Fire Scene StudioFire Scene Studio
Exercise complete — open the debrief

Exercise · level 1 · fixed run

The Willows — Multiple viewpoint effects testing

T+20min
Venting fireDefensive

Frames · Fire Scene Engine

Selected view · T+20 minutes is loading…

Loading…

T+20 min

Well alight — flames from the opening and making up; black smoke, heavy, hot.

Timeline
T+20 / 20Resolution
Download debrief PDF

Doctrine-referenced debrief · not an assessment

[1]

Incident Commander — Command Performance Review

SFJ Awards Level 3 Award in Initial Incident Command in Fire and Rescue ServicesOfqual Ref: 610/0183/1 · Unit 6033 · 65h TQT

Safety-critical event: Flashover with BA crews committed at T+20. Unsatisfactory command performance with critical safety or coordination lapses that require structured developmental intervention.

Doctrine Score54/100
unsatisfactory
Situational Awarenesscompetent
70%
  • No explicit Level 3 anticipation recorded. Look ahead: verbalise predicted fire spread and future resource needs before escalation occurs.
  • Limited Level 2 understanding evident. Translate observations into operational meaning (e.g. what dark pulsing smoke signifies for entry safety).
  • Level 1 Perception active (2 situational observations recorded).
  • All identified critical hazards had corresponding mitigating actions recorded.
Decision Makingcompetent
71%
  • Orders judged on their effect: 4 given — 2 sound, 1 wrong for the conditions, 1 not scored.
  • Decision controls and cues are not captured from typed orders and are not scored.
Interpersonal Communicationexemplary
90%
  • Rapid, prompt acknowledgement to Fire Control.
  • Response provided, but did not explicitly repeat back critical operational specifics.
  • Rapid, prompt acknowledgement to Fire Control.
  • Response provided, but did not explicitly repeat back critical operational specifics.
  • Rapid, prompt acknowledgement to Fire Control.
  • Response provided, but did not explicitly repeat back critical operational specifics.
  • Rapid, prompt acknowledgement to Fire Control.
  • Response provided, but did not explicitly repeat back critical operational specifics.
  • Rapid, prompt acknowledgement to Fire Control.
  • Response provided, but did not explicitly repeat back critical operational specifics.
  • Rapid, prompt acknowledgement to Fire Control.
  • Response provided, but did not explicitly repeat back critical operational specifics.
  • Rapid, prompt acknowledgement to Pump Operator.
  • Response provided, but did not explicitly repeat back critical operational specifics.
  • Rapid, prompt acknowledgement to Police Sergeant 4421 (Met).
  • Information from Police Sergeant 4421 (Met) was appropriately incorporated into commander's response.
Teamwork & Coordinationunsatisfactory
50%
  • Tactical mode lag in Alfa: Mode changed to DEFENSIVE 5m ago, but crews remain committed inside and are NOT yet accounted for. Initiate emergency evacuation roll-call.
Leadership & Command Presencecompetent
75%
  • Maintained clear command presence and tactical leadership.
Personal Resilienceexemplary
90%
  • Active monitoring intervals maintained without decision stagnation.
  • Maintained safe span of control (1 sectors).

Key Strengths

  • Handled all dynamic roleplay injects and operational messages effectively.

Development & Learning Opportunities

  • Safety-critical: Flashover with BA crews committed at T+20 — this overrides the marker average.
  • Sector mode contradiction: Tactical mode lag in Alfa: Mode changed to DEFENSIVE 5m ago, but crews remain committed inside and are NOT yet accounted for. Initiate emergency evacuation roll-call.
  • Safety warning: No scene access control point (SACP) established to log personnel entering the inner cordon.
  • Operational briefing was unstructured — adopt the standard IIMARCH framework (Information, Intent, Method, Risk).

The incident got away — but there’s plenty to take forward.

Developmental reflection — not an assessment

What went well

  • Good call — monitor at T+0 (“Perform a 360 and establish a water supply”).
  • Good call — defensive external at T+10 (“External attack through upstairs window”).
  • Every judged decision (2) matched the conditions.
  • Gathered information before acting: speak to witness (T+10), fire control update (T+10), consult responsible person (T+10), check ori (T+10).

What to develop

  • Questionable — offensive internal at T+15 (“Leave perimeter as it is for now, establish an inner cordon and send in a BA crew to assess conditions”) for the conditions at the time.
  • Safety-critical — Flashover with BA crews committed (T+20).
  • Flashover with BA crews committed — a safety-critical failure.
  • A casualty on the first floor was never found (deceased).
  • Property partially saved (damage 23).

Key decision points

  • T+00 [monitor · good] “Perform a 360 and establish a water supply”
  • T+05 [monitor] “Send a METHANE”
  • T+10 [defensive-external · good] “External attack through upstairs window”
  • T+15 [offensive-internal · questionable] “Leave perimeter as it is for now, establish an inner cordon and send in a BA crew to assess conditions”

Learning points

  • Incident states: Venting fire (T+0).
  • Read the warning signs — sealed compartment, hot pulsing smoke, severe fire — before committing crews.
  • Send an early METHANE / informative message to set the incident picture.
  • With persons unaccounted for, search the fire floor first — “nobody inside” is a claim, not a fact.

Discuss this with the training mentor

Mentor grounded in published UK FRS principles — developmental discussion, not assessment. It cites its sources or reframes as a question.

Incident report

Practice — not a real IRS submission