LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
To like or like not
Bill Manning’s remarks in the May Editor’s Opinion were right on target.
I have been a subscriber for more than five years and have enjoyed each issue, but nothing printed previously reveals the true nature of rural volunteer fire departments and their hardships as this column did.
Coincidentally, there is an initiative in Texas known as the Rural Community l ire Protection Program (RCFP) that has produced wonderful results in recent years. The RCFP thus far has had a great impact on more than 1,900 rural departments in Texas with regard to equipment and training. The Texas Forest Service oversees the program, which enables rural departments to share the costs of vehicles, radios, and protective clothing that would not be available otherwise. Ibis tremendous program survives on a proportionately small amount of state and federal dollars.
Incidentally, if the National Fire Forces Mobilization Act mentioned in your column is fully funded, there would be an additional $2 million available for the RCFP in Texas alone.
1 feel as you do: that the National Mobilization Act funding is crucial to the safety of rural firefighters and to the protection of the rural communities of America.
Michael C. Fisher
Chief
Bastrop (TX) VID
1 am a 17-year veteran of the fire service and a former Idaho firefighter now serving as fire chief of Spokane County Fire District 9 in Spokane, Washington. In addition, I served eight years as an instructor for Idaho fire service training. This position provided me with opportunities to meet Idaho’s firefighters and to visit departments throughout the state.
NOTE: For information on the “Less Than Five Minutes” videotape listed in the Resource Box on page S t of the June issue, please contact William H. Weigle at the following number: (413) 528-2816.
I therefore read with interest Bill Manning’s May Editor’s Opinion, “To Have and Have Not,” regarding fire departments being too ill-equipped to perform their jobs safely. Manning used quotes from David Long, a used fire apparatus vendor, who supposedly conducted a study of the inadequacies and needs of the rural fire service and, more specifically, the Idaho fire service.
I question the “facts” or “study results” quoted in the editorial from Long’s snapshot analysis of the Idaho fire service, which depicted the Idaho fire service as ill-equipped and unknowledgeable of modern practices and standards. His statements are inaccurate and an insult to Idaho’s fire service. While some districts or departments are in poor shape, many Idaho fire districts/departments have very good ISO ratings. Idaho also has one of the nation’s best rural EMS systems. I think it is inappropriate to rely on the study conducted by Long without checking the accuracy of the data prior to offering an editorial opinion in a national magazine. The rural communities of Idaho and other states have dedicated personnel, and that “old used truck or equipment” can do a damn good job in the hands of properly trained and equipped firefighters.
Robert I. Anderson
Fire Chief
Spokane County (WA) Fire
District No. 9
In Bill Manning’s May editorial “To Have and Have Not” the statistics and descriptions paint a vivid and uncomfortable picture. I do not have the numbers, but I have encountered similar conditions when I taught at state fire schools in rural Virginia.
I look forward to your editorials. They remind me of what goes on at a firehouse kitchen table—issues bluntly discussed. I hope that your monthly call to action is getting results. I appreciate your effort to reach beyond the Greater New York issues.
Michael J. Ward
Virginia State Fire Instructor-Trainer
Manassas, Virginia
A look from the other side
As a voting member of the NFPA Technical Committee on Fire Department Equipment, I read Chief John Morello’s article “NFPA 1904: A Look from the Inside” in the April issue with considerable sadness. My concern is not with the factual concerns raised by Morello —in fact, I have argued in support of some of the points he raised in his article at various committee meetings during the past four years.
The tragedy of Morello’s article is the implication that the members of the NFPA Technical Committee are either totally removed from the reality of firefighting or are motivated by a desire to strengthen the commercial position of the companies they represent. Nothing could be further from the truth. As shown on page three of the new NFPA 1904, the 30 voting members are associated with the following organizations: fire protection agencies (14), manufacturing companies (8), retired fire chief (1), fire research and consulting (3), testing laboratory (1), general services administration (1), and insurance service organization (1).
What is not shown on this page is that the majority’ of these representatives from manufacturing companies and other organizations are or once were firefighters. The fundamental bias shown by this committee toward improved firefighter safety is the direct result of the firefighting experience.
Some errors exist in the standards, and they will be corrected. The intentions of committee members, however, are honorable. Members devote much time to the committee: The revision of the standards took six years of continuous work.
The committee was selected to provide a diversity of opinion. As 1904 progressed through the various stages of development, attention was paid to each and every proposal presented. Long before his appointment, every issue raised by Morello in his article was considered and hotly debated by the committee. The trade-off of cost and need was always a central consideration in the discussion, and in the end, the view of the majority prevailed.
Morello was appointed to the committee on October 12, 1989. Since the time of his appointment, the full committee has met three times on a formal basis and innumerable times as smaller task groups. 1 checked the attendance records, and you may be interested to know that since the time of his appointment, the “insider” attended exactly one meeting.
W. Kenneth Menke
Director
Fire Service Research Institute
Webster Groves, Missouri
I am writing this letter in response to an article published in the April issue by Battalion Chief John P. Morello entitled “NFPA 1904: A Look from the Inside.” Yes, the 250-pound minimum tip load on aerial apparatus is new in this 1991 issue of pamphlet 1904. It was placed in this pamphlet after many meetings and hours of communications among the committee members. Contrary to some statements, it was put in as protection for the firefighters who are required to operate and climb this apparatus every day.
1 take exception to Morello’s remarks that a lot of manufacturers were concerned. There were only two at the meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, who expressed concern about the new tip-load requirement. (These two manufacturers also were manufacturing aerial apparatus that did meet this standard.) Also, some manufacturers already were manufacturing aerial apparatus that met or exceeded the 250-pound minimum tip load. I do not believe this standard caused a hardship on any manufacturer.
Morello’s statement about many states enacting an axle-load limit bothers me; as far as I know, California is the only state that has such a law, and some departments are trying to get that law rescinded.
Yes, the cost of aerial apparatus w ill increase, but not only from the safety features that the NFPA 1900 Committees have incorporated into these new’ standards. The cost of materials needed to make a high-caliber aerial apparatus continues to climb every year. You cannot place a price on the life of a firefighter.
Aerial apparatus failures are not fewr in number, as Morello states. Aerial apparatus failures are being documented only recently because of increased safety awareness. When aerial apparatus failed in the past, it was chalked up to bad luck.
Morello’s comment about complaints against closed cabs by departments in warmer climates strikes me as humorous, because some departments in Arizona, California, Texas, and Florida were forerunners of the closed-cab apparatus. Many departments in the warmer climates were ordering closed cabs on their apparatus long before the new standard was published.
As to elevating platforms that have escape ladders that now must meet the aerial ladder standards, this was brought up and talked about in many of the committee meetings. It was decided that for firefighters’ and citizens’ safety this apparatus should meet the same requirements as an aerial apparatus. Any time ladders are installed on apparatus or used for rescue purposes, they should have a means of being tested.
Regarding safety belts in the buckets, committee members felt that if they were required to be supplied with the apparatus, they would be installed if the purchaser requested it.
Morello made a statement that two firefighters weighing 250 pounds each in a bucket/basket and the weight of the water in the waterw ay could cause the apparatus to be overloaded. Most of the apparatus I have seen have a rear drain that the operator can open to dump the remaining water from the waterway. If this is done, the apparatus would not be overloaded.
NFPA 1901, 1902, 1903, and 1904 are minimum standards. If Morello is responsible for writing the specifications for apparatus and equipment for the City of New York Fire Department, he can request anything he wants in his specifications. He is the “Authority Having Jurisdiction,” as stated in all the NFPA pamphlets.
The ladder interlock system mentioned in the article was added to the new 1904 as a safety feature so that aerial apparatus could not be operated without the outriggers/stabilizers in their proper position for the safe operation of the apparatus. This interlock system is nothing new to the fire service; many European manufacturers have had it on their apparatus for years, and many of the streets in Europe are narrower than those in the United States.
1 agree with Morello’s statement that the committee is only as good as those who serve on it and only as good as the input of information they receive. How many committee meetings has he attended since he became a member? The last sentence in Morello’s article states that people should “get involved” in and with the NFPA. Perhaps Morello should practice what he preaches.
Joseph P. Shovlin
Chief Executive Officer
Security (CO) Eire Department
As a fellow member of the NFPA’s Fire Department Equipment Committee, 1 read with great amazement John Morello’s article in the April issue on the NFPA 190 i document that was unanimously approved at last year’s Fall meeting in Miami.
Morello’s limited committee involvement and even more limited attendance at crucial meetings must be the reason he is unable to recognize the committeewide effort to effect a change so necessary to enhancing foreground operations and, more important, firefighter safety. The following are my suggested alternative opinions to those he provides in his article.
Rated capacity of 250 pounds at the tip in an y position. 1 am appalled that any implication to low bidders was even suggested. Morello must have missed the meetings where video footage depicted “low bid standard aerials” folding in half as firefighters tumbled into burning buildings. His comment about loud and varied opposition was a bit overstated: Loud it was, but from a limited number of people who were interested in selling 1960-vintage engineering standards. The majority of fire service representatives discussed a minimum standard of 500 pounds! He ridicules his own argument about the nation’s largest cities using nonrated aerials by stating that FDNY is seeking ladders with greater vertical and horizontal reach and rated capacity—the very thing we as a committee advocated. Further, just because the largest departments do or don’t do something doesn’t make it gospel for others: Creatures often become extinct for failure to adapt!
Weight of apparatus. If engineering safety into fire service apparatus requires heavier vehicles, then one of the fire service’s new missions should be to educate the populace of the value of public and firefighter safety over potential bridge and roadway destruction.
Fully enclosed cabs. Very little argument existed about this subject, and the little that did may have come from warm climate areas. Anaheim, however, is in one of the warmest areas in the country, and I dare you to find a firefighter here who would suggest we go back to open cabs.
Elevating platforms. Again. I reiterate that no attacks were made on any manufacturer but on products that could lead to unsafe use by firefighters or those they’re called on to rescue. Since firefighters are taught to be “flexible” from the day they’re hired, it’s hardly “incomprehensible” that they’ll figure out ways to use less than adequate measures when confronted with life or death situations. How many times have we honored our men publicly for unsafe but heroic deeds and counseled them privately not to do them again?
Ladder interlock system. It is clear from the author’s position on the use of outriggers that he has a lack of concern for safety. Anyone who condones the use of aerial devices outside the manufacturer’s operating guidelines is asking for trouble, both legally and morally. He further states, “If you purchase a 250-pound tip-load ladder and use it incorrectly, someone will die or be seriously injured.” That comes right on the heels of his comment about demanding an override switch so you can use the device in unsafe conditions.
As a member of this committee and an active fire service official, I know how difficult it is to make every meeting in every town. I also know how difficult it is to enact positive change in organizations when people in general arc reluctant to change. The Fire Department Equipment Committee is made up of representatives from various parts of the fire service. I believe I speak for the majority when I say that we are extremely proud of our contribution to improving the standards for purchasing fire apparatus.
Morello and I agree on one point: Join the NFPA and get involved. But if you are fortunate enough to receive an appointment to a committee, attend the meetings!
Jeff Bowman
Eire Chief
Anaheim (CA) Eire Department
Heat-sensing instruments
Chief Bergeron of the Winooski (VT) Fire Department, in a letter that appeared in the March issue, states that firefighters should not have to remove protective clothing to be able to tell when flashover is about to occur. I totally agree. He also states that he doesn’t know what should be done.
There are different ways to determine the temperatures you are encountering without removing protective clothing. One is the PAL™. This device indicates to officers or other firefighters when you are in trouble and can’t move. The heat-sensing component works on a temperature/ time-curve basis. The hotter the ambient temperature, the less time the device allows you to stay in that environment.
Another method is the T-500 Heat Sensing Strip (no longer manufactured). This strip is sew n on the cuff, and the firefighter can tell at a glance what the temperature is. Each strip features four yellow numbers against a black background. The yellow “2” blackens at 200°F. the “3” blackens at 300°F, and so on. The T-500 is accurate to within ± 2 percent.
Tony Westendorf
Safety Officer/Training Officer
Haverhill (VT) Tire Department
Standards for dispatchers
Chief John F. Morello in “NFPA 1904: A Look from the Inside,” April 1991, states quite correctly that “The NFPA is universally recognized and accepted as the authority on the fire service….” The NFPA, however, does not have a standard or certification program for the personnel who are the link between a community and its firefighters—the dispatchers.
Dispatchers are responsible for providing responding personnel with an increasing, large, and technical volume of information relating to emergency situations. Most dispatchers are very aware of their responsibilities and of the effect their job has on field personnel. Others may not even be aware that they can be held liable in civil court, even by firefighters injured in haz-mat incidents, for failure to perform their duties properly.
For this reason I believe it is time for nationwide standards to be introduced for dispatchers. If we sworn and civilian dispatchers have NFPA standards, are trained to meet those standards, and are certified in them, then if and when we go to court our qualifications will be documented, as are those of firefighters and fire investigators. Settlements most likely would be smaller (see Letter to the Editor from Captain Joseph Pitts, Fire Engineering, April 1991).
I suggested to the NFPA (I am a member of the Fire Serv ice Section) that a ncwr project be undertaken to develop standards and a certification program for fire communications personnel (civilians included). At the present time, the NFPA is asking for comments from interested personnel and departments regarding the need for such a project.
I encourage fire service personnel, sworn and civilian, to become involved in this proposed project by making comment to the NFPA. Like Morello, I suggest departments join the NFPA to keep abreast of changes in standards.
Robert B. Pyle
Fire Communications
Specialist 11
Tulsa (OK) Fire Department
Is it flashover or arson?
In reference to the News in Brief article “Is it flashover or arson?” in your April 1991 issue, it should come as no surprise to anyone involved in the field of fire investigation that a new defense theory for the crime of arson has been developed. One of a defense attorney ’s primary responsibilities is to ensure that his client receives the benefit of a complete and competent investigation. I’m sure all fire investigators agree that flashover should be considered during the scene examination, as would any other circumstance that could explain how the fire spread. I am confident my colleagues in Arizona did just that and that their conclusions will be upheld during the appeal process.
1 do, however, take great exception to Mr. Hammond’s contention that fire investigators are undereducated in the area of fire science. Continuing education has been an avenue pursued by most professional fire investigators. Keeping informed as to new developments and techniques is an important responsibility all fire investigators take seriously. A survey of the number of fire investigators with advanced degrees would be one indicator of this fact; the lAAI’s Certified Fire Investigator program is another indicator.
These recent court decisions should put the fire investigation community on notice: You will see this defense being used very soon in jurisdictions all over. This “new evidence” will be used to attack an otherwise competent origin-and-cause examination. By sticking to the basics and considering the possibility of flashover damage in the early stages of the investigation, the argument can be s11 ccessfu Uy circumven ted.
George A. Wendt
Fire In i ‘estimator
Morris County Prosecutor’s Office
Morristown, New Jersey
Letters on letters
Regarding Barry Nechis’ letter to the editor, “Rope rescue pointers,” Fire Engineering, May 1991, I feel compelled to straighten out the facts. In his letter, Nechis objects to the use of a crane in the rescue demonstration at Rescue 90. Most attendants at Rescue ’90 were veteran fire and rescue professionals (career and volunteer). They did not need to have explained to them that the purpose of the program was to explore the many avenues available to rescuers in extricating victims of catastrophic structural collapse. Bob De Benedictis was absolutely right in stating that using a crane as a lowering device for personnel extrication, under most conditions, is for lifesaving only. But it is almost beyond comprehension to think that Nechis could not see that saving lives is what we were demonstrating. (I was part of the extrication staff assigned by the incident commander to perform the demonstration.)
The suggestion that a single OSHA passage is directly relevant to catastrophic and situational life-saving skills and techniques is typical of the mentality that has stymied the motivation of advanced rescue programs around the country. Thank goodness that many proactive technical rescue programs see past rightfully designed OSHA ordinary workplace rules and regulations. OSHA does not address cataclysmic structural collapse scenarios and, therefore, offers only a reference point when dealing with advanced victim-evacuation techniques.
Nechis thinks that the cover shows a lack of safety. When taken out of context it might appear that the technique was unsafe. Actually, there were many safe ways to perform that rescue; the crane was the method chosen after careful consideration by the incident commander, the technical advisors, and the safety officers. The bottom line here is that a simulated calamity of the magnitude so well exhibited by Tom Carr and the Rescue ’90 staff is no garden party. As much as we try to avoid dangerous conditions, a crane-supported extrication just may be the only safe method for removing some victims.
I cannot imagine removing any lifesaving technique from the incident commander’s strategic arsenal. Education and practical experience can greatly reduce hazards from all forms of rescue and significantly increase the overall survival profile of the rescuer and patient—as was boldly and rightfully demonstrated by the Rescue ’90 staff.
Michael G. Brown
Captain
Virginia Beach Fire Department
Tidewater Regional Technical
Rescue Team
Haz-mat legislation
As a Kansas City firefighter. 1 was deeply offended by Peter G. Sparber’s column in your March issue on the debate over hazardous-materials legislation. We in Kansas know all too well that hazardous materials can be deadly, and we take them very seriously, especially since six of our firefighters were killed in a haz-mat incident in 1988.
The volunteers and other groups who oppose laws to improve the identification of hazardous-materials shipments by first responders either have never handled a haz-mat incident or have been hoodwinked by the well-financed propaganda campaign being run by the companies that produce and transport hazardous materials. It is quite obvious from his column that Sparber’s work with the National Volunteer Fire Council has influenced him on the hazardous-materials issue.
From Sparber’s column, one would think that the International Association of Fire Fighters was the only organization to support the Applegate bill. In fact, groups representing state troopers, police officers, sheriffs, and truck drivers joined the IAFF in supporting the legislation.
Every’ day shipments of dangerous chemicals and other hazardous substances pass by schools, hospitals, and homes in Kansas City and hundreds of other communities across the United States. The threat of a dangerous accident is always present. It is hard to understand how anyone who is concerned about the safety of firefighters or the public could oppose legislation that would greatly improve our ability to respond effectively to haz-mat incidents.
Maybe Sparber needs to talk to the wives and kids of firefighters who risk their lives every day responding to hazardous-materials incidents or to widows and children of brave men who died at such incidents. Perhaps then he would see the hazardousmaterials issue and the Applegate bill in a different light.
Edward R. Phillips
President, Local 42
International Association of
Fire Fighters
