In the April Editor’s Opinion, we asked you where you stood on the proposed minimum staffing addition to NFPA 1500. Here are the final results. Some of the comments that arrived with your votes also follow. We print them anonymously to protect the innocent (or guilty).

“NFPA is becoming too dictatorial! Too many do-gooders. Everybody is not in big cities with unlimited funds.”

“Laraer engine company is a good goal, but the best way to protect firefighters and the public is through fire prevention—sprinklers in all buildings, brush clearances, fire-retardant roofs, etc. This is where we should invest our time and money.”

“We all know no one will ‘wait for four’ if rescue’s involved. Instead of ‘shall,’ use ‘should.’ Get real, NFPA.”

“This is yet another example of something being shoved down the throats of the people doing the real work. One written standard cannot apply to every situation. The people inventing these new standards should get out in the real world to see what’s really going on.”

“I have had personal experience with increased injuries because of understaffing—three-man companies.”

“Volunteer departments will have serious problems meeting the requirement if imposed by law.”

“Not in favor as written. Good ideas but too restrictive for most departments.”

“I hope this addition to NFPA 1500 does not pass. If you have qualified, experienced, well-trained guys in your crews, you can run with three. This addition to NFPA 1500 is a bunch of malarkey.”

“It’s a shame city management remains apathetic toward overall safety.” (in favor of the proposed addition)

“I would vote for minimum manning if I believed it could be accomplished without the closing of stations and the creation of more firefighter liability.”

The proposed minimum staffing addition to NFPA 1500 was struck down at the NFPA Annual Meeting in New Orleans on May 20, 1992.

No posts to display