Turn Down: Now What?

• No protocol for turning down an assignment.
  
• No standard regarding the use of Risk Management Process.
  
• No opportunity for learning.

Rational:

• Use of Risk Management Process needs to be an SOP.
  
• Fireline supervisors turning down assignments need to be accountable for their decision.
  
• Fireline overhead and other resources need to be aware of turndowns and consider the risk factors identified by the resource turning down the assignment before continuing operations.
  
• Fireline overhead that continue operations after a turn down need to be accountable for their decision.
  
• All fireline resources need to learn from other's operational decisions.

Discussion:

Prior to tactical engagement, fireline supervisors should do a risk assessment to determine whether the plan of action will work, but most important whether it is safe to proceed. The ability to manage fireline risks can and will vary by individual experience. When a fireline supervisor turns down an assignment, the fire overhead will often seek another replacement resource to take the assignment. When this happens, frequently no communication takes place that a turn down has occurred. The replacement resource may be supervised by an inexperienced decision maker who is not aware of the risk factors that were considered by the first resource. In this first case, the replacement resource is put in harms way because of the failure to share information and knowledge of a more experienced decision maker. On the other hand, the original resource may be supervised by an inexperienced decision maker and the replacement resource supervised by a very experienced decision maker. The experienced decision maker may be able to establish mitigation measures for all the observable risks and take the assignment. With no communication regarding the turn down, the inexperienced decision maker will most likely be deprived of the opportunity to learn from the situation. This issue was identified in the 1998 Tridata Firefighter Safety Awareness Study. Goal #7 of this study reads "An individual or Crew Supervisor should have the right of refusal to pull themselves or their crew out of what they perceive as undue danger." Implementation strategy #1 under Goal #7 reads "Train firefighters on the process to use, not just the right." There are several other parts of the study that relate to this issue, these links are referenced at the end of this document.

Recommendation:

Making risk assessments using the Fire Orders and Watch Outs as supporting tools is our minimum baseline for engaging a fire. Accordingly, we need to adopt the use of the Risk Management Process as the criteria for turning down an assignment and establish an operational protocol that provides immediate notification to fire overhead and other resources of an assignment turn down.

Goal:

Improve communication and accountability when there is disagreement on the safety of a tactical fireline assignment.

Target Audience:

• Primary: Firefighters to Division Supervisors
• Secondary: ICs, Ops Chiefs, and Safety Officers

Objectives:

• Establish a protocol and terminology for professional resolution of assignment "turn downs" based on safety criteria.
• Establish accountability mechanism for fireline supervisor decisions.

Delivery:

Existing
· Risk Management Process lesson in Division Sup course S-339.
· Decision Making and Risk lesson in Human Factors course PMS 492.
· Risk Management Process job aid in Incident Response Pocket Guide (NFES 1077).

To be Developed
· Develop a protocol for turning down an assignment (added to NFES 1077 January 2002). See page 4.
· Add info to appropriate S-courses as they come up for revision (S-131, S-230, S-300, S-330, S-339, S-430, S-404).
· Revise ICS 204 form (IAP DIVS assignment) by adding Risk Management reminder.
· Spread the word (FFAST, NWCG Working Teams, IMT meetings, IHC workshops, etc).