Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Towards 2020
Operational Capability Review: Working at Height This is a Technical Appendix to the 2013 Safety Plan
Contents
Contents ............................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5
Project Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 5
Position Statement ................................................................................................................ 7
Working at Height Regulations 2005 ................................................................................. 7
Work Undertaken at Height within the Authority ................................................................. 7
Current Performance........................................................................................................... 10
Ladders ........................................................................................................................... 10
Height vehicles ................................................................................................................ 12
Developments in Technology .............................................................................................. 28
Aerial Water Tower .......................................................................................................... 28
Articulated Turntable Ladder ........................................................................................... 29
Base Option ........................................................................................................................ 31
Overview ......................................................................................................................... 31
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 34
Indicative costs ................................................................................................................ 35
Option One: Four Height Vehicles ....................................................................................... 36
Description ...................................................................................................................... 36
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 36
SWOT analysis – 4 + 1 .................................................................................................... 37
Indicative costs ................................................................................................................ 37
Option Two: Three Height Vehicles ..................................................................................... 38
Description ...................................................................................................................... 38
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 38
SWOT analysis - 3 + 1..................................................................................................... 39
Indicative costs ................................................................................................................ 39
Option Three: Two Height Vehicles ..................................................................................... 40
Description ...................................................................................................................... 40
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 41
SWOT analysis – 2 + 1 .................................................................................................... 41
Indicative costs ................................................................................................................ 41
Option Four: One Height Vehicle ........................................................................................ 42
Description ...................................................................................................................... 42
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 42
SWOT analysis – 1 + 1 .................................................................................................... 42
Indicative Costs ............................................................................................................... 43
Evaluation and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 44
Numbers and Location .................................................................................................... 44
Type of Vehicle ................................................................................................................ 44
Crewing ........................................................................................................................... 44
Resilience or reserve? ..................................................................................................... 44
Attendance Standard ....................................................................................................... 44
Ring Fencing Policy ......................................................................................................... 44
Introduction
1. In 2011 Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue Authority commissioned a project to
review how it responds to emergencies from the point of call, to the delivery of services
at the scene. The three year project, known as the Review of Operational Capability, is
part of the second phase of a programme of activity which looks to bring about
improvement in a more challenging financial climate.
2. By exploring innovations in technology and challenging our current policies and
procedures the Review will look at ways to work more efficiently and maximise the use
of resources acknowledging that ‘one size doesn’t fit all’. It will assess what equipment
and staff are needed to deal with an incident, how it should be used, how it is
transported and where it’s based. The Review will focus on providing the best outcome
for those involved in the incident whilst being realistic about the current financial
climate.
3. This document describes the findings of phase one of the working at height
workstream of the Review, looking at how we utilise operational equipment for safe
working at height.
4. Impact assessments have been completed for the Review and have been considered
when developing and assessing the strengths of each of the options presented. In
order to make a comparison between each of the options, strengths and weaknesses
of current arrangements have also been explored; this includes costs associated with
each option.
Project Assumptions
5. The following assumptions have been made when developing any option:
The emergency cover model is 61 fire engines available during the day and 751 at
night;
The Authority continues to operate with the current crewing models – full-time 24/7,
day crewed and on-call;
Special appliances are crewed alternately2;
The financial climate will become more complicated with the additional need for
savings;
1 The current agreed operational model is set at 61 fire engines during the day and 76 at night. Work
conducted through another project has resulted in a recommendation that sees the reduction of one
fire engine at night. Although this is still in proposal stage this project has worked on the assumption
that this fire engine is no longer part of the fleet. 2 Alternate crewing is when the crew on station operate both a front line response vehicle (fire engine)
plus a special appliance, taking whatever appliance is the most appropriate. The two appliances do
not have dedicated crewing.
Stations at Ash-Cum-Ridley and Rochester are open
Use of the vehicles will vary according to the mobilising protocols being observed;
Availability of on-call staff is according to contractual agreement;
Resources will always be mobilised to incident carrying a life risk immediately;
New stations at Ash-Cum-Ridley and Rochester are open;
Standby moves will continue to be a requirement;
Savings identified in this review through post reductions are not to be double
counted under any other proposals made as part of this Safety Plan; and
The resources are for local and strategic service delivery for all activity delivered by
the Authority, not just fires and road traffic collisions.
Position Statement
6. The nature of work required at an operational incident often requires firefighters to
work at levels other than that equivalent with the ground. This is termed as ‘working at
height’ but may also include below ground level working on occasions.
7. The incident types that have potential to involve working at height are varied, but
include fires involving a building, rescue of an injured person, release of a trapped
animal or making an unsafe structure secure. At each of these incident types, different
tasks may be required to be undertaken whilst working at height and in doing so the
Authority must comply with the Working at Height regulations 2005.
Working at Height Regulations 2005
8. The Working at Height Regulations 2005 apply to all work at height where there is a
risk of a fall liable to cause personal injury. They place duties on employers to ensure
that where working at height cannot be avoided, it is planned and organised, with
suitable equipment provided to help prevent falls. The employer also has the duty to
minimise the impact of any fall, should it not be possible to remove the risk of them
occurring. Health and Safety Executive guidance
(http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls/ladders.htm) allows the use of ladders for lower risk, short
duration working at height of between 15 to 30 minutes.
Work Undertaken at Height within the Authority
9. The type and nature of the work undertaken at height by the Authority and the
criticality of this work in terms of how important it is to have the capability to work at
height available is shown in Table 1 below. For time criticality, a high level indicates
that an adverse effect on the task will result if the appropriate means to work at height
is not available to the first attending crews within a reasonable timeframe. For many of
the tasks, supporting activities have to be put in place before the working at height task
can be completed, for example, the provision of an adequate water supply to allow for
the application of water from height, so a reasonable time would allow for this to
happen before the provision to work at height was available.
Table 1: Tasks required to be undertaken that involve working at height
Task Description Time Critical
Rescue Of Persons
Rescue Rescue of persons in danger High
Assistance to SECAmb
(Bariatric)
Provision of means to assist in the removal
of bariatric patients from property (not on
the ground floor) who are unable to leave
by their own means
High
Assistance to SECAmb
(Other)
Persons injured at height who require
moving to ground level High
Rescue form height (no
injury)
e.g. person stuck on roof Low
Fire-fighting
Application of Water -
External
The ability to deliver large quantities of
water from height to prevent fire spread.
High
Application of Water -
Internal
The ability to deliver large quantities of
water from height to prevent fire spread.
Providing access has been established
(burnt through or manually vented)
High
Safe Working Platform Provision of a stable platform to enable
various tasks such as cutting away, fire
extinguishing using hose reels and or jets ,
removal of burnt materials
Medium
Aerial Reconnaissance For command and control (scene safety)
and/or building survey (building inspector) Low
Lighting Tower To Illuminate scene of operations Low
Other
Assistance to Police Access, reconnaissance, etc Low
Structural Removal Removal of dangerous materials Low
Non- Emergency
(Humanitarian)
e.g. animal rescue Low
10. The Authority may need to work at height to satisfactorily resolve incidents it attends.
To accomplish this, all fire engines carry a range of ladders that can reach a minimum
of 10.5m (equivalent to second floor level of a building) whilst other fire engines carry a
ladder that can extend to either 12 or 13.5m, equivalent to the third floor of a building.
In addition, line and harness equipment, known as ‘safe access’ equipment can also
be provided to prevent falls should there be a need for prolonged working on or around
ladders at height.
11. All the tasks in Table 1 can be achieved using ladders and therefore will be
immediately available to first attending crews provided that they are:
Within 10 to 13.5m of ground level;
Have a safe area where ladders can be pitched;
Are of low risk and short duration; and
Where patients/casualties are involved who are capable of using a ladder.
12. When the use of ladders is not suitable to undertake the tasks that require working at
height, specialist appliances, known as ‘height vehicles’ can be considered.
Performance
Current Performance
13. This section identifies where working at height occurs across the County, using
ladders and height vehicles. It also looks at the functions performed, and levels of
simultaneous demand. The data contained within this report covers the period of April
2009 to December 20113.
Ladders
The use of ladders to enable safe working at height
14. During the period of analysis, ladders were used 2,880 times at 2,367 incidents. Table
2 below illustrates that their usage is widespread across the five Groups within the
Authority.
Table 2: Overall ladder usage at incidents (and number of ladders used) across the
Authority
Equipment Group North Kent South Kent East Kent West Kent Mid Kent
Ladders 515 (616) 421 (521) 594 (724) 358 (433) 479 (586)
15. The type of incident that required ladders to be used to work at height, and the type of
ladder used to enable this are shown in table 3.
16. The analysis of ladder usage illustrates that there is frequent and widespread use of
ladders across the county. The most predominant uses are to aid firefighting, effecting
entry or exit, or checking to ensure reports of fire are in fact false alarms. There is
evidence of use of all lengths of ladder at these incident types, but the most commonly
used ladder is the short extension ladder. Rescue of people from fire from height by
ladder is rarely required, with ten people rescued by ladder at five fire incidents during
the analysis period. There have been no injuries to firefighters whilst working at height
at operational incidents during this period.
17. It is evident that the provision of ladders on fire engines to reach a variety of heights up
to second or third floor level (10.5m or 12/13.5m) is suitable and sufficient to meet
most operational needs. Therefore this review makes no recommendations to change
either the types of ladders used across the Authority, nor which fire engines carry
which type.
3 In April 2009, a new incident recording system was implemented, which captures detail not
previously recorded.
Table 3: Use of Ladders per Incident Type4
Incident Type Equipment
2009 Apr - Dec 2010 2011 Total
Fires
Ladders - 10m 35 46 35 116
Ladders - 13.5m 11 21 23 55
Ladders - 7m 39 70 79 188
Ladders - Other 8 17 26 51
Ladders - Roof Ladder 19 53 40 112
Ladders - Short Extension 259 308 302 869
Road Traffic Collisions (extrication of persons, make scene safe and other RTCs)
Ladders - 10m 1 0 1 2
Ladders - 13.5m 1 0 0 1
Ladders - 7m 0 1 1 2
Ladders - Other 1 0 2 3
Ladders - Roof Ladder 0 0 1 1
Ladders - Short Extension 17 34 26 77
Animal Rescue
Ladders - 10m 4 7 4 15
Ladders - 13.5m 8 12 13 33
Ladders - 7m 15 17 21 53
Ladders - Other 0 0 1 1
Ladders - Roof Ladder 11 9 13 33
Ladders - Short Extension 17 16 21 54
Effect Entry/Egress
Ladders - 10m 8 5 6 19
Ladders - 13.5m 12 6 14 32
Ladders - 7m 26 28 34 88
Ladders - Other 3 1 3 7
Ladders - Roof Ladder 0 1 0 1
Ladders - Short Extension 67 76 100 243
Rescue or Evacuation from mud or water
Ladders - 10m 0 0 0 0
Ladders - 13.5m 0 0 0 0
Ladders - 7m 2 1 0 3
Ladders - Other 0 0 0 0
Ladders - Roof Ladder 0 0 0 0
Ladders - Short Extension 6 2 2 10
Assistance to Other Agencies
Ladders - 10m 1 1 1 3
Ladders - 13.5m 1 5 1 7
Ladders - 7m 7 6 3 16
Ladders - Other 0 0 0 0
Ladders - Roof Ladder 3 2 1 6
Ladders - Short Extension 10 12 13 35
Other Rescue/Release of persons (excluding mud)
Ladders - 10m 1 6 7 14
Ladders - 13.5m 3 4 3 10
Ladders - 7m 10 8 16 34
Ladders - Other 0 3 0 3
Ladders - Roof Ladder 3 4 7 14
Ladders - Short Extension 27 31 42 100
False Alarms
Ladders - 10m 2 7 8 17
Ladders - 13.5m 2 6 6 14
Ladders - 7m 10 12 18 40
Ladders - Other 13 16 10 39
Ladders - Roof Ladder 0 2 0 2
Ladders - Short Extension 60 81 79 220
4 The figures in the table indicate the number of incidents in which ladders have been used.
Incident Type Equipment
2009 Apr - Dec 2010 2011 Total
Assistance to Other Agencies
Ladders - 10m 1 1 1 3
Ladders - 13.5m 1 5 1 7
Ladders - 7m 7 6 3 16
Ladders - Other 0 0 0 0
Ladders - Roof Ladder 3 2 1 6
Ladders - Short Extension 10 12 13 35
Other
Ladders - 10m 6 1 1 8
Ladders - 13.5m 0 0 0 0
Ladders - 7m 8 8 5 21
Ladders - Other 2 2 2 6
Ladders - Roof Ladder 5 3 2 10
Ladders - Short Extension 13 10 13 36
Height vehicles
18. Where ladders are not suitable to be used to provide a means to work at height, a
height vehicle can be requested by the Incident Commander.
What is the demand on height vehicles?
19. The data contained within this section of the report covers the period January 2006 to
June 2013. Not all height vehicles have been in operation for the whole period, and
this reflects changes from earlier decisions where the Authority’s business need was
defined to be five height vehicles across the county instead of seven. As a result, there
were no mobilisations for the height vehicle at Thames-side (referred to as FJK35A1)
after 2008, as this was one of the vehicles removed. The height vehicle at Thanet was
moved in June 2012 to Ramsgate. Figure 2 and Table 4 detail the mobilisations of all
the height vehicles that have been in operation within the Authority.
20. Although it would be expected that the remaining five vehicles would pick up any
additional workload, this was not the case. The usage of the current five vehicles have
actually decreased or remained largely static since the change.
Figure 2: Height Vehicle Mobilisations
Table 4: Height Vehicle Mobilisations
11A1 19A1 35A1 43A1 60A1 74A1 80A1 89A1 90A1 Total
2006 31 26 48 79 45 48 83 360
2007 50 33 64 73 42 64 129 455
2008 12 13 16 44 63 33 60 102 343
2009 22 4 30 17 20 24 52 169
2010 30 36 12 23 47 148
2011 18 57 24 53 152
2012 24 45 21 27 20 137
2013 (Jan-Jun) 12 27 9 12 60
Total 118 98 75 351 232 152 273 493 32 1,824
Note to table: 11A1 = Ashford, 19A1 = Folkestone, 35A1 = Thames-side, 43A1 – Medway, 60A1 = Maidstone, 74A1 = Tunbridge Wells, 80A1 = Canterbury, 89A1 = Thanet, 90A1 = Ramsgate.
21. The demand for the use of height vehicles dropped significantly from 2009 onwards
following the removal of height vehicles from the majority of the pre-determined
attendances they were aligned to. This meant that height vehicles would only be
mobilised to an incident when the incident commander requested them to assist in
resolving the incident, rather than be mobilised as a matter of course just in case they
were needed at properties that spanned several storeys.
22. It is apparent that the vehicles are used most frequently in the locations that they are
based, partly due to the fact that these are areas where operational activity is higher,
but also because the immediate availability of the vehicle is considered by the incident
commander whilst in other areas, the incident commander may consider other means
to resolve the incident.
23. The predominate use is for the provision of a safe working platform (19.5%), with the
use of a water tower second (18.9%). The IRS data does not allow specific breakdown
of use of all the functions, but can identify various groupings of use that are shown in
Table 5.
24. Appendix A illustrates that the provision of these functions, in particular the more time
critical functions, are required right across the county. The height vehicles provided,
irrespective of location, should therefore have the capability to perform these time
critical functions.
Table 5: Breakdown of percentage use of height vehicles by function
Task Percentage use Time Critical
Rescue Of Persons
Rescue 0.2 High
Assistance to SECAmb (Bariatric)
14.99
High
Assistance to SECAmb (Other) High
Rescue from height (no injury) Low
Fire-fighting
Application of Water – External
18.93
High
Application of Water – Internal High
Safe Working Platform 19.53 Medium
Aerial Reconnaissance
8.67
Low
Lighting Tower Low
Other
Structural Removal 11.83 Low
Non- Emergency / Other
6.7
Low
Assistance to Police Low
Not Used 19.13
Where in the County are height vehicles being used?
25. Table 6 details the number of times each height vehicle has been mobilised into each
station ground across the County. The point being made is that they are not usually
used where there isn’t a height vehicle in the immediate vicinity, and therefore the
station grounds have not been annotated with station names. Those highlighted show
when the height vehicle is being used on its own ground. The table covers all the
height vehicles the Authority has had over the period, not just those in operation
currently.
Table 6: Use of height vehicles by location
FJK11A1 FJK19A1 FJK35A1 FJK43A1 FJK60A1 FJK74A1 FJK80A1 FJK89A1 FJK90A1 Total
FJK11 33 10 2 7 1 7 2 62
FJK12 1 2 3
FJK13 1 1 2
FJK14 2 2 4
FJK15 1 1
FJK16 4 18 1 17 11 51
FJK18 2 1 3
FJK19 22 26 5 1 1 15 12 82
FJK20 7 1 8
FJK21 3 6 1 10
FJK22 1 1
FJK23 2 2 1 1 6
FJK24 2 2 4 8
FJK25 2 1 1 4
FJK26 3 1 4
FJK30 10 10 2 1 1 1 25
FJK31 4 4 1 9
FJK32 2 2
FJK33 1 3 1 1 6
FJK35 17 39 2 4 2 64
FJK36 1 1
FJK37 2 5 1 8
FJK38 2 2
FJK39 2 6 36 11 2 6 63
FJK40 1 1 1 3
FJK42 2 2 4
FJK43 1 8 86 16 5 4 2 122
FJK44 4 2 6
FJK45 1 13 2 1 2 19
FJK46 1 1
FJK48 1 13 1 1 16
FJK49 1 1 2
FJK60 5 1 6 75 125 6 2 220
FJK62 7 1 1 9
FJK63 1 1 3 5
FJK64 2 2 1 5
FJK65 3 1 7 4 3 1 1 20
FJK67 1 2 3
FJK68 3 9 2 18 32
FJK69 1 2 3
FJK11A1 FJK19A1 FJK35A1 FJK43A1 FJK60A1 FJK74A1 FJK80A1 FJK89A1 FJK90A1 Total
FJK70 1 1 10 12
FJK71 1 28 29
FJK72 1 2 5 8
FJK73 3 3 6
FJK74 9 9 39 42 99
FJK75 1 1
FJK76 1 1 4 6
FJK77 5 5
FJK80 7 4 1 61 7 80
FJK81 3 1 3 4 11
FJK82 1 3 1 5
FJK83 1 5 1 7
FJK84 5 2 4 1 1 13
FJK85 1 23 24
FJK86 10 2 12
FJK87 3 4 1 4 1 50 237 12 312
FJK88 2 5 7
FJK89 4 10 33 47
FJK90 6 2 1 28 162 12 211
FJK91 1 2 4 6 1 14
FJK92 1 2 1 3 7
FJK93 3 5 1 9
Total 118 98 75 351 232 152 273 493 32 1,824
Note to table: 11A1 = Ashford, 19A1 = Folkestone, 35A1 = Thames-side, 43A1 – Medway, 60A1 = Maidstone, 74A1 = Tunbridge Wells, 80A1 = Canterbury, 89A1 = Thanet, 90A1 = Ramsgate.
26. Figure 3 details the location of the incidents that height vehicles have been mobilised
to. As with table 6, the map details all height vehicles that have been in use over the
period, not just those that are currently in operation.
.
Page 19 of 51
For what purpose are height vehicles being used?
27. Since the introduction of the incident recording system in April 2009, more information
relating to height vehicles has been gathered. The following data has been taken from
the IRS system and therefore only covers the period April 2009 to June 2013.
Questions relating to the use of height vehicles are only asked when the height vehicle
books in attendance so those occasions where this did not happen will be excluded
from the data shown below (i.e. when the vehicle was mobilised but turned back en
route).
28. The data highlights the highest usage reasons to be either access/safe working
platform or water tower. There has been one incident where ‘rescue from fire’ has
been recorded as the usage reason, where two persons where removed, uninjured,
from the roof of a property adjoined to one that was on fire.
Table 7: Use of height vehicles by function April 2009 – June 2013 ordered by most
priority use for a height vehicle, as defined in Table 1
Main Function FJK11A1 FJK43A1 FJK60A1 FJK74A1 FJK80A1 FJK89A1 FJK90A1 Total
Access/Safe Working Platform 22 32 1 3 13 27 1 99
Water Tower 22 30 6 14 18 6 96
Rescue From ESS 6 26 3 4 8 23 6 76
Rescue From Fire 1 1
Structural Removal 7 24 6 7 11 5 60
Aerial Reconnaissance inc
Feros/Lighting Tower
6 12 1 3 6 14 2 44
Not Used 16 29 14 28 10 97
Other 10 4 1 5 14 34
Total 89 157 5 23 67 135 31 507
NB: The option of “Not Used” was added to this question in the IRS recently and as such it is likely that some of the incidents grouped under “other” were in fact where the height vehicle was sent to the incident but was subsequently not used. 11A1 = Ashford, 19A1 = Folkestone, 35A1 = Thames-side, 43A1 – Medway, 60A1 = Maidstone, 74A1 = Tunbridge Wells, 80A1 = Canterbury, 89A1 = Thanet, 90A1 = Ramsgate.
29. Before the introduction of the IRS, minimal data was gathered on the use of height
vehicles at incidents. Unfortunately it is not possible to identify this information by each
vehicle as the question related to the whole incident, not individual appliances. Table 8
details the reasons and the number of times it was used, by year.
Page 20 of 51
Table 8: Use of height vehicles by function 2006–2009
2006 2007 2008 2009** Total Applying Water/Other Extinguishing Media
27 37 34 10 108
Effecting Ingress 8 8 11 3 30 Effecting Ingress/Rescue/Recovery 31 34 40 5 110 Platform for Feros Camera 1 1 3 5
Total 67 80 88 18 253
** Data only available until 31 March 2009
How long are they committed at incidents?
30. Table 9 and Figure 4 detail how long height vehicles have spent at incidents. As with
the previous data, incidents where height vehicles have not booked in attendance
have been excluded from this dataset. The pattern of time spent on incidents differs
between height vehicles. From the data it can be seen that Medway and Thanet have
had more incidents where the vehicle has been in attendance for more than two hours.
Maidstone and Thanet have also had more incidents which required their attendance
for half an hour or less.
Table 9: Time spent in attendance at incidents
FJK11
A1
FJK19
A1
FJK35
A1
FJK43
A1
FJK60
A1
FJK74
A1
FJK80
A1
FJK89
A1
FJK90
A1 Total
0-15 Mins 1 6 11 48 2 7 128 2 205
15-30 Mins 10 5 4 23 49 7 20 96 6 220
30 Mins-1
Hour
21 20 15 46 21 23 38 80 11 275
1-2 Hours 24 14 12 82 20 25 37 43 5 262
2+ Hours 41 18 18 85 22 22 44 59 7 316
Total 97 63 49 247 160 79 146 406 31 1,27
8
Note to table: 11A1 = Ashford, 19A1 = Folkestone, 35A1 = Thames-side, 43A1 – Medway, 60A1 = Maidstone, 74A1 = Tunbridge Wells, 80A1 = Canterbury, 89A1 = Thanet, 90A1 = Ramsgate.
Page 21 of 51
Figure 4: Time in attendance at incidents
Simultaneous Demand
31. In order to determine whether the level of cover provided by the existing height
vehicles is the right one for the County we need to examine the demands placed on
the existing vehicles over the review period and understand the level of simultaneous
utilisation. The level of simultaneous use shows the maximum requirement for height
vehicles at any time across the County over the period analysed and can be used to
provide an indicator for over or under provision.
32. Table 10 illustrates the number of occasions (during the period of April 2009 – June
2013) when height vehicles were required to attend operational incidents at the same
time. The demand placed on those appliances relate to incidents happening anywhere
in the County.
33. The data shows that there have been 62 occasions when two height vehicles have
been used at the same time. This has happened through a combination of different
scenarios: one incident requiring the mobilisation of two special vehicles or two
different incidents requiring the mobilisation of one height vehicle each. There were
also nine occurrences when three height vehicles were mobilised simultaneously.
Page 22 of 51
Table 10: Simultaneous activity by type of incident
Occurrences
Height vehicles mobilised simultaneously 200
9
201
0
201
1
201
2
2013 (Jan-
Jun)
Tot
al
2 17 24 8 6 6 61
1 Incident - , 2 height vehicles 10 19 4 6 5 44
2 Incident - , 1 height vehicles, 1 height vehicles 7 5 4 1 17
3 6 1 1 1 9
1 Incident - , 3 height vehicles 2 1 3
2 Incident - , 2 height vehicles, 1 height vehicles 1 1 1 3
3 Incident - , 1 height vehicles, 1 height vehicles,
1 height vehicles
3 3
Total 23 25 9 6 7 70
34. Figure 5 and table 11 shows for how long the height vehicles were in use
simultaneously. The data reveals that the use of three height vehicles at once has
extended for a maximum period of one hour in seven cases and for up to two hours on
two other occasions. There were no occasions when four or more vehicles were
required at the same time. In most cases only two of these special vehicles are
required simultaneously: 25% of the time for up to 15 minutes, 52% for a period of 16
minutes to two hours and 23% for more than two hours.
Figure 5: Duration of Simultaneous Height Vehicle Activity
Page 23 of 51
Table 11: Duration of Simultaneous Height Vehicle Activity
Duration of occurrence 2 HV committed 3 HV committed Total
0-15 Mins 15 3 18
16 Mins - 1 Hour 20 4 24
1-2 Hours 12 2 14
2+ Hours 14 14
Grand Total 61 9 70
35. In total there have been 70 occasions when simultaneous activity occurred between
April 2009 and Jun 2013. 61 of these involved two height vehicles, 25% of the time for
less than 15 minutes, 52% for a period of up to two hours and 23% for more than two
hours. There were also nine occurrences when three height vehicles were mobilised
simultaneously, of which seven occasions were for less than one hour, the other two
were for less than two hours.
36. There have been no occasions within the dataset when more than three height
vehicles have been required at once.
Attendance Standards
37. Following the review of height vehicle provision in 2008, an attendance standard was
introduced to monitor the impact of the change. The 30 minute attendance standard for
height vehicles was set based upon the average response time being achieved across
the Authority in 2008. It was included as a proposal within that year’s Integrated Risk
Management Plan alongside reducing the number of height vehicles the Authority
operated from seven to five. The standard of 30 minutes was intended to measure the
impact of this change.
38. The level of qualifying calls to measure the attendance standard is low (108 in 2009,
94 in 2010 and 114 in 2011) as the vehicles are used relatively infrequently. This
means that one failure can result in a relatively large percentage distortion of the
figures, i.e. one extra failure instead of a success over the last four years can alter the
percentage standard rate from between 0.9 and 2.8%. Performance for each of the
years can be seen in Figure 6 and Table 12 below.
Page 24 of 51
Table 12: Height vehicle attendance standard performance
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (Jan-Jun)
Incidents 212 265 207 108 94 114 99 36
Successes 187 229 188 91 83 97 84 32
Failures 25 36 19 17 11 17 15 4
% Standard 88.2% 86.4% 90.8% 84.3% 88.3% 85.1% 84.8% 88.9%
Figure 6: Height vehicle attendance standard performance
39. The analysis of usage indicates that, for time critical functions, height vehicles
predominantly provide a specialist capability to the incident commander at fires to
allow the introduction of firefighting media or a working platform at height in order to
resolve the incident. Incident command training has developed to allow for the incident
commander to identify the most appropriate and effective tactical plan required to deal
with an incident and then request the necessary resources in order to implement the
plan. In doing so the anticipated response time of any specialist appliance is
considered and then they can be requested to attend.
40. Similarly other specialist appliances, such as a foam unit or water unit, may also be
required, but these have no attendance standard imposed upon them.
41. The susceptibility to relative distortion from individual incidents makes the use of an
attendance standard less appropriate and less useful as information from which the
public can gain an informed view of the Authority’s operational performance. Given
Page 25 of 51
that no other special appliances currently have an attendance standard set against
them, is therefore considered no longer appropriate to have one reportable for height
vehicles.
How long does it take to book in attendance?
42. Table 13 details the average number of minutes each height vehicle has taken to book
in attendance from the point they were mobilised, broken down by year. On average, it
has taken 17 minutes for a height vehicle to book in attendance at an incident, ranging
across the years from 15 minutes to 25 minutes. There are a significant number of
occasions where there is no time in attendance recorded, which could be for a variety
of reasons from being turned back on route to the incident or failing to book in
attendance once arrived at the scene. For the purpose of the figures in the table
below, these instances have been removed.
Table 13: Times for height vehicles to book in attendance
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Jan-Jun)
Total
FJK11A1 27 25 22 24 24 30 24
FJK19A1 34 15 22 21 22
FJK35A1 17 22 26 21
FJK43A1 22 22 23 24 19 22 25 30 23
FJK60A1 13 14 13 21 14
FJK74A1 23 22 20 17 27 21
FJK80A1 16 20 22 21 24 22 14 19 20
FJK89A1 7 10 10 15 12 11 18 11
FJK90A1 11 17 14
Total 16 15 16 20 19 18 20 25 17
Note to table: 11A1 = Ashford, 19A1 = Folkestone, 35A1 = Thames-side, 43A1 – Medway, 60A1 = Maidstone, 74A1 = Tunbridge Wells, 80A1 = Canterbury, 89A1 = Thanet, 90A1 = Ramsgate.
Were they requested on normal road speed response?5
43. Table 14 details the percentage of incidents where the height vehicle was requested to
attend an incident broken down by whether a blue light response was necessary. As
expected in the vast majority of cases, height vehicles have been requested at an
incident with a blue light response.
5 Apr 2009 – Jun 2013
Page 26 of 51
Table 14: Breakdown of blue light and non blue light responses
Blue Light Response Normal Road Speed Response
FJK11A1 88.8% (79) 11.2% (10)
FJK43A1 87.9% (138) 12.1% (19)
FJK60A1 80.0% (4) 20.0% (1)
FJK74A1 87.0% (20) 13.0% (3)
FJK80A1 88.1% (59) 11.9% (8)
FJK89A1 88.9% (120) 11.1% (15)
FJK90A1 90.3% (28) 9.7% (3)
Total 88.4% (448) 11.6% (59)
Note to table: The figures in brackets denote the number of incidents
11A1 = Ashford, 19A1 = Folkestone, 35A1 = Thames-side, 43A1 – Medway, 60A1 = Maidstone, 74A1 = Tunbridge Wells, 80A1 = Canterbury, 89A1 = Thanet, 90A1 = Ramsgate.
Availability
44. Table 15 below details the availability of each of the height vehicles that are in
operation at the present time. Please note that Ashford did not have a vehicle until
2008. Caution should also be taken with the figures for Canterbury as this is likely to
be affected by the alternate crewing arrangements in place with the pumping
appliances.
Table 15: Average availability of height vehicles based at stated fire stations
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Jan -
Jun)
Ashford n/a n/a 98.1% 93.9% 94.1% 99.3% 99.7% 99.0% Medway 83.4% 81.6% 86.0% 90.8% 97.2% 98.2% 97.0% 98.5% Tunbridge Wells 94.0% 94.0% 94.7% 90.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a Tunbridge Wells n/a n/a n/a n/a 38.6% 89.6% 43.1% 22.6% Canterbury 88.0% 75.7% 78.9% 80.9% 93.0% 95.3% 96.9% 95.6% Thanet 91.4% 81.3% 88.2% 95.5% 98.7% 92.7% 89.6% n/a Ramsgate n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 99.0% 92.4%
Total 89.2% 83.2% 89.2% 90.3% 92.7% 94.7% 83.0 81.6%
45. The average level of availability for each height vehicle consistently exceeds 80%, and
for the majority of individual height vehicles exceeds 90%. When considering the
number of height vehicles necessary to provide the required level of cover, the level of
availability likely to be expected needs to be considered.
Page 27 of 51
Ring Fencing
46. The policy of ring fencing height vehicles is complicated by the fact that different
training requirements exist for each type of vehicle. This means that firefighters, as
well as the vehicle, often have to move between stations to ensure the vehicle can be
operational at the strategic location. This issue would be avoided if one type of height
vehicle was employed within the Authority that all height vehicle operators were trained
to use.
47. At present, if, for any reason, there are only three height vehicles available, they are
positioned at three strategic locations across the County where they are ‘ring fenced’
to guarantee their availability. The strategic locations are Medway, Ashford and
Ramsgate which were selected based upon the best geographical coverage that could
be obtained from three of the existing fire stations where height vehicles are based.
48. The first record of a vehicle having a ring fenced status is 26 November 2010, so the
following information covers the period November 2010 to the latest recorded
information on 30 June 2013.
49. During this period, there have been 37 occasions where three height vehicles have
been ring fenced in the county. The vehicles that have been ring fenced have been
from Ashford, Medway, Canterbury and Ramsgate
50. When Canterbury’s height vehicle is ring fenced, the vehicle is moved to one of the
three strategic locations for the duration of the ring fencing period. This usually
involves the movement of personnel to ensure trained operators are available at the
ring fenced location as personnel at Medway and Ramsgate are not qualified to
operate it.
Page 28 of 51
Developments in Technology
51. Within the fire market there have been several developments in technology which have
introduced new options when considering the provision of the functions required when
working at height. The review considered these.
Aerial Water Tower
52. An Aerial Water Tower (AWT) is a combination of a pumping appliance and a boom
with a water/foam monitor. It differs from the CARP concept of vehicle in that the AWT
is designed only to provide a means of applying firefighting media from height, and
does not provide any access or a safe working platform capability. The concept of an
AWT is not new; indeed one vehicle has been operational in West Midlands Fire and
Rescue Service for several years now.
53. An alternative to the above is to combine an AWT with other specialist functions, such
as a foam and water unit, which gives the capability to deliver foam and or water from
height in one vehicle.
Figure 7: Combined Foam /Water Unit with AWT
54. Within the airport fire industry, the combination of a foam/water unit and AWTs are
commonplace as a first responding appliance to aircraft incidents. Their capability has
been enhanced with the provision of a piercing tool located at the tip of the AWT that
can penetrate aircraft fuselages and introduce a fine water spray.
Page 29 of 51
Figure 8: AWT with piercing Tool
Figure 9: Close up of piercing tool
55. Interest in this capability within the fire and rescue sector has led to at least one
manufacturer now offering the piercing tool on AWTs installed on standard fire
engines. The ability to use this device to pierce building materials of a wall or roof and
then to apply water onto a fire otherwise obscured by a building structure can offer the
potential to significantly reduce the time taken to control and then extinguish various
types of building fires, such as those involving large industrial units or warehouses.
Articulated Turntable Ladder
56. The design of turntable ladders has been enhanced to incorporate a ladder that can
articulate itself over roof pitches or below horizontal level. This significantly improves
the capabilities of the machine. The significant difference between an ALP and a TL
has traditionally been the ability of the ALP to articulate a tail boom and now this
design of TL matches that capability.
Page 30 of 51
57. In essence an articulated TL combines the advantages of both an ALP and a TL in
one vehicle, a view that has been backed by a user group who have witnessed the
capability of an articulated TL in Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service.
58. The articulated TL is the recommended height vehicle to replace the existing height
vehicles within the Authority. A significant strength of this approach is that allows
vehicles to be moved between height vehicle stations without the need to move
firefighters with it, as the firefighters at the receiving stations would also be trained to
use it. All the options presented in this document have therefore been based on this
principle.
59. The vehicle in the figure below shows how traditional turntable ladders now have the
articulated functionality of aerial ladder platforms.
Figure 10: Articulated turntable ladder
Page 31 of 51
Base Option
Overview
60. All proposals made in the Safety Plan have a base option, against which any changes
can be compared. The Authority currently maintains five height vehicles. This is made
up of three aerial ladder platforms (ALP), a turntable ladder (TL) and a combined aerial
rescue pump (CARP). There is also a reserve TL available to use should one vehicle
become defective. These vehicles are crewed by a combination of primary and
alternate crewing.
Table 16: Location of height vehicles in Kent and Medway
Call sign Type Location Vehicle Replacement
Date6
FJK11A1 Aerial Ladder Platform Ashford 2016/17
FJK43A1 Aerial Ladder Platform Medway 2018/19
FJK89A1 Aerial Ladder Platform Thanet 2017/18
FJK80A1 Turntable Ladder Canterbury 2012/13
FJK74R6 CARP Tunbridge Wells 2022/23
61. These vehicles provide a cage that can be raised to up to 32m above ground, and
several meters below ground, to allow for a stable platform to be provided enabling
safe working at height. Some of these vehicles also provide a ladder to gain access or
exit from the cage or place of work at height. The five vehicles were positioned so that
they could respond to addresses in the County within 30 minutes of being requested
on 90% of occasions, providing that they were immediately available to do so. The 30
minute attendance standard for height vehicles is currently used as a performance
indicator.
62. Figure 11 shows the 30 minute travel isochrones from each of the existing locations.
Please note these maps do not include the time taken to mobilise the appliance.
6 The replacement dates reflect the 2013/14 Medium Term Financial Plan. If recommendations made
in this report are agreed to move to one type of vehicle, these will all be procured in 2014/15.
Page 32 of 51
Figure 11: 30 minute isochrones travel distances from existing locations of height
vehicles
63. To develop options further travel time maps where produced using the same 30 minute
travel isochrones. Additionally this analysis looked at the best locations for the vehicles
(based on existing fire station locations). Based on existing custom and practice, and
professional judgement of the review team, it was deemed that 30 minutes was a good
planning criteria for an Incident Commander to base his tactical plan upon and thus
make informed decisions as to when to make up for specialist vehicles. The maps are
included within each option. Table 17 provides an overview of the results.
Table 17: Recommended locations of height vehicles based on planning scenarios
No of
Vehicles
Best Location % of mobilisation
addresses
5 Tunbridge Wells, Medway, Ashford, Canterbury and
Ramsgate
98.93
4 Ashford, Canterbury, Maidstone and Thames-side 94.61
3 Ashford, Canterbury and Maidstone 93.67
2 Canterbury and Maidstone 90.36
1 Maidstone 61.37
NB. Maps where not produced for one location as it was deemed that 61.37% coverage was not acceptable.
Page 33 of 51
64. Table 17 shows that limited additional coverage is achieved by adding additional
vehicles beyond two. This small increase in coverage needs to be considered
alongside the cost of the provision of each additional vehicle. To provide an additional
8.57% (two vehicles – five vehicles) increase in coverage, the cost is the provision of
three vehicles, circa £1.5m (circa £100,000 per year based on a 15 year life).
65. There are 28 posts directly associated with the crewing of height vehicles and these
are split across three stations. As has been previously mentioned the crewing of these
appliances is either primary or alternate. However even within these options there is a
variety of methodologies as Table 18 shows.
Table 18: crewing methodologies in use across Kent and Medway
Location Crewed Additional Personnel
/watch
Additional Personnel
/station
Ramsgate Primary 3 12
Ashford Primary 3 12
Medway Primary/Alternate 1 4
Canterbury Alternate 0 0
Tunbridge Wells Alternate 0 0
66. The methodologies at Canterbury and Tunbridge Wells indicate that additional
personnel are not required to primary crew these types of vehicles.
Page 34 of 51
Figure 12: Current provision (five locations): Tunbridge Wells, Medway, Ashford,
Canterbury, Ramsgate (98.93 % of mobilisation addresses covered)
Summary
67. This option has been in place since 2010 and is a result of a previous review of height
vehicle capability.
SWOT analysis – Base Option: Existing arrangements
Strengths Weaknesses
98.93% coverage
Resilience of coverage/response
Ensure compliance with Working at Height
Regulations
Maintains existing capability
Current model expensive versus demand for
use
Variety of crewing methods
Mixed fleet of vehicles leads to significant
training and interoperability issues
Requires differing training
Age of fleet
Expensive due to personnel costs of
additional 28 staff
Cost of replacement vehicles at end of life
On going maintenance/fuel costs
Flawed performance indicator
Page 35 of 51
Opportunities Threats
Offers resilience both internally and
additionally to region
Cost to replace vehicles
Maintaining staffing against reduced funding
depletion of public confidence with failure to
meet attendance standard
Indicative costs
68. The following table illustrates indicative of delivering services.
Budget (£)
Employee costs 1,049,916
Vehicle maintenance costs 47,205
Fuel 22,372
Contributions to the vehicle replacement programme 166,667
Total 1,286,160
Notes to table Existing costs based on: Employee costs based on salaries, national insurance and employer pension contributions as at 1 July 2013 for 28 firefighters Vehicle maintenance and fuel is average to January 2013 x 5 vehicles Contributions based on replacement cost of £500k x 5 vehicles with 15 year life
Page 36 of 51
Option One: Four Height Vehicles
Description
69. Under this option, the Authority would have four height vehicles situated at strategic
locations across the County. The fleet would comprise a standard type of height
vehicle and no firefighter posts are directly associated with height vehicles. Height
vehicles would be located at the following stations:
Maidstone
Ashford
Canterbury
Thames-Side
70. A fifth appliance would be located at Ramsgate to provide resilience and ensure that
four height vehicles could be maintained.
Figure 13: Four Locations: Canterbury, Ashford, Maidstone, Thames-side (approx. 94.61
% of mobilisation addresses covered):
Summary
71. The main difference with this option is the removal of the crewing associated with
some of the height vehicles. This releases a potential saving of approximately £1m.
Page 37 of 51
There are no savings in terms of vehicles as the fifth appliance is maintained as an
operational asset to ensure 4 vehicles are available on the majority of occasions.
SWOT analysis – 4 + 1
Strengths Weaknesses
Provides 94.61% coverage of address within
the County
Resilience of coverage/response
Ensure compliance with Working at Height
Regulations
Flexibility of crewing/mobilisation if a single
type is adopted
Displacement of personnel
Less resilience
No savings on vehicles
If a selection of height vehicles is maintained:
o Mixed fleet of vehicles leads to
significant training and
interoperability issues
o Requires differing training
Opportunities Threats
Saving in alternate crewing of all vehicles
Removal of performance indicator
Potential that HV required in area now not
covered as before
Opposition from Accredited Representatives
Removal of standard may lose public
confidence
Indicative costs
72. This option effectively redistributes height vehicles across the County. It therefore does
not create any significant savings, outside of staff savings through the removal of
crewing associated with the vehicles.
Page 38 of 51
Option Two: Three Height Vehicles
Description
73. Under this option, the Authority would have three height vehicles situated at strategic
locations across the County. The fleet would comprise a standard type of height
vehicle and no firefighter posts are directly associated with height vehicles. Height
vehicles would be located at the following stations:
Maidstone
Ashford
Canterbury
74. A fourth appliance would be located at Thames-Side to provide resilience and ensure
that three height vehicles could be maintained.
Figure 14: Three Locations: Canterbury, Ashford and Maidstone (approx. 93.67 % of
mobilisation addresses covered):
Summary
75. This option also releases approximately £1m in crewing costs. In addition there is a
saving in not replacing one height vehicle (circa. £500k) and savings in the on going
Page 39 of 51
servicing, maintenance and fuel for this vehicle. In addition, there maybe a small
amount of residual value in the vehicle no longer required.
SWOT analysis - 3 + 1
Strengths Weaknesses
93.67% coverage
Resilience of coverage/response
Ensure compliance with Working at Height
Regulations
Flexibility of crewing/mobilisation
Displacement of personnel
Less resilience
Opportunities Threats
Saving in alternate crewing of all vehicles
Saving of cost of 1 vehicle
Removal of performance indicator
Standardisation of fleet
Reduced maintenance
Potential that HV required in area now not
covered as before
Opposition from Accredited Representatives
Removal of standard may lose public
confidence
Indicative costs
76. The following table illustrates indicative costs for this option, providing a comparison
with the current cost of delivering services.
Budget Option 2 Saving
£ £ £
Employee costs 1,049,916 0 -1,049,916
Vehicle maintenance costs 47,205 37,764 -9,441
Fuel 22,372 17,898 -4,474
Contributions to the vehicle replacement
programme
166,667 133,334 -33,333
Total 1,286,160 188,996 1,097,164
Option 2 costs based on: Removal of 28 firefighter posts (move to alternate crewing) Removal of one height vehicle overall
Page 40 of 51
Option Three: Two Height Vehicles
Description
77. Under this option, the Authority would have two height vehicles situated at strategic
locations across the County. The fleet would comprise a standard type of height
vehicle and no firefighter posts are directly associated with height vehicles. Height
vehicles would be located at the following stations:
Maidstone
Canterbury
78. Between April 2009 and June 2013 there were 61 occasions when there was
simultaneous demand for two height vehicles. With just two height vehicles in service,
that would have resulted in no other height vehicles being available for use on those
occasions unless a resilience height vehicle is provided. There have only been nine
occasions when three height vehicles were required.
79. A third appliance would be located at Ashford to provide resilience and ensure that two
height vehicles could be maintained.
Figure 15: Two Locations: Canterbury and Maidstone (approx. 90.63 % of mobilisation
addresses covered):
Page 41 of 51
Summary
80. This option also releases approximately £1m in crewing costs. In addition there is a
saving in not replacing two height vehicles (circa. £1m) and savings in the ongoing
servicing, maintenance and fuel for these vehicles. In addition, there maybe a small
amount of residual value in the vehicles no longer required.
SWOT analysis – 2 + 1
Strengths Weaknesses
90.63% coverage
Resilience of coverage/response
Ensure compliance with Working at Height
Regulations
Flexibility of crewing/mobilisation
Displacement of personnel
Less resilience
No savings on vehicles
Opportunities Threats
Saving in alternate crewing of all vehicles
Saving of cost of 2 vehicles
Removal of performance indicator
Standardisation of fleet
Reduced maintenance
Potential that HV required in area now not
covered as before
Opposition from Accredited Representatives
Removal of standard may deplete public
confidence
Indicative costs
81. The following table illustrates indicative costs for this option, providing a comparison
with the current cost of delivering services.
Budget Option 3 Saving
£ £ £
Employee costs 1,049,916 0 -1,049,916
Vehicle maintenance costs 47,205 28,323 -18,882
Fuel 22,372 13,423 -8,949
Contributions to the vehicle
replacement programme
166,667 100,000 -66,667
Total 1,286,160 141,746 1,144,414
Option 3 costs based on:
Removal of 28 firefighter posts (move to alternate crewing)
Removal of two height vehicles
Page 42 of 51
Option Four: One Height Vehicle
Description
82. Under this option, the Authority would have one height vehicle situated at Maidstone.
In this option no posts are directly associated with height vehicles.
83. There have been 507 incidents where one height vehicle has been used between April
2009 and Jun 2013. With one height vehicle in service that would result in no other
height vehicles being available for use on those occasions. There have been 61
occasions when simultaneous demand occurred for two height vehicles, and nine
occasions when three height vehicles were required.
84. A second appliance at Canterbury would be provided for resilience and to ensure that
one height vehicle could be maintained. The fleet would comprise of a standard type of
height vehicle.
Summary
85. This option also releases approximately £1m in crewing costs. In addition, there is a
saving in not replacing three height vehicles (circa. £1.5m) and savings in the ongoing
servicing, maintenance and fuel for these vehicles. In addition, there maybe a small
amount of residual value in the vehicles no longer required.
86. Although this option delivers the most savings, it does not deliver a resilient service.
SWOT analysis – 1 + 1
Strengths Weaknesses
Ensure compliance with Working at Height
Regulations
Flexibility of crewing/mobilisation
>65% coverage
Displacement of personnel
Less resilience
No savings on vehicles
Lack of resilience in proposals
Opportunities Threats
Saving in alternate crewing of all vehicles
Saving in cost of three vehicles
Removal of performance indicator
Standardisation of fleet
Reduced maintenance
Potential that HV required in area now not
covered as before
Opposition from Accredited Representatives
Removal of standard may loss public
confidence
Page 43 of 51
Indicative Costs
87. The following table illustrates indicative costs for this option, providing a comparison
with the current cost of delivering services.
Budget Option 4 Saving
£ £ £
Employee costs 1,049,916 0 -1,049,916
Vehicle maintenance costs 47,205 18,882 -28,323
Fuel 22,372 8,949 -13,423
Contributions to the vehicle
replacement programme
166,667 66,666.80 -100,000
Total 1,286,160 94,498 -1,191,662
Option 4 costs based on:
Removal of 28 firefighter posts (move to alternate crewing)
Removal of three height vehicles
Page 44 of 51
Evaluation and Recommendations
Numbers and Location
88. The research indicates that height vehicles are still required by the Authority. Two
height vehicles can provide an adequate level of cover (90.36%), although a third is
recommended for resilience.
Type of Vehicle
89. The Authority has a fleet of height vehicles that are a mixture of ALPs, TLs and a
CARP. These vehicles, whilst similar, have differing servicing, maintenance and
training requirements. To be as efficient as practicable the review team recommends
that the Authority migrates to one type of vehicle. Research in this project indicates
that the new generation TLs (with articulated section) are the best type going forward
and allow the functional requirements of these vehicles to be maintained.
Crewing
90. The high availability of the vehicles that are alternately crewed considered alongside
demand and simultaneous activity indicates that provision of these vehicles can be
maintained using alternate crewing. This would release a significant saving (circa £1m)
in terms of the 28 personnel currently assigned to watches for primary crewing
purposes.
Resilience or reserve?
91. Availability of these vehicles is good at more than 85%. However these vehicles do
need regular servicing and maintenance as they are highly complicated pieces of
equipment. It is recommended that a third vehicle is required to cover the above, as
falling to one vehicle and coverage of 62% is not acceptable. It also makes best use of
what is a significant capital investment.
Attendance Standard
92. There are no attendance standards for other specialist vehicles and it is therefore a
recommendation that this attendance standard is no longer reported.
Ring Fencing Policy
93. It is recommended that he current ring fencing policy be re-examined during the
implementation phase of this project and adjusted as necessary.
Page 45 of 51
Appendix A: Height vehicle use by function
Page 46 of 51
Page 47 of 51
Page 48 of 51
Page 49 of 51
Page 50 of 51
Page 51 of 51