Crew Cohesion

1. Crew Cohesion Cohesion and Fire Crews—a Long Standing Concern Experts Who Have Studied Why People Died Fighting Wildfires Have Long Noted a Connection Between Fire Crew Cohesion And Fatalities. Let’s Look at This Connection In the Context of Three Firefighting Tragedies.

2. Part - Crew Cohesion at the Mann Gulch, South Canyon,and Thirtymile Fires • Intra-crew cohesion is the cohesion within a single crew fighting a fire. • Inter-crew cohesion refers to cohesion between different crews fighting the same fire as well as their cohesion with fire managers.

3. Part I— Crew Cohesion at the Mann Gulch, South Canyon & Thirtymile Fires • Crews did not know each other very well and where loosely coupled. • On the South Canyon fire the three crews working the fire did not have good inter-crew cohesion. • On the 30 Mile fire the two district crews that made up the one crew did have good intra-crew cohesion.

4. Intracrew Cohesion • Work and train together to develop a bond. • The smokejumpers on the Mann Gulch fire rarely worked together and it was the first fire for some. • The Type II crew on the 30 Mile fire was made up of two district crews to form one crew.

5. Intercrew Cohesion • Blending with other crews and within crew did not occur. • Both the 30 Mile and South Canyon fires had no clear direction of Tactics or Chain of Command.

6. Cohesion—A Definition When the word cohesion is used in relation to groups, people are describing how closely tied together they are as a group. But the meaning of cohesion extends far beyond this. People in cohesive groups speak openly of themselves as “a little family.” They often talk about their cohesion in spiritual and reverential ways. Members of military, sports, and work teams may use the word “cohesion” to describe a kind of intensified spiritual state of interpersonal connectedness or a special group “chemistry.” When people experience cohesion in the groups they belong to, they speak as if they have been blessed with a special kind of strength that enables them to overcome great obstacles. The special strength provided by cohesion has not gone unnoticed by sociologists.

7. Suicide —The Problemof Cohesion in ModernHuman Groups • People belonging to groups with low cohesion had higher suicide rates • Low cohesion had higher suicide rates than those who belonged to highly cohesive groups. Groups “without rules” fit into this category.

8. Accidents and Cohesion in Forest Service Crews Crew cohesion is “made” by individual workers themselves when they establish agreements about the rules that govern a host of their day-to-day work practices.

9. Accidents andCohesion in ForestService Crews - 1 • Accidents in field crews were inversely correlated with the cohesion in the crews. In other words, the greater the crew cohesion, the fewer the accidents.

10. Accidents andCohesion in ForestService Crews - 2 Members of cohesive crews talk frankly with one another about their ongoing expectations. These expectations govern such things as: • work pace, • rest periods, • decision making, • humor, • warnings of danger, • requests for help, • assistance for fellow crewmembers, • complaints, • sharing food, • and other practical matters that bear directly on maintaining their cohesion.

11. Accidents andCohesion in ForestService Crews - 3 • Cohesion, and the protection it affords individual workers, comes about only after crews have tested and negotiated acceptable norms governing their work practices. • It takes time for this cohesion to develop. In studies, It takes from 6 to 8 weeks for individual seasonal workers to “click” into crews.

12. Brainstorming Transition - What do each of the terms below mean to you as a fire fighter or fire crew supervisor in relationship to transition. • Inter-crew • Intra-crew • Initial Attack • Extended Attack • Transition Phase • Inter-agency • Inter-regional • Other

13. Firefighter Fatalities and Transition Fires Transition from an Initial Attack Incident to an Extended Attack Incident. Early recognition by the Initial Attack IC (Incident Commander) that the initial attack forces will not control a fire is important. As soon as the Initial Attack IC recognizes that additional resources are needed or knows additional forces are en-route, the IC may need to withdraw from direct fire line suppression and must prepare for the transition to the Extended Attack.

14. Firefighter Fatalities and Transition Fires Initial attack fires can vary according to area. Some initial attack fires may consist of a single tree with some ground fire that can be handled by a single resource (engine crew or small contingent). Other initial attack fires can have complexity in place before anyone arrives on scene as is the case in most southern California areas.

15. Firefighter Fatalities and Transition Fires - cont Extended attack fires which occur when resources can’t handle the fire during initial attack can become dangerous because of the transition that occurs with the crews on scene having to fight the fire with other resources and agencies coming in (transition) and the length of shift that could occur.

16. Firefighter Fatalities and Transition Fires – Transition Stage The “transition stage” is confusing because the fire community uses the word “transition” in two senses. First, transition refers to a time when a fire is changing from a small, type IV or V fire to a much larger type III fire. In ordinary language, this means the fire has grown big.

17. Firefighter Fatalities and Transition Fires – Transition Stage cont. Some fires grow big suddenly. Firefighters use different words to describe this moment: blowing up, taking off, losing control, or making a run. During transition, the fire has quickly expanded beyond the capacity of the resources that were initially assigned to control it.

18. Transition and Fatalities – Transition Phase The other dangerous phase of a wildfire is the “transition phase,” when the fire has escaped initial attack efforts and higher level incident management teams are being brought in.

19. Transition and Fatalities – Transition Phase – cont. During this phase some confusion may exist over areas of responsibility; Locations of different resources such as crews, engines, or line overhead; Or appropriate radio frequencies for tactical operations. This is often the time the fire is exceeding the capability of the initial attack.

20. Transition and Fatalities – Transition Phase cont. Most of the burnover events occurred during the initial attack or extended initial-attack phase. This is when the firefighters are often involved in independent action, • either as members of a small crew, • an engine, • or even as individuals.

21. Transition and Fatalities – Transition Phase cont. The higher levels of incident management teams are not on the scene, • communication may be confused, • fire weather and behavior conditions may not be widely known or recognized, • and the chain of command may not be well established.

22. What This Means Poor inter-crew and intra-crew cohesion during the fire transition stage is a major factor in wildland fire fatalities. Cohesion problems that were quite different existed in crews on the Mann Gulch, South Canyon, and Thirtymile Fires. Because of the rapid growth of such fires and the associated transition of command, it is difficult for crew bosses to create the minimally required inter-crew cohesion before starting extended attack. Sociologists know from their studies that cohesive groups are safer than groups with little or no cohesion.

23. Some Impressions of Different Wildland Fire Crews and Their Cohesion Type I Hotshot Crews - Interagency Hotshot Crew Operations Guide (Anon. 2001) These standards specify working and training requirements, experience levels, and the assignment of permanent supervisors. Because of these requirements, crewmembers are able to establish deep understandings of each other as people, work out their own internal division of labor, and learn ho to fight fire together as a tightly knit crew. In most instances, one would expect high cohesion in hotshot crews.

24. Summary • Know and understand strengths and weaknesses between crew members and supervisors. • Work, train and do things together to help develop a bond with each other. • Learn how to identify the lack of cohesiveness amongst resources we are working with on incidents and provide assistance as needed. • Be conscientious of the transition period of fires and know the difference between initial attack to extended attack and management transition.

25. Exercise 1 – Transition recognition and readiness: Your a crew member on a fire crew en-route to initial attack a fast moving brush fire in Southern California. While sitting in the back of the vehicle you’ve been listening to the radio and it sounds like the fire is getting away from the units on scene. What kind of transition is occurring and what can you prepare yourself and crew members for before you arrive on scene?

26. Exercise 2 – Inter-crew Cohesion: You’re a crew supervisor of a Type I hand crew that’s currently on assignment in Arizona. The assignment for the day is to work on Division B and prep the division for a possible firing operation. Other resources on the division are a Strike Team of Type IV Engines, 3 dozers, 3 felling crews, 2 Type II hand crews, 2 field observers and a safety officer. The dozers have a DOZB except for one dozer, the felling crews have a felling boss but exhibits very little experience What things can you do to help complete the operation safely using your crew?

27. Exercise 3 – Crew Cohesion: You just received a call from the Battalion to have you go to a station on the district and cover for the day and run the engine crew. What kind of cohesion issues will you have and how will you address them?

28. Exercise 4 – Cohesion: Come up with exercises to meet the audience needs. Examples: • STL (crew, engine, dozer) • TFL • ICT3 • Ops • Other

29. Inter-Agency Cohesion In present day situations, new cooperation agreements, team assignments and all risk becoming a part of our future, what are we doing to address cohesion between agencies and all risk assignments? Something to think about: A typical first alarm fire on the Angeles response with LA County mutual aid will consist of 2-3 hand crews, 5 engines, 1-2 air tankers, 2 helicopters (medium and heavy), 1 dozer, 1-2 water tenders, a patrol and 2 chief officers. The county will send just about the same response. If the fire escapes the initial attack forces then the response will double. What cohesion factors are involved and how is transition identified and addressed?