

further development of the NFPA standards addressing this topic, as well as contributing

critical information for chiefs and city managers tasked with optimum deployment of

emergency response facilities and emergency response units.

Project Goal and Objectives:

The goal of this study is to provide a quantitative evaluation of fire emergency and EMS mobilization

times, and to identify the key factors affecting their performance. This study will achieve this goal by

developing a clear statistical picture of actual fire emergency and EMS call processing and turnout

times for a variety of emergency types across a large representative population of fire departments.

Additionally, the study will identify the most significant factors that affect variation in call processing

and turnout times in those departments.

of 2

Scope/Tasks:

This study will utilize a large pool of available fire department information that has already been

collected for a related study on fire fighter safety and deployment study. This information represents

approximately 400 agencies, and a subset will be asked to participate in this study on mobilization

time study based on the availability of communications center time segment documentation that

they are generally required to individually collect. Mobilization time data will be collected,

coordinated and analyzed in relation to the effects of specific factors potentially affecting variance in

mobilization time.

This project involves the following steps:

1) Task 1 – Project Technical Panel. Formation of a Project Technical Panel by FPRF from the

community of directly affected parties and technical experts on the subject.

2) Task 2 – Survey Population and Form. Identify a representative cross-section of participant

emergency response organizations from the available sample population, sufficient to include at

least 100 emergency response facilities, and develop survey form.

3) Task 3 – Data Collection. Implement and finalize data collection efforts based on survey form

results, and historical and other available data sources.

4) Task 4 – Data Analysis. Analyze mobilization time data through statistical evaluation and follow-

up of data outliers to identify cause.

5) Report and Dissemination. Develop the final report based on review from the Project Technical

Panel, and circulate to the applicable NFPA Technical Committees and other interested parties.

Implementation and Final Report:

The research program will be conducted under the auspices of the Fire Protection Research

Foundation and will be guided by a Project Technical Panel consisting of technical experts that will

review periodic reports of progress, research results, and the final project report. The schedule for

this study intends to have a final report by 15 December 2009.

MOBILIZATION STUDY Robert Upson, MSFPE Candidate

Kathy Notarianni, PhD, P.E. Department of Fire Protection Engineering

Worcester Polytechnic Institute

100 Institute Road

Worcester, MA 0169

June 1, 2009

Dear Chief:

You can accomplish something meaningful with just a small amount of your time. As a participant in the Department of

Homeland Security sponsored Firefighter Safety and Deployment Study, we invite your department to participate in a

new study, sponsored by the NFPA’s Fire Protection Research Foundation. The goal of this complimentary study is to

collect and document fire department call processing and turnout times. This study will provide useful information for

NFPA committees, other policy setting groups, and most importantly, fire department planners and managers.

As part of this project, data will be collected nationwide on emergency call processing, dispatch, and turnout times for

fire service based fire and EMS emergencies. This data will be used to establish an accurate estimate of the time typically

needed to mobilize emergency forces. We will also collect data on factors that affect mobilization time in order to

provide practical guidance for improving mobilization speed.

All participants will be asked to complete an online survey (estimated 30 – 45 minutes):

• Identifying characteristics of their department’s call handling and dispatching methods

• Providing summary information about each of their fire stations and assigned response units

Selected participants will be asked to:

• Conduct a simple timed turnout exercise to help establish minimum recommended standards

• Share call processing and turnout time data from some of your actual responses

This study is endorsed by Association of Public-Safety Communications Officers, Center for Public Safety Excellence,

International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Association of Fire Fighters, Metropolitan Fire Chiefs, National

League of Cities, and National Volunteer Fire Council.

Please take a few moments to complete and return the brief attached questionnaire and indicate if your department

would be willing to participate in this study. Study data, results, and conclusions will be shared with all participating

departments. Study information is available at our website, http://MobilizationStudy.org, and we would be more than

happy to personally answer any questions that you might have about our study.

Your time and assistance is our most valuable resource.

Best regards,

Robert Upson Kathy Notarianni Robert Upson Kathy Notarianni

Deputy Fire Marshal, New Hartford, CT Chair, Department of FPE, WPI

[email protected] [email protected]

Chief Sample

Your Fire Department

123 Main Street

Anytown, USA 01234-5678

MOBILIZATION STUDY PARTICIPANT SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE

Please complete and return by as soon as possible to: Department of Fire Protection Engineering, Worcester

Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Road, Worcester, MA 01609-2280 or fax: (508) 831-5862 or email:

[email protected]

Chief Sample

Your Fire Department

123 Main Street

Anytown, USA 01234-5678

(Please correct any errors in your department contact information for our records.)

Please complete this brief Call Processing/Dispatch Questionnaire:

1) Who operates the Primary Public Service Answering Point (PSAP) for 9-1-1 calls for your department?

FD Comm Center ______ Police Dept ______ Other Agency _____ Specify __________________________

2) Who receives Direct Dialed Emergency Calls for your department?


3) Who receives Automatic Alarms for your department?


4) Does your PSAP and/or FD Comm Center maintain call processing records in accordance with NFPA 1221?

(This includes documentation of type of call, call receipt, transfer (if applicable), dispatch, and unit response times.)

Yes _____ No _____ Unknown _____

a) If Yes, are these times documented in computer a file format that can be exported in a portable format?

Yes _____ No _____ Unknown _____

Would you be willing to participate further in the full 2009 Mobilization Study?

Yes, I Accept _____ No, I Decline _____ Authorized Signature _________________________

What is your department’s NFIRS FDID? ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ NA / No FDID ______

(This information will help us merge your data with additional data from the NFIRS database.)

Who will be your department’s designated contact for this study?

Self _____ Other _____ _________________________________________________

(If Other, Contact’s full name and title)

Please supply an email address that we may use to reach your department’s designated

contact in connection with this study: _______________@___________________._____

WPI Mobilization Study

General Participant Survey

1 Revision 3

It may be helpful to print out this list as a guide and data gathering sheet before

filling in the online survey. You may complete the online survey in multiple

sessions if you do not have all the information requested at once.

Fire Department Demographics

1) Please enter your Username

2) What is the approximate population served by your department?

3) How many fire stations does your department operate? (fill in all that apply)

a) Manned 24/7 by career staff?

b) Manned 24/7 by career staff with additional paid-on-call or volunteer staff?

c) Manned part-time by career staff?

d) Manned part-time by career staff with additional paid-on-call or volunteer staff?

e) Manned entirely by paid-on-call or volunteer staff?

4) How many fire incidents as defined by NFIRS v5.0 did your department respond to during

2008?

�FIRS v5.0 I�CIDE�T TYPE CODES (Series 100)

Fire. Includes fires out on arrival and gas vapor explosions (with extremely rapid combustion).

This number should include all responses to hostile fires. It should not include calls

for controlled burning, authorized or otherwise.



2 Revision 3

5) How many structure fire incidents as defined by NFIRS v5.0 did your department respond to

during 2008?

6) How many non-fire life threatening emergencies, excluding EMS calls, did your department

respond to during 2008?

�FIRS v5.0 I�CIDE�T TYPE CODES (Series 100)

Structure fire

111 Building fire. Excludes confined fires (113–118).

112 Fire in structure, other than in a building. Included are fires on or in piers, quays, or pilings: tunnels or underground

connecting structures; bridges, trestles, or overhead elevated structures; transformers, power or utility vaults or

equipment; fences; and tents.

113 Cooking fire involving the contents of a cooking vessel without fire extension beyond the vessel.

114 Chimney or flue fire originating in and confined to a chimney or flue. Excludes fires that extend beyond the chimney

(111 or 112).

115 Incinerator overload or malfunction, but flames cause no damage outside the incinerator.

116 Fuel burner/boiler, delayed ignition or malfunction, where flames cause no damage outside the fire box.

117 Commercial compactor fire, confined to contents of compactor. Excluded are home trash compactors.

118 Trash or rubbish fire in a structure, with no flame damage to structure or its contents.

Fire in mobile property used as a fixed structure. Includes mobile homes, motor homes, camping

trailers.

121 Fire in mobile home used as a fixed residence. Includes mobile homes when not in transit and used as a structure for

residential purposes; and manufactured homes built on a permanent chassis.

122 Fire in a motor home, camper, or recreational vehicle when used as a structure. Includes motor homes when not in

transit and used as a structure for residential purposes.

123 Fire in a portable building, when used at a fixed location. Includes portable buildings used for commerce, industry, or

education and trailers used for commercial purposes.

120 Fire in mobile property used as a fixed structure, other.

�FIRS v5.0 I�CIDE�T TYPE CODES for non-life threatening emergencies

Series Heading

200 Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat (No Ensuing Fire)

300 Rescue and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Incidents

400 Hazardous Condition (No Fire)

800 Severe Weather and Natural Disaster

Typically these calls are represented by NFIRS Series 200, 300 (Excluding 321, EMS only

321), 400, & 800. These include but are not limited to explosions without fire, rescue

calls, hazardous materials incidents, and natural disasters.



3 Revision 3

7) Does your department provide EMS services?

8) If Yes, does your department provide EMS primary response and ambulance

transportation?

9) If Yes, how many BLS calls did your department respond to during 2008?

10) If Yes, how many ALS calls did your department respond to during 2008?

11) Does your department assign response priorities at the time of dispatch?

12) If yes, are these response priorities documented as part of your dispatch

records?

13) If yes, what priority levels are used by your department?

14) What does your department call each level used? (check all that apply)

Emergency Response; lights and sirens to full extent of law

Urgent Response; lights and sirens with restrictions

Prompt Response; respond immediately with normal flow of traffic

Routine Response; respond when available with normal flow of traffic

Other level of response

Call Processing and Emergency Dispatching System

15) 9-1-1 Emergency Call intake for your department is handled by:

Your Fire Department Operated PSAP/Communications Center

Local Police Department Operated PSAP/Communications Center

Other Local Agency Operated PSAP/Communications Center

Regional Public Safety Answering Point/Communications Center



4 Revision 3

16) Direct Dialed Emergency Call intake for your department is handled by:

(Include reports of automatic fire alarms relayed by commercial monitoring services)





17) Automatic Alarm intake for your department is handled by:





18) Are emergency calls/alarms for your department dispatched by the same agency that

receives them or transferred to a separate Communication Center for Dispatching?

PSAP dispatches calls directly

PSAP transfers calls to Communication Center

19) Do your Call Intake Communicators process calls using written Standard Operating

Procedures?



5 Revision 3

20) What kind of training is provided to your Call Intake Communicators? (check all that apply)

Certified to APCO standard (PST, EMD)

Certified to NAED standard (ETC, EFD, EMD, EPD,)

Certified to NFPA 1061 standard (Level I, II, III)

Certified to NHSTA/DOT standard (EMD)

Certified to State/Local standard

Certified by State/Local Agency

Certified by Private Training Agency

Trained by State/Local Agency program

Trained by Private Training Agency

Trained in-house

Recertified periodically (i.e. annually, bi-annually)

Continuing Education required (i.e. minimum required hours per year of approved training)

21) What kind of training is provided to your Communications Center Dispatchers? (check all

that apply)

Certified to APCO standard (PST, EMD)

Certified to NAED standard (ETC, EFD, EMD, EPD,)

Certified to NFPA 1061 standard (Level I, II, III)

Certified to NHSTA/DOT standard (EMD)

Certified to State/Local standard

Certified by State/Local Agency

Certified by Private Training Agency

Trained by State/Local Agency program

Trained by Private Training Agency

Trained in-house

Recertified periodically (i.e. annually, bi-annually)

Continuing Education required (i.e. minimum required hours per year of approved training)

alarm larm handling / ems / day - nfpa · nighttime alarm handling, there were unexpected diff...

Documents