LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Manning statistics
I read with interest your editorial in April’s Fire Engineering, entitled “Liars Figure, Figures Lie.” A thought came up: Reduced personnel (manning) on engine and truck companies could also be a contributing factor to more firefighter injury statistics even though the number of fires is down. Reduced manpower means fewer firefighters are available to do the job of the original complement of years past.
Maybe we as chiefs and other responsible persons in the fire service should campaign for increased personnel. It always seems that when a political subdivision is in financial difficulty, the first cuts are aimed at fire and police personnel. Just think how many personnel would still be “on the books” if the bureaucrats and politicians decided to work for our wages.
Ralph L. Lloyd Asst. Chief Carrollton Village (OH) F.D.
I enjoyed reading your Editor’s Opinion, “Liars Figure, Figures Lie,” in the April issue. Being a firefighter for 37 years, seeing and being involved with substantial changes, I would like to point out three areas that could have been addressed in your article: firefighters now has three—we lost six eyes. Every ladder that had seven firefighters is also now three or less—we lost eight eyes. Our normal structural response is two engines and one ladder—that’s seven pairs of eyes that are no longer there to see. This one item alone, I feel, is contributing significantly to our injury statistics.
- Union contracts force that finances be made available to purchase things that bring the level of protection to standard. Without this impetus, little would have been done.
- “Structural fires are down by 40 percent.” In our zeal to conform efficaciously. the 902 reporting system hurts statistics, productivity, and accountability.
- “Our firefighters are being overwhelmed by the red devil.” Because of the above two points, we were successful in the reduction of manning levels: Every engine company that had six
Philip L. Rosenthal Fire Chief Pembroke Pines, FL
Words and pictures — no match
The cover of you May issue was most impressive. In the upper left-hand corner you call the reader’s attention to an article dealing with a firefighter’s perception of danger. In the lower right, the words HEALTH AND SAFETY appear in bold black letters. Yet the dominating feature is a beautiful full color photograph of firefighters (eight, no less) standing on moving apparatus!
Do we condone in ceremony what we condemn in practice? Are we so tradition-bound that we refuse to change practices that have been so clearly identified as dangerous? Are we so proud of our unwillingness to learn that we showcase it on the cover of so prestigious a publication?
With all due respect to the memory of the fallen firefighters, and without diminishing our tribute to them one iota, that display of disregard for nationally proven and accepted safe practice should have been avoided.
Your page 5 explanation pledges “…all possible efforts to join the fire service in reversing these tragic statistics.” It’s time for the fire service to replace platitudes with policies.
Harold Steenbergen Fire Chief Wyoming, MI
Standards are crunching I believe that Rand-Scott Coggan was right on with his article, “The Standards Crunch—A Fire Service Dilemma,” in the May issue of Fire Engineering.
If many of these standards had existed when our volunteer fire department organized, we would not exist. Our initial equipment and gear simply would have cost too much. We have barely kept our noses above water as more and more documents “to help us” have come along.
All of our active firefighters are certified by the State of Alabama. They must have an additional 30 hours of training each year to maintain that certification. Now we hear we must have 20 or more hours per year of haz-mat training. This puts us at the ridiculous position of having two-thirds of our training on hazardous materials and only one-third on structural firefighting. The standard makers not only don’t talk to us small fry but don’t talk to each other, either.
Yes, it is possible that smaller volunteer departments will be driven out of business. And I don’t see how any new ones can organize, despite the need. These smaller departments must recognize their shortcomings and not attempt something beyond their capabilities. Most will grow.
I’m right up there on the soap box with you, Chief Coggan!
W.W. Vamedoe Jr. Chief Green Mtn. Vol. F.D. Huntsville, AL
Firefighter risk
The study discussed in Jon S. Sager’s “Firefighting Experience and the Perception of Danger” (May 1989) verifies the conventional wisdom about firefighter risk.
After their “childhood,” when others protect and teach them, firefighters must survive a career “adolescence.” If they emerge alive and healthy from this dangerous phase in which they think they are immortal and know it all, they may then enjoy safety in their career “maturity.”
This experience is best summed up in a single phrase: “There are old firefighters and there are bold firefighters, but there are no old, bold firefighters.”
George A. Sumner Fire Marshall, Salt lake City (UT) F.D.
I agree, but…
Your column “Random Thoughts On…” has been a valuable source of practical firefighting insights. The “Windows” article in the May 1989 issue of Fire engineering had many thoughtful and important views toward the utilization of windows for entry and ventilation.
The only exception to your position that I hold is the reverence to breaking the window as opposed to opening it for entry. It has been my experience that opening the window in the normal fashion gives the firefighter better control of the environment. All too often I have witnessed firefighters breaking windows prior to entry, only to have the room “light up” and delay or prevent entry. As each fire is unique, the firefighter must exercise good judgment. To imply that windows should be broken in all cases may not be the wisest move.
Also, in your section on security, you state that barred windows are becoming commonplace. This is true and represents another hurdle that firefighters must clear in order to complete their mission. But another hurdle, much more insidious and certainly more dangerous, exists—the electrified window gate!
Residents of high-crime areas or persons who deal in the drug trade have gone to additional lengths to defend themselves. They rig the window gates and sills to be electrically charged. This could certainly ruin the firefighter’s day! Fire departments should be aware of this trend and alter ventilation procedures to surmount the problem.
Fire Engineering is on the “cutting edge” of fire technology. I find the magazine invaluable for my day-to-day fireground activities. I want to thank you, Tom, and your staff for such an excellent product.
Patrick T. Reynolds Ladder Company 29, F.D.N.Y
Editor responds:
Pat, how can anyone disagree with your comments? The subject of horizontal venting (not to mention entering and searching in the same breath) is not a simple subject. Suffice it to say that I agree that some fires present different sets of circumstances. Dialogue, critique, training, and experience will put these “silver bullets” in the firefighter’s gun. True, there may be many times that opening the window is the best tactic.
However, I have to continue that short, little paragraph from “Random Thoughts” that you reference. If the room is ready to light up, as you say, you’re probably at the rear of the fire (where the nozzle is going to) or above the fire. In any case, time ancl escalating conditions within are not on your side. There are only moments to get to what you perceive is the life hazard before the nozzle opens and conditions become intolerable. The time it takes to open a bottom storm window and interior sash is usually too long. Crawling in under the remaining window with SCBA and tools is impracti- cal. Getting out, possibly with a victim, is a horror, if not impossible. You won’t quit until conditions deteriorate to the point that you must flee. If that be the case, you will be forced to use all of the opening that you left yourself. That is all the opening that the fire will use to get out also. You will literally, be in your own horizontal chimney.
If the room is ready to light up, breaking all the window will let it escape a few feet overhead while you can still probe a few feet into the room. Also, if it lights up that readily, perhaps it’s better to go another way. In any event, Pat, I do agree that there are times when opening a window is better than breaking it. I feel, though, that in the common operation of “vent to enter to search,” making a doorway out of the window is best almost always.
As to your comments on the electrified window, I did not have enough room on that page to address it that month. I had hoped to hold it for a later date. Thank’s for bringing it to the fore early. We hope to find the time to go into it in more depth in the near future.
How are the quints operating?
I have just read your May Editor’s Opinion requesting our (readers) input to your excellent magazine. On the next page is an ad for a pumper/ladder truck. This brought to mind a question: Howare the fire departments making out, the ones that switched over to an all-quint operation?
As a training officer, the information that Fire Engineering provides has been used many times to improve our operations. I would like to see feedback from those departments which have switched over, either in article form or in letters, that can be shared with ail of us in the magazine. Your presentation of articles, right up to the last page, are excellent. Don’t stop writing.
Walter J. Blase District Chief, Niles, IL
Readers! Help?
The Lexington County (SC) Fire Officers Assoc, is forming an honor guard to serve at memorial and/or burial services for firefighters. I am requesting assistance from any of you that have a policy or guidelines concerning these ceremonious activities. We certainly would appreciate your sharing of your traditions and customs with us.
Please write to: Frederick C. Mullis, Safety & Training Officer, Columbia Metropolitan Airport, P.O. Box 280037, Columbia, SC 29228-0037.
Frederick C. Mullis
Training Officer, Columbia, SC
