All departments must put safety first
I am concerned that many rural volunteer departments tend to ignore Occupational Safety and Health Administration, National Fire Protection Association, and other related regulations and standards. The mentality seems to be that those standards do not apply to us because they are not necessary and are too expensive to maintain and that “only paid departments have to abide by those standards.” I believe that we cannot afford to ignore them.
The state of Virginia’s training system is very friendly to the volunteer departments, and many firefighters in the county have taken at least Fire Fighter I. But many of even the “trained” firefighters ignore important safety standards: Firefighters who can wear SCBAs have full thickness beards-even officers, who should know better. Some departments use turnout gear, with holes, from the ’60s and ’70s. Some use SCBAs that are not routinely tested. I could cite many more violations.
I believe much of the resistance to meeting standards comes from the attitude that we are just volunteers doing the best we can with what we’ve got ellipse besides, that Good Samaritan law protects us. I believe this is wrong.
We must realize these standards are written for our own good first and foremost, but they can also be used against a well-intentioned officer in court if one of his firefighters gets hurt or killed ellipse. Anything that goes wrong at an emergency scene that is the result of not meeting a standard is grounds for a lawsuit. Regulating agencies do not have separate standards for volunteers ellipse. It is a matter of life and death.
Daryl Songer
Firefighter/EMT
Roanoke City (VA) Fire-EMS
Firefighter
New Castle (VA) Volunteer Fire Department
All win when the right person is in the right job
Peter Sells’ incisive article “How to Get the Right Person for the Right Job” (Fire Engineering, January 1999) covers a critical issue. One of the most gratifying events in a firefighter’s career is getting promoted. Often, the promotion is the culmination of years of preparation and self-development. Unfortunately, there are also many cases in which promotions are the result of caprice, bias, and nepotism. These issues were articulated in Alan J. Freedman’s explosive article “Camaraderie and Organizational Dysfunction” (Fire Engineering, September 1998).
Sells’ article should be mandatory reading for progressive and fair-minded chief officers. The type of system Sells advocates places a premium on the candidates’ “displaying their ability.” This system truly allows the cream to rise to the top.
Sells advocates using a double-tiered system. The first tier will be used to evaluate the candidate’s application and r
The interview, usually before a panel of chief officers, is often used to circumvent objective qualifiers such as job-based written exams, assessment centers culled from a detailed job analysis, and specialized training. A human resource representative can be used to ensure consistency in the questions and to prompt (if allowed) candidates who seem to have misunderstood the question. In this way, the panel will hear the best from all the candidates.
Some would object to a human resource representative’s presence in the “hallowed sanctum” of chief officers. Yet, the sobering reality is that hidden agendas and an air of secrecy breed suspicion of unethical behavior. Dealing with issues in the open may not always eliminate suspicion, but it promotes a framework built on trust, integrity, fairness, and tolerance of individual differences. (Richard A. Marinucci, “Ethics: Issue for the ’90s,” Fire Engineering, March 1992.)
In principle, the use of a human resource representative is analogous to having a video camera in a police officer’s cruiser. It protects the lawful officer from false charges of misconduct and helps rid the service of miscreants posing as law enforcement officers.
The fire department that uses a promotional system in which job-based competencies have the pre-eminence is a fire department that has created an environment in which everyone can win. It has been established that highly successful individuals create win-win situations and that as a result of such a policy, morale improves, firefighters who are promoted feel a genuine sense of pride and accomplishment, and efficiency and service delivery to the community increase. In an increasingly litigious age, it is imperative that promotional systems select the right person for the right job. Nothing else will or should suffice.
Marc D. Greenwood
Lieutenant
Akron (OH) Fire Department
Accountability must be valued and practiced
I fail to understand the negative theme of Letters to the Editor regarding accountability systems in the October 1999 issue. I heard similar negative comments about the use of SCBA in the 1970s (“takes too long to put them on and slows down fire attack”). In the early 1980s, it was the incident command system (“you can’t control the fire by talking it to death”). In the mid-1980s during the development of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1500, Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health, 1997, the committee received a record 17,000 negative comments! Our leaders had trouble swallowing the improved safety for firefighters. In 1978, 178 firefighters were killed, according to the NFPA. Fortunately, improved safety and equipment are improving survivability on the fireground. Firefighter deaths dropped to 75 in 1992.
There’s something tragically wrong with a fire service culture that places the lives and welfare of members so low. The recent two-in/two-out rule is an example of an outside agency (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulating us because we failed miserably in addressing the issue ourselves. Until the rule was issued, very few fire departments used a rapid intervention crew during working fires. We threw all our resources into fire combat with nothing in reserve should a firefighter get in trouble. Tragedies occurred because of this lack of foresight.
I agree that there is no substitute for company officer leadership on the fireground. But leadership on the fireground means working within the incident management system, complying with existing SOPs and safety concerns, and complying with an accountability system. These are not, and should not be, “CYA” stuff, as mentioned in the letters. At the company level, accountability is lost if the company officer can’t see, hear, or touch all members of the crew when operating on the fireground. All too often, the “leadership” does not demand this level of accountability. There is still too much freelancing, and tragedies do occur as a result.
A clear example of lack of accountability was illustrated in “A Close Call,” by Michael Marino, also in the October 1999 issue (page 100). The author describes responding to a fire and entering the basement alone-without a partner, violating the very basic principle of the “buddy system.” Even though he advised his company officer of his intentions, accountability could not be, and was not, established. He nearly died when he became lost. The author’s description implied that this “solo” activity was an accepted practice for his fire department as long as his company officer was made aware of the entry. We must change our culture and behavior!
A proper accountability system allows the command organization to track personnel in the hazard zone at the point of entry–otherwise, it’s impossible to determine who’s in or out at any given moment. Some form of hardware/dog tag needs to be maintained by a designated accountability person (we use the engineer as the initial accountability officer). Accountability only works when all members comply and when leadership demands it.
I’ll agree that the current means of accountability may not be perfect; we should commit all our efforts to achieving a better system. If we don’t, an outside agency (OSHA, for example) will mandate one for us.
Those who may downplay the importance of fireground accountability should read “Beating the System to Death: A Case Study in Incident Command and Mutual Aid,” by William C. Nicholson (Fire Service Court), in the same issue, which relates how the Bureau of Land Management and a volunteer fire department were found responsible for the deaths of two firefighters. The court found that both agencies failed to have in place, or failed to adhere to, several safety procedures and that the incident management system was weak. The two agencies were ordered to pay $2.5 million in damages. In addition to a terrible tragedy, these events are also often career-ending events for leaders.
Gary P. Morris
Assistant Chief
Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department
Three-dimensional water fog application
In the past few years, I have read articles and seen videos advocating a firefighting technique called “three-dimensional water fog application.” It was developed in Sweden in the 1980s and has spread throughout Europe as a means of preventing flashover.
The technique uses very short, quick bursts of a fog stream into the upper layers of a “compartmental” fire. Proponents are quick to point out that it is different from the indirect attack method in that it is not intended to produce large amounts of steam. Only one or two gallons of water are used to cool the fire gases at the ceiling level. Flashover simulators are used to demonstrate the effectiveness of this technique, and there is little doubt that it does work at a very specific point in the fire.
However, I would like to caution firefighters that such a technique is very limited in its use. It can be used only when the first signs of a flashover are present, and it has to be accomplished in a precise manner. It should not be used at the fully involved stage of the fire. As stated in Fog Attack, written by retired London firefighter Paul Grimwood:
“The application requires great precision, relying on several factors such as (a) size of water droplets in stream; (b) correct nozzle and cone discharge angles; (c) effective application by trained operators, avoiding over-drenching of the gas layers and surfaces; and (d) a nozzle capable of discharging an effective pattern with sufficient flow.”
I would like readers to consider a method that can be used in all stages of fire, with less nozzle reaction and less nozzle pressure; does not need precise delivery angles; and needs less maintenance than a fog nozzle. The method to which I refer is the solid-bore nozzle. It has proven very effective at preventing flashovers by directing the stream at the ceiling and then lowering it to the base of the fire.
One other point that doesn’t seem to be mentioned in articles is the effect of a fog stream on the fire victims we have to assume are there. If the firefighter does not apply the fog stream precisely and applies too much water, the fire victims could receive severe steam burns, as can the firefighters. I’d rather use a direct attack technique that would be less likely to upset the thermal balance and increase the survivability of the victim. We should always fight fire with the method that has the greatest potential for saving life, even though more effective methods for fire control (such as sticking the hoseline through the window) may be available.
I urge that we all educate ourselves on all the different techniques available and decide for ourselves what is best for those we are trying to save. That is the only way we can truly call ourselves professionals.
Stephen Maloney
Lieutenant
Newport (RI) Fire Department
Neither all right nor all wrong
Reference is made to “A Right Way and a Wrong Way” (Editor’s Opinion, December 1999). Bill Manning is neither all right nor all wrong. If he ever becomes a real fire chief (or operational officer), he will be every liability lawyer’s dream and every risk manager’s nightmare.
James Grigsby
Chief
Roanoke (VA) Fire-EMS
