LETTERS
Departments
Smoke Bombs for Training
The unforgettable tragedy that occurred in Boulder, Colo., in 1982 should have awakened many training officers to the fact that the methods used by many fire departments for producing smoke for training purposes should be studied carefully. The use of various fuels, chemical liquids, tires, tar paper, and used motor oil for producing thick black smoke is not a good idea. By using these hydrocarbon products, we will continue to see flame and heat build-up and the possiblity of a flashover will be ever present. For the past five years, Catawba County, N.C., and the City of Hickory fire forces have turned more to using smoke bombs for training sessions. All the goals in using SCBA are still being met; and the quality of smoke is dense, economical, and pungent but safe.
We have found that by using smoke bombs, no flame is produced and the possibility of a flashover is eliminated. Smoke bombs have also freed up our training officer’s time so that if a company officer wants SCBA training for his crew, he can schedule his training and not worry about prearranging for fuel, tires, pans or whatever else he would need for a training session.
Not only are smoke bombs easy to use but they are clean, don’t mess up fire fighters’ gear, and can be used in any kind of structure that is semi-airtight.
Is it not time that we trained more with SCBA and get off this kick of producing thick black smoke just to see what our fire fighters can take? The frequency of training evolutions using SCBA is one of our greatest assets in preparing us for those dangerous and smoky situations.
L. Kent Brown, Sr.
Captain/ Training Officer
City of Hickory Fire Department, N.C.
Most Informative..
I’m requesting copies of Chief Warren Isman’s equipment and skills lists, which was published in the May 1983 issue of Fire Engineering. I found the article most informative and useful in my endeavor to establish our fire department’s incident response unit.
I thought you also may be interested to hear that our training program has been based upon his suggested guidelines in February’s issue of Fire Engineering. We are attempting to establish what he refers to as a “Level 2 response unit.” It’s nice to know that there are dedicated people such as Chief Isman who are willing to relinquish such valuable information to us in the fire service.
Lawrence Doyle
Lieutenant, Junior Hose Company No. 3
Lakewood, New Jersey
