LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Interior firefighting
This letter is in response to Bill Manning’s August editorial, “Line in the Hallway, or Deck Gun Through the Front Door?” I cannot agree with you more, although the editorial gives me the impression this very poor practice is more common than I would like to admit.
An aggressive interior attack is what divides the professional from the amateur and is the foundation for a successful fire extinguishment operation.
1 cannot believe any so-called “fire department” would have an SOP of no-entry for a particular construction. To automatically write off a building and perhaps its occupants is sheer negligence on behalf of that department.
It is the responsibility of the company officer, safety officer, and incident commander to know the types of construction and the effects fire has on each type. It is their responsibility to have extreme sensitivity to safety and be able, without hesitation, to order firefighters out of a structure when the need arises.
Your editorial brings to mind an interesting fact. Besides being a career fire captain, I am a working New Jersey fire official. It is now required to identify all truss construction w ith a triangle placard for the benefit of firefighting personnel, due to the five Hackensack, New Jersey, firefighters killed by truss-construction collapse. What does this identification mean to firefighting strategy? Does the IC order an aggressive interior attack or take a “CYA” attitude and order a “surround-and-drown” operation? Your guess is as gtxxJ as mine.
Firefighters take an oath to protect life and property in the communities in which they are employed or volunteer—collectively, a fire department’s mission. There are calculated risks with this profession, but with proper training, equipment, and staffing, the risks are reduced. If a firefighter or fire department is unwilling to take these risks and is willing to violate a sworn responsibility, then that person or department should give serious consideration to getting out of this business.
Joseph Zavardlno
Captain
North Bergen (NJ) Fire Department
Your August editorial addresses the latest in a series of ideas that have sparked interest within the fire service. As you wrote, in some areas a lack of executive leadership has sacrificed the public trust in the name of firefighter safety.
While the pros and cons of your editorial will be debated in fire stations across the country, I for one would like to commend you for the courage to raise controversial issues in Fire Engineering. About a year ago, you began to stretch the fire service out of its “comfort zone.” Since then, you have initiated several frank discussions among those who wish to improve the image, mission, and product delivered to the public.
Keep up the good work, and don’t be afraid to continue to raise such questions. It is only when there is a healthy exchange of views that progress can be made in finding common ground.
Robert R. Rielage
Assistant Chief Colerain Township (OH)
Fire Department
I read your August editorial w ith great interest and compliment you on an excellent article.
I strongly agree with your position that with adequate staffing, a continual size-up of fire conditions, and the safety of the firefighting force always in mind, an aggressive interior attack is the most effective and efficient method of saving lives and minimizing damage to property.
An aggressive interior attack on a structure fire within the appropriate limits of firefighter safety is still the basic strategy of firefighting in our city.
Martin E. Pierce, Jr.
Fire Commissioner!Chief Boston (MA) Fire Department
I am writing to applaud your August editorial, which addresses an issue important to today’s fire service. It seems that in many fire departments it has become politically incorrect to reward bravery, service above self, aggressiveness, and other traditional values. I have been silently lamenting the dilution of our proud traditions, primarily the “can-do” attitude of many generations of firefighters willing to fight the fire from the inside of the building.
The result of exterior firefighting is, in actuality, a less safe fireground. Many fire officers (and instructors) fail to understand that a fire quickly extinguished by an aggressive interior attack with equally aggressive ventilation reduces the risk to firefighters and civilians. Fires permitted to spread throughout a building cause prolonged operations that increase the potential for collapse, fatigue, physical stress, and complacency.
Certainly, all responsible fire officers should be concerned about the safety and welfare of their people. Unfortunately, many officers have confused the comfort of their personnel with the safety of their personnel. Chiefs who are sincerely concerned with the welfare of their firefighters should put more emphasis on physical fitness programs as well as educating their officers in thinking and analytical skills. Too many officers have come to view their jobs as merely following an ICS checklist. This simplistic approach to fireground management often results in less than inspirational leadership from some fire service managers.
I believe the leaders in the fire service need to refocus on our traditional mission, and we need to believe in it, collectively and individually. We don’t have to give up personnel safety for effectiveness—they are not mutually exclusive.
Thomas M. Sullivan
Director of Emergency’ Services Township of Upper Moreland, Pennsylvania
Fire service EMS
In more than 18 years of writing, research, and consulting for the fire service, I have noted a dividing line in the enthusiasm for fire departments to be involved in providing EMS. Generally, older, Eastern agencies tend to do less of it than the younger, Western ones.
The International Association of Fire Fighters has been working with professional firefighters throughout the U.S. and Canada to reset that thinking. Some private firms have capitalized on the aspects of EMS that the fire service or public administrators have rejected, most commonly the transport aspect. Our philosophy is to work with public officials and firefighters to foster partnerships.
The fire service does have working partners, such as Southwest Ambulance; in Arizona, we provide soleprovider 911 transport service to eight fire departments, functioning as their EMS partner in their role of primary ALS provider. In the case of the Phoenix Fire Department ambulance service, we provide the billing and collections, making it a leader in the percent of collections made and keeping it in the black.
When speaking of EMS in the fire service, one also must take a look at the EMS partners. While some private fire protection firms have, in the past, used EMS transport services as an angle to attempt takeovers of public fire departments through privatization, the successful EMS partner has no hidden agenda and fully integrates with the fire service partner in roles appropriate for the community and its professional firefighters.
EMS in the fire service is still very much a sunrise service, and its challenge in the ’90s is to find ways to work with the private sector to keep delivery costs down and patient quality care up and to be creative in cost recovery to please politicians and public administration professionals. Professional firefighters should be commended for leading the effort to foster complementary working partnerships, and private sector firms should either be challenged or yield to public demands for efficiency in emergency health care costs.
Jon C. Altmann Manager, Training and Development and 911 Support Services Southu ’est Ambulance Phoenix, Arizona
