![](https://emergencyservicestimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ESS-Button-resized.png")
On 16th April 2019, I resolved to bring a robotic firefighting capability to my home service. Like many, the day before I watched the scenes unfold as the iconic Notre-Dame Cathedral burned. Having a fairly good idea of its construction and a fair bit of experience with building fires I knew the fire was going to be a difficult one to extinguish.
The firefighters of the Brigade des sapeurs-pompiers de Paris did an excellent job. But my interests were sparked when at around 10 pm a firefighting robot was used to protect vital areas of the cathedral and extinguish the fire.
I have served in Kent Fire & Rescue Service (KFRS) for a long time, and it was easy for me to draw similarities to many fires I had attended and conceptualise a parallel response to one of our highest risk buildings, Canterbury Cathedral. Although I was already aware of this technology, it was this deployment that allowed me to foresee the worth of firefighting robots for future response.
Fast forward a few years and, after successful approval of the business case and subsequent project management process, I am pleased to say that we have had a textbook deployment of a FFR (Firefighting Robot) within KFRS.
A single FFR has been purchased by KFRS to fully understand the capabilities and limitations of this emerging technology. The FFR is being assessed over a 12-month period against the desirable deliverables of:
- Reducing risk to firefighters
- Reducing contamination risks for firefighters
- Reducing the number of resources required to resolve an incident
- Reducing the time spent resolving an incident
In its limited number of deployments to date, the FRR is achieving these deliverables.
The most recent incident occurred on 15th March 2025. The call was to an explosion at an automotive repair centre close by a busy dual carriage way. The fire had spread from a workshop into several vehicles and HGV tractor units, and it was confirmed that an acetylene cylinder was involved. Due to the incident’s location with the county the FFR was able to attend the scene relatively quickly (Photo 3 and 4).
The inherent hazards posed by a heated acetylene cylinder required a 200m cordon to be instigated and a defensive firefighting approach adopted, including the closure of a major dual carriage way in both directions. What this means in practice is that firefighting tactics change from an offensive stance, sending in firefighters wearing breathing apparatus to directly attack the fire with hose lines, to a more defensive posture where fixed water monitors are set up to control the fire and limit spread. The downside of setting up these monitors is that personnel must deliberately enter the risk area we have just defined as extremely hazardous to first set them up and then again, when needed, to alter their configuration.
The FFR was used to undertake this task without the need of putting any firefighters at risk. It was able to actively extinguish the fire and prevent fire spread to several vehicles and HGV tractor units. When used in conjunction with existing drone technology the operators were able to direct the water jet easily and effectively from the FFR to the areas it was needed and extinguish the fire in minimal time.
Once the fire was brought under control, priorities turn to locating and assessing the acetylene cylinder. Using the camera feeds from both the drone and FFR the cylinder was identified to be located outside the workshop. The FFR was remotely repositioned and cooling initiated. The standard procedure when dealing with a heat exposed acetylene cylinder takes a minimum of two hours. However, using the digital zooms available on both the drone and FFR a rupture could be seen in the cylinder, indicating that it was in a safe state and possible accounting for the explosions reported earlier in the incident.
The combined robotic response of the FFR and drone allowed for a reduced risk to firefighters who did not have to enter the 200m cordon, a reduction in levels of contamination as firefighters did not have to work in highly contamination areas, it allowed for the return of three appliances which were no longer required at the incident and were better placed providing fire cover elsewhere, and reduced the time required to resolve the incident by allowing a safe assessment of the heated acetylene cylinder – hitting all four of the desired deliverables for the FFR. A highly successful deployment!
I cannot ever see robotics fully replacing a competent firefighter, but as the associated costs reduce and the technology develops, using robotics to compliment the work a firefighter undertakes seems to me to be the future of firefighting. The next steps for me are to continue to monitor the FFR use and look to explore other areas in which robotics may reduce some of the risks to which we expose our firefighters, water, high rise, heavy loads and subsurface to name just a few.
To read similar articles, check out our Technology channel.
