FDIC reflections
It’s Saturday afternoon. I am driving east on Interstate 64 with Louisville, Kentucky, in my rearview mirror. Two hours ago, my four colleagues from Chesterfield (VA) Fire and EMS and I left the Fire Department Instructors Conference (FDIC) in Indianapolis; in 10 hours, we will be back in Chesterfield, Virginia.
Some may question why someone with 29 years on the job would come to FDIC, especially when paying his own ticket! It’s really quite simple. I have been there before. The value I received was much greater than the cost. Although the primary reason for coming was to take training classes, my most immediate return came from experiencing the brotherhood. For the brief time I am there, being surrounded by some of the best people in the business recharges the soul. As a family separated by hundreds of miles, we had a reunion to grieve the largest loss of our members in history. Ray Downey, Don Manno, and all the others are irreplaceable, but we will close ranks and move on. Bill Manning asked us to step up to the plate and make our contributions to the fire service of the greatest nation on earth. He challenged each one by asking, “If not us, who?” He played the guitar and sang a version of “New York State of Mind.” Throughout the conference, we all had a “New York State of Mind.”
Frances Brannigan’s “60 years of FDIC” was a milestone. In my attic is his 1950s radiation booklet, along with my autographed copy of Bill Clark’s Firefighting Principles & Practices, from which Chief Rick Lasky quoted in his presentation on “Sweating the Small Stuff.” Although I have not opened the book in more than 10 years, I will get it down, read it, and circulate it among my company officers to read. My reading list for the next several months will also include Germs, recommended by Brigadier General Jerry W. Grizzle, of the Department of Defense, in his FDIC presentation. Commanding a biological incident is something I need to learn more about to stay in the game.
Surrounded by some of the great minds in the business, along with being away from the daily grind of the job, causes the creative juices to flow. My daily FDIC programs are filled with facts or statements I want to remember, as well as reminders of things to do when I get back. I feel rejuvenated and pumped. While touring vendor exhibits and seeing the new FDNY Rescue 2 unit, I commented to one of my colleagues, “Wouldn’t it be great starting out again?”
It will be 2 a.m. Sunday morning when we arrive home. My body will be exhausted, but my soul will be recharged ready to face the day and seize the moment to be the best fire officer I can be by caring, contributing, and making a difference.
To Bill Manning and the FDIC staff, thanks for the greatest conference ever!
Rick Bucher
Senior Battalion Chief
Chesterfield (VA) Fire & EMS
Manno stands among influential in the fire service
Thanks for remembering our friend Don Manno in the March Editor’s Opinion. I was honored to work with him, honored that he and Eilene looked on my daughters as a favorite aunt and uncle would, honored that he sought (and listened to) my opinions, and eternally grateful that he called me his friend. There is nothing that can compare with a phone call from Donnie that began with, “Hey, Jeffie …,” one of the hugs he so liberally distributed, his infectious laugh, and the gleam in his eye when we’d talk about “real firefighting duty” … truck work, rescue company work, and snotty workers.
It is safe to say that Don Manno stands proudly among the few in the fire service who have truly influenced millions in carrying out their mission, the duty they so loved. No one can count the literal thousands of civilians and firefighters alike who owe their lives to this one man. I have no doubt that Donnie, Pete Ganci, Ray Downey, and a bunch of other heroic jakes are holding a roundtable in heaven strategizing how to put out the fires of hell. Thanks for remembering a true fireman’s fireman.
Jeff DeBell
Fire District #2 NE
Johnson County, Kansas
Is standardized time-to-failure criterion relevant to firefighter life safety?
In his article “Protection of Firefighters Under the Building Codes” in the January 2002 issue, Richard Bukowski challenges the fire service to engage in the development of our national model building codes. The author’s point is that building codes cannot address the needs of the fire service unless those needs are clearly defined. Further, he writes, “the trend toward performance-based design for fire safety underscores the need and opportunity for fire service involvement. Thus, who better to seek regulatory reform in this area than the fire service?” While these observations are indeed appropriate, the article does, none-theless, contain some misleading statements related to the fire performance of lightweight engineered products, particularly roof trusses, which warrant clarification.
In the NIST/City of Phoenix fire tests, referred to in the article, Bukowski states that there was a “… time to roof collapse of less than 20 minutes from the time of ignition for common residential truss roof construction.” One must ask, from the “time of ignition” of what? Holding out this 20-minute threshold as some type of panacea for firefighter safety from these unrepresentative tests is misguided. The scenario in Phoenix involved multiple initiations of fires in small structures, directly beneath the attic access panel, which was held in place by thin wood trim. This represented a scenario for rapid fire extension into the attic space. The tests were designed to identify warning signs of unsafe working conditions and not to assign fire endurance times or a time-to-failure of “typical” roof truss construction, according to NIST researchers involved with the testing.
Bukowski also states “there was no advance indication of the impending collapse.” This comment suggests that catastrophic failure of the roof occurred without warning. In actuality, it is unclear whether there was total or even partial failure of roof trusses within the 20-minute time frame. (The sheathing between roof trusses failed to support the 300-pound concentrated load, simulating a firefighter, at the times noted.) Contrary to the assertion that there was no indication of impending collapse, the simulated firefighter started to lean about one minute prior to sheathing failure. Furthermore, there was every visual indication that the attic space, immediately below, was fully involved in fire, including smoke emanating between shingles and fire roaring from gable ends-obviously an unsafe operating environment. There would be little reason for firefighters to be on a roof that had so obviously self-vented as in the Phoenix fires.
One must therefore ask, where firefighter life safety is the issue, whether a standardized time-to-failure criterion is really relevant to reducing loss of life. How can the fire service reasonably use this information when the fire department does not normally know for how long the fire has been burning prior to its receiving notification or arriving on the scene? Drawing conclusions such as those suggested in the article from four very simple tests is not appropriate, does nothing to advance firefighter safety, and could even serve to place firefighters at greater risk. In the “Recognizing the Danger” section of the article, Bukowski questions the fire performance of engineered wood products. Unfortunately, the New York incident (NIOSH 98F-17) purportedly cited to underscore an inability to recognize dangers occurred in a building where the structural system had been compromised prior to the fire. Structural supports for the floor on which the firefighters were standing had been removed. Certainly, building code violations are all too common; fortunately, they seldom result in the loss of life. For anyone to have recognized this contributing factor while operating under extreme fire conditions would have been fortuitous. One certainly is entitled to ask how this tragedy is even related to the fire performance of engineered wood products.
In this industry’s review of firefighter fatalities (FEMA FA 215, 8/2001) occurring in residential occupancies, there is no apparent relationship between the presence of these products and fatalities. Could it be that the requirement in state-of-the-art building codes for complete smoke detector coverage and, consequently, early detection provides an important degree of occupant life safety and more timely fire department notification? Isn’t it possible that fire department response time has improved over the past 40 years, providing for more rapid fire service intervention?
The wood products industry is committed to helping identify a solution for reducing fire fatalities to zero. Until such time that we can rely on technological improvements, is there a better solution than a visual assessment of a building’s structural integrity? Shouldn’t emphasis be placed on fireground size-up as a means of avoiding firefighter injuries from structural collapse? Absent life-saving situations, it should at least be discussed whether the fire service should even be committing personnel directly above or below a fire without confirmation that the structural system has not been compromised. The challenge, we believe, is to identify all causes of on-duty firefighter fatalities and to find effective solutions leading to the universal goal of no deaths from accidental fires.
Kuma Sumathipala, Ph.D, P.Eng.
American Forest & Paper Association
Bukowski responds: The primary intent of my article was to draw the fire service into more active participation in the development of model building codes in this country. With the I-Codes under development by the Inter-national Codes Council (ICC) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) soon to publish its first building code, there has never been a more active time for model codes.
Further, the inclusion of performance-based design options to both these codes has resulted in a long overdue dialog among architects, regulators, engineers, and building owners with regard to society’s underlying expectations for the built environment. The fire service has been largely absent from these discussions.
Regarding the specific points made in Sumathipala’s letter, the purposes of the Phoenix fire tests were to examine whether there is a difference in fire performance between plywood and oriented strand board (OSB) used as roof sheathing and to look for indicators of impending roof collapse or structural weaknesses that might result in a firefighter’s falling through. I agree that time to collapse is not very useful, since the fire service does not usually know the exposure time. Certainly, heavy flame and smoke indicate a fully involved attic space, which should be a warning that the roof is unsafe; but sometimes these indications are not apparent.
In 1997 a Washington, DC, firefighter was killed when he fell through a floor weakened by an unrecognized basement fire burning concurrently with a fire being investigated in a first-floor store. This is not to condemn the flooring system but to point out the need for a better understanding of the effect of fire on the structure.
The fire service is clearly concerned about the stability of lightweight trusses in fire, regardless of the materials from which they are fabricated. The fire service has argued that it does not always know when lightweight truss construction is present, and sometimes placing firefighters on a roof to ventilate is unavoidable. Most fire chiefs know not to position people or vehicles near unreinforced masonry walls that can be pushed over by the expansion of steel beams under fire exposure (one of the examples cited in the article from the NIOSH database).
Several decades ago, devices that could be used to ventilate a roof without the need to place people on the roof were developed, but they never caught on; ventilation is still done manually.
I did not question the fire performance of engineered wood products in my article. I only pointed out that data on their performance are often nonexistent or difficult to find. Since many of these products are used in residential construction that has few fire resis-tant requirements, there is no need to have them tested. I feel such testing to quantify their fire performance relative to the sawn wood products they are replacing would be of value to the fire service. Conversely, the fire service needs to speak out on what level of fire resistance it expects so that it can be incorporated in the codes. Alarm systems that get the fire service there while the fire is smaller and sprinklers to control or extinguish the fire are also part of the equation, although some fire resistance is needed in case either of these active systems fails to perform for any reason.
Finally, I want to reinforce the key point of my article: While the fire service is well trained and equipped, it sometimes does not have the option of pulling back for its members’ safety. When civilian lives or those of fellow firefighters are in jeopardy, firefighters may be forced to take risks. We need to help them to understand those risks so they can make an informed decision.
Volunteer article timely
I have been chief of the Kemptville Fire Department in Canada for 16 years of my 30-year career. For six of those 16 years, I was a volunteer chief. I was hired full time in 1991. We have approximately 35 volunteers on the force. I have never read a document that hit the nail on the head as squarely and precisely as John Buckman’s “Dealing with Problematic Volunteers” (Volunteer Corner, February 2002). It is excellent. It has come at a perfect time to assist us greatly with an issue with which we are currently dealing.
Tim Bond
Chief
Kemptville (Ontario, Canada)
Fire Department
Appreciates “reality-based” techniques
This letter is to express appreciation for Tom Murray’s “Engine Officers’ Do’s and Don’ts (February 2002) and “Truck Company Do’s and Don’ts” (April 2002). The articles summed up clearly and precisely a lifetime of lessons learned by the author. The advice and thoughts presented provide the reader with a reality-based approach to sound techniques real company officers use when fighting fires and leading fire companies in the real world.
Craig Ferris
Firefighter
Ann Arbor (MI) Fire Department
LPG cylinders on roofs pose safety hazard
Sometimes it appears as if the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has its head in the sand. One example is the condoning of the placement of LPG cylinders on the top of multistory buildings. I believe that a standards organization like the NFPA should have fire service personnel strongly represented on all of its committees. After all, isn’t the NFPA supposed to be for the safety of firefighters and the civilian populace?
Ralph L Lloyd
Assistant Chief
Carrollton Village (OH) Fire
Step-by-step articles helpful
Thanks to Fire Engineering for “Church Fires” by Bob Pressler (Fire Focus, March 2002). It was very interesting and informative. I found the “blow-by-blow” pictures helpful. It was nice to read the voice of experience explaining what the fire was doing in each photo and what the tactical considerations were. I would like to see more of these step-by-step articles with photos.
Ethan Pagliaro
Cincinnati (OH) Fire Division
