When my late mother and I disagreed about something, she’d say: “Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how slight, small or insignificant it – or they – may be.” She must have prophesized me being in the Raisin Squad. Despite mom’s allegation, there can be value in some old peoples’ opinions. Note that I said some old people and not all old people.
I can’t remember how or why the topic of after-fire critiques came up. It was discussed during morning coffee and at impromptu gatherings of former and somewhat older volunteer chiefs. All had varying opinions – some valid and some not so. Regardless of being pro or con, we couldn’t agree on a specific reason for having one. Obviously, there are no critique rules. There should be.
Critique
The word critique has multiple meanings. It could mean an account, or an analysis, or a review. It can also mean an assessment, an evaluation or even a criticism. The latter meanings can be detrimental if taken out of context.
The goal here is not to confuse or beat this subject to death. It’s to show a critique means different things to different people. They can be used and interpreted in multiple ways – some advantageous and some not so. Remember, everything some old people say should be taken with a grain of salt. They constantly wander off topic. However, there is a chance their comments could be applicable in today’s fire service.
Opinions
We are all entitled to our own. My opinion of a critique after a worker – or any significant event – is to describe the incident by explaining what happened, what went right, and what went wrong. One forever disgruntled white hair said, “It just gives the chief an opportunity to bitch at us. He wants to show everyone how we screwed up.” Another chimed in: “Critiques are used for training.” Yet another said, “It’s a waste of time if you ain’t learning something.”
After one fire, a geezer remembered at the next meeting, the not-too-sure-of-himself chief, said: “Well, it was a bad fire. There’s not much to talk about. Things could’ve gone better but the good thing is no one got hurt!” In a fictitious scenario, an inconsiderate chief might have said, “If it wasn’t a steel building, it would have burned to the ground because supply lines weren’t laid, the wrong size attack lines were pulled, no ventilation was performed, and not enough help was called.” But he was content saying no one got hurt. Was he blaming the troops for his own mistakes or their lack of training? Regardless of being in a career or volunteer entity, expressing negative opinions about an after-fire critique might result in retaliation by the chain-of-command. That’s a sorry state of affairs in any fire department.
Military Reports
Myself and a couple similar-aged raisins got into a squabble about the kinds of critiques. Trying to impress them, I mentioned reading that the Action Reports (ARs) of the eight U.S. Navy battleships at Pearl Harbor, when it was attacked December 7, 1941, were all completed by December 18.
One raisin, also a military veteran, agreed there’s value in an immediate recording of an incident’s facts while they’re are fresh in peoples’ minds. But, as usual, he had to get in a parting shot: “Who cares about the Navy. You were in the Army like I was so you should know better. The Army calls them After Action Reports (AARs).”
I couldn’t remember – 1969 was a long time ago. After looking it up later on the Web, he was right about AARs. Confusingly, the Army also had an After Action Review (AAR) which they referred to as a later analysis that can be used as a learning tool. We agreed the Army had two different meanings for an AAR. And, we eventually agreed a review is more beneficial to give in an after-fire critique. Preliminary reports or just notes should be used to get the facts without being influenced by news reports, gossip, what other people saw, and by some people “trying to cover their butts.”
Julius Caesar
Action Reports are nothing new. And, whoever writes them can slant them in any direction. Besides being a known philanderer and statesman, Julius Caesar was a famous general – or at least he thought he was. Compiled from Web research: “The accounts of his wars are subtly contrived to make the unsuspecting reader see Caesar’s acts in the light that Caesar chooses. The accounts are written in the form of terse, dry, factual reports that look impersonal and objective, yet every recorded fact has been carefully selected and presented.” Be careful when writing an after-fire critique. Don’t pat yourself or your fire department on the back by omitting mistakes.
Training Tool?
Most raisins agreed critiques are or can be excellent training tools. I believe they should be written for a specific audience or audiences. Do you want it for in-house training or are you just telling a story? If showing it to multiple fire departments after “the big one” – you may not want to air dirty laundry – such as three people struggling to raise an extension ladder that’s upside down – oops. Or showing multiple hoselines in front of a burned-out building – and the first-off booster line is at the bottom of the pile – double oops. Check this video link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_QtzklG7y4) from a fire almost 40 years ago. It shows a firefighter in white slacks and deck shoes wearing a turnout coat and helmet and occasionally an air pack. He’s all over the place, entering the building and climbing on top of it. Should’ve erased that one! Use critiques as training tools. Use them to learn and to educate and not to criticize.
TV Footage and Videos
The above video link is a “not in sequence” compilation of television news footage from three stations. Read the smoke, count the lines, and observe their placements. Television and private videos are more beneficial than still photographs because they can possibly show what happened before, during, and immediately after a specific time in an alarm.
The attached photograph is from the after-fire critique for the multiple departments that responded to the fire in the video. The blackboard presentation was used to show the placement of initial apparatus as they arrived, supply lines and location and relocations of initial attack lines. What looks like steps drawn in the blackboard’s upper right-hand corner depicts the Z-crack that appeared above the man door at the below grade DC corner. The Z-crack and the spongy roof resulted in an exterior “surround and drown” operation. The TV set was showing the news footage during the critique. It was supposedly an unoccupied cinder block building with “nothing inside” at the time of the noontime weekday fire – but read the smoke! Show as many videos as you can at your critiques. They’ll keep you honest! And you might be thankful you have them in the event of later legal proceedings.
BILL ADAMS is a member of the Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment Editorial Advisory Board, a former fire apparatus salesman, and a past chief of the East Rochester (NY) Fire Department. He has 50 years of experience in the volunteer fire service.
