Do what must be done
I am a disabled firefighter and have been reading Fire Engineering for 30 years. Regarding the editorial “Of Mice and Men” (October 1996), if it had not been for some of my brother firefighters throwing safety to the wind to come to my rescue, I would not be writing this letter today.
On Friday, June 13, 1980, I was pinned down by extreme heat while conducting a primary search over the top of the fire floor for a reported occupant in a townhouse-style apartment. I received second- and third-degree burns on 25 percent of my body.
None of the three members who came to my assistance had time for ICS, safety briefings, or an entry control point–a fellow firefighter was in trouble and they placed their lives on the line to save a friend.
Safety must be stressed at all times, but there are times when we have to do what has to be done, and I tip my helmet to Dan Santos for having the guts to do what he did.
William A. Witt
Lieutenant (Retired)
Philadelphia (PA) Fire Department
Doing fire protection right
James E. Art`s philosophy regarding “doing it right” (“Fire Protection Systems,” Fire Commentary, October 1996) is something that, unfortunately, I can relate to on almost a weekly basis. I have stopped counting the calls that I receive asking the question, “If it`s a voluntary system, does it have to meet code?” or “the minimum code?” or “What codes does it have to meet?” Art`s article didn`t contain anything offensive, but I did take exception to his comment that “No other trade would even consider a substandard system.” There are significant opportunities for contractors to suggest that “alternate methods and materials” meet the prescriptive code requirements, which makes the inspector`s posture all the more important.
The fact that this occurs in the fire protection field, and especially in the fire alarm systems business, is a horror story. It is a story Art does not do justice to in the article. Therefore, I offer this background information. It is not my intent to try to persuade your readers that “doing it wrong” is the word on the street. Nonmandated systems should be required to meet the intent of national standards regardless of whether they are mandated by model code or not. The problem with the industry`s lack of understanding started at least 15 years ago. Again, it is truly a horror story, since our daily activity deals with design of “life-safety” systems.
We recognized this problem when it was touted by some of the industry`s free publications that fire protection is “almost the same as security installation” and “if you`re not doing fire, you`re losing money!” The California automatic fire alarm industry (CAFAA) began discussions with the California State Licensing Board (CSLB) in an attempt to establish a separate license classification for “life safety/fire protection” systems. The sprinkler industry, primarily due to Steve Hart, was indeed successful in obtaining a C-16 classification for sprinkler contractors. Steve gave us guidance regarding the proper procedures to put in front of the CSLB to persuade the board that this is a necessary change to licensing laws. Surely, you would think that simply informing them that “we are in the life safety business, not in the low-voltage landscape lighting business” might have caught their attention. To make a long story short, we were not successful. It was suggested that there were not enough of us (at that time perhaps 200) to worry about. We were not granted a separate license for “fire protection/fire alarm systems.” Nevertheless, we continued pounding on the door of the CSLB, as Art has said, because too many people with a contracting license were “doing it wrong!”
Well, gee heck, if they have a contractor`s license, they must know what they are doing! After years of complaints, we even developed a public agency complaint form for the CSLB that wasn`t even shared with their field offices, as far as its intent. We managed finally to catch their attention, specifically that of Dave Phillips, now deceased. What was finally arranged was for “fire alarm” contractors to sit through a two-day transition training session; take a test at the end of day two; and if a passing grade was achieved, they would “transition” into a C-10, electrical contractor license holder. Now, that`s a scary thought!
Imagine, in only two days, former security alarm installers (and others allied to low-voltage classifications) would learn the National Electrical CodeT and all of the fire protection information within the NFPA series of National Fire CodesT, and (what a surprise) every one of them passed the test!
Now it has been estimated that we have approximately 500 contractors who know how to design, install, service, inspect, and maintain fire protection signaling systems. When I started tn the fire protection business more than 25 years ago, we could count them on one hand! I believe the majority of currently licensed fire protection contractors should find a new field to participate in–one in which no one will be hurt if they don`t perform the requirements correctly. I am speaking with more experience than most contractors have time in the industry. I receive calls from authorities having jurisdiction, who suggest, “It seems like the guy doesn`t even own the proper code book,” let alone the currently adopted version!
Art has indeed reminded the readers again of an unfortunate situation, especially in California. Unfortunately, although he gave them the best advice they will probably ever hear, he didn`t shout it loud enough. “Isn`t something better than nothing?” Absolutely not! A false sense of security–a partially installed system–is always worse than nothing at all!
Bill Hopple
Manager of Industry Affairs
Simplex Time Recorder Co., Inc.
San Bernardino, California
Search and rescue at fires
I just finished reading “Commercial Building Fires” by Bob Pressler (October 1996). Although he presented some fine points and ideas, it missed a major part of all fire operations. At no place did he mention search and rescue.
As a retired career fire officer and current fire service instructor, photos of the fire building epitomize the “taxpayer” with rental apartments above the commercial establishments. A search of the commercial units as well as the second floor, regardless of occupancy, is a must. Search and rescue operations must be considered at all building fires, period. A fine article is tainted by leaving out the most basic and important fireground consideration.
Patrick Dillon
Captain (Retired)
Prince George`s County (MD) Fire Department
Magazine an important training tool
I just received my first copy of the November 1996 magazine today and read it from cover to cover. Great information. I`m a volunteer firefighter in Thibodaux, Louisiana, and a licensed civil engineer. I found many of the articles are relevant to the problems and operations we experience. We have a small community of approximately 16,000, but we field a fire department of approximately 400 to 500. I plan on using some of the articles to open a discussion regarding fireground tactics with our chiefs and training officers.
Gary Bridier
Firefighter
Thibodaux (LA) Fire Department
Macho attitude dangerous
I am compelled to respond to Andrew A. Fredericks` letter in the November 1996 issue in which he makes an intemperate attack on John Wiseman`s article “Thornton`s Rule and the Exterior Fog Attack: A Perspective” (July 1996). With his statement that Wiseman`s tactical advice “smacks of utter cowardice,” Fredericks neatly illustrates much of what is wrong with the attitude and philosophy of many firefighters in America. The attitude “If you don`t put your life at risk to save a burning building, you must be a coward” is a lot of macho baloney that is at the root of American firefighters` scandalously high casualty rate compared with that of other developed countries. It is Fredericks` philosophy that is out of date, not Wiseman`s tactics.
The idea that dying bravely (but foolishly) is more noble than living cautiously (and intelligently) was a Victorian and Edwardian ideal that was usually advanced to cover up incompetence on someone`s part that led to unnecessary deaths. It was used to conceal the bungling that led to such disasters as the Charge of the Light Brigade and the Scott Antarctic expedition. It is repeated today as fire department officials loudly praise the “heroic sacrifice” of firefighters killed in the line of duty to deflect any questioning of the wisdom of the tactics that may have contributed to such fatalities.
Nowhere in Wiseman`s article is there a suggestion that search and rescue should be abandoned in favor of an exterior attack. The article is simply about the most effective way to conduct an exterior fog attack. Coincidentally, in the same November issue Bill Gustin`s article “How Much Risk Is Too Much?” makes the point that “When civilian lives are not threatened, firefighters must consider their own safety first and not unduly risk their lives to save property.”
W. G. Mitchell, P.gif>ng.
Senior Fire Protection Engineer–Standards
Occupational Safety and Health and Fire Prevention Division
Human Resources Development Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
212-inch handline
In response to “The 212-Inch Handline” by Andrew A. Fredericks (December 1996), if I understand the article correctly in what I thought was a training-oriented magazine, because there are a bunch of dumb pump operators and a few stupid training programs that don`t review field practices, we should change back to 212-inch hose because it isn`t possible to pump 134-inch and two-inch line correctly? If we don`t understand ICS, should we revert back to seat-of-the-pants chaos? What happened to proper training?
What is the logic? If you can underpump a 134-inch line, can`t you overpump a 212-inch line? If so, when you are running a 134-inch line at 150 psi, you could also be running a 212-inch line at 150 psi. That puts the stacked tip nozzle in the photo at 118-psi nozzle pressure with a flow of 323 gpm, the 118-inch at 105 psi flowing 382 gpm, or the 114-inch at 92 psi flowing 445 gpm. The nozzle reactions are 177, 199, and 216 pounds, respectively. Normally, they would be 75, 95, and 117 pounds. Normal PDPs are in the 65- to 75-psi range for 212-inch hose. Who keeps the kinks out of the line? What about 35 psi? You are more likely to get the crew in trouble on a 212-inch! Using your worst-case numbers, flows of 180 gpm are possible to 500 feet with 134-inch hose. Even a flow of 265 gpm can be had to 200 feet. A couple of short lengths of bigger hose can boost the length of the line and maintain the flow. If that is not enough, two-inch with 112-inch couplings will take 180 gpm 900 feet, 265 gpm 450 feet, and 325 gpm 300 feet.
The stiff and rigid excuses just aren`t true anymore. I made a 24-inch loop at 450 psi today with two-inch, and you are right: “212-inch often proves too difficult to bend.”
Nozzle reaction is a function of flow and nozzle, not hose size. Reaction is reaction. A number of points are simply wrong and misleading: The reach of a smooth-bore will never be longer than a fog, 130 feet always beats 70 feet. It`s just physics. Every benefit you gave 212-inch hose is available in two-inch hose as long as it is pumped properly without any of the 212-inch`s weaknesses. Every point you used against three-inch applies to using two-inch over 212-inch. The two-inch always wins!
The reason slippery water disappeared in the City of New York (NY) Fire Department was it was used to justify a reduction in crew size. The argument for 212-inch sounds like “we`ve always done it this way” and not a real effort to select the ideal weapon. Isn`t the reason FDNY uses 212-inch because it doesn`t own two-inch? You have 134-inch hose for use with rapid water and stomped a lot of fire out for a decade. The concept of a small line with a big flow without rapid water is two-inch hose! It is not the diameter of the hose that produces the flow; it is a combination of hose, nozzle, and pump pressure. It`s the flow that puts the fire out, not the hose!
If there is concern about bursting hose at 150 psi, the hose has a four-to-one safety factor, and good hose has a 10-to-one factor. Aerials have only a 1-to-112 factor! He is correct that 90 percent of fires require low flows. The same line that makes the low flows can make the big flows. Choose the hose you like and just pump the correct pressure, and you`ll stay out of the ER with a strained back from humping that archaic 212-inch hose!
E. C. Burt
President
Training Innovations
Sacramento, California
Uranium hexafluoride alert
This is to alert emergency responders to new information about the fire hazards associated with uranium hexafluoride (UF6) cylinders. Recent mathematical models have determined that cylinders may rupture in six to 15 minutes from postulated fire exposures typically associated with a transportation accident.
In 1986, my recommendation to perform research and fire testing on the fire hazards of large UF6 cylinders was censored by the U. S. Department of Energy. My impression was that “If we can`t afford the answer, don`t ask the question!” Previous mathematical studies had predicted the time to failure of large cylinders to be on the order of 30 minutes (“Fire Hazards with Uranium Hexafluoride Cylinders,” Fire Engineering, February 1989). Uranium hexafluoride is a radioactive and corrosive material that may have varying degrees of uranium235 enrichment. When the uranium is enriched to more than one percent, the UF6 is classified as “fissile” material for transportation. Cylinders with up to 14 tons of material containing less than one percent enrichment are transported by common carriers without protective overpacks. Regulations do not require the use of pressure-relief devices for cylinders.
UF6 is a solid at room temperature. With continued heating, the material changes to the liquid state until at approximately 2907F when the cylinder becomes liquid full and any additional heat will cause a hydraulic failure. UF6 escaping from a ruptured cylinder in a fire can react explosively with hydrocarbons to create a large fire ball. The material will also react rapidly with the moisture in the air to form large quantities of uranium oxyfluoride (UO2F2) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). Uranium oxyfluoride presents the hazard of heavy metal poisoning, affecting mainly the kidneys. Hydrogen fluoride is a very corrosive material that produces severe burns to skin and lung tissue if inhaled. Contamination may affect a large area; however, no fire testing of large cylinders has been conducted to ascertain the effects.
Some confusing information is provided to emergency responders regarding evacuation distances. The DOT Emergency Response Guidebook (Guide 166 for UF6) recommends an evacuation distance of 1,000 feet (300 meters) for a major fire situation. DOT Guide 125 for hydrogen fluoride recommends a one-mile (1,600-meter) distance. The French Commissariat a L`Energie Atomique (CEA) postulates that lethal effects of a release will be observed at distances of 500 to 1,000 meters. Although the probability of an emergency response to an accident involving UF6 may be relatively low, the consequences to emergency personnel and the community can be significant. In responding to hazardous-materials incidents, we can`t afford not to have knowledge and information.
James R. Hutton, P.gif>., C.S.P.
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Premature venting at private dwelling fires
I recently watched several fire videos showing firefighters from all over the country operating at working fires. While these videos are produced for entertainment purposes generally, I find them very useful for training and learning exercises. Viewing these videos in this mindset, I noticed a common problem that occurs at fires involving private dwellings–members prematurely venting windows. I noticed this problem at two similar fires in different locations of the country, in which a medium-to-heavy fire condition existed in the rear of the first floor of a 212-story, private dwelling, with autoexposure to the upper floors along the structure`s rear surface. The problem occurred when members equipped with pike poles proceeded to vent the windows on the sides and front of the buildings before a hoseline was in place, allowing the fire an infinite supply of oxygen and to spread throughout.
I witnessed an even worse situation in which two firefighters arrived on the scene of a private dwelling fire before any other apparatus or officers. Fire was showing from one window on the first floor. The front door was closed, as were the other windows, and it appeared the fire had self-vented. One firefighter obtained a large crowbar and proceeded to vent all the other windows from the exterior. Remember, I did say that no other units were on the scene yet. After this very “strategic” maneuver, the fire rapidly took off and spread throughout the entire first floor. If there were any victims in that house who did not escape, this move to ventilate probably would have cost them their lives.
I don`t think that these or any other firefighters intentionally performed this maneuver to spread the fire and possibly cause the loss of life and further property loss. Rather, this situation is caused by a lack of knowledge and experience about when it is appropriate to ventilate. Every firefighter knows the importance of ventilation at structure fires. Interior attack teams benefit from the relief from heat and smoke, allowing the hoseline to advance and knock down the fire. This is known as “venting for fire.” Then there is relief for search teams alleviating heat conditions, allowing them to gain visibility and push in farther searching for fire and victims. And, of course, there is the relief for any victims who have been overcome. This is known as “venting for life.” At most private dwelling fires, horizontal ventilation (clearing windows) is usually adequate to accomplish our goals. Vertical or roof ventilation is not routinely required unless fire is in the attic or top floor. Sometimes skylights are located on the roof and may allow light and air to travel into a kitchen or other room located on a lower floor. I tend to think the reason for this problem with premature venting lies in preventing flashover or backdraft from occurring inside the structure. This alarm is understandable, especially since fires do burn hotter due to the increased use of plastic and petroleum-based products. The concentration on making homes more airtight and energy efficient contributes to these dangers. But timing and the coordination of members performing their various tactics at the right moments are key elements. Keeping the fire contained is one of the functions firefighters need to fulfill at any structural fire.
Going back to the two similar fires I mentioned earlier, venting the windows in the front and on the sides should have been delayed until a charged hoseline was in place inside the house so the fire could be pushed out and knocked down. In fact, maybe the first line should have been brought to the rear and used to knock down the surface and autoexposing fire and the second line brought inside to the seat of the fire. For the other fire, ventilation definitely should have been delayed until a charged hoseline was ready to move in. If those two firefighters wanted to take any action at all, the most they should have done in that situation was to very cautiously search for victims and look for a way to confine the fire, maybe by closing a door to the area.
There are some other points to consider with horizontal ventilation. For instance, after upper-floor windows are vented, a hoseline should be moving in on the fire, or a firefighter should enter that window and perform a search if conditions allow. This could be done from a ladder or a porch roof. This is a very important area to cover since this is where most bedrooms are located. Another point to consider is that in addition to clearing all the glass, the sash, shades, or blinds and curtains–which could block someone`s escape and the flow of air–should also be removed. Some other points to remember are to avoid venting windows directly in line with the windows above if victims are at them or if firefighters are working above from the ladders.
Another area where caution should be exercised is at windows under overhanging eaves, which could allow fire to spread into attics or cocklofts. Horizontal ventilation is more involved than just a firefighter`s walking by a window and breaking it. A proper size-up needs to be made to make sure that the venting assists in the fire`s extinguishment and the saving of overcome victims. Remember, just like the fires I described earlier, if ventilation is done improperly, it can create a much worse situation.
Anthony J. Pascocello, Jr.
Firefighter
New City, New York
