Though firefighters are an integral part of everyday society—providing emergency medical care and extraction of personnel from structure fires—every life that can be saved to ensure the continuation of this profession is a factor worth discussion.  The development of firefighting robots that assist in equipment transport, victim transport, fire extinguishing, and critical environment data have greatly enhanced the capabilities of first-responders.  Additionally, these platforms act as force multipliers; enabling the operators on the ground greater situational awareness of their environment to conduct search and rescue operations while decreasing the loss of unit or victim’s lives.

Schneider and Wildermuth (2017) highlighted the possible applications of robotics in firefighting operations with potential technologies to assist in extinguishing, pathfinding, and detecting of dangerous conditions.  With a multitude of sensors available for unmanned systems, these firefighting robots also act as a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) asset for first responders to utilize.  In recent news, oil refineries or chemical plants were subject to destruction; whether accidental or intentional.  The use of such a platform as this assist’s first responders in analyzing dangerous levels of toxins while keeping its human counterparts at a safe distance until conditions are optimal.  Additionally, tasks given to the robot could assist in transporting survivors and heavy equipment in/out of the structure. Having an operator of the firefighting robot may be more sensible than having a fully autonomous robot for several reasons: 1.) the operator can utilize judgement and other human emotions to make critical decisions in a timely manner and 2.) the reaction time to a developing dangerous situation may provide “intuition” that is not experienced by machines.  Mission analysis, course of action development and analysis, course of action comparison, and course of action approval are somewhat natural processes we as humans think when an immediate choice is warranted.  In austere environments, such as those experienced by firefighters, gathering real-time critical information of their operational area could greatly assist the success of their prescribed mission; whether it be reconnaissance or rescue operations. 

Within these environments, low-visibility and unknown layouts are some of the most important factors when conducting rescue operations.  Before entry into a structure, firefighting robots assist the ground personnel by mapping current conditions within each room, provide temperature readings, and provide material support via transportation of heavy equipment.  For less intense fires, these platforms could also detect and extinguish fires before becoming too great and surpassing the capabilities of the deployed asset.  The use of such systems greatly reduces the number of first-responder deaths experienced on average every year.  Fahy, LeBlanc, and Molis (2017) of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) detail in their annual report that 69 firefighters died in the line of duty in 2016.  Of the 69 deaths, 15 were caused by structure fires while conduction assessment/search and rescue operations; accounting for approximately 22 percent of all deaths (p. 3).  Overall, the use of unmanned firefighting robots has proven fruitful when reducing the lives lost in the line of duty.  Hopefully, more widespread use of these systems would not replace the human firefighter, but rather augment their capabilities in completing their tasks in a timely and efficient manner.      

References

Fahy, R., LeBlanc, P., & Molis, J. (2017). NFPA: Firefighter Fatalities in the United States – 2016. Retrieved from http://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Fire-statistics/The-fire-service/Fatalities-and-injuries/Firefighter-fatalities-in-the-United-States

Schneider, F. & Wildermuth, D. (2017).  Using Robots for Firefighters and First Responders: Scenario Specification and Exemplary System Description.  18th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC).  (216-221). Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu
/document/7970400/