LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Striving for safety

This letter is in response to the article “Meeting the Challenges of Aircraft Extrication” (April 1991). As firefighter safety in the workplace is of tantamount importance to all of us in the fire service, I feel compelled to point out several safety infractions that appear in conjunction with the illustrations accompanying this wellresearched and written article by Leslie Omans and John Carr. Page 44, lower right, depicts a fire captain using hydraulic spreaders. The firefighter is wearing what appears to be denim blue jeans and nonsafety footware. The same scene is repeated on page 45, middle left. In addition, page 45, lower right, illustrates a training officer operating a power tool from a ladder. This officer’s face shield is in the up position, affording no eye protection. The hydraulic hose is positioned between the officer and the ladder, which may cause him to lose his balance if he were to drop the tool.

Suggestions include wearing full protective clothing during all extrication exercises. As relates to the training officer, I suggest that tools aloft always be used to one side of the ladder or the other and that personnel “lock into” a ladder rung while operating any tools from a ladder.

It is hoped that these suggestions will be taken in the manner in which they are intended: as an aid to achieving safety in an all-too-familiar dangerous environment.

Thomas N. Ace

Deputy Fire Marshal

Dikeside (CA) Fire Protection

District

Using crones for rescue

This letter is in response to a Letter to the Editor in your May 1991 edition entitled “Rope Rescue Pointers” from Barry Nechis of the New Rochelle (NY) Fire Department. I specifically would like to comment on the remarks regarding the use of the crane as a patient-removal device during Rescue ’90.

As the operations officer at the command post for the practical portion of the building-collapse exercise, I, in consultation with the incident commander, made the decision to use the crane as a patient-removal device. We all are aware of the OSHA standards and potential dangers associated with the use of cranes for any operation; we too sat in on Benedictis’ lecture on cranes and rigging. Nechis suggests that the crane was used unsafely and without considerable thought! I think it important to mention here that during the five-day event, including the collapse exercise, none of the 300-plus students was injured!

The area of structural collapse, while not new, is an expanding field that offers dynamic changes in techniques, tools, and management approaches almost on a weekly basis. As instructors at this program, we felt it necessary to show students every possible method that could be used to remove patients safely from collapsed buildings. As Nechis mentions, patients from the structure could have been removed by various means including stairwells, ladders, rope systems, as well as the crane. The instructor’s presence on the stokes when the crane was used was intentional; it demonstrated what can be done. I think instructors in the technical-rescue field agree that it is incumbent on them to show students each and every option available. Doing that sometimes involves student participation and it sometimes means demonstrations by competent instructors using state-of-the-art, safe, and approved techniques. That is exactly what the crane evolution is about.

Structural-fire training, rope-rescue training, collapse training, and confined-space-entry-and-rescue training are inherently dangerous. It is the instructor’s job to ensure a safe and efficient training environment so that when the student returns to the real world, where all factors are not relatively controlled, he can make efficient and safe decisions. Had this been an actual collapse, it is quite probable that the crane never would have been used for patient removal unless all other means had been exhausted. In a training environment, however, under the supervision of knowledgeable instructors and in a controlled environment, it is almost criminal not to expose students to as many options as possible. The longer one teaches in this business, the greater the chance that he/she will find that there are many ways to skin a cat. They may be different, but if done safely they are all correct.

Chase Sargent

Commander

Special Operations Section

Virginia Beach (VA) Fire Department

Trusses revisited

Bill Manning’s editorial in the February 1991 issue commended George Barkan and several associates for their efforts resulting in the passage of an ordinance in Glen Cove, New York, requiring the installation of a sprinkler system, per NFPA 13, where the builder intended to use a prefabricated lightweight wood truss. I have spoken to Barkan and found him to be of high integrity and perseverance; his commendation was well deserved. However, I feel the effort put forth by Barkan and his associates was not adequately rewarded.

I was astonished when Barkan confirmed the following information that was attributed to him in the December 1990 issue of the Glen Cove Record Pilot “Since 1956, 46 people have died in wood truss fires.” For our discussion purposes, let’s arbitrarily assume that 120 deaths can be attributed to the failure of wood trusses in the past 34 years (i.e. 1956 thru 1990). This would mean that fewer than four people per year perished in fire deaths caused by the failure of a truss. The deaths of four people per year can be attributed to any type of wood truss failure, since the truss covered by the Glen Cove Ordinance has been marketed only for approximately the past 12 years. The number of deaths resulting from the truss covered by the Glen Cove Ordinance is far less than the above noted statistic of 120 people.

Another point made by Barkan in the Record Pilot article was that in an incident in which fire rapidly collapsed trusses of a building frame at a construction site, steel-plate connectors had been damaged when prefabricated trusses were “dumped” at the site. If, indeed, the trusses were damaged at this juncture of construction, the trusses would fail shortly after installation, and probably long before any fire.

Some years ago, a high-rise fire at One New York Plaza in New York City led to extensive revisions in the New York City Building Code. A number of steel beams failed at that fire as a result of the fire-retardant spray’s not adhering to the webs of the steel beams. There was no outcry for outlawing steel beams; in fact, the use of steel beams was not condemned. It was determined that some of the beams failed to receive the spray because the beams were “dumped” at the site during delivery. The dumping resulted in the rusting and marring of the beam surface, to which the fireretardant spray then could not be applied properly.

To correct this problem, procedures have been written to assure proper cleaning of beam webs before applying the fire-retardant spray. Procedures can be written to assure that gusset plate installations have not been damaged due to job site deliveries. For example, lightweight wood trusses could be examined after installation. Where deaths due to a cause are fewer than four people per year, there may be very little that can be done to eliminate the problem. If solutions do exist, the economic feasibility also must be explored. Before getting carried away by “economic feasibility” vs. lives, let us explore the following conditions.

There is no building code that defines or classifies fireproof buildings. The writers of the building codes recognize it is well nigh impossible to construct a fireproof building. Buildings are classified “fire-resistive”— this classification implies buildings will burn. If buildings burn, people will die. Sprinklers are most effective, but are they a panacea for all fire problems? 1 think not. It is often stated that the only sprinkler failures result from human error. However, there is one case (the Syracuse Dormitory Fire, June 15, 1978) to the contrary. Sprinklers were installed properly and complied with code, and the system functioned properly when a fire occurred. yet four firefighters lost their lives. It was concluded that the sprinkler system contributed to their demise. This fact is introduced not to condemn sprinklers but to demonstrate the difficulty of providing a firesafe building.

Getting back to “economic feasibility,” a phrase that drags up all sorts of malevolent intent when discussing fire protection, it should be noted that one of our former presidents once said. “The business of the United States is business.” Our society is profit-driven. Profit is as American as apple pie. If editors of various fire journals do not make a profit, their jobs are in jeopardy. Builders and developers are in business to make a profit. If they don’t make a profit, they are out of business. If we are seeking to blame, there is enough blame for all.

Some of the following statements were meant to intimidate and coerce various parties who were interested in resolving the truss problem. The editor of Fire Engineering made the following comments: “Glen Cove decided firefighters were too important to sacrifice to money-saving techniques.” “Where were the jackals?” “…Mostly strongly worded letters attacking those who dared speak out against the trusses,” a quote that would be funny if the subject matter were not so serious. These bitter statements were made in one article.

Erwin L. Schaffer, V.P. of research and design for PFS Corporation, was attacked personally; his honesty and integrity were questioned, though in most important cases Schaffer merely raised questions. His crime was the alleged support of lightweight trusses utilizing metal connectors as gusset plates.

One of the most inane statements made was: “Did you ever see a builder at a fire department funeral?” This statement is emotional and inflammatory. It helps create an atmosphere of “we” and “they.” This is not an environment conducive to solving complex problems. Unfortunately, the complex problems that trusses create in the event of fire were colored by a degree of hysteria. Practically no builder will build a building he cannot sell.

The hysterical attack on trusses beclouded a prime issue. Fire incidents in oneor two-family homes have resulted in 4,000 deaths per year compared with four deaths per year where wood trusses were involved. Sprinklers should be targeted for town houses and oneand two-familv homes. Sprinklers should be mandated for these occupancies whether or not prefabricated lightweight trusses are used. The problem is much greater, as the statistics note, than the outlawing of trusses. The sad fact is that so much attention has been given to trusses that other prime problems have been obscured. Every truss failure has resulted in a chorus of “I told you so.”

The editor of the subject editorial speaks of citizen groups fitting their homes with automatic sprinkler systems. Firefighters are in a profession that is most aware of the effectiveness of sprinklers in a fire situation; yet, I have met only one firefighter who has installed a sprinkler system in his own home. NFPA 13D has been in effect for several years. NFPA has defined sprinkler requirements for residential occupancies.

I feel that Barkan and his associates could have been better served if truss discussions were more civil. The Glen Cove Ordinance should have mandated sprinklers in town houses and oneand two-family residences. Many of the 4,000 deaths noted above occurred in occupancies where lightweight trusses were not used in any great number. In the future, lightweight trusses, in most cases, will be used in the occupancies that I have recommended for sprinkler installation.

Are sprinklers economically feasible? Yes. The National Fire Sprinkler Association estimates the cost of installing a residential sprinkler system is approximately 2 percent of the cost of residence. This does not include the insurance rebates to the homeowner.

David Schulman P.E.

Professor

Division of Fire Science

John Jay College

New York, NY

Microcosm of the rural fire service

1 am responding to Bill Manning’s editorial “To Have and Have Not” in the May 1991 issue of Fire Engineering. I supplied the data he used for that editorial—perhaps to the disappointment of many of the firefighters in Idaho.

Believe me. I wasn’t try ing to single out Idaho. I just happen to live and work there. I know the struggle these small rural volunteer fire departments face. The problems of limited budgets, antique equipment, and community apathy certainly are not confined to Idaho. Every single day 1 hear horror stories from every rural state. The fact is, the fire equipment in most of rural America is outdated, inadequate, and not very effective.

There are things these rural fire departments can do. They can band together and start regional fire equipment cooperatives. Instead of onedepartment buying 500 feet of hose, 20 departments could buy 10,000 feet of hose—at a substantial savings. Perhaps they could start a nonprofit organization that will seek out used turnout gear and SCBAs. The nonprofit organization could “hold harmless” fire departments that donate used equipment and distribute the surplus equipment to the fire department in the most need.

The bottom line is working together. Maybe it’s time to visit each other. Let’s face it, 1953 pumpers with 500gpm pumps and 500-gallon tanks don’t get the job done. Neither do old cotton coats and blue jeans.

Perhaps Congress should pass a law releasing fire departments that give serviceable equipment to needy fire departments. Rural departments should develop surplus programs with well-funded departments. Maybe we could get the state fire marshals involved.

I’ve already started. I’ve decided to give surplus equipment away—even fire trucks—regardless of the consequences. I guess somebody has to take a stand.

David W. Long

President

American Firetrucks & Equipment

Twin Falls, Idaho

At the movies

“Backdraft” is an insult to firefighters, both volunteer and professional, wherever they work in the United States. It portrays us as lustful, harddrinking, hard-fighting, ignorant macho men who have nothing to do but become inebriated, chase women, and perform such impossible exploits that would make even Superman cringe and hesitate with fear. It has been promoted by the movie studio as being to the fire profession what “Top Gun” was to fighter pilots. I can just see the recruitment posters now: “Be a firefighter, make love to beautiful women on the back of a fireengine. Drink, smoke, and beat up your brother firefighters during your off-duty hours.”

Unfortunately, like the pilots in “Top Gun,” firefighters are much too stereotyped—to the point of indignity and unrealistic characterization, which does our noble but all too human profession a most serious and dangerous injustice. Quite frankly, the hero of the movie, played by Kurt Russell, probably would have lasted only a month or two on the job before his inane and venturesome feats caused his death or the death of others. On the other hand, had the character survived, his superior officers rightfully would have had him out of the profession as a result of his actions.

Some firefighters drink, smoke, and occasionally lose their tempers and come to blows, but they now artmore the exception rather than the rule. The days of the “leather-lunged” firefighter who headstrongly ran into smoke-filled structures to rescue someone or extinguish the fire without the benefit of SCBA (something used more as a prop in the movie rather than as a necessary piece of equipment) and other safety precautions, as well as proper SOPs, arc gone. Just how did those guys in the movie breathe that superheated air anyway?

No, firefighters are not like that anymore, and if some still exist somewhere in our country, excluding Hollywood of course, they represent a dying genre that is being replaced, like so much of our ancient equipment, with a newer, different breed. Today’s firefighter is a man or woman who is properly and sometimes academically trained to do the job. Firefighters study for and receive associate degrees, bachelor’s degrees, and even master’s degrees in fire science. The term “fire science” denotes something more than just pouring water on a fire. In addition, there are such courses as fluid hydraulics, chemistry, building construction, hazardous materials, and sprinkler and water systems.

Firefighters are college instructors, writers, administrators, and consultants. Most of all, however, they are professionals in their occupation— they fight fires, aiming for the minimal amount of personal loss and property damage. We are no different from any professional except for the one chilling fact that more of us die each year doing our job than in any other field. Despite all the advancements in technology, firefighting is only as safe as research has allowed it to be. In a world of high-impact materials, our equipment remains behind the times. Our boots are rubber and clumsy, and our protective coats are still heavy and cumbersome. Is perhaps the price of technology simply too high for our safety?

Firefighters remain a misrepresented breed, and this will continue as long as indignities such as “Backdraft” portray us as ancient warriors who ride to their destiny aboard thundering fire engines—in between or even during lovemaking sessions, of course.

Go and see “Backdraft” if you wish. Be spellbound by the action and chagrined by the lust, but be careful that you’re not caught up in its absurdity. As fire consumes its victims, so does “Backdraft” consume reality, and that in itself is deadly.

John M. Moschella

Captain

Revere (MA) Fire Department

More on radiation

1 enjoyed the article “Response to Radiation Emergencies” in the February issue. Bravo to Anthony M. Gaglierd. But when I read the letters in the May issue concerning the article, I had to write.

I am the safety and training officer at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport in South Carolina. As part of my collateral duties, I am radiological detection officer for the airport, as well as for the county that surrounds the airport. My initial training on nuclear radiation was in the Navy in the NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) defense classes. The fact that I served on ships with numerous reactors in their bellies also spurred my interest. I am a certified instructor with the South Carolina Fire Academy, which includes hazardous-materials courses. On the average I teach 12 classes in radiological monitoring annually to area fire, rescue, and law enforcement agencies. In our last fullscale fixed nuclear facility exercise, the monitor and decon teams I taught and supervised received a grade of “superior” from the federal evaluators.

Gerald Van Gelder and Harry A. Lefebvre each made some valid remarks in their letters, but both made the mistake of thinking that municipal departments operate under the same budgets or rules as industry. First, according to FEMA guidelines found in the Fundamental Course for Radiological Officers, emergency workers can receive up to 25 roentgen whole body exposure during a general emergency and up to 100 roentgen for a life-saving evolution. Your state civil defense or department of health can advise you on the local guidelines.

Next, Van Gelder’s statement about wondering how many chiefs know what type of equipment they have also worries me—if they hold this position, they’d better learn real quick! OSHA 1910.120 says that the incident commander is responsible for making sure that no one enters the hazard area unless he has been trained and is proficient in the use of all protective equipment.

Finally, about equipment, most departments utilize those instruments that are issued by the state or federal civil defense agency because they cannot afford to purchase their own meters (inexpensive meters can run S800 to S1,000 each). The CD-V-777 series kit is the only equipment many departments have. This kit can detect the presence of beta radiation and measure gamma up to 50 mR/Hr, and the CD-V-715 measures gamma up to 500 mR/Hr. The only way to detect alpha radiation is to purchase an alpha meter. But if proper protective clothing, SCBA, and decontamination are utilized, alpha contamination will not be a hazard to entry or monitor personnel. A department can utilize these instruments to determine if there is a release or spill and evacuate until more help and better equipment arrive.

To paraphrase what all three gentlemen stressed: Radioactive materials, like fire, should be respected, not feared. The only way to achieve this is through training. As the article and letters illustrate, there are plenty of instructors ready to help—all you have to do is ask.

Frederick C. Mullis

Safety and Training Officer

Columbia Metropolitan Airport

Columbia, South Carolina

A note of thanks

I am writing to commend you and your staff for putting together one of the finest prepared and technically correct fire service publications today.

I also want to publicly thank the Plentywood (MT) Volunteer Fire Department for the excellent idea in your April 1991 issue. This article appeared in Innovations: Homegrown and described the department’s method of overcoming the difficult situation of attaching hydrant tools to LDH and keeping them where they will be needed—at the hydrant and with the hose. The tool pouch was adapted to our apparatus in June.

Thanks again to you and your staff for a job well done, and a debt of gratitude to the Plentywood Fire Department for its willingness to share an excellent “trick of the trade with other departments.”

John W. Kovalusky

Assistant Foreman

Polish American Fire Company No. 4

Shenandoah, Pennsylvania

Private Jets Collide at AZ Airport, Killing One Person

One person was killed and others were injured when a private jet owned by Mötley Crüe singer Vince Neil collided with another jet Monday afternoon…