One more last working class hero

Alf:
We are going to get two guys off the back of the fire engine wearing sets ready to go … so we drag a
reel off and we get them to the front door, get them in the place. … While this is all going on it takes a
few seconds .. there is always more than one officer, that’s when the situation is assessed. You gain
knowledge from neighbours, from people outside and you can’t always take notice of everybody.
Basically speaking, yeah, you have got to get into action straight away, but while all this is going on, it’s
simultaneous. … but you could halt it as fast. … You get two blokes up the staircase and you then find
something out and you have got to get them out quickly. … The whole time you are firefighting, or you
are in situations that are potentially hazardous, it is nice to know that the guy outside is looking after my
arse. If anything is going to go wrong and he is going to get me out of here because once you’re in, you
don't know the worst of it.
[My emphasis].
53
Both Duke and Alf refer to the extra seconds a skilled firefighter puts into thinking about safety. It is easy to see the how
Alf’s watch have developed protocols to gain extra time. These include: rigging in BA on route to the fire; getting the
hosereel off immediately on arrival; assessing the situation on the move. Alf’s use of the word “officers” is ubiquitous,
‘everyone’ outside would be watching out for those inside. As well as watching out for each other, they are also
‘watching’ in a more Foucaultian sense. Peer group review will take place later at the post-mortem. Firefighters will be
conscious of this gaze and might expect their watch to sanction them if they do not follow their protocols.
In a focus group, Pete indicates how firefighters make decisions based on the incoming evidence, rather than
actually, “throwing caution to the wind.”
Pete:
You have gone into a building and you have suddenly thought, ‘hang about, I don’t really want to be
here’. And you sort of hold fire a bit. And you’re in the doorway and you shouldn’t, there is no purpose
in .. tiles on the floor and that is saying to you, ‘you shouldn’t be there’ init? … but if somebody is
reported you still have a little go. There comes a point you have got to know your limits. Cos, you could
cause problems with other people.
[My emphases].
There are judgements going on here. Pete’s constant comparative analysis suggests caution, “tiles on the floor” could be a
sign that the roof may be in danger of collapsing. Pete makes his own decision, he will go just so far. There is a fire
service expression ‘one hand for The Job, the other for yourself’. Simply translated this suggests firefighters should
always look to their own personal safety whilst they are firefighting. This will not prevent Pete from having, “a little go”
to rescue someone, but Pete has a responsibility to the, “other people,” who are backing him up. Experiential knowledge
suggests trust goes two ways: Pete, like Alf, trusts his colleagues (both with him in the fire and outside) will try to rescue
him in an emergency. Nonetheless, he also recognises he should not abuse that trust by risk taking for no real purpose.
As in the case of the probationers above, such understandings make it more likely that elder firefighters will rein in the
recklessness of youth. If probationers get into trouble then it is the elder firefighters outside who will not have the option
of judging a risk, but be expected to take ‘real’ risks with their own lives to rescue those inside. Proving you can ‘fit-in’
by getting-in not only requires bravado, but also consideration for your colleagues and yourself. The peer group review at
post-mortems plays an important role in this regard.
Away from the focus group, I asked Pete about the ‘new’ idea of dynamic risk assessment. Pete’s answer is almost
a denial that he knows about it. However, Pete’s earlier account indicates he (unconsciously) routinely practices such
behaviour.
Pete:
I haven’t actually been trained that way. I am so used to getting-in there and getting-involved and you
quite enjoy getting-in there. It’s in your mind you have got to put that fire out. Em whether it’s persons
reported or not doesn’t always matter. You seem to be programmed to put that fire out and then
sometimes you think what am I doing, it’s a bit dodgy here. I shouldn’t be in this situation and you seem
to know that, sense that and you come back a bit.
[My emphases].
Pete is a good firefighter, he wants to get-in, regardless of whether the fire is ‘persons reported’ or not (this relates back to
earlier arguments about why do firefighters get-in). Pete may not formally acknowledge dynamic risk assessment and he
may believe he is, “programmed,” but he knows when to stop. It is Pete’s decision to step back, as Alf and Alex did
(noted earlier). These are learnt decisions! Decisions that prove you are a good firefighters. These decisions do not occur
naturally but are part and parcel of learnt behaviour of firefighting. Getting-in has dividends, but Duke, Alf and Pete will
use their experience and position in the informal hierarchy to temper the inexperience of youth: they will not award the
label of a good firefighter to those who risk their lives unnecessarily.
Rather than ‘listening to the bugles’ firefighters are involved in complicated and skilful learnt behaviour (and
acts) when they get-in at a fire. The adrenaline rush firefighters seek, is not a suicidal challenge, but rather a carefully
planned adventure. It may even be that firefighters have found a way of complying with their professional ethos,
providing their public image and at the same time testing themselves against their masculine standards.