CFR RESPONDERS
Some Thoughts on Protection
Aircraft firefighting is a unique business that requires special training, special equipment, and special response procedures. Incidents involving aircraft present emergency responders with a wide variety of threats and hazards that may be markedly different from those encountered in structure fires.
There’S only one chance to put out a postcrash fire, and a very limited amount of time to do it. The radiant heat produced by huge amounts of burning flammable liquids in a postcrash fire will melt down and penetrate the aircraft fuselage in about 90 seconds. After that time, the chances of victim survival are zero.
It became apparent in the early 1940s that specialized protective gear would be necessary to deal with the fires that resulted from aircraft crashes and other emergencies. The military was primarily responsible for the development of the proximity suit, which is the primary protective garment for the CFR firefighter today.
In the past, the base material of proximity suit construction was asbestos. Asbestos, before we knew of the significant health hazards it poses, seemed like a natural for firefighters’ clothing—after all, it could withstand extremely high temperatures. But there were drawbacks (in addition to the health risks): the suit was heavy, very coarse, and extremely stiff, making it difficult in the way of maneuverability and comfort.
The proximity suit has undergone changes in the last six or seven years. These have produced an ensemble that is very effective against radiant heat, if cared for and used properly. The modern proximity suit provides for up to 90 percent reflection of radiant heat. The rest of the heat is absorbed into the garment’s outer shell.
The technology of CFR firefighting has advanced well beyond the days of chemical foam and asbestos suits to the point where 6,000-gallon-capacity crash vehicles can be operated by one person. Nearly all of the actual firefighting occurs from inside the vehicle, which is a big change from when a firefighter was placed on top of the vehicle to operate the turret manually. Now, with advanced (albeit leaky) hydraulics, we can deliver adequate quantities of foam from greater distances than ever before possible.
Why, with all this fine protective technology, are we so concerned with the protective clothing? For two reasons, mainly: secondary extinguishment and rescue.
After the initial attack on the fire has considerably lessened the radiant heat, standard operating procedure calls for the CFR crew to continue the fight from close range with a handline and a backup (safety) line, with the vehicle operator ready to deliver a turret application should there be a large reflash of the fire.
Even more importantly, protective clothing affords us the protection to perform rescue operations, the top priority on the fireground. It is unreasonable and unsafe to expect that firefighters expose themselves to the first, high-intensity stage of the postcrash fire; however, rescue efforts can’t wait for the fire to be completely extinguished, either. Life safety could demand that the firefighter enter the superheated fuselage or contact the radiant heat that still exists, though to a lesser degree, on the scene. The proximity suit affords the necessary protection from that radiant heat.
Is the proximity suit the only suitable means of protective clothing for the CFR firefighter? Some CFR departments think not They’re getting away from the standard proximity suit and going to the standard structural firefighting protective gear. This is not all bad, as I am sure you are thinking. Let’s look at the possibilities.
PROXIMITY VS. STRUCTURAL -A REAL QUESTION!
This is not a simple black-and-white issue. Many factors, such as standard operating procedures, vehicle operations, and rescue needs, influence the type of protective equipment used.
SOP dictates that the large radiant heat hazard be eliminated first through operations from inside the CFR vehicle before undertaking secondary extinguishment or rescue. However, once this is accomplished and firefighters are involved in close-range operations, there is no guarantee that a large flash fire could not occur. If the foam blanket is not properly maintained, or if areas of flammable liquids are not spotted right away, flash fires are a possibility. This is a strong argument in favor of the proximity suit.
Structural gear does not perform particularly well against radiant heat. Steam burns are a constant hazard when such clothing is worn at aircraft fires. The radiant heat penetrates the suit and the moisture from the body inside the suit turns to steam, causing secondand third-degree burns to the skin—very painful and very dangerous. Once you feel the heat inside the structural clothing, it is too late. You cannot open up the suit or reach an area of refuge fast enough to prevent getting burned.
On the other hand, proximity suits are not designed for heavy wear and use. The aluminum material will readily wear off and crack in places where the suit is bending, or those areas that encounter abrasive action, such as knees on a floor. The biggest hindrance, though, is the suit’s hood. It is large and cumbersome, and makes even simple actions difficult to perform. It was originally designed to protect the personnel who operated the turrets on top of the crash apparatus. It’s not designed for movement in rescue operations; in fact, many rescuers remove the hood to see and move. This puts the rescuer in an extremely compromising position. Protective clothing commonly worn for structural firefighting helps to make rescue aboard an aircraft quicker and more efficient.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both the proximity suit and structural firefighting gear. Which do we choose for CFR firefighting? Some departments carry both. The U.S. Navy had developed a suit that combines the best of both worlds, a structural suit with an aluminized protective shell that can be put over the regular bunker gear, thereby providing radiant heat protection.
The question we must consider is: are we providing firefighters the level of protection required in accordance with national standards? If we are not, then we are placing them in a perilous situation. If we are not, this should be corrected.
The fire service has made great advances in protective equipment. With the advent of new materials that provide superior protection capabilities, such as PBI, injuries and deaths attributed to protective clothing failures should decrease. We still face perhaps the most challenging problem in proper care and proper use of protective gear. Our department policies should be strict and clear. They should reflect management’s commitment to safety.*
