Posted By Kenneth Patrick It is what you do when you try to work out if it is safe to cross a busy road.

Posted By DKH Thanks guy's, thought i was missing something.

Posted By Andy Cashmore Bob I have to question your interpretation of what actually happens with DRA in operational situations as far as the Fire Service and Fire Fighters are concerned. All Fire Fighters are trained in DRA and the safe person concept. They are fully aware of the DRA sequence and the identification of control measures. When faced with highly dynamic situations they do not necesarily have to record the findings of any DRA before they can proceed with their interventions. This has been the case since 1998 with the introduction of the National Health and Safety Guideance Documents. The Fire Service is currently looking at the recording of tactical decisions and analytical risk assessment process. Until they are formally introduced, DRA will continue to be used by Fire Fighters to protect their health and safety. A copy of the model used by the Fire Service can be found here; http://www.mike.everley....com/manage/dra/dra1.html

Posted By Chris Jerman Can I say that as the author of the Dynamic Risk Assessment course, run by IOSH, and having worked with several Fire and Rescue services nationally, it is refreshing to see such a concise and accurate reflection of Dynamic Risk Assessment - which is of course in reality Dynamic Risk Control. IE 'we know the problem, but the solutions' effectiveness changes over a relatively short period of time, therefore we need to adjust our approach more frequently'; these controls not being made up on the spot, but drawn from a bank of established options. All too often DRA is seen as a substitute for actually having to 'do' anything. So many times have I heard "What we do is so unpredictable that you couldn't possibly write it down in advance' I usually ask for examples of these unpredictable circumstances at which point a list is produced! 'Right - so unforeseeable and unpredictable that you can write a list of it in advance?' The case for the prosecution rests M'lord. Chris

Posted By Chris Jerman Agreed , Bob. However, DRA must be understood in the context of the core-values of the business. The Fire and Rescue service have a very good set of core-values which we have adapted and adopted. These values MUST be lived and reinforced. We have problems with operatives potentially hurting themselves when applying their own ideas, then when they get back to base they receive a reward FOR THE OUTCOME not the methodology. Our core-value No1 is "Nothing we do is worth being harmed for" But clearly if you act outside the limits that we set and get away with it, that was a good move. Uhhh no! If that individual had been hurt, then the business would have 'blamed' them for not following the rules. Yes? So yes, I wouldn't want F&R limited purely by written controls, of course. However, I would want them to work within a framework of decision making that takes into account the necessary considerations - and that IS what they do very well in my opinion. Most businesses have not set out their thinking on this subject, let alone set core-values. CVs and DRA are inextricably linked. We are not the emergency services and the range of we expect our employees to 'invent' and apply themselves is not as broad as theirs. We actually need to set some fairly tight controls and limit what people do for themselves - we're a profit making business after all. DRA is NOT only about highly hazardous activities. Regards Chris

Posted By Andy Cashmore I have to say that this is a fascinating debate and I hope you don't mind me putting my penny worth in. The Fire Service and its operatives are indeed meant to live by a set of core values. These values are all pervausive in terms of the selection of new staff, the training and development of those employees, their promotion to senior managerial roles and their interactions with the community at large. However, these core values are relatively new to the Fire Service and it could be argued that many do not yet 'live the values'. It's these people who are more likely to step outside of recognised protocols and policies (standard operating procedures) and in so doing, expose themselves and others to additional or increased risk. However there are other factors affecting the DRA process and the ability of practitioners to keep themselves safe....at the moment we do not assess possible new entrants for their ability to identify hazards and risks. We train the safe person concept, but then do not test to see if the person understands the part they play (an organisational problem I know, but a problem non the less). There is another issue. A few years ago there was a complete re-focus in competence measures for promotion. Where once the Fire Service tested potential managers' underpinning knowledge of operational incidents, including chemistry, building construction, firefighting tactics, generic risk assessments of various incident types, etc, etc, etc, we now test individuals for effective communication, openness to change, committment to integrity and diversity, etc, etc. By doing this, the FS is shifting the focus from promoting operationally effective officers, who have underpinning knowledge and experiential knowledge of the risks and hazards associated with dynamic situations and so are able to make informed decisions, to one of selecting managers who have good business skills. A retrograde step, in my opinion. But I wonder whether there is a more fundamental problem here.....and I apologise for continually using the Fire Service in my examples, but its what i do!!!......By the very nature of operational incidents (which as you quite rightly say, can rapidly change from one minute to the next), combined with the fact that there are occasions where we will take some risk to save saveable lives, is dynamic risk assessment really what we are doing......or is it a process of assessing dynamic risk.....and, is there a difference? Andy